HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cab67 » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

cab67

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jul 24, 2013, 01:10 PM
Number of posts: 547

Journal Archives

Serious question - what if the election results were influenced by hacking?

We don't yet know if Russian hackers actually changed the outcome of the election. We might not even be able to prove that they did, even if we can demonstrate that they successfully hacked into voting machines.

But serious question here - what if we CAN prove it? And what if their actions DID change the outcome of the election in favor of Lord Dampnut?

Is there a legal mechanism to void the election results? I suspect the answer is "no," but would like input from someone who knows the legal ins and outs more than me.

thanks.

Follow-up question added on edit: are there examples in US history of elections being overturned for fraud?

It's time for members of Congress to ask for the president's resignation.

His behavior was unpresidential when his administration began. I didn't think he would actually grow into the job, but if anything, he's getting worse.

The latest twitter tantrum should be a turning point for members of Congress. He threatened a private citizen. Describing this as "unpresidential" is like calling calling the bottom of the ocean "damp." In fact, most of us would probably face charges if we tried to pull something like that.

Of course Trixon won't resign. It's not in his character, insofar as he can be described as having character. But it's way past time for members of the Legislative Branch - or the Democratic and not-so-rabit Republican members, anyway - to ask that he do the right thing, whether he does it or not.

Donald Trump is a small, spiteful little man.

Nothing more need be said.

I sent messages to President Pena and Prime Minister Turnbull this morning.

Both have websites from which one can send comments. In both cases, I expressed my embarrassment at the unacceptable way they were treated by the current resident of the White House. I stated that millions of Americans share my outrage at the president's behavior.

Might not be a bad idea to have more such messages sent to these distinguished heads of state.

Just saying.

For PM Turnbull: https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

For President Pena: http://en.presidencia.gob.mx/contacto/ (It's a bit tricky - you're required to enter your address, and the drop menu to indicate your state only lists Mexican states, even after listing "Estados Unidos" as your country. I selected Chiapas simply because I've spent more time there than in other Mexican states, and added a comment at the end that I know the upper midwest of the US is not in Chiapas.)

(Also - if you haven't heard, anagrams for "Donald Trump" include "Lord Dampnut" and "Don Turdpalm." To me, he's Lord Dampnut from now on.)

Symbolism on January 20

I apologize if this has already been discussed - if so, I missed it.

Are any of you planning any sort of symbolic gesture to commemorate what's happening on Black Friday?

I, for one, will be wearing a black arm band. It's a traditional symbol of mourning.

I have no intention of watching the thing - even on youtube later.

Some thoughts on Streep v. Trump.

This is something we should keep front-and-center for as long as possible. I really want this to be what people think about on Inauguration Day.

- It almost perfectly encapsulates why Trump is unfit for office. Not only did he openly mock a disabled reporter in front of a crowd, he never owned up to what anyone can plainly see on video clearly happened. And when called out by one of our most distinguished artists, he didn't own up to what he did (which wouldn't excuse it, but would at least show some capacity for introspection). He didn't even have the dignity to keep quiet. Instead, he threw a twitter tantrum. This episode shows how petty and dishonest he is.

(I said "almost perfectly" because it doesn't involve Trump's status as Putin's bitch.)

- Even more, there's a distinct qualitative difference between what Ms Streep said and how Trump responded. Ms Streep pointed out something Trump did. Trump insulted Ms Streep personally. You don't get more childish than that.

- (point added on edit) Conway made things worse by saying actions like Ms Streep's "[incite] people's worst instincts." Every psychology textbook in the world is now being edited to include this as a bald example of projection.

That Trump's campaign didn't end within 12 hours of the mocking incident says more about the US than about Trump. Making sure no one forgets, and that it follows Trump to the day he's forced to resign in disgrace, is the least we can do.

Honest question

Folks,

I'm looking for serious advice.

Some of my family members are trying to push back on the new Trump tape release. Bill Clinton must have said worse things! And he sexually assaulted!

To which I've responded that (a) Bill Clinton isn't running for office, (b) he had consensual affairs (which was very wrong), but the sexual assault allegations haven't gone beyond the "allegation" stage, (c) he had the good sense not to say anything crude anywhere near a recording device, and (d) he was actually punished by being impeached.

The counterargument I've had less luck addressing is that Hillary Clinton, either by not ditching Bill Clinton or not trying to stick up for the putative victims, enabled the whole thing.

I've pointed out that Hillary Clinton has a long and robust track record of supporting women and women's rights, but what have the rest of you been saying on this point?

I'm really curious.

Anyone else notice the switch in the last half hour or so of the debate?

For most of the debate, Trump referred to his opponent as "Secretary Clinton."

Toward the end, it was "Hillary."

Ok, so I'm at my caucus site...

Bernie and Hillary supporters are in the same school cafeteria. (I will reveal neither relative crowd sizes nor my choice.)

I will say, though, that the idea of having an old-fashioned food fight between the groups has crossed many minds here.

(In good fun. We're all neighbors.)

Outside solutions to gun violence

It's perfectly clear that neither the federal government, nor any existing state government, is going to do anything about gun violence. Lobbying groups like the NRA won't allow it.

Back in the 1980's, there was a rash of high-profile violent crimes against tourists in Florida. Florida immediately took steps to deal with it, including allowing juveniles to be charged as adults for murder. (This wasn't necessarily a good thing, but if I recall correctly, Florida was one of the first, if not the first, state to allow this). The reason? Several European countries issued travel advisories against going to Florida. Too violent. Florida is infested with special interests, but tourism is more powerful than most others. Tourism was threatened, and the state reacted almost immediately.

State governments might not respond to public outcry against gun violence from within the US, but if other countries took steps to discourage their citizens from visiting the US because of the danger of being shot, they might take notice.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »