Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 13 07:57PM -0400

On 6/13/2017 11:00 AM, xyzzy wrote:
 
>>> Well there's no sucker like a right-wing sucker. Just look at the White House.
 
>> I submit that the life-long Democrat inhabiting the Oval Office is not "right wing".
 
> I'm not talking about the guy in the white house, I'm talking about all the people he suckered to get there.
 
Looking at the alternative choice, there was no choice.
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 13 08:00PM -0400

On 6/13/2017 11:12 AM, xyzzy wrote:
 
> But they are much more gullible and are bigger suckers.
 
> While I disagree with their decision to elect him it's sort of understandable. Their standing by him still is the evidence they are suckers. Their eager lapping up of fake news (really fake news, not "I don't like it so I'll call it fake news" that has become fashionable) is further confirmation. There's a reason they are so convinced that all fact checkers have a liberal bias.
 
> For which ammo, gold-coin and survival-gear hucksters who make their living selling to right-wing talk-radio and FOX News audiences are eternally grateful.
 
Of those three the only one I buy is ammo, because you can never have
too much ammo, regardless of who is sitting in the White House.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 13 04:59PM -0700

| As things clear up, we may be seeing a collapsing soufflé. And as
| with so many soufflés served up by the press in recent months, it
| emerged from the oven to oohs and ahs—this time, with me among
| the oohers and ahers—only to sink, first slowly, then quickly.
| Next, it will go into the trash, and we'll bake another. It's
| tiring. It's boring. And above all it's supremely damaging to the
| press. If you want people to believe you, then develop a
| reputation for believability. Might work better than just blaming
| your loss of credibility on Trump.
--T. A. Frank
<http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/the-dirty-secret-behind-the-jeff-sessions-mess>
 
Charles Hurt has this to add:
 
"The only verified leaker exposed: Jim Comey. The only person we
know is not and never was under investigation for ties to Russia:
Donald Trump. The only person exposed for trying to influence an
election: Loretta Lynch. The only paper accused of publishing
fake news: The New York Times. The only person who attempted to
obstruct justice: Loretta Lynch and probably Bill Clinton."
 
--
Michael Press
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: Jun 13 11:40AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 1:29:33 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
 
> Not sure what do about it... centralizing security may be a solution that backfires because one thing the article concludes is:
 
> " a more likely explanation is that several months of hacking failed to give the attackers the access they needed to master America's disparate voting systems spread across more than 7,000 local jurisdictions."
 
> Biggest weakness also biggest strength?
 
Quite possibly - there's certainly something to be said for paper ballots. Gotta think internet voting is backburned.
 
But hey - look at it this way - the Dems can now see a new for strict voter ID laws, right? NO commies allowed
dotslashderek@gmail.com: Jun 13 11:42AM -0700

I don't understand why we can't introduce some sort of verification system. Give me a random id when I vote. After everything is tallied, give everyone access to all the ballots mapped to it's unique random id. I can check that mine is correct, you can check that yours is correct. I can count all the votes in my county if I want to, without knowing who voted which way(s).
 
That would completely obviate any hacking attempt that tries to change actual votes to tilt an election. What am I missing?
 
I mean, if we can come up with systems that allow medical researchers access to de-identified patient data (including over-time data, which is the real challenge) - this seems solvable. I'm actually a little uncomfortable that I can't do this sort of validation because for all I know our local machine "trumped" my vote.
 
Groan.
 
Cheers.
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 13 11:51AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:40:31 PM UTC-4, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
 
> > Biggest weakness also biggest strength?
 
> Quite possibly - there's certainly something to be said for paper ballots. Gotta think internet voting is backburned.
 
> But hey - look at it this way - the Dems can now see a new for strict voter ID laws, right? NO commies allowed
 
How would voter ID prevent this problem?
 
The problem with voter ID is that its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and it ignores the ones that do.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: Jun 13 11:56AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 1:51:54 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
 
> > But hey - look at it this way - the Dems can now see a new for strict voter ID laws, right? NO commies allowed
 
> How would voter ID prevent this problem?
 
> The problem with voter ID is that its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and it ignores the ones that do.
 
Russian hacking!111!1
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Jun 13 08:57PM

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:29:30 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>Remember when conservatives said it was dishonest to say Russia hacked the =
>election because there was no evidence they had actually hacked official el=
>ection systems?
 
Not me - I said whatever it takes AND up your royal giggy with a woo
woo brush.
 
Hugh
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 13 06:38PM -0400

On 6/13/2017 2:51 PM, xyzzy wrote:
 
>> But hey - look at it this way - the Dems can now see a new for strict voter ID laws, right? NO commies allowed
 
> How would voter ID prevent this problem?
 
> The problem with voter ID is that its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and it ignores the ones that do.
 
Government being proactive is a bad thing?
dotslashderek@gmail.com: Jun 13 03:56PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 5:38:27 PM UTC-5, Ken Olson wrote:
 
> > How would voter ID prevent this problem?
 
> > The problem with voter ID is that its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and it ignores the ones that do.
 
> Government being proactive is a bad thing?
 
 
Partisans with the power to disenfranchise "unfriendly" votes by trumping up a problem that doesn't exist is certainly a bad thing.
 
It'd be nice if we could drop the pretense that GOP would (collectively) be pursuing these measures if they didn't believe things like "the large majority of citizens who don't currently possess a qualifying id tend to vote (D)".
 
File it in the same folder as those long lines we see every election in cities because Republicans think we should allocate polling stations based on geography, not population. If they tended to carry the urban areas and (D)s the rural areas, how fast do you think they would pivot on that idea?
 
Cheers.
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 13 07:24PM -0400


> It'd be nice if we could drop the pretense that GOP would (collectively) be pursuing these measures if they didn't believe things like "the large majority of citizens who don't currently possess a qualifying id tend to vote (D)".
 
> File it in the same folder as those long lines we see every election in cities because Republicans think we should allocate polling stations based on geography, not population. If they tended to carry the urban areas and (D)s the rural areas, how fast do you think they would pivot on that idea?
 
> Cheers.
 
Most rural people these days are smrater than to be (D)s.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 13 11:43AM -0700

In article <53130450-4845-458f-888c-89b2dbd48849@googlegroups.com>,
 
> SPUAT
 
What do you mean by that?
 
--
Michael Press
unclejr <watsona64@gmail.com>: Jun 13 03:38PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 1:43:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> "the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> > SPUAT
 
> What do you mean by that?
 
Scandal Plagued University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa is what he means. He's a Barner/West Georgian/Tigga.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 13 04:14PM -0700

In article <f021bd55-c78b-4eb8-9d03-b514b4fb79cf@googlegroups.com>,
 
> > > SPUAT
 
> > What do you mean by that?
 
> Scandal Plagued University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa is what he means. He's a Barner/West Georgian/Tigga.
 
I know the acronym and know Andrew follows Auburn.
I do not know the meaning as a reply.
 
--
Michael Press
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: Jun 13 11:39AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 1:33:40 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
 
> > Haven't read yet - but why the O bashing from the left? Shouldn't it be HRC bashing? She's lost twice now while the Annointed One
 
> > Better go read, I suppose
 
> You'll see from the article but the high level summary is one that I've heard leveled before: He put all his resources into building up OFA (Obama For America and then Organizing For America) which stayed separate from the party and competed with it for resources. Apparently the right Party Man thing to do would have been to merge it into the party after he won in 2008.
 
Just got done....the first part...there's a LOT going on there. I can see some of the above - but also a ton of "let's blame the outsider - how DARE he get in Hillary's way!" stuff
dotslashderek@gmail.com: Jun 13 11:57AM -0700

Lol. I made it through the first couple paragraphs and might go back, but... Obama was the most successful d presidency in several generations?
 
They mention the losses across the board during his presidency and their current very low approval ratings but (at least through the beginning of the article) seem to miss the main point.
 
Many if not most folks that would typically vote (d) do not feel that the current centrist / globalist tenor of the dnc represents them much.
 
That's true for former union types and it's true for west coast progressives, admittedly for very different reasons.
 
The same thing that hurt Obamacare ratings (that many of us wanted single payer or something at least reasonable) is what is keeping dnc ratings low. It's not that 60% disprove because they think the dnc is too far to the left. 40%, sure but the other 20% are folks like Ramon or myself that see the dnc as being very similar to the pre TP gop.
 
They need to accept that they're never gonna sway the right, and that the middle is becoming increasingly lonely in this country - possibly just completely write off the Midwest - and actually, concretely, loudly, move to the left. Imo. They should figure out some sort of libertarian left - strong safety nets, minimal market manipulation, and mind your own darn business on social stuff.
 
Cheers.
Eric Ramon <ramon.eric@gmail.com>: Jun 13 12:59PM -0700


> They need to accept that they're never gonna sway the right, and that the middle is becoming increasingly lonely in this country - possibly just completely write off the Midwest - and actually, concretely, loudly, move to the left. Imo. They should figure out some sort of libertarian left - strong safety nets, minimal market manipulation, and mind your own darn business on social stuff.
 
yes, except I think that pursuing that agenda would bring the Midwest back to the D side.
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: Jun 13 03:56PM -0500

> separate from the party and competed with it for resources. Apparently
> the right Party Man thing to do would have been to merge it into the
> party after he won in 2008.
 
Personally, I discount the beans put in the OFA pot instead of the DNC pot.
I think Obama's basic mistake was the "my way or the highway" approach of failing
to attempt bipartisanship at all. Persuadable people notice lack of compromise, and they
don't like it. The base, not so much, but you've got your base.
 
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: Jun 13 04:20PM -0500

> I think Obama's basic mistake was the "my way or the highway" approach of failing
> to attempt bipartisanship at all. Persuadable people notice lack of compromise, and they
> don't like it. The base, not so much, but you've got your base.
 
How partisan can you get:
 
And the party leaders who run this complex will play an outsize
role in determining how the American experiment survives the
Donald Trump presidency and a Republican Party that has
abandoned patriotism for power.
 
I shouldn't read the article, based on that sentence alone, but probably will anyway.
 
--
In a system of free trade and free markets poor countries -- and poor
people -- are not poor because others are rich. Indeed, if others became
less rich the poor would in all probability become still poorer.
-- Margaret Thatcher
"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com>: Jun 13 01:46PM -0700

I have read Marcellus' latest.
 
Please continue.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 13 12:20PM -0700

In article <5ea0e647-b8d6-45a2-931c-e4bf2039a0c3@googlegroups.com>,
 
> I use the corrector because it's fairly reliable.
 
Of course it is fairly reliable. But you still have
to go back and proof read the old fashioned way.
I find automatic correction distracting.
Editing is for later.
 
I concentrate on what I think and automatic correction
breaks concentration. Contrary to what people say
we cannot multitask.
 
--
Michael Press
"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com>: Jun 13 01:45PM -0700

Obviously I don't proofread
"Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger" <damonhynes@gmail.com>: Jun 13 12:35PM -0700

Same deal at Derby Line, VT. Canadian guard acted like we were bringing Sarin to Montreal.
 
And Horton's rocks.
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 13 03:34PM -0400

On 6/13/2017 8:20 AM, JGibson wrote:
 
>>> TMML!
 
>> We no longer have a President that race-baits and backs the agitators.
 
> More comedy gold!
 
Yes, you are hilarious.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 13 11:53AM -0700

Did not open the latest message from Mercellus.
 
--
Michael Press
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment