Spin Forum Dumping Bin

[mtangelsfan]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cyber-chief-confirms-stand-order-russian-cyberattacks-summer-2016-204935758.html

Thanks Obama.

[Thomas]

4 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Thanks Obama.

What exactly was he supposed to do? His options were bad and worse. What the article casually treats as fact regarding Russian involvement can be best described as assumptions. Especially when it was happening in 2016. If he presses Russia publicly they would obviously deny it and demand proof which in this industry is awfully short in supply. Trump would have even louder claimed that the administration was making shit up to damage his candidacy. If they applied pressure without going public what would it have accomplished? They might knock off a site or two in Russia. /moves fist in jerking motion Without breaking the Internet as we know it, with the millions of insecure devices connected and inadequate IT budgets to secure everything, it would have made little difference. And that doesn't even address that the US is likely the biggest offender when it comes to these tactics to achieve state goals. We've certainly thrown the most money at it. So bitching too loudly might come back to bite us in the ass.

[mtangelsfan]

25 minutes ago, Thomas said:

What exactly was he supposed to do? His options were bad and worse. What the article casually treats as fact regarding Russian involvement can be best described as assumptions. Especially when it was happening in 2016. If he presses Russia publicly they would obviously deny it and demand proof which in this industry is awfully short in supply. Trump would have even louder claimed that the administration was making shit up to damage his candidacy. If they applied pressure without going public what would it have accomplished? They might knock off a site or two in Russia. /moves fist in jerking motion Without breaking the Internet as we know it, with the millions of insecure devices connected and inadequate IT budgets to secure everything, it would have made little difference. And that doesn't even address that the US is likely the biggest offender when it comes to these tactics to achieve state goals. We've certainly thrown the most money at it. So bitching too loudly might come back to bite us in the ass.

My point is that the left is all over Trump about this but it was basically known ahead of time and nothing was done about it then either.  There is no easy solution.  But in politics, is there ever an easy solution?  

[Adam]

Holy fucking racist

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/nyregion/carranza-specialized-schools-admission-asians.html

[gotbeer]

6 minutes ago, Adam said:

Holy Facking racist

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/nyregion/carranza-specialized-schools-admission-asians.html

Participation trophies for the win.

[Spirit]

22 hours ago, Thomas said:

What exactly was he supposed to do? His options were bad and worse. What the article casually treats as fact regarding Russian involvement can be best described as assumptions. Especially when it was happening in 2016. If he presses Russia publicly they would obviously deny it and demand proof which in this industry is awfully short in supply. Trump would have even louder claimed that the administration was making shit up to damage his candidacy. If they applied pressure without going public what would it have accomplished? They might knock off a site or two in Russia. /moves fist in jerking motion Without breaking the Internet as we know it, with the millions of insecure devices connected and inadequate IT budgets to secure everything, it would have made little difference. And that doesn't even address that the US is likely the biggest offender when it comes to these tactics to achieve state goals. We've certainly thrown the most money at it. So bitching too loudly might come back to bite us in the ass.

 

What was he supposed, indeed.  The guy was clearly in over his head.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Geoff

[Make Angels Great Again]

3 hours ago, Adam said:

Holy Facking racist

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/nyregion/carranza-specialized-schools-admission-asians.html

 

I don't see how anyone could possibly think this wasn't going to happen. It's only going to get much, much worse.

It's another milestone heading right down the path of equality of outcome.

It's a complete shame so many are blind to it.

[Jason]

4 hours ago, Adam said:

Holy Facking racist

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/nyregion/carranza-specialized-schools-admission-asians.html

It's only racist if it's against blacks and latinos 

[nate]

@Lou

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-rank-and-file-evangelicals-arent-likely-to-turn-on-trump-over-family-separation/

[Adam]

6 minutes ago, nate said:

@Lou

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-rank-and-file-evangelicals-arent-likely-to-turn-on-trump-over-family-separation/

I'd be curious to see data on the geographical regions the vast majority of these people are in. Seems like a bunch of racists to me. And aside from self-identification I'm not sure how to define White Evangelical Protestants as a subgroup. The majority of white people I know, who are also Christians, but aren't catholic aren't very political at all. And I know tons of those white ass mofos. 

[nate]

Just now, Adam said:

I'd be curious to see data on the geographical regions the vast majority of these people are in. Seems like a bunch of racists to me. And aside from self-identification I'm not sure how to define White Evangelical Protestants as a subgroup. The majority of white people I know, who are also Christians, but aren't catholic aren't very political at all. And I know tons of those white ass mofos. 

Catholics are very political, mostly because of abortion laws.

And yes, lots of southern racists identify as Evangelicals.

[Lou]

my family has belonged to the same parish for over 40 years and not once have I ever heard a political statement made, even regarding abortion.

[nate]

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

my family has belonged to the same parish for over 40 years and not once have I ever heard a political statement made, even regarding abortion.

Remember Prop 8?  The reason it passed in liberal CA was largely because of the Mexican Catholic population.  Not saying they were the strongest supporters of it, but as traditionally liberal voters, they were needed to pass the conservative backed bill.

https://sfgate.com/news/article/Catholics-Mormons-allied-to-pass-Prop-8-3185965.php

[Lou]

and not once did I hear mention of it from my parish.

what exactly do you think occurs at a Catholic mass? 

[nate]

7 minutes ago, Lou said:

and not once did I hear mention of it from my parish.

what exactly do you think occurs at a Catholic mass? 

So just because it doesn't occur at church makes a difference?  There are large religious lobbying groups that reach out to their congregations.

[Spirit]

25 minutes ago, nate said:

The reason it passed in liberal CA was largely because of the Mexican Catholic population. 

 

No.  The reason it passed was because of blacks.

 African American voters, who were overwhelmingly in favor of banning same sex marriage (70 percent supported Prop 8 even as they supported Obama even more heavily (94 percent).  Hispanic voters backing Prop. 8 by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin while giving President Obama 74 percent.

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Geoff

[Lou]

It doesn't matter to me. Most parishioners don't concern themselves with lobbyists. They follow their religious convictions. 

[Spirit]

Race

Looking at the vote by race:

Race              % of respondents  Yes on prop 8   No on prop 8
White             (63%)             49%             51%
African-American  (10%)             70%             30%
Latino            (18%)             53%             47%
Asian             (6%)              49%             51%
Other             (3%)              51%             49%

[Spirit]

2 minutes ago, Geoff said:

Race

Looking at the vote by race:

Race              % of respondents  Yes on prop 8   No on prop 8
White             (63%)             49%             51%
African-American  (10%)             70%             30%
Latino            (18%)             53%             47%
Asian             (6%)              49%             51%
Other             (3%)              51%             49%

 

That data can be reduced to:

Race              % of respondents  Yes on prop 8   No on prop 8
African-American  (10%)             70%             30%
Other             (90%)             50%             50%

 

 

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

No.  The reason it passed was because of blacks.

 African American voters, who were overwhelmingly in favor of banning same sex marriage (70 percent supported Prop even as they supported Obama even more heavily (94 percent).  Hispanic voters backing Prop. 8 by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin while giving President Obama 74 percent.

 

[nate]

Huh, I remembered the wrong minority group.

There is this.  https://catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_niederauer_explains_catholic_involvement_in_prop._8

Quote

Bill May, Chairman for the Catholics for the Common Good initiative which encouraged Catholics to back Proposition 8, commented on the Archbishop’s statement. He described it as presenting “strong and legitimate reasons for supporting marriage between a man and a woman.”

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by nate

[Thomas]

3 minutes ago, nate said:

Huh, I remembered the wrong minority group.

There is this.  https://catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_niederauer_explains_catholic_involvement_in_prop._8

Which goes to show, no one listens to Catholics. Not even Catholics.

[the dude abides]

Speaking of evangelicals... an incredibly misleading title:

In age of Trump, evangelicals back self-styled top U.S. pimp 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/age-trump-evangelicals-back-self-styled-top-u-112721399.html

"In Hof's Republican-leaning district, seven evangelicals said they voted for him because they believed that he, who like Trump is a wealthy businessman and political outsider, would also clean up politics and not be beholden to special-interest groups and their money."

Seven?  

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, the dude abides said:

Speaking of evangelicals... an incredibly misleading title:

In age of Trump, evangelicals back self-styled top U.S. pimp 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/age-trump-evangelicals-back-self-styled-top-u-112721399.html

"In Hof's Republican-leaning district, seven evangelicals said they voted for him because they believed that he, who like Trump is a wealthy businessman and political outsider, would also clean up politics and not be beholden to special-interest groups and their money."

Seven?  

LOL.  

They must go to the church of the poisoned mind.

[Lou]

Catholics for the Common Good? lol 

No bashing on the Jews who supported the proposition?