US voting machines are vulnerable to hackers

[kaiju_wars]

1 minute ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Problem is that if Hillary wins, Demographic change will end up creating a Democrat single-state party for all but a handful of Red states.  They'll hold the electoral college permanently, because Hispanic and Arabic peoples have one inherent advantage over the Euro-American population:  Group-think.  Hence why some Colonels both active and retired have made the remarks, "This is the last peaceful election."

I get you.  I don't understand why other Hispanics want to even consider voting for Clinton.  It's obvious she only wants us for our votes, and nothing more.  

[christianled59]

34 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

Actually the problem is that Trump has proven time after time that he...really doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about in regard to these conflicts. Either he's uninterested or incapable, but whether he's trying to 'talk tough' or 'look like a real leader', whenever he starts talking about these kind of subjects it's pretty evident he just... tries to talk the talk without ever having walked the walk. 

Not that that's necessarily disastruous; with some capable advisors it might still result in sensible policy. But in all likelihood it'd leave him open to be easily influenced (as is evident by the whole pro-Russia stuff that likely has to do a lot with Paul Manafort). Now while I'm not principally against working with Russia, considering it's recent behavior this is about as defensible as the British appeasement policy in 30's. It makes no sense to reward it for breaking pretty much every international law in the book and invading foreign countries.

Admittedly; in most dictatorships it's unlikely you'll be bothered too much by the leadership as long as you claim to love the leader and 'don't make any noise'. But that's true for North Korea as well. Doesn't mean it's heaven on earth. The problem with most of these authoritarian regimes usually only show up if you're a minority, in a country right across the border, or find yourself at odds with some corrupt official in power. 

I'm not listening to what Trump says on the matter. I'm listening to our current military leaders They disagree with Hillary and the no fly zone.. Even OBAMA thinks that's a terrible idea. As far as living in Russia, I see your point. I don't love the guy, but I agree with him on a fair amount of subjects. In fact, you probably would too considering most of it is common sense. I'm assuming you're a democrat? 

[Thunderpup]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

Hillary?! U joking right?! soviet russia needs to be kept under pressure

the fucking moron, Trump, wants to retreat the NATO and US forces from Eastern Europe - that's how you start WW3

The E.U's collective population and GDP are both larger than the U.S' meaning there is no reason they cannot raise a multinational military force equal in size and funding to the U.S military.  Meaning we don't need to be a part of NATO anymore, or at least involved at the level we are. 

15 minutes ago, tlink said:

yes but there still are third party voters that can rig it no? thats my point.

Third party candidates can, and do, siphon votes away from politicians that can help swing the election in favor of another candidate.

 

Ross Perot for instance, who is arguably the most successful third party presidential candidate, Took a lot of votes from Bush Sr. enabling clinton to win against him.  Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, ran as a third party candidate which split the republican vote handing the opposition the election. 

12 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

No fly zone in syria even though many millitary generals have claimed that doing so would lead to war against syria and russia. Hillary wants this. Trump wants to work with Russia. 

 

Who is more dumb here?

Syria is essentially a 2 front war.  You have the anti-assad factions and the anti-ISIS factions.

 

The U.S is currently fighting both, but also helping both.  

 

We train and provide resources to the anti-assad rebels, who are allies of ISIS as well as other terrorist groups, but then we fight ISIS through air strikes; even though they are opposed to Assad. 

 

Picking one side or the other and sticking with them would be less dumb than what we are currently doing. 

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Thunderpup said:

The E.U's collective population and GDP are both larger than the U.S' meaning there is no reason they cannot raise a multinational military force equal in size and funding to the U.S military.

they who? the EU? is that a joke?

the EU can't find it's ass with a torchlight, a map and a compass

[Jovidah]

15 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Human-Bio-Diversity.  The destruction of unique identities and races dilutes the Human race as a whole, given that it is often specific races with higher-inclined minds and performance by genetics, that help uplift the rest of the world.  Cultures evolve from genetics, much like languages, placement and early migration patterns as well as waring tribes shaped development.  Climates as well - Europeans developed strong bodies and intelligent minds on average, for survival in the climates of Europe.  Africans developed fast, lower-IQ minds with much more durable bodies and stronger group-think to ensure hunter-survivor dynamic in Africa.  These are only two examples, but if we go deeper - in studies among children - children will almost inherently favor their own color and language than anything else.  European and Asian children can identify themselves in mirrors as early as 6 months old, due to the increased nature of their IQ, they have a more inherent concept of the self, despite not being capable of extremely complex thought yet nor having gone through schooling.

This is really... crap... on so many levels. Genetic differences within groups are generally larger than differences between groups. That is if you even can talk about 'groups'/ races at all. There aren't clearcut genetic groups, there is a continuum. The whole idea of 'races' is completely bogus and only a result of late 19th century determination to 'classify' races. Most of these 'sciences' have a history in colonialism where they were used as a means to legitimize what could not be objectively legitimized. 

 

Likewise, geographic determinism has already been debunked for ages. It's especially hazarduous given the large amounts of migrations in even fairly recent history. To differentiate 'European' from 'Asian' you have to be very very selective about both your timeframe and geographical delineation.

 

Honestly I don't know where you do your reading, but you should do at a university for once instead of in Breivik's manifesto and other assorted White supremacist stuff.

 

[kaiju_wars]

In terms of Russia, I don't understand why people are pissed that Trump would want PEACEFUL relations with another NUCLEAR superpower.

 

Like, how dare he actually try to bring peace and not start a world war.  I'm not saying Russia and the US need to be best of friends.  But some kind of partnership were established, we'd be pretty close to achieving world peace.  Two nuclear super powers working together in some aspect.  It would at least help diffuse the situation in eastern Europe.  

[SurvivorNVL]

1 minute ago, Jovidah said:

There are...quite a few half-truths and problems here. You do know the US is bombing Al-Nusra right?

Al-Nusra was never really supported outright by the US....but by the Gulf states. And Turkey. Although there likely was at least US knowledge, the fact of the matter is this would have happened anyway. Now about Al-Nusra itself. While it's easy to paint in shades of black and white the reality is they've been a lot more grey. The reason they have been rather succesful on the ground is that in reality, they haven't done the things you talked about all that much. Even Sharia wasn't enforced by them - which is the main reason they lost all their more hardline members to IS. Simply put; they started to understand the 'Hearts and Minds'-stuff... 

That isn't to say that attrocities haven't happened under them. But they have happened under all groups. In fact, even IS can't even dream of reaching the civilian kill-count of the Syrian regime.

 

Starting to bomb Al-Nusra, especially after it split and most of their hardcore members left for IS, was really a startegic mistake. They'd have been far better off trying to socialize them into a normal actor while retaining them as an efficient force on the battlefield. Now you just end up with the strongest opposition group being bombed by all sides, offering it no other option than to be a spoiler.

I wouldn't necessarily consider other groups as 'much better'. A lot of them have their own hidden agenda, and very few have clean hands. 

 

In all fairness though... I think the main critique you can have of US policy in Syria is that they've simply been too absent. They really haven't done much that had a sizable impact. The biggest thing I can think of is when they finally started delivering TOW missiles, but even that had a limited impact (it created a stalemate at best).

 

We're saying we're bombing them, all the images from the ground indicate we've not only been supplying them, but funding them to overthrow Assad, and sow chaos in the region.  We're one of the most corrupt governments and societies in history.  Al-Nusra has never been out-right publicly supported by us, but privately - yes.  Al-Nusra has in many cities in Syria - engaged in forcing conversion and pushing women in to the hijab and greater veil.  The Syrian regime, let's focus on that, then.  They're doing the right thing.  If the civilians are supportive of the violent, anti-moral, near anti-Human practices of hardline Sunnah - those people are a threat to civilized society and what Assad is doing, is warranted.

My critique of U.S. policy is us trying to overthrow Assad, who protects Alawites, Shiites, Kurds(who are a far better variant of Sunnah as a people and practice), and Orthodox Arab Christians.  Look at any part of Syria with rebels, and then look at Damascus - beautiful, free people, women able to wear as they want, and near modern.  Anywhere there is ISIS or Al-Nusra, it's suffering.  It's like Libya without Qaddafi and Iraq when they lost Saddam, which even Iran knows was a mistake(and they fought him) given the horrors that appeared in the region.  

My biggest critique is that the U.S. is in the Middle-East because of Mossad and the GID.

[christianled59]

2 minutes ago, Thunderpup said:

The E.U's collective population and GDP are both larger than the U.S' meaning there is no reason they cannot raise a multinational military force equal in size and funding to the U.S military.  Meaning we don't need to be a part of NATO anymore, or at least involved at the level we are. 

Third party candidates can, and do, siphon votes away from politicians that can help swing the election in favor of another candidate.

 

Ross Perot for instance, who is arguably the most successful third party presidential candidate, Took a lot of votes from Bush Sr. enabling clinton to win against him.  Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, ran as a third party candidate which split the republican vote handing the opposition the election. 

Syria is essentially a 2 front war.  You have the anti-assad factions and the anti-ISIS factions.

 

The U.S is currently fighting both, but also helping both.  

 

We train and provide resources to the anti-assad rebels, who are allies of ISIS as well as other terrorist groups, but then we fight ISIS through air strikes; even though they are opposed to Assad. 

 

Picking one side or the other and sticking with them would be less dumb than what we are currently doing. 

Considering the conflict its causing us with Russia, what business do we have over there? I'd honestly say we should have never gotten balls deep fucking with it at all. Let them fight their own civil war and watch russia clean up isis a bit. The US is really good at being two faced assholes in the light of war. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight ISIS, but I don't think its a good idea to defend refugees from Russia who is trying to just get rid of Isis. Inhumanely, sure. But its something. 

[Thony]

What is not rigged when it comes to government would be a better topic...

[kaiju_wars]

4 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Considering the conflict its causing us with Russia, what business do we have over there? I'd honestly say we should have never gotten balls deep fucking with it at all. Let them fight their own civil war and watch russia clean up isis a bit. The US is really good at being two faced assholes in the light of war. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight ISIS, but I don't think its a good idea to defend refugees from Russia who is trying to just get rid of Isis. Inhumanely, sure. But its something. 

Quite frankly, we need to pull out of the middle east entirely and only have a presence in or near ally nations.  (Such as Israel, for example).

Take the leash of of Israel, point them at ISIS and Iran, sit back, let them take care of it.  (Oh, and also end that horrible Iran deal)
We need to get out of the middle east though.  Let them sort themselves out.  The only chance we had at bringing some stability was when Russia was in Syria.  If we had worked with them, ISIS would of been finished.

But no, we squandered that chance, so now this is what we should do.  (IMO)

[SurvivorNVL]

1 minute ago, christianled59 said:

Considering the conflict its causing us with Russia, what business do we have over there? I'd honestly say we should have never gotten balls deep fucking with it at all. Let them fight their own civil war and watch russia clean up isis a bit. The US is really good at being two faced assholes in the light of war. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight ISIS, but I don't think its a good idea to defend refugees from Russia who is trying to just get rid of Isis. Inhumanely, sure. But its something. 

Best example of American assholery:  1950's Iran.  They loved us.  Saw us as an ally.  They nationalized their oil, kicked the British Empire out.  Brits whine to us, say Commies are there, and we overthrow a possible ally and trade-partner, install a King, he does exactly what the people don't want, for US, and then they install an Islamic State.  Legitimately.  We fuck everything up that we touch.  Hell, WW2 with the Japanese was avoidable, but we put sanctions and embargoes, knowing what it would do.

[BiscuitMassacre]

8 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

I get you.  I don't understand why other Hispanics want to even consider voting for Clinton.  It's obvious she only wants us for our votes, and nothing more.  

Will anyone agree with me that Hillary and her supporter are more Racist and sexist than Trump?

 

IMO it is really sexist to elect a women because she is woman.

Really RACIST to elect obama because he is black. 

 

 

[Misanthrope]

17 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

I was a Sanders supporter for a time.  Honestly--had Bernie won the nom, and it'd been Trump v Bernie, I'd have been happy no matter the outcome, because it's anti-establishment either way in that scenario.  Trump is the preferred option no matter what--all his policy lines up with my preference for the next four years and he's a master of trolling so far and knowing who his loyalists are.

Speaking of which your thoughts remind me a lot of Varg Vickerness (He is doing regular content under his youtube channel now ThuleanPerspective) have you watched his stuff? He is often dismissed as a Nazi sympathizer cause of some strange affiliations while he was in jail though.

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, BiscuitMassacre said:

Will anyone agree with me that Hillary and her supporter are more Racist and sexist than Trump?

 

IMO it is really sexist to elect a women because she is woman.

Really RACIST to elect obama because he is black. 

 

 

I've never seen Trump be racist, honestly.  FDR put Japs in prison camps when they were seen as a threat to America.  Jimmy Carter barred Iranian immigration and deported them actively, even if they were American citizens.  Trump calls for temporary bans and a halt to immigration from affected areas and a complete stop of refugees, due to, I don't know--Europe proving a prime example.  Given there was 20 jihadists found in the German military of all things now.  Germany really screwed the EU.

[kaiju_wars]

Just now, BiscuitMassacre said:

Will anyone agree with me that Hillary and her supporter are more Racist and sexist than Trump?

 

IMO it is really sexist to elect a women because she is woman.

Really RACIST to elect obama because he is black. 

 

 

No, I agree 100%.  
In fact, I think most dems or liberals are more sexist and racist than other groups.  

I've had more dems and liberals call me racial slurs and insult me because I'm Hispanic and Native American, than any other group.  Just because I'm not a Democrat.

[TidaLWaveZ]

5 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Best example of American assholery:  1950's Iran.  They loved us.  Saw us as an ally.  They nationalized their oil, kicked the British Empire out.  Brits whine to us, say Commies are there, and we overthrow a possible ally and trade-partner, install a King, he does exactly what the people don't want, for US, and then they install an Islamic State.  Legitimately.  We fuck everything up that we touch.  Hell, WW2 with the Japanese was avoidable, but we put sanctions and embargoes, knowing what it would do.

Or like the time the U.S. Government staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident to spark up the Vietnam War.

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Speaking of which your thoughts remind me a lot of Varg Vickerness (He is doing regular content under his youtube channel now ThuleanPerspective) have you watched his stuff? He is often dismissed as a Nazi sympathizer cause of some strange affiliations while he was in jail though.

Don't know much about him.  Will have to check it out.  

[christianled59]

4 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Best example of American assholery:  1950's Iran.  They loved us.  Saw us as an ally.  They nationalized their oil, kicked the British Empire out.  Brits whine to us, say Commies are there, and we overthrow a possible ally and trade-partner, install a King, he does exactly what the people don't want, for US, and then they install an Islamic State.  Legitimately.  We fuck everything up that we touch.  Hell, WW2 with the Japanese was avoidable, but we put sanctions and embargoes, knowing what it would do.

Dare I even mention WW1. If you look at it, the allies were really the bad guys in the war. We won, so we call ourselves the heroes and make germany pay war reps. If we hadn't been the deciding vote to make germany pay for war reps, germany wouldn't have had a bad recession, Hitler would have never rose to power, and WW2 would have been avoided. WW1 was a joke. WW2 was the punchline. 

[SurvivorNVL]

1 minute ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Or like the time we staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident to spark up the Vietnam War.

Or Kosovo.  Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Or when Reagan, the golden goose of Conservatives, blessed the world with funding Al Qaeda.

[BiscuitMassacre]

Just now, SurvivorNVL said:

I've never seen Trump be racist, honestly.  FDR put Japs in prison camps when they were seen as a threat to America.  Jimmy Carter barred Iranian immigration and deported them actively, even if they were American citizens.  Trump calls for temporary bans and a halt to immigration from affected areas and a complete stop of refugees, due to, I don't know--Europe proving a prime example.  Given there was 20 jihadists found in the German military of all things now.  Germany really screwed the EU.

Yeah, you can call me a racist fag, but i don't think think its a good idea to let "refugees" from a country that we are literally on the brink of war with to live with innocent hard working citizens without any investigation. I think temporary ban from countries that harbor ISIS is reasonable.

[SurvivorNVL]

1 minute ago, christianled59 said:

Dare I even mention WW1. If you look at it, the allies were really the bad guys in the war. We won, so we call ourselves the heroes and make germany pay war reps. If we hadn't been the deciding vote to make germany pay for war reps, germany wouldn't have had a bad recession, Hitler would have never rose to power, and WW2 would have been avoided. WW1 was a joke. WW2 was the punchline. 

WW1 would've turned Europe German, and at that time, historically, they were the good guys, and Europe would be a non-EU based continental empire.  Hell, WW1 is when concentration camps were invented--by the British, and they starved German civilians and soldiers as punishment.

[christianled59]

Just now, BiscuitMassacre said:

Yeah, you can call me a racist fag, but i don't think think its a good idea to let "refugees" from a country that we are literally on the brink of war with to live with innocent hard working citizens without any investigation. I think temporary ban from countries that harbor ISIS is reasonable.

It's his wording that made him look bad. Had he not used the term "muslims", more people would have been on board. The guy has a really bad time at getting his point across. 

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, BiscuitMassacre said:

Yeah, you can call me a racist fag, but i don't think think its a good idea to let "refugees" from a country that we are literally on the brink of war with to live with innocent hard working citizens without any investigation. I think temporary ban from countries that harbor ISIS is reasonable.

Hell, at this point calling me a racist or a Nazi is more of a badge of honor.  I'm not going to happily let my way of life be threatened, nor am I going to let my people and country and soil be threatened by people who don't nor will ever give a damn about our values.  Black, White, Hispanic - everyone suffers when Islam is brought in.  Luckily the left has made a circle and is now at the point they're calling for segregation.  

[kaiju_wars]

3 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Dare I even mention WW1. If you look at it, the allies were really the bad guys in the war. We won, so we call ourselves the heroes and make germany pay war reps. If we hadn't been the deciding vote to make germany pay for war reps, germany wouldn't have had a bad recession, Hitler would have never rose to power, and WW2 would have been avoided. WW1 was a joke. WW2 was the punchline. 

I never understood why Austria-Hungary and Germany were declared the 'bad guys' of WWI.  Austria-Hungary's leader was the one assassinated by the Serbs.

 

I'm sorry, you're leader was just killed, that accounts to being allowed to declare war in my opinion.

[SurvivorNVL]

1 minute ago, kaiju_wars said:

I never understood why Austria-Hungary and Germany were declared the 'bad guys' of WWI.  Austria-Hungary's leader was the one assassinated by the Serbs.

 

I'm sorry, you're leader was just killed, that accounts to being allowed to declare war in my opinion.

And all the real war crimes were by the British when they were winning.  Hell, had it not been for America - WW1 would've, legitimately established a German empire on a full European scale.  Then again they did it in the end with the EU, but at what cost.