Trump.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: tungsten

jfc...I wasn't talking about the state.

codswallop

i used the state in place of any nation that has gone down the road of communism

so name me a style of government that has done better?

You ask a simple question, but you will get links to obscure blogs that tungsten thinks are unimpeachable and that do not answer your question.  

Communism has never worked well on the level of a nation and when it does work it generally relies on the capitalist societies that surround it, and even then it often fails (Venezuela).  The romantic view of communism is no different than believing in trickle-down economics.  No matter how many times it fails, the problem is always identified as poor execution.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Love it - WW 2 nationalism was actually national socialism. National pride isnt bad - socialism is. It's getting harder to actually have some form of conversation with you so I'll resort to pictographs. Sorry, no pop ups.

This is where I say learn some history: Did you know your beloved Democrats back in the day created the KKK? I bet you'll just dismiss that as right wing propoganda though.

Well of course things that happened over 100yrs ago are perfectly relevant and applicable today because attitudes and perspective NEVER change. For the same reason it might also be worth your time with to take a look at how how socialism has been applied in a Western setting with your recent kick on bemoaning socialism - you're way off the mark.

I like the part where you glossed over your Dem side creating the KKK and you're ok with it because shit dont change apparently.

As for the bemoaning of socialism, I think we all should be bemoaning it. Socialism in the western setting like Venezuala?

edit: thought that was Chup posting that.. Anyways.

fail #1 is that the Dems didn't create the KKK

fail #2 is ignoring what I said about views changing over time or missing the obvious sarcasm with what I did say

fail #3 is thinking socialism in Venezuela or any other despot/backwater nation such as the ones you mentioned in any way at all relates to the type of socialism most Western nations have

#1 - I've read nothing to the contrary. Would you meet half way and say the Dems supported the movement (a lot) more than the Republicans?

#2 - you're sarcasm contradicted yourself. Triple entendre's are no ones speciality other than the poster.

#3 - I only mentioned Venezuela. You mean just North American "western" socialism or if we keep splitting hairs it'll end up with us getting into narco failed states with the "blessing" of US foreign policy and how it wasnt the ideals of socialisms fault.

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

I like the part where you glossed over your Dem side creating the KKK and you're ok with it because shit dont change apparently.

As for the bemoaning of socialism, I think we all should be bemoaning it. Socialism in the western setting like Venezuala?

edit: thought that was Chup posting that.. Anyways.

The KKK was created by 6 Confederate veterans, but they did later support the Democrats.  How is this relevant?  Political parties change ideologies over time, but ideologies are defined.   Save your history lessons for the morons in r/thedonald.  

And if anyone here is considering the idea that Canada or the USA should model themselves after Venezuela we will let you know ASAP.

The point of the kkk/dnc link was it seemed you're trying to (eventually) paint me as a white supremacist national due to the trump support. Which I'll remind you again and anyone else reading is because of two things: He was one of two choices and I usually take up the unpopular side of any debate. Keep that latter in mind.

Remember what your mancrush said "you can keep your Dr".

Posted by: Mic

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Hahahahahaha...are you trying to school me? 

Cute.

Wouldnt be the first time dude.

I think you forgot how WW 1 or 2 started and then said you were drunk as some sort of excuse.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

This should be an easy example.

Imagine if you took my word for something; where you're the FBI and I'm the outsourced Crowdstrike. Would anyone else in NBR take your word for what I said when it came to light that you used my info? Most likely not me thinks.

Conversely, I'm pretty sure the FBI said there was no evidence of a hack which means they didnt do their job. How did the FBI prove no hack without having the box? How can you be so sure of the download speed? Would you trust my info?

I don't think Crowdstrike ever had the actual server either.  They run a script that pulls all the data off the computer and then they analyze the results.  That file was given to the FBI.  With that information, they would then trace where it came from and where the data went, which is presumably how the FBI found the American servers the Russians were using.  They have not released these details, so I don't have all the answers, but there is no reason to not believe Mueller other than you don't want to.  For me it is just about trust, it is about plausibility.  How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy?  50 people maybe?  From people within the DNC to Crowdstrike staff, to FBI agents and lawyers all the way to up Mueller?  Why involve Crowdstrike at all if the FBI was in on it?  Who would have the motive and resources to orchestrate the whole thing?  The conspiracy is pretty complicated for a plan to leak some emails.

Why run a script that cant show active ports - just pull a server log instead? Unless you can log active ports and ip's after the fact... I'm rusty on my IT and maybe thats a new forensic thing.

So you agree, the conspiracy angle makes more sense when you consider one person leaked the emails. Regarding the actual hack, not that many would have to present. One IT guy from the DNC, Crowdstrike and then the FBI team.

One question about the Russian servers - did they ever tie those machines into tampering with votes?

Chup... whatever happened to this ...?

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

I like the part where you glossed over your Dem side creating the KKK and you're ok with it because shit dont change apparently.

As for the bemoaning of socialism, I think we all should be bemoaning it. Socialism in the western setting like Venezuala?

edit: thought that was Chup posting that.. Anyways.

The KKK was created by 6 Confederate veterans, but they did later support the Democrats.  How is this relevant?  Political parties change ideologies over time, but ideologies are defined.   Save your history lessons for the morons in r/thedonald.  

And if anyone here is considering the idea that Canada or the USA should model themselves after Venezuela we will let you know ASAP.

The point of the kkk/dnc link was it seemed you're trying to (eventually) paint me as a white supremacist national due to the trump support. Which I'll remind you again and anyone else reading is because of two things: He was one of two choices and I usually take up the unpopular side of any debate. Keep that latter in mind.

Remember what your mancrush said "you can keep your Dr".

No, I haven't even said that I don't think you are a white supremacist.  I don't think most of Trump's supporters are either, but as a group, Trump has 100% of the white nationalist support because he fans the flames of hatred for the immigrant boogeyman with lies and misdirection, and you post some of those lies.

Obama made a foolish promise that he couldn't keep.  The ACA is the best he could get in the political climate of the day.  The Republicans have done everything in their power to destroy it, so it is what it is.  They should have single payer.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Why run a script that cant show active ports - just pull a server log instead? Unless you can log active ports and ip's after the fact... I'm rusty on my IT and maybe thats a new forensic thing.

So you agree, the conspiracy angle makes more sense when you consider one person leaked the emails. Regarding the actual hack, not that many would have to present. One IT guy from the DNC, Crowdstrike and then the FBI team.

One question about the Russian servers - did they ever tie those machines into tampering with votes?

Chup... whatever happened to this ...?

The script that they run can scrub any and all information that would be on that server at that time which is why they don't need the PC itself.  They would just run the same script again, but in a different location and since computers lose data when you unplug them it is better to do it in situ.  This has been done for years.  I actually know first hand because we had a kid working in our warehouse that ended up under investigation (he turned out to be innocent) and the RCMP showed up at our office randomly and went straight to his PC.  After about 20 minutes they went to leave and I asked if they were taking the PC and they told me they had everything off it already and held up what looked like a portable hard drive.  

I have no idea if the Russians were ever caught tampering with votes.  I believe the voter rolls appear to have been tampered with, but I can't remember if there was direct evidence of who was behind it.  From what I read those electronic voting machines are very insecure though, so I am sure there are a lot of hackers that could tamper with them.  It should be paper ballots until they know they can secure them, but the states run their own systems.

Posted by: chupacabra

Obama made a foolish promise that he couldn't keep. The ACA is the best he could get in the political climate of the day. The Republicans have done everything in their power to destroy it, so it is what it is. They should have single payer.

Obama made a calculated promise that he never intended to keep. He didn't even allow single-payer reps at the table during discussions.

Progressive analyst Matt Stoller made that case in a well-documented Washington Post column on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, headlined “Democrats can’t win until they recognize how bad Obama’s financial policies were: He had opportunities to help the working class, and he passed them up.” Stoller wrote of the Obama administration enabling nine million home foreclosures and anti-consumer corporate mergers, including dangerous consolidation in health care, partly caused by Obamacare’s “lack of a public option for health coverage.” Noting that most new jobs in the Obama years were temporary or part-time, along with the decline in lifespans among whites, Stoller concluded: “When Democratic leaders don’t protect the people, the people get poorer, they get angry . . .”

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/lets-not-whitewash-or-mythologize-obama/

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: Mic

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Hahahahahaha...are you trying to school me? 

Cute.

Wouldnt be the first time dude.

I think you forgot how WW 1 or 2 started and then said you were drunk as some sort of excuse.

Yeah...there was some detail back then, I remember...still, you trying to school me on "nationalism" and the nsdap is... kind of...funny. 

and btw, nationalism is in itself a pretty evil and bad idea, since the ultimate result/effect of nationalism as a governing idea of a state in the end is violence, segregation and, poignantly, a system similar to the holocaust.

Posted by: Mic

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: Mic

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Hahahahahaha...are you trying to school me? 

Cute.

Wouldnt be the first time dude.

I think you forgot how WW 1 or 2 started and then said you were drunk as some sort of excuse.

Yeah...there was some detail back then, I remember...still, you trying to school me on "nationalism" and the nsdap is... kind of...funny. 

and btw, nationalism is in itself a pretty evil and bad idea, since the ultimate result/effect of nationalism as a governing idea of a state in the end is violence, segregation and, poignantly, a system similar to the holocaust.

^^^^  This Shogun.  It will by its very nature separate people into those that are all for their proposed vision of the nation, and those that are deemed to be against that vision.  It creates a legitimate framework for zealots to rally behind and once the fear is stoked that any dissent is an existential threat to that mission any and all violent acts become justified.

What you described sounds a lot like the USA...

Posted by: tungsten

Posted by: chupacabra

Obama made a foolish promise that he couldn't keep. The ACA is the best he could get in the political climate of the day. The Republicans have done everything in their power to destroy it, so it is what it is. They should have single payer.

Obama made a calculated promise that he never intended to keep. He didn't even allow single-payer reps at the table during discussions.

Progressive analyst Matt Stoller made that case in a well-documented Washington Post column on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, headlined “Democrats can’t win until they recognize how bad Obama’s financial policies were: He had opportunities to help the working class, and he passed them up.” Stoller wrote of the Obama administration enabling nine million home foreclosures and anti-consumer corporate mergers, including dangerous consolidation in health care, partly caused by Obamacare’s “lack of a public option for health coverage.” Noting that most new jobs in the Obama years were temporary or part-time, along with the decline in lifespans among whites, Stoller concluded: “When Democratic leaders don’t protect the people, the people get poorer, they get angry . . .”

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/lets-not-whitewash-or-mythologize-obama/

I don't remember him ever saying he would provide single-payer. The foolish promise was that they could keep their doctors. It is interesting that people claim we shouldn't whitewash Obama's record, but they should have never thought he was going to deliver a progressive agenda to begin with. The Democrats in Congress were not progressive and the president was known for pragmatism and trying to please all sides. The revision of history would be believing that people were clamoring for progressive policies when what they really wanted was a functioning government and to avoid another great depression.

I think he was a good president over those 8 years, but I never thought he was going to deliver sweeping progressive reform, even before they lost the Senate and McConnell put a stop to all governing.

Looking toward 2020 I definitely think this moment in history has the potential to move progressivism forward (ironically thanks to Trump) and the DNC should pull their heads out of their asses and see that Biden is not the future, but in the 2 party system, progressives need to understand that they have never had the numbers within the party to get their agenda moved forward. Hillary was the last candidate not because the DNC stifled Bernie, but because the party is just not as progressive as they want it to be. Most Americans wanted the status quo in 2008 after years of costly invasions and an economic meltdown. I still question what even president Bernie can do if elected because Congress holds so much of the actual power and they are still pretty old school.

Posted by: Mic

Yeah...there was some detail back then, I remember...still, you trying to school me on "nationalism" and the nsdap is... kind of...funny. 

and btw, nationalism is in itself a pretty evil and bad idea, since the ultimate result/effect of nationalism as a governing idea of a state in the end is violence, segregation and, poignantly, a system similar to the holocaust.

I've never considered nationalism to be a governing style (because we've never had one in Canada post WW1 but I also havent researched any of that). More of a direction. I'm not touching your holocaust similie either other than to say I think any government style can end up violent and segregated.

Whats interesting is the people end up being the violent and segregated but is it governments fault?

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Chup... whatever happened to this ...?

The script that they run can scrub any and all information that would be on that server at that time which is why they don't need the PC itself.  They would just run the same script again, but in a different location and since computers lose data when you unplug them it is better to do it in situ.  This has been done for years.  I actually know first hand because we had a kid working in our warehouse that ended up under investigation (he turned out to be innocent) and the RCMP showed up at our office randomly and went straight to his PC.  After about 20 minutes they went to leave and I asked if they were taking the PC and they told me they had everything off it already and held up what looked like a portable hard drive.  

I have no idea if the Russians were ever caught tampering with votes.  I believe the voter rolls appear to have been tampered with, but I can't remember if there was direct evidence of who was behind it.  From what I read those electronic voting machines are very insecure though, so I am sure there are a lot of hackers that could tamper with them.  It should be paper ballots until they know they can secure them, but the states run their own systems.

... when you said you took college computing science.. was that the MS Office Suite by chance?