Posts made by flozen

@mhorndisk:

No, some states gave all the requested information, some states gave some of the requested information, but states like California refused to comply 100%, because they are hiding their illegal actions. Quit trying to act like it's something else.

Agreed, aadam001 – so many data security issues with this hastily assembled, bush-league commission and their inadequate experience and IT resources.

Here's a nice map of states and their compliance status as of the weekend:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/01/trump-says-states-are-trying-to-hide-things-from-his-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-they-actually-say/?utm_term=.1b347cc79b7c

States that will offer NO compliance include Mississippi – famous now for their refusal, and their invitation for Kobach to "jump in the Gulf" -- as well as Kentucky, Tennessee and South Dakota.  So, mhorn, why not rag on these Trump-voting, red -- or crimson! --states for a while?

@pppucci:

We whine about his tax returns because every president since Richard Nixon has released his.  There is no such precedent for states sharing their electoral roll data with the federal government

Absolutely, pppucci.  And we whine about Trump's years of unreleased tax returns, Frederick, because he promised – so very many times -- to do so:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/times-donald-trump-release-tax-returns-article-1.3061868  or,

http://www.nationalmemo.com/showusyourtaxes-heres-every-time-donald-trump-has-said-he-would-release-his-tax-returns/

And yes, Frederick, Trump gave us taxes for "just one year," as you pointed out.  It's obvious to the most casual observer that he cherry-picked his most acceptable tax year.  Most presidents provide a dozen years or so, and Trump does not get a pass to provide fewer because he has amassed wealth.

And back to the core thread, here's a collection of research on the rarity of U.S. voter fraud:

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

Of course, the root of Trump's voter fraud commission is little more than Donnie's vanity project to explain away his garnering three million fewer popular votes.

It would be easy for this commission, overseen in Trump's offices, to misrepresent or cloud its numbers: by including, for example, persons on the voter rolls in two states due to a move, as well as people incorrectly on rolls because they had the misfortune of dying.

Ironically, people in the former category, who could well be used as supporting voter fraud data, include Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Jared Kushner and Tiffany Trump.

@Frederick:

"Again, you are twisting words and misrepresenting my comment." …

... "I get really tired of you taking people's comments and twisting them 180 degrees.  Don't think that your pitiful scheme is going unnoticed."

Oh, you get tired?  Boo hoo.  A pity you have to spend so much time wallpapering over your original, nasty posts, including your "bombing liberal California" wet dream, where you giddily assess that "Trump wouldn't have much sympathy for California."

One nation, indivisible?  Not so much for you.

When I take a moment to call out your inflammatory comments, it's not a scheme – but it's always nice to be noticed.  :hug:

@Frederick:

I would hate to live in California.. after pissing off Trump, when not pissing on him…   and have a radiological bomb set off in their harbor by North Korea.   I don't think Trump would have a lot of sympathy for California.

A down-vote is not sufficient to condemn the pathological, violent thought processes of someone who, in the course of political debate, fantasizes about the detonation of a major bomb anywhere in the United States, as a fitting punishment for not adhering to the Trump line.

@raphjd:

a computer science professor at the University of California at Berkeley

And that is where you lost the argument.

Anything and everything associated with Berkeley (the town and/or university) can not be trusted.    It'd be best if we nuked the place and were done with it.

I'm surprised MSN.com didn't quote Yvette Felarca and Eric Clanton for the story.

Mississippi.  Texas.  More than half the states.  Winning.

For those catching up, The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity was formed by Trump to investigate his widely debunked claim that millions of illegal votes cost him the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election.

And now, "According to a report by Politico Saturday, digital security experts believe the voter roll request could offer a well of information valuable to hackers and cyber criminals."

"It is beyond stupid," said Nicholas Weaver, a computer science professor at the University of California at Berkeley told Politico.

""The bigger the purse, the more effort folks would spend to get at it," said Joe Hall, another expert at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "And in this case, this is such a high-profile and not-so-competent tech operation that we're likely to see the hacktivists and pranksters take shots at it."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/experts-warn-voter-fraud-panel-data-request-could-lead-to-hacks-report/

At least 29 states are pushing back or outright refusing to comply with the Trump administration's request for voter registration data.

From the very liberal state of Mississippi, its Secretary of State, Delbert Hosemann (R), said Friday that President Trump's ridiculous, intrusive and unnecessary voter fraud commission can "go jump in the Gulf of Mexico."

"Mississippi residents should celebrate Independence Day and our State’s right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral processes,” Mr. Hosemann continued.   :cheers:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/340307-miss-official-on-trump-voter-fraud-request-they-can-go-jump-in

I'll spare readers the re-quoting of your message, Fred – it's right above.

In any case, congratulations on responding to the Trump/charity issue by offering the most empty, generic platitudes about his giving.  No specific, major charitable causes identified (and thanks for not attempting to pawn off his loathsome, self-dealing Foundation); not a single clinic or school built; just hoarding his money and hiding all-but-one of his janky tax returns.

Political debate is built upon information and rebuttal, yet you offered nothing in Trump's defense for the recent media report I cited (and there were many) re: his children's cancer charity scamming.  So, this all amounts to a total fail on you.  And you can try to deflect with Zuck or Gates, but it makes your lack of Trump information even more obvious and a source for embarrassment -- if you were capable of that emotion.

As for the shade you threw on my credibility, Fred, you should know that's one area where you ought to tread lightly.  Why?  Because I've already pointed out your self-admission on another thread, related to your hacking an office computer system, stealing photos and personal info from the e-mail of a former coworker, and bringing them home.  You're talking about credibility, but I'm talking about criminality.  You wrote about the coworker, as quoted below, in

https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=50094.0 (reply #17)

"He despised me, because I was the only one in the office that saw right through his façade.  In fact, I knew many things about him, because I knew how to access other people's email accounts, etc.  Here is a short list of what I found out about this guy.  He was screwing his wife's best friend in the clubhouse of his son's little league baseball team that he coached.  He regularly beat his wife.  He had a fetish for elderly fat women.  The older and fatter they were, the better.  I'm sure that some of you don't believe me.  Somewhere on one of 50 hard drives laying around here..."

So as far as credibility gaps and overall untrustworthiness, I would venture that it's more... like... you.

This thread has meandered away from its intended discussion of Ivanka's migrating sweatshops of horror, and I'm glad there was some useful discussion of these abuses further up the thread.  So, play safely with your fireworks, if you're on this side of the pond.  I am out of here.

@mhorndisk:

So you don't care about the people in China. I thought not. Look man, I've heard you guys make these arguments for almost two years now, and I'm just tired of having to go over it again and again. You're just wrong. You're not looking at all the facts, and you're not listening to both sides. What you are doing, is looking at the facts you want to look at, and listening to the mouthpieces that you want to hear. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative that you want to believe, goes in one ear and out the other. You are not capable of comprehending the information. You're just not. You act like the hundreds of millions he put into charity was unethical and fraudulent, and you base it off of this totally ridiculous nonsense that you heard from your fake news. You don't know what you're talking about. There is blatant evidence of Hillary's charity scams that you completely ignore, and there is no evidence of Trump's. There is only your imagination. The idea that he had multiple bankruptcies is stupid. He has over 500 companies and what 5? 5 went bankrupt? Do you know how many people failed 100 times before succeeding once? That's a stellar record. You just don't make any sense. Your perception of reality is distorted.

You have crammed so many howlers into one paragraph, it is swirling into a black hole of false claims about your hero, as well as assumptions about me of which you own no knowledge.  But since you reference the next point specifically, I need you to produce, as verification, some detailed data on the "hundreds of millions he put into charity."

Yeah, I really need you to prove that claim, and not in generalities.  To own that high ground for Trump, you better pony up some published, line-item research that supports that charitable claim, or I'm calling total BS on you.  And I am talking HIS OWN money.  Too bad you don't have his tax forms to rely on.  (Well, those might be a tad disappointing.)

Good luck.

@mhorndisk:

Quit trying to do whatever you can to tarnish someone's name with hearsay and pieces of information that don't paint a full picture. I bet Trump has helped many more people than you EVER have and I bet you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.

Your ability to deny the growing vault of respected reportage on Trump and his charity schemes is impressive.  Even this last account, from a capitalist icon, Forbes.  And a children's cancer charity, no less!  But to you, journalism is hearsay.  You think of it this way, because you choose to discount it without empirical evaluation.

Why not go one step further, and contemplate Trump's multiple bankruptcies, where he used those laws, in a calculated fashion, to stiff craftsmen, staff, etc, for monies owed?  That was one way he helped people – provided their last name was Trump.

@raphjd:

Why do the Trumps have to do things no one else does?

Asking the Trumps to improve their dismal overseas manufacturing plants is a miniscule task of human kindness, compared to what many of their peers are accomplishing with their fortunes.

While the Trumps squeeze every last drop of profit from this overseas example, a growing number of billionaires are stepping up, and some have even committed to give away half of their fortunes to assist in an array of global humanitarian projects, including working conditions:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html

Meanwhile, the Trumps are also active in charity – when it can be funneled back to their coffers:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#3a2d4d0d6b4a

So, your comment simply needs to be reversed:  There are many wealthy persons who use their good fortune to better the lives of the disadvantaged, in communities both near and far.  The Trumps are simply too greedy to join them.

@mhorndisk:

And yes I am blending a little sex into politics because I know that charm plays a big part in people's desires and what they want to hear and what they want to believe. It happens all the time. It's not something weird.

When you merge sex and politics in your rants – such as telling us repeatedly, in prior posts, how much we want to fellate some political figure -- it's a very, very special blend of icky-weird.

On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree that you are this forum's leading authority on charm.  :love:

@raphjd:

this reflects more on the Chinese and Chinese culture honestly.

This is the truth.

Chinese workers are not treated very well, but they are treated a lot better than some other countries in the region.

Oh, we are sliding off-topic here.  More to the point, Ivanka/the Trumps – with their vast financial resources and extensive international business and managerial experience -- could have taken steps to elevate their "workshops" above the unfortunate, abusive norms in China.  They simply didn't consider it a priority.  Or consider it at all.

Will they take this incident to heart, and do better by the oft-mistreated, lower-wage workers of Indonesia?

Sure.

@mhorndisk:

It's for self-defense and protection from liberals, not for hurting animals. Duh.

Thanks for the explanation, and you've got a great thought process there:  a gun to shoot people with differing views.

And as for your original topic, this whole "choose which president you would f-ck" thing is really low-brow, and is just the latest of your weird rants blending sexuality into politics and then, angry or unsettling retorts.  Honestly, are there any faint cries coming from your locked cellar?

@mhorndisk:

When it comes down to it, this is the ENTIRE reason you vote one way or the other, whether you would have sex with someone. Deep down, that's what it's all about. It's easy for the media to make Trump look unsexy as an older gentlemen, and easier still, to make Obama look sexy because he's charming and younger. It really has nothing to do with politics, this is why Macron won. You don't care about right and wrong when you hate on Trump. You just don't think he's sufficient enough to be a sexual partner, and so you are automatically deposed to think negatively about him. This is what I really despise about people on the left. They think with their dicks. If it was twenty years ago and he was younger you would have jumped for him no matter what he said. It's really sad, but it is the basis for which most of you vote. You want young and sexy and you hate him just because you wouldn't suck his dick. It's all you base your life on, like this website. Yes, no, to the left, to the right. It's unfortunate but it's reality, and it's like me going around telling people how horrible smoking and drinking and eating meat is for you. You just don't care. The only thing that matters is sex, it has nothing to do with actual issues. That's how people work. I don't really think people get the ways that they are manipulated at this point, like putting a big fat black woman judge up there who doesn't even have a clue, but because of your past, you just accept what she says. It's really sad that people can't get past their indifference and their judgements based on physical perceptions.

mhorndisk,

Toward the middle of your thread's opening post, you take a pause from the politics of sex, and indicate that you abstain from smoking, drinking, and eating meat.  While these are each personal choices for us all, I applaud you for seeking out better health.

With this said, I don't understand why, with your no-meat lifestyle, your avatar is a hot young man holding a hunting rifle.  I mean, I am anti-fur, so I would not have an avatar of some guy in a mink jock strap.  I did ask this in another post, but it was quickly overtaken by other comments.

Just curious, how do you reconcile this no-meat and hunting paradox?

@mhorndisk:

I heard they are investigating Ivanka's Steel Toe High Heals for evidence of Chinese Blood. No, it's to point out that you guys have really overactive imaginations. And you don't even discern the facts. Every post is like, oh my goodness how horrible President Trump is, look what he did now, without even discussing it or researching it. You automatically assume that no matter what, it was for evil intentions and just rehash what you heard from the liberal media as though it were your own opinion. You DO NOT KNOW about Ivanka's business dealings in China, and you DO NOT KNOW what goes on in the factories in China. You are making up stories and it's really just absurd. You are fake news!

Well, to be fair, you're placing our esteemed President and his overall troubles in the middle of a conversation that is meant to focus on Ivanka's shoe business.  I do accept the early news reports that have come out of these factories – many contain eyewitness accounts, and I have yet to see reportage to the contrary from equally credible (and non-Trumpian) sources.

In any case, I agree we DO NOT KNOW (just matching your beloved caps) first-hand the complete story -- that's why we should look at the body of evidence in coming weeks.

And agreed, China has a horrendous record on workers' rights.  How great it would be to learn that Ivanka's business was, instead, a leader in related reforms -- but I'm not holding my breath.

@mhorndisk:

I bet Ivanka flies to China every once in a while just to pull off her steel heels and slap one of the workers to keep them in line, and then she licks the blood off the heel and gets a cheap thrill, laughing maniacally as she walks away and they are all gripped in fear.  >:D And then she kicks a puppy on the way out as she glares back over her shoulder, before slamming the door shut and squinting her eyes through the window.

It's so odd to see you abandon blind anger, and to attempt humor or irony – whatever that creepy little story was meant to convey.

More likely, your barely concealed joy that those "other people" are being kept in their place?

@Frederick:

@raphjd:

:police: Don't report lies.  prove them wrong.    Unless those lies are directed at another user, like "you called me a faggot nigger".   Then the accuser needs to prove it or face punishment.

Mods specifically assigned to the forums (as opposed to torrent mods), global mods and above can see all versions of a post.   So post editing won't help you.    :police:

I hope Flozen read that ^^^

In the long run, the moonbats destroy their own credibility, which is why the dark lord of the moonbats hasn't posted in over a week.  The moonbats just make things up, with little or no credible sources.  I tend to always provide links to what I'm referencing. 
Civility is a two-way street.

Yes, I did read the administrator's response, and was hoping you'd realize that the key concept – "reporting lies" -- appeared twice:  first in your remarks, and then in his advice to instead prove it.  And that is the connection -- you.

It's Pride Weekend in NYC.  I am out the door to do Pride things, and done with engaging you on this topic.  Happy Pride to you, Frederick!

@royalcrown89:

Finally starting to see some toning down on here but the name calling is still too heavy. There is a huge difference in saying an idea or suggestion or piece of legislation is evil or disgusting and calling people childish names. If someone calls out an idea, suggestion or piece of legislation, then it doesn't mean that person is attacking you for supporting said idea, suggestion or piece of legislation. They are simply stating they view the idea, suggestion or piece of legislation as evil or disgusting. How about instead of childish names, we discuss why we oppose or support the idea, suggestion or piece of legislation? This constant name calling is pathetic. Claim and defend your arguments, ideas and views. This shouldn't be hard to do if you truly believe in what you say.

Agreed, and agreed.  There has been some reduction in inflammatory remarks – one very satisfying change is the elimination of "tard" as a suffix in describing other posters.

But for all of us in the pro-civility ranks, I would just advise, there will be ongoing efforts from our most aggrieved and immature members to push back on these hard-fought gains.  A fine example occurred yesterday, when one poster began a poll, where he gave us a choice of three childlike slurs that could be used, in lieu of "tard," to describe liberals:

https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=50277.0
"Instead of Libt***, what new word?"

Now, I would have hoped that this thread be locked at the first sight of the headline, because it proudly reveals that it's nothing more than a gathering for name-calling, with no interest in proper political debate.  In any event, once the thread was reported to the moderator, it was locked immediately, and I extend my thanks.

So what's the takeaway from my experience?  If you see something that violates GT forum guidelines on civility and content, report the thread, post, etc., directly to our moderator.  It is especially helpful if you add a few lines describing why you believe it is in violation, as well as the sections from GT's Rules of Conduct that apply.

Don't count on others to do it for you.  Better that all civil members of Politics & Debate contribute through reporting frivolous, mean-spirited and off-topic threads and posts.  In this manner, the job WILL GET DONE.  Thanks for your time and attention.

@Frederick:

@flozen:

While it appears that most (of the dwindling number of) posters in Politics & Debate would like to see more civility, I'm afraid that the discussion has been sidetracked by all the back and forth about one poster's choice of graphics.

I was hoping that the thread would open a discussion on HOW to actually achieve more civility.  The current, largely unmanaged and consequence-free state of affairs here is unlike any I have encountered on other gay sites (torrent or otherwise) that engage in political discourse.

Is it any wonder that so few GT members choose to participate here?

That is nonsense.   This "Politics & Debate" group has far more participation that any of the other groups other than "Sex & Relationships", "Jokes", and "Chit Chat" which are all generic groups. 
The liberals are being called out for their misinformation, bias, and outright lies so much that they are growing weary of posting volumes of new garbage.  That is why the activity drops.  If they can't have it their way - they stomp their feet and go home, like spoiled little children.

Misinformation, bias and outright lies are so much the core of your tiring, repetitive responses that for you to place these qualities on others is simply a howler.   :cheesy2: :cheesy2:  It's more useful for us to return to the thread's topic: Civility.

And since you were largely successful in this post – we can all take the hit of "spoiled little children" -- you might be heading in the right direction.  Or, is this just the rare moment of success for the broken clock, which is correct twice a day?