US Politics

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Peter Crisp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Peter Crisp » Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:16 am

It's just Trumps staggering inability to see anything bad about himself and the fact he surrounds himself with toadying Yesmen.
In his mind he's just constantly winning and anyone who says otherwise just needs to get with the program and realise just how much of a stable genius Trump is.

Honestly if this was a film people would have walked out ages ago claiming it was beyond a joke and not even slightly like reality.

jiggles wrote:Nobody with a VR headset is going to be using it regularly this time next year, let alone in 4 years time.


Posted 16th March 2016. Let's see.
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:40 am

538 graded how long the Supreme Court's left and right wing blocs will survive:

How Long Will The Supreme Court’s Conservative Bloc Survive?
By Oliver Roeder

Somewhere high up in the news stories (ours included) about President Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee, there’s often a sentence that goes like this: Brett Kavanaugh is relatively young, and his confirmation could therefore alter the makeup of the high court for decades to come.

This article is an expanded, FiveThirtyEight version of that sentence. It is, by nature, a morbid exercise.

The Founding Fathers, in their 18th-century waistcoated wisdom, decided that Supreme Court justices ought to serve for life.1 This was meant to insulate justices from certain “encroachments and oppressions” that could threaten the judiciary. But it also gives the court — and thus the laws of the land — an unpredictable flavor, one susceptible to the whims of the circulatory, respiratory and nervous systems of nine middle-age-to-quite-old people.

Supreme Court justices aren’t around forever.

Which leads to some questions. About how long can we expect each current justice — or the new nominee, Brett Kavanaugh — to get up and put on their black robe and sit in their black leather chair? And assuming that Kavanaugh is confirmed, how long can we expect the court’s new five-member conservative bloc to stay together?

I’m not a medical doctor, and this is not a medical diagnosis of the high court. Rather, it is a rough, but statistically grounded, empirical assessment written on the back of a cloth napkin. The illustrations below are based solely on mortality probabilities from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — accounting exclusively for each justice’s gender, race and current age.2 The analysis does not take into account, for example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s vigorous workout regimen or Kavanaugh’s fondness for spending time outdoors.

Image

The over-under — that is, the point where there are equal chances both before and after — on the new conservative majority cohort all staying alive is just about eight years. The over-under on the liberal minority cohort all continuing to draw breath is about five years.

Image

Justice Neil Gorsuch, congratulations: As the youngest Supreme Court Justice, you are expected to be with us for the longest. There is about an 11 percent chance that nearly-51-year-old Gorsuch is still alive and kicking in 2060 and a better than 50 percent chance that he gets to 2048. Set the over-under for Ginsburg — the oldest justice, at 85 — at around 2025. Kavanaugh, the 53-year-old would-be court alterer, may or may not make it past 2047, with about equal probability.

Of course, what happens next to the court should the end befall any of these justices depends entirely on timing. If there’s a death within the next couple of years, Trump will likely fill the seat with a conservative. That means that if Kavanaugh has been confirmed and a conservative is being replaced, the court’s 5-4 conservative majority will be maintained. If a liberal is being replaced, it could mean a shift further to the right for the court. If a death happens after a couple of years, the likely outcome is anyone’s guess.

Note, too, of course, that death is an upper bound on the date of a justice leaving the court. Retirement is always as option — one exercised recently by Justice Anthony Kennedy (age 81) and one rumored to be under consideration by Justice Clarence Thomas (age 70). From our point of view, retirement is even less predictable than death, and there are so few of these berobed folks that it’s hard to detect real patterns. But historically speaking, of 113 justices dating back to 1789, 18 left the court because of “advanced age” and 20 because of “declining health,” according to the work of scholar Lee Epstein and others. Fifty died in office, and only two retired “before physical or mental health could decline.”

That puts the average age at departure from the court at 69.7, which is heavily influenced by the average age at death: 73.9. Two of the current eight justices, both liberals, are older than that.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... c-survive/

Meanwhile....



Complete pandemonium if Russia interferes this way. Not only could Americans' confidence in their own democracy be shaken to its foundations, so too would that of the rest of the free and democratic world, which would benefit only tyrants like Putin, and badly set back movements and efforts to instill democracy elsewhere.

Fetch me old brown trousers, bring them to me now, I'll wear them in the rigging as they fire across the bow. Fetch me old brown trousers, I fear we may be hit, for even if they shoot me now, they'll never see me... ;)
User avatar
Monkey Man
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Monkey Man » Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:23 pm


Image
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:46 pm

:o

I'm sure Trump will wheel out the "That's not even my voice" defense again. His base bought it before, they'll do it again.

The next round of election meddling may actually be aimed at helping the Democrats.

There’s a good argument to be made that China, for one, might look at our congressional elections and think that helping the Democrats in 2018 would be best for them. While much of our focus on Trump’s bull-in-a-multilateral-china-shop approach to foreign policy has focused on his attacks on Canada, Europe and Africa, or his inexplicable coddling of Putin and Russia, there’s no country that has benefited more from his presidency than the rising and increasingly aggressive and authoritarian China.

As we retreat from international alliances, China has stepped into that vacuum. Trump’s temper tantrums have given China the time and space to build new relationships around the Pacific Rim, to pursue their mega-One Belt One Road project and to chip away at the international security alliances that have made the Pacific an American lake for 50 years.

One way for China to extend the period of a vacuum of American leadership: Throw the Senate to the Dems, ensuring not just two years of oversight hearings but also fraught nomination fights that would leave the government understaffed and under-resourced and unable to engage thoughtfully with the rest of the world.


Much more at the link: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ing-219020

Fetch me old brown trousers, bring them to me now, I'll wear them in the rigging as they fire across the bow. Fetch me old brown trousers, I fear we may be hit, for even if they shoot me now, they'll never see me... ;)
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: US Politics
by Squinty » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:21 pm

Monkey Man wrote:


Release. So I can strawberry floating laugh.

User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Stool Bloke

PostRe: US Politics
by Dual » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:55 pm

Fake news

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:38 pm



:slol: So true.

Fetch me old brown trousers, bring them to me now, I'll wear them in the rigging as they fire across the bow. Fetch me old brown trousers, I fear we may be hit, for even if they shoot me now, they'll never see me... ;)
User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: US Politics
by Garth » Sat Jul 21, 2018 2:13 am

Russians attempted to infiltrate three 2018 campaigns, Microsoft says

Russian intelligence operatives attempted to hack into the online accounts of staffers on three congressional campaigns in the upcoming midterm elections, a Microsoft executive said Thursday, marking the first public acknowledgment of a Russian attack on a 2018 race.

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, Tom Burt, Microsoft's corporate vice president for customer security and trust, said the technology firm had earlier this year detected a fake domain that was likely used as part of phishing attacks directed at the three campaigns.

Microsoft took down the site and prevented the victims from "being infected by that particular attack," Burt said.

Multiple US intelligence and homeland security officials have said in recent days that Russia has not yet attempted a large-scale effort to manipulate specific election infrastructure in the midterm elections, as it did in the 2016 race.

Burt said the specific phishing tactic, which generally involves duping a victim into clicking a malicious link, was one they discovered being used by a Russian intelligence hacking group often referred to as Fancy Bear in the lead-up to the presidential election.

The hacking unit is directed by the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency which was formally blamed for the Democratic National Committee hack and other damaging election cyberintrusions earlier this month in an indictment prepared by special counsel Robert Mueller. Cybersecurity firms have said Fancy Bear was one of the units of the GRU responsible for the hacks.

A top Homeland Security official Friday called the cases "concerning" but downplayed their broader significance in an interview at a Washington Post event.
"I see intelligence, I see reporting on stuff every day that would look -- absent context -- concerning," said Christopher Krebs, the undersecretary in charge of DHS' National Protection and Programs Directorate.

"We haven't seen a campaign on the scale of 2016 of concerted attacks against election infrastructure, concerted attacks against campaigns. Yes, Microsoft made an announcement yesterday about three Russian -- about three campaigns being targeted. That is concerning and so we're going to work with them, we're going to get that information, the FBI's worked with them to share information to shore up defenses," he said.

Burt did not identify which campaigns had been targeted, only describing the victims as "people who because of their positions might have been interesting targets from an espionage standpoint as well as from an election disruption standpoint."

Earlier this year, officials from a Tennessee US Senate campaign informed the FBI that they feared they had been hacked, according to a copy of a letter obtained at the time by CNN.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/20/poli ... index.html

User avatar
Monkey Man
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Monkey Man » Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:06 am

Image

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration disclosed on Saturday a previously top-secret set of documents related to the wiretapping of Carter Page, the onetime Trump campaign adviser who was at the center of highly contentious accusations by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee that the F.B.I. had abused its surveillance powers.

Read the documents here. - https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper ... imized.pdf

Democrats in February rejected the Republican claims that law enforcement officials had improperly obtained a warrant to monitor Mr. Page, accusing them of putting out misinformation to defend President Trump and sow doubts about the origin of the Russia investigation. But even as Republicans and Democrats issued dueling memos characterizing the materials underlying the surveillance of Mr. Page, the public had no access to the records.

On Saturday evening, those materials — an October 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page, along with several renewal applications — were released to The New York Times and other news organizations that had filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to obtain them. Mr. Trump had declassified their existence earlier this year.

“This application targets Carter Page,” the document said. “The F.B.I. believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.” A line was then redacted, and then it picked up with “undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election in violation of U.S. criminal law. Mr. Page is a former foreign policy adviser to a candidate for U.S. president.”

Mr. Page has denied being a Russian agent and has not been charged with a crime in the nearly two years since the initial wiretap application was filed. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday.

The spectacle of the release was itself noteworthy, given that wiretapping under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is normally one of the government’s closest-guarded secrets. No such application materials had apparently become public in the 40 years since Congress enacted that law to regulate the interception of phone calls and other communications on domestic soil in search of spies and terrorists, as opposed to wiretapping for ordinary criminal investigations.

The documents made public on Saturday were heavily redacted in places, and some of the substance of the applications had already become public in February, via the Republican and Democratic Intelligence Committee memos.

Visible portions showed that the F.B.I. in stark terms had told the intelligence court that Mr. Page “has established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers”; that the bureau believed “the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with” Mr. Trump’s campaign; and that Mr. Page “has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government.”

The fight over the surveillance of Mr. Page centered on the fact that the F.B.I., in making the case to judges that he might be a Russian agent, had used some claims drawn from a notorious Democratic-funded dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent.

The application cited claims from the dossier that Mr. Page, while on a trip to Moscow in July 2016, had met with two senior Russian representatives and discussed matters like lifting sanctions imposed on Russia for its intervention in Ukraine and a purported file of compromising information about Mr. Trump that the Russian government had. (Mr. Page has denied those allegations, although he later contradicted his claims that he had not met any Russian government officials on that trip.)

Republicans portrayed the Steele dossier — which also contained salacious claims about Mr. Trump apparently not included in the wiretap application — as dubious, and blasted the F.B.I. for using material from it while not telling the court that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded the research.

But Democrats noted that the application also contained evidence against Mr. Page unrelated to the dossier, and an unredacted portion of the application discussed efforts by Russian agents in 2013 to recruit Americans as assets. It has previously been reported that Mr. Page was one of their targets, although any discussion of Mr. Page’s interactions with them in the application is still censored.

Democrats argued in February that the F.B.I. had told the court that the research’s sponsor had the political motive of wanting to discredit Mr. Trump’s campaign. They argued that it was normal not to specifically name Americans and American organizations in such materials. The released documents show that portion of the filings, which the previously released Democratic memo had quoted.

The application shows that the F.B.I. told the court it believed that the person who hired Mr. Steele was looking for dirt to discredit Mr. Trump. But it added that based on Mr. Steele’s previous reporting history with the F.B.I., in which he had “provided reliable information,” the bureau believed his information cited in the application “to be credible.”

The applications largely avoided using names; renewal materials noted that they would continue to refer to “Candidate #1” by that description, for example, even though he “is now the president.”


The unredacted portions of the original application and the three renewal applications are otherwise largely identical, so it is not visible whether the F.B.I. told the court that it was gaining useful intelligence from the wiretap of Mr. Page as it asked for extensions. But the length of the applications grew significantly each time, indicating that new information was being added: They were 66 pages, 79 pages, 91 pages and 101 pages, respectively.

The materials also revealed which Federal District Court judges signed off on the wiretapping of Mr. Page: Judges Rosemary Collyer, Michael Mosman, Anne C. Conway and Raymond J. Dearie. All were appointed by Republican presidents.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/p ... -fisa.html

Image

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Moggy » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:58 am



A very stable genius.

User avatar
Tafdolphin
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Tafdolphin » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:59 am

Moggy wrote:

A very stable genius.


An excellent constitution.

Gemini73 wrote:Yes your are a sanctimonious twat

Bloggy blog blog blog.

Night Call: a game what I worked on
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Moggy » Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:08 am

Tafdolphin wrote:
Moggy wrote:

A very stable genius.


An excellent constitution.


NO MORE DEMENTED WORDS OF DEATH!

User avatar
Drumstick
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: US Politics
by Drumstick » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:28 am

President of the USA resorting to shouting on Twitter.

What a strawberry floating child.

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Moggy » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:29 am

Drumstick wrote:President of the USA resorting to shouting on Twitter.

What a strawberry floating child.


He might shout but Obama is Kenyan and Hillary had emails.

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics
by KK » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:34 am

He's just replaced ranting about North Korea with Iran.

Image
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Hexx » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:37 am

There's always a tweet


User avatar
Drumstick
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: US Politics
by Drumstick » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:37 am

:lol: :fp:

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: US Politics
by Squinty » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:50 am

Moggy wrote:

A very stable genius.


:slol: :slol: :slol: :slol:

President of the United States everyone.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics
by Moggy » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:56 am



:slol:

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics
by Alvin Flummux » Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:25 am

The Persians have suffered through horrific circumstances over the years, for example the Mongol invasion. Trump can't do them worse than what they've already dealt with.

Fetch me old brown trousers, bring them to me now, I'll wear them in the rigging as they fire across the bow. Fetch me old brown trousers, I fear we may be hit, for even if they shoot me now, they'll never see me... ;)

Return to “Stuff”