Trump to win?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

this is so true. i'm nauseated by the fact that i want hillary clinton to be president.....

hey now!

see - despite the best efforts of some to divide the itulip along idiological lines?

we DO have common ground.

edit:
the status quo coalition is really large and powerful and could last a long time, joining the country club republicans and neocons to the existing democrats' coalition of professional elites/educated whites + minorities. you would think that in the future minorities might hive off and join poorer, less educated whites but the racial issues preclude that.

when lyndon johnson got the civil rights act passed he predicted that he was losing the south to the republicans for a generation. this was sealed by nixon's "southern strategy," turning what had been "the solid [democratic] south" into a solid republican south. not all trump supporters are racists, but it appears that the most overt racists are trump supporters. they, as a group, cannot join hands with the poorer elements of the democratic coalition. this precludes a class-based politics.

well... that didnt last very long...
guess to some folks, it really ALWAYS WILL BE stardate: 1965, somewhere in selma alabama...

while some of us just think billy-gate and hilly-gate blows the pantsuit right off pussy-gate
and all the claims of racism, sexism, misogynism + gender-confusionism is...

NOTHING BUT BULLSHITISM AND DISTRACTIONISM

and if they can't beat em?

deny, delay and obfuscate em - right?

since they sure as hell aint been blinding em with 'brilliance'...

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

Completely agree. This is why I moved out of renewable energy three years ago and into the US medical business. AR and other technologies are going to be massively disruptive and much more quickly than most people understand. This should be clear to most people by 2020.

why is that not surprising...

or that you'd be a big fan of the obomba+hillbilly show.

guess it's the first rule for the crony class, eh?

follow the .govs gravy train...

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

One other observation is the aging process itself. For example by the 90's a huge percentage of men will have prostate cancer but will not die of it. However if we get men to live past 100 won't prostate cancer finally kill them?

probably not. most prostate cancer is really slow growing. for men who have had their prostates removed because of a cancer diagnosis, some go on to have what is called "biochemical recurrence" [i.e. if the prostate is gone the psa test should be zero, "biochemical recurrence" means that prostate tissue has shown up somewhere else in the body]. the leading cause of death in men with biochemical recurrence is cardiovascular disease.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

One of my doctors has worked with NIH in the longevity field as far back as the 90's. His view is while we may be able to add a few years to longevity we are far more likely to increase quality of life for older people than to extend life spans more than a few years.

One other observation is the aging process itself. For example by the 90's a huge percentage of men will have prostate cancer but will not die of it. However if we get men to live past 100 won't prostate cancer finally kill them?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

There are some pretty big life extension moon shot "exploration" projects as well as incremental "exploitation" projects running in Silicon Valley, including a big effort by Google.

If you have real money and power today, I'm sure you'd be quite interested in maintaining it for a few more years or decades.

My measurement is simple, just apply the same yardstick to Ray Kurzweil's predictions for longevity as we see in retrospect with 90's dot com kids.

Just add 15 years to every target date Ray publishes as long as Moore's Law holds.

The $999 full genome sequencing we have today should fall to $299 within 18-24 months.

with the exception of a handful of cancers, i don't think the genetic stuff is ready for prime time yet, but it's close. otoh, i'm not convinced that the theoretical human lifespan can be extended beyond 100, perhaps 115 years. even without that, continuing to expand the duration of HEALTHY lifespan is a major achievement. i, for one, want a long, healthy life and then a quick death.

there are those like woody allen, though. he said he didn't want to achieve immortality through his work; he wanted to achieve immortality by not dying. has anyone here read huxley's "after many a summer dies the swan"? i fear that his exaggerated prediction of the effects of long life may well be realized. even if alzheimer's itself is conquered, microvascular dementia will be a really hard nut to crack if lives are much prolonged.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Last 4 paragraphs of Taibbi in RS.

The only thing that could get in the way of real change – if not now, then surely very soon – was a rebellion so maladroit, ill-conceived and irresponsible that even the severest critics of the system would become zealots for the status quo.

In the absolute best-case scenario, the one in which he loses, this is what Trump's run accomplished. He ran as an outsider antidote to a corrupt two-party system, and instead will leave that system more entrenched than ever. If he goes on to lose, he will be our Bonaparte, the monster who will continue to terrify us even in exile, reinforcing the authority of kings.

If you thought lesser-evilism was bad before, wait until the answer to every question you might have about your political leaders becomes, "Would you rather have Trump in office?"

Trump can't win. Our national experiment can't end because one aging narcissist got bored of sex and food. Not even America deserves that. But that doesn't mean we come out ahead. We're more divided than ever, sicker than ever, dumber than ever. And there's no reason to think it won't be worse the next time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-trump-w444943

this is so true. i'm nauseated by the fact that i want hillary clinton to be president.

i've been following the election obsessively, clicking on fivethirtyeight several times a day. i've never been so locked in. partly i suppose it's the new, modern availability of near real-time information, but that's not enough to explain my fascination. i watch in horror as this election unfolds. i've never, ever liked horror movies, but i think this must be what it's like to watch a horror movie: fear and fascination, i can't tear my eyes away.


---------

edit:
the status quo coalition is really large and powerful and could last a long time, joining the country club republicans and neocons to the existing democrats' coalition of professional elites/educated whites + minorities. you would think that in the future minorities might hive off and join poorer, less educated whites but the racial issues preclude that.

when lyndon johnson got the civil rights act passed he predicted that he was losing the south to the republicans for a generation. this was sealed by nixon's "southern strategy," turning what had been "the solid [democratic] south" into a solid republican south. not all trump supporters are racists, but it appears that the most overt racists are trump supporters. they, as a group, cannot join hands with the poorer elements of the democratic coalition. this precludes a class-based politics.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I have a hard time believing that a Super-Top-Secret CIA plot is being advertised in the MSM. Looks like political theater to me. Sabre rattling.

Well, Shiny!, we can take comfort knowing (for lack of a better word) that unnamed "US intelligence officials" and invisible "current and former officials" claim they'll be proportional.

That means in response to false-flag, ersatz Russian hacks, we'll deliver a fantasy, make-believe "in-kind" response. And that only makes sense, since the evidence linking these allegations to Russia is also invisible, make-believe pixie dust.

Because as you know we can trust unnamed "US intelligence sources" never to spread false stories or rumors, such truth tellers they are and have always been. I mean, if Honest James Clapper says it's true, you can take it to the bank (BCCI or Riggs Bank, please). After all Honest Jim has "confidence" and "belief" that the Rooskies are tilting the table for Trump - no evidence, but plenty of confidence.

So strong is the belief among the "community" that it even trumps the actual, verifiable evidence that the DNC manipulated the election by promoting Clinton over Sanders and colluding with HRC. Their confidence is so high that clicking their heels together and saying "there's no place like home" is more compelling than actual, verifiable evidence that the media is working with the Clintons to manipulate the election, along with the White House and the cloak and dagger elements.

It's just too bad that through these acts our intrepid unnamed "US intelligence officials" and their agents of influence in the media once again become their own parody.



Do you think they recognize that? Or are they too self-unconscious for even such simple insight? Probably, since we see precisely the same dynamic worming its way here at iTulip with folks making heroic efforts to distract and redirect us away from the mountain of actual, verifiable evidence with specific names, places and dates, dropped on HRC's lap each day now until November 8th.

With our famously free press now working overtime to beat the North Korean Central News Agency at credulous sycophancy toward the state and confirmed as adjuncts of the Clinton campaign - who itself has been show to be an adjunct of the Obama administration following the last batch of emails released - we can all be assured that the official lies will get the coverage official liars demand. So buckle up. This rigged election is going to be a real nail biter right until the very last minute when the pre-determined winner is announced.

But maybe not? The "community's" best minds have been working overtime in Syria to help their moderate Al-Qaeda Islamists gain ground and just can't seem to make it happen no matter which brand of head chopping terrorists they get behind. Maybe they have the same sort of really smart people working to rig the election too and we can expect a similarly unexpected outcome. Nothing they've thrown at Trump has made a difference.

Oh, if only they could drone strike Trump or send in a squad of coalfaced assassins to take him and his family out? Because for all their many failures, they're as good as ever at blowing up bodies into little pieces and in the process creating a new batch of enemies from whom they'll protect us.

Just a few days ago a precision strike (either by us or by our freedom loving Saudi allies on our behalf) took out a single bad guy in Yemen and only killed or maimed 640 noncombatants in the process. And the day before, we launched a missile attack on Yemen against radar installations in response to attacks by missiles against our ships that no can show actually ever happened, as the only ones who saw it were the same ones who reported it - the Navy.

I note the same pattern here as with the "Russian hack," but am more struck how it rhymes with the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident. You might not be old enough to remember it, but I recall they had a similar degree of "confidence" and "belief" of those attacks too, only to have them revealed as lies once 50,000 Americans and upwards of 2 million Vietnamese were dead.


MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

And $29.99 at Walmart in a decade. On average we live longer than we did 500 years ago but we don't yet live longer in absolute terms. That is about to change.

Imagine deep state string pullers with not just the power/wealth of a Greek demigod(with the standard Greek demigod failings of course), but also the longevity and persistence.

This within the far end of our bell curved life expectancies.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

The $999 full genome sequencing we have today should fall to $299 within 18-24 months.

And $29.99 at Walmart in a decade. On average we live longer than we did 500 years ago but we don't yet live longer in absolute terms. That is about to change.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Completely agree. This is why I moved out of renewable energy three years ago and into the US medical business. AR and other technologies are going to be massively disruptive and much more quickly than most people understand. This should be clear to most people by 2020.

There are some pretty big life extension moon shot "exploration" projects as well as incremental "exploitation" projects running in Silicon Valley, including a big effort by Google.

If you have real money and power today, I'm sure you'd be quite interested in maintaining it for a few more years or decades.

My measurement is simple, just apply the same yardstick to Ray Kurzweil's predictions for longevity as we see in retrospect with 90's dot com kids.

Just add 15 years to every target date Ray publishes as long as Moore's Law holds.

The $999 full genome sequencing we have today should fall to $299 within 18-24 months.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

I have a hard time believing that a Super-Top-Secret CIA plot is being advertised in the MSM. Looks like political theater to me. Sabre rattling.

Chinese cyber espionage directed at US IP is reported to have declined quite a bit in the last year, no open source clear understanding as to WHY yet:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/52959363.cms

Russian cyber operations directed at the West/US certainly sounds like it's spiked in recent years(per my previous links and a very rare case of actual cyber sabotage on Ukraine electical utilities a year ago).

Surely, the US/west aren't just sitting back and getting attacked without response or possibly even earlier Western action that the Russians could use as justification(after all, cyber is a domain the Russians are great at, it's affordable, and the easiest domain to compete/fight against wealthier and more powerful Western opposition).

One interesting footnote is that US banks invest massively in cyber security relative to their Russian peer group which could be a problem for Russian banks if they were attacked(Russians are very capable on the offensive, but could be quite vulnerable on Defense), but who really wants to go down that track of unintended consequences?

The recently created Tallinn Manual for "cyber law fare" may become as commonly recognised in the popular lexicon as the Geneva Convention some day.

I kinda yearn for the Cold War day of Voice of America, when truth was the best weapon to fight evil.

We are now locked in a world of disinformation and disruption, where truth is a rare commodity constantly under attack.

I sometimes wonder who would fear a truthful and globally directed Voice of America more?

The Russian government or the US government?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump can't win.

Apparently 270 electoral votes worth of the US electorate are coming to their senses. It's about 4:1 against the trumpster fire at this point but it's not clear that the Senate will move to the Democratic Party. If the crayon trolls lose both the Executive Branch and the Senate it's likely we can begin to move forward with the Judiciary and with any luck hear a case against Citizens United in the next four years. I'm hopeful. Bernie is hopeful. I think we're going to get through this.

My favorite part of the Taibbi piece was this:
"He was unable to stop being a reality star. Trump from the start had been playing a part, but his acting got worse and worse as time went on, until finally he couldn't keep track: Was he supposed to be a genuine traitor to his class and the savior of the common man, or just be himself, i.e., a bellicose pervert with too much time on his hands? Or were the two things the same thing? He was too dumb to figure it out, and that paralysis played itself out on the Super Bowl of political stages."

And my favorite moment of the Trump week was watching a black, gay, trumpster fascist put a protester in a choke hold and have the Trump campaign use it as a teachable moment...see...we're diverse.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

If you think the current Silicon Valley tech focus on autonomous vehicles and the 2 trillion a year consolidated US transport industry is big, wait until healthcare as IT gains traction.

Completely agree. This is why I moved out of renewable energy three years ago and into the US medical business. AR and other technologies are going to be massively disruptive and much more quickly than most people understand. This should be clear to most people by 2020.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Ivanka for President.

Solves all the problems:
1. Can't be accused of sexism and abusing women;
2. Almost certainly more trustworthy in the broad public's opinion than Mrs. Clinton;
3. Slam dunk to get the "it's time for a woman in the Oval Office" vote;
4. Still married to her first spouse; highly unlikely he's a philanderer;
5. Tougher under fire than her father, with more grace;
6. Bonus Points: Will probably bring some class back to the White House, missing since the Reagan's left.

Oh good, the well mannered Trump grifter with zero experience. The reality show election is almost over, let's not hope for it to get worse for at least another two years.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Last 4 paragraphs of Taibbi in RS.

The only thing that could get in the way of real change – if not now, then surely very soon – was a rebellion so maladroit, ill-conceived and irresponsible that even the severest critics of the system would become zealots for the status quo.

In the absolute best-case scenario, the one in which he loses, this is what Trump's run accomplished. He ran as an outsider antidote to a corrupt two-party system, and instead will leave that system more entrenched than ever. If he goes on to lose, he will be our Bonaparte, the monster who will continue to terrify us even in exile, reinforcing the authority of kings.

If you thought lesser-evilism was bad before, wait until the answer to every question you might have about your political leaders becomes, "Would you rather have Trump in office?"

Trump can't win. Our national experiment can't end because one aging narcissist got bored of sex and food. Not even America deserves that. But that doesn't mean we come out ahead. We're more divided than ever, sicker than ever, dumber than ever. And there's no reason to think it won't be worse the next time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-trump-w444943