[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[xyloscissor]

True innovation is hard to come by because following is much easier, nothing is diminished in our pursuits however 👍

This might seem a silly example to you but I hope not, this kid was such an inspiration to so many of us I feel it warranted to post, granted it's in a specific field but could easily be applied to whatever you choose. Hope you like it.



45'25 or some sort 👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Hover-boards were never in demand and it didn't create any technology, it used existing technology, the inventor is a millionaire now. And who runs the machines that build the drones? But I know this is going no where with you, so good day.

You make it sound as if thousands of jobs will be created from a new drone. When in reality a military drone aircraft probably makes several times more jobs. Considering that most drones have three d printed parts, and there is probably more created jobs from those making the code and controllers than there are in the manufacturing process...

Also what does hover-boards and it's creators have to do with drones? If the cross argument is because it does something that isn't needed...then that'd be wrong. Plenty of college students across America go to schools where bikes are restricted in many parts and skateboards can be cumbersome. So this was a new alternative that took off with that crowd for one. However, soon after Colleges started to ban them.

I feel you. Just wish I had enough money to buy one and an idea of how to program something. Considering I build/fix things for a living when I'm not driving, I could easily figure a way to install an umbrella and make it work in my spare time. Oh well, someone will get rich off my idea. And our locations would definitely hinder communication and testing.

If you believe it's so easy, then by all means what you just said shouldn't be hindering you from doing it.

 

[ryzno]

If you believe it's so easy, then by all means what you just said shouldn't be hindering you from doing it.

I don't have a spare dollar to save or invest. My investment is weekly repairs to my van that in turn, makes me money.
------------------------------
Just wish I had enough money to buy one and an idea of how to program something.

I don't have anywhere near enough money to quit my job to follow a dream and I'd probably get divorced if I did such a drastic move. Care to be an investor? Care to teach me to program something or program it for me? All I can try to do is install the umbrella, test it to see if a drone can actually carry an umbrella and give it back to you and say it works, here, program it.

It takes a team to make dreams come true sometimes... And someone with a mind open enough to try things...

You make it sound as if thousands of jobs will be created from a new drone. When in reality a military drone aircraft probably makes several times more jobs.

I never said a word about thousands of jobs or how many jobs my idea would create. All I'm worried about is being the inventor and getting the big bucks even if I have to share my wealth cause I got investors/partners to help build it, while providing jobs for some people. Obviously it takes a huge team to build a Military drone they can be larger than a personal aircraft...

Considering that most drones have three d printed parts, and there is probably more created jobs from those making the code and controllers than there are in the manufacturing process...

Well my theory is correct. You need more people to install/run/maintain the 3-D/CNC machines thus, I created some more jobs.

Edit: In all honesty I could find a company that already makes drones and submit my idea after I can prove a controlled drone can carry an umbrella and I gain exclusive rights to my idea. There goes 3/4 of my problems... And I still make money. My idea is not as far fetched as you want to make it out to be. I just don't have the resources or connections to try it.

True innovation is hard to come by because following is much easier, nothing is diminished in our pursuits however 👍

This might seem a silly example to you but I hope not, this kid was such an inspiration to so many of us I feel it warranted to post, granted it's in a specific field but could easily be applied to whatever you choose. Hope you like it.

That was a very interesting watch. I enjoy watching extreme sports but I have to say, y'all have more balls than I. And I understand what you are saying.

 

[xyloscissor]

👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't have anywhere near enough money to quit my job to follow a dream and I'd probably get divorced if I did such a drastic move. Care to be an investor? Care to teach me to program something or program it for me? All I can try to do is install the umbrella, test it to see if a drone can actually carry an umbrella and give it back to you and say it works, here, program it.

If I taught you how to program, I'd make you pay me, that's a service that I would be glad to pay back by teaching others. I can tell you now of course a drone will hold an umbrella just depends on the size. I'd say most people who want an umbrella carrying drone don't want one the size of an Amazon package delivery drone.

It takes a team to make dreams come true sometimes... And someone with a mind open enough to try things...

Not if it's so easy.

I never said a word about thousands of jobs or how many jobs my idea would create. All I'm worried about is being the inventor and getting the big bucks even if I have to share my wealth cause I got investors/partners to help build it, while providing jobs for some people. Obviously it takes a huge team to build a Military drone they can be larger than a personal aircraft...
Well my theory is correct. You need more people to install/run/maintain the 3-D/CNC machines thus, I created some more jobs.

I mean good job you created 10-15 jobs you've changed the world. In reality those jobs are probably jobs that would have been found easily in another group like the one you've hypothesized or something else in manufacturing. Considering the tools that actually are used are used in many many things. The only hard to come by worker, is the engineers doing the development. I just find the notion hard to eat up because you're trying to eliminate a job, that you've seemed to agree with others isn't the only job most likely done by said individual. Two a group already making drones and then attaching umbrellas to them, isn't a creation of new jobs. Rather a new model.

If said model takes flight (see what I did there) then perhaps they can expand and that might make a few new jobs.

 

[Com Fox]

Just a question for you guys as I want to he a bit more informed and find it a bit difficult to find much evidence behind all the smoke of typical Trump and Hillary stories.

Today at a an event, I was with a group of people talking about Politics, one of the guys was pro-Hillary for the US Election and when we were throwing banter about Trump and Hillary he pointed out about how Trump if he had a chance, bomb Australia and he would be willing to revoke the legal right of gay marriage!? He said the bombing of Australia idea in an Interview before he started running. Is this even true, I'm not that scared if it's true because I don't think the President can do things willy nilly without approval or support, which would just leave Trump being an unrealistic idiot.

I don't believe it myself as while I do think Trumps ideas are a little unrealistic and he has a lot of inexperience, I do think something like this is absurd, but I know I'm relatively misinformed myself when it comes to Politics, especially ones not in my country.

 

[xyloscissor]

@RESHIRAM5

I have to think that if anything Trump wants your country on our side, don't we coordinate our naval efforts with you in regard to China? I can't think of any reason he would want to bomb you, sounds like grumpy people who wanted Hillary to win.

As for gay marriage, I don't think that is something to concern him much in office.

 

[Parker]

Just a question for you guys as I want to he a bit more informed and find it a bit difficult to find much evidence behind all the smoke of typical Trump and Hillary stories.

Today at a an event, I was with a group of people talking about Politics, one of the guys was pro-Hillary for the US Election and when we were throwing banter about Trump and Hillary he pointed out about how Trump if he had a chance, bomb Australia and he would be willing to revoke the legal right of gay marriage!? He said the bombing of Australia idea in an Interview before he started running. Is this even true, I'm not that scared if it's true because I don't think the President can do things willy nilly without approval or support, which would just leave Trump being an unrealistic idiot.

I don't believe it myself as while I do think Trumps ideas are a little unrealistic and he has a lot of inexperience, I do think something like this is absurd, but I know I'm relatively misinformed myself when it comes to Politics, especially ones not in my country.

You should ask that guy for his sources. Trump said he would "bomb the **** out of ISIS" but nothing about Australia. As far as gay marriage, Trump has said that is already established law and he wouldn't do anything to try to change that.

You probably shouldn't listen to a Hillary supporter's trash talk about Trump if they don't have sources to back their claims up.

 

[mustafur]

Australia?

I would Question the drugs your freind has in his blood stream.

We are probably one of Americas Strongest Allies in a very Key area of the world, it would make zero sense.

 

[xyloscissor]

Just a silly joke about it all.

 

[Com Fox]

Also just to add another question, did the Russians really rig the election in favour of Trump? or has it still been unconfirmed and up for debate?

 

[xyloscissor]

Also just to add another question, did the Russians really rig the election in favour of Trump? or has it still been unconfirmed and up for debate?

I don't think anyone really believes that to be true, all governments of power use information to their advantage however. We've had some somewhat in depth discussions about the 'hack' somewhere around here...

Oh, look in the 'wikileaks' thread 👍

 

[mustafur]

Also just to add another question, did the Russians really rig the election in favour of Trump? or has it still been unconfirmed and up for debate?

It's total BS, what actually happened is someone from a Russian IP, Hacked the Democrat party emails and exposed the corruption they were up to.

If anything it was informing the public, certainly not hacking an election which would imply hacking the voting machines or something, even Australian Media is pushing the American Establishment talking points on this crap.

 

[xyloscissor]

Some discussion here about it https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/wikileaks.135207/page-11

 

[Parker]

Also just to add another question, did the Russians really rig the election in favour of Trump? or has it still been unconfirmed and up for debate?

It is believed that "Russians" hacked into the DNC emails and released those emails to Wikileaks. Nothing has been confirmed, however.

Still, no, the Russians didn't hack the election. They may have had a hand in exposing the corruption in the Democratic party but that is a far cry from hacking an election.

 

[xyloscissor]

When is the line crossed and thus people accept falsehoods as fact? Oh these damn rumor mills.

 

[mustafur]

When is the line crossed and thus people accept falsehoods as fact? Oh these damn rumor mills.

When the Establishment is Butthurt.

 

[BobK]

Also just to add another question, did the Russians really rig the election in favour of Trump? or has it still been unconfirmed and up for debate?

Actually in the days following the election HRC's backers have been blaming anybody and anything they can think of for the loss except the real reason which was Hillary herself. They seem to have gained a bit of traction with the Russian "blame", so they've been pushing it to the hilt.

 

[Dotini]

On liberal talk radio you can hear speculations and rumors of deep, dark secrets in Trump's past that the Russians know about and are licking their chops in hunger of his inauguration. They may have got the US President they wanted. The level of fear and paranoia in liberal circles is at a near-crisis level.

It's certainly possible some of it is justified, although much of it is business as usual and jolly good fun, IMO. Those shouting the Russians influenced someone else's election will, in the very next breath, excuse the known historical US interference in other's elections as no longer relevant, a relic belonging to some distant, bygone era of the dinosaurs. Panicky, delusional liberals may in fact be the biggest worry we have. If so, we're doing well and the future is bright indeed.

 

[Dennisch]

the known historical US interference

 

[Dotini]

You'll note that Cuba and Vietnam (1963) are omitted. In the case of Ngo Dinh Diem, we brokered his assassination in lieu of bothering with elections. In the case of Fidel Castro, we attempted but failed numerous assassinations and a failed invasion. The famous CIA superspy Lucien Conein was involved in both dealings.

Historical Note: Conein is also involved in the Kennedy assassination story. He admitted in writing that he had received four prior warnings of the plot from fellow ex-OSS/CIA superspy Doug Bazata. Each time, he passed them on to the Agency, he said, including to the Director. But the warnings were apparently ignored and never acted upon. Bazata was himself resourcing the plot, which was masterminded by yet another OSS/CIA superspy well known to them both, Rene Dussaq.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. We actually interfered in the elections of other countries back in the day. Russia hasn't done that to us. I haven't been following the story very closely, but to the best of my knowledge, they're accused only of releasing information to the US public. That's not interference with an election, and I don't see how anyone can categorize it otherwise.

Edit: And yes, I would say the same if they focused their hacking on Trump instead.

 

[Dotini]

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. We actually interfered in the elections of other countries back in the day. Russia hasn't done that to us. I haven't been following the story very closely, but to the best of my knowledge, they're accused only of releasing information to the US public. That's not interference with an election, and I don't see how anyone can categorize it otherwise.

The left fears the Russians deliberately refrained from leaking on Trump, preferring to hold back damaging information in order to try to control him in some devious way yet to be seen. The left, in denial and crisis, fears for the future of democracy, or so they say.

 

[Danoff]

The left fears the Russians deliberately refrained from leaking on Trump, preferring to hold back damaging information in order to try to control him in some devious way yet to be seen. The left, in denial and crisis, fears for the future of democracy, or so they say.

I understand, but choosing to release information to the public about one candidate and not the other is not interference with an election. Suppose you have information on both major candidates which are unequally damaging. Your choices are:

- Release both
- Release neither
- Release one and not the other

Any of those could be construed as interfering with the election, but in reality none of them are. You're just providing the public with information, they still make the choice.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Also just to add another question, did the Russians really rig the election in favour of Trump? or has it still been unconfirmed and up for debate?

Read the FBI, CIA and DOD reports, the evidence that proves it is more circumstantial than anything and they really have nothing concrete to prove it. All they've basically said is that Wikileaks sources were out of Russia (Moscow) and that their leaking "influenced" peoples judgement of this election. Basically it hasn't been proven, and it's just a talking point for Dems who want to keep doing what they were doing prior to the election, when they should be recreating their party.

So no, there is no proof of "hacking", which people need to learn what really is constituted as hacking cause the programming, and coding world laughs at us every time some moron on CNN says we were hacked. Secondly the outgoing President and his admin is misconstruing it as well. And beyond that, there is no proof as to who gave Wikileaks the info/emails from the Hillary camp and DNC.

 

[Touring Mars]

The Democrats did a pretty good job of influencing the result of the election by selecting Hillary as their candidate.

 

[Dotini]

The Democrats did a pretty good job of influencing the result of the election by selecting Hillary as their candidate.

Yes. Would it be too cheeky to say their hands were tied by her vagina?

 

[Rage Racer]

What they also show as 'evidence of Russian influence' is the fact that Vladimir Zhirinovskiy drank champagne for Trump's victory.

 

[Danoff]

Yes. Would it be too cheeky to say their hands were tied by her vagina?

It would.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

That's not interference with an election, and I don't see how anyone can categorize it otherwise.

Would "attempting to influence public opinion, in order to indirectly affect an election's outcome" be a more accurate description perhaps?

(In any case I agree with your post)