By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Cambridge Analytica

Spartanmack said:
c'mon, we talk about that plan all the time - maybe not with their names attached to it but we talk about it a lot here. The plan to reduce inequality by taxing the wealthy and growing the welfare state. That should ring a bell for anyone who posts here.

it's a different plan from the political reform plan - I'm all for campaign finance reform, so long as it's equitable (has to apply to everyone, corps, unions, super PACs, NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc) and I think there should be term limits at least for every elected position at virtually every level of government and we should abolish government employee unions altogether - even FDR saw what a bad idea that was.
Click to expand...

I don't think of Warren as someone with a plan. I think of her as being famous for aggressively grilling people at hearings, but not for proposing plans.

I think taxing the rich and growing the welfare state is going to happen. And the lower half of the income distribution curve will keep getting flatter. It's a big problem for the idea of the American dream and the way our economy is supposed to work. Inequality helps drive the problem, but it's not the whole problem. Really, I think technology drives both inequality and the flattening of the distribution. I think there's a lot of room to push back with government spending on schools and infrastructure. It would be better to do that before growing the welfare state, but my hopes aren't high.
 
Spartanmack said:
there's a lot of truth to this - same goes for the people pushing the Russian interference narrative. There's no evidence to suggest what the Russian bots did on FB or wherever had any effect on the election - supposedly their reach, in terms of how many people actually saw the ads, was negligible.

Hacking the DNC is a different story, but there again people who think the hacking and not what the DNC actually did is the problem are really missing the point.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any way to attribute a certain fraction of the vote to Russian efforts or anything like that. But, if we now have tools to figure out who is trying to interfere from abroad and who is or isn't colluding, we should go after them. That goes for the people behind Cambridge Analytica too. I don't see why anyone should get a pass for colluding with the British instead of the Russians. If it turns out that's everyone in both parties, good. Get 'em all. Clean it up.
 
Gulo Blue said:
I don't think there's any way to attribute a certain fraction of the vote to Russian efforts or anything like that. But, if we now have tools to figure out who is trying to interfere from abroad and who is or isn't colluding, we should go after them. That goes for the people behind Cambridge Analytica too. I don't see why anyone should get a pass for colluding with the British instead of the Russians. If it turns out that's everyone in both parties, good. Get 'em all. Clean it up.
Click to expand...

Drain the swamp!
 
Spartanmack said:
this post might be the perfect example of the split between the liberal and liberaler democrats. Although I prefer "leftist" and "leftister" since neither is really liberal in the classical sense. Both are simply power hungry demagogues - just like establishment Republicans.
Click to expand...

Curiously, someone on this board recently said I was inconsistent because I sometimes describe myself as a libertarian, and sometimes as a centrist.

Well, I'm both, depending on the perspective.

Ideologically I'm libertarian; pragmatically I'm a centrist.

But this post I'm quoting, and MichChamps #46 both reminded me of another perspective, which I've expressed often - I'm a cynic - the elected people in the beltway are a Republicrat Kabal.

Democrat or Republican, it's a whole Kibuki dance to make people think there's a distinction, so they can all go home and claim they've been both cooperative across the aisles and yet have also held to their convictions...so they can get re-elected...because why?

Life on Capitol Hill must be pretty fucking good. And they all like to help their friends - on either side of the aisle - get back there.

Not as good a life, probably, as for my Hollywood heavyweight neighbors...nor as good probably for the Russian Oligarchs...(although it's fucking cold as hell there..that's why they all move here...except for Putin...he loves to be bare chested on a horse or in a life and death wrestling match with a bear in the middle of winter, or some such thing)...

But pretty good.

Now...nothing gets done, in a centrist country (which we are) without bi-partisans...

but where does bi-partisanship end, and collusion begin?

So, from that perspective, I agree with both of you....it's a whole big fucking Kibuki dance....I've probably made a post like this before...
 
Last edited:
Cambridge Analytica doing some 'spring cleaning' before that warrant finally arrives.

aolk78ak5nn01.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
tinselwolverine said:
You could be right. Maybe I just wanted a reason to post that clip from White Sands.

Really cool scene with Mickey Rourke and Willum Dafoe.

Dafoe was in that movie To Live and Die in LA - did you ever see it?

Break out movie for him - for William Pederson too.
Click to expand...

I have seen To Live and Die in LA - a classic from my youth, but you already knew that.

I have not however seen White Sands, is it worth checking out? It came out the year I graduated from MSU - i used to go to the movies a lot back then, surprised I missed this one particularly considering it stars the lovely Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as well as Dafoe and Rourke pretty much at or near their peaks.
 
Spartanmack said:
I have seen To Live and Die in LA - a classic from my youth, but you already knew that.

I have not however seen White Sands, is it worth checking out? It came out the year I graduated from MSU - i used to go to the movies a lot back then, surprised I missed this one particularly considering it stars the lovely Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as well as Dafoe and Rourke pretty much at or near their peaks.
Click to expand...

Being as I vividly remember that clip it should come as no surprise that I thought the movie was awesome.

Seeing as you like all the actors yes I'd recommend you catch up and see it.

I know you like to gamble-if I was making odds I would put the line at you will like it a lot.
 
tinselwolverine said:
Being as I vividly remember that clip it should come as no surprise that I thought the movie was awesome.

Seeing as you like all the actors yes I'd recommend you catch up and see it.

I know you like to gamble-if I was making odds I would put the line at you will like it a lot.
Click to expand...

I tried, it's not on netflix streaming or DVD and it's also not on Amazon Prime. Amazon has used DVD's starting at $2, but that just seems like so much of a pain and what if it ends up not being a letterbox format DVD? Huge waste of $2 (plus shipping).

But I did find this show on Prime called Sneaky Pete that's actually pretty entertaining - I wouldn't call it great, the wife went to bed after 1.5 episodes but I power watched 5 of them. I might have watched more but for the first couple I was flipping over to check out the michigan game for a couple minutes at a time. If you're looking for a new series, check it out.
 
Last edited:
Back in the not that long ago, a person could go to a nearby video store and probably find an older movie without a whole lot of hassle.

Oh well.
 
for some reason, Amazon Prime has the trailer but not the movie itself. Makes no sense to me.
 
I give Dana Jacobson a ton of credit a lot of stones for staying in Hamilton's face., I just watched espn and it is in the contract that coaches have to available to answer questions even after a loss. Jay Bilas has a point . Just answer the question Mr Hamilton .I also agree with someone who said theyou wanted to foul anyone but Duncan. But with around 11 second season left the correct answer is........ Yes you should foul .
 
Last edited:
biggunsbob said:
I give Dana Jacobson a ton of credit a lot of stones for staying in Hamilton's face., I just watched espn and it is in the contract that coaches have to available to answer questions even after a loss. Jay Bilas has a point . Just answer the question Mr Hamilton .I also agree with someone who said theyou wanted to foul anyone but Duncan. But with around 11 second season left the correct answer is........ Yes you should foul .
Click to expand...

Yeah.

What the FSU guys on the floor probably knew was that the Michigan guards suck from the free throw line - and they were expecting MAAR to pass to one of them.

But he didn't and they froze and then it was too late.
 
tinselwolverine said:
Yeah.

What the FSU guys on the floor probably knew was that the Michigan guards suck from the free throw line - and they were expecting MAAR to pass to one of them.

But he didn't and they froze and then it was too late.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Cambridge Analytica convinced FSU that uofm's guards actually are good free throw shooters...
 
Spartanmack said:
Perhaps Cambridge Analytica convinced FSU that uofm's guards actually are good free throw shooters...
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.

It would appear that the couple of us got this thread mixed up with the basketball game thread.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that your point is not correct.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
34,928
Messages
1,130,344
Members
979
Latest member
MiGrampa

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top