Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[☼Another☼]

I personally think we should have a popular voting system, such as Single Transferable Vote, which Maine uses. But this is alternately the best and worst time to protest our voting system.  For one, awareness is raised about this, but any arguments will get brushed aside by our current government majority and Trump supporters because they'll just say we're only just sad our preferred candidate lost.

[wierd]

Shoe, say hello to other foot.

Similar thing happened when Obama won the presidency, only the GOP supporters begrudgingly accepted the O as president.
(This time we had rioting in the streets, screaming, lamentations, and hissyfits.)

The other time in recent memory that the popular vote and the EC vote did not match was the Bush/Gore election. Fiasco then too.

It is almost like people dont realize that disparity between the popular vote and the EC vote are semi-rare occurrences that only happen at most every few decades, if that-- and get bent out of shape when the both the following are true: (1), the person who won lost the popular vote (2), the person who won is somebody they did not like. Nevermind that the difference in the popular vote between the candidates this cycle was less than 2% of the vote, and that in other elections, these same people are just fine with the EC system, because it gives them the candidate they wanted.

[☼Another☼]

It is almost like people dont realize that disparity between the popular vote and the EC vote are semi-rare occurrences that only happen at most every few decades, if that-- and get bent out of shape when the both the following are true: (1), the person who won lost the popular vote (2), the person who won is somebody they did not like. Nevermind that the difference in the popular vote between the candidates this cycle was less than 2% of the vote, and that in other elections, these same people are just fine with the EC system, because it gives them the candidate they wanted.

Yeah, I think Trump won fair and square. I don't like that he won by the method he did, but it's fine. I just want that system changed. It's incredibly rare, and likely won't happen in a lifetime, but I don't think it should be able to happen. Also the electorate leads to some vote counting funkiness, where your vote can count for less or more because you live in a more/less populous state.

[LoSboccacc]

Didn't Obama give stewardship over the internet to some UN affiliated body? If so doesn't that mean that the best congressional Republicans can do is give control over infrastructure and service provision to private companies, which you will note is already the case, and do away with net neutrality (which I admit would suck a great deal?)

He wanted to, to a body comprised by the majority of countries having strict censorship laws and some with active humanitarian violations including Saudi Arabia. Hillary was supposed to seal the deal, and for that alone I'm glad she's not in a position of damaging internet anymore than what it already is.

OTOH Obama is on the fast foot declaring voting critical infrastructure and mandate security standard, even if there are plenty proof the election was not hacked and just a suspicious claim of Putin himself being behind the Podesta leaks.

[wierd]

Normally, I am satisfied with the reporting of sources like Washington Post, but in this case, the propaganda and bias are strong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-chiefs-expected-in-new-york-to-brief-trump-on-russian-hacking/2017/01/06/5f591416-d41a-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.c2a7b6debd74

Having already read the report they are reporting about, and having found nothing even slightly compelling that Russia's actions were anything but what any other major power would have done given the prevailing circumstances, and find the claims they make concerning Podesta anything but convincing due to their absurd refusal to cite even a tiny shred of the "evidence" they used to make their "assessment", I just cannot see this piece by them as anything other than a flagrant propaganda piece.

Shame on you Washington Post. You should be more critical of what the 3 letter agencies are saying, and listen to the actual internet security people who keep shouting to the rooftops that spear phishing does not require a government agency, and that powerful government grade malware is available reasonably cheaply on the dark web for those who really want it.

If the 3 letter agencies have strong evidence to link the podesta leak with Russia, and NOT with a disgruntled staffer, as Wikileaks attests, then fucking let's have it already.

[Loud Whispers]

Normally, I am satisfied with the reporting of sources like Washington Post, but in this case, the propaganda and bias are strong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-chiefs-expected-in-new-york-to-brief-trump-on-russian-hacking/2017/01/06/5f591416-d41a-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.c2a7b6debd74

Having already read the report they are reporting about, and having found nothing even slightly compelling that Russia's actions were anything but what any other major power would have done given the prevailing circumstances, and find the claims they make concerning Podesta anything but convincing due to their absurd refusal to cite even a tiny shred of the "evidence" they used to make their "assessment", I just cannot see this piece by them as anything other than a flagrant propaganda piece.

Shame on you Washington Post. You should be more critical of what the 3 letter agencies are saying, and listen to the actual internet security people who keep shouting to the rooftops that spear phishing does not require a government agency, and that powerful government grade malware is available reasonably cheaply on the dark web for those who really want it.

If the 3 letter agencies have strong evidence to link the podesta leak with Russia, and NOT with a disgruntled staffer, as Wikileaks attests, then fucking let's have it already.

Isn't it funny this all happens after the USA legalized propaganda and psyops on US citizens

Pure coincidence

[wierd]

Normally, I am satisfied with the reporting of sources like Washington Post, but in this case, the propaganda and bias are strong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-chiefs-expected-in-new-york-to-brief-trump-on-russian-hacking/2017/01/06/5f591416-d41a-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.c2a7b6debd74

Having already read the report they are reporting about, and having found nothing even slightly compelling that Russia's actions were anything but what any other major power would have done given the prevailing circumstances, and find the claims they make concerning Podesta anything but convincing due to their absurd refusal to cite even a tiny shred of the "evidence" they used to make their "assessment", I just cannot see this piece by them as anything other than a flagrant propaganda piece.

Shame on you Washington Post. You should be more critical of what the 3 letter agencies are saying, and listen to the actual internet security people who keep shouting to the rooftops that spear phishing does not require a government agency, and that powerful government grade malware is available reasonably cheaply on the dark web for those who really want it.

If the 3 letter agencies have strong evidence to link the podesta leak with Russia, and NOT with a disgruntled staffer, as Wikileaks attests, then fucking let's have it already.

Isn't it funny this all happens after the USA legalized propaganda and psyops on US citizens

Pure coincidence

Dont be so naive, They were doing it LOOOOONG before they "legalized" it. They just became much much worse at hiding it afterwards.

[martinuzz]

Dangit, sometimes I hate being right. Yesterday, when i read about the guy shooting 5 people dead, my intuitive train of thought was "hmm.. Fort Lauderdale, I'll bet myself 10 bucks that it's a Iraq or Afghanistan veteran with PTSD". Turns out it indeed is.
On the bright side, I won 10 bucks from myself.

Inb4 Trump bans veterans from returning to the US

[wierd]

Domestic consequences!?

From being Team America: World Police!?

Unpossible! Inthinkable! Un'merkun!

(Nevermind how PTSD was a FUCKING HUGE problem for vietnam veterans, and again in the gulf war... and again for Somalia, and now.. AGAIN for the Afghanistan and Iran conflicts. I know! LET'S SEND EVEN MORE people to get their minds all fucked up, so we can pretend to be all that on the geopolitical stage, fuck everything up over there, and install even more puppet dictators, dangerous splinter factions, and other chaotic groups to power so that we can hedge our "interests", until those groups fucking turn on us like the Taliban, and al-qaida did! This latest group we have decided to try installing in Iran totally wouldnt do that in the future!  It isn't like the world already fucking hates us for our god damned meddling or anything! /s)

[birdy51]

Putin is not worthy of trust in my mind. Bless and God help the Russian people, but Putin and his cronies can go to the gulag. Whatever magical intel Trump has on them, I sure hope he reveals it soon.

[smjjames]

Dangit, sometimes I hate being right. Yesterday, when i read about the guy shooting 5 people dead, my intuitive train of thought was "hmm.. Fort Lauderdale, I'll bet myself 10 bucks that it's a Iraq or Afghanistan veteran with PTSD". Turns out it indeed is.
On the bright side, I won 10 bucks from myself.

Inb4 Trump bans veterans from returning to the US

PTSD isn't mentioned specifically, at least not at this point in time, but something definetly happened while he was serving in Iraq, his relatives say that he wasn't the same as before.

[Neonivek]

It is almost like people dont realize that disparity between the popular vote and the EC vote are semi-rare occurrences

It is almost like most people believe that America is a democracy and that the Electoral college is more of a formality than anything else and that really it is people's votes that matter.

Or the many other myths surrounding it (such as it giving more representation to rural areas PFT!)

It is almost like Electoral college victories are considered bad... and were always considered bad because people had the assumption that they were either impossible or so rare that they should never happen

It is almost like people have been trying to get rid of the electoral college for over a century.

It is almost like you are saying people are sore losers for recognizing that the electoral college is antithetical to American Ideals and the basic concepts of a democracy. So much so that the courts in several states had to basically force the electoral college to work and don't succeed much of the time.

[Iceblaster]

Meh. I dunno, the EC kinda makes sense to be but it also kinda doesn't. Like. Popular vote can be lost, but the EC can still put you in. It's like losing a game of baseball because the first and fifth innings are more valuable than the others. Honestly, the more I've read up on it, the more it just boggles me.

[LoSboccacc]

Gonna give you some things to consider. when Mussolini ran for power, he had his coalition removed first the electoral college and put in place a winners take all bonus to the parliament, so that by heavily campaigning in Milan and heavily ballot stuffing in rome where his militia was he could secure totalitarian rule.

now, both system have flaws, but makes sense for a large federation to have fixed weights to their members

[Rolan7]

I'm just not sure where all these Democrats are who have supposedly saying "Yeah, the EC really screwed us in 2000...  And hasn't helped us...  But we sure do like it!  Wait, it cost us 2016?  Now we suddenly hate it!"
My friends and I have been complaining about it for years.  Occasionally.  We may be nerdy, but we don't spend that much time on outdated or nonsensical election policies...  I guess we're jaded that way   And even so, every four years we talk about how bizarre it is.

Basically I just think it's ridiculous to say Democrats are "suddenly" complaining about the EC.

Course, I've said my piece about it a few times already.  How it gives Dakotan's several times more representation than me.  How it benefits arbitrarily "swing" states, at the very real cost of both low-pop and high-pop states.
How it was designed for the initial nearly-equal colonies, not our current situation.