Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Have you voted? ;)


LasraelLarson
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Darmokk said:

You just replaced one distortion of voting power with another. Not very convincing.

You could have the EC, but with voting power by state proportional to the state's population. Not some other random makeup of weight that came together randomly over the last 200 years.

The House apportions seats proportional to state population already. For example, California's 53 House seats out of 435 is the same percentage it has (12.1%) if you compare their population to the US population. That's reflected in the number I gave - Trump wins 245-190 or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FundinStrongarm said:

The House apportions seats proportional to state population already. For example, California's 53 House seats out of 435 is the same percentage it has (12.1%) if you compare their population to the US population. That's reflected in the number I gave - Trump wins 245-190 or so.

All states get a minimum of 3 EC votes, so small states, and DC get disproportionate vote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, FundinStrongarm said:

The House apportions seats proportional to state population already. For example, California's 53 House seats out of 435 is the same percentage it has (12.1%) if you compare their population to the US population. That's reflected in the number I gave - Trump wins 245-190 or so.

Surely you cannot be ignorant enough to think that per-person voting power in the US is less than 3x apart from lowest to highest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

had the popular vote been the contest run, Trump would have campaigned very differently.

there are charts of how he out-stumped Clinton easily by a greater factor of 2 to one for campaign stops.  there is a hilarious audio clip of a spat between campaign parties where Kelly Ann Conway mentions they identified 14 key areas of swing voters & coordinated accordingly & one fo the Dem strategists shouts out, "there were only 6!"  hilarious correction, considering the mouthpieces campaign that shouted it, lost.

or the fact that Donna Brazile advised holding off on ad spending, so they could focus ads in the final hours on urban centers like Detroit & Chigaco (which the Dems already won.) which also didn't help with the electoral college.

and even though Hillary spent over 1.2 billion on the campaign, she could have even spent more.  but all the wrong polling data they had (especially the ADA data) gave her team an incorrect set of information, that she had won in multiple places, that it turned out she did not win.

& all the above doesn't even factor in the wikileaks, showing collusion of the DNC against Bernie Sanders, or Donna Brazile cheating by giving Hillary debate questions in advance, & on & on...

Hillary's team made a multitude of mistakes & she lost.

do i even need to link the Democrat defense of the electoral college in 2008?   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/04/uselections2008.usa

the hypocrisy is stellar!

screenshot-2016-10-19-10-32-56.png?resiz

Trump could have won the popular vote as well & i still assert it is quite possible he did..

once Trump is inaugurated, i hope he reviews California votes!  turns out Jill Steins Michigan recount found anomalies in Detroit with more votes cast, than actual voters exist. & if you think that voter fraud favored Trump...  WRONG AGAIN snowflakes!

you can bleat on about the popular vote post contest all you like.  it is irrelevant with regard to the past.  & if a change does come to the future, just remember that in 2008  the Democrats fought to keep the electoral college.  whoops, i guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

All states get a minimum of 3 EC votes, so small states, and DC get disproportionate vote

Please read the context of my last fews posts. Even if you removed the automatic 2 from each state (that they get because of how the Senate works) and award based just on each state's proportion to the overall population, Trump would still have won.

52 minutes ago, Darmokk said:

Surely you cannot be ignorant enough to think that per-person voting power in the US is less than 3x apart from lowest to highest?

Look here. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

You have a problem with with the Pop. per Electoral vote column. I get it. You'd therefore have a problem with the Pop. per Senate seat too, I suppose.

But I'm not talking about that. Check out the Pop. per House seat column. It isn't that out of whack, top to bottom. If you awarded EC based only on House seats, Trump still wins 245-191 (giving Clinton 1 for DC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Thursday, Obama managed to shoot himself in both feat while golfing in Hawaii.

3 weeks for this fool to pack his bags and GTFO of the White House for good!

Obama stabbed Israel in the back. I hope Trump can keep that lame duck betrayal alive in the minds of American Jews and illuminate this act not as a betrayal by a singular individual, Obama, but the Democratic Party writ large.

I also feel Black voters are looking back at 8 years of Democratic Party governance by a Black president and asking themselves what their Democratic Party loyalty has achieved for them beyond Black Lives Matter.

Fragmentation of the Jewish and Black vote, should it occur, would decimate the Democratic Party much as the loss of SNP voters has decimated the Labour Party in the UK. Ask not for whom the bell tolls... it tolls for progressives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

What action should a Government take when a foreign power hacks its political parties in an attempt to influence the outcome of a democratic election?

Has any new information come about from it to suggest that's actually what happened? Last I heard, it was just the CIA (the same guys who started a war over imaginary WMDs) claiming a hacking group connected to Russia hacked the emails, while WikiLeaks claims it was an actual leak from inside the DNC.

Either option just requires a better security system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The FBI and Department for Homeland Security issued a report saying it was the Russian Government

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

Somebody with a better understanding of tech speak than me would need to translate, but from what I can tell it looks like one group went and sent a phishing email to Podesta, and he clicked the link to download malware, giving them access to his machine. Then, a year later, another group sent another phishing email that told people to change their passwords at a fake link and then used those details to just log in with them.

What's curious about the document that article is referring to is that they only mention Russia 3 times, and at no point do they give any reason as to why. They just assume the two groups are Russian. I also can't find any mention of the republican party being hacked, either. And an even more curious thing is that, from other sources, these two hacking groups are said to have duplicated their efforts and not even realized each other were accessing the DNC email system. Surely if it was being controlled by Russia, they'd know not to send a second group to do what the first had already?

It's starting to seem more like these two groups were taking advantage of a few idiots using an unsecure system, unaware of each other, while an upset Bernie supporter in the DNC was actually the one to go to WikiLeaks with the information. And instead of the DNC just upping their security, they're throwing a hissy fit and blowing it out of proportion. It's not as if the voting system was hacked to make Trump win, but it's how they keep portraying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIA, FBI and DHS have all said they have evidence the the hack was sanctioned by the Russian Government, Obama had to do something.

It doesnt mater has crap the DNC's security was, saying its there fault is just victim blaming.  If the Russian Government is involved and Trump goes on to forge closer ties to them it could look really bad for Trump as it would provide those claiming Russia did it so Trump would win something to hand on to and to use in future elections

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

The CIA, FBI and DHS have all said they have evidence the the hack was sanctioned by the Russian Government, Obama had to do something.

It doesnt mater has crap the DNC's security was, saying its there fault is just victim blaming.  If the Russian Government is involved and Trump goes on to forge closer ties to them it could look really bad for Trump as it would provide those claiming Russia did it so Trump would win something to hand on to and to use in future elections

What evidence? Even the document in your link didn't bother to offer any up. If anything, it was just handbook for what not to do with emails to avoid things like this happening again.

Not sure it's quite victim blaming, but they did certainly make it easy. The media acts like this was some highly skilled hack, when the first was malware and the second was phishing (they figuratively handed the keys over to their front door). The truth is that incompetence led to the chance to set up a long-term snooping op pretty easily. The leak that occurred later was likely nothing to do with either hacker group, nor Russia, as WikiLeaks has said regarding the documents coming from a source within the DNC.

But let's say that Russia did fund these hackers to snoop on DNC emails (doubling up, for some reason), that led to emails being put on WikiLeaks. So what? A few skeletons got knocked out of the closet and the DNC got a wake-up call. I keep seeing the suggestion that this was somehow a bad thing and that voters should be kept in ignorance over what their candidates are up to. Only when it comes to Clinton, of course. Anyone and their dog was allowed to dig up dirt on Trump to try to influence the election, but that's never considered a bad thing.

And if it turns out that Russia wasn't involved in the leak, it won't matter. They'll cling to it anyway and try to use any better relations with Russia in future elections. He's not even sworn in and we're already seeing this sort of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

Did you really just quote Nigel Farage as if his opinion matters? 

who doesn't love Nigel?!

farage_2568981b.jpg

someone who is dead inside, that's who.

 

6 hours ago, cossieuk said:

What action should a Government take when a foreign power hacks its political parties in an attempt to influence the outcome of a democratic election?

the DNC Wikileaks were from inside the DNC.

Podestas google mail password was accessed via phishing (not the Russians.)

Russia did not interfere in the elections.

6 hours ago, cossieuk said:

The FBI and Department for Homeland Security issued a report saying it was the Russian Government

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

nope.  they really did not.  Russian espionage is in no way connected to the elections.

3 hours ago, cossieuk said:

The CIA, FBI and DHS have all said they have evidence the the hack was sanctioned by the Russian Government, Obama had to do something.

It doesnt mater has crap the DNC's security was, saying its there fault is just victim blaming.  If the Russian Government is involved and Trump goes on to forge closer ties to them it could look really bad for Trump as it would provide those claiming Russia did it so Trump would win something to hand on to and to use in future elections

"IF"

only Russia did not interfere in the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US Government believes it has the evidence and has acted upon said evidence as any Government should do.

Of course the Russians will deny they did anything, if you had video evidence of them planning and carrying out the hacking and they would still deny it.

Also why would the FBI, CIA and DHS say they had evidence if there was none, what do they stand to gain.  In fact those at the top could find themselves out of work once Trump comes to power.  If they are making it up to try and damage the reputation of Trump, he may just decide to get rid of the people at the top and put has own people in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Also why would the FBI, CIA and DHS say they had evidence if there was none, what do they stand to gain.  In fact those at the top could find themselves out of work once Trump comes to power.  If they are making it up to try and damage the reputation of Trump, he may just decide to get rid of the people at the top and put has own people in place.

who at the FBI or CIA or DHS has taken to a mic in front of a camera or said anything to a press conference (related to the accusation of interference in the election)?

what specific statement (the actual quoted words) of evidence are you referring?

because no such statement exists.  & no individual has put their name behind any of the associated intelligence, which in reality is only an assessment (and one that is not unanimously agreed upon) not actual proof.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

So Russian Military Intelligence Service was involved

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

no i am afraid that doesn't cut it either.

the document is as meaningless as the joint statement from October.

that isn't proof.  just a diagram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

no i am afraid that doesn't cut it either.

the document is as meaningless as the joint statement from October.

that isn't proof.  just a diagram.

What evidence do you want, video evidence of Putin ordering the hacks.

They will not publish all of the evidence, at least not for a while, as they will most likely be looking for ways to stop it happening again, or at least they should.

However I guarantee that all the evidence has been presented to Obama, and will in time be given to Trump 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...