Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
LasraelLarson

Have you voted? ;)

Recommended Posts

Skill and talent based training and then getting into jobs here in the US is also more broken than it is in Germany.

Electricians for example are one of my favorite things to nag.  The people who make it inside the circle of approved, insurable, certified electricians here in New England are have solid 0% understanding of the physics behind electricity, to a dangerous degree. They get shielded from people who are more competent or careful by The System. There are few enough of them that there is virtually no competition (more work than the circle can/will do), and complaining about one or refusing to pay for something clearly broken makes all of them refuse to work for you.

It is a bit like unions in the US. Instead of fighting for the workers as a group they simply shield those workers in the union from those without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2016 at 4:11 PM, Doro said:

You have to watch this. It's so, so sweet. A panel of what seem to be the mentally ill having a breakdown throughout the live election results.

*snip "Young Turks vid Election meltdown."

I couldn't even make up half of the shit they rant about after losing.

part in parcel of the echo chamber - safe space - invested in your own bullshit mentality that is infecting an uncomfortably large portion of the left from college & University campuses to mainstream news & media.  there were plenty of meltdowns that night as the conformation bias of censored information & skewed data got blasted with reality.

& now that all that funded investment in a narrative, didn't pay off was there much in the way of reflection?  ...very little, but they have doubled down hard.  & it will continue to cost the democratic party for the near and foreseeable future.

only the fringy-est lunatic left elements want to reset now (the last people who should be making that move) & the current power graspers aren't letting go.  if they continue to invest in stopping Trump, rather than preparing for 4 years from now, or even the next (Gov body) elections...  they won't perform when it counts & lose even more ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

The entire thing with Black Lives matters showing police brutality shows that - at least until the movement went off the rails that is >.>

Not sure their movement was ever on the rails, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's what happens when you replace the media with a propaganda machine, and why we should step away from the primary "news" networks.  I hope most of the country is starting to see the media for what it truly is, but I'm not going to hold out hope for that bunch of sheep.

indeed, various narratives have been bought and paid for, hence the doubling down.

it didn't win the electoral college... why is it going to work this time?

they are holding on to the popular vote narrative (thanx California & ONLY California) but if popular vote was the vehicle IN PLACE prior to the election (not post, you morons) do you really think Trump would have hammered swing states with multiple daily rallies, or run the commercials he did, in the markets he did, etc. etc.  nope. not a chance. he had the winning game in play & got the intended outcome as a result.

so much money sunk on the left, invested in an outcome...  the sunken costs fallacy is in full effect.  that briefcase of ideas they are drawing from will continue to lose.  the hysteria never paid off.  yet the wheels of the narrative keep rolling on & they'll be fully over the cliff when the brakes will be of no more use.

34 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

The real problem is if we start seeing the Green and Libertarian parties creep into the Democratic party power vacuum, and the Green and Libertarian parties aren't mainstream enough to take ground from the Republicans - which would lead to a de facto majority.  While I don't anticipate that with the Libertarian party, the concern there isn't that the Republicans are taking over, it's that the opposition stays on the fringe and can't provide an ideological challenge to the Republicans.

correct, that indeed will be a problem (especially the bolded/underlined emphasis i added.)  & because of basic momentum (even though it is not a wining momentum)  going off the cliff may be inevitable/unavoidable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Their initial point about police brutality brought the issue to the forefront - because police brutality should never be an issue.  But like most things, there's a lot of factors causing and/or caused by the police brutality issue.

But it was never about policy brutality as a whole (which is the same problem with most social movements, like feminism), it was only about it towards blacks. Which was ironic, considering the biggest killers of black people are other black people, not cops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

There's been enough local stories about the Seattle cops long enough that I'm wondering if we're not actually seeing symptoms of a larger (possibly systemic) issue.

I'm not sure there is. There's something like 12 million people arrested a year in the US. 30% of those are black. About 1,000 people are shot and killed by police a year (about 0.01% of arrests, though that is only the deaths, not the survivors). 25% of those are black. Which means black people are actually less likely to be shot by police during an arrest than other races. It might be worth mentioning that about 80% of those shot in total were armed in some fashion, but I couldn't find out what that percentage was for black people alone.

Sure, an argument could be made that for only 13% of the population, blacks being 30% of all arrested people is a bit unbalanced, and that must mean cops are targeting black people. Or, it's a case that, on average, black people commit more crimes than other races. Which is the same reason why 75% of all arrests are against males; on average, males commit more crime than females. I wouldn't say there's a systemic issue of cops against men, either. It just comes with the territory.

Obviously, there are cases where the cops have royally fucked up, killing unarmed people for absolutely no reason. But those are in the absolute minority of cases, and certainly not a systemic issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Ok, need to clarify this...

I'm not referring specifically to police on black violence, but several incidents within the last few years of just general police brutality.  That's what I was referring to.

I'm also aware of the stats you've cited, and I do wonder if there's not something wrong with Black America, or (more likely) how Black America is integrating into the larger American society.

Ah, I see. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

I realize this is from Fox (of all places), but:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/18/arizonas-presidential-electors-being-harassed-urged-not-to-cast-vote-for-trump.html

Really people?  Can't accept that Trump turned the map red and that Hillary lost yet?

They mention in there wanting to scrap the electoral college... as if that would help them. Trump got the majority of states. He would still win.

Honestly, the amount of hypocrisy and aggression shown from the far left is incredible. I never expected to get so much material to enjoy. I want him in again next elections!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doro said:

They mention in there wanting to scrap the electoral college... as if that would help them. Trump got the majority of states. He would still win.

 

Not if they just changed it to the popular vote.  Clinton has over 1 million more votes.

In fact switching to the popular vote might encourage more people to vote.  Right now most states results are known before any votes are cast.  Many people dont see the point in voting as there state will always go the same way and there vote counts for nothing, so a Republican living in New York knows there vote wont do a anything.  Switch this to the popular vote and all of a sudden every vote in every state means something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if popular vote was a thing; Hillary would have been running for president in 2008, not Obama:

FB_IMG_1479067382233-e1479067535243.jpg

 

on popular vote, I'll just say changing the rules of the game "AFTER" it is over, just to get a different outcome... is childish.

the electoral collage exists to prevent places like California (alone) deciding the presidency.  if you remove California, Hillary no longer has the popular vote.

regardless, if the switch is made to popular vote, you can't go back and un-elect Obama in 2008.  nor could you nominate Bernie in 2016 to run against Trump (Bernie would have likely had the Dem popular vote in the primaries as well.)  Changing the rules of the game AFTER it has been played is just dishonest.

if they do chose to do away with electoral colleges in the future, watch as an even greater focus is put on voter ID & legal status as it is likely that at least 3 million votes were cast by non citizen votes, (a large chunk of that in California, not ironically.)

Hillary knows she would have lost to Bernie if popular vote was the mode of contest.  so again, changing the rules post contest, does NOT work.  hindsight is indeed 20/20.  ;)

 

anyway bit of a backtrack, but want to see if vimeo will work here, if not, will just be a link...    not only portions of the left live in an echo chamber.  segments of the right also suffers from it as well:

https://player.vimeo.com/video/191605515

^above^ a Republican #neverTrump-er gets his bias crushed as election night unfolds & losses a bet he probably never should have placed.  pretty funny stuff.

 

EDIT:

hard to find images for this, but it would seem Bernie DID NOT win the popular vote in the democratic primaries...  my bad.

th?id=OIP.M702159c4cb40cb759dc697a3741cc

Edited by LasraelLarson
edit: did Bernie lose the Dem popular vote as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing that the vote should be changed so the Trump looses.  I am saying that going forward it would be a better idea.  

The current system does not work for most people.  If you live in a safe state your vote is worthless if you are voting against the state.  If there are no safe states every vote becomes important.

Also California has a population of around 39 million and is vote 55 electoral collage votes so around 1 electoral collage vote for every 700000 people.  Washington DC has a population of around 700000 and get 3.  The votes in Washington DC are worth more than those in California.  

With the popular vote states become irrelevant and the people become everything.  Suddenly the millions of republican in California know that their vote could do something.

On top of that the electoral collage vote does not have to be given out on the basis of the vote in a state, the Electors could vote for Clinton if they so wanted to, meaning all the votes cast my the people could be worthless.  Now this in not going to happen, but the fact that it could is a farce.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

I am saying that going forward it would be a better idea.  

fair enough.  don't now what process there is for changing away from electorate college, or if there are constitutional protections given that America is a "republic" with representative democracy, but there probably is a way.

regardless, every system can be gamed & for every plus or benefit, there will be detractors or negatives.  and with first past the post votes, that still favors 2 party systems.

whatever the future holds, the past is water under the bridge.  & a new rule-set isn't a guarantee of outcome. a player can adjust strategy to work with new rule-set.  Trump would have had a completely different ground game if popular vote was the rule-set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

Not if they just changed it to the popular vote.  Clinton has over 1 million more votes.

In fact switching to the popular vote might encourage more people to vote.  Right now most states results are known before any votes are cast.  Many people dont see the point in voting as there state will always go the same way and there vote counts for nothing, so a Republican living in New York knows there vote wont do a anything.  Switch this to the popular vote and all of a sudden every vote in every state means something.

But the point of keeping it at state-level is that different states have different needs. A popular vote is pointless if the majority of people all gather in a handful of states and vote in a party that only benefits those states. After all, there are 15 states that have more than half the population. If the other states have no say in the matter, it ends up with the same issue here where people just don't bother voting.

The only way to get more people voting is to mix up the whole party system. Too many people identify themselves as one particular party, and they do the American thing of living their lives by that. Shit, I can literally look at some of these people and say "there's a liberal" or "there's a conservative". The fact that entire states can just be written off as one or the other (in a nation where multiple parties can run) means that the political ideology system is broken, not necessarily the method of counting votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

fair enough.  don't now what process there is for changing away from electorate college, or if there are constitutional protections given that America is a "republic" with representative democracy, but there probably is a way.

regardless, every system can be gamed & for every plus or benefit, there will be detractors or negatives.  and with first past the post votes, that still favors 2 party systems.

whatever the future holds, the past is water under the bridge.  & a new rule-set isn't a guarantee of outcome. a player can adjust strategy to work with new rule-set.  Trump would have had a completely different ground game if popular vote was the rule-set.

The EC is laid out in the main body of our Constitution. What it basically says is the States get one Electoral Vote per Congressional Seat, which gives every State a minimum of 3 EC Votes and the votes of the EC are reported to Congress. That's the general outline of the EC. The States can elect the EC how they see fit as long as it is a "Republican" system. So they can have the people vote, or they could even directly appoint their EC reps with no vote by the people of the State.

To remove the EC, which is a terrible idea, would require a Constitutional Amendment which would require 2/3 yea in both houses and then 3/4 of the States to ratify.

What's funny is the people wanting a popular vote don't seem to realize that they already have one. No one votes for President or against another State. The popular vote is a State vote to elect an EC member and is only counted against votes in that State. The popular vote of the EC is for the President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what happens when you raise a generation or two believing everyone gets a trophy and no one loses. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People throw two issues into one, and they shouldn't.

1) having an electoral collage at all.

2) given an electoral collage, what is the weight behind the "chunks" (in this case selectpersons). As currently implemented some state's population has multiple times the per-person weight in the presidential election.

You could correct the EC to be proportional to population, registered voters or actual voters. You could actually go floating point. Even without fancy math you could do a lot more even than you do right now.

All advantages cited as the reason for the EC would still apply if it was proportional. Except of course you would get "dominance by the coasts" or "dominance by the cities". Too bad, those are people, too, and I don't think the fix to political haggling is giving uneven weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-11-17 at 1:57 PM, Almagnus1 said:

So does your arrogance.

Be gone, troll.

You wrote: 

On 2016-11-16 at 7:53 PM, Almagnus1 said:

I was fortunate enough to have Dad be the breadwinner for the family as the Air Force provided enough to cover Mom staying home, while Dad's career post AF retirement was successful enough that Mom didn't need to work until we were largely gone from the house.  I realize that not everyone has that luxury, and not all jobs have as good of a work/life balance as my current one does - so my perspective on this is really, really skewered.

You admit you have no experience with what I am describing, and yet you call me arrogant? Most people in North-America do not have the experience you had while growing up and even less nowadays. 

Your style is to attempt to bully and silence people who do not agree with you. That's a weak strategy.

Of course this also included not commenting on the content of my post. Your choice. But that doesn't make me a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the people arguing for some sort of change to the EC also arguing for a change to the Senate? Why or why not? You could make the same points.

The EC is set up to have Presidents that are elected by a broad swath of the country, not just a few heavily populated states. Remember, the US is a constitutionally limited republic with checks and balances and not a democracy. EC is fine the way it is, imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty Lessons from the 20th Century

sharktoofs:

by Timothy Snyder, Housum Professor of History
Yale University

“Americans are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so. Here are twenty lessons from the twentieth century, adapted to the circumstances of today
.
1. Do not obey in advance. Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.

2. Defend an institution. Follow the courts or the media, or a court or a newspaper. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you are making them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions don’t protect themselves. They go down like dominoes unless each is defended from the beginning.

3. Recall professional ethics. When the leaders of state set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become much more important. It is hard to break a rule-of-law state without lawyers, and it is hard to have show trials without judges.

4. When listening to politicians, distinguish certain words. Look out for the expansive use of “terrorism” and “extremism.” Be alive to the fatal notions of “exception” and “emergency.” Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.

5. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. When the terrorist attack comes, remember that all authoritarians at all times either await or plan such events in order to consolidate power. Think of the Reichstag fire. The sudden disaster that requires the end of the balance of power, the end of opposition parties, and so on, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Don’t fall for it.

6. Be kind to our language. Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does. Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying. (Don’t use the internet before bed. Charge your gadgets away from your bedroom, and read.) What to read? Perhaps “The Power of the Powerless” by Václav Havel, 1984 by George Orwell, The Captive Mind by Czesław Milosz, The Rebel by Albert Camus, The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, or Nothing is True and Everything is Possible by Peter Pomerantsev.

7. Stand out. Someone has to. It is easy, in words and deeds, to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. And the moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.

8. Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot or other sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.

10. Practice corporeal politics. Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them.

11. Make eye contact and small talk. This is not just polite. It is a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down unnecessary social barriers, and come to understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.

12. Take responsibility for the face of the world. Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.

13. Hinder the one-party state. The parties that took over states were once something else. They exploited a historical moment to make political life impossible for their rivals. Vote in local and state elections while you can.

14. Give regularly to good causes, if you can. Pick a charity and set up autopay. Then you will know that you have made a free choice that is supporting civil society helping others doing something good.

15. Establish a private life. Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware. Remember that email is skywriting. Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less. Have personal exchanges in person. For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble. 
Authoritarianism works as a blackmail state, looking for the hook on which to hang you. Try not to have too many hooks.

16. Learn from others in other countries. Keep up your friendships abroad, or make new friends abroad. The present difficulties here are an element of a general trend. And no country is going to find a solution by itself. Make sure you and your family have passports.

17. Watch out for the paramilitaries. When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching around with torches and pictures of a Leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-Leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the game is over.

18. Be reflective if you must be armed. If you carry a weapon in public service, God bless you and keep you. But know that evils of the past involved policemen and soldiers finding themselves, one day, doing irregular things. Be ready to say no. (If you do not know what this means, contact the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and ask about training in professional ethics.)

19. Be as courageous as you can. If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die in unfreedom.

20. Be a patriot. The incoming president is not. Set a good example of what America means for the generations to come. They will need it.“

Timothy Snyder
Housum Professor of History
Yale University
Author: "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Like Hillary's a felon?

Has she ever been found guilty of a crime? 

Believing she is guilty is not the same as her being guilty.

 

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Hillary definitely is not, because that email server definitely was "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." because everybody in the world had access to it. By the way, that's also known as treason in the USA.

But asking a foreign power to hack said those emails and interfere with an election process is very patriotic .  That is also treason 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2016 at 6:10 PM, Spiteful said:

That's what happens when you raise a generation or two believing everyone gets a trophy and no one loses. 

these have been dispatched to blue counties around the country:

CxpbroZUUAEaVFb_zpsziltbu61.jpg

at least until the bubble counties are in place & operational:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

So noticing this pattern with Hillary that she's in the middle of every single scandal that plagued Bill Clinton, and knowing that she had an email server that is in direct violation of many regulations around Secret and Top Secret material which would have utterly destroyed other people counts for what then.... nothing?

 

You do understand how the law actually works.  Innocent until proven guilty.  It is really that simple.  You want her to be guilty but she is not.  The FBI investigated the emails and did not bring her up on any charges.  They even reopened the case just over a week from the election, possibly affecting the result, and again brought no charges.

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Not necessarily, it's merely the return of evidence that an bureau of investigation should have found to begin with.

Additionally, Russia is going to be coy about it because they do not want the US to know the extent of the sensitive information that Hillary's email server leaked because that's advantageous to Russia.  That and I think Putin's a bit of a troll >.>

Hypothetically speaking, if the UK had a full copy of all the emails on that server (including the deleted ones), what gain would the UK have for revealing that they had any information at all from that server?

Asking another government to hack someone in your own government, who is standing against you for President, is treason.

If the UK had hacked some servers and had information that could affect the outcome of the election, releasing it would be dangerous as no government should try to interfere with the democratic elections of another country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

 

Ok, that makes sense, another academic butthurt that Hillary didn't become president.

I envy you. To have understood the above, out of an important analysis of a dangerous, world-wide trend, is to fulfill at least one part of my boyhood dream;

 

"Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant
Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2016 at 4:40 AM, Jedy2 said:

Many would disagree. Especially in Quebec. 

you have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about, but i think you mean Montreal, not Quebec.

whilst Montreal does have a multicultural population that is rivaled only by Toronto, rural Quebec is VERY white.  & i say this with complete confidence; rural Quebec & segments of Montreal itself are some of the MOST racist places in all of Canada.

Quebec was the only place in Canada where a ban of the Hijab (not the more oppressive & identity hidden, Burka) garnered any serious steam.

you literally have no clue.

for the record, i think the Hijab is perfectly acceptable...  even face veils, as long as they are removed for identity purposes, ex: Bank lines, voting or any circumstance where identification is required.

3 hours ago, Jedy2 said:

...an important analysis of a dangerous, world-wide trend...

 

"Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant
Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois"

and again, your understanding of the trend, is profoundly lacking.

i am politically centrist, not alt right.  & i know many on the left who supported Trump.  the reason for the shift is the complete rejection of Marxist ideological thugs, who are no better than the Fascists they purport to oppose.

& yes this isn't a shift just in the US, it is happening all over the globe...  just look at the Philippines. 

the EU is also going to fall in the next few years, as a majority of those nations under that umbrella are shifting politically to reject Globalist initiatives.  in 2017, 2 perhaps even 3 countries will follow Britains lead.  many more in the years following.  the EU is done.

but please continue with clutching pearls in a moral panic, the fainting couch industry will be booming.  because the tone deaf nature of mislabeling pretty much everything is only aiding the shift.  people are fed up.

Tyranny isn't exclusive possession of the right, but can occur on all spectrum of the political compass.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

you have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about, but i think you mean Montreal, not Quebec.

I think he's referring to the whole "speaking English" part, what with Quebec being so full of cheese-eating surrender monkeys (the French).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...