|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 24 2016 10:49 Kickstart wrote:
Too many in this country hold some fairy tale utopian view of the free market. In my opinion large corporations are way too powerful now. Look at the crash of 2008 and what we did there. We decided that socialism for the huge corporations was fine (taxpayer bails them out), meanwhile millions lost their homes and so on. Socialism for the wealthy and powerful and free enterprise for the rest of us.
These corporations also use our infrastructure, our educated and hard working populace,and so on, and then dodge paying taxes. But they are powerful and rich enough that they can just fuck off to another country when and if push comes to shove.
Big companies failing is an important part of the free market. Congress/pres authorizing bailouts is a perversion and we can argue for days if it was a necessary one. But don't put that on the lap of free market utopians. We won't have a chance to see the market reaction to several big banks failing simultaneously, particularly in the long run.
|
On November 24 2016 08:43 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2016 08:22 farvacola wrote:
Pretty low, though interest seems to be building at a steady pace. I think auditing our votes should be a regular practice. Because even if it doesn't change an outcome, people's votes matter (as does our confidence in the validity of our elections) and issues were reported to impact votes unrelated to president at all, which is important to know quantitatively how frequent of an issue it is. One problem would be people voting and not noticing there was a problem. So for instance when a machine is reporting a "malfunction" of switching votes, if that wasn't the first person to use the particular machine, that calls into question every previous vote cast at that machine. However whenever I hear about one of these vote switching machines, they shut it down, "repair it", then go back to voting, I never here any talk about auditing previous votes cast at the machine, so it's never clear how many votes may have gone uncorrected. Focusing on these particular states is clearly a political thing though, I just wonder what's in it for Stein. Maybe she thinks this can spark greater investigations into our electoral system, consistency, or something else? Maybe it's catching Democrats pushing this when they flatly ignored the possibility during the primary where the gap was much larger and had even more suspicious circumstances? It is a bit weird that Stein is the first major party candidate to ask for a recount... neither Johnson nor Stein made it to 5% right? I don't remember which 3? states they name dropped, if they're all pivotal states I would be a bit more skeptical of the claims. Actually I don't think the states matter, cheaters would be smart enough to cover their tracks.
Now Jill Stein cares about the outcome of the election? Back during the campaign when she begged and begged for Bernie to run third party- thus ensuring a Trump victory by splitting liberal votes between Hillary and Bernie- she didn't seem to care about the outcome of the election at all. Maybe she should have come around and voiced her support for Hillary when it mattered, like Bernie and Liz Warren (and even to a lesser extent, Gary Johnson's running mate, Bill Weld) did. Jill just wanted her third-party votes so badly and didn't see the bigger picture: Now instead of getting 80+% of what she wants (as her platforms are similar- although not identical- to the Democrats' ideals), she'll get 0% with President Trump, starting with the destruction of the environment and the dismissal of climate change. Jill cut off her nose to spite her- and everyone else's- face. Too idealistic and too removed from politics, Jill Stein doesn't seem to understand realism and pragmatism. At this point she's just being a brat who wants a little leftover limelight.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Yeah, we should blame all those traitors who didn't get behind Hillary Clinton for betraying everyone and letting Trump win the votes that her ungodly electable campaign failed to court.
Failing to see why people didn't see the Clinton option as "better" enough to cast a vote for her is precisely the issue with why these third party groups even got prominence in the first place.
|
On November 24 2016 11:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 10:49 Kickstart wrote:
Too many in this country hold some fairy tale utopian view of the free market. In my opinion large corporations are way too powerful now. Look at the crash of 2008 and what we did there. We decided that socialism for the huge corporations was fine (taxpayer bails them out), meanwhile millions lost their homes and so on. Socialism for the wealthy and powerful and free enterprise for the rest of us.
These corporations also use our infrastructure, our educated and hard working populace,and so on, and then dodge paying taxes. But they are powerful and rich enough that they can just fuck off to another country when and if push comes to shove. Big companies failing is an important part of the free market. Congress/pres authorizing bailouts is a perversion and we can argue for days if it was a necessary one. But don't put that on the lap of free market utopians. We won't have a chance to see the market reaction to several big banks failing simultaneously, particularly in the long run.
Didn't the US do the whole dance with banks failing in the 1830-1850s? Been a long time since I looked at it, but specifically Andrew Jackson's reforms of the banking system (eliminating the central banks) led to some of the boom bust behavior that was very prevalent for the latter 1800s.
Basically, we know what it looks like when banks fail.
|
My view is that what we need is mechanisms to unwind a failed bank/company without letting the entire system crash.
iirc they tried to put some in one of the reforms, not sure if it's in place or not now.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Banking reform has gone on for a long time. First and Second bank charters were unpopular among many because it was seen as aligned with the big city industrial and commercial interests and also gave out dividend to foreign shareholders. When Andrew Jackson won, he took all of the US treasury deposits out of the chartered central bank, effectively making the central bank charter dead.
Smaller banks in the United States leveraged themselves beyond their deposits would have these "bank runs" where depositors would literally run to the bank to withdraw their deposits whenever confidence in the bank failed. This lend itself to boom bust cycles when expansion of balance sheets produced inflation and removal of deposits shrank balance sheets for deflation.
Of course central banking is a panacea. The current US central bank, Federal Reserve, came just in time for the Great Depression.
|
On November 24 2016 11:36 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, we should blame all those traitors who didn't get behind Hillary Clinton for betraying everyone and letting Trump win the votes that her ungodly electable campaign failed to court.
Failing to see why people didn't see the Clinton option as "better" enough to cast a vote for her is precisely the issue with why these third party groups even got prominence in the first place.
Trump winning is an example of why coalitions are valuable. The green party compromising and rallying around common ideas would have resulted in a net benefit over a Trump administration. Regardless of other components, the green party could not thoroughly analyze the two administrations are decide they are equally unfavorable.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 24 2016 12:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 11:36 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, we should blame all those traitors who didn't get behind Hillary Clinton for betraying everyone and letting Trump win the votes that her ungodly electable campaign failed to court.
Failing to see why people didn't see the Clinton option as "better" enough to cast a vote for her is precisely the issue with why these third party groups even got prominence in the first place. Trump winning is an example of why coalitions are valuable. The green party compromising and rallying around common ideas would have resulted in a net benefit over a Trump administration. Regardless of other components, the green party could not thoroughly analyze the two administrations are decide they are equally unfavorable.
What do you do if the "more favorable coalition" refuses to concede any points and just basically wants you to fall in line? There is something to be said about forcing it to change by denying them your vote.
|
This is why I think the GOP would not have any second thoughts on impeaching Trump come 2017 if cycles like this keep coming up and attaches itself the Republican Party more and more. With midterms just around the corner come 2017.
WASHINGTON ― When President-elect Donald Trump spoke to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Nov. 9, he praised one of his Turkish business partners as a “close friend” and “your great admirer.”
The twinned Trump Towers bear the president-elect’s name in Istanbul. Dogan Holding, a massive media and real estate conglomerate in Turkey, owns the conjoined buildings and pays the Trump Organization to license the Trump name and brand. It can now rely on that name and brand to be sitting in the Oval Office and continuing to sing its praises to President Erdogan.
In his call with the Turkish leader, Trump praised Mehmet Ali Yalcindag, son-in-law of Dogan Holding owner Aydin Dogan and former president of the Dogan Media Group. His wife, Arzuhan Dogan Yalcindage, sits on the board of Dogan Holding. He’s friends with the Trump family and had worked closely on the Trump Towers project in Istanbul. On election night, he attended Trump’s shocking victory celebration at the New York Hilton in Midtown Manhattan.
Trump’s praise for Mehmet Ali Yalcindag was first reported by Amberin Zaman in the independent Turkish paper Diken. Zaman’s report has since been picked up by other Turkish newspapers and television stations.
The praise heaped on his Turkish business partner in the call with Erdogan is just the most recent sign of Trump’s near impossible task in avoiding the significant conflicts of interest his global real estate business presents. During the campaign he promised to separate himself from his business and to work only for the American people.
“I wouldn’t ever be involved because I wouldn’t care about anything but our country, anything,” he said in January.
Since his election, Trump has declared that he would hand off his business to three of his adult children, Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, in a so-called blind trust. He has done no such thing. Instead, he appointed his children to the executive committee of his presidential transition ― blending his business with his government activities.
Source
|
On November 24 2016 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 08:43 Blisse wrote:On November 24 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2016 08:22 farvacola wrote:
Pretty low, though interest seems to be building at a steady pace. I think auditing our votes should be a regular practice. Because even if it doesn't change an outcome, people's votes matter (as does our confidence in the validity of our elections) and issues were reported to impact votes unrelated to president at all, which is important to know quantitatively how frequent of an issue it is. One problem would be people voting and not noticing there was a problem. So for instance when a machine is reporting a "malfunction" of switching votes, if that wasn't the first person to use the particular machine, that calls into question every previous vote cast at that machine. However whenever I hear about one of these vote switching machines, they shut it down, "repair it", then go back to voting, I never here any talk about auditing previous votes cast at the machine, so it's never clear how many votes may have gone uncorrected. Focusing on these particular states is clearly a political thing though, I just wonder what's in it for Stein. Maybe she thinks this can spark greater investigations into our electoral system, consistency, or something else? Maybe it's catching Democrats pushing this when they flatly ignored the possibility during the primary where the gap was much larger and had even more suspicious circumstances? It is a bit weird that Stein is the first major party candidate to ask for a recount... neither Johnson nor Stein made it to 5% right? I don't remember which 3? states they name dropped, if they're all pivotal states I would be a bit more skeptical of the claims. Actually I don't think the states matter, cheaters would be smart enough to cover their tracks. Now Jill Stein cares about the outcome of the election? Back during the campaign when she begged and begged for Bernie to run third party- thus ensuring a Trump victory by splitting liberal votes between Hillary and Bernie- she didn't seem to care about the outcome of the election at all. Maybe she should have come around and voiced her support for Hillary when it mattered, like Bernie and Liz Warren (and even to a lesser extent, Gary Johnson's running mate, Bill Weld) did. Jill just wanted her third-party votes so badly and didn't see the bigger picture: Now instead of getting 80+% of what she wants (as her platforms are similar- although not identical- to the Democrats' ideals), she'll get 0% with President Trump, starting with the destruction of the environment and the dismissal of climate change. Jill cut off her nose to spite her- and everyone else's- face. Too idealistic and too removed from politics, Jill Stein doesn't seem to understand realism and pragmatism. At this point she's just being a brat who wants a little leftover limelight.
I figured out why she's doing this. It has nothing to wanting Hillary to win though. Superficially it's for calling for legitimate elections, which is reasonable as I mentioned before, pragmatically it's for access to emails from the people donating.
The people willing to swallow their Jill's a crazy conspiracy cat, in order to give her a couple million dollars are just who she needs to be able to reach out to in the future.
It's a pretty clever way to take advantage of Hillary's supporters, and it happened to actually get enough support from them to possibly make it happen.
This part at the end should have sent up some flags for folks.
If you wish to donate, you can contribute up to $2,700 on this page.
If you would like to donate more than $2,700, the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party is allowed to accept up to $10,000 to help this recount effort.
I honestly don't think they even thought they would get close that way they could just keep the money and say they didn't get enough for a recount. Should appeal to Hillary fans who think Hillary set the example for how people on the left had to raise money to compete.
|
On November 24 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 12:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 24 2016 11:36 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, we should blame all those traitors who didn't get behind Hillary Clinton for betraying everyone and letting Trump win the votes that her ungodly electable campaign failed to court.
Failing to see why people didn't see the Clinton option as "better" enough to cast a vote for her is precisely the issue with why these third party groups even got prominence in the first place. Trump winning is an example of why coalitions are valuable. The green party compromising and rallying around common ideas would have resulted in a net benefit over a Trump administration. Regardless of other components, the green party could not thoroughly analyze the two administrations are decide they are equally unfavorable. What do you do if the "more favorable coalition" refuses to concede any points and just basically wants you to fall in line? There is something to be said about forcing it to change by denying them your vote.
But they wouldn't be favorable in that instance.
I think the meaning is that Jill may have thought Trump was the best option to get the Green's more aggressive green policies implemented, but now realize Trump wasn't playing a con-game with the Chinese global warming hoax, so she's backing off, whereas Clinton had at least similarly directionally aligned green goals.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 24 2016 12:24 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:On November 24 2016 12:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 24 2016 11:36 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, we should blame all those traitors who didn't get behind Hillary Clinton for betraying everyone and letting Trump win the votes that her ungodly electable campaign failed to court.
Failing to see why people didn't see the Clinton option as "better" enough to cast a vote for her is precisely the issue with why these third party groups even got prominence in the first place. Trump winning is an example of why coalitions are valuable. The green party compromising and rallying around common ideas would have resulted in a net benefit over a Trump administration. Regardless of other components, the green party could not thoroughly analyze the two administrations are decide they are equally unfavorable. What do you do if the "more favorable coalition" refuses to concede any points and just basically wants you to fall in line? There is something to be said about forcing it to change by denying them your vote. But they wouldn't be favorable in that instance. I think the meaning is that Jill may have thought Trump was the best option to get the Green's more aggressive green policies implemented, but now realize Trump wasn't playing a con-game with the Chinese global warming hoax, so she's backing off, whereas Clinton had at least similarly directionally aligned green goals.
So assume there are two parties, A and B. A third party C is looking which team to form an alliance with. In principle, C is kind of ok with B, with about a 70 percent platform overlap. But B also has some troubling elements (corruption, poor judgment, and the like), making it hard to support even if it does nominally support most of the issues C cares about. The polls come out, suggesting this:
A has the support of 49% of the electorate.
B has the support of 48% of the electorate.
C has the support of 3% of the electorate.
The system is FPTP, so a plurality wins. This in mind, C tries to negotiate with B, knowing that there is no chance of getting what they want from A. B says "meh, if you fall in line with our group we'll give you 72% of what you want instead of 70% and you best be grateful you get even this much."
At this point it may not be a bad idea to campaign as C rather than join B. There are a lot of B voters who want what C wants in full, but aren't willing to vote for a fringe group, so they're not just some random useless 3% - they're just voting on principle more so than on short term pragmatism. If you just let B do little in the way of making real progress towards C and instead expect C to just fall in line, they may not be willing to play that game as you would like.
|
I think Jill just wants the Green Party name in the headlines rather than the headlights. It's a shallow marketing ploy capitalizing on the recent news about paper/electric ballot discrepancies.
|
On November 24 2016 08:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Maybe she's tired of being blamed for Trump.  Also, I don't want to revive, but.. A lot of people drink alcohol so that the action they want to conduct becomes socially acceptable. And I'm fairly skeptical towards a definition of rape that defines large portions of cheating husbands as rape victims.
I don't think researchers would be able to get away with expanding the definition of rape to include cheaters in that way. That would never fly except with crazies.
I would highly recommend just reading more of all kinds of statistics and evidence, and everyone who does so should come to realize that non-disgraced researchers do things generally very soundly (or at least it sounds so boring that you'll realize it can't be exagerrated). It's very rare that a study will do something egregiously wrong, and if it did, it should be really obvious, i.e. sample size of 20 or obviously non-representative. If anyone reads enough quality material in these matters, they should have a better appreciation of the criminal justice system, even if it fails at times.
Canada is non-representative of the USA, but in my opinion we're similar enough and we don't have the same partisanship problems that cause us to doubt studies in the same way. This article presents a clearer picture than I would be able to write. Different countries and different laws, but basically very similar ideas. The introduction is a bit heavy-handed, but is more neutral after.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-canadas-sex-assault-laws-violate-rape-victims/article14705289/?page=all
IMO this all stems from the points made in John Oliver's Scientific Studies video where he points out that the media promotes a culture of cherry-picking studies to fit your views, and sensationalizing results of scientific studies, and a general failure to understand the scientific process. Numbers aren't evil. Also stop letting extremists poison your views of the rest.
|
On November 24 2016 12:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 24 2016 08:43 Blisse wrote:On November 24 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2016 08:22 farvacola wrote:
Pretty low, though interest seems to be building at a steady pace. I think auditing our votes should be a regular practice. Because even if it doesn't change an outcome, people's votes matter (as does our confidence in the validity of our elections) and issues were reported to impact votes unrelated to president at all, which is important to know quantitatively how frequent of an issue it is. One problem would be people voting and not noticing there was a problem. So for instance when a machine is reporting a "malfunction" of switching votes, if that wasn't the first person to use the particular machine, that calls into question every previous vote cast at that machine. However whenever I hear about one of these vote switching machines, they shut it down, "repair it", then go back to voting, I never here any talk about auditing previous votes cast at the machine, so it's never clear how many votes may have gone uncorrected. Focusing on these particular states is clearly a political thing though, I just wonder what's in it for Stein. Maybe she thinks this can spark greater investigations into our electoral system, consistency, or something else? Maybe it's catching Democrats pushing this when they flatly ignored the possibility during the primary where the gap was much larger and had even more suspicious circumstances? It is a bit weird that Stein is the first major party candidate to ask for a recount... neither Johnson nor Stein made it to 5% right? I don't remember which 3? states they name dropped, if they're all pivotal states I would be a bit more skeptical of the claims. Actually I don't think the states matter, cheaters would be smart enough to cover their tracks. Now Jill Stein cares about the outcome of the election? Back during the campaign when she begged and begged for Bernie to run third party- thus ensuring a Trump victory by splitting liberal votes between Hillary and Bernie- she didn't seem to care about the outcome of the election at all. Maybe she should have come around and voiced her support for Hillary when it mattered, like Bernie and Liz Warren (and even to a lesser extent, Gary Johnson's running mate, Bill Weld) did. Jill just wanted her third-party votes so badly and didn't see the bigger picture: Now instead of getting 80+% of what she wants (as her platforms are similar- although not identical- to the Democrats' ideals), she'll get 0% with President Trump, starting with the destruction of the environment and the dismissal of climate change. Jill cut off her nose to spite her- and everyone else's- face. Too idealistic and too removed from politics, Jill Stein doesn't seem to understand realism and pragmatism. At this point she's just being a brat who wants a little leftover limelight. I figured out why she's doing this. It has nothing to wanting Hillary to win though. Superficially it's for calling for legitimate elections, which is reasonable as I mentioned before, pragmatically it's for access to emails from the people donating. The people willing to swallow their Jill's a crazy conspiracy cat, in order to give her a couple million dollars are just who she needs to be able to reach out to in the future. It's a pretty clever way to take advantage of Hillary's supporters, and it happened to actually get enough support from them to possibly make it happen. This part at the end should have sent up some flags for folks. Show nested quote +If you wish to donate, you can contribute up to $2,700 on this page.
If you would like to donate more than $2,700, the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party is allowed to accept up to $10,000 to help this recount effort.
I honestly don't think they even thought they would get close that way they could just keep the money and say they didn't get enough for a recount. Should appeal to Hillary fans who think Hillary set the example for how people on the left had to raise money to compete.
That's definitely an interesting perspective. Does Jill Stein do anything political when it's not an election year? I've heard some people concerned with the fact that many third parties aren't really in the political process "full time", making it hard to take them seriously when they want to jump straight from a nobody to the president.
|
On November 24 2016 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake... Show nested quote +Jill Stein, the Green party’s presidential candidate, is prepared to request recounts of the election result in several key battleground states, her campaign said on Wednesday.
Stein launched an online fundraising page seeking donations toward a $2m fund she said was needed to request reviews of the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Stein said she was acting due to “compelling evidence of voting anomalies” and that data analysis had indicated “significant discrepancies in vote totals”.
Her move came amid calls for recounts or audits of the election results by groups of academics and activists concerned that foreign hackers may have interfered with election systems.
Donald Trump won unexpected and narrow victories against Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and may yet win Michigan, where a result has not yet been declared.
The loose coalition of academics and activists, which is urging Hillary Clinton’s campaign to join its fight, is preparing to deliver a report detailing its concerns to congressional committee chairs and federal authorities, according to two people involved.
“I’m interested in verifying the vote,” said Dr Barbara Simons, an adviser to the US election assistance commission and expert on electronic voting. “We need to have post-election ballot audits.” Simons is understood to have contributed analysis to the effort but declined to characterise the precise nature of her involvement.
A second group of analysts, led by the National Voting Rights Institute founder John Bonifaz and Professor Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan’s center for computer security and society, is also taking part in the push for a review. Source
Odd considering Trump officially just took Michigan.
http://www.weaselzippers.us/309429-trump-officially-declared-final-winner-in-michigan-by-10704-votes/
Whatever shady activity is going on here it just needs to stop.
|
Electronic voting is a terrible idea for this precise reason. I really don't know why some countries ever introduced it.
|
On November 24 2016 13:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Electronic voting is a terrible idea for this precise reason. I really don't know why some countries ever introduced it.
Efficiency and possibly cheaper on man-hours, probably.
|
On November 24 2016 12:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 12:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2016 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 24 2016 08:43 Blisse wrote:On November 24 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 24 2016 08:22 farvacola wrote:
Pretty low, though interest seems to be building at a steady pace. I think auditing our votes should be a regular practice. Because even if it doesn't change an outcome, people's votes matter (as does our confidence in the validity of our elections) and issues were reported to impact votes unrelated to president at all, which is important to know quantitatively how frequent of an issue it is. One problem would be people voting and not noticing there was a problem. So for instance when a machine is reporting a "malfunction" of switching votes, if that wasn't the first person to use the particular machine, that calls into question every previous vote cast at that machine. However whenever I hear about one of these vote switching machines, they shut it down, "repair it", then go back to voting, I never here any talk about auditing previous votes cast at the machine, so it's never clear how many votes may have gone uncorrected. Focusing on these particular states is clearly a political thing though, I just wonder what's in it for Stein. Maybe she thinks this can spark greater investigations into our electoral system, consistency, or something else? Maybe it's catching Democrats pushing this when they flatly ignored the possibility during the primary where the gap was much larger and had even more suspicious circumstances? It is a bit weird that Stein is the first major party candidate to ask for a recount... neither Johnson nor Stein made it to 5% right? I don't remember which 3? states they name dropped, if they're all pivotal states I would be a bit more skeptical of the claims. Actually I don't think the states matter, cheaters would be smart enough to cover their tracks. Now Jill Stein cares about the outcome of the election? Back during the campaign when she begged and begged for Bernie to run third party- thus ensuring a Trump victory by splitting liberal votes between Hillary and Bernie- she didn't seem to care about the outcome of the election at all. Maybe she should have come around and voiced her support for Hillary when it mattered, like Bernie and Liz Warren (and even to a lesser extent, Gary Johnson's running mate, Bill Weld) did. Jill just wanted her third-party votes so badly and didn't see the bigger picture: Now instead of getting 80+% of what she wants (as her platforms are similar- although not identical- to the Democrats' ideals), she'll get 0% with President Trump, starting with the destruction of the environment and the dismissal of climate change. Jill cut off her nose to spite her- and everyone else's- face. Too idealistic and too removed from politics, Jill Stein doesn't seem to understand realism and pragmatism. At this point she's just being a brat who wants a little leftover limelight. I figured out why she's doing this. It has nothing to wanting Hillary to win though. Superficially it's for calling for legitimate elections, which is reasonable as I mentioned before, pragmatically it's for access to emails from the people donating. The people willing to swallow their Jill's a crazy conspiracy cat, in order to give her a couple million dollars are just who she needs to be able to reach out to in the future. It's a pretty clever way to take advantage of Hillary's supporters, and it happened to actually get enough support from them to possibly make it happen. This part at the end should have sent up some flags for folks. If you wish to donate, you can contribute up to $2,700 on this page.
If you would like to donate more than $2,700, the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party is allowed to accept up to $10,000 to help this recount effort.
I honestly don't think they even thought they would get close that way they could just keep the money and say they didn't get enough for a recount. Should appeal to Hillary fans who think Hillary set the example for how people on the left had to raise money to compete. That's definitely an interesting perspective. Does Jill Stein do anything political when it's not an election year? I've heard some people concerned with the fact that many third parties aren't really in the political process "full time", making it hard to take them seriously when they want to jump straight from a nobody to the president.
I mean I doubt someone like her stops being politically active in off years. Greens have a spattering of public offices around the country, and are more active in some states than in others. But with Clinton out I think the energy is in removing her loyalists from power or expecting them to have a "come to Jesus" moment.
We'll see how it pans out.
|
On November 24 2016 12:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 12:24 Blisse wrote:On November 24 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:On November 24 2016 12:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 24 2016 11:36 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, we should blame all those traitors who didn't get behind Hillary Clinton for betraying everyone and letting Trump win the votes that her ungodly electable campaign failed to court.
Failing to see why people didn't see the Clinton option as "better" enough to cast a vote for her is precisely the issue with why these third party groups even got prominence in the first place. Trump winning is an example of why coalitions are valuable. The green party compromising and rallying around common ideas would have resulted in a net benefit over a Trump administration. Regardless of other components, the green party could not thoroughly analyze the two administrations are decide they are equally unfavorable. What do you do if the "more favorable coalition" refuses to concede any points and just basically wants you to fall in line? There is something to be said about forcing it to change by denying them your vote. But they wouldn't be favorable in that instance. I think the meaning is that Jill may have thought Trump was the best option to get the Green's more aggressive green policies implemented, but now realize Trump wasn't playing a con-game with the Chinese global warming hoax, so she's backing off, whereas Clinton had at least similarly directionally aligned green goals. So assume there are two parties, A and B. A third party C is looking which team to form an alliance with. In principle, C is kind of ok with B, with about a 70 percent platform overlap. But B also has some troubling elements (corruption, poor judgment, and the like), making it hard to support even if it does nominally support most of the issues C cares about. The polls come out, suggesting this: A has the support of 49% of the electorate. B has the support of 48% of the electorate. C has the support of 3% of the electorate. The system is FPTP, so a plurality wins. This in mind, C tries to negotiate with B, knowing that there is no chance of getting what they want from A. B says "meh, if you fall in line with our group we'll give you 72% of what you want instead of 70% and you best be grateful you get even this much." At this point it may not be a bad idea to campaign as C rather than join B. There are a lot of B voters who want what C wants in full, but aren't willing to vote for a fringe group, so they're not just some random useless 3% - they're just voting on principle more so than on short term pragmatism. If you just let B do little in the way of making real progress towards C and instead expect C to just fall in line, they may not be willing to play that game as you would like.
Oh I don't disagree with the position to run independent if C consider neither A nor B suitable. Nor can C really take an effective stance with the knowledge that A believes in policies completely orthogonal to C's founding ideals.
I don't have a real problem with how it turned out. But I would suppose in reality it's more like,
A has 20% of the electorate,
B has 20% of the electorate,
C has ~1% of the electorate,
everyone else doesn't care, but less half will vote for some reason lol
On November 24 2016 12:47 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake... Jill Stein, the Green party’s presidential candidate, is prepared to request recounts of the election result in several key battleground states, her campaign said on Wednesday.
Stein launched an online fundraising page seeking donations toward a $2m fund she said was needed to request reviews of the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Stein said she was acting due to “compelling evidence of voting anomalies” and that data analysis had indicated “significant discrepancies in vote totals”.
Her move came amid calls for recounts or audits of the election results by groups of academics and activists concerned that foreign hackers may have interfered with election systems.
Donald Trump won unexpected and narrow victories against Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and may yet win Michigan, where a result has not yet been declared.
The loose coalition of academics and activists, which is urging Hillary Clinton’s campaign to join its fight, is preparing to deliver a report detailing its concerns to congressional committee chairs and federal authorities, according to two people involved.
“I’m interested in verifying the vote,” said Dr Barbara Simons, an adviser to the US election assistance commission and expert on electronic voting. “We need to have post-election ballot audits.” Simons is understood to have contributed analysis to the effort but declined to characterise the precise nature of her involvement.
A second group of analysts, led by the National Voting Rights Institute founder John Bonifaz and Professor Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan’s center for computer security and society, is also taking part in the push for a review. Source Odd considering Trump officially just took Michigan. http://www.weaselzippers.us/309429-trump-officially-declared-final-winner-in-michigan-by-10704-votes/Whatever shady activity is going on here it just needs to stop.
Off-topic, I mean, you probably just Google'd it but is that site actually called weaselzippers lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
