Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On February 05 2020 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote: As an aside I’m earnestly baffled why I can send a high definition of my genitals to my friend who responds with a (frankly derisory) electronic bank transfer for my mood-lifting service, but voting is apparently too complicated to implement modern technology.
On February 05 2020 10:23 ChristianS wrote: Yeah, I get it. Your prior is so strong that no supporting evidence is required. To me, it looks basically the same as the “corporations don’t want you to know” or “this weird food cures cancer!” mode of persuasion, but I guess this isn’t the first time you’ve been accused of overly conspiratorial thinking.
Well, I wanted things out in the open and they are, so thanks for that.
More like "Yeah, smoking causes lung cancer" in the 50's.
Our society has conditioned us to make your position (shared by many a jury until the 80's) look like the more reasonable one but it is becoming clearer to people it isn't.
The problem is, even if you think your spouse is cheating on you, and you have good reason to think it, for any given person you see them in a room with, they’re still probably not cheating with that person. Most hypotheses are false; that’s why you still need evidence even for plausible hypotheses.
“Smoking causes lung cancer” was a specific hypothesis about which a great deal of data was already available. This is more like if your mom has a cough and says “it’s probably because you smoke, and the second-hand smoke gave me cancer.”
If you call 2016 and all the crap we've seen already a "cough" then sure I guess. I'm saying it is a lot closer to hacking up blood, a strange mass on the x-rays, and a pack a day habit but if your position is still that the Democratic party isn't clearly trying to suppress Sanders chance at the nomination I'm not going to convince you otherwise with any amount of evidence imo.
No, you’re misunderstanding my analogy. 2016 is (for sake of argument, at least) “do cigarettes cause cancer.” The cough is “the DNC is reporting 68% of precincts, but Mohdoo thinks the rural precincts are overrepresented in the already reported group.” Even if the DNC in general is corrupt (a bigger question we can argue about another time, but I’ll grant it for the moment), it doesn’t mean that any given malfeasance you accuse them of should be presumed true absent any evidence.
Edit: perhaps the simplest illustration of my point: if I tell you “The DNC doesn’t want you to know that giving me $5 is the only way to cure your cancer” you shouldn’t assume it’s true just because the hypothesis involves DNC malfeasance. If you do, though, there’s always TL+!
Your metaphor falls down because the DNC was 100% exposed as having directly worked to prevent Sanders winning the nomination.
GH assumes malfeasance because they were caught doing the same thing four years ago. Oh, and there's already been reporting that suggests they're at least discussing doing the same thing this year. From just last week, in fact.
So GH is responding to the evidence, you're ignoring that it exists.
No, GH assumes that what he sees as a problematic outcome of an election has been politically spun because the dnc was involved. It's the non humorous equivalent to " my favorite show was canceled. Thanks Obama!" he is assuming the dnc manipulated this without having any reason to believe the presented information is misleading or wrong.
On February 05 2020 15:53 Vivax wrote: Buttigieg (that name though) at first glance looks to me like a walking guarantee for another Trump term.
Bernie is the populist and not much different in his strategy from Trump who started out as someone who actually called things out rightly and then became just another part of the system once inside, with a bit of batshit crazy sprinkled on the show to not make him seem entirely different from before.
I wouldn't mind to see Bernie as pres just to show how much it doesn't matter what opinions they have before they become presidents.
They’re rather different kinds of populists, at least to my sensibilities. Unless you count upping taxes and complaining about tax avoidance as an attack on the wealthy, Bernie is consistent in delivering a rather positive message about change at a systemic level. Trump’s is very much the negative, scapegoating of various groups form of populism.
The DNC burned a lot of good faith, there's ample reason to be suspicious of them, especially when they're considering doing the same thing again, and especially when the stakes are higher now because what they did 4 years ago, among other things, is the reason we're where we are now. If someone has a drinking problem and needs to cut the drinking off to get healthy again, they don't start the process by first just having a sip of a little something. We shouldn't be hearing about this shit again. They should know better.
If they choose to interfere with the votes and candidates again, we're going to have another 4 years of Trump, and people are going to burn the DNC to the ground for continuing to fuck around when it really matters. I think erring on the side of caution and being suspicious is just fine in this case.
On February 05 2020 22:04 Broetchenholer wrote: No, GH assumes that what he sees as a problematic outcome of an election has been politically spun because the dnc was involved. It's the non humorous equivalent to " my favorite show was canceled. Thanks Obama!" he is assuming the dnc manipulated this without having any reason to believe the presented information is misleading or wrong.
I'm not sure what you've heard but it is pretty ubiquitously accepted this was a botched election and the reporting has been unprecedented and inexplicable.
On February 05 2020 15:53 Vivax wrote: Buttigieg (that name though) at first glance looks to me like a walking guarantee for another Trump term.
Bernie is the populist and not much different in his strategy from Trump who started out as someone who actually called things out rightly and then became just another part of the system once inside, with a bit of batshit crazy sprinkled on the show to not make him seem entirely different from before.
I wouldn't mind to see Bernie as pres just to show how much it doesn't matter what opinions they have before they become presidents.
They’re rather different kinds of populists, at least to my sensibilities. Unless you count upping taxes and complaining about tax avoidance as an attack on the wealthy, Bernie is consistent in delivering a rather positive message about change at a systemic level. Trump’s is very much the negative, scapegoating of various groups form of populism.
They’re very different politicians, and no, that’s not the mere result of your sensibilities.
All I know is, thank god for rational proportional delegate allocation making any rural overrepresentation more or less irrelevant to the final delegate count (the narratives are already fucked to hell). Maybe someday we'll get it in the EC.
On February 05 2020 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote: As an aside I’m earnestly baffled why I can send a high definition of my genitals to my friend who responds with a (frankly derisory) electronic bank transfer for my mood-lifting service, but voting is apparently too complicated to implement modern technology.
Here in Brazil we've +- 20 years of a well functioning electronic voting system. The thing that makes it resilient is that the voting machines are offline and tallied locally. Tampering with them is possible (in the sense that tampering with any machine is possible), but it has to be done individually, physically, and it has to escape randomized testing weeks before voting and the day before (I've been "drafted" to participate in this, so I've seen this up close). Affecting the voting machines as they're being produced is out of the question because of the security and oversight around it.
Which is not to say there have been no problems, complaints or conspiracy theorizing, but these have been minor, and this system solves all traditional frauds with physical voting (miscounting, ballots being lost, ballots being added, errors during voting, etc) and makes getting the result quick and precise. These frauds are especially prevalent in small, local elections in Brazil.
In 2015 the was a minor electoral reform in which the electronic system would also be fitted with a printer to create a "paper trail". This ended up being overruled by the Supreme Cort on the grounds that it could be used to violate the sanctity of the vote (people working the tables could look at the votes), that it would be expensive, and that it wouldn't add security. I personally dissagreed with their assesment and consider the first argument bullshit (if printing was correctly implemented), the second unimportant and the third irrelevant. Maybe this will be tried again at some point.
On February 05 2020 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote: As an aside I’m earnestly baffled why I can send a high definition of my genitals to my friend who responds with a (frankly derisory) electronic bank transfer for my mood-lifting service, but voting is apparently too complicated to implement modern technology.
Here in Brazil we've +- 20 years of a well functioning electronic voting system. The thing that makes it resilient is that the voting machines are offline and tallied locally. Tampering with them is possible (in the sense that tampering with any machine is possible), but it has to be done individually, physically, and it has to escape randomized testing weeks before voting and the day before (I've been "drafted" to participate in this, so I've seen this up close). Affecting the voting machines as they're being produced is out of the question because of the security and oversight around it.
Which is not to say there have been no problems, complaints or conspiracy theorizing, but these have been minor, and this system solves all traditional frauds with physical voting (miscounting, ballots being lost, ballots being added, errors during voting, etc) and makes getting the result quick and precise. These frauds are especially prevalent in small, local elections in Brazil.
In 2015 the was a minor electoral reform in which the electronic system would also be fitted with a printer to create a "paper trail". This ended up being overruled by the Supreme Cort on the grounds that it could be used to violate the sanctity of the vote (people working the tables could look at the votes), that it would be expensive, and that it wouldn't add security. I personally dissagreed with their assesment and consider the first argument bullshit (if printing was correctly implemented), the second unimportant and the third irrelevant. Maybe this will be tried again at some point.
The machine creating a paper record relies on the machine not being compromised in the first place.
On February 05 2020 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote: As an aside I’m earnestly baffled why I can send a high definition of my genitals to my friend who responds with a (frankly derisory) electronic bank transfer for my mood-lifting service, but voting is apparently too complicated to implement modern technology.
Here in Brazil we've +- 20 years of a well functioning electronic voting system. The thing that makes it resilient is that the voting machines are offline and tallied locally. Tampering with them is possible (in the sense that tampering with any machine is possible), but it has to be done individually, physically, and it has to escape randomized testing weeks before voting and the day before (I've been "drafted" to participate in this, so I've seen this up close). Affecting the voting machines as they're being produced is out of the question because of the security and oversight around it.
Which is not to say there have been no problems, complaints or conspiracy theorizing, but these have been minor, and this system solves all traditional frauds with physical voting (miscounting, ballots being lost, ballots being added, errors during voting, etc) and makes getting the result quick and precise. These frauds are especially prevalent in small, local elections in Brazil.
In 2015 the was a minor electoral reform in which the electronic system would also be fitted with a printer to create a "paper trail". This ended up being overruled by the Supreme Cort on the grounds that it could be used to violate the sanctity of the vote (people working the tables could look at the votes), that it would be expensive, and that it wouldn't add security. I personally dissagreed with their assesment and consider the first argument bullshit (if printing was correctly implemented), the second unimportant and the third irrelevant. Maybe this will be tried again at some point.
The machine creating a paper record relies on the machine not being compromised in the first place.
It could print it for the voter and require him to put it in a box. That's not really an issue. This is a minor detail, though.
On February 05 2020 23:14 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: We're still waiting on the full results for Iowa? Wow.
Yeah isn't it awesome how American culture glorifies a lack of quality control and labels it "states rights"?
Thinking along that line, undoing the awful SCOTUS-made election laws lurking in the background of our unintelligible election system must be a priority moving forward.
I just remembered pelosi tore up that pile of shit speech. Now I'm grinning again. Judging by internet hysteria, this is perhaps the thing that has upset trumpers more than anything else. It's funny to think how this was never obvious before. Conservative culture is REALLY into undue respect as a function of position. It's a part of why they day dream about billionaires. Blatantly shitting on Trump and showing he is viewed as trash on TV legitimately shook them. Man I love it. Turning their weakness against them. I've never seen such outrage during Trump's presidency.
On February 06 2020 00:08 Mohdoo wrote: I just remembered pelosi tore up that pile of shit speech. Now I'm grinning again. Judging by internet hysteria, this is perhaps the thing that has upset trumpers more than anything else. It's funny to think how this was never obvious before. Conservative culture is REALLY into undue respect as a function of position. It's a part of why they protect billionaires. Blatantly shitting on Trump and showing he is viewed as trash on TV legitimately shook them. Man I love it. Turning their weakness against them.
She invited him to give the speech and signed off on some of the legislation he was touting on trade and military spending. It is a spectacle like professional wrestling imo.
On February 06 2020 00:08 Mohdoo wrote: I just remembered pelosi tore up that pile of shit speech. Now I'm grinning again. Judging by internet hysteria, this is perhaps the thing that has upset trumpers more than anything else. It's funny to think how this was never obvious before. Conservative culture is REALLY into undue respect as a function of position. It's a part of why they protect billionaires. Blatantly shitting on Trump and showing he is viewed as trash on TV legitimately shook them. Man I love it. Turning their weakness against them.
She invited him to give the speech and signed off on some of the legislation he was touting on trade and military spending. It is a spectacle like professional wrestling imo.
Considering professional wrestling performances can be used to describe modern conservative political strategy, a large part of what inspired Trump's movement, I fully support us doing the same. Shit on Trump, show people he isn't even worthy of basic respect. I'm all for it.
On February 06 2020 00:08 Mohdoo wrote: I just remembered pelosi tore up that pile of shit speech. Now I'm grinning again. Judging by internet hysteria, this is perhaps the thing that has upset trumpers more than anything else. It's funny to think how this was never obvious before. Conservative culture is REALLY into undue respect as a function of position. It's a part of why they day dream about billionaires. Blatantly shitting on Trump and showing he is viewed as trash on TV legitimately shook them. Man I love it. Turning their weakness against them. I've never seen such outrage during Trump's presidency.
Aye, Trump can punch down as much as he wants and he’s ‘based’ and a ‘straight talker’, but god forbid anyone show him the contempt he so patently deserves.
There are conservatives who have spoken about their issues with such things and the lack of decorum of the guy, but there is a segment of his base that are simultaneously the type to bemoan ‘snowflake’ millennials then lose their shit over something like this, which I find simultaneously sad but much more hilarious.
On February 06 2020 00:08 Mohdoo wrote: I just remembered pelosi tore up that pile of shit speech. Now I'm grinning again. Judging by internet hysteria, this is perhaps the thing that has upset trumpers more than anything else. It's funny to think how this was never obvious before. Conservative culture is REALLY into undue respect as a function of position. It's a part of why they protect billionaires. Blatantly shitting on Trump and showing he is viewed as trash on TV legitimately shook them. Man I love it. Turning their weakness against them.
She invited him to give the speech and signed off on some of the legislation he was touting on trade and military spending. It is a spectacle like professional wrestling imo.
Considering professional wrestling performances can be used to describe modern conservative political strategy, a large part of what inspired Trump's movement, I fully support us doing the same. Shit on Trump, show people he isn't even worthy of basic respect. I'm all for it.
The bit is that they are fighting while actually collaborating on the show so we maintain our willing suspension of disbelief when they work together to accomplish a "devastating" move against the other. The more they can get us to buy into the fight, the more distracted we are from the absurdity of interpreting their collaboration as conflict.
On February 06 2020 00:08 Mohdoo wrote: I just remembered pelosi tore up that pile of shit speech. Now I'm grinning again. Judging by internet hysteria, this is perhaps the thing that has upset trumpers more than anything else. It's funny to think how this was never obvious before. Conservative culture is REALLY into undue respect as a function of position. It's a part of why they protect billionaires. Blatantly shitting on Trump and showing he is viewed as trash on TV legitimately shook them. Man I love it. Turning their weakness against them.
She invited him to give the speech and signed off on some of the legislation he was touting on trade and military spending. It is a spectacle like professional wrestling imo.
Considering professional wrestling performances can be used to describe modern conservative political strategy, a large part of what inspired Trump's movement, I fully support us doing the same. Shit on Trump, show people he isn't even worthy of basic respect. I'm all for it.
The bit is that they are fighting while actually collaborating on the show so we maintain our willing suspension of disbelief when they work together to accomplish a "devastating" move against the other. The more they can get us to buy into the fight, the more distracted we are from the absurdity of interpreting their collaboration as conflict.
Well if Bernie gets the nom, this kinda philosophy being seeded will likely serve us well. I'd love to see a campaign based around "I hate all those guys and wish they weren't here". Democrats hating Republicans as much as they hate us would be a good thing. We've always struggled to hate. I want that to end.
Trump will avoid removal because Republican politicians have convinced their voters Democrats aren't even human, just some human'ish thing. The lengths they go to do things like Garland and whatnot are all because their voters couldn't bring themselves to even slightly respect us.
EPT
