|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 22 2026 22:06 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage. You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it? Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it. I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists. Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse. Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything
If I understand correctly, EC is not a simple intermediary. The number of electors each state gets is proportional to population plus one elector for each senator. Since each state has two senators, smaller states have more electoral votes per capita. Smaller states tend to vote Republican.
|
United States43934 Posts
On April 23 2026 00:44 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:06 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage. You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it? Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it. I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists. Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse. Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything If I understand correctly, EC is not a simple intermediary. The number of electors each state gets is proportional to population plus one elector for each senator. Since each state has two senators, smaller states have more electoral votes per capita. Smaller states tend to vote Republican.
I think he meant the physical electors.
Given that we know who won after the states appoint their electors having a bunch of randos actually show up, write down names, and put them in a box is pretty anachronistic and generally weird. For example in 2004 one of Minnesota's electors accidentally wrote "John Ewards" rather than "John Kerry" and so the official result was 286 for George W. Bush, 251 for John Kerry, and 1 for John Ewards.
|
On April 23 2026 00:44 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:06 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage. You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it? Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it. I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists. Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse. Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything If I understand correctly, EC is not a simple intermediary. The number of electors each state gets is proportional to population plus one elector for each senator. Since each state has two senators, smaller states have more electoral votes per capita. Smaller states tend to vote Republican.
This is generally true (smaller = less populated, not necessarily smaller in geographical size or land area). The voting power / influence of individual Americans living in less populated states tends to be larger than those who live in more populous states, though there are a handful of exceptions.
Here is a state-by-state comparison: https://www.maps.com/app/uploads/2024/10/electoral_college_barchart_v04-nr.jpg
Original source: https://www.maps.com/how-much-voting-power-does-each-us-state-have/
|
On April 23 2026 00:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 00:44 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 22:06 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage. You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it? Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it. I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists. Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse. Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything If I understand correctly, EC is not a simple intermediary. The number of electors each state gets is proportional to population plus one elector for each senator. Since each state has two senators, smaller states have more electoral votes per capita. Smaller states tend to vote Republican. I think he meant the physical electors. Given that we know who won after the states appoint their electors having a bunch of randos actually show up, write down names, and put them in a box is pretty anachronistic and generally weird. For example in 2004 one of Minnesota's electors accidentally wrote "John Ewards" rather than "John Kerry" and so the official result was 286 for George W. Bush, 251 for John Kerry, and 1 for John Ewards.
I don't think the Republicans particularly care about the physical electors, just as long the elections are won by an intermediate mechanism like the EC, which gives them an unfair advantage.
|
On April 23 2026 00:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 00:44 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 22:06 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage. You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it? Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it. I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists. Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse. Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything If I understand correctly, EC is not a simple intermediary. The number of electors each state gets is proportional to population plus one elector for each senator. Since each state has two senators, smaller states have more electoral votes per capita. Smaller states tend to vote Republican. I think he meant the physical electors. Given that we know who won after the states appoint their electors having a bunch of randos actually show up, write down names, and put them in a box is pretty anachronistic and generally weird. For example in 2004 one of Minnesota's electors accidentally wrote "John Ewards" rather than "John Kerry" and so the official result was 286 for George W. Bush, 251 for John Kerry, and 1 for John Ewards.
Right. Having actual electors is silly, unnecessary, and redundant, even for the electoral college. There is no reason to appoint a few people to literally just repeat the name of the winner of the state's overall vote for president, which is already known to everyone on/around election night.
That being said, I'm sure Republicans will still want to keep around these useless middlemen, given that now their party has tried stealing elections by hiring fake electors to lie:
"The Trump fake electors plot was an attempt by U.S. president Donald Trump and associates to have him remain in power after losing the 2020 United States presidential election. After the results of the election determined Trump had lost, he, his associates, and Republican Party officials in seven battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin[1] – devised a scheme to submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment to falsely claim Trump had won the Electoral College vote in crucial states. The plot was one of Trump and his associates' attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
|
On April 22 2026 23:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:57 LightSpectra wrote:On April 22 2026 22:38 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy exclusively consumes that media but doesn’t have anyone in his life to talk to and so he shows up here and interrupts whatever else is going on to demand to know why everyone (literally nobody in this topic) is talking about Noem’s crossdressing husband. Also, FYI, crossdresser isn’t a gender identity. i don't think the mmiwg part of mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ is a gender identity either. i'm not 100% on that though. I'm also not 100% on what all the letters mean in that 16 character acronym (usually saying that with the right delivery gets a laugh). i spitball stuff on here before i bring it into the real world. so far all my IRL mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ jokes have been a smash hit. On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:For context, an indigenous Canadian woman drew attention to the systematic sexual violence inflicted upon her community. She added Missing & Murdered Indigenous Woman to other minorities who need awareness of the marginalization they’ve faced. The right wing influencerverse seized upon this as if it was outrageous and not basically the same as POWMIA flags and bumper stickers. + Show Spoiler + for context, i am well aware of all of this. how many times how you voted NDP? I've voted NDP 3 times. I've said this in the Canadian politics thread and i'll say it in here as well seeing as you brought it up. Canada needs a labour party because the NDP ain't it. The the 3 recent byelections their popular vote was 8%. As long as one of the NDP's top priorities is the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community these are the election results they will get. Also, if the NDP wants to be the national party it claims it has been since the days of Ed Broadbent they are going to have to ... some day... some how... learn how to speak french. Lee Gazan's latest idiot move got unanimously struck down in parliament. Ezra threw her the easiest soft ball possible and she swung and missed. The only thing Matt Walsh knows about the NDP is what his production staff at the Daily Wire tell him. I don't really go to Matt Walsh for the latest news on the NDP. Perhaps you do? Adding an extra letter to the prior LGBT acronym has been done to fucking death, it’s profoundly boring material. I’m sure your guido buddies love it but I’m sure there’s some open mics in your area where you can test it to a broader audience. There’s a pretty strong link between a perception that x group is being overly prioritised and well, that not actually remotely being the case. Jimmy brags about voting for sex pests in multiple countries, you can imagine the kind of people in his life that have convulsing fits of laughter about gay jokes. Hey bro I identify as an attack helicopter probably still lands to this day lmao
Impossible not to notice that it's extremely rare for right-wing humor to actually be clever or subtle. They think something's funny as long as the left or minorities are the butt of the joke.
"Behold, I have added more letters to an acronym referring to queer people! Please, guffaw to your heart's content."
|
The SPLC was just indicted by a grand jury. That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, perhaps the most famous cataloguer and opposer of fringe hate groups in America.
It's accused of wire fraud and making false statements in order to fund a network of informants within the groups. The paid covert agents are alleged to include a "member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia," neonazis, Klan members, and a target of its "Extremist File" webpages.
You should probably disclose to your donors that their donations directly fund extremism in order to better combat extremism (allegedly). It operates as a tax-deductible charity. Three million dollars are alleged to have gone to some of the worst extremist groups operating in the US.
The only real defense I can see to the many false businesses, false filings to open bank accounts, and money laundering through them is that the FBI oversaw and approved of those activities. How can people be this dumb.
Grand Jury Indictment
NYT story
|
United States43934 Posts
On April 23 2026 01:30 dyhb wrote:The SPLC was just indicted by a grand jury. That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, perhaps the most famous cataloguer and opposer of fringe hate groups in America. It's accused of wire fraud and making false statements in order to fund a network of informants within the groups. The paid covert agents are alleged to include a "member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia," neonazis, Klan members, and a target of its "Extremist File" webpages. You should probably disclose to your donors that their donations directly fund extremism in order to better combat extremism (allegedly). It operates as a tax-deductible charity. Three million dollars are alleged to have gone to some of the worst extremist groups operating in the US. The only real defense I can see to the many false businesses, false filings to open bank accounts, and money laundering through them is that the FBI oversaw and approved of those activities. How can people be this dumb. Grand Jury IndictmentNYT story
To be clear, the story here isn't misconduct, the story is that this administration which has bragged about how they plan to weaponize the justice system against groups like SPLC is alleging misconduct.
We shouldn't forget the context that the US has become a failed state when we read the news.
|
If there's evidence of lawbreaking, they should be convicted. But from the NYT article: "The indictment, however, offers little to support the notion that the group’s payments to informants was meant to aid the extremist groups they had infiltrated."
And: "Another informant affiliated with a neo-Nazi group was paid more than $1 million over a period of about nine years, according to the indictment, and in 2014 that informant stole 25 boxes of documents from an unidentified violent extremist group. The Southern Poverty Law Center later used those documents to create a report about the group." Sounds like they got paid to do exactly what they were supposed to do.
"Mr. Blanche said the Southern Poverty Law Center did not tell the F.B.I." - I guess we're going to find out if that's true when we get to the discovery phase.
|
Northern Ireland26670 Posts
On April 23 2026 00:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 00:44 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 22:06 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage. You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it? Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it. I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists. Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse. Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything If I understand correctly, EC is not a simple intermediary. The number of electors each state gets is proportional to population plus one elector for each senator. Since each state has two senators, smaller states have more electoral votes per capita. Smaller states tend to vote Republican. I think he meant the physical electors. Given that we know who won after the states appoint their electors having a bunch of randos actually show up, write down names, and put them in a box is pretty anachronistic and generally weird. For example in 2004 one of Minnesota's electors accidentally wrote "John Ewards" rather than "John Kerry" and so the official result was 286 for George W. Bush, 251 for John Kerry, and 1 for John Ewards.
Aye this was what I was angling at specifically Kwark, cheers.
A shame really, John Ewards could had been a great President if more people made typos.
I mean we’re not really beyond pointless quirks here. Monarch’s gotta codify and rubber stamp legislation, but they can’t not codify it because well, constitutional crisis and the gullotines start getting oiled.
Ok not pointless, there’s good historical reason for it, even if it leads to redundancy
It’s really a minor point just something I’m curious as to why it still exists, historically yeah I get that. ‘Well we can’t just count votes and dole them out accordingly, we must entrust Dave and Davette the electors!’ Is just a smidge odd to me
|
The Washington Post (formerly respected newspaper, currently owned by Trump donor and centibillionaire Jeff Bezos) editorial board on Texas Republicans gerrymandering the state to have 0 Democratic districts for the U.S. House without a public vote in 2025: "The Texas gerrymander freakout: What’s happening in the Lone Star State is not a threat to democracy" source
Virginia Democrats had a public vote to do a similar thing in their state (leaving with 1 Republican district), explicitly to retaliate against Texas, which passed last night. WaPo editorial board: "Virginia plunges America deeper into the gerrymandering abyss: The redistricting scheme was always a power grab by Democrats. Voters went along with it" source
Reminder that the far-right don't care that they're hypocrites, they want to live in a world where they're freely allowed to be openly hypocritical while they judge and abuse people they believe are beneath them.
|
Northern Ireland26670 Posts
On April 23 2026 01:30 dyhb wrote:The SPLC was just indicted by a grand jury. That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, perhaps the most famous cataloguer and opposer of fringe hate groups in America. It's accused of wire fraud and making false statements in order to fund a network of informants within the groups. The paid covert agents are alleged to include a "member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia," neonazis, Klan members, and a target of its "Extremist File" webpages. You should probably disclose to your donors that their donations directly fund extremism in order to better combat extremism (allegedly). It operates as a tax-deductible charity. Three million dollars are alleged to have gone to some of the worst extremist groups operating in the US. The only real defense I can see to the many false businesses, false filings to open bank accounts, and money laundering through them is that the FBI oversaw and approved of those activities. How can people be this dumb. Grand Jury IndictmentNYT story
Informants, especially those embedded in potentially violent organisations, known to work for free.
I think much depends on were they paying informants, in which case it’s somewhat similar to a journalistic source, or did that fundage go to fund activities that wouldn’t have happened without the funds.
I’ll add I’m paywalled/geowalled out of a lot of articles on this so I’m mostly spitballing and going off what’s been reproduced here, there probably will be gaps so I’m acknowledging here
|
On April 23 2026 01:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 01:30 dyhb wrote:The SPLC was just indicted by a grand jury. That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, perhaps the most famous cataloguer and opposer of fringe hate groups in America. It's accused of wire fraud and making false statements in order to fund a network of informants within the groups. The paid covert agents are alleged to include a "member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia," neonazis, Klan members, and a target of its "Extremist File" webpages. You should probably disclose to your donors that their donations directly fund extremism in order to better combat extremism (allegedly). It operates as a tax-deductible charity. Three million dollars are alleged to have gone to some of the worst extremist groups operating in the US. The only real defense I can see to the many false businesses, false filings to open bank accounts, and money laundering through them is that the FBI oversaw and approved of those activities. How can people be this dumb. Grand Jury IndictmentNYT story To be clear, the story here isn't misconduct, the story is that this administration which has bragged about how they plan to weaponize the justice system against groups like SPLC is alleging misconduct. We shouldn't forget the context that the US has become a failed state when we read the news. Grand jury indictment lists misconduct of a pretty clear kind. It’s the same story of Biden’s allegedly politicization of the justice system against Trump: Maybe, but also are the charges real?
I can imagine other cases where the misconduct alleged looks like entrapment or is vulnerable to a deceived grand jury.
|
Northern Ireland26670 Posts
On April 23 2026 01:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 01:30 dyhb wrote:The SPLC was just indicted by a grand jury. That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, perhaps the most famous cataloguer and opposer of fringe hate groups in America. It's accused of wire fraud and making false statements in order to fund a network of informants within the groups. The paid covert agents are alleged to include a "member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia," neonazis, Klan members, and a target of its "Extremist File" webpages. You should probably disclose to your donors that their donations directly fund extremism in order to better combat extremism (allegedly). It operates as a tax-deductible charity. Three million dollars are alleged to have gone to some of the worst extremist groups operating in the US. The only real defense I can see to the many false businesses, false filings to open bank accounts, and money laundering through them is that the FBI oversaw and approved of those activities. How can people be this dumb. Grand Jury IndictmentNYT story To be clear, the story here isn't misconduct, the story is that this administration which has bragged about how they plan to weaponize the justice system against groups like SPLC is alleging misconduct. We shouldn't forget the context that the US has become a failed state when we read the news.
Yes if the SPLC gets hit with a hammer for *checks notes* financial impropriety in methods investigating groups, some of whom *checks notes* were directly involved in *checks notes* a coup attempt in support of a President who *checks notes* is easily a more suspect individual when it comes to financial impropriety and corruption and said investigation occurs under that regime’s rather direct watch
Oh yeah nothing to see here folks.
Or maybe there is, but who’s believing it anymore? The fabric of credulity, or ‘hey they ain’t my guys but I still trust the process and systems’ has been fundamentally stretched beyond breaking point to the degree it basically doesn’t exist
|
Trump would be in jail if Biden had the balls to politize the justice system. plain as day.
contrast that to Trump having several of his _personal_ defense lawyers be made AG of the US and no one bats an eye. it's a sick joke at this point, people either wake the fuck up or joke's on them and the American experiment.
|
On April 23 2026 01:58 LightSpectra wrote:The Washington Post (formerly respected newspaper, currently owned by Trump donor and centibillionaire Jeff Bezos) editorial board on Texas Republicans gerrymandering the state to have 0 Democratic districts for the U.S. House without a public vote in 2025: "The Texas gerrymander freakout: What’s happening in the Lone Star State is not a threat to democracy" sourceVirginia Democrats had a public vote to do a similar thing in their state (leaving with 1 Republican district), explicitly to retaliate against Texas, which passed last night. WaPo editorial board: "Virginia plunges America deeper into the gerrymandering abyss: The redistricting scheme was always a power grab by Democrats. Voters went along with it" sourceReminder that the far-right don't care that they're hypocrites, they want to live in a world where they're freely allowed to be openly hypocritical while they judge and abuse people they believe are beneath them.
Wow really dystopian stuff here's what the ultra far right Washington Post editorial board had to say:
They’re right that the GOP started this fight by trying to pick up five House seats in Texas through gerrymandering, but they can spare us the false sanctimony about democratic norms going forward.
Both parties have contributed to this mess, and no one knows who will come out ahead. It was never clear that the mid-decade redistricting ploys by Republicans, such as those in Texas and North Carolina, would be enough to prevent defeat in the midterms.
The ballot measure wording is facially illegal:
Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?
You cannot say on a ballot filled out by voters that drawing a 10-1 map in Virginia is to "restore fairness" - which is what Texas never claimed and why they aren't massive obnoxious hypocrites like VA's governor going back on her campaign claims or VA Democrats going back on the process they just agreed to in 2020.
|
United States43934 Posts
On April 23 2026 02:17 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 01:37 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2026 01:30 dyhb wrote:The SPLC was just indicted by a grand jury. That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, perhaps the most famous cataloguer and opposer of fringe hate groups in America. It's accused of wire fraud and making false statements in order to fund a network of informants within the groups. The paid covert agents are alleged to include a "member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia," neonazis, Klan members, and a target of its "Extremist File" webpages. You should probably disclose to your donors that their donations directly fund extremism in order to better combat extremism (allegedly). It operates as a tax-deductible charity. Three million dollars are alleged to have gone to some of the worst extremist groups operating in the US. The only real defense I can see to the many false businesses, false filings to open bank accounts, and money laundering through them is that the FBI oversaw and approved of those activities. How can people be this dumb. Grand Jury IndictmentNYT story To be clear, the story here isn't misconduct, the story is that this administration which has bragged about how they plan to weaponize the justice system against groups like SPLC is alleging misconduct. We shouldn't forget the context that the US has become a failed state when we read the news. Grand jury indictment lists misconduct of a pretty clear kind. It’s the same story of Biden’s allegedly politicization of the justice system against Trump: Maybe, but also are the charges real? I can imagine other cases where the misconduct alleged looks like entrapment or is vulnerable to a deceived grand jury.
You’re JAQing off pretty hard here over allegations from a bad actor that stated ahead of time that they would be a bad actor.
|
On April 23 2026 02:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 01:30 dyhb wrote:The SPLC was just indicted by a grand jury. That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, perhaps the most famous cataloguer and opposer of fringe hate groups in America. It's accused of wire fraud and making false statements in order to fund a network of informants within the groups. The paid covert agents are alleged to include a "member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia," neonazis, Klan members, and a target of its "Extremist File" webpages. You should probably disclose to your donors that their donations directly fund extremism in order to better combat extremism (allegedly). It operates as a tax-deductible charity. Three million dollars are alleged to have gone to some of the worst extremist groups operating in the US. The only real defense I can see to the many false businesses, false filings to open bank accounts, and money laundering through them is that the FBI oversaw and approved of those activities. How can people be this dumb. Grand Jury IndictmentNYT story Informants, especially those embedded in potentially violent organisations, known to work for free. I think much depends on were they paying informants, in which case it’s somewhat similar to a journalistic source, or did that fundage go to fund activities that wouldn’t have happened without the funds. I’ll add I’m paywalled/geowalled out of a lot of articles on this so I’m mostly spitballing and going off what’s been reproduced here, there probably will be gaps so I’m acknowledging here If you’re going to fraudulently open bank accounts and launder money through them, you should probably be part of law enforcement. Not a charity that must conceal such activities from its donors.
Journalists are probably not dumb enough to create fictitious business entities and bank accounts to pay sources, but they also aren’t stewarding donated money and forced to abide by rules concerning nonprofit disclosures. They have less forms filed with the federal government to potentially lie upon.
|
On April 23 2026 02:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 01:58 LightSpectra wrote:The Washington Post (formerly respected newspaper, currently owned by Trump donor and centibillionaire Jeff Bezos) editorial board on Texas Republicans gerrymandering the state to have 0 Democratic districts for the U.S. House without a public vote in 2025: "The Texas gerrymander freakout: What’s happening in the Lone Star State is not a threat to democracy" sourceVirginia Democrats had a public vote to do a similar thing in their state (leaving with 1 Republican district), explicitly to retaliate against Texas, which passed last night. WaPo editorial board: "Virginia plunges America deeper into the gerrymandering abyss: The redistricting scheme was always a power grab by Democrats. Voters went along with it" sourceReminder that the far-right don't care that they're hypocrites, they want to live in a world where they're freely allowed to be openly hypocritical while they judge and abuse people they believe are beneath them. Wow really dystopian stuff here's what the ultra far right Washington Post editorial board had to say: Show nested quote +They’re right that the GOP started this fight by trying to pick up five House seats in Texas through gerrymandering, but they can spare us the false sanctimony about democratic norms going forward.
Both parties have contributed to this mess, and no one knows who will come out ahead. It was never clear that the mid-decade redistricting ploys by Republicans, such as those in Texas and North Carolina, would be enough to prevent defeat in the midterms. The ballot measure wording is facially illegal: Show nested quote +Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census? You cannot say on a ballot filled out by voters that drawing a 10-1 map in Virginia is to "restore fairness" - which is what Texas never claimed and why they aren't massive obnoxious hypocrites like VA's governor going back on her campaign claims or VA Democrats going back on the process they just agreed to in 2020.
Like the bully shitting his pants because someone finally punched him back for once.
|
On April 23 2026 02:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 02:17 dyhb wrote:On April 23 2026 01:37 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2026 01:30 dyhb wrote:The SPLC was just indicted by a grand jury. That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, perhaps the most famous cataloguer and opposer of fringe hate groups in America. It's accused of wire fraud and making false statements in order to fund a network of informants within the groups. The paid covert agents are alleged to include a "member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia," neonazis, Klan members, and a target of its "Extremist File" webpages. You should probably disclose to your donors that their donations directly fund extremism in order to better combat extremism (allegedly). It operates as a tax-deductible charity. Three million dollars are alleged to have gone to some of the worst extremist groups operating in the US. The only real defense I can see to the many false businesses, false filings to open bank accounts, and money laundering through them is that the FBI oversaw and approved of those activities. How can people be this dumb. Grand Jury IndictmentNYT story To be clear, the story here isn't misconduct, the story is that this administration which has bragged about how they plan to weaponize the justice system against groups like SPLC is alleging misconduct. We shouldn't forget the context that the US has become a failed state when we read the news. Grand jury indictment lists misconduct of a pretty clear kind. It’s the same story of Biden’s allegedly politicization of the justice system against Trump: Maybe, but also are the charges real? I can imagine other cases where the misconduct alleged looks like entrapment or is vulnerable to a deceived grand jury. You’re JAQing off pretty hard here over allegations from a bad actor that stated ahead of time that they would be a bad actor. And you’re studiously avoiding a comment on the charges, or the propriety of what was charged. Say now if you think the grand jury was deceived as to bank records and money laundering, as part of Trump’s weaponization.
You act like I linked to a truth social post alleging all this, not a grand jury indictment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/y3is21o0yjug1.jpeg)
