Slashdot Mirror

He's not the president-elect unless the electoral college vote next week overrides the popular vote.

There's no such thing as "overriding" the popular vote. The electoral college is how it works in the presidential election.

anyone who thinks that he "won the election" might want to keep in mind that the majority of Americans selected Mrs. Clinton

No, they didn't. Hillary Clinton won 48.3% of the popular vote. So she didn't win the majority of the popular vote. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, voter turnout was 58.6%. So only a little over half of those eligible to vote actually did so. Which means 28.3% of eligible voters actually voted for her. Hardly the majority of Americans.

I didn't like any of our choices this time around. But the electoral college is how the presidential election works. I don't follow any professional sports, but a friend of mine who follows baseball made an interesting comment about it. Apparently the totals runs for all of the games in the world series this year were 27 for each team. Obviously it wasn't' declared a tie, so depending on which games they scored makes a difference. Just like where the votes are counted makes a difference. Be it right or wrong, that's the system we have in place.

The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

You must be smoking crack. According to CNN, The Friends of Putin are winning throughout Europe — and the U.S.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/opinions/europe-handing-putin-a-win/index.html

Well the "debate" on encryption will start a again next year with the government pushing for ever more access. It isn't like those in power haven't fucking told us what they are going to do. I mean it isn't like the assholes in power didn't publicly state that it would take a terrorist attack where encryption was used to turn the public. Then a few months later the next few terror attacks didn't mention encryption at all.

schadenfreude.

Not schadenfreude but more like self-preservation. They should permanently delete his account and not look back. They gave him a voice beyond the MSM. He would not be able to manipulate people with lies sans Twitter.

Ignorant self-serving rubbish. He hasn't won a goddamn thing yet.

Earth to Shane_Optima: the fat lady has sung :

Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I'm sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.

the electors are entirely free to vote for Clinton or some other person if they so choose

Wow! Still stuck on denial? That's unhealthy, man. Most of your kind are well into the the depression stage already... MoveOn, so to speak.

A lot of people would certainly like to be bringing in $25K, but it's not exactly going to be high living.

A lot of people aren't going to live to 95 either. And we are living a little less long of lives than we used to in America http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/....

And he's not going to put Hillary in jail either, so add that to the growing list of flip-flops he's done.

And there you have the complete admission that there are no racists statements.

"Somebody had to do it," [Dylan] Roof said of the slayings. He added that "black people are killing white people everyday... What I did is so minuscule compared to what they do to white people every day."

You are full of shit.

Maybe we should wait until his ASS ACTUALLY HITS THE CHAIR IN THE FUCKING OVAL OFFICE BEFORE WHINING ABOUT HIM BREAKING HIS PROMISES.

Why? He's already broken promises. In fact, he's pretty much admitted that some of the things he said was only to get elected.

He fucking called the police during the shooting and claimed allegiance with ISIS. Whether he WAS a member of ISIS or not, he certainly was motivated by them (per his own fucking words) and used that as justification. But then, fuckwits like you choose to ignore what the facts are, what people actually say, and make shit up so you can continue your fucking SJW world-view.

Even CNN says Trump has denounced white nationalists...

I don't think you're being honest. I can't think of a state that requires anything definitive.

You must be dishonest, so dishonest, you don't think anybody has heard of Voter ID.

Somehow that's racist. Black people they tell us can't either get an ID or they can't be trusted to have it on election day. I'd think they're the racist ones saying black people are so stupid and irresponsible, however somehow it's not.

Nothing racist about saying that IDs are deliberately made hard to get for many people, due to mysteriously shutting down locations, only opening them at certain hours, and other effects.

Maybe it's just the black people that are also Democrats, which seems consistent.

Yep, that's what happened in North Carolina.

I have a voter reg card, I've never been asked for it nor any other identification in the 30+ years I've been voting. Not once. I've lived in three different counties. Same thing.

Counties are not states. See

Here are the dead voting - http://watchdog.org/57643/md-d...

Then you read the article, and it says:

"At least two dead voters showed up to vote at least once in a Maryland general election between 2004 and 2008, according to a voter registration watchdog group that has reviewed thousands of voter records this year, 1 percent of the rolls in the largest counties."

According to them. But...

"The group – Election Integrity Maryland – filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections Aug. 30. The group said it found several potential dead voters, voters who registered after they had died and a living Maryland resident who has been voting twice in elections for years."

But potential is the key word.

Here's another article:

Which says other things.

http://articles.baltimoresun.c... - in this case they were able to prove in court a lot of dead people voted. The Democratic judge didn't care. He didn't invalidate the results even though it's clear the ballot box was stuffed and Sourbrey lost by less than 6000 votes.

No, they weren't able to make that proof.

Again, from your own article:

"But others, including city elections administrator Barbara Jackson, said incorrect registrations are common in Baltimore and not necessarily evidence of fraud. Many people fail to notify the election board when they move and continue to vote from their old address, she said."

"The Sun did locate one voter identified by the Sauerbrey campaign, Ora L. Lewis, who listed 913 Whitelock St., a building that was razed several months ago, as her home address on her voter registratio

> that for most of them, this was entirely about putting food on the table

Eh, cut it out with the economic insecurity canard.

Trump lost the portion of the vote coming from people making under $50K/yr.

Furthermore, at the county level - children earning more than their parents was correlated with larger trump gains.

In as much as one can know these things, the State of Georgia was not expected to go any other way.

Remember, fraud would have to be perpetrated at the precinct level since Statewide totals available at the Secretary of State's office would just be the sums of previously recorded vote counts. It seems much more likely election fraud would be attempted in State races which are considered toss-ups... pre-election polls showed a close race in Ohio, for instance, and it went to Trump by a wide margin.

Other than an exploit by a couple of intoxicated agents, why would the DHS be unable to hide their origin IP address?

Ok, so which is more important: everyone in the country slipping into poverty and terrorist attacks from immigrants next year, or...

Global warming, only [our] part of which can fixed by us, is driven by political corruption, and won't affect us for a couple of decades?

Gee... I don't know... how much do you love your children, and how much do you think the money you make right now is going to help you in retirement age when farmland turns to waste and the political and economic strife hits from mass migrations of human populations from areas of the globe too hot to live in anymore?

And yet when Trump appoints a military man to run the military or financial people to run financial things he's criticized and attacked for it. Make up your mind, champ.

It might make a difference if the military man in question hadn't been guilty of worse security breaches than the ones they attacked Hillary for or if the financial person wasn't instrumental in one of the biggest Wall Street screwups ever.

Isn't giving people who are unqualified positions of power the textbook definition of corruption?

And yet when Trump appoints a military man to run the military or financial people to run financial things he's criticized and attacked for it. Make up your mind, champ.

It's getting close to the point that the schadenfreude of seeing morons get their due makes up for the fact that we all will be screwed.

So by all means lets call climate change a hoax. When the inevitable calamities fall, I suspect the deplorables and Breitbart readers will be disproportionately affected and not only will I not shed a tear but I will kick dirt in their faces.

Ok, so which is more important: everyone in the country slipping into poverty and terrorist attacks from immigrants next year, or...

Global warming, only [our] part of which can fixed by us, is driven by political corruption, and won't affect us for a couple of decades?

Of these issues, political corruption is the biggest impediment to rational climate change action. Getting rid of that has to come first, and only then can we expect to make progress on the other issues.

Do you think anything would get done under a Clinton administration?

We knew Trump had shortcomings, and still elected him - warts and all. We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term. Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.

I'm completely happy taking steps to curb global warming, but a) I want to be safe doing it, and b) I want to eat first.

Get some perspective. Not everything Trump is going to do will be bad, and you always have 2024 to look forward to.

Wells Fargo says the same thing... Well, minus the 'net neutrality' thing...

The real problem in the US are people stuck with dialup

The vast majority of people "stuck" with dialup are "stuck" by choice - they have no desire/need for multi-megabit internet connections to the Internet and the high fees associated with the higher-speed connections.

The guy that is the leading contender for Trumps 'national security advisor' which is arguably a major position of trust is perhaps the most notable of many Republican leaders who pushed this story and even claimed that it would end in an prosecution. This is common knowledge that anyone who has followed this story has seen, yet you choose to ignore it. In fact Flynn's son (been called his 'chief of staff') has even recently doubled down on that very statement. The simple fact is that you and other republicans have chosen to ignore the party leadership's direct complicity in spreading these dangerous lies.

HOLY SHIT! You fell for god damn fake news. You think you're so fucking smart. Good Job, you fuckin uneducated moron.

That reminds me. Trump's nominee for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development also believes the pyramids were built to store grain and the mummies were just put there to act as scarecrows.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/...

There's also an embedded video of him actually saying that in case you think this is also fake news.

No, not every piece of right wing journalism is fake, but enough that stories from them should be suspect.

Further, neither did I say anything about Russian spies. I said Russian trolls who, as you pointed out, deliberately try to insert enough fake "news" or falsify factual stories to divert attention or obscure facts. As I pointed out in my original post, Russian trolls will mod me down to try and prevent people from seeing the truth of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. When confronted with the truth they go into overdrive in St. Petersburg in attempt to do everything to discredit the facts, most specifically going after either the person posting the facts (me) or where the story comes from.

Even when Putin admitted he sent Russian troops into Crimea to steal it, Russian trolls still denied their dear leader's own words. They made every excuse for why the story was fake EXCEPT for the fact those are Putin's own words. In other words, even facts coming out of Putin's mouths are lies in the world of Russian trolls.

And that is what this about: countering blatant lies with the truth. Using facts to pummel trolls, get them to twist themselves into such a ball of anger they climb over themselves in a vain attempt to extricate themselves from the ball of lies they've spewed. It's quite funny to watch them first deny the facts, then attempt to deflect, then finally come full circle and deny their own words. What's especially funny is they're so simple minded it's very easy to get them to admit they're Russian trolls. Since they're all using the same script handed to them from their handlers, they use the same words and phrases in every post so their comments stick out like a sore thumb.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/1...

"The future is already here, it is just unevenly distributed" Cheaper space flight is both a market revolution and a technological one. Ubiquity and cheaper costs are just as important as raw innovation (not saying rocket flight will be ubiquitous or cheap, most humans will die in the gravity well they are born on). You can still do a ton of Information Age stuff with cheap(er) rockets.

GM lost $11 billion for the US Government. Hardly a "win". And that was direct cash just given out, not a reduction in taxes paid to the State. And there were about 243,000 employees at GM at the time, not 1.5 million. You really do like lying a lot, don't you?

Seems entirely relevant

Well, I have no great love for CNN, but I liked the look of this article. Let's see, there's a Forbes link on millenial underemployment, let's skip that one just in case. Hmm, there's an article on Monster with... no date? hmm, can't cite that. Here's one from time which says 46% of Americans Say They Are Underemployed, that's a fun idea. The federal reserve's estimate is "fairly close to the trend derived from CPS data, but at a much higher level".

IOW, the direction of trend is accurate, but the numbers are bullshit. Like always

I hate opioids too. Only take them when I really, really need to. The dangers of pot are extremely minimal compared with tobacco, alcohol and opioids. On top of being addictive, opioids make the pain worse once they wear off, making people go back for more to reduce the now increased pain. Pot does not do that.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

I expect the attacks on pot to really intensify now that CA has legalized it. The companies that deal deadly drugs can see the trend, and it is terrifying them.

Pot was never made illegal because of safety concerns. Take a look at Nixon's huge report on pot from the 1970s. They knew it was much less dangerous than alcohol a long time ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/...

Take a look at the Schaffer report commissioned by Nixon: http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...

Amazon uses stack ranking, too. Rumors are they will change it soon, but hasn't changed yet.

Have you ever seen bright yellow toxic sludge draining directly into a bay?

No, but we have seen it dumped into a river, well, okay, it was orange, but hey...

Just keep moving the goalposts there, brother. Eventually it'll work for you.

Remember this post of yours??

So we're just completely forgetting the actual rioting that happened both times Obama was elected?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...

Where is the proof of riots resulting from Obama's election? That's what you imply you have, that's what I've been looking for, and you haven't delivered. That's not me "moving the goalpost," that is you being unable to back up your claim. There is no surprise there because it is rubbish. Conservatives/Republicans didn't riot over their loss in the election.

And no, "I don't have time" is just a poor excuse for not wanting to face that facts.

No, it is a statement of prioritization of my use of time in which replying on Slashdot falls far below the other demands on my time. That isn't hard to understand.

But tell you what, I'll grant you a minor indulgence.

Remember this link of yours above?
http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
or as I render it:
Squeaky Wheels Get the Greece

A photograph purportedly showing a violent anti-Trump protest in the U.S. was actually taken in Greece in 2012.

What a strange link. Are you trying to imply that there really weren't anti-Trump riots going on? That rubbish is easily disposed of:

Anti-Trump protesters march for 3rd night; Portland police call it a 'riot'

An anti-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon, revved up as protesters confronted police Thursday night. What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent. Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said. Police publicly declared a "riot" due to "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior" and called the protest "unlawful," according to posts on the department's Twitter page. The crowd was dispersed using "less lethal munitions" and at least 26 protesters were arrested, police said.

Some of the roughly 1,000 protesters in Oakland broke store windows, left graffiti on buildings and threw M-80 firecrackers, Molotov cocktails and bottles at police officers, authorities said. Eleven people were arrested in Oakland, including someone who had seven Molotov cocktails in his possession, police said. Some of those arrested are accused of assaulting police officers.

The Clinton campaign announced today they're joining the recount process: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11...

I'm in favour of recounts in general, and for this election in particular. It tells us about the reliability of the election process, and hopefully might shed light on hacking and other skulduggery. The information will be used to fix future problems.

As to Clinton, she's joining because Jill Stein can't call for a recount. In at least one of the states (probably all of them) you can't call for a recount unless you are aggrieved, which means that you think the recount would change the outcome.

Jill Stein can't reasonably say that she might have won, so she officially can't be aggrieved.

Hillary most certainly *can* make that claim, since the margins for her loss are so slim in those states.

That's why she joined the process. For the recounts to happen, she's the one to request them.

Apparently Trump is in favor of recounts also, given then sudden return of his concern about illegals voting. We better recount the whole thing. Or maybe just redo it.

Clinton easily won the majority of voters earning less that $50K/yr
Trump did pretty well with those making over $50K/yr, especially those in the $50K-$200K range.
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

When Trump wins Man of the Year, expect that a bunch of idiots will equate the two.

Well, he does make the comparison pretty easy.

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/...

When Obama won election, there were effigies of him being burned in the south. There was vandalism, protests that turned violent, death threats (directed both at him, and at any other "n-word" who might happen to walk past that day). There were five years of birther bullshit (spearheaded by one Donald J Trump - note, you don't have to take CNN's word for anything, you can follow the fucking links for yourself, because with all their faults CNN is an actual news organization and makes some effort to source its stories, unlike some I could name), and the most obstructionist Congress in history.

Right up to the end, the right-wing media has never stopped publishing purest weapons-grade bullshit about the terrible things Obama is doing to America.

I read the German public news (Tagesschau), the BBC, Spanish "El Pais", Al-Jazeera

All of these are sponsored by their respective governments and therefor undeniably tainted.

I believe I am qualified to say that CNN has a good quality to their journalism

Only in a sence, a men accustomed to eating excrement of buffaloes, elephants, and tigers, is "qualified" to judges that of cats and bisons.

I have yet to see blatant fake news on CNN.

Oh, please. The even Wikipedia has a list of what it gently calls CNN controversies . And that's just where they got caught... My "favorites" would be:

Various channels of Putin-TV do this to Ukraine all the time nowadays, I wonder, where they got the idea...

These are just the established and verified "errors" of the past. Then there is scandalous coverage of Trayvon Martin's death, when the US media — CNN included — pushed a false narrative, that the killing was racially motivated. They even presented his killer as "White" and implied, he was a "Conservative", even though Mr. Zimmerman was of Hispanic origin and a registered Democrat.

The 2016 presidential campaign has shown all of the US "established" media as biased liars, but it will take years of tedious sorting out. CNN? The supposedly "objective" information source has leaked debate questions to one of the debate-participants ahead of time. Twice — that we know of! They got rid of the Donna Brazile over it, but she, obviously, was not acting alone — the rest remain at CNN. Great journalist organization...

Considering that it was law enforcement with 25 arrests. Hmmm, no koolaid there.

Oh here is a different flavor of koolaid that you may consider valid

Thank you for showing your true colors. Justifying illegal behavior by citing other allegedly illegal/immoral acts is a slippery slope

Didn't spend much time thinking about that before clicking Submit, did we? You want to a be a legalist/moralist, then demand your taxes be raised to pay for reparations and that politicians be held accountable for their crimes against humanity, committed against every. single. country. south of the U.S. border with Mexico. The victims of the Monroe Doctrine are morally owed a green card at the border, no questions asked, with a fast path to citizenship. That's chump change next to real justice - so you fools can pay up, or STFU.

No nation is perfect, but the ones that respect civil rights

Which ones would that be, Slick? Certainly not the United States, that ran a goddamned kidnapping and torture program under Bush, that beat at least 100 people to death, that we know of. That's like praising OJ Simpson and Ted Bundy for their respect for women.

Your tax dollars have directly paid for boy fucking on military bases. Tell me again how much you respect civil rights when your tax dollars have directly supported fucking pubescent and pre-pubescent boys. In the ass. Repeatedly. Or how at the same time it was whipping Americans into wetting their beds at the site of journalists being beheaded by ISIS, it was selling billions in weapons to the beheading capital of the world, Saudi Arabia. Who has beheaded people for sorcery. And that's a percentage of a portion of the cliff notes on America's human rights violations - want to talk about the millions killed in bullshit wars over just the last 15 years?

Or, you could stop being a willfully ignorant (white) American Exceptionalist, and watch your IQ go up by 200 points on the spot. Of course, you're starting from quite the hole in the ground, boy fucker. so that might get you up to 90.

It seems the Clinton campaign has decided to publicly join the recount effort. You are quite correct in your view that this may end up costing them quite dearly. -PCP

Captcha: devotee

The Clinton campaign announced today they're joining the recount process: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11...

I'm in favour of recounts in general, and for this election in particular. It tells us about the reliability of the election process, and hopefully might shed light on hacking and other skulduggery. The information will be used to fix future problems.

As to Clinton, she's joining because Jill Stein can't call for a recount. In at least one of the states (probably all of them) you can't call for a recount unless you are aggrieved, which means that you think the recount would change the outcome.

Jill Stein can't reasonably say that she might have won, so she officially can't be aggrieved.

Hillary most certainly *can* make that claim, since the margins for her loss are so slim in those states.

That's why she joined the process. For the recounts to happen, she's the one to request them.

If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests. I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

(And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 113th Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)

The Clinton campaign announced today they're joining the recount process: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11...

With the announcement today that the Clinton campaign will now join Jill Stein in the recount - I think I pretty much nailed it. This is about trying, hope against hope, to overturn the results of the election. It's pure politics, as you imply (when you state that she "believes Trump will be a disaster"). Especially in light of the fact that, during the campaign, the Green Party endorsed Trump over Clinton; this is Stein fishing for money and her own cabin on the lake.

And people were aghast when Trump wouldn't say, unequivocally, that he would accept the results of the election... I wonder where the outrage is now?

Not all that surprising coming from a tabloid. This is the same organization whose reporter tried to call out a CNN reporter, claiming he allowed himself to be used as a human shield by Qadaffi to protect an installation, when the reality was there were multiple journalists taken to the same site, including someone from Fox.

What makes the fake story from Fox so funny is twofold:

A) the Fox reporter was seen on multiple occasions talking with Libyan officials during breakfast and

B) the folks from Fox were very rarely seen outside of the hotel the journalists were staying at.

Not all that surprising coming from a tabloid. This is the same organization whose reporter tried to call out a CNN reporter, claiming he allowed himself to be used as a human shield by Qadaffi to protect an installation, when the reality was there were multiple journalists taken to the same site, including someone from Fox.

What makes the fake story from Fox so funny is twofold:

A) the Fox reporter was seen on multiple occasions talking with Libyan officials during breakfast and

B) the folks from Fox were very rarely seen outside of the hotel the journalists were staying at.

The Enquirer is a gossip tabloid sold in supermarkets. People know it's not real,

Well, not everyone.

Don't tempt him to rewrite physics books. He appears to be willing and able, since ignorance is on his side.

Too late. No doubt his nominee for Department of Education will do it for him.

I take it that you don't want poor black kids to be able to go to school in your wealthy neighborhood?

Don't tempt him to rewrite physics books. He appears to be willing and able, since ignorance is on his side.

Too late. No doubt his nominee for Department of Education will do it for him.

Of course she's unpopular, why do you think she lost to Donald Trump? Can you name another candidate who would actually be able to get nominated, who would then lose to Trump? I've seen all of these articles about why the Democrats lost the election, and they also seem to be missing the obvious reason: people just don't like Clinton. We've had, what, 30 or so years to get to know her? Well, we did, and we don't like her. That's why she was the #2 most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, right behind Trump himself. She lost to him because people didn't like her enough to go out and vote for her, which meant that everyone who either believed Trump or hated Clinton got their victory. That's why voter turnout was at a 20-year low this time. People didn't like either candidate, and a lot of people stayed home, but people in more competitive states turned out for Trump. Obama got something like 12 million more votes in 2008 than Clinton did, and keep in mind that she was running against the single most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. The DNC shot themselves right in the face by nominating her, hopefully she goes away now and the Democratic party decides that they want to represent large numbers of people again. But, who knows, she lost in the primary once to Obama, then Trump beat her, hell the Democrats might just decide to run her again next time. It's her time!