Google's Schmidt Drew Up Draft Plan For Clinton In 2014 (itwire.com)

New submitter troublemaker_23 writes: Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google's parent company Alphabet, submitted a detailed draft to a key Clinton aide on April 15, 2014, outlining his ideas for a possible run for the presidency and stressing that "The key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them." The ideas, in an email released by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, were sent to Cheryl Mills, former deputy White House counsel to Bill Clinton. Mills forwarded it to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook and Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager David Plouffe. The email is one of a trove from Podesta's gmail account that was obtained by WikiLeaks. About two weeks prior to this, Podesta wrote to Mook that he had met Schmidt and that he (Schmidt) was keen to be the "top outside adviser." In the April 15, 2014 email, Schmidt emphasized that what he was putting forward was a draft, writing, "Here are some comments and observations based on what we saw in the 2012 campaign. If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016." It was titled "Notes for a 2016 Democratic campaign." He divided his comments into categories such as size, structure and timing; location; the pieces of a campaign; the rules; and what he called the key things. With regard to size, structure and timing, Schmidt wrote: "Let's assume a total budget of about US$1.5 billion, with more than 5000 paid employees and million(s) of volunteers. The entire start-up ceases operation four days after 8 November 2016." As to location, he did not like the idea of using Washington DC as a base and was keen on low-paid workers. "The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young and hard-working and enthusiastic. It's important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low-paid permanent employees," he wrote. "DC is a poor choice as it's full of distractions and interruptions. Moving the location from DC elsewhere guarantees visitors have taken the time to travel and to help."

Comments

This is a good thing.

[CajunArson]

This plan of spying on voters and recording their life history is an excellent thing as long as it benefits a candidate with a (D) next to her name. It just shows that the Democrats are pro-science higher beings of pure energy that descended from a higher plane of existence for us to worship.

If Trump had done that he'd be worse than Hitler (again).

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

I wonder if he didn't want to go the post-factual route for some kind of moral reason, or if he just didn't foresee the rise of anti-intellectualism and post-truth politics. It's similar to the mistake that the Remain campaign made during the Brexit referendum - they assumed that reason and addressing people's concerns, which they worked very hard to understand, would work. They had all the profiling and polling data, the focus groups. They heard people saying that they wanted hard data, factual information and the truth. They just didn't realize that what people really wanted was to have their existing views validated and to be told it's not them, it's the world that's wrong.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

The only anti-intellectual is you. People had good reasons to support Brexit. Because you are upper middle class and white you don't understand those reasons. But that is ignorance on your part.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it is a very common thing for somebody who is driven by unsound reasons, especially fear and hate, does, to insist that they are in fact, logical, and rational, and to declare it is the other side that is clearly ignorant and emotional, and can't understand them.

So that is not exactly a persuasive claim on your part.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

There is a good reason to be fearful. That is why you guys don't understand: fear is a damn good reason, especially when you are near the bottom of the economic latter. People like you and AmiJojo are spoiled. You don't know what it is like to live in fear for your future. You are the spoiled upper middle class.

Re:This is a good thing.

[goose-incarnated]

I wonder if he didn't want to go the post-factual route for some kind of moral reason, or if he just didn't foresee the rise of anti-intellectualism and post-truth politics. It's similar to the mistake that the Remain campaign made during the Brexit referendum - they assumed that reason and addressing people's concerns, which they worked very hard to understand, would work. They had all the profiling and polling data, the focus groups. They heard people saying that they wanted hard data, factual information and the truth. They just didn't realize that what people really wanted was to have their existing views validated and to be told it's not them, it's the world that's wrong.

You bring up the Brexit in almost every post. You present it as "the ignorant racist masses voted with their irrationally", while in truth the rulers got their asses handed to them. You want to spin the brexit as some sort of bad thing, but time will tell - thus far all of the doom and gloom has failed to materialise.

In this case there is apparently a very real possibility that the ruling class will get a bloodied nose. You appear to think that all of the ruled classes should be concerned about the well-being of their rulers. You are, of course, incorrect.

Re:This is a good thing.

[CajunArson]

Fascinating how your butthurt over Brexit somehow makes you the only person qualified to comment on an election in a completely different country than the U.K.

Did you miss that part of elementary school where they taught you that the U.S. is an independent country?

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

AmiMoJo is a SJW. A psuedo-intellectual who believes he knows better than anyone else and lacks empathy for others. The best prescription would be for him to walk in a working class persons shoes for a good decade. He wouldn't spout his drivel after that.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me pessimistic, but the war against privacy (and the "prove your innocence" movement in general) is exactly why I've given up caring about the future of humanity. What we are seeing today is only the tip of the iceberg. It's going to be far worse than we think. The future of humanity will be defined by a top-down hierarchy of power and complete lack of respect for individuality -- not unlike the military. The fact that even the subject class is now effectively chanting "privacy is dead" says it all. There's going to be no place for a person like me who believes in individual sovereignty.

Re: This is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Upper classes are the only ones that count. Shit workers whose jobs can be outsources or who can be replaced with low-wage chumps (because they're low-wage chumps themselves) should not even be allowed to vote. Democracy is a joke. Let the Elites (without them we wouldn't even have the EU) decide and let EURGENDFOR deal with the malcontents the hard way. Europe needs more control from above. People need guidance and purpose, even if they have to be beaten into them with nightsticks.

Re:This is a good thing.

[lbmouse]

Well considering the turn around of 1994 when the GOP started down the path of becoming the anti-intellectual party, there probably isn't anyone in the Koch companies or delivering pizzas for Papa Johns smart enough to come up with this type of plan. Let's face it, thanks to Newt Gingrich's Contract with America during the Republican Revolution, the GOP is just one election away from nominating Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. Barry Goldwater must be getting tired of spinning in his grave.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

I never said fear was a good thing. I said fear was a damn good reason to make decisions. Not the only reason, but should be taken into consideration when making decisions. It is only human. Go ahead and attack me, but you are the one out of touch. Have some empathy for others who aren't as well off as you are.

Re:This is a good thing.

[smallfries]

You've proven his point quite well. Thank you.

Re:This is a good thing.

[smallfries]

When you say that the doom and gloom has not materialised yet - do you understand that brexit has not yet happened?

Re:This is a good thing.

[smallfries]

They don't have elementary school in the UK, that's more of an American thing...

Re:This is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Financially the Brexit was a bad thing for Britain. Sure there are other concerns that might convince people that it was the right course to follow, anti-immigration fears etc. I don't think you can doubt that the pound lost a lot of value immediately after the vote and it has continued to decline. The pound was in the $1.40 range before the vote (value in USD) and dropped immediately into the $1.30 range and continued to drop to now it's in the $1.20 range. People in Great Britain are poorer now than they were before the vote.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

No one said you should be driven by fear. However fear is one of the valid reasons to take into consideration when making decisions. Only people who haven't lived in economic fear don't understand this concept.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Jawnn]

There's going to be no place for a person like me who believes in individual sovereignty.

Why do you think that is? Could it be because so many so-called "conservatives" have abdicated that sovereignty so willingly every time the governing class told a scary story? "OMG! Same sex marriage?! Let's have the government decide who can be married and who can't. OMG! Women can choose what to do with their own bodies? That's not right. We need the government to step in and take that right away. OMG! Teh terrorists! Please make us safe. We don't care if you piss all over The Bill of Rights, just make us feel like you're doing something that matters."
And no, you libertarians don't get off the hook, because you tools have aligned yourselves with the Conservatives far more often than not. The result is that your rights, as a citizen, have been supplanted by corporate power.

Re:This is a good thing.

[ncc74656]

...and yet it was the Democrat Party that gave us the brain donor currently occupying the Resolute Desk. How do you explain that?

Re:This is a good thing.

[vel-ex-tech]

This is a valid point. All of these reactionary movements are being driven by fear. Fear is being prompted by economic uncertainty and hardship. Hardship comes from the lack of living wages and also meaningful, rewarding (not just financially) work.

I think it was this site that had an article a while back that said a significant portion of UK residents felt their jobs were meaningless.

Mostly it's hardship. We have a top-heavy economic system that is simply not delivering wealth and prosperity to the average person. We also have a system of socialism (to differing degrees in the UK or USA) to make sure that those who are unable to find work do not starve to death in the streets, but it provides the bare minimum and strips the recipients of dignity. Plus, for people with jobs, if one is fed up with one's job, frustrated, burned out, and just sick and tired of the daily grind, yearning for just one fucking chance to put your education and skills to work for yourself and really shine, how the hell do you become a recipient of this socialism? Not easily, and not without losing everything and becoming an undignified, unwanted ward of the state.

This will continue to get worse and worse. There are no shiny, exciting, new jobs of the future for the average person. For the average Slashdotter, sure, we'll keep retraining and finding new, interesting things to do. And we'll do ok that way. The average person simply will not be able to participate in the economy of the future. The only thing they can look forward to is starvation, more hardship, and if they're lucky, perhaps some of that socialism along with a hefty moral guilt trip for being a worthless bum will come their way without needing to be homeless for too long.

The best way I've seen this put is that while we talk about buggy whips, how did the horseless carriage work out for the horses? If you were an attractive, well-trained, and healthy horse, you probably did ok if you were lucky. The rest got made into glue.

For now we can hate horses of a different color. Evolution didn't stop at the neck! Oh and those Moooooooooslim horses, well, Moooooooslim Isn't A Race so it's ok! And those fucking gays and all those transSEXuals raping girls in the bathroom! Faggot! Get 'em up against the wall! (Pink! Pink! Pink!)

There has to be a better way.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

Please point out anywhere in my posts where I said that "how you think your fear is a good thing" (whatever that means). Until then, just shut up. I said "fear is a damn good reason to make decisions". Not the only reason, but one of the inputs that should be considered. Sorry you can't read.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

100% correct. That is why I say most people on this website lack empathy. They have never had to live at the bottom, or even the lower middle. People are scared, and they have good reason to be. It hasn't affected most of the people on this website yet, but it could if things get bad enough.

Re:This is a good thing.

[L. J. Beauregard]

Democrat Party

DRINK!

Re:This is a good thing.

[L. J. Beauregard]

Yes, Democrats are pro-science. Republicans are only pro-science when it's conveeenient. They're downright Lysenkoist when scientific findings inconvenience either their fat-cat backers or their useful idiots in the pulpits.

Re:This is a good thing.

[ranton]

There is a good reason to be fearful.

There is a good reason to be fearful, but not a good reason to be manipulated by those pedaling fear. The politicians pushing Brexit were exposed in the days after the vote because of their lack of a plan on how to accomplish the Brexit. Pedaling fear is a good way to win elections, but it is a very poor way to govern.

UK voters had no idea what they were voting for with Brexit, which literally means every single voter who voted for it was hopelessly either uninformed, misinformed, or acting in their own selfish interests at the expense of their society. Every single one, without a single exception. The vast majority were either uninformed or misinformed, often because politicians played on their prejudices and fear.

It is important to note that we know without a shred of doubt that every vote for Brexit was an uninformed vote, because there was no solid plan for leaving the EU. Even if Brexit works out, it was still an uninformed vote. You don't get credit for being lucky.

Re:This is a good thing.

[L. J. Beauregard]

SJW

DRINK!

Re:This is a good thing.

[serviscope_minor]

while in truth the rulers got their asses handed to them.

Christ Alive you've really had the Johnson shoved down your throat as it were and swallowed every last bit of it.

I really don't know how you could class Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, May and so on as "not the rulers". They are all/were very high up Tories during a Tory government, a.k.a, rulers.

thus far all of the doom and gloom has failed to materialise.

You do realise we haven't actually left yet. Eh facts, schmacts.

In this case there is apparently a very real possibility that the ruling class will get a bloodied nose.

Hm Tories in before, Tories in after. And mostly the same Tories. That has to be about the most bloodless bloody nose I've ever heard of. And in fact because of the nuclear meltdown of the Labour party, in part precipitated by the Brexit result, the old ruling Tories are in a far, far stronger position than they've any right to be in. They have a majority of a scant 12 and are acting as if it's 150.

Yep that's a bloody nose alright, but it ain't for the Tories, that's for sure.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

There is one thing that is in common for you types: your insistence that the "other" side was misinformed or manipulated and too ignorant to understand. You just can't comprehend that others made a rational decision based on their worldview. It is really disgusting, but a common SJW tactic. My advice: have some empathy and try to see the world through the eyes of people that aren't as fortunate as you. Everyone else is not as stupid as you think they are.

Re:This is a good thing.

[rickb928]

And "corporations".

Re:This is a good thing.

[serviscope_minor]

There is a good reason to be fearful. That is why you guys don't understand: fear is a damn good reason, especially when you are near the bottom of the economic latter.

ladder?

But no it's not. It's *a* reason, and a reason people act, but acting on uthinking fear is a terrible idea. If you fear something legetimate, that's a decent point, but simply going on fear is a terrible way to make decisions.

And look what it'll yield for those people near the bottom: it's taking the EU, which gives a rather large amount of money to the poorer regions of the UK, and giving all that power to the Tories who do not exactly have a great track record of making sure that those regions are supported. To put it mildlythatchercough.

Yes, immigration has not gone down well in a number of places with poor integration etc and that causes problems. However, many of those places are utter pits of dispair with or without the EU, and certainly were in the 90s before the freedom of movement. And no small part of them were like that due to actions of earlier Tories and guess who's just got a whole bunch more power?

People like you and AmiJojo are spoiled. You don't know what it is like to live in fear for your future. You are the spoiled upper middle class.

You are justifying their probably destruction of their future because they feared for their future. This is the most perfect example of why making fear-based decisions is a bad idea.

Re:This is a good thing.

[rickb928]

I would sooner believe that the Brexit deniers ultimately blame the US. We've not yet embraced the EU and gone full socialist.

We're facing a similar decision point next week.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

Please point out anywhere in my posts where I said that "how your fear is a good thing" (whatever that means). Until then, just shut up. I said "fear is a damn good reason to make decisions". Not the only reason, but one of the inputs that should be considered. Sorry you can't read.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

"If you fear something legetimate, that's a decent point". These people DO fear something legitimate (legetimate?), in their eyes. I'm not saying that Brexit was a good idea, but people like you are CONVINCED that they made the wrong decision, because you don't agree with their reasons. The way people like you look down on others is really disgusting actually. You guys need a reality check. People make decisions. Fear of a bad future is one good input to any decision. If you had some empathy for the lower classes you would be able to see it from their perspective.

Re:This is a good thing.

[TheRaven64]

Rational choice? Did the people who had been routinely screwed over by the Westminster Parliament for decades make a rational choice to give more power to Westminster and remove one of its most significant checks? Did people close to the poverty line make a rational choice to vote for an increase in food prices (or was it the nice £200m overnight bonus for Rupert Murdoch's brother in law's investments that they were making their rational choice for)?

The entire reason that we have a representative democracy is that issues are complex and very few people have the time to be sufficiently well informed to make good choices. We elect people who are supposed to work full time to understand the issues and make the rational choices for us that we would have made if we had time to investigate the issues.

No one in the Brexit referendum made a rational choice because we weren't given two rational options to pick. Remain wasn't too bad: it was a vote for the status quo, which has both good and bad aspects. Leave was a vote for some totally unspecified other thing - is it better, is it worse? No one knew because no one actually stated what the other thing was and even three months later it looks as if we still don't know.

The only sad thing is all of the people who thought they were voting against the establishment when they voted leave.

Re:This is a good thing.

[TheRaven64]

while in truth the rulers got their asses handed to them.

Really? So Murdoch didn't make millions and the career politicians didn't just get a license to remove one of the few checks on their power? I must have been in a different UK to you.

You want to spin the brexit as some sort of bad thing

Let's see, we're trying to negotiate trade agreements with 27 countries that all want us to fail. That's not going to go well. Ah well, at least we can still negotiate good deals with the USA and China, after all a large trading block like the EU managed to negotiate TTIP, I'm sure the UK at a tenth the size will get far better terms than that abomination. After all, we're in a so much better bargaining position, what with having literally dozens of trained trade negotiators.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

One thing in common with the "Remain" people: they all say the reason they lost is because of ignorance. The disdain for the commoners is palpable.

Re:This is a good thing.

[argStyopa]

Yesterday, I heard on NPR (I believe it was a climate forum) one of the talking "experts" opined "well, basically, white people are the problem" followed by chuckles and murmurs of assent.

I'm curious in what context such a statement (changing any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?

"well, basically, black people are the problem".
"well, basically, gays are the problem".
"well, basically, jews are the problem".

EDIT: aha found it.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...
"Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+
"Truthfully...white people are the problem"

And damn you all for making me listen to that crap AGAIN to find it.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Mashiki]

Well you could call them a political and moral authoritarian. Would that make you feel better? After all, they subscribe to the idea that "ideas outside of the groupthink" is fascism.

Re:This is a good thing.

[ranton]

There is one thing that is in common for you types: your insistence that the "other" side was misinformed or manipulated and too ignorant to understand. You just can't comprehend that others made a rational decision based on their worldview.

Explain to me what Brexit voters were voting for. Were they voting for a "Hard Brexit" or a "Soft Brexit"? Were they voting for access to the single market similar to Norway, or for more autonomy like the US? Did they want complete control over immigration, or accept EU control of immigration in order to keep the single market?

You are lying if you claim anyone knew what they were voting for. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Because the UK still doesn't know what type of Brexit it wants. If the Brexit supporters had provided a real plan for breaking away from the EU then I would agree with you that there were two legitimate sides to the referendum and that the other side simply disagreed with me (instead of being misinformed). But as it stands, it is not opinion that every person who voted for Brexit had no idea what they voted for. Because no human on this planet knew what Brexit means, and that stands true even today.

Re: This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

Please point out anywhere in my posts where I said that "how your fear is a good thing" (whatever that means). Until then, just shut up. I said "fear is a damn good reason to make decisions". Not the only reason, but one of the inputs that should be considered. Sorry you can't read.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

They were voting on this: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". The majority chose to leave the European Union. It is quite a simple question. Did the "Remain" side have a full plan on how to address the concerns of those that want to leave the EU? Of course not. People weren't happy with the status quo. Brexit might turn out to be worse, but that is how history is made. Life is messy. But one thing is sure: the world won't stop turning. The UK lived without the EU for hundreds of years.

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

Post-factual politics originated in the US. The UK imported the idea from you guys, it's just that we happened to go first with the vote and I'm saying you should take note of how badly it went.

Regardless of if you support Brexit or not, it's undeniable that the Leave campaign went all out on the anti-intellectualism, "there are no facts, no truth" angle, and it's undeniable that Trump uses many of the same tactics. That wall he promised is about as likely as the £350m/week for the NHS we were promised.

Re: This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

As an IT weenie, I quite agree. As I said: they haven't been scared yet, but it might come faster than they expect.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

It is undeniable that the "other side" is anti-intellectual. Undeniable! And of course it is the US fault. That is undeniable as well. SJWs really take the cake when it comes down to their disdainful perception of their fellow man. The good thing is "our side" always makes rational decisions. Let them eat cake I say!

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

The BBC did a series of interviews about Brexit recently. They just recorded too people talking, no editorialising. It's part of a project to record ordinary people's thoughts on important historical events: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01cqx3b

Anyway, have a listen to a few of them. It's remarkable how many Brexit supporters come out with some variation of "I'm not racist, but..." and seem to be very defensive when talking about their reasoning. Stats do show that racist incidents have risen since the vote, and I've had them personally.

As for bringing up Brexit, it's relevant. The US invented post-factual politics, the UK imported the idea, and I'm warning you not to allow them to dominate. It's got nothing to do with the elite ruling class - in Brexit the two biggest liars were Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both public school toffs born with a silver spoon up the arse, so much so that they even looked down on the Prime Minister for not being posh enough. It was their efforts, especially Gove and his "people have had enough of experts" rubbish that won the day. The "man of the people", Nigel Farage, took a bit of a back seat and wasn't even part of the official Leave campaign.

The rich won Brexit, not the masses. The rich will be the ones benefiting. The current rulers are unelected, more 1%er than the last lot and have all personally benefited from the lies they told to get the result they wanted. If there is any doubt, Johnson was a strong remain supporter until he saw an opportunity to become PM and decided to lunge for it.

Re:This is a good thing.

[serviscope_minor]

These people DO fear something legitimate (legetimate?), in their eyes.

That's borderline tautology. While it happens it's rare for people to acknowledge that their own fear of something is misplaced.

but people like you are CONVINCED that they made the wrong decision

Yes.

, because you don't agree with their reasons

Well some of the reasons are not matters of opinion, they were "facts" which turned out to be out-right lies. Like for example the 350 million which would go to the NHS.

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

I'm white but definitely not upper middle class. In fact, isn't owning your own house a basic trapping of being middle class? I regard myself as working class, if it matters.

Re:This is a good thing.

[ranton]

They were voting on this: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".

But they had no idea what that meant. They might have well said they were voting for "Tree purple four" (yes that was meant to be gibberish).

It is like voting for someone who only says "I will make your life better" and thinking that is a platform. Everyone who votes this way is an uneducated and deeply dangerous voter (regardless of how much formal education they have had).

Re:This is a good thing.

[khallow]

I wonder if he didn't want to go the post-factual route for some kind of moral reason, or if he just didn't foresee the rise of anti-intellectualism and post-truth politics.

I still remember your stand on Fukushima, such as taking new thyroid cancer surveys out of context, rationalizing Japanese nuclear plants should be shut down indefinitely because they couldn't be demonstrated to be safe, or instinctively blaming the Fukushima plant operator and assuming they were lying just because there was a nuclear accident.

In addition to your brazen hypocrisy on this matter, we have some pretty obvious history of anti-intellectualism which dates back to the dawn of Man (and perhaps even started as an evolutionary response to competing with smarter people, let us note). In more recent history, we have such things as the Puritans and their many anti-intellectual offshoots, the Know Nothings, fairy watchers, and some nasty strains of environmentalism.

And your assertion of "post-truth" politics is ridiculous. There has never been "truth" politics so there never has been a "post-truth" politics. Politics is the same oily machine of deception that it's always been since the dawn of history.

In all, this is just a pointless ad hominem against "Leave" voters in Brexit.

Moving on, what's the point of characterizing the half-assed "Remain" campaign as a hypercompetent effort whose only flaw was overestimating the intelligence of the voter (incidentally, something a competent campaign wouldn't have done)? Ridiculous. You should be embarrassed for even writing that fantasy.

Sure, it's comforting to think that the reason you didn't get your way is that voters are stupid. That may even be true in this case. But as I see in comments, you continue to ignore the interests of the "Leave" voters. Never attribute to incompetence, that which can be adequately explained by self-interest.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

It is amazing that when you imply that people are racist that the first thing they say is "I'm not racist". That is another SJW tactic: if you can't beat them, simply label them with an "ist". Call them racist or sexist. It doesn't matter as long as you label them and put them on the defensive. You are a really disgusting person.

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

Ah, yes the old "they had no idea what that meant". "They are ignorant". But of course YOUR SIDE was well informed and enlightened. Disgusting.

Re: This is a good thing.

[Beeftopia]

This may all be true. HOWEVER: The people who rise into power are not infrequently sociopaths, narcissistic and low empathy. Some cover it well, some cover it poorly. But in order to effectively lead a large organization, one cannot be too focused on the stresses felt by the machine's cogs.

THUS: allowing the grunts to have a say in their welfare may - MAY - limit the power of the leadership to engage in too much self-aggrandizement, which can sometimes take the form of empire-building. The grunts aren't very good at academics but they often are socially intelligent enough.

The grunts may vote themselves their chains - see large swaths of the Middle East and Asia. However, in modern times, with it's higher level of information and the evolutionary shaping by prior conflict in which large numbers of combatants were killed by industrial war machinery, it can likely also prevent large scale military adventures.

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

Why don't you actually listen to the recordings before deciding that someone must have prompted these statements?

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

There has never been "truth" politics

Exactly, in post-truth politics there is no objective reality or true/false, only what the individual believes. Personal belief trumps all reason, logic, measurements and data, the scientific method means nothing in the face of gut feeling.

Re:This is a good thing.

[CaptainLard]

Is he wrong?

Re:This is a good thing.

[colin_faber]

Yes, he is racist.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Politics and religions are the exact same memetic process -- gather as many true believers as possible, and when you get the coveted critical mass, you can jam your beliefs onto others and force them to behave like you want, whether they like it or not.

You are aping the most recent buzzword, "othering", without recognizing it as part of the quasi-religious memeplex you are an instantiating cog for.

Repeat after me: I will only speak the tenets of my religion, othering people for othering people.

Re:This is a good thing.

[micahraleigh]

"All surveys show that Republicans have more years of formal education, on average." http://www.socialsecuritywaste...

Aggregates data from pew and a few other notable research outfits.

Note: I don't buy into the 'more educated is always better' formula, but if I did it would support the GOP.

Re:This is a good thing.

[meta-monkey]

Let's have the government decide who can be married and who can't.

Pretty sure it's the liberals who wanted to mandate government issue marriage certificates to gays. This issue does not support your argument unless there's recent examples of laws passed to prevent same-sex people from having civil ceremonies and living together as "married."

As for abortion, it's reasonable to ask the government to stop people from murdering babies, yes. Has nothing to do with "controlling what women do with their bodies," but it makes for a nice moral outrage rant so carry on.

Re:This is a good thing.

[micahraleigh]

"BOTH sides are about suppression of freedom and control of the masses."

Why is it that when a Democrat does something corrupt or bad it means all politicians do it ... but it's a Republican problem when Republicans do it.

This is a major equivocation.

Re:This is a good thing.

[meta-monkey]

Yes, Democrats are pro-science. Republicans are only pro-science when it's conveeenient.

The Democrat platform requires the denial of genetics and evolutionary biology. I'll believe Democrats are pro-science when they can give me an explanation for, say, wealth inequality between the races that isn't just "evil white racism."

Re:This is a good thing.

[meta-monkey]

How about the Chinese and the Indians?

Re:This is a good thing.

[ausekilis]

Godwin in 3 minutes. Well done, sir!

Re:This is a good thing.

[110010001000]

I don't need to watch carefully edited videos to know that the SJW tactic of calling people "racist" because they oppose your worldview is disgusting behavior. Instead of watching videos, why not ask people why they voted out? Some of them are racist, but surely not all of them? Most of them are afraid of what they thought the UK would become and the negative affects on themselves if they remained in the EU. Sorry you don't agree, but that doesn't give you the right to imply they are racists.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Orgasmatron]

Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder. And the pro-abortion position is not about freedom for the bodies of women, it is about murder too.

See, for example, the pro-abortion camp's reaction to a proposal in Italy not long ago to replace third trimester abortions with surgical delivery, incubation, and when successful, adoption. I'll give you a hint, the pro-abortion camp was absolutely fucking outraged that anyone would suggest that we try to end a pregnancy (freedom for the mother's body) without killing the baby.

If you don't believe me, find one of your pro-abortion friends and ask them what they think of the idea. If they haven't heard of it before, you'll get to enjoy several seconds of stunned silence while their brains reboot, followed by angry sputtering (from most of them; a few think it is a great idea).

And you are absolutely right about conservativism. It is dead, though the corpse hasn't stopped twitching yet. Reagan's amnesty was the fatal blow, though Kennedy's immigration reform in 1965 was already festering badly by then and would certainly have finished the job unaided, eventually, and if left untreated. Amnesty '86 all but assured that whites would, within a generation, start to develop racial awareness and then a national identity in the generation that followed. (Note: The generations in question are roughly, Gen-X and Millennial. Also note that nation is not a synonym of country.) Once upon a time, it was possible to view libertarianism as the destination that conservatism wanted to take us towards. Now both the road and the end are closed, and a new right is forming, one that the left will find much less easy to push around.

We truly are blessed to live in such amazing times.

Re:This is a good thing.

[meta-monkey]

Do you think this is new? When was "truth politics?" I think I missed it.

Re:This is a good thing.

[serviscope_minor]

After all, they subscribe to the idea that "ideas outside of the groupthink" is fascism.

Ah it's "Mashiki makes shit up day" today, otherwise known as [checks calendar] Tuesday. Basically the bulk of your debating tactic is to make up stuff that people have done, get very cross about it, then post random links to irrelevant things when challenged.

I now invite you to post some links to support your arguments.

Re:This is a good thing.

[serviscope_minor]

I can see why you support brexit. It seems you are in your own post-factual bubble. Viz:

It is amazing that when you imply that people are racist that the first thing they say is "I'm not racist"

Holy selective quoting, batman! Now, let me selectively quote you:

I... beat sex... g...o...a...t...s... .

Sick pervert.

Re:This is a good thing.

[serviscope_minor]

SJWs

DRINK AGAIN!

Bloody hell, that guy who started the "SWJ drinking game upthread" is going to have a lot to answer for.

Re:This is a good thing.

[ranton]

Ah, yes the old "they had no idea what that meant". "They are ignorant". But of course YOUR SIDE was well informed and enlightened. Disgusting.

You keep saying this like one side could never be more informed than the other. I laid out an actual argument for why one side is more informed, but instead of either refuting it or acknowledging its accuracy, you fall back on claiming I have bias without supporting arguments. And then you throw in inflamatory language such as "disgusting" thinking this can substitute for an actual argument.

There is a difference between voters who vote for a platform with actual concrete plans, and voters who vote based on platitudes and fear mongering. Calling out the latter is the responsible thing to do, not a disgusting display of bias.

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

Shit dude, you didn't even read it, did you? It's not videos. It's audio recordings for radio. And as I said, they aren't editorialized.

Again, classic post-factual politics, simply ignore and dismiss as obviously biased and unreliable any evidence which contradicts you.

Re:This is a good thing.

[serviscope_minor]

See, for example, the pro-abortion camp's reaction to a proposal in Italy not long ago to replace third trimester abortions with surgical delivery, incubation, and when successful, adoption.

Interesting, do you have a link? From what I can see, Italy doesn't allow abortions after 13 weeks, which is the 1st/2nd trimester boundary unless there are some exceptional (enumerated) circumstances.

Re:This is a good thing.

[ranton]

I voted to remove the sovereign state which governs my life from a federal Europe that, had it been implemented properly, I would have fully supported, but in reality is a technocratic playpen increasingly driven by the desires of large corporations to do as they please with scant regard to the primary responsibility that it ought have to the people who are already in Europe.

But you didn't vote to do this. At best you voted to lose representation in the EU. It is still quite likely that every single regulation and immigration policy the EU imposes on the UK will still be there post-Brexit.

If your countries stays in the single market then the EU will still impose its regulations on your country, and collect money from your government. The only difference is you will have no representation in these decisions which significantly affect your country. Your country is still figuring out if it will remain in the single market perhaps for years, so claiming any voters knew what a Brexit meant (other than rhetoric platitudes) is simply wrong.

Re:This is a good thing.

[ranton]

Why weren't we allowed to have a vote on whether we wanted mass immigration?

Any answers? You ignorant cuck.

Because your leaders made sure there was no reasonable argument for you to vote to leave the EU based on the options given. They intentionally made sure the referendum provided only one reasonable option and made the other option as ambiguous and horribly dangerous as possible. This was a calculated move to gain a mandate from the people in order to influence parliament.

Obviously, this strategy backfired horribly since the populace voted for the irrational option anyway.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Whorhay]

I can't speak to other peoples objections to that third trimester plan, but I can voice my own, which would fit within US law.

In the USA you can't currently legally force one person to subject themselves to a medical procedure in order to protect or aid another person. The only exception I can think of to that is vaccinations, which aren't quite the same because it isn't to protect/aid another person but society in general and frequently is coerced by denying services rather than forcing through actual use of force. By requiring that a pregnant woman undergo a cesarean section surgery rather than some other abortive procedure you are forcing her into taking on more or different medical risks than she consents to. To me abortion is a self determination issue, even if you assume that a fetus is possessed of the same rights as its mother it's wrong to force the mother into medical procedures against her will to support it.

Personally I find abortion very distasteful and wouldn't support anyone I know in having one outside of mental or physical medical necessity. My personal tastes though aren't as important to me as trying to maintain a civil and just society.

Re:This is a good thing.

[HornWumpus]

Selecting the recordings that best present their propaganda might technically be 'not editorialized' but it's still yellow journalism.

Would you trust Trump's people to present Hillary's argument? Then why are you doing the same thing?

Re:This is a good thing.

[HornWumpus]

Unless the person being forced to undergo a procedure is a fetus. Then it's just dandy.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he wrong?

What the fuck?! Fuck you.

Re:This is a good thing.

[budgenator]

Indians as in Hindustanis are Caucasians, so technically they would be "white people" sometimes very black white people but white people none the less. Of course the "race thing" is way over-blown, most of us in North America are mongrels right now and the few who aren't will be in a couple generations.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder.

If that were the case, they wouldn't resort to lying to women, forcing ultrasounds upon them, and concocting deceitful videos, in other words behaving even more deplorably.

And the pro-abortion position is not about freedom for the bodies of women, it is about murder too.

See, for example, the pro-abortion camp's reaction to a proposal in Italy not long ago to replace third trimester abortions with surgical delivery, incubation, and when successful, adoption.

I can find zero documentation of this proposal, but you know what? Third Trimester abortions are so preposterously rare, because they are risky to both the mother and fetus, more so than caesarean section.

Seriously, your purported proposal does not square with the real state of abortions in Italy, so I must wonder if you are lying for some reason.

I'll give you a hint, the pro-abortion camp was absolutely fucking outraged that anyone would suggest that we try to end a pregnancy (freedom for the mother's body) without killing the baby.

Sure dude, go ahead and show this happening. The fact is, third trimester is 28 weeks, which is after viability. You know, when pretty much nobody has an abortion, except in cases of extremity.

If you don't believe me, find one of your pro-abortion friends and ask them what they think of the idea. If they haven't heard of it before, you'll get to enjoy several seconds of stunned silence while their brains reboot, followed by angry sputtering (from most of them; a few think it is a great idea).

Ok, everybody thinks you're making up a story for some reason. IOW, you're a liar.

Why do you lie?

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

To support your theory we must accept that the BBC is biased enough against Brexit to go to these lengths. It would have had to somehow rig the selection process, and do it with enough people to get the clips they wanted.

This seems unlikely, to say the least. You present no evidence, only the implication that all media is biased and utterly worthless.

In other words, a classic post-factual argument. The only thing you can believe is what you have personally witnessed, everything else is a conspiracy.

Re:This is a good thing.

[HornWumpus]

Your claim is that BBC went out and interviewed only the people that ended up in the clip?

What I'm claiming doesn't even require 'conspiracy'. Just standard (including the BBC) journalistic practice. Select content for entertainment value, insert personal bias during process. (It's unavoidable, but many don't even bother considering their POV, being snotty self righteous halfwits.)

Re:This is a good thing.

[yuriklastalov]

Almost entirely non-white, so they're good.

If anything, both countries have legitimate gripes with the White devils: China and the Opium wars, India and the British Empire.

We should demand the vile Westeners abdicate the power they stole from proud People of Color and let China dictate world policy from now on. What a paradise the world will be then!

Re:This is a good thing.

[I'm New Around Here]

The fact that you think "owning a house" is a "trapping" of any class says a lot.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Whorhay]

First of all the law, in general, does not recognize a fetus as a person. Some localities my differ on that but they are the exception.

Secondly, as I said you can't force one person to undergo medical treatment and procedures to preserve the life of another and claim to support self determination. A Fetus, even if it were afforded all the rights of a citizen can't legally demand that another person accept potentially life threatening risks to preserve its own life. If such were the case you'd see people in need of various transplant procedures suing others for a kidney, part of a liver, or a hip worth of bone marrow.

Re:This is a good thing.

[rsborg]

Let's face it, thanks to Newt Gingrich's Contract with America during the Republican Revolution,

s/with/on/

It turned out to be the Contract on America [1]. And it was when conservatives became neo-conservatives (which is to say they did an about face on anything actually designed to balance budgets or adhere to actual conservative values) and the Christian right-wing merged with the GOP.

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

Working class people don't play AD&D?

Re:This is a good thing.

[rmckeethen]

I appreciate that you included a link to the audio recording, so people can judge the comment for themselves. However, you might want to include the whole quote, because it better illustrates what the speaker actually meant when he said, "White people are the problem." The actual statement from guest Bill McKibben came on the heal of a discussion about the lack of climate change questions during the presidential debates, and in the election overall, and McKibben's estimation of Republican positions on climate change (pardon any errors in my transcription):

Greg Dalton (moderator): "Bill McKibben, there's a sense that, that even some of the policies that are addressing climate change aren't working for everyone, that they're, they're not including communities of color, even though African-American and Latino voters are more likely to support climate action, but talk about inclusion in the idea that this is.. climate is a, ah, kind of a, a... climate is a white coastal concern..."

Bill McKibben: "Ah, yeah, I think, again I think that's wrong. You know, ah, truthfully, ah, I mean, think about our politics. White people are the problem (laughter)... for the most part. If we had, if we had the presidential election today, just among white people, Donald Trump would win, and and pretty easily. What does that tell you?"

Re:This is a good thing.

[Hognoxious]

It's remarkable how many Brexit supporters come out with some variation of "I'm not racist, but..." and seem to be very defensive when talking about their reasoning.

Probably a conditioned response to cretins[1] like you who label anyone with a different opinion as somethingist.

[1] No prejudice is intended against inhabitants of large Mediterranean islands.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Hognoxious]

Leave was a vote for some totally unspecified other thing - is it better, is it worse? No one knew because no one actually stated what the other thing was and even three months later it looks as if we still don't know.

It was a vote for a hard Brexit, i.e. totally leaving the common market.

What, you fell for all that stuff about "the Germans/French will still want to sell us their cars/cheese?" LOL. Peasant.

Go on, try and work Africa into that like last time, you mong.

Re:This is a good thing.

[citylivin]

Firstly, as you can see by this wikipedia article, later than 20 weeks is extremely rare (about 2%). However religious fundamentalists want to ban ALL abortion, so you can cherry pick parts of their argument where it fits you i guess but you are being disingenuous to the position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All abortions should be a couple or the mothers decision, not the state. What we don't need in this world are more children brought up by uncaring people who didn't want to have children in the first place. It's the parents decision to have kids or not, not the state.

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

I disagree with lots of people right here on Slashdot without labeling them. In fact I'm quite careful to avoid doing it when it's not justified.

By itself it's a low form of argument, which is why on the very rare occasions I do it I justify it with evidence and explanation. I usually try to avoid labels by pointing out something specific, e.g. that a particular idea is racist, rather than labeling the person.

Re:This is a good thing.

[khallow]

"Post" implies following. So when you say "post-truth", you are implying that there was a past, more truthful era. That never was true.

Personal belief trumps all reason, logic, measurements and data, the scientific method means nothing in the face of gut feeling.

Funny how you have yet to show that this was relevant to the Brexit vote.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Jawnn]

Let's have the government decide who can be married and who can't.

Pretty sure it's the liberals who wanted to mandate government issue marriage certificates to gays.

You get points for a game try, junior, but you are still wrong. What "the liberals" have been after is actually delivering on the Constitutional promise of equal protection under the law. The law defines marriage. Personally, I believe that was a mistake and the best remedy would be to have government get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Be that as it may, the law is the law and The Constitution says it applies equally to all. That is what the SCOTUS ruled on, and that is the only "mandate" that body has, to rule on the Constitutionality of this or that issue brought before it. Jeezuz H Christ! Don't they teach basic civics in school anymore?

Re:This is a good thing.

[Jawnn]

Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder.

No. It is not. You may choose to believe that a three week old embryo is imbued with everything that makes it a citizen. Most of us do not. You don't get to force your religious convictions on women. Get it?

Re:This is a good thing.

[Orgasmatron]

I can find zero documentation of this proposal

Meh. I heard it on the radio a while back. It quite possibly was a proposal from Italians (aka Catholics), rather than a proposal for Italy. I also cannot find the specifics on this one, so it may not even have been a new proposal, though it was the first time I'd heard of it. I can find references to the general idea going back to at least 2006 without trying very hard. Does it really matter where the proposal came from or when? You can see that at least a couple of people here, including you, are having the exact reaction that I described.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Orgasmatron]

First of all the law, in general, does not recognize a fetus as a person. Some localities my differ on that but they are the exception.

Ahh, but you are wrong. Virtually all jurisdictions in the western world recognize the baby as a person when it dies as the result of the actions of anyone not wearing a lab coat.

Shoot a pregnant woman through the womb? Murder + attempted murder.

Toss her off the roof of a tall building? Double homicide.

Dilation and curettage? Win awards, buy a Lamborghini.

Secondly, as I said you can't force one person to undergo medical treatment and procedures to preserve the life of another and claim to support self determination. A Fetus, even if it were afforded all the rights of a citizen can't legally demand that another person accept potentially life threatening risks to preserve its own life.

You are overlooking something really important here. The baby is in a condition of total dependence as the result not of choices he has made, but because of choices that other people have made. Overwhelmingly, those other people are both the mother and the father together, though occasionally it is only one of them.

The baby did not sneak in. It was not deposited by random chance and bad luck. It was invited, and the people doing the inviting knew full well that their actions could create a life that would be totally dependent on the mother for at least several months.

In libertarian terms, non-aggression/non-coercion means that you can't force someone to save someone else. But creating the circumstances where another person will necessarily die is the very definition of murder.

Yes, there are exceptions in the circumstances, and there should be exceptions in the law to meet them. But first you need to get the baseline right.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Orgasmatron]

Thank you for illustrating my point. I couldn't possibly have said it any better than you just did.

To answer your three questions, in order: Mu. I'm against all murder. No (and/or Mu).

Re:This is a good thing.

[Orgasmatron]

So, you think that laws against murder only protect citizens? Do you warn illegal immigrants and those here on student or tourist visas before you murder them? Or do you prefer surprise?

I'm also curious what church you are referring to. This is literally the first time in my entire life that I'm hearing about a religion that has strong beliefs, nay, convictions!, on citizenship requirements.

Personally, I prefer my religion - it keeps my relationship with God just between the two of us. My religion and I both think that citizenship is a question for the political process. While my religion and I both believe that humans have souls, and that those souls are made in God's image, we are both pretty happy leaving the question of humanity up to the scientific process.

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

In the past, politicians and the electorate were much more accepting of carefully collected data from reputable organisations. For example, one of the reasons for making the Bank of England more independent and free from political control was to give its reports and opinions more weight, and to provide expert advice and data to help make policy decisions. Same with the Office for Budgetary Responsibility. They were both reactions to the start of the post-truth movement.

I get that people want to question everything and be sceptical, but at some point you have to accept that while gravity might be "just a theory" put forward by "biased scientists in the pay of big airlines" it is none the less true. Just because you would like to flap your arms and fly with the birds doesn't change reality, or making ignoring expert advice not to leap off that bridge any less valid.

Re:This is a good thing.

[meta-monkey]

What "the liberals" have been after is actually delivering on the Constitutional promise of equal protection under the law. The law defines marriage.

Does the constitution define marriage?

Personally, I believe that was a mistake and the best remedy would be to have government get out of the "marriage" business altogether.

Aw, junior, it's so sad, if only you'd had a civics class you'd know what a retarded statement this is. You seem to think the state passes out marriage licenses as a "good job kiddos on your love" badge. No, the state's interest in marriage is divorce, so you cannot get the government out of the "marriage" business without getting it out of the divorce business.

See, 90% of the purpose of government is settling property disputes. Contract law. And the first thing you do in a contract dispute is deny that a contract even exists. So Alice is going to divorce Bob and wants half his shit, but when they get to the court Carol shows up and says she's still married to Bob, so no Alice can't have Bob's shit! Uh oh! If only there were way to short-circuit all of these "we were never really married" conundrums it would save the family courts a lot of headache! Hey, how about this? If you want to get married, go to the county clerk's office and make sure neither party is already married to somebody else, that everyone is of sound mind, reasonable age, not coerced or inebriated, etc. This is why when you get a marriage certificate you get a 30 page booklet with 1 page that says "grats on getting married" and then 29 pages of "how to get a divorce." So that's what the fags really got. Access to gay divorce court. Enjoy!

Jezuz H Christ when you don't even understand the point of government, maybe you shouldn't be spewing crap about what it should and shouldn't do?

Re:This is a good thing.

[meta-monkey]

If you fixed those things would incomes between the races (in aggregate) be even? Why or why not?

Re:This is a good thing.

[meta-monkey]

So if two gays have a gathering of friends and family in a little garden, and a minister or whatever reads some stuff and asks the gays if they want to get married and they say "yes" and then the officiate says "grats you're now married" is the state going to bust up the place? Send in the stormtroopers? Throw 'em in jail for their faggotry?

Oh. Oh, they wouldn't. They would just ignore it. So the state's not doing shit to deny them their liberties. What do they need a certificate for? Do you even know what the state's interest in marriage is, why they bother having marriage certificates at all? I'll give you a hint, it's not a "grats on being good people in love" award.

as without such legislation same-sex spouses couldn't even see the other spouse in the emergency room

Or they could, ya know, ask the hospital.

Re:This is a good thing.

[Whorhay]

I was partially wrong. The law does not consider a fetus a person with a full measure of rights. This is similar to how children do not possess all the constitutional rights and are subject to their parents or the state making choices for them. Regardless, the highest court in the nation decided in 1973 that a fetus is not of equal status with the mother, and that the mother is more important. As emotionally tumultuous as it may be a fetus is not a baby, it is a part of a woman. Traditionally the juncture point of fetus to baby has been birth, and I see no reason to change that, as it provides a distinct point of separation.

Re:This is a good thing.

[ranton]

All you are doing here is setting up a false equivalence between the level of uncertainty on each side of the debate. The amount of uncertainty between the Remain and Brexit choices are an order of magnitude different. Remain voters are not against change, only irrational change with no plan for what change is desired. The Brexit camp still has not been able to express what change they are looking for in the aftermath of a Brexit.

If the referendum had been something like a Remain, Brexit - Remain in Single Market, Brexit - Leave Single Market (Norway style autonomy), Brexit - Leave Single Market (US style autonomy), then each side of the debate could claim they actually knew what they were voting for. They wouldn't need every detail specified in the referendum, but at least this way the Brexit side could specify what they actually wanted.

As it stands, the vast majority of Brexit voters will get nothing resembling what they thought they were voting for. And any educated voter would have realized that was the only possible result if Brexit won.

Re:This is a good thing.

[khallow]

In the past, politicians and the electorate were much more accepting of carefully collected data from reputable organisations.

The word is "gullible" not "accepting". Too many of these "reputable organizations" are simply propaganda outlets that haven't yet found a cause to burn their reputation for. That's why they keep creating them. When the Anerica for a Prosperous Future burns its reputation, they'll move on to Americans for Future Prosperity and try again.

The EU itself is one of these organizations, but one without a replacement. It and predecessor organizations have undergone more than half a century of mission creep. Where's it going to end?

I get that people want to question everything and be sceptical, but at some point you have to accept that while gravity might be "just a theory" put forward by "biased scientists in the pay of big airlines" it is none the less true. Just because you would like to flap your arms and fly with the birds doesn't change reality, or making ignoring expert advice not to leap off that bridge any less valid.

What evidence to support your hand wringing? Let us keep in mind that expert advice in politics and economics is far more biased and unsubstantiated than expert advice on gravity. The benefits of lying and exaggerating are bigger as well. This all shows up in the Brexit propaganda on both sides.

Re:This is a good thing.

[AmiMoJo]

The thing is, if you think that all advice, expert opinion, statistical data, scientific inquiry and journalistic investigation is biased, misleading and only believed by gullible people then you enter a post-factual realm. It's a place where whatever your gut tells you, whatever you can find with a quick Google search to support your world view is the most reliable source of information.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate there is a lot of bullshit out there. But people have given up even trying to find an objective truth.

Re:This is a good thing.

[khallow]

The thing is, if you think that all advice, expert opinion, statistical data, scientific inquiry and journalistic investigation is biased, misleading and only believed by gullible people then you enter a post-factual realm.

"Enter" implies that you weren't in there at one time. We've never been factual in the first place.

But people have given up even trying to find an objective truth.

Self-interest is too subjective to be an objective truth. And really your sudden realization that expert advice is often bullshit is rather late in coming.

Re:This is a good thing.

[argStyopa]

I wasn't even going to touch on his assertion that voting for Trump was basically his litmus test for insanity.

While I'm absolutely certain that many here on /. would agree that's true, I guess I'd caution people about living in such a neatly categorical world if ROUGHLY 50% OF THE POPULATION (whether he wins or loses) are by your definition insane.

I'm not sure holding such a degree of sneering contempt for half your society is constructive, healthy, or even rational.

I'd recommend watching Jim Gaffigan's thoughtful "Disagree with someone? Calling them a moron won't help." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:This is a good thing.

[jwhitener]

Is Google under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?
Is Koch Industries under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?

This plan of spying on voters and recording their life history

Wrong. Read the email...

Is it wrong for a person (a ceo) to volunteer their skills to a campaign? I just read the actual email, and it doesn't sound like he was suggesting using Google's resources, but rather building a system for the campaign.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262

b) The Voter

Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all
that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify,
meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily
speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the
voter videos and other answers to areas they care about ("the benefits of
ACA to you" etc.)

The scenario includes a volunteer on a walk list, encountering a potential
voter, updating the records real time and deepening contact with the voter
and the information we have to offer.

Good thing

[110010001000]

Good thing the Democrats didn't adopt his plan. Schmidt is another CEO who rode the coattails of some very smart engineers into a pile of money and now considers himself to be a genius.

that's pretty evil

[TimothyHollins]

What the fuck happened to "Don't be evil" ?

This is a return to McCarthyism plain and simple.

Re:that's pretty evil

[Mashiki]

What the fuck happened to "Don't be evil" ?

This is a return to McCarthyism plain and simple.

The same thing that happens to most people when they believe they have unbelievable amounts of power. They use it for their own personal gain, and fuck everyone else over to gain more of it. Google has long since said fuck you to everyone else, especially the "plebs" who don't follow their ideology. Now get down on bended knee and kiss the ring, follow their ideology, support their 63 genders and whatever else. Or they'll use that information to destroy you.

Re:that's pretty evil

[110010001000]

What happened was money.

Re:that's pretty evil

[Anonymous Coward]

That, in a nutshell, is the argument for limited government: the less power available, the less corruption possible. It's not philosophy -- it's simple math.

Re:that's pretty evil

[smallfries]

It was deprecated about the time that they introduced the opt-out village: http://www.onionstudios.com/vi...

Re:that's pretty evil

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Nothing, it has nothing to do with this.

Re:that's pretty evil

[ooloorie]

Was Cisco and CEO John Chambers backing John McCain [networkworld.com] in 2008 evil?

There is a big difference between "backing" and supporting a candidate with the resources of one of the biggest and most advanced companies in the areas of big data, analytics, publishing, and advertising.

Re:that's pretty evil

[bheerssen]

"My Lord of Darkness Mr. Schmidt," I began, quivering in terror before the dread presence of Satan, Father of Lies, "our readers want to know, what makes you so evil?"

"Me?," he asks with feigned outrage, "I always say, 'Don't be evil', do I not? I am not the evil one. Do not believe your eyes; they deceive you."

Re:that's pretty evil

[phantomfive]

"Don't be evil" was never Schmidt's thing from the beginning. He was the CEO: tasked with monetizing the thing. He didn't care about that.

Re:that's pretty evil

[budgenator]

There is a big difference between "backing" and supporting a candidate with the resources of one of the biggest and most advanced companies in the areas of big data, analytics, publishing, and advertising.

Don't worry in 8 years, if you don't pay for Google Politiometrics(Tm), you don't get elected.

  For a mere $1.50 per view, Google will beam specific tailored content to undecided but convertible electorate members Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts to convert those persons from undecided to in-your-pocket; all without wasting money on people who would vote for you even if your parents were Satan and Lucifer, or the people who wouldn't piss in your mouth if your teeth were on fire!
Don't be a turd and go with the flow, when Google Politiometrics(Tm) can make the current go where you want. Why worry about a Chief of Staff and the expensive "Life Insurance Policies"?

Re:that's pretty evil

[jwhitener]

Read the actual email. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262

The CEO wasn't going to use Google's resources to spy/track/target voters for the campaign. He was donating his expertise as a private US citizen to help define what sorts of systems and digital strategies the campaign should build and use.

Or is Eric S. of Google no longer allowed to donate time to a campaign because he is the head of a large powerful company?

I forget, why is this relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a private citizen supported a candidate and offered free advice? Shocking. How many big corporations out there donate money because "they are people too"? There is nothing of interest here other than to have a bunch of Trump supporters try to claim that the election is rigged and this is proof that Google is rigging it for "Crooked Hillary". It amazes me that people are so gullible they can be spoon fed any piece of information that fits the party's agenda. I'm voting for Clinton because she is the better of my two choices (and the other one is a moron). End of story. This crap does nothing but fire up the base.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[oh_my_080980980]

What made the advice free ass-hole. Why do you think Wall Street donates money to political campaigns and pay "speakers" to give "talks."

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[Trailer Trash]

A couple of observations:

1. Wait. I thought Republicans were the party of big business. Schmidt must have gotten confused, right?

2. Wait. He's wanting "low paid workers". I though the Democrats were all about paying more? And making sure women had pay equity with men, right? $15 minimum wage? I mean, he wants to pay above minimum wage, right?

You're the one who's been spoon-fed the party's agenda, as usual.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they did this and they have a bunch more young developers compared to older ones, then it shows blatant age discrimination. Age discrimination is illegal and very rarely do you have such concrete proof. This plan will also fuel the current age discrimination lawsuits against Google.

So does this matter for the election? No. Does it give an important insight into how Eric Schmidt and Google don't care about the law? Yes.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you vote for Clinton, google Whitehouse Travel office. The Clintons destroyed the life of a long time government employee to try to benefit their cronies. If you are good with this type of action, by all means vote Clinton.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awfully disingenuous of you to pretend that this is nothing. The chairman of Google using all of Google's data tentacles to compile a master db for the Democrats? Panopticon much?

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[ooloorie]

So, a private citizen supported a candidate and offered free advice? Shocking.

Nobody is saying that he doesn't have a right to back whoever he wants to.

At the same time, voters should be aware of what's happening, and the fact that the company that serves much of their news, advertising, and information may be politically biased and motivated.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[swillden]

A couple of observations:

1. Wait. I thought Republicans were the party of big business. Schmidt must have gotten confused, right?

Much of the tech industry leadership leans Democratic, mostly because they grew up in northern California.

2. Wait. He's wanting "low paid workers". I though the Democrats were all about paying more? And making sure women had pay equity with men, right? $15 minimum wage? I mean, he wants to pay above minimum wage, right?

No, like any good Democrat he wants *other people* to pay above minimum wage :-)

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[vel-ex-tech]

Yep. Even if I had mod points I already opened my big mouth.

The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young and hard-working and enthusiastic. It's important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low-paid permanent employees.

Emphasis mine. Did not emphasize: hard-working or smart. Those two should be interpreted equally cynically. Hard-working: indentured student loan servant who will eat shit 60-80 hours per week if it means not going into default while making the banker class a hefty profit. You do want to buy a house at some point in your life, no? Better not default if you want any chance at getting into the ownership class*! Smart: sort of like a slave with bright eyes.

Young: horray for age discrimination! Who the fuck gives a shit about experience?!

Enthusiastic: see indendured student loan servant.

Low-paid: the zinger that ties it all together and puts it in perspective.

The pay equity narrative is for cows/plebes/sheeple (in their 10,000 year slumber apparently--also this is Alphabet so make sure to #include <misogynerd_narrative.h>). Minimum wage is for cows. I'm a programmer for $15/hr! You make $15/hr as a Sr. communications director and you got that position when you were only 25? Good work, comrade! What do you think about the Party's proposal to raise all our wages to $16/hr next year, comrade?

Jeebus, at least indentured servants were only indentured for a time and then had a frontier to go to. This new indentured servant model is so much more fungible! The better to eat your future with!

* Says the smug homeowner who is eking a way into the ownership class after mostly avoiding the student loan clusterfuck. More out of serendipity, blessings in disguise, and luck than anything else, though.

(Also disclaimer: somehow, the R wing of the Party is even more disgusting these days than the D wing of the Party.)

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[HornWumpus]

Young, enthusiastic and low paid implies either outright stupid or fully in the tank for Hillary (outright stupid).

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[ThatsMyNick]

1) You seem confused. Democrats are not anti-big business. What do you think, that breaking up big businesses into medium and small business is part of democrat's agenda? There are big corporations that support democrats, and heads of big corporations too (Buffett is one of the prominents, Schmidt too), and it is not because they hate themselves. They are just fine with nullifying Citizens United and measures that seem anti-corporation to republicans, because it is the sane thing to do and it wouldnt hurt them a lot. Big corporations do support that, as much as you cant believe it. Schmidt likes the Democratic platform.

2) He does support raising minimum wage. He wants low wages, but liveable wages. Buffett is more open about this, than Schmidt. Lot of "big business"-es have come in favor of it. Sorry if this broke your perception of democratic agenda.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[phantomfive]

I don't think much of the tech industry grew up in Northern California, tbh. Eric Schmidt grew up in Virginia.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[Trailer Trash]

Much of the tech industry leadership leans Democratic, mostly because they grew up in northern California.

It's not relevant - most industry leadership leans Democrat. They offer the most bang for the buck.

With Clinton as the Democrat candidate for POTUS I think we can drop the pretense that the Democrats aren't the party of big business.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[Trailer Trash]

I'm not the one who's confused. Thanks for playing.

Shill.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[budgenator]

A couple of observations:

1. Wait. I thought Republicans were the party of big business. Schmidt must have gotten confused, right?

2. Wait. He's wanting "low paid workers". I though the Democrats were all about paying more? And making sure women had pay equity with men, right? $15 minimum wage? I mean, he wants to pay above minimum wage, right?

You're the one who's been spoon-fed the party's agenda, as usual.

Hillary Clinton says men and women should make equal pay. But the Clinton Foundation's leadership team had an average $81,000 average gender pay gap The Clinton Foundation's gender pay gap worried campaign

Liberals seem to be more of a "Do as I say, not as I Do" kind of people; most Americans would be satisfied with getting paid the gap!

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[citylivin]

Trump and clinton are the same. But trump is a reactionary megalomaniac who has zero impulse control and poor intelligence. Not someone you want to be leading the worlds most powerful military and having access to nuclear weapons.

From an outside perspective, both of your candidates are corrupt pro business conservatives. A proper alternative would be bernie sanders or ron paul, both of whom had great ideas but got stomped out by the establishment. Trump and clinton are the establishment! so I wouldn't expect any change, and with trump you have the added bonus of someone stupider and more reactionary than bush. This creates a real danger to the entire world.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[Trailer Trash]

Trump and clinton are the same. But trump is a reactionary megalomaniac who has zero impulse control and poor intelligence.

Can we please drop the stupid shit about Republicans being "stupid"? Seriously. The Democrat candidate demonstrably can't use a fucking fax machine - but she's smart, right? Because of the (D)?

This is getting so old.

Re:I forget, why is this relevant?

[ThatsMyNick]

Shill.

Projection. The thing Trump and Republicans are masters of.

My google record

[jdavidb]

The key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them

I love to think what Google knows about me if they've tried this on me. From my emails and chats with my wife it's clear I'm an anarchist, a pacifist, I don't believe in Democracy, I don't vote, I want states to be allowed to secede (but I don't necessarily want to secede - I just want it to be allowed), and I want the same for counties, cities, and households. Processing my political record at Google probably trips all kinds of alarms.

Re:My google record

[110010001000]

Hit a nerve I see. You boys on this website need to grow up and look around. Life isn't suburbia.

Re:My google record

[mwvdlee]

You reply to this...

The key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them

...with this...

it's clear I'm an anarchist, a pacifist, I don't believe in Democracy, I don't vote

It doesn't apply to you, then.

Google's advice is actually quite an improvement, since it also excludes tracking of children, criminals, non-Americans and every other person inelligable to vote in the US election Quite a lot better than the current situation.

Re:My google record

[110010001000]

You truly believe that Google isn't tracking everyone? Wow.

Re:My google record

[Calydor]

From dictionary.com, emphasis mine:
noun
1.
a person who votes.
2.
a person who has a right to vote; elector.

It is, in fact, very useful information that the OP is a voter who does not vote. Depending on his reasons not to vote he can either be swung to one side or should be ignored entirely so you don't waste resources needlessly.

Re: My google record

[rholtzjr]

This AC poster is a talking like a hostile chat bot.

Re:My google record

[bheerssen]

I wouldn't worry. Since you don't vote, you don't matter.

Re:My google record

[jdavidb]

It is, in fact, very useful information that the OP is a voter who does not vote. Depending on his reasons not to vote he can either be swung to one side or should be ignored entirely

Or turned over to the authorities. :)

Re: My google record

[jdavidb]

FYI the guy with the "dickless" comment isn't me. And I'm far past the age to buy beer, although I hardly ever do so unless I need it for cooking bratwurst.

Re:My google record

[CaptainLard]

I'm an anarchist, a pacifist, I don't believe in Democracy, I don't vote, I want states to be allowed to secede (but I don't necessarily want to secede - I just want it to be allowed), and I want the same for counties, cities, and households.

Good for you. Isn't it great that you live in a nation that allows you to think and say all those things where the only consequence is a record (that you surely benefit from as much or more than google...think a couple bucks of ad targeting vs hiring a personal assistant) is kept on a system that you consciously and freely choose to continue using?

Re:My google record

[jdavidb]

I don't look chubby and I've lost 16 pounds this year. I don't live in the suburbs. And I don't have a clue what any of this has to do with what I've said. I don't think I'm disconnected from reality: I'm happily married, a father of 8, involved in several fulfilling community activities.

Re:My google record

[mwvdlee]

Read again, Trump.

Re:My google record

[jdavidb]

Good for you. Isn't it great that you live in a nation that allows you to think and say all those things where the only consequence is a record is kept on a system that you consciously and freely choose to continue using?

Yes it is, and I don't believe any of that came from democracy. I believe it came from freedom.

SQUIRREL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, don't pay attention to the emails of the lying crook Hillary!

Go chase that RUSSIAN SQUIRREL!!!!

It's RUSSIAN!!!!!

Gawd, how much more evidence do you need to figure out what the Democrat Party thinks of its voters? Screwing Bernie over wasn't enough?

Re:SQUIRREL!!!

[bongey]

Don't worry BeauHD is on it. His twitter feed, "Trump is a saggy sack of shit. If any one of you is even remotely considering voting for him this November, please unfollow me. "
Fucks sakes he posted a News for Nerds the other day from Slate, WTF?

Why not just outsource it to China

[p51d007]

"low paid workers" Schmidt should have just imported a bunch of H1B visa types to do this. Cheap skate.

and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.

Every time.

Re:and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the establishment/conservatives never use violence and force. Their virtuous reasoning and skilled oration alone is enough to settle any matter amirite?

Re:and yet...

[Jawnn]

And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.

Every time.

[citation needed]
(Good fucking luck with that.)

Re:and yet...

[tripleevenfall]

"Don't be evil", amirite?

Re:and yet...

[knightghost]

"Don't be evil", amirite?

Silicon Valley is no longer part of the USA. They are billionaires that make money off the backs of visas, fail to pay taxes, and destroy American jobs. No different than Wall Street, which has bought off Clinton.

Re:and yet...

[rickb928]

Actually, if you are paying attention, the GOP Establishment/NeoConservative Leadership is much more inclined to go along with the Democrat leadership. It's;

- Simpler. So hard to have to make your point in a hostile media environment, and social media just isn't useful when you are trying to 'explain'.

- Effective. If you're facing non-citizen voters in states that are already pro-Left, then why bother?

- Avoids dealing with your own party rank and file. If you're unable to corral your own party's representatives to pass legislation, why bother? Just go along.

- Preserves your power and influence. the risk of taking a stand on principle is that those who disagree with you may choose some other candidate to support. Running a serious primary campaign is just so hard. Much easier and less risky to spend that time punishing your enemies and rewarding your allies. On both sides of the aisle.

But to your point, I'm unaware of Right/Conservative/GOP violence, but then I rely on non-mainstream media for some of my news, so I miss a lot of propaganda. So other than FBI conspiracies and KKK (AKA Democrats)

As a self-identified Republican, I no longer support the Republican legislative leadership. Priebus I support because he's been doing his job, perhaps with little enthusiasm, but doing it. Trump is the cure to the Republican leadership failure, which began in 1981 with Reagan's takeover of the Conservative movement, then GHW Bush's failed re-election, and has continued despite presidential election successes intervening. 35 years of failed GOP leadership has left us with a party that is led by and populated with elected officials that prefer to go along with the opposition for a variety of reasons, but largely because they have no vision for our nation nor their own political movement. and they have not considered the Conservative wing of the GOP to be a 'movement' for a long time. They have caved, fearing an immigrant swell that could lead to an insurmountable Democrat majority for the foreseeable future, a hostile media that will never be placated by surrender, and a transition to a social media dominated culture that concentrates real media power in corporations that can hide behind algorithms and opaque business practices, the subject of this thread, and wield overwhelming influence without their users recognizing their near-absolute control over the hearts and minds of most of the population.

I expect Trump to burn down the GOP house. It needs to be renewed, and with fire and water, not long knives and moves in the dark. And our nation needs a wakeup. We are changing, and in the midst of a soft revolution. There are changes being made that should be discussed and approved, but the forces for those changes do not care for law and justice, save for their own self-defined goals, which they change at their whims. You may agree with them, and I understand, but my caution to you is this - Today it's to your favor. Tomorrow, it may not be, and you will be bulldozed by the same forces that you applaud today. No rules, no justice.

Re:and yet...

[rickb928]

Not any more. "Don't get caught" is the new mantra.

And as they find the insurgents that expose them, the algorithms will be tuned to crush opposition.

Re:and yet...

[rickb928]

Look hard enough, and you will find insurgents and terror actors who have more in common with the Right than the Left.

They will be fewer than those who the Left claims to support, less organized and sponsored, and less effective. They damage their own kindred movements more than they benefit.

The Left is a worldwide, organized force. The Right is not so organized. And the Left will use violence for almost any affront. The Right tends to stew until it's too much.

Re:and yet...

[CaptainLard]

the Republican leadership failure, which began in 1981 with Reagan's takeover of the Conservative movement,

wtf!? When was this talking point memo - that invalidates every other talking point from the past 3 decades - circulated for dissemination on rightwing talk shows?

Re:and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I seem to remember the republican, close-minded conservatives throwing punches at Trump rallies attacking people who are just simply different and think differently than they do. There were also those gun wielding uneducated hicks trespassing on land that wasn't, isn't and will never be their land.

I can provide 1000s of examples of violence from the conservative side in just a few minutes. Can you do the same of the liberals?

Re:and yet...

[Mashiki]

[citation needed]
(Good fucking luck with that.)

Environmentalists? ALF? ELF? Sea Shepard? Earth First? Well that's a start. Then we can move onto the political groups. FLQ, Weather underground(WUO), more modern stuff like Antifa, BLM, to just name a few. Then we can get into the various flavors of the anarchist groups that put those claims. Then there's the agent provocateur stuff, that if you've been paying attention to in the current US election...which has come from "arms reach" liberal organizations. Haven't even touched on the ones in Europe that are still all over the place. FYI: They're all left-wing groups, they've all at one point claimed some form of progressive identity or liberal identity. They've all had directly or indirectly funding from big name progressive or liberal or communist groups or people who claim those identities directly. We'll leave the non-affiliated individuals like the crazy lady who tried to firebomb a group of pro-life protesters outside an abortion clinic out of it though, just to make it easy.

Good enough?

Re:and yet...

[multi io]

"Don't be evil", amirite?

I'm not sure what would be "evil" about supporting a particular party or candidate. What did YOU think happens when a political campaign is started? What did you think the people involved communicate to each other? Only dates and addresses and cookie recipes for blue or red colored cookies?

Re:and yet...

[Beeftopia]

There are two common threads running through politics:

1) Making the population easier to govern.
2) Retaining incumbent power.

  Focusing on divisive issues (important/necessary though they may be) makes the natives restless and more difficult to govern, thus undermining 1 above.
  Divisive issues forces incumbents to pick a side which might cause them to lose votes ("I was for it before I was against it"), thus undermining 2 above.

Re:and yet...

[ClickOnThis]

If you're facing non-citizen voters in states that are already pro-Left, then why bother?

"Non-citizen voters" is an oxymoron. And please, no snarks about undocumented immigrants going to the polls. The last thing they want to do is something that could reveal their lack of status. Besides, voter fraud is nowhere near the problem some claim it to be.

I rely on non-mainstream media for some of my news, so I miss a lot of propaganda.

From the rest of your post, it sounds like you have marinated in propaganda, just from an alt source.

Re: and yet...

[rickb928]

I figured this out on my own in 2015. Not everyone on /. has to be led to the well.

Re:and yet...

[ColdWetDog]

Bread and Circuses.

Not exactly a new idea.

Re:and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Non-citizen voters" is an oxymoron. And please, no snarks about undocumented immigrants going to the polls. The last thing they want to do is something that could reveal their lack of status. Besides, voter fraud is nowhere near the problem some claim it to be.

Half of my wife's family is illegal immigrants, so I have plenty of personal experience that disagrees with you. ICE isn't waiting at the polls. They don't check ID at the polls (in states where (D) want those votes), and considering the President of the United States is the most important vote that common folk are privy to, it's going to experience enormous attempted voter fraud. Illegal immigrants always turn out in DROVES to vote for whomever will go lax on immigration for the next 4 years. Our country is one of the dumbest fucking countries on the planet when it comes to voter registration laws, because the Democratic Party want to steal the election through voter fraud and because assholes like YOU enable them through this bullshit.

Other western countries balk when they hear you don't need an ID card to vote for President of the United States. They think we're fucking retarded when they find out -- like it's supposed to be the windup for a joke. The punchline is just typical Liberal Dishonesty.

And then you hypocrites have the gall to call voter ID laws "racist" because YOU think blacks and Mexicans are too stupid to get IDs.

Re:and yet...

[pr0nbot]

I'd argue that violence is the resort of those who feel powerless, because they believe it to be the one form of power that remains to them.

Perhaps then in a system where the right has the power, violent agitators will by definition tend to be leftist, and vice versa?

I'm struggling to think of examples where the liberal left has been in the ascendancy and this has led to the right using violence... maybe the American civil war? Or the KKK in the civil rights era?

Re:and yet...

[Mashiki]

Perhaps then in a system where the right has the power, violent agitators will by definition tend to be leftist, and vice versa?

Possibly, but there are very few cases. In the vast majority of them, you'll find that those on the right who do this fall heavily into the religious camps. You can see this in Turkey right now, and previously in Egypt with the rise of the muslim brotherhood post-collapse. Keep in mint that the KKK was a democrat organization, much like the Jim Crow laws were democrat backed. And it was the democrats who filibustered the civil rights act. They had a vested interest in keeping blacks down. I'm sure some retard will come up with a "but republicans and democrats flipped sides" no, they really didn't. But it's nice to let people have their delusions.

Re:and yet...

[ausekilis]

I agree that the GOP has had piss poor leadership for decades. The latest batch of in-breds in particular seem to be so far out of touch with today's society it's almost like they've been living in a GOP bio-dome fed propaganda for 20 years before they are allowed to step up to a podium.

However, they most certainly don't "just go with the opposition". Congress has managed to do far less since 2011 due to all of the infighting. Have you not seen the headlines about the Republican house trying to cut funding to the Democratic majority FCC? What about the Republican house trying their damnedest to pass laws that have side-notes to cut funding to Obamacare?

"If it's something Obama supports, we must stop it!" has been the GOP mantra for 8 years now.

Re:and yet...

[meta-monkey]

I'd argue that violence is the resort of those who feel powerless, because they believe it to be the one form of power that remains to them.

Except the left is not powerless, and is not becoming violent against government power. They want the government to have more power, and they want the government to use that power against their fellow citizens to enrich themselves. Antifa is not anti-government. They're pro-establishment, and against the people who would rebel against the establishment.

Look at the anti-Trump protestors in the US, like the riots in Chicago, or the closing of the Arizona freeway. These were organized by Moveon.org (funded by George Soros, who also funds Hillary Clinton) and PACs paid by the DNC, including paid workers from Hillary's campaign. So the wealthy and powerful on the left (Soros and Clinton) fund and train leftists/anarchists to attack the populace (political opponents or just random people on a highway) to terrorize political opponents to not oppose them, so they can maintain the political power of the current ruling regime. I don't see how any of that involves "powerlessness." These people already have lots of power, and want more.

On the other hand, their victims, the Trump supporters are largely working class people who have seen their jobs leave because of free trade agreements that benefit the establishment, and their neighborhoods invaded by at best indifferent and at worst hostile foreigners for the benefit of the establishment (keeping labor costs down), and they're powerless to do anything about it.

Re:and yet...

[meta-monkey]

Do you think CNN, Fox, MSNBC, aren't propaganda?

Re:and yet...

[tinkerton]

"Don't be evil"

In good animal farm tradition, it's not wrong, just incomplete. The rest of the sentence says "because we'll be watching you."

Re:and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll leave the non-affiliated individuals like the crazy lady who tried to firebomb a group of pro-life protesters outside an abortion clinic out of it

Of course you'll leave that out. Otherwise, someone else might bring up the 11 murders, 27 attempted murders, 38+ bombings and 190+ arson incidents that those pro-life protesters committed against abortion clinics and workers.

So no... not good enough. The claim that "it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way" is complete and utter bullshit.

Re:and yet...

[budgenator]

Trump is the cure to the Republican leadership failure, which began in 1981 with Reagan's takeover of the Conservative movement, then GHW Bush's failed re-election, and has continued despite presidential election successes intervening. 35 years of failed GOP leadership has left us with a party that is led by and populated with elected officials that prefer to go along with the opposition for a variety of reasons, but largely because they have no vision for our nation nor their own political movement.

While I don't disagree that Congressional Republicans abandoning any kind of consistent philosophical have lead to a lot of the problems we're seeing today, but Reagan set the country on a course that firstly set up an robust economy that took two Bushes to destroy (Hell even Bill Clinton was smart enough to ride that wave), secondly he convinced Gaddafi to stop being a sponsor of terrorism and to abandon his WMD programs, and thirdly his build up of our National Defenses lead to the Soviet Union collapsing from the effort of trying to keep up. He can hardly be blamed for the lack of Congressional spine.

Re: and yet...

[rickb928]

I know they are.

Re:and yet...

[TheCastro1689]

Those countries, at least most weren't founded with democracy or converted more to it recently. They're also able to obtain IDs for free. And public transportation exists. Mexicans should not be able to get IDs to vote, since they aren't Americans. Poor rural black and white people lack money and transportation to get to the limited number of DMVs. Older people often don't have proof of birth, name changes through marriage and other common problems when getting an ID. Voter ID laws have been shown to disproportionately affect minorities, especially black people. While poor people are universally affected by voter ID laws.

Re:and yet...

[budgenator]

There were also those gun wielding uneducated hicks trespassing on land that wasn't, isn't and will never be their land.

I suppose that Harry Reid owning 93 acres next door and wanting to start commercial development had no effect on the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) deciding the Bundys were suddenly trespassing after generations of using the land.

Re:and yet...

[sycodon]

I think there is a difference between supporting a candidate and turning over a multi-billion dollar enterprise over to that candidate to get their message out or suppress the message of the opposing candidate. While there was no mention specifically about using Google technology or resources, there has been plenty of suspicious activity in the Google realm related to auto completion, site rankings, and even quasi censorship on Youtube,

When a business the size and reach of Google favors you, then you are bound to end up benefiting in ways that you are probably not entitled to benefit from.

Re:and yet...

[erapert]

The last thing they want to do is something that could reveal their lack of status

Yeah, because they've been getting deported in droves lately, right? Obama is so tough on illegal immigration isn't he?

Besides, voter fraud is nowhere near the problem some claim it to be.

The fact that it happens at all is a serious problem. "Don't worry, it's only a little cancer. Naw naw, you'll be fine!"

Re: and yet...

[LDAPMAN]

Bullshit. It's virtually impossible to function in modern society without ID and the states moving to require ID have gone to great lengths to make getting that ID as easy as possible.

Re: and yet...

[sycodon]

The laws are clear about direct help...giving ad space, printing materials, airing commercials, things like that. They all fall under the rules of campaign finance.

But what if you are a business that reaches tens of millions of households and can do things like making it difficult to find information on the disfavored candidate?

What if you are able to place, through subtle algorithm changes, materials on the preferred candidate before the disfavored one?

Simply by down ranking the disfavored politician's materials in searches, flagging videos supportive of the disfavored candidate so they aren't easily viewed, or even removing entirely user accounts that support the disfavored candidate based on some ephemeral rules violations , they pretty much all but disappear from the web.

Google wasn't around during McCain-Fiengold I don't think and these actions are not covered by the current laws but have a very definite impact on politics.

Re:and yet...

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

The last thing they want to do is something that could reveal their lack of status.

I really don't know how you came to believe this, but where I live the illegal immigrants have no fear of being deported. One of our Senators even brought them to Congress.

Sen. Durbin Introduces Illegal Aliens To Napolitano And Senate Committee

Re:and yet...

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

They don't check ID at the polls (in states where (D) want those votes), and considering the President of the United States is the most important vote that common folk are privy to, it's going to experience enormous attempted voter fraud. Illegal immigrants always turn out in DROVES to vote for whomever will go lax on immigration for the next 4 years.

How do they register to vote without a State id card? Or are you in a state where they issue driver's licenses to illegals and they register to vote using that?

I don't have to show identification at my polling place, but they do ask my name and address and then compare my signature to the one on my registration signature card.

Re:and yet...

[luis_a_espinal]

And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.

Every time.

Civil Rights people disagree with you.

Re:and yet...

[Rockoon]

In the American Civil War the North declared war on the South .

The KKK in the civil rights era were members of the left.

Got any more guesses?

Re:and yet...

[Curunir_wolf]

And yet, they are registering to vote. Some have actually voted. There are even some registrars that are refusing to show they are taking known non-citizens off the roles.

Re:and yet...

[Curunir_wolf]

I seem to remember the republican, close-minded conservatives throwing punches at Trump rallies attacking people who are just simply different and think differently than they do.

Actually, those were operatives paid by Democrat Super PACs to attend Trump rallies for the express purpose of inciting violence. Nobody was attacked because they were different.

I can provide 1000s of examples of violence from the conservative side in just a few minutes.

And yet failed to provide any.

Can you do the same of the liberals?

There's actually a subreddit for that.

Re:and yet...

[AutodidactLabrat]

Well, except for all the Rightwing violence like Trumpist arrest warrant issued for attack on Clinton rally
or This Arrest warrant for Trumpist Tom pettyway assault on Clinton Rally shall I go on?

Re:and yet...

[Mashiki]

Of course you'll leave that out.

I left that out, because you're going to find a hard point that any of those 11 murders, 27 attempted murders and various bombings were part of any directly coordinated actions by those people as a group. I know, it flew right over your head didn't it?

Re: and yet...

[AvitarX]

In PA it was nearly impossible for elderly black people from the south to get a voter ID.

Non hospital births were relatively common amongst that population which made it nearly impossible to get raised seal birth certificates.

I don't know how many it affected, but it was a significant number for those trying to do voter registrations to comply with the ID law when it went into effect.

Re: and yet...

[budgenator]

First politifact.com and snopes.com are horribly partisan and often go off on a tangent on something only vaguely related and then call something disproved, even the lasvegassun.com went on a rant about some solar project when the media I saw was talking about planned freeway development making land more valuable for commercial development, as in strip malls ect.

Re: and yet...

[erapert]

Even Donald Trump admitted in a recent debate that over 2 million people had been deported during the Obama administration.
It may hurt your narrative, but it is a fact.

That does hurt my "narrative", but it does not defeat it because there's over 11 million illegal immigrants in the country right now. Deporting two million is a nice start. But Obama has had eight years to get the job done and he has not. It's not even something he needs congress' cooperation for-- it's his JOB to enforce the LAW.

That'll be correct, if you go to an oncologist, very often they are assuring people that their tumor is non-malignant and treated with minimal intervention. Believe it or not, your analogy backfired.

I didn't say "tumor" I said "a little cancer". Also, let's see how you react when someone tells you that you've got cancer.

Really, some of the treatments for cancer are very invasive, nobody wants to put a person through them, they can easily be worse than the disease.

Patently false. Cancer will kill you. Successfully treating it will save you. Your logic would say that using a known attack on a cryptographic algorithm would take longer than brute forcing it-- which is wrong by definition.

That's two fumbles from you in a row. You may want to sit down and think things over a bit.

Arrogance and condescension from an AC? Hi there, ClickOnThis.

Re: and yet...

[luis_a_espinal]

Why?

Democrats are the party that made Jim Crow.

Southern Democrats. And when they were finally forced to treat "negroes" like human beings, they heeded that siren's calls known as "Nixon's Southern Strategy" and switch to the Republican party, turning the Deep South red ever since.

If you disagree with what I just said (pretty much a quote from historical facts), then put your money where your mouth is and show me how this historical narrative is wrong.

Until then, everything you say is just rhetorical bullshit. Kinda like people saying that the Civil War was not about Slavery but State Rights (while omitting the fucking fact that the primary right under contest was the the right to own people as cattle.) Revisionist motherfuckers.

Yeah

[Ryanrule]

So how about some of those rnc emails. Fucking facist assange

Re:Yeah

[meta-monkey]

Do you think Assange just has everyone's email sitting around and can pass them out as he chooses?

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[110010001000]

Unfortunately for people like AmiMoJo (and most on this website), they have never really had fear, or economic uncertainty. If you are a lower/middle class person in the UK, you are fearful of unchecked immigration as it affects you and your family directly. The SJW just chant "racism" but it is about economics, not racism. People are scared, and they should be scared. AmiMojo hasn't been scared yet, but he might if things get bad enough.

The only way to defend is to poison the data set

[sinij]

The only way to defend against this is to poison the data set. This is exactly why I will vote for Trump to build a wall with China to keep illegal NAFTA carpetbaggers trying to legalize Clinton marriage.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[smallfries]

It's interesting that you feel able to pigeon-hole most people on this web site and explain what their views and motives are. Are you capable of seeing your error? Most people on this website are not from the UK, and could not give two shits about brexit.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[110010001000]

If you were smart you WOULD care about Brexit as it has repercussions for all of us. But I suppose ignorance is bliss.

This is news?

[wiredog]

Obama was doing this in 2008, and the Republicans have their own big data operations, too.

Is that the best we get from Wikileaks?

[Tenebrousedge]

Everyone is talking about this as if Eric Schmidt's involvement in this was somehow equivalent to Google being involved. Yes, Google is an ad company, and whatever else it may be, running for President is an ad campaign. I would hope Schmidt had some good experience with that. From what I can see the plan doesn't look appreciably different than what the Democrats fielded in 2012. Perhaps it's a little heavier on the profiling aspects, but there's no reason to believe they were talking about acquiring that data illicitly, or that anything actually happened as a result of this proposal. It looks like it would be an effective strategy. Maybe it's too effective or too intrusive to the point where we need some law prohibiting the mass collection of data, and maybe that would even be possible. At the moment however, there seems to be little reason to froth about this.

Re:Is that the best we get from Wikileaks?

[tomhath]

FTFA:

"key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them".

If you don't think that data would come from Google you might be interested in a bridge I have for sale.

Re:Is that the best we get from Wikileaks?

[Tenebrousedge]

Honestly, the source is pretty irrelevant. If they didn't get that from Google they would find some other way. Really it sounds more like Schmidt has a "disrupt the market" idea of organizing a political campaign like a software startup. Probably there are about three ways that one could accomplish such a thing: using techniques adapted from those in use at Google, using techniques adapted from the Democrats' campaigns in 2008 and 2012, and of course they could always invent new code and techniques for the purpose.

At some point these attempts to ferret out our collective political opinions raise questions about our Democracy, but so far I don't think there have been too many people suggesting that advertising eliminates personal agency. Also, political opinions may be different from a privacy perspective in that they are less useful if they are not expressed, so there is a lower downside to disclosure. As a society we seem to accept some sort of (optional) affiliation disclosure in the form of voter registration. It must also be stressed that while Google can be presumed to have a pretty complete dataset on American voters, they are far from the only people with that capability. However, it's also not clear how much additional value this brings over such facts as your age, residence, gender, and ethnicity which we consider to be public knowledge.

There are legitimate questions to be asked about political machines and their role in our democracy. There is a lot of nuance to be considered. Manic ranting about how Google is evil is great to engage voters' emotions while leaving their intellects disengaged, but it's a complete distraction from the real issues. And for what it's worth, the Republican party does the exact same thing, they're just not quite as adept at it.

Really I think that the idea of preventing people from compiling large voter datasets is naive, and possibly even foolish. To my mind the country would be greatly improved by setting up voting rules which encourage a multitude of political parties, and I believe our first change there should be to ditch "first past the post" voting. The issues of power and control are magnified by the size of the political party, while at the same time real choice is diminished.

If all you are interested in is a Two Minutes Hate against a prominent corporate entity, then I suppose your ilk have the floor. I think there are more important issues at stake, however.

The fate of Brendan Eich becons for Schmidt

[mi]

When Brendan Eich's backing of a popular, but ultimately-losing political movement came to light, Mozilla — undoubtedly pressured by Google, who provides 90% of its money — forced the inventor of Javascript to voluntarily step down.

The ongoing collapsing of Her Beautiful Wickedness is no dissimilar — although reasonably popular and, some would say, even with a reasonable chance of getting the same 52% of the vote that Brendan-backed Proposition 8 has gathered, Hillary may lose on legal grounds.

To avoid being seen as a hypocrite, Mr. Schmidt — who didn't merely donate some money, but was actively helping her — ought to resign soon.

And...

[rholtzjr]

And they said their motto is "Do No Evil". The are the epitome of evil.

Recommendations on big data

[Kirgin]

His recommendations are for resolving issues that come up with the existing data collection that Democrats (and replubicans) have already been engaging in for decades. He isn't talking about using his company to divulge personal information about users, but to use existing and accepted practices for mining the data. That being said, his advice weighs a lot more than the average advisor's. It's like Mike Tyson coaching your son's elementary school boxing program.

Dyslexia acting up again

[codeButcher]

I first misread that as "... Drew Up Daft Plan..."

Then I realized, that's probably the case anyway.

BLM is conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is BLM considered liberal? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are late 1700s ideals! You can't possibly get more conservative than protecting civil rights against ever-more-unaccountable government.

BLM is a reaction to the government's "trust us, we know what we're doing, you little people."

Re:BLM is conservative

[phantomfive]

How the fuck is BLM considered liberal? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are late 1700s ideals!

Just an FYI, they are liberal ideas. Jefferson wasn't a Tory.

Re:BLM is conservative

[Curunir_wolf]

How the fuck is BLM considered liberal?

You're right. They're more accurately considered communist, or maybe black separatist.

Re:BLM is conservative

[pnutjam]

They want accountability, which has to come from some central authority or a transparent process. Either or preferably both.
I live in a town with no Democratic candidates, does this look like small gov free market behavior to you?

Re:BLM is conservative

[Attila Dimedici]

You really think that a government which you have EVEN smaller say in will be more responsive than your local government?

So, basically what you are saying is that they want the local police to be accountable to some bureaucrat in Washington, who has no idea of local conditions and would be lucky to find the place on a map, assuming he cared enough to look.

As to having transparent processes, that takes work. If you do not like your local politics, you need to make the effort to fix it. It does not happen in the short term. Take the example of William Wilberforce. As a Parliamentarian with an established reputation, he began working on abolishing the slave trade in 1787, the British Parliament did not outlaw the slave trade until 1806, nearly 20 years later and it was another 27 years before the complete abolition of slavery in Great Britain.

If you (or they) want to fix the problems with our political system they need to dedicate their lives to actually doing so, and convince others to do likewise.

The fact of the matter is that the BLM movement was created (and it WAS created, not a spontaneous uprising) for the purpose of generating support for federalizing the police.

Re:BLM is conservative

[pnutjam]

I don't think you know the definition of fact. Nobody wants to, can, or will federalize the police. Is this some sort of far-right bogeyman (like common core) that I haven't heard about yet? There is no issues with having standardized expectations for local police.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[rickb928]

I know full well that if/when I lose my current job, I will find it very, very hard to find a similar opportunity. Age, education, and shrinking work forces will put me at great risk of taking a 60% pay cut, permanently. This is the reality for knowledge workers over the age of 40 in the US.

Fear? I'm betting you don't really know it either. My mom grew up in immediate post-Depression America, lurched into WWII, and was married in the height of the post-WWII prosperity that made everything so easy. Until she divorced. Then it got really, really hard. Now she watches the ACA destroy her options for healthcare, threatening her with the choices that may be made in the next few years being given to bureaucrats who will not be able to do anything but cut costs.

And I'm right behind her.

You think the white middle-class in America is crying wolf? We see the snowball coming down the hill.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[110010001000]

You are right. I don't know real fear, either. I am the first to admit it. I have been very very lucky in life. The difference is that I DO have empathy and can understand why people are fearful and make decisions they do. That offends people, but I don't understand why.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[denzacar]

you are fearful of unchecked immigration as it affects you and your family directly.

Which is why they voted for declared racists... you know... cause racism is fine compared to a theoretic possibility of economic discomfort - regardless of the facts.

Oh... wait... no it isn't. That's using fear and selfishness as an EXCUSE for racism.

Most people will actually go "What the fuck? You want me to go join the racists because THEY say I'll be doomed if I don't? Fuck those cunts! I'd rather go poor and hungry than join them."
The only reason Brexitters "won" (then promptly regretted it and wanted a re-vote) is the fact that while intelligence is equally distributed around the average - stupidity isn't.
Stupidity is a function of intelligence and applied education.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[Kohath]

That offends people, but I don't understand why.

Because being offended is self-empowering and acting offended sends a social signal that affirms your class/tribal identity.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[110010001000]

Ah, yes. Another "enlightened" one who mocks the decisions of the commoners. You are above the curve of course, so much smarter, just like everyone else. Oh, plus they are all racists too. They probably eat their own children as well.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[TheRaven64]

If you are a lower/middle class person in the UK, you are fearful of unchecked immigration as it affects you and your family directly

And yet, in polling, the people who are most opposed to immigration are the ones who live in areas with the least immigration.

Re:trump hitler nsa build your own icbm at home

[rholtzjr]

Seems you bot went a little haywire there.

Re:Career limiting move?

[russotto]

I'm sure he's got various houses in other countries he can move to.

Benjamin Franklin and American politics today.

[MrKaos]

Prior to the signing of the final draft of the American Constitution on the last day of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, Franklin had a speech of his delivered, by James Wilson, because he was too ill at the time to deliver it himself. In the speech he protested the fallibility of the Constitution and of the document he said:

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Keep in mind that Franklin probably didn't mean the people were criminal, only that some powerful segments of the population manipulating things to corrupt them, like reducing education, interfering with the press, sabotaging government functions so they are ineffective and many other things. Being a third party to these elections and effectively disinterested in the result I tend to wonder what damage is being done to the office of the President by the way the campaigns seem to tear each candidate into pieces and I wonder if that is the canary in the cage.

Franklin seems to have been able to predict this moment, and please don't take that as a criticism of your country, however isn't that a sign to look to the type of things Franklin was trying to warn everyone about back when the US constitution was framed?

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[Mashiki]

And yet, in polling, the people who are most opposed to immigration are the ones who live in areas with the least immigration.

Yeah, you want to know what's funny about that? They didn't look at the demographic shift in those areas or they ignored it because it tells an interesting story. Those were people who were pushed out of the areas that they lived in, and now live in those other areas that "don't have areas with high immigration." You can even see the trend using the ONS's own data. But the media, and I know the exact article you're talking about is all over it but only telling half the story. They also don't count the people that have fled the UK to Canada or Australia, in my neck of the woods there have been at least a dozen families who have moved here and become citizens since the UK's brilliant "let's import every person, and not make sure they integrate!" It started speeding up when stuff like the Rotherham scandal broke, and the Trojan Horse Scandal broke.

Young, low-paid

[Tablizer]

young and hard-working and enthusiastic...from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low-paid permanent employees

If there is any doubt about the reasons behind their H-1B desires, this should set it to rest.

Natural outcome of high population

[swb]

I think this is ultimately the natural outcome of high populations.

High populations create the need for ever more organized structures and ever more rigid discipline to enforce adherence to these structures. Resistance to these structures is also an inevitable outcome which feeds back into the increasing need for more more rigidity, surveillance and control features to prevent disruption to the organizational structure.

Of course we've passed the point in many cases where the level of organization and organizational discipline is well-matched to human nature. Making matters worse, the organizational structures and discipline are used cynically for self-enrichment and power accumulation in addition to being applied unequally and unjustly among various groups, further increasing resistance, leading in turn, to more rigidity and discipline.

I don't really see any way out of this long term without large reductions in population which reduce the amount of organizational structure needed.

Re:Natural outcome of high population

[russotto]

I don't really see any way out of this long term without large reductions in population which reduce the amount of organizational structure needed.

So, Sweet Meteor of Death can count on your vote?

Re:Natural outcome of high population

[Orgasmatron]

I disagree. High populations do not create the need for centralized power. Diversity does that, which you recognize without acknowledging in your comment about the power-hungry playing the different groups against each other. In a high trust society, intelligence, power and responsibility can be placed where they can do the most good and the least harm: at the edges.

Re:Natural outcome of high population

[swb]

I can think of a couple of contra examples.

China is a fairly low diversity nation but with a high population density. Despite the low amount of diversity, China is a country obsessed with a need for a high amount of organizational structure and a high level of organization enforcement. Some of this may be a byproduct of totalitarian government, but I would argue that one of the reasons they have a totalitarian government is that the large population densities make organization and its enforcement appealing.

Japan is another country with a high population density for its geographic size and extremely low diversity. While they lack a totalitarian government at present, Japan has a an extremely organized society. The lack of authoritarianism is mostly a function of losing WW II and the influence of United States occupation, not that its citizens would necessarily reject a more authoritarian government.

I generally agree that diversity contributes to both organizational dysfunction and organizational control enforcement. Places with high population densities and low diversity tend to be high trust societies as you note, but this mostly leads to an internalization of a common organizational mindset, where top-down enforcement is less necessary. But usually these types of places have a broad array of unofficial organizational enforcement via social and cultural attitudes.

Diversity disrupts self-enforcement of organization -- minority groups tend to find organizational compliance arbitrary and discriminatory, majority groups internalize the majority organizational priorities and believe greater force is necessary to obtain compliance.

Re: Why aren't Julian Assange's e-mails public?

[HornWumpus]

They only became 'date rapes' when they found out about each other.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[Powercntrl]

I know full well that if/when I lose my current job, I will find it very, very hard to find a similar opportunity. Age, education, and shrinking work forces will put me at great risk of taking a 60% pay cut, permanently. This is the reality for knowledge workers over the age of 40 in the US.

Exactly how is Trump going to remedy this situation? Trump's plan to bring back American jobs is just Bernie Sander's "$15/hr for flipping hamburgers" socialist pill, in an easier-to-swallow coating. You think things are bad now, wait until all the transportation industry workers lose their jobs due to delivery drones and autonomous vehicles. Funny how none of the candidates want to talk about that elephant in the room.

Now she watches the ACA destroy her options for healthcare, threatening her with the choices that may be made in the next few years being given to bureaucrats who will not be able to do anything but cut costs.

The ACA isn't the reason health insurance costs so much - it's the insurance companies. Let's assume Trump wins and waves his magic wand to make Obamacare go *poof*. The insurance companies already know how much people are willing to pay for health insurance (the ACA has been around for 6 years now), do you honestly think they're just going to go "Well, party's over boys, time to slit our own throats with some race-to-the-bottom competition."? If anything, they'll just use their newfound freedom to go back to denying coverage for a myriad of reasons and continue to rape customers on pricing (that's step 3: profit!).

You think the white middle-class in America is crying wolf? We see the snowball coming down the hill.

And your supposed savior is a man who has made a significant portion of his wealth peddling false promises (Trump U, his many, many "get rich quick" books) of ascension to people on the lower planes. No wonder he has such a cult-like following.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[smallfries]

I have not said that I do not care about brexit. You are not so good at reading.

Horse shit

[s.petry]

Stop trying to justify propaganda and propagandists. Schmidt has used the platform to attempt to sway the election. The same thing Twitter and Facebook have done, as well as main stream media. People are sick of it, and we can see the game being played all over.

Google performing "Science" would require UNBIASED positioning, not purely biased in favor of Democrats. You can not by definition perform science with a one sided bias.

Google search for months has provided biased results in search results and pre-fetching strings. Typing in "How do I vote" showed "For Hillary" as the top search entry for months, and Donald Trump did not show in the search results even if you typed in "for Donald" or "for Trump".

I get it, you Progressive Leftists hate losing. You don't care that Donna Brazil is empty of morality and has no problem cheating as long as the candidate the party oligarchs wants is elected. The only reason she was fired from CNN was that she got caught, not that she was devoid of ethics. No problem with scum like Bob Creamer sending provocateurs to Sanders and Trump rallies because it makes their candidate look better and opponents look bad. That scumbag had 340+ visits to the White House and 50 visits with the President, and you refuse to question how much the President actually knows about the corruption. You have no problem with the Attorney General meeting a potential witness and husband of the subject of 18 separate USCs days before her Directory of the FBI decided not to allow prosecution of any charges, and have not demanded that the AG step down for malfeasance.

You don't have a problem with it, but a huge number of the Public does. We do not support corrupt oligarchs and have no illusions that we somehow benefit from them. Trump burning down a huge portion of a corrupt Government is a solid option at this point. The alternative is to have a civil war, which we should all agree would be very bad for all of us.

Re:Horse shit

[colin_faber]

You don't care that Donna Brazil is empty of morality and has no problem cheating as long as the candidate the party oligarchs wants is elected. The only reason she was fired from CNN was that she got caught,

You forgot to mention that she was caught TWICE.

Re:Horse shit

[s.petry]

I believe GP and my opinion are closer than I first took the post, so "you" should be be used as a generalization if that is true.

Re:Horse shit

[s.petry]

I was intentionally general in my comment, but yes she was _caught_ twice, and lied about it both times. Public distrust of CNN and failing ratings is why any action was taken. Ex CIA agent Anderson Cooper is surely innocent of helping Brazil get the questions he was posing. Oh, did I just give people reason to doubt Cooper's loyalty to journalistic integrity? Oops

Re:Horse shit

[Powercntrl]

Trump burning down a huge portion of a corrupt Government is a solid option at this point.

You bought it hook, line and sinker if you believe he has any intention to "burn down" the system which allowed him to become a billionaire and pay no income taxes since the 90s.

Re:Horse shit

[s.petry]

At this point there are no other options. Trump not doing what he says and being a Democrat in office will result in the civil war we don't really want to have. You can say "fake" all you want while it's conjecture, I'll say "fake" when I see it's fake. I'm as critical of liars on either side of the aisle.

Re: Horse shit

[backdoc]

That was the most "on point", accurate, elegant and articulate comment that I have ever read on Slashdot. It was beautiful.

Do these leftists not know that it is this administration that gave away the Internet, that has manipulated the currency, lied to the American people over and over again? Yeah. I get this is not an American only forum. But, the thread pretty much is. If you're commenting on it, I assme you have a stake in this race.

Re:Horse shit

[jwhitener]

Is Google under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?
Is Koch Industries under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?

Is it wrong for a private citizen (a ceo) to volunteer their skills to a campaign? I just read the actual email, and it doesn't sound like he was suggesting using Google's resources, but rather building a system for the campaign.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262

b) The Voter

Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all
that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify,
meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily
speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the
voter videos and other answers to areas they care about ("the benefits of
ACA to you" etc.)

The scenario includes a volunteer on a walk list, encountering a potential
voter, updating the records real time and deepening contact with the voter
and the information we have to offer.

Google search for months has provided biased results in search results and pre-fetching strings. Typing in "How do I vote" showed "For Hillary" as the top search entry for months, and Donald Trump did not show in the search results even if you typed in "for Donald" or "for Trump".

Has anyone done a statistically valid study of that claim? I've seen it tossed around, but the "evidence" I've seen are all anecdotes.

Re:Horse shit

[s.petry]

Is Google under an obligation to be neutral when it comes to politics?

No, but they do have an obligation to inform people that they are biasing information to support a person they like. This is the current issue most people have with all of media. Journalism is dead and NOBODY is being held to any standards. Google providing search results is exactly journalism and should hold the same standards Journalists should hold. They don't, and they don't.

Did you attempt to do the search yourself? How about instead of claiming unfair, you actually test things yourself. Google code is proprietary so we can not study the inner workings on the Google servers, but countless people including myself tested the search with the same result.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[dunkelfalke]

"Immigrants take our jobs" is a prime example of xenophobia, but also a lie. So yep, this is very much racism. I mean, Brits have always been quite xenophobic, but at least they used to be honest about it.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[micahraleigh]

Feelings aren't racist.

What you do with them might be racist.

and who would have kept the data, I wonder?

[Bearhouse]

maybe...urm...Google?

"The key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them." Yeah, right. Not privacy red flags there, bubba...

I'm guessing that somewhere in the plan was buried a phrase something like "in consideration of providing technical advise on technology blah blah we get to keep all the data" gathered by these "millions of volunteers.

Re: Why aren't Julian Assange's e-mails public?

[rickb928]

Swedish sexual assault law is interesting. There is virtually no defense, the accusation is considered sufficient.

It's become impossible to discern the truth in these cases.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[dunkelfalke]

They didn't. They just no longer want to do this kind of work, simple as that.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[meta-monkey]

1) "Racism" as an argument no longer works. No one cares anymore. It has become the left's "I get to win the argument automatically because I called you a name!" button. They've pressed it way too hard and way too often about shit that has absolutely nothing to do with race.

2) Intelligence is genetic. It has nothing to do with education. You take 90 IQ mouth breathers run them through a gender studies course and then scream "See?! The smart, educated people agree with my stupid ideas!" All you've done is indoctrinate people in your leftist ideology so they're stuck in a bubble and cannot sense reality. That doesn't make them right. It actually makes them wrong, but incredibly goddamn smug about it.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[meta-monkey]

What's wrong with xenophobia? The American Indians weren't near xenophobic enough, and look what happened to them.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[alvinrod]

The (mid) upper class tech sector workers are also fearful of unchecked immigration, which is why every time an H1-B visa story gets posted to Slashdot, you see people talking about how awful it is and how badly its abused. Almost no one is in support of it and you frequently see the exact same type of comments applied to it that you would see the lower (mid) class apply to low-skill immigration. No one claims those posters are being racist when the exact same arguments are made.

However, the (mid) upper class can at least make an argument for allowing low-skill immigration. It drives down the cost of labor for having servants that can work as maids, gardeners, etc. It's at least in their financial interest, but I doubt many would actually state that as the reason for their support. I honestly don't think most of them really care or have given it any thought at all. It's just that their team, their political camp, is in support of it so they are, or maybe it's just that their political opponents, the other tribe is against it so they've decided to be for it so they're not like those other people who are bad.

I'm kind of curious to hear why people who are in favor of allowing in a large number of immigrants (or not deporting those who are here illegally) but are also against more H1-B visas have those positions, because outside of potential financial benefits it doesn't make much sense. The only other reason I can think of is because it allows people to consider themselves virtuous for being progressive or something like that when it doesn't potentially affect their own livelihood.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[serviscope_minor]

And yet, in polling, the people who are most opposed to immigration are the ones who live in areas with the least immigration.

Not entirely. Boston for example was very pro Brexit. And they have a large, non integrated immigrant community.

However the ex-Bostonion I know said the problem wasn't immigration, the problem is that it's a complete shithole and was long before the immigrants arrived. The lack of integration and attendant problems are a symptom of the disease, not the diease itself. So, getting rid of the immigrants won't fix it.

Re: Like fear of the brown people...

[rickb928]

Did I say ANYONE is going to remedy this situation? No, I did not. Your assumptions are showing.

And blaming insurers for ACA failures is a sad canard. It makes you look bad.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[ZenShadow]

And if you actually believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[budgenator]

Damn and I had mod points before I posted too, well played sir.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[HornWumpus]

Americans: There is a Boston in England. The description would have fit the American Boston, so posting for clarity.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[dunkelfalke]

I know it for a fact.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[Rockoon]

It's interesting that you feel able to pigeon-hole most people on this web site

To be fair, AmiMoJo pigeon-holed himself by spamming comments on SJW stories. We arent talking about 2 or 3 posts per SJW story here, we are talking 20 or 30.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[I'm New Around Here]

Are the blueprints used to build it marked up in English or Spanglish?

Re: Like fear of the brown people...

[rickb928]

Are you not paying attention? It was designed to use younger enrollees to pay for older, more demanding ones, which is actually pretty much a standard insurance model. It was just designed in an unsustainable way.

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[Hognoxious]

The people whose jobs are threatened are grubby little Sun-reading oiks and they aren't clever enough or don't work hard enough.

AnalMocio is a special snowflake. There's no way a Pole or an Indian could take *his* job.

Until one does.

When that happens he'll be the one at the front of the BNP march, with sunglasses hiding the fact that he's a fucking Watford.

Re:As an an American...

[sydbarrett74]

yet all that meddling has led to a society where many black families are even worse off than if government had not first enabled and then "reformed" all that racism in the first place.

Blame the Nixon-era War on Drugs for the destruction of black family life. By incarcerating large swathes of young black men and forcing mothers to be sole income earners, black children grow up impoverished and lacking a paternal influence in their lives. They grow up to repeat the vicious cycle. No single thing has done more to erase decades of minorities' economic and social progress than the WoD. It's the new Jim Crow.

Re: Like fear of the brown people...

[meta-monkey]

You should google "genetics and intelligence."

Ohh, Politicians using datamining, ooh, EVIL!!!

[AutodidactLabrat]

Seriously, how do you think the Republican Gerrymander works?
Exactly like this
The difference?
Hillary is looking for voters, not people to KEEP from voting!

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[denzacar]

1) Reality called. You're way overdue for a checkup.

Cause back in reality, arguing "You can't call me racist - that's passe." is so stupid, it's hard to even joke about it.
But thanks for providing an alternative. Someone we can all point to and laugh.

2) IQ doesn't work like that. In SO MANY WAYS.
From the fact that the IQ is not an absolute measure of individual intelligence - but a normalized representation how one measures up against the population.
I.e. You take 3 mouth breathers and elect them to parliament - and the middle one will have an IQ of 100, while the other two will be the IQ 180 genius and the IQ 70 idiot of that population.
Also, you've clearly never heard of the Flynn effect.

The rest of you comment is just unarguable nonsensical fuming.
Might as well try to argue with a child who hates orange jello and yells at passing people "You're stupid for not hating orange jello! Because gender studies mouth breathers have indoctrinated you with leftist ideology so they're stuck in a bubble! Of jello!"

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[denzacar]

Wait... were you trying to insult me by having no argument?

Resorting instead to pitiful ad hominem attacks, insinuating stuck up elitism - for calling out racism?
It is elitist to be anti-racist now? Really? That's your "argument"?
You hear someone call a racist a racist and your reaction is to accuse them of being a "so much smarter" elitist?

To put it in a less elitist parlance - do you even brain, bro?

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[denzacar]

Sorry... but that's like replying to a story about someone being beaten up on account of their race with "Fists are not racist... What you do with them might be racist."

Re:Like fear of the brown people...

[micahraleigh]

Hmm ... sounds like you're saying in some cases it's okay to lump a person's circumstances together with how they behave.

Which, by the way, is the underlying problem with racism.

BZZZZT! Try again!

[denzacar]

Hmm ... sounds like you're saying in some cases it's okay to lump a person's circumstances together with how they behave.

Which, by the way, is the underlying problem with racism.

Racism is treating people detrimentally based on the biological markers they are born with, which are treated as racial according to local cultural norms and customs.

Besides that... what I said "sounds" nothing like what you describe.
Unless you are arguing that being beaten up is "behaving".
Which would again not be racism by the victim of the beating - even if one was being beaten because of one's race.

But the person doing the beating WOULD be a racist cunt.