This is never going to end. You could surrender and it wouldn't end because someone else would fight about something else. Its been this way for the last 10,000 years and its showing no signs of stopping.
Given that you have as much evidence of that as UFO conspiracists have for alien invasions... and because I assume you're not a hypocrite... I guess you're going to take seriously every other thing you have no evidence of either...
As to mistakes... no... Gore made the mistake of not studying how Bill Clinton won. He also avoided campaigning with Bill even though the only reason he was even considered for president was because he was Bill's vice president.
Hillary ultimately made the same mistakes Gore made. Bill famously did campaign for HIllary though he said her message should be changed. Bill, the only one of them that had actually won a presidential election, was told to shut up and do what he was told. He did... and she lost.
In and amongst that, you have what Hillary did to Bernie. Yes, the solidity of your tribalism is not sustainable because she betrayed her own party. The info on that is actually pretty well documented and there is lots of evidence of that. The people that liked bernie know what she did. And as much as you might try to paper over that betrayal with trump hatred... I suspect more than a few bernie people remember.
Regardless, if you're just going to "rah rah" at me, then so be it. I was trying to have a rational discussion on the issue. And what you're giving me is cultish foolishness that none but the deepest coolaid drinkers take seriously.
Everyone knows, bub. You're just embarrassing yourself.
You say this because I ask for people to be reasonable, I say that neither of the candidates was very good, and I point out that there isn't actually any evidence?
No, I'm not forgetting that. The propaganda was heavy enough from everyone that anything Russia did would be undetectable.
What is more, you've no evidence they did anything.
We could as easily argue that Aztec gods using the stored power of ancient blood sacrifices decided the election.
Provide the evidence. Thus far the best the investigation has is that Flynn talked to Russia AFTER Trump was elected and then lied about it to BOTH trump and the FBI. The act shows no evidence of collusion, nothing illegal on the part of the trump administration itself... though Flynn did lie to the FBI. But nothing he did gives you the collusion you want.
Where is it? Evidence of anything please? Besides Hillary's salt. Because that's all I see thus far.
Lots of whining and crying from the Clinton campaign and then lots of deluded people that instead of realizing that you can "Lose" an election...*Gasp* are going to start international incidents and waste lots of time to salve their bruised special snow flake egos.
I want the evidence or I want humility out of you people. If you will provide neither evidence nor humility then you're a cultist.
Can you actually lay out how Russia would have had ANY effect?
What is more, the US is full of various organizations doing propaganda. And consider that NGOs are dangerous as well by this logic.
If it is unreasonable for Russia to have an influence... what about George Soros? Because I don't think you can argue that his influence wasn't PERSONALLY dramatically greater than anything Russia did.
And yet... no court trials or investigations. And if you say "but he's an american citizen"... well.. consider brexit which he also influenced.... British citizen too? How convenient.
What if Putin becomes a US citizen... can he do it then?
Given that you're investigating with no evidence besides hearsay, I'll ask you to investigate every election on the same basis and with the same intensity.
Present your evidence. Because thus far... there is none. Go to trial. No one is stopping you.
You have nothing. The entire thing has been fallacy, after fabrication, after phantom.
By this logic we're just a bunch of sheep that aren't actually making choices as much as being manipulated.
Carried forward, your argument would suggest doing away with voting entirely.
If losing an election causes you to lose faith in democracy itself then your faith in the concept was never that strong in the first place.
I don't think Russia did anything. I don't think there has been any evidence of Russia actually doing anything. And even the theoretical things the Russians could have done are so comically irrelevant in the context of the propaganda frenzy that occurred during either brexit or a battleground state's presidential election campaign... I mean... actually think about it.
You're making a butterfly effect argument... but those arguments require LONG set up before the event. The preparing of the ground. That argument isn't about one butterfly flapping its wings in the middle of an active hurricane and the hurricane changing direction.
Look, evidence of the Russians doing something or this is just a fantasy. I can as easily argue that Anubis or Thor decided the election with God magic.
if it didn't decide the outcome then how is it powerful?
Do you want to talk brexit and say that the british people only voted for brexit because of Russia as well?
There are propaganda machines all over the place. Battleground states during a US presidential election are getting nailed by every propaganda machine the country has. In THAT shit show what could Russia possibly do even if they did something... which I've seen no evidence they actually did.
And don't get me wrong. I've read the newspaper articles. They say stuff like "This guy from the FBI thinks X" or "it is possible that something could exist which we haven't found any evidence of"... The evidence has thus far been either fallacious in that they play word games to make nothing sound like something. Taking expert opinion out of context to imply they're saying something they're not. Or alluding the possibly of evidence existing that they haven't found and might well not exist because it didn't happen.
That has been the "Russia" story thus far. I have been paying attention. Did I miss anything?
Because the latest BOMB SHELL was that Flynn talked to the Russians AFTER Trump was elected and then lied to everyone about it. Now... the talking to the Russians was not illegal or evidence of colluding... and he even lied Trump about it. And the only real "crime" in it was that he lied to the FBI about something... which is a crime... but not evidence of collusion or anything that implicates anyone but himself. The Trump administration would have no reason to lie about talking to a foreign power after winning an election. The President is amongst other things the prime diplomat of the country... so...
I'd love to see the evidence. Please show me what I missed. Because I think I've been paying attention here. I strongly suspect many of the people pushing this narrative bought into some bullshit awhile back and now don't have the humility to admit they got duped.
It happens to us all. Nothing to be gained by being stubborn.
Okay, if there was collusion... do you have evidence of this or merely the allegations of a dying political dynasty well known for its deceit and egotism?
I mean, most of this is just "listen and believe" from the Clinton campaign. If you had more than that, we'd be going to trial.
The most they have at this point is that Flynn talked to the Russians AFTER Trump was elected but said he didn't to the FBI.
That is... the only crime thus far is Flynn making false statements to the FBI. This is evidence of neither collusion nor a crime.
What is more there are giant conflicts of interest with many media outlets that were patiently biased in the election. Where is the objective journalism? I don't see it.
Everything is tainted by massive lapses in integrity. In this environment, you need to bring actual evidence forward that can survive the crucible of a court trial to be taken seriously.
I know that the FBI doesn't have that yet. I don't think they will get it because I sincerely believe that the entire mess which has had international repercussions was the selfish last stab of the Clinton machine.
But here is the most troubling thing for me. I think most of people pushing the Russia story know this already. I think they're just pushing this because it dupes a few die hards and helps salve their wounded egos for losing an election to the likes of Donald Trump.
Just as with Gore before her, Hillary's loss was mostly self inflicted. Accept it and build a better party with a better people.
With full sincerity and complete frankness... I believe in you. I believe in the republic. I believe in democracy. I believe in this country.
Don't tear everything up just because you lose an election. We have this grand inheritance of liberty... It would be the height of foolishness to throw it away simply to make a deceitful old woman feel powerful.
If you have something, then bring it to court. If not... Let it go.
Not really, because it was mostly just battleground states which are themselves absolutely flooded with political crap when elections happen. Anything that could drowned out that fog horn would be really obvious.
Furthermore, you're only talking about social media. The vast majority of campaigning happened on tv, newspapers, billboards, cold calls, knocking on doors... etc.
What you're saying is some face book posts that were buried in a flood of other face book posts decided the election.
It is a fundamentally irrational position to take.
There is currently more evidence of collusion with Hillary than there is with Trump.
Consider if Trump had been SecState, the trump foundation got a bunch of money from the Russians, and then Trump's SecState approved the sale to UraniumOne?
Suddenly people would care.
Look, spin your narratives as you please. I was trying to introduce some adult level headed reasonableness into this dumpsterfire of a political argument.
Democrats apparently think anytime they lose an election it is because it was stolen from them. We got that from Gore and now we're pathetically getting it from the last gasp of the Clinton machine.
Close elections happen. You think Trump did something illegal? Have your court trial. But thus far the entire thing has been an embarrassing circus for everyone promoting the Russia narrative.
The only reason I want it to stop is because I don't want so many of our national institutions to prostitute themselves to a dying political empire's ego. But if that is what people want to do... so be it.
Your strawmanning of my position to concoct an argument is intellectually void. I did not reference the electoral college at all much less suggest it doesn't exist.
As to your sheep argument, it cuts both ways. You're clearly determined to see this in the most biased and partisan fashion possible. Consider that if the people are sheep, then if you ever win an election it is merely by manipulating people.
As to advertising and campaign money, politicians that spend less money on a campaign win all the time. Suggesting that that is all that determines elections again disenfranchises voters and suggests they're just stupid robots that do what they're told. If people worked this way then democracy would be a bad idea.
You probably don't realize how foolish you're sounding right now. You're literally giving arguments against democracy.
But for the sake of argument, if we concede there was russian influence which seems dubious... papers talk about it but when asked to provide the evidence it doesn't appear to exist. But again, for the sake of argument... how much of it could there possibly have been? If there were russian involvement it could have only been barely noticeable. The vast majority of campaigning happened on network tv, the local newspaper, cold calls to homes, etc.
All you're talking about with RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA is social media. And even there it would have to have been all but irrelevant as a relation to the whole. Here you'll say "but they targeted a battle ground state". Guess what, battle ground states were so saturated with competing political messages that nothing the EVIL RUSSSIANS could have done would have mattered.
This is all just a very tragic inability to accept a loss. You clearly don't believe in democracy as your sheep comments have proven and you also only approve of elections when you win. I can see why you don't like democracy. Move to a dictatorship please. We're trying to not be ruled by some old nobility or priesthood here.
No, you're just saying that the opposition is blaming the chinese for the democrats winning elections which they're not.
So you're just making desperate arguments backed up by literally nothing... that can be invalidated by thinking about it for mere seconds or doing any kind of search for information.
Listen, I'm not saying who to vote for... you vote for whomever you want. But saying that Trump won because of Russia suggests that the voting public have no relevant opinions and the democracy is a complete sham because a majority of people are sheep.
If that is the case, then that reflexively argues that your political party as well is supported by the same sheep like thinking... and that no opinion you have is actually your own... because you're always basically just doing whatever the power broker tells you to think.
So which is it? Did you lose an election or do you have no free will?
Come on. Being delusional isn't going to help you. Just take your medicine and learn from it. Here I suspect you're going to display typical "internet stubbornness"... where in 1+1=2 will be denied and I will be disparaged for being so foolish as to think such a thing.
If so, so be it. I tried to talk sense amongst the madness. Go back to your barking at the moon if that is what you want.
Hillary didn't lose because of Russia. Trump didn't win because of Russia.
Ignore Russia for five seconds if you can... Hillary was a weak candidate and so was pretty much the entire republican field.
Jeb Bush for example carried 3 percent of the republican vote. Hillary is generally disliked by most of her own party. Trump naturally is one of the most disliked presidents in US history. But he didn't win the election because people liked him. He won because for whatever reason... he said he was going to do things and people believed him.
Pretending that the current political circumstances are the result of the Russians is deranged. This is the same sort of blind spot that lead to Al Gore losing the election against Bush 43. Anyone that studied the gore vs bush election knows that Gore made a lot of mistakes. If you tell yourself you lose because of the Russians or because the Supreme Court robbed you... then you're going to keep losing and you'll deserve to lose.
did you read any of it?... he cut the climate change stuff not the space exploration thing. Actually read it. If you want PDFs from the government on this then that can be provided... but only if you're going to actually read them.
... Nearly all of it is merely an accusation. Someone complains... someone says X or Y...
Tell you what, you're all pedophile alien vampires from the wizard dimension.
Listen and believe.
Here someone will say "but bad things can happen if we require evidence before burning people at the stake."
Which is why its a good thing we caught your pedophile alien vampire ass from the wizard dimention... you know... before you got up to something freaky.
Whilst bad things can happen if you don't just burn anyone that a finger is pointed at, a society where "that" constitutes grounds for destruction is a society where people are going to have to find elaborate ways to defend themselves from social predators that exploit that power to extort people.
What is more, the most socially sophisticated people will use this power to dominate the less socially sophisticated. There will be less freedom, less fairness, less regard for the weak... it will be increasingly backstabby and ruthless.
And that's okay.
What we saw from Al Franken the other day was the perfect summation of what is going on here.
Franken says "all women must be listened to."
Franken says "all the women that said I did bad things are liars or are confused."
Franken says "It is silly that I be removed from the Senate on this basis"
Franken says "It is absurd that that Pedophile in Alabama be allowed to stay and the sexual predator in the white house be allowed to stay."
See... its a double edged sword that some people are too dumb to understand cuts both ways. Some people in our society are trying to wield this weapon. And it is ripping them apart. What they want is a double standard. Where they can use this weapon to annihilate anyone simply by making an accusation without having it blow back upon themselves.
They will accomplish nothing. They will sacrifice to the flame one after the other in the foolish belief that eventually they'll be able to land a telling blow upon some ideological enemy that will be worth the sacrifice.
Sadly, they don't understand that it is a weapon that only effects those that believe in it. If their own belief were more cynical they could cow some of their opposition into submission with it at an economical rate. But if they believe in it and their opposition does things like "ask for evidence"... then the progressives cut themselves up trying to use a weapon that they don't understand.
What is more, and all the more tragically... even IF they were able to totally annihilate their opposition with this weapon... it would destroy the rest of society if only because it would not stop.
This is how witch trials work. You make an accusation that you saw someone dancing around the fires summoning demons as a witch... and then in the morning light... your little church group goes over there to hang the person by the neck until dead.
Once you've stripped out all the incidents that are hearsay... what is left?
Some will disagree... That is okay... the flames dance for us all and they don't care which of us gets hip checked into the blaze. What higher justice than to be burned in the flame of your own kindling?
typos are a thing... I realized I screwed it up about 2 seconds after pressing submit... but you can't edit so... *shrug*. You know what I meant and I got the meaning right. Just... misspelled something in a slashdot comment.
The burdens on the government to maintain some poles and conduits when the ISPs can pay a per pole fee that would more than pay for whatever their burdens are... I just don't buy the "we can't have more than the monopoly running things" argument. I also don't buy that its too expensive when the expense is not what is stopping competition... it is that competition is effectively illegal.
Until you permit people to compete... I don't want to have a lot of regard for the notion of why people can't compete. Remove the government restrictions and then tell me competition can't happen when competition still doesn't happen.
Until then, this is a matter of speculation between us.
If you want to win on the internet, try to instead challenge someone dumber than you. As you don't understand the relevance of De Jura / De Facto... Consider Facebook, it is full of drooling nitwits.
The issue is not NN but competition. We have an issue with monopolies because the government... local and state mostly grants exclusive franchise licenses to run cable to no more than two companies typically.
that people presume to be surprised when abusive and monopolistic behavior occurs when you grant companies monopolies is baffling.
You do not have the right to such ignorance. Grant right of way access to poles and conduits for third party last mile ISPs and all this NN stuff becomes irrelevant.
Google is having a hard time running cable. That is how bad and how corrupt these franchise agreements are right now. And if google with all its resources is having a hard time then what chance does anyone else stand?
Open up right of way or shut up. Nothing is going to liberate consumers and users and citizens and people from the oppression of monopolistic forces unless you break the monopolies at their heart. And that heart is the exclusive franchise agreements.
Here some fool will say that such agreements are illegal. De Jura they are... De facto they're the law of the land. Try to run cable and see what I mean. You can't. Only former Bell Companies and TV Cable companies are running last mile cable. This isn't because other people don't want to run cable or can't afford to run cable or because there isn't a market. It is because if you try... you are denied.
Slashdot Mirror
... There is only culture war.
This is never going to end. You could surrender and it wouldn't end because someone else would fight about something else. Its been this way for the last 10,000 years and its showing no signs of stopping.
It will never stop.
Given that you have as much evidence of that as UFO conspiracists have for alien invasions... and because I assume you're not a hypocrite... I guess you're going to take seriously every other thing you have no evidence of either...
As to mistakes... no... Gore made the mistake of not studying how Bill Clinton won. He also avoided campaigning with Bill even though the only reason he was even considered for president was because he was Bill's vice president.
Hillary ultimately made the same mistakes Gore made. Bill famously did campaign for HIllary though he said her message should be changed. Bill, the only one of them that had actually won a presidential election, was told to shut up and do what he was told. He did... and she lost.
In and amongst that, you have what Hillary did to Bernie. Yes, the solidity of your tribalism is not sustainable because she betrayed her own party. The info on that is actually pretty well documented and there is lots of evidence of that. The people that liked bernie know what she did. And as much as you might try to paper over that betrayal with trump hatred... I suspect more than a few bernie people remember.
Regardless, if you're just going to "rah rah" at me, then so be it. I was trying to have a rational discussion on the issue. And what you're giving me is cultish foolishness that none but the deepest coolaid drinkers take seriously.
Everyone knows, bub. You're just embarrassing yourself.
https://www.amazon.com/Hacks-I...
Everyone know.
FCC is on record saying that if companies promise X then they will be held to that standard.
Think about that. Thus there is no reason to make promises you don't have to because it just opens you up to liability for no gain.
Do a pro/con chart on it. Think about it.
What are the pros of promising?
What are the cons of promising?
It loses a pro/con chart. Thus the absence of a promise doesn't mean they will or won't. It just means it isn't in their interest to make commitments.
You say this because I ask for people to be reasonable, I say that neither of the candidates was very good, and I point out that there isn't actually any evidence?
You've upgraded from biased to stupid.
No, I'm not forgetting that. The propaganda was heavy enough from everyone that anything Russia did would be undetectable.
What is more, you've no evidence they did anything.
We could as easily argue that Aztec gods using the stored power of ancient blood sacrifices decided the election.
Provide the evidence. Thus far the best the investigation has is that Flynn talked to Russia AFTER Trump was elected and then lied about it to BOTH trump and the FBI. The act shows no evidence of collusion, nothing illegal on the part of the trump administration itself... though Flynn did lie to the FBI. But nothing he did gives you the collusion you want.
Where is it? Evidence of anything please? Besides Hillary's salt. Because that's all I see thus far.
Lots of whining and crying from the Clinton campaign and then lots of deluded people that instead of realizing that you can "Lose" an election...*Gasp* are going to start international incidents and waste lots of time to salve their bruised special snow flake egos.
I want the evidence or I want humility out of you people. If you will provide neither evidence nor humility then you're a cultist.
Can you actually lay out how Russia would have had ANY effect?
What is more, the US is full of various organizations doing propaganda. And consider that NGOs are dangerous as well by this logic.
If it is unreasonable for Russia to have an influence... what about George Soros? Because I don't think you can argue that his influence wasn't PERSONALLY dramatically greater than anything Russia did.
And yet... no court trials or investigations. And if you say "but he's an american citizen"... well.. consider brexit which he also influenced.... British citizen too? How convenient.
What if Putin becomes a US citizen... can he do it then?
Actually think.
Don't respond. Give yourself time to think.
Give yourself time.
Your argument is irrational and contradictory.
Given that you're investigating with no evidence besides hearsay, I'll ask you to investigate every election on the same basis and with the same intensity.
Present your evidence. Because thus far... there is none. Go to trial. No one is stopping you.
You have nothing. The entire thing has been fallacy, after fabrication, after phantom.
By this logic we're just a bunch of sheep that aren't actually making choices as much as being manipulated.
Carried forward, your argument would suggest doing away with voting entirely.
If losing an election causes you to lose faith in democracy itself then your faith in the concept was never that strong in the first place.
I don't think Russia did anything. I don't think there has been any evidence of Russia actually doing anything. And even the theoretical things the Russians could have done are so comically irrelevant in the context of the propaganda frenzy that occurred during either brexit or a battleground state's presidential election campaign... I mean... actually think about it.
You're making a butterfly effect argument... but those arguments require LONG set up before the event. The preparing of the ground. That argument isn't about one butterfly flapping its wings in the middle of an active hurricane and the hurricane changing direction.
Look, evidence of the Russians doing something or this is just a fantasy. I can as easily argue that Anubis or Thor decided the election with God magic.
if they promise the FCC says they can be held liable for violating their promise.
So even if you intended to not violate NN, you would still not promise to avoid liability to the FCC.
So... consider that.
if it didn't decide the outcome then how is it powerful?
Do you want to talk brexit and say that the british people only voted for brexit because of Russia as well?
There are propaganda machines all over the place. Battleground states during a US presidential election are getting nailed by every propaganda machine the country has. In THAT shit show what could Russia possibly do even if they did something... which I've seen no evidence they actually did.
And don't get me wrong. I've read the newspaper articles. They say stuff like "This guy from the FBI thinks X" or "it is possible that something could exist which we haven't found any evidence of"... The evidence has thus far been either fallacious in that they play word games to make nothing sound like something. Taking expert opinion out of context to imply they're saying something they're not. Or alluding the possibly of evidence existing that they haven't found and might well not exist because it didn't happen.
That has been the "Russia" story thus far. I have been paying attention. Did I miss anything?
Because the latest BOMB SHELL was that Flynn talked to the Russians AFTER Trump was elected and then lied to everyone about it. Now... the talking to the Russians was not illegal or evidence of colluding... and he even lied Trump about it. And the only real "crime" in it was that he lied to the FBI about something... which is a crime... but not evidence of collusion or anything that implicates anyone but himself. The Trump administration would have no reason to lie about talking to a foreign power after winning an election. The President is amongst other things the prime diplomat of the country... so...
I'd love to see the evidence. Please show me what I missed. Because I think I've been paying attention here. I strongly suspect many of the people pushing this narrative bought into some bullshit awhile back and now don't have the humility to admit they got duped.
It happens to us all. Nothing to be gained by being stubborn.
Okay, if there was collusion... do you have evidence of this or merely the allegations of a dying political dynasty well known for its deceit and egotism?
I mean, most of this is just "listen and believe" from the Clinton campaign. If you had more than that, we'd be going to trial.
The most they have at this point is that Flynn talked to the Russians AFTER Trump was elected but said he didn't to the FBI.
That is... the only crime thus far is Flynn making false statements to the FBI. This is evidence of neither collusion nor a crime.
What is more there are giant conflicts of interest with many media outlets that were patiently biased in the election. Where is the objective journalism? I don't see it.
Everything is tainted by massive lapses in integrity. In this environment, you need to bring actual evidence forward that can survive the crucible of a court trial to be taken seriously.
I know that the FBI doesn't have that yet. I don't think they will get it because I sincerely believe that the entire mess which has had international repercussions was the selfish last stab of the Clinton machine.
But here is the most troubling thing for me. I think most of people pushing the Russia story know this already. I think they're just pushing this because it dupes a few die hards and helps salve their wounded egos for losing an election to the likes of Donald Trump.
Just as with Gore before her, Hillary's loss was mostly self inflicted. Accept it and build a better party with a better people.
With full sincerity and complete frankness... I believe in you. I believe in the republic. I believe in democracy. I believe in this country.
Don't tear everything up just because you lose an election. We have this grand inheritance of liberty... It would be the height of foolishness to throw it away simply to make a deceitful old woman feel powerful.
If you have something, then bring it to court. If not... Let it go.
Not really, because it was mostly just battleground states which are themselves absolutely flooded with political crap when elections happen. Anything that could drowned out that fog horn would be really obvious.
Furthermore, you're only talking about social media. The vast majority of campaigning happened on tv, newspapers, billboards, cold calls, knocking on doors... etc.
What you're saying is some face book posts that were buried in a flood of other face book posts decided the election.
It is a fundamentally irrational position to take.
Actually think it through logically.
Cool present the evidence and do a court trial.
There is currently more evidence of collusion with Hillary than there is with Trump.
Consider if Trump had been SecState, the trump foundation got a bunch of money from the Russians, and then Trump's SecState approved the sale to UraniumOne?
Suddenly people would care.
Look, spin your narratives as you please. I was trying to introduce some adult level headed reasonableness into this dumpsterfire of a political argument.
Democrats apparently think anytime they lose an election it is because it was stolen from them. We got that from Gore and now we're pathetically getting it from the last gasp of the Clinton machine.
Close elections happen. You think Trump did something illegal? Have your court trial. But thus far the entire thing has been an embarrassing circus for everyone promoting the Russia narrative.
The only reason I want it to stop is because I don't want so many of our national institutions to prostitute themselves to a dying political empire's ego. But if that is what people want to do... so be it.
Your strawmanning of my position to concoct an argument is intellectually void. I did not reference the electoral college at all much less suggest it doesn't exist.
As to your sheep argument, it cuts both ways. You're clearly determined to see this in the most biased and partisan fashion possible. Consider that if the people are sheep, then if you ever win an election it is merely by manipulating people.
As to advertising and campaign money, politicians that spend less money on a campaign win all the time. Suggesting that that is all that determines elections again disenfranchises voters and suggests they're just stupid robots that do what they're told. If people worked this way then democracy would be a bad idea.
You probably don't realize how foolish you're sounding right now. You're literally giving arguments against democracy.
But for the sake of argument, if we concede there was russian influence which seems dubious... papers talk about it but when asked to provide the evidence it doesn't appear to exist. But again, for the sake of argument... how much of it could there possibly have been? If there were russian involvement it could have only been barely noticeable. The vast majority of campaigning happened on network tv, the local newspaper, cold calls to homes, etc.
All you're talking about with RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA is social media. And even there it would have to have been all but irrelevant as a relation to the whole. Here you'll say "but they targeted a battle ground state". Guess what, battle ground states were so saturated with competing political messages that nothing the EVIL RUSSSIANS could have done would have mattered.
This is all just a very tragic inability to accept a loss. You clearly don't believe in democracy as your sheep comments have proven and you also only approve of elections when you win. I can see why you don't like democracy. Move to a dictatorship please. We're trying to not be ruled by some old nobility or priesthood here.
No, you're just saying that the opposition is blaming the chinese for the democrats winning elections which they're not.
So you're just making desperate arguments backed up by literally nothing... that can be invalidated by thinking about it for mere seconds or doing any kind of search for information.
Listen, I'm not saying who to vote for... you vote for whomever you want. But saying that Trump won because of Russia suggests that the voting public have no relevant opinions and the democracy is a complete sham because a majority of people are sheep.
If that is the case, then that reflexively argues that your political party as well is supported by the same sheep like thinking... and that no opinion you have is actually your own... because you're always basically just doing whatever the power broker tells you to think.
So which is it? Did you lose an election or do you have no free will?
Come on. Being delusional isn't going to help you. Just take your medicine and learn from it. Here I suspect you're going to display typical "internet stubbornness"... where in 1+1=2 will be denied and I will be disparaged for being so foolish as to think such a thing.
If so, so be it. I tried to talk sense amongst the madness. Go back to your barking at the moon if that is what you want.
Hillary didn't lose because of Russia. Trump didn't win because of Russia.
Ignore Russia for five seconds if you can... Hillary was a weak candidate and so was pretty much the entire republican field.
Jeb Bush for example carried 3 percent of the republican vote. Hillary is generally disliked by most of her own party. Trump naturally is one of the most disliked presidents in US history. But he didn't win the election because people liked him. He won because for whatever reason... he said he was going to do things and people believed him.
Pretending that the current political circumstances are the result of the Russians is deranged. This is the same sort of blind spot that lead to Al Gore losing the election against Bush 43. Anyone that studied the gore vs bush election knows that Gore made a lot of mistakes. If you tell yourself you lose because of the Russians or because the Supreme Court robbed you... then you're going to keep losing and you'll deserve to lose.
did you read any of it?... he cut the climate change stuff not the space exploration thing. Actually read it. If you want PDFs from the government on this then that can be provided... but only if you're going to actually read them.
You're a poster boy for term limits. Retire.
... Nearly all of it is merely an accusation. Someone complains... someone says X or Y...
Tell you what, you're all pedophile alien vampires from the wizard dimension.
Listen and believe.
Here someone will say "but bad things can happen if we require evidence before burning people at the stake."
Which is why its a good thing we caught your pedophile alien vampire ass from the wizard dimention... you know... before you got up to something freaky.
Whilst bad things can happen if you don't just burn anyone that a finger is pointed at, a society where "that" constitutes grounds for destruction is a society where people are going to have to find elaborate ways to defend themselves from social predators that exploit that power to extort people.
What is more, the most socially sophisticated people will use this power to dominate the less socially sophisticated. There will be less freedom, less fairness, less regard for the weak... it will be increasingly backstabby and ruthless.
And that's okay.
What we saw from Al Franken the other day was the perfect summation of what is going on here.
Franken says "all women must be listened to."
Franken says "all the women that said I did bad things are liars or are confused."
Franken says "It is silly that I be removed from the Senate on this basis"
Franken says "It is absurd that that Pedophile in Alabama be allowed to stay and the sexual predator in the white house be allowed to stay."
See... its a double edged sword that some people are too dumb to understand cuts both ways. Some people in our society are trying to wield this weapon. And it is ripping them apart. What they want is a double standard. Where they can use this weapon to annihilate anyone simply by making an accusation without having it blow back upon themselves.
They will accomplish nothing. They will sacrifice to the flame one after the other in the foolish belief that eventually they'll be able to land a telling blow upon some ideological enemy that will be worth the sacrifice.
Sadly, they don't understand that it is a weapon that only effects those that believe in it. If their own belief were more cynical they could cow some of their opposition into submission with it at an economical rate. But if they believe in it and their opposition does things like "ask for evidence"... then the progressives cut themselves up trying to use a weapon that they don't understand.
What is more, and all the more tragically... even IF they were able to totally annihilate their opposition with this weapon... it would destroy the rest of society if only because it would not stop.
This is how witch trials work. You make an accusation that you saw someone dancing around the fires summoning demons as a witch... and then in the morning light... your little church group goes over there to hang the person by the neck until dead.
Once you've stripped out all the incidents that are hearsay... what is left?
Some will disagree... That is okay... the flames dance for us all and they don't care which of us gets hip checked into the blaze. What higher justice than to be burned in the flame of your own kindling?
typos are a thing... I realized I screwed it up about 2 seconds after pressing submit... but you can't edit so... *shrug*. You know what I meant and I got the meaning right. Just... misspelled something in a slashdot comment.
SHAAAAMME :D
The burdens on the government to maintain some poles and conduits when the ISPs can pay a per pole fee that would more than pay for whatever their burdens are... I just don't buy the "we can't have more than the monopoly running things" argument. I also don't buy that its too expensive when the expense is not what is stopping competition... it is that competition is effectively illegal.
Until you permit people to compete... I don't want to have a lot of regard for the notion of why people can't compete. Remove the government restrictions and then tell me competition can't happen when competition still doesn't happen.
Until then, this is a matter of speculation between us.
We have existing laws against that too if anyone wants to enforce them.
The solutions are all there.
So... you think the internet is just a "series of tubes"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Congrats... you're a person on slashdot that knows about as much about the internet as an 80 year old Alaskan senator.
Nothing more need be said. Feel shame and walk away.
Another idiot that doesn't understand the difference between De Jura and De Facto...
Can a king order the tide to come in? Yes... will it? No.
De Jura... the tide has been ordered to come in.
De Facto... I won't.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...
If you want to win on the internet, try to instead challenge someone dumber than you. As you don't understand the relevance of De Jura / De Facto... Consider Facebook, it is full of drooling nitwits.
The issue is not NN but competition. We have an issue with monopolies because the government... local and state mostly grants exclusive franchise licenses to run cable to no more than two companies typically.
that people presume to be surprised when abusive and monopolistic behavior occurs when you grant companies monopolies is baffling.
You do not have the right to such ignorance. Grant right of way access to poles and conduits for third party last mile ISPs and all this NN stuff becomes irrelevant.
Google is having a hard time running cable. That is how bad and how corrupt these franchise agreements are right now. And if google with all its resources is having a hard time then what chance does anyone else stand?
Open up right of way or shut up. Nothing is going to liberate consumers and users and citizens and people from the oppression of monopolistic forces unless you break the monopolies at their heart. And that heart is the exclusive franchise agreements.
Here some fool will say that such agreements are illegal. De Jura they are... De facto they're the law of the land. Try to run cable and see what I mean. You can't. Only former Bell Companies and TV Cable companies are running last mile cable. This isn't because other people don't want to run cable or can't afford to run cable or because there isn't a market. It is because if you try... you are denied.