Why is it not racist to mock Trump on his hair, his skin color, his small hands?
Because "bad spray tan" and "ridiculous hair extensions" is not a race.
And the "small hands" thing is generally just needling him since he's bizarrely insecure about the size of his hands.
Well I do care. I don't care for Trump, but I do care that apparently it is okay to be racist against white people, but everything a white person says can be considered racism.
It's not OK to be racist against white people.
Thankfully it's also relatively rare (at least compared to racism against non-whites).
After eight years of it being racist, mocking the President as well as other dissent is patriotic once again. That alone made voting for Trump worth it...
And to think, it almost became sexist instead!..
Mocking Obama was always fine.
Mocking Obama in a transparently racist manner was racist. Just like mocking Hillary with obviously sexist insults was sexist.
Just because it's possible to mock Obama or Hillary without being racist or sexist doesn't mean that any offensive thing you say magically becomes not racist or sexist.
That's clearly a right-wing, biased publication, no?
Broerman said after their deaths, the Sosas remained on active voter rolls and mail ballots were still sent to their home because they did not meet the criteria to have their names deleted from eligible voter rolls.
Notice how mail-in ballots, the one voting method where voter fraud is actually very easy to commit, is never a target of GOP efforts to combat voter fraud?
Only if you count illegals. We have no idea what the vote count would be if you didn't count illegitimate votes in California, which is where her lead is coming from.
So not only do you think there were millions of illegal voters, but you think these millions of people are in such an effective air-tight conspiracy that not one of them is willing to spill the beans. And they performed this conspiracy, which risked jail time and/or deportation for every person involved, to run up the score in a state in which Clinton would have won anyway.
That is literally an insane idea.
The simply reality is that the US doesn't bother trying to account for voter fraud because the Electoral College makes it mostly pointless.
Which is why GOP politicians go on massive hunts looking for voter fraud after every election, and never comes up with anything but a small handful of people who were just confused.
There are many reasons why a straight popular vote is bad and the electoral college is better but the best one I can think of is what happened in the recent election. Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000. If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities while the rest of the nation is completely ignored, well, you're an idiot.
The same could be said of someone who thought you should ignore the will of the majority of the population just because they lived in cities.
Even worse could be said of someone who thought relatively partisan states should be effectively disenfranchised, since the entire election rests on the decisions of the tiny fraction the people who live in swing states.
For months before the election, the MSM & Hillary supporters hammered about how Trump & his supporters wouldn't accept the results of the election.
The talk about the election was about Trump not accepting the results if he lost, and concerns about what his supporters would do in the aftermath.
Hillary is accepting the results, even though she has damn good reason to be pissed off (leading in the polls going in, won the popular vote, had the FBI director break the law to create an October surprise), she's never said or done anything to signal that she doesn't accept the results.
Now that Hillary has lost, her supports can't accept the results. Death threats to electors. Riots in the street. Offering the pay fines for electors who break the law. MSM story after story about how the circumvent the will of the people. Jill Stein taking donations to force a recount where even she says that there was no fraudulent or illegal activity.
It seems life is not without a sense of irony.
The riots are justified and not an attempt to overturn the results, they're a signal to Trump that there's strong popular resistance to his campaign pledges and the majority of the country does not want him as President.
The recount is also justified, it's unlikely but possible that Russia or some other group did compromise the election in those states. If so it means Trump didn't actually win.
As for Lessig and threats to the electors, that is unjustified. As screwed up as the EC is, it's the system that was in place and everyone else agreed to beforehand, you can't change the rules afterwards. But Clinton, the entire Democratic establishment, and the vast majority of the Democratic party, are completely against the electors changing the result.
That is why you can't hold Clinton accountable for the people asking the electors to change the result, but you can hold Trump accountable for the open Nazis and racists in his camp.
No, there are not "strong arguments on both sides". One side is corrupt and lying. Either the local administration of the schools are skimming funds and creating the hazardous unqualified schools as described, or the government agency is lying because they demanded bribes and were refused. This is not a "both sides have a point" kind of situation, and actual journalism would require digging in and finding the truth.
So the original post said there were "strong arguments on both side", but you posit that this is incorrect, and in this case one side must be clearly in the right and the other clearly wrong.
Hmm, it seems like both you and the original post have strong arguments, though only one of you must be right...
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have plenty of problems to solve in their own country. Why are they looking for trouble half a world away?
They can throw a few million at disadvantaged populations in the US, the money won't go as far and if it's not wisely spend it might even make things worse.
Or they can throw a few million at disadvantaged populations in Africa, the money will be extremely effective and can help a ton of people, and even if it's poorly spent it will still probably have a positive impact.
It's actually similar to the whole argument about trade with China.
It may have cost a few hundred thousand or a couple million jobs in the US.
It also helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
AppNexus's spokesperson Joshua Zeitz told the BBC: "We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech, and if we detect a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group, we determine that to be non-compliant and we simply won't serve ads against it.
But they're not concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups? Interesting.
Actually they are "concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups". They just didn't spell out that fact because it's obvious and irrelevant to why they banned Breitbart.
The article you linked has a very different story.
This is all about legislation that was designed to:
“encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.”
Basically talk radio is overwhelmingly right wing and they were looking for ways to make it more balanced, possibly by finding ways to encourage more diverse ownership, or by something like the Fairness doctrine, where broadcasters have to offer time to opposing viewpoints. Note that radio is regulated by the FCC already, so this doesn't necessarily violate free speech (though it's certainly a point worthy of discussion).
Either way your post is a fantastic example of the subtler side of "fake news".
Yes, there's a very tenuous connection of the facts to "Nancy Pelosi tried to make a federal law that media outlets had to deliver the message she approved".
But that's a very, very heavy spin that contains lots of false implications, and most people reading only your summary would come up with a completely false version of events. If your comment were a news report I'd call it fake news, yet it's currently scored "+4 Informative".
One rule for them and another for us. Hillary using email doesn't sound so bad in comparison now does it?
Yes I know Hillary is old news and did far worse things than her email server, but I could not resist a smug "I told you so".
sharing classified information with NATO allies without approval
That's actually more serious than Snowden's leak to reporters who are US citizens.
Whether or not Clinton realized there was classified info on her server there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
If Flynn was deliberately sending classified info to unauthorized foreign governments then that's much worse than anything Clinton was accused of.
I know nerds obsess over them, but Tesla builds shitty cars. Trim falling off, panel gap issues... as someone who purchases cars around $100k, these are just unacceptable. The Model S is fast but handles like a pig. It's not fun to drive unless you like stop light racing teens. Nor are they luxurious compared to a similarly priced Merc or Audi...
I'm not surprised, building cars is very, very difficult, a new entrant is bound to make really crappy cars for a long time while they figure their manufacturing line out.
That's actually fine for their original luxury market, there's a lot of wealthy people who are quite happy to pay for a fully electric car from an upstart manufacturer, even if it is unreliable.
The problem is they're trying to move into the general consumer market where it's not enough to be fully electric and cool, you also need to be extremely reliable. That's a much more difficult task.
yeah... its "over"... but they have the right to request the recount, so they are taking them up on that option.
And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is surprising.
It's fairly straightforward politics.
A recount is unlikely to change anything (even the supporters acknowledge this), and the Democrats requesting one makes them look like sore losers and erodes their public support at a time when they're trying to build public support so they can check the more extreme parts of Trump's agenda. They also have a chance of building a good enough relationship with Trump that they can moderate him somewhat (see how Trump's positions changed the moment he chatted with Obama for 90 minutes).
Trump is also known to be quite punitive, if Clinton asks for a recount it's quite possible he re-changes his mind and tells his incoming Attorney General to go after her on the emails. A conviction would be very unlikely, but no one wants to go through a trial like that.
So the Dems requesting a recount has a fairly high cost with little upside.
The Greens however, have no elected officials that lose credibility on a lost recount, so they can ask for a low-probability recount without losing anything but a bit of money.
Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won". Somehow Stein has gained more money for recounts ($4.7 m) than she managed to raise in her entire campaign ($3 m), even though clearly no Stein supporter believes that she will pick up enough votes to win any state. Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.
So you're alleging that the real objective of the Green Party recount is not in fact abstract curiosity about the election integrity, nor even to see if Jill Stein really won.
What you're actually claiming is they want to see is if a recount would flip those three states to Clinton and give her the Presidency, and in fact most of the donors to the recount campaign are hoping for this exact outcome.
Well yeah.... that's all actually quite obvious.
As for them not asking for recounts in the states Clinton won, it costs millions of dollars to do a recount, you can hardly expect them to raise millions of dollars for an action that could only help their opponent.
And how big do you really think the neo-Nazis are? Sure, yeah, everyone here has heard of/pol, but in general? Generously, we're talking about maybe 100k American voters. In a country of over 300 million, that's nothing.
Yeah, I'm sure the neo-Nazi's are happy that Trump won, but mostly because they're glad that Clinton lost.
Then you're wrong. The neo-Nazi's solidly backed Trump from the moment he entered the primary with "build the wall" and they've never looked back.
They recognize that he's practising white identity politics, and when Trump's questioned about the open racists in his movement he's clearly reluctant to oppose them. Now they don't think Trump is a neo-Nazi, but they can see a place for themselves in his coalition, and that is unique in recent political history.
Well if the alt-left didn't scream at everyone calling them all racist misogynistic cis-scum ultra Hitlers 2.0 for the past year, then maybe she'd of won.
Please do look into it, I implore you. Not because I think it would change the outcome, but because I believe it would only expose vote tampering and fraud on the democrats' end.
Why would this time be any different than all the times GOP politicians announce they've found rock solid evidence of mass voter fraud, only to have all those rock solid cases evaporate when investigated?
"Mass voter fraud" is just a fairly tale the GOP tells the public so they can justify voter ID laws, which disproportionately target Democratic leaning minorities.
If the GOP actually cared about voter fraud they'd target mail-in ballots, since those actually are extremely susceptible to fraud. However, they'll never do that since mail-in ballots skew Republican.
For the record I don't expect this to find evidence of fraud, but I think the probability is high enough that they have to check.
Apple has already stated that in the current market the cost to produce an iPhone in the US would be double what it is now. I don't expect an extra $100-$200 in cost would equate to an increase quite as large as that. With some tax cuts, incentives and deregulation the cost could realistically stay the same.
How much US tax does Apple actually pay now?
China has the manufacturing infrastructure and ridiculously cheap labour, I have a hard time imagining that "tax cuts, incentives and deregulation" are going to make it competitive to move manufacturing to the US.
Having read earlier reports of this analysis, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
From what I read, there was no attempt to find other explanations, like a demographic preference for e-voting over paper, or the local economic costs of maintaining one particular voting mechanism.
Nope, let's just just straight to assuming hacking.
It's almost certainly just demographic differences or some other non-hacking explanation that caused the polls and exit polls to miss.
But Russia spent the entire election launching cyber-attacks against the Clinton campaign. I'd frankly be shocked if they didn't at least explore the idea of hacking into some of the voting infrastructure to either flip the election, or cause major political disorder.
Given that the recount window is close to closing double checking the results, even if there are other plausible explanations, is just common sense.
Is this part of the fake news? Or is it actually real news? Or is it Clinton being a sore loser. The DNC and Clinton doesn't really have a leg to stand on though, especially after fixing their own primary to make sure she was the candidate.
Clinton and the DNC aren't doing this, and reportedly her team was already told about this data and hasn't done anything about it because they didn't think it indicated fraud.
For every thing the conservatives tend to believe that has no empirical basis (e.g. climate change is a hoax, creationism, etc.)
Views held and proudly proclaimed by most prominent Republican politicians.
there are just as many "unscientific" views held by liberals (e.g. gun-control policies
Hardly unscientific, there's great evidence that gun-control vastly reduces suicides, very weak evidence that state-based gun control reduces gun crime (it's very easy to for guns to cross state lines), and decent evidence that it reduces crime on a national level.
It's also telling that it's the Republican's who essentially banned the NIH from studying gun control.
vaccines causing autism (both sides have some adherents to this
Like the President-elect?
, but it tends to be most prevalent among liberals), etc.) that are essentially faith-based or run contrary to established science.
True, the whole anti-GMO natural-health thing is an issue on the left, but a difference is the really sketchy stuff, especially the vaccines, doesn't make it out of the fringes.
Try having a conversation about genetic components of intelligence with a liberal and you'll quickly find them rejecting that science as racist just as fast as a conservative will tell you that the global warming science is just as biased.
By "genetic components of intelligence" I assume you mean as they relate to race?
Some of that is practicality, racism has a really ugly history and if you could prove a 5% difference between races X and Y that would have some really ugly societal consequences.
But the evidence is also a lot more tenuous than AGW. For one race is actually a really fuzzy category, and what we think of as divisions aren't that meaningful on a genetic level.
The fact that "black" people seem to do a lot worse on IQ tests, when "black" consists of a ridiculously large set of populations, suggests that culture and societal expectations play a very large role that is hard to disentangle.
I could similarly point out that Liberalism is positively correlated with IQ, since within any given group as you increase education people tend to become more liberal.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that intelligence naturally makes you more liberal, rather secondary non-intelligence factors that positively correlate with IQ also correlate with liberalism.
I've generally found that regardless of whatever a person believes they tend to overlook the cases that don't confirm their biases while focusing on those that do. I don't really blame them though as some scientists believe that these cognitive biases made our ancestors more fit from an evolutionary perspective. Perhaps humanity is slowly shifting away from this, but there isn't a lot of selective pressure against this trait. If anything it probably helps people find mates with a similar set of in-group biases as themselves while people who tend to be more objective just piss off everyone for some reason.
Yeah, there's no strong evolutionary reason for us to be coldly rational about abstract facts that don't have a huge effect in our daily lives, but it doesn't mean we should give up.
I think both sides have a moral obligation to point out falsehoods regardless of whether they're allies or not.
It is a well known fact that reality has a strong liberal bias.
What insufferable arrogance.
Then get your fellow conservatives to stop lying their assess off.
I'm sorry but if I were a Conservative with intellectual integrity I'd be absolutely ashamed of the state of my movement and wouldn't have the first idea where to go.
Did you not watch the party that represents your movement first spend years falling head over heels with an obviously incompetent Sarah Palin, only to eventually go all in behind a man so lied so shamelessly that I can't even think of a comparable individual and with only a vague idea of what a President actually does?
Did you not see The Volokh Conspiracy, a site so solidly right wing their favourite candidate was Ted "I'm going to threaten the country's solvency to launch my Presidential bid" Cruz, come out almost uniformly against Trump.
Did you not watch virtually every respected intellectual within the Republican party either oppose Trump, or only back him with extreme reluctance?
Were you paying attention when your base was taken over by ridiculous birther conspiracies and freakouts that the federal government was about to invade Texas?!?
This is not "there's two sides to every story", or "well Liberals are just as bad". Stupid Liberal conspiracies happen too, but they're the exception, not the rule. They don't end up dominating the entire movement.
There is a valid role for conservatism to play in the public discourse, so toss out the damn clowns and hucksters and start playing it!!
On the surface, like most leftist arguments I believe most people agree that sexual assault is a crime. That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.
Maybe that's true, maybe that's not.
But Trump was not accused of "telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek".
He's been accused, multiple times, of kissing them full on the mouth without invitation, often involving tongue. Groping them in intimate places, and continuing while the person has been asking them to stop.
He even bragged on radio about going into women's change rooms, without any announcement, purely for the purpose of seeing the women naked.
Why don't you try doing that a few times and tell us how it works out?
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it not racist to mock Trump on his hair, his skin color, his small hands?
Because "bad spray tan" and "ridiculous hair extensions" is not a race.
And the "small hands" thing is generally just needling him since he's bizarrely insecure about the size of his hands.
Well I do care. I don't care for Trump, but I do care that apparently it is okay to be racist against white people, but everything a white person says can be considered racism.
It's not OK to be racist against white people.
Thankfully it's also relatively rare (at least compared to racism against non-whites).
After eight years of it being racist, mocking the President as well as other dissent is patriotic once again. That alone made voting for Trump worth it...
And to think, it almost became sexist instead!..
Mocking Obama was always fine.
Mocking Obama in a transparently racist manner was racist. Just like mocking Hillary with obviously sexist insults was sexist.
Just because it's possible to mock Obama or Hillary without being racist or sexist doesn't mean that any offensive thing you say magically becomes not racist or sexist.
Never Happens
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/cbs4-investigation-finds-dead-voters-casting-ballots-in-colorado/
That's clearly a right-wing, biased publication, no?
Broerman said after their deaths, the Sosas remained on active voter rolls and mail ballots were still sent to their home because they did not meet the criteria to have their names deleted from eligible voter rolls.
Notice how mail-in ballots, the one voting method where voter fraud is actually very easy to commit, is never a target of GOP efforts to combat voter fraud?
I wonder why?
Only if you count illegals. We have no idea what the vote count would be if you didn't count illegitimate votes in California, which is where her lead is coming from.
So not only do you think there were millions of illegal voters, but you think these millions of people are in such an effective air-tight conspiracy that not one of them is willing to spill the beans. And they performed this conspiracy, which risked jail time and/or deportation for every person involved, to run up the score in a state in which Clinton would have won anyway.
That is literally an insane idea.
The simply reality is that the US doesn't bother trying to account for voter fraud because the Electoral College makes it mostly pointless.
Which is why GOP politicians go on massive hunts looking for voter fraud after every election, and never comes up with anything but a small handful of people who were just confused.
The riots are justified
Really?
To put on peaceful and lawful demonstrations is certainly the right of Americans. But to riot? Are you serious?
My mistake for accepting the premise.
I'm aware of a lot of protests, and I'm sure there are a handful of people in those protests who are simply out to cause trouble.
But I'm not aware of anything that I'd consider riots.
So my rural state will get basically no political say in picking a President?
Yeah, there's a reason things like the electoral college were set up and it was to give states good reasons for being part of the union.
And slaves, don't forget slaves.
How else do make slaves count for 3/5s of a person politically without giving them an actual vote?
Well you invent the electoral college where slaves can increase the number of electors without having a voice in who they are.
The vote of each state.
There are many reasons why a straight popular vote is bad and the electoral college is better but the best one I can think of is what happened in the recent election. Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000. If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities while the rest of the nation is completely ignored, well, you're an idiot.
The same could be said of someone who thought you should ignore the will of the majority of the population just because they lived in cities.
Even worse could be said of someone who thought relatively partisan states should be effectively disenfranchised, since the entire election rests on the decisions of the tiny fraction the people who live in swing states.
For months before the election, the MSM & Hillary supporters hammered about how Trump & his supporters wouldn't accept the results of the election.
The talk about the election was about Trump not accepting the results if he lost, and concerns about what his supporters would do in the aftermath.
Hillary is accepting the results, even though she has damn good reason to be pissed off (leading in the polls going in, won the popular vote, had the FBI director break the law to create an October surprise), she's never said or done anything to signal that she doesn't accept the results.
Now that Hillary has lost, her supports can't accept the results. Death threats to electors. Riots in the street. Offering the pay fines for electors who break the law. MSM story after story about how the circumvent the will of the people. Jill Stein taking donations to force a recount where even she says that there was no fraudulent or illegal activity.
It seems life is not without a sense of irony.
The riots are justified and not an attempt to overturn the results, they're a signal to Trump that there's strong popular resistance to his campaign pledges and the majority of the country does not want him as President.
The recount is also justified, it's unlikely but possible that Russia or some other group did compromise the election in those states. If so it means Trump didn't actually win.
As for Lessig and threats to the electors, that is unjustified. As screwed up as the EC is, it's the system that was in place and everyone else agreed to beforehand, you can't change the rules afterwards. But Clinton, the entire Democratic establishment, and the vast majority of the Democratic party, are completely against the electors changing the result.
That is why you can't hold Clinton accountable for the people asking the electors to change the result, but you can hold Trump accountable for the open Nazis and racists in his camp.
No, there are not "strong arguments on both sides". One side is corrupt and lying. Either the local administration of the schools are skimming funds and creating the hazardous unqualified schools as described, or the government agency is lying because they demanded bribes and were refused. This is not a "both sides have a point" kind of situation, and actual journalism would require digging in and finding the truth.
So the original post said there were "strong arguments on both side", but you posit that this is incorrect, and in this case one side must be clearly in the right and the other clearly wrong.
Hmm, it seems like both you and the original post have strong arguments, though only one of you must be right...
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have plenty of problems to solve in their own country. Why are they looking for trouble half a world away?
They can throw a few million at disadvantaged populations in the US, the money won't go as far and if it's not wisely spend it might even make things worse.
Or they can throw a few million at disadvantaged populations in Africa, the money will be extremely effective and can help a ton of people, and even if it's poorly spent it will still probably have a positive impact.
It's actually similar to the whole argument about trade with China.
It may have cost a few hundred thousand or a couple million jobs in the US.
It also helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
I think that's actually a price worth paying.
AppNexus's spokesperson Joshua Zeitz told the BBC: "We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech, and if we detect a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group, we determine that to be non-compliant and we simply won't serve ads against it.
But they're not concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups? Interesting.
Actually they are "concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups". They just didn't spell out that fact because it's obvious and irrelevant to why they banned Breitbart.
Nancy Pelosi tried to make a federal law that media outlets had to deliver the message she approved.
The article you linked has a very different story.
This is all about legislation that was designed to:
“encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.”
Basically talk radio is overwhelmingly right wing and they were looking for ways to make it more balanced, possibly by finding ways to encourage more diverse ownership, or by something like the Fairness doctrine, where broadcasters have to offer time to opposing viewpoints. Note that radio is regulated by the FCC already, so this doesn't necessarily violate free speech (though it's certainly a point worthy of discussion).
Either way your post is a fantastic example of the subtler side of "fake news".
Yes, there's a very tenuous connection of the facts to "Nancy Pelosi tried to make a federal law that media outlets had to deliver the message she approved".
But that's a very, very heavy spin that contains lots of false implications, and most people reading only your summary would come up with a completely false version of events. If your comment were a news report I'd call it fake news, yet it's currently scored "+4 Informative".
One rule for them and another for us.
Hillary using email doesn't sound so bad in comparison now does it?
Yes I know Hillary is old news and did far worse things than her email server, but I could not resist a smug "I told you so".
That's actually more serious than Snowden's leak to reporters who are US citizens.
Whether or not Clinton realized there was classified info on her server there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
If Flynn was deliberately sending classified info to unauthorized foreign governments then that's much worse than anything Clinton was accused of.
I know nerds obsess over them, but Tesla builds shitty cars. Trim falling off, panel gap issues... as someone who purchases cars around $100k, these are just unacceptable. The Model S is fast but handles like a pig. It's not fun to drive unless you like stop light racing teens. Nor are they luxurious compared to a similarly priced Merc or Audi...
I'm not surprised, building cars is very, very difficult, a new entrant is bound to make really crappy cars for a long time while they figure their manufacturing line out.
That's actually fine for their original luxury market, there's a lot of wealthy people who are quite happy to pay for a fully electric car from an upstart manufacturer, even if it is unreliable.
The problem is they're trying to move into the general consumer market where it's not enough to be fully electric and cool, you also need to be extremely reliable. That's a much more difficult task.
yeah... its "over"... but they have the right to request the recount, so they are taking them up on that option.
And... it's not the dems requesting it, which is surprising.
It's fairly straightforward politics.
A recount is unlikely to change anything (even the supporters acknowledge this), and the Democrats requesting one makes them look like sore losers and erodes their public support at a time when they're trying to build public support so they can check the more extreme parts of Trump's agenda. They also have a chance of building a good enough relationship with Trump that they can moderate him somewhat (see how Trump's positions changed the moment he chatted with Obama for 90 minutes).
Trump is also known to be quite punitive, if Clinton asks for a recount it's quite possible he re-changes his mind and tells his incoming Attorney General to go after her on the emails. A conviction would be very unlikely, but no one wants to go through a trial like that.
So the Dems requesting a recount has a fairly high cost with little upside.
The Greens however, have no elected officials that lose credibility on a lost recount, so they can ask for a low-probability recount without losing anything but a bit of money.
Jill Stein is calling for recounts in three states where Hillary lost and not calling for recounts in New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada, three states where the results were even closer but in those states Hillary "won". Somehow Stein has gained more money for recounts ($4.7 m) than she managed to raise in her entire campaign ($3 m), even though clearly no Stein supporter believes that she will pick up enough votes to win any state. Gee Hillary, we wonder where all that money is coming from.
So you're alleging that the real objective of the Green Party recount is not in fact abstract curiosity about the election integrity, nor even to see if Jill Stein really won.
What you're actually claiming is they want to see is if a recount would flip those three states to Clinton and give her the Presidency, and in fact most of the donors to the recount campaign are hoping for this exact outcome.
Well yeah.... that's all actually quite obvious.
As for them not asking for recounts in the states Clinton won, it costs millions of dollars to do a recount, you can hardly expect them to raise millions of dollars for an action that could only help their opponent.
And how big do you really think the neo-Nazis are? Sure, yeah, everyone here has heard of /pol, but in general? Generously, we're talking about maybe 100k American voters. In a country of over 300 million, that's nothing.
Yeah, I'm sure the neo-Nazi's are happy that Trump won, but mostly because they're glad that Clinton lost.
Then you're wrong. The neo-Nazi's solidly backed Trump from the moment he entered the primary with "build the wall" and they've never looked back.
They recognize that he's practising white identity politics, and when Trump's questioned about the open racists in his movement he's clearly reluctant to oppose them. Now they don't think Trump is a neo-Nazi, but they can see a place for themselves in his coalition, and that is unique in recent political history.
Well if the alt-left didn't scream at everyone calling them all racist misogynistic cis-scum ultra Hitlers 2.0 for the past year, then maybe she'd of won.
And as a result the neo-Nazi's are rejoicing.
Please do look into it, I implore you. Not because I think it would change the outcome, but because I believe it would only expose vote tampering and fraud on the democrats' end.
Why would this time be any different than all the times GOP politicians announce they've found rock solid evidence of mass voter fraud, only to have all those rock solid cases evaporate when investigated?
"Mass voter fraud" is just a fairly tale the GOP tells the public so they can justify voter ID laws, which disproportionately target Democratic leaning minorities.
If the GOP actually cared about voter fraud they'd target mail-in ballots, since those actually are extremely susceptible to fraud. However, they'll never do that since mail-in ballots skew Republican.
For the record I don't expect this to find evidence of fraud, but I think the probability is high enough that they have to check.
Apple has already stated that in the current market the cost to produce an iPhone in the US would be double what it is now. I don't expect an extra $100-$200 in cost would equate to an increase quite as large as that. With some tax cuts, incentives and deregulation the cost could realistically stay the same.
How much US tax does Apple actually pay now?
China has the manufacturing infrastructure and ridiculously cheap labour, I have a hard time imagining that "tax cuts, incentives and deregulation" are going to make it competitive to move manufacturing to the US.
Having read earlier reports of this analysis, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
From what I read, there was no attempt to find other explanations, like a demographic preference for e-voting over paper, or the local economic costs of maintaining one particular voting mechanism.
Nope, let's just just straight to assuming hacking.
It's almost certainly just demographic differences or some other non-hacking explanation that caused the polls and exit polls to miss.
But Russia spent the entire election launching cyber-attacks against the Clinton campaign. I'd frankly be shocked if they didn't at least explore the idea of hacking into some of the voting infrastructure to either flip the election, or cause major political disorder.
Given that the recount window is close to closing double checking the results, even if there are other plausible explanations, is just common sense.
Is this part of the fake news? Or is it actually real news? Or is it Clinton being a sore loser. The DNC and Clinton doesn't really have a leg to stand on though, especially after fixing their own primary to make sure she was the candidate.
Clinton and the DNC aren't doing this, and reportedly her team was already told about this data and hasn't done anything about it because they didn't think it indicated fraud.
For every thing the conservatives tend to believe that has no empirical basis (e.g. climate change is a hoax, creationism, etc.)
Views held and proudly proclaimed by most prominent Republican politicians.
there are just as many "unscientific" views held by liberals (e.g. gun-control policies
Hardly unscientific, there's great evidence that gun-control vastly reduces suicides, very weak evidence that state-based gun control reduces gun crime (it's very easy to for guns to cross state lines), and decent evidence that it reduces crime on a national level.
It's also telling that it's the Republican's who essentially banned the NIH from studying gun control.
vaccines causing autism (both sides have some adherents to this
Like the President-elect?
, but it tends to be most prevalent among liberals), etc.) that are essentially faith-based or run contrary to established science.
True, the whole anti-GMO natural-health thing is an issue on the left, but a difference is the really sketchy stuff, especially the vaccines, doesn't make it out of the fringes.
Try having a conversation about genetic components of intelligence with a liberal and you'll quickly find them rejecting that science as racist just as fast as a conservative will tell you that the global warming science is just as biased.
By "genetic components of intelligence" I assume you mean as they relate to race?
Some of that is practicality, racism has a really ugly history and if you could prove a 5% difference between races X and Y that would have some really ugly societal consequences.
But the evidence is also a lot more tenuous than AGW. For one race is actually a really fuzzy category, and what we think of as divisions aren't that meaningful on a genetic level.
The fact that "black" people seem to do a lot worse on IQ tests, when "black" consists of a ridiculously large set of populations, suggests that culture and societal expectations play a very large role that is hard to disentangle.
I could similarly point out that Liberalism is positively correlated with IQ, since within any given group as you increase education people tend to become more liberal.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that intelligence naturally makes you more liberal, rather secondary non-intelligence factors that positively correlate with IQ also correlate with liberalism.
I've generally found that regardless of whatever a person believes they tend to overlook the cases that don't confirm their biases while focusing on those that do. I don't really blame them though as some scientists believe that these cognitive biases made our ancestors more fit from an evolutionary perspective. Perhaps humanity is slowly shifting away from this, but there isn't a lot of selective pressure against this trait. If anything it probably helps people find mates with a similar set of in-group biases as themselves while people who tend to be more objective just piss off everyone for some reason.
Yeah, there's no strong evolutionary reason for us to be coldly rational about abstract facts that don't have a huge effect in our daily lives, but it doesn't mean we should give up.
I think both sides have a moral obligation to point out falsehoods regardless of whether they're allies or not.
It is a well known fact that reality has a strong liberal bias.
What insufferable arrogance.
Then get your fellow conservatives to stop lying their assess off.
I'm sorry but if I were a Conservative with intellectual integrity I'd be absolutely ashamed of the state of my movement and wouldn't have the first idea where to go.
Did you not watch the party that represents your movement first spend years falling head over heels with an obviously incompetent Sarah Palin, only to eventually go all in behind a man so lied so shamelessly that I can't even think of a comparable individual and with only a vague idea of what a President actually does?
Did you not see The Volokh Conspiracy, a site so solidly right wing their favourite candidate was Ted "I'm going to threaten the country's solvency to launch my Presidential bid" Cruz, come out almost uniformly against Trump.
Did you not watch virtually every respected intellectual within the Republican party either oppose Trump, or only back him with extreme reluctance?
Were you paying attention when your base was taken over by ridiculous birther conspiracies and freakouts that the federal government was about to invade Texas?!?
This is not "there's two sides to every story", or "well Liberals are just as bad". Stupid Liberal conspiracies happen too, but they're the exception, not the rule. They don't end up dominating the entire movement.
There is a valid role for conservatism to play in the public discourse, so toss out the damn clowns and hucksters and start playing it!!
On the surface, like most leftist arguments I believe most people agree that sexual assault is a crime. That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.
Maybe that's true, maybe that's not.
But Trump was not accused of "telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek".
He's been accused, multiple times, of kissing them full on the mouth without invitation, often involving tongue. Groping them in intimate places, and continuing while the person has been asking them to stop.
He even bragged on radio about going into women's change rooms, without any announcement, purely for the purpose of seeing the women naked.
Why don't you try doing that a few times and tell us how it works out?