Our election process is not statistical. The candidate to win 270 Electoral votes wins, period, not accounting for potential Electoral College manipulations.
Even if we did have a national popular vote system, I would hope to never see a 'statistical' process. It is not that hard to count ballots.No, it is not. to claim otherwise, or to rig a system that makes it so, is criminal and reprehensible.
You want a popular vote? How about the current system, that requires you to be popular in a lot of states, rather than in a few cities? Or do you subscribe to the movement that is bent on domination of the 49.9% by the 50.1%?
You see, voting for a unidicted felon, willing to take money from nations both friendly and not so friendly to us, influenced by a husband who is an admitted sexual predator, is tolerable.
Oh, and a former lawyer, having surrendered her license to avoid the further embarrassment of prosecution over unethical behavior in her home state of Arkansas. As her husband had to, the result of a civil suit decision.
Or maybe not. Many Americans said it was not tolerable. Enough that one was elected, the other rejected. And that's how it works. Given a choice, you make it or abdicate your limited, minimal voting power.
Instead of outright victory, I would settle for a rag tag bunch just annoying the heck out of the invaders, then after they get punished drifting off to Colorado.
We do NOT need a 'new agency'. Indeed, perhaps, maybe, we can use legislation to establish FTC or other regulations that require Internet-connected devices be minimally secure, as in requiring a nontrivial admin password be set, that they not be susceptible to 'trivial' attacks, and that they be manageable by owners to reestablish control.
All of this is, sadly, patchwork, and will not solve the real problems, and establishing financial penalties will just drive manufacturers offshore where we can't reach them.
But some minimal security requirements in law may, may make it harder. And I've failed. 'Harder' is not a fix for a security issue.
Both illuminate the attitude of the speaker, and both are despicable attitudes.
Or do you believe violence is a proper political response to anything? It may be historically employed, and some may desire it, but violence in response to a political event is not, to me, a sustainable nor appropriate response. And yes, I'll be waiting for the flames from those who feel or have been harmed by the results of a political decision, but it is those results, those actions, to consider.
Violence in response to an election is the response of the entitled. They demand power. They are wrong.
I get a copy from my VP's admin, specifically targeting my team in case we weren't on the original distribution list.
I get a copy of this from my manager, since he doesn't want me to miss this.
I also get a copy of the original from a corporate level special interest group I'm part of.
Then I get a copy from a former team member. Just in case I was left of their distribution, since they left our team but believe they may be getting team emails that current team members are not.
And a copy from their manager, with a note to be sure the distribution list I cannot administer is properly updated to get these mails from the list they should not be and indeed are not part of. Just in case.
Then I get a copy from an interested team leader who wants to make sure we are in the loop.
And another from their #1 team member, who looks out for us.
And finally my cubicle mate leans over and tell me 'hey, did you get the email from......'
And so I have a 14GB.OST that i cannot backup locally due to GPO. and i get warnings occasionally that my file will be groomed back to an unspecified maximum size. Some day, real soon now. Right after they encrypt my files for no apparent reason, in accordance with some policy I cannot get a copy of.
I'm not bitter, really. I feel for the corporate security and cloud services guys. They can't fix stupid.
A third of the minutes spent on Trump (and those largely neither neutral nor positive) were spent on the email issue.
Not that volume is the proper measure. None of the MSM presented the issue as a criminal act, though that is an obvious conclusion when the statements of the FBI director are considered, nor did they present it as a reasonable issue to be investigated, but at every opportunity chose to describe it as either a minimal problem or a partisan attack.
Reasonable people may argue for last point, but the media was not honest about it, in my opinion, and I'm trying to be factual.
But much of this is preception, and I'm clinging to mine as well.
This is a demonstration of the gulf between Left and Right in America, and actually in the entire world.
The mainstream Left is absolutely convinced of their correctness. Their leadership I will not grant such standing, for I believe the leadership of the Left is merely seeking power at the expense of the rest of us.
The Right is also absolutely convinced of the correctness of their intentions. They differ primarily in that they do not react to rejection with rioting, fires, and threats of murder. They regroup, attack each other as the cause of failure, and fail to respond to the Left's absolute dominance of education, media, and culture.
But the Right has a different goal, and theirs permits individual liberty. The Left does not intend this, but conformity is the necessary goal to achieve a collective power structure.
Since the same fake news in the rest of social and conventional media were visible, then you are saying "It is up to the people accusing the 'media' to show that the fake news influenced the elections."
And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated. And Trump would not have been nominated either. Part of a pretty big influence.
But, fortunately, this has worked our remarkably well. An unindicted felon has been denied access to the most important and powerful position on Earth, a businessman not beholden to destructive political and global interests has been elected, and the right people are angry. They should be angry. Their expressions of anger prove they are dangerous and must be called out and denied power.
Facebook etc. were complicit in the attempt to elect a President such as Hillary Rodham Clinton. That they ultimately failed does not diminish their intentions, nor effort, but it does point out that they have interests of their own. You decide if those interests are aligned with yours, or if those interests work against you.
It seems the premise of this article is that Trump won because Facebook was used to distribute false news, lies, and fake stories.
Please, please, if you believe this, stand firm. Do not give in.
You are missing the revolution, and you maybe, possibly, can stop it. So please, do not think for a moment that people actually WANT what Trump is proposing.
Oh, and while you are at it, take a moment and contact some member of the Republican Establishment. Encourage them to continue to work with you. They are the single greatest threat to the revolution, but do not, please ever breathe a word of that to them.
Thank you. We may yet save this nation if you persist in your delusion. And you will, despite your delusion, benefit from our renewed nation.
Yet states go their own ways when it suits them. California environmental laws. Firearm control laws. Legislature and gubernatorial term limits.
Nationalizing Presidential elections is truly unnecessary unless you wish to mute the states' voices, and some may enjoy having some influence, which could be lost otherwise.
Too late to affect Christmas manufacturing and shipping.
Uncertainty is resolved by election results. This election reduces uncertainty, though it may not reduce fear.
The 'markets' have been rebuked by this result. The global cabal has been rebuked. You may disagree, but in american you are part of a slight majority, which itself is remarkable, because;
- The media globally is in league with the capital markets, bankers*, and socialist elites. - Global interests almost unanimously supported the continuation of the status quo. - Despite massive releases of damning evidence, the Establishment candidate was still within reach of election.
Another voice who doesn't fully comprehend what 'The United STATES of America' means, both in theory and in practice..
Your proposal should require a constitutional amendment, for it fundamentally changes our nation, in a way that was conceived and intentional at its founding.
Most states publish results as they are tabulated and recorded, providing these to media outlets. A long time practice.
And then the media will decide how to describe these results. That's the objectionable part.
Rumor is that exit polling data will be distributed before all polls close nationwide, which is somewhat of a departure form tradition, but predictable, since it's fairly obvious the media has tried to influence the vote, and why stop now?
Slashdot Mirror
Knowing how to govern isn't the quality I despise in her.
Wanting to govern absolutely everything is the quality I despise in her.
Being good at oppressing me didn't win my vote. At least with Trump I don't have a certainty that he will crush liberty and give nothing in return.
Our election process is not statistical. The candidate to win 270 Electoral votes wins, period, not accounting for potential Electoral College manipulations.
Even if we did have a national popular vote system, I would hope to never see a 'statistical' process. It is not that hard to count ballots.No, it is not. to claim otherwise, or to rig a system that makes it so, is criminal and reprehensible.
You want a popular vote? How about the current system, that requires you to be popular in a lot of states, rather than in a few cities? Or do you subscribe to the movement that is bent on domination of the 49.9% by the 50.1%?
Getting more votes was never required to be elected. It was *which* votes that counted.
And the system worked exactly as intended. If you, in particular, don;t like that and wish to see it changed, then please start that process.
For you see we just had an election to, in some part, decide what sort of nation this would be.
You see, voting for a unidicted felon, willing to take money from nations both friendly and not so friendly to us, influenced by a husband who is an admitted sexual predator, is tolerable.
Oh, and a former lawyer, having surrendered her license to avoid the further embarrassment of prosecution over unethical behavior in her home state of Arkansas. As her husband had to, the result of a civil suit decision.
Or maybe not. Many Americans said it was not tolerable. Enough that one was elected, the other rejected. And that's how it works. Given a choice, you make it or abdicate your limited, minimal voting power.
Instead of outright victory, I would settle for a rag tag bunch just annoying the heck out of the invaders, then after they get punished drifting off to Colorado.
You know, like in the movie.
I was focused on the device. The software makes this possible...
It's the demand for power. The demand to prevail no matter.
The Democrats have not taken rejection well at all. It exposes their hearts.
We do NOT need a 'new agency'. Indeed, perhaps, maybe, we can use legislation to establish FTC or other regulations that require Internet-connected devices be minimally secure, as in requiring a nontrivial admin password be set, that they not be susceptible to 'trivial' attacks, and that they be manageable by owners to reestablish control.
All of this is, sadly, patchwork, and will not solve the real problems, and establishing financial penalties will just drive manufacturers offshore where we can't reach them.
But some minimal security requirements in law may, may make it harder. And I've failed. 'Harder' is not a fix for a security issue.
Both illuminate the attitude of the speaker, and both are despicable attitudes.
Or do you believe violence is a proper political response to anything? It may be historically employed, and some may desire it, but violence in response to a political event is not, to me, a sustainable nor appropriate response. And yes, I'll be waiting for the flames from those who feel or have been harmed by the results of a political decision, but it is those results, those actions, to consider.
Violence in response to an election is the response of the entitled. They demand power. They are wrong.
They are an Internet recovery of something fee, and so far this year doubled it from $1.99 to$3.99/month.
With if asked about it, they offered me $50/month off everything, if I committed to two years.
I felt dirty even though I said no, not ready to extend the relationship.
We have to retain email for legal reasons no matter how big our mailboxes are.
Actually I've already printed the new cover sheet.
I get an email for a division-wide thing.
I get a copy from my VP's admin, specifically targeting my team in case we weren't on the original distribution list.
I get a copy of this from my manager, since he doesn't want me to miss this.
I also get a copy of the original from a corporate level special interest group I'm part of.
Then I get a copy from a former team member. Just in case I was left of their distribution, since they left our team but believe they may be getting team emails that current team members are not.
And a copy from their manager, with a note to be sure the distribution list I cannot administer is properly updated to get these mails from the list they should not be and indeed are not part of. Just in case.
Then I get a copy from an interested team leader who wants to make sure we are in the loop.
And another from their #1 team member, who looks out for us.
And finally my cubicle mate leans over and tell me 'hey, did you get the email from......'
And so I have a 14GB .OST that i cannot backup locally due to GPO. and i get warnings occasionally that my file will be groomed back to an unspecified maximum size. Some day, real soon now. Right after they encrypt my files for no apparent reason, in accordance with some policy I cannot get a copy of.
I'm not bitter, really. I feel for the corporate security and cloud services guys. They can't fix stupid.
I thought the body of my commentary exposed my bias pretty well. You missed that?
And for the record, unindicted felon is as useful and descriptive as 'unindicted co-conspirator'. Do try harder. Please.
A third of the minutes spent on Trump (and those largely neither neutral nor positive) were spent on the email issue.
Not that volume is the proper measure. None of the MSM presented the issue as a criminal act, though that is an obvious conclusion when the statements of the FBI director are considered, nor did they present it as a reasonable issue to be investigated, but at every opportunity chose to describe it as either a minimal problem or a partisan attack.
Reasonable people may argue for last point, but the media was not honest about it, in my opinion, and I'm trying to be factual.
But much of this is preception, and I'm clinging to mine as well.
This is a demonstration of the gulf between Left and Right in America, and actually in the entire world.
The mainstream Left is absolutely convinced of their correctness. Their leadership I will not grant such standing, for I believe the leadership of the Left is merely seeking power at the expense of the rest of us.
The Right is also absolutely convinced of the correctness of their intentions. They differ primarily in that they do not react to rejection with rioting, fires, and threats of murder. They regroup, attack each other as the cause of failure, and fail to respond to the Left's absolute dominance of education, media, and culture.
But the Right has a different goal, and theirs permits individual liberty. The Left does not intend this, but conformity is the necessary goal to achieve a collective power structure.
Great times.
Since the same fake news in the rest of social and conventional media were visible, then you are saying "It is up to the people accusing the 'media' to show that the fake news influenced the elections."
And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated. And Trump would not have been nominated either. Part of a pretty big influence.
But, fortunately, this has worked our remarkably well. An unindicted felon has been denied access to the most important and powerful position on Earth, a businessman not beholden to destructive political and global interests has been elected, and the right people are angry. They should be angry. Their expressions of anger prove they are dangerous and must be called out and denied power.
Facebook etc. were complicit in the attempt to elect a President such as Hillary Rodham Clinton. That they ultimately failed does not diminish their intentions, nor effort, but it does point out that they have interests of their own. You decide if those interests are aligned with yours, or if those interests work against you.
You decide.
"You have been drained"
So selling out to Russia is bad, but selling out to Goldman Sachs is tolerable.
Got it. Thanks.
Senators and Representatives are elected by the individual states.
The President is NO different.
Thanks for ratifying the Electoral College system, even if you did so unintentionally.
It seems the premise of this article is that Trump won because Facebook was used to distribute false news, lies, and fake stories.
Please, please, if you believe this, stand firm. Do not give in.
You are missing the revolution, and you maybe, possibly, can stop it. So please, do not think for a moment that people actually WANT what Trump is proposing.
Oh, and while you are at it, take a moment and contact some member of the Republican Establishment. Encourage them to continue to work with you. They are the single greatest threat to the revolution, but do not, please ever breathe a word of that to them.
Thank you. We may yet save this nation if you persist in your delusion. And you will, despite your delusion, benefit from our renewed nation.
Yet states go their own ways when it suits them. California environmental laws. Firearm control laws. Legislature and gubernatorial term limits.
Nationalizing Presidential elections is truly unnecessary unless you wish to mute the states' voices, and some may enjoy having some influence, which could be lost otherwise.
Too late to affect Christmas manufacturing and shipping.
Uncertainty is resolved by election results. This election reduces uncertainty, though it may not reduce fear.
The 'markets' have been rebuked by this result. The global cabal has been rebuked. You may disagree, but in american you are part of a slight majority, which itself is remarkable, because;
- The media globally is in league with the capital markets, bankers*, and socialist elites.
- Global interests almost unanimously supported the continuation of the status quo.
- Despite massive releases of damning evidence, the Establishment candidate was still within reach of election.
The revolution continues.
Another voice who doesn't fully comprehend what 'The United STATES of America' means, both in theory and in practice..
Your proposal should require a constitutional amendment, for it fundamentally changes our nation, in a way that was conceived and intentional at its founding.
Most states publish results as they are tabulated and recorded, providing these to media outlets. A long time practice.
And then the media will decide how to describe these results. That's the objectionable part.
Rumor is that exit polling data will be distributed before all polls close nationwide, which is somewhat of a departure form tradition, but predictable, since it's fairly obvious the media has tried to influence the vote, and why stop now?