Perhaps breitbart specifically. but 52% of republicans still believe that Trump won the popular vote. Thats an alarming indication of the influence of fake news.
Perhaps breitbart specifically. but 52% of republicans still believe that Trump won the popular vote. Thats an alarming indication of the influence of fake news.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Probably 52% of that 52% don't know or care that there is any other way to elect the prez.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
There is no other way to elect the President (except via Congress if the Electoral College fails to reach a majority). It's not an indication of fake news, it is an indication of ignorance.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What? I just said what you meant but you said it wrong in the context of thread flow. Pretty sure you meant the prez is not elected based on popular vote but you didn't actually say that.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Rand, if your explanation is that an average person would expect the president-elect to have won the popular vote, how do you explain only 24% of independents believing that?
Hope is the denial of reality
OK I thought you were suggesting there was "any other way of electing the prez". My apologies if I misunderstood.
"Only" 24%?
You don't think virtually 1/4 people is a lot?
Republicans who don't care much about politics are more likely to have thought "great we won" on Wed 9th and tuned out after that.
The point was many Rs don't know the difference.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Trump's supporters think he won the "real" popular vote. It only looks like Clinton won because 3 million illegal immigrants voted for her, probably because Mexican sharia law compels them to corrupt US elections in the hope of getting welfare for terrorism. Well, that may be a little overstated but the point is that there are memes that actively sustain the belief, among Republicans, that Trump won the popular election and that the MSM isn't reporting the results truthfully. These flourished immediately after the election and for a couple of weeks after it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
With media as splintered as it is, way too many people now get their "news" strictly from their own ideological echo-chamber, which can lie as much as it wants with virtually no chance at all anyone can combat said propaganda with fact-based information. In this world, the liar(s) most in touch with how to manipulate the widest possible demographic wins the election. Trump and those that back him can literally say almost anything and way too many people will believe them. In other words, it no longer matters who actually won the popular vote. Trump did.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Hope is the denial of reality
We actually 'can't be sure.' Hell if you had a memo from Putin stating 'lets hack US elections' it doesn't mean that THOSE hacks were successful and that it wasn't China, or private Russian citizens, or American citizens who were successful in the hack. Another way to look at it... you clearly think Russia attempted to hack and influence the US election. Do you think the Russian government was the only entity to try this?
Lewk, please stop reading Breitbart. There's a unanimous consensus among the US intelligence community, Russia experts, and our allies that Russia was to blame. Russia had the motive. Russia had the means. Russia has done this in other countries in the recent past. Russia's behavior would be consistent with its cheerleading for Trump. There's absolutely no reason to think it was anyone else.
Hope is the denial of reality
Do you think the Russian government was the only entity to try this?
They're the only one that succeeded. I have no idea who else might or might not have tried. China, for instance, tends to go for trade secrets.
Hope is the denial of reality
You don't think conservative partisans would try? What about people who dislike Clinton in general? What about people who really like Trump? It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a countries backing to 'hack' anyone. So much is done by social engineering these days. I'm not even arguing against the preponderance of evidence that Russia may have done it I'm suggesting there isn't a way to say 'we can be sure' with what has been released so far.
You seem to need a lot less evidence before condoning killing someone
Last edited by Flixy; 12-22-2016 at 07:27 AM.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Too many competing interests? OMG let's get real. *Neither* party got things right. Both candidates were generally disliked and not considered trust-worthy. That was true throughout the entire campaign process....that spanned nearly two fricking YEARS.
I've not seen any evidence that new voters, or undecided voters, or swing voters were actually swayed by any particular controversy. From what I've read, *most* registered voters had already made up their minds by mid-late summer. While I think more voters is a good thing, and limiting voters is a bad thing, there's no ONE good way to explain why millions of people didn't vote, even when they could! Our participation rate sucks. And there's no evidence that expanding voter registration (which is a good thing) actually leads to more people voting!
Apathy and disenfranchisement are hard things to measure, and they don't always go hand-in-hand. But in our Constitutional Democracy/ Representative Republic, where the Electoral College actually elects POTUS...it's practically political propaganda to keep saying that every vote matters. Individual votes only matter in the context of voting blocs.
I'm also tired of Democrats blaming their loss on everything but themselves. But I'm more disturbed by Republicans, who denounced Trump during the primaries, that are now jumping on his post-election bandwagon. Especially since all branches of government will be held by one political party, effectually eliminating any "checks and balances".
Indeed. So long as Lewk is assured that they were a bad actor at some point in the past, then he even ceases to care whether they were truly guilty at the time they were shot. Unless they're white, of course, like Mr. Putin.You seem to need a lot less evidence before condoning killing someone
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If Mr Putin is white.
Congratulations America
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cyber-ex...ine-1482385672
Apparently conservative partisans are now hacking the Ukrainian military. Right, Lewk?
Hope is the denial of reality
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/e...urse/95694610/
And here's an explicit attempt to censor free speech by conservatives.
Hope is the denial of reality
Public funding is now somehow sacrosanct, and integral to protecting first amendment rights? If there was a course dedicated to the mistreatment and abuse of white protestants by the Jewish cabal led government in association with our lizard people overlords, lamenting the ongoing demonization and misrepresentation of the KKK by colored folk and race traitors, designed to promote white nationalism and the alt right, then you would consider it censorship if California's state government decided it no longer wanted to funnel public funds to a public university that allowed for that course to be taught?
I suppose it's also censoring free speech if grants aren't given by the NEA to neo-Nazi artists?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 12-22-2016 at 07:30 PM.
Surprising that a supposed libertarian would support censorship of ideas he didn't approve of. Public funding of universities (which is getting ever smaller as percentage of university budgets) does not entitle the government to tell those universities exactly what to teach. And here we have a case of the government saying that certain ideas are not tolerable. You have absolutely no regard for decentralization, for local governance, or for the government using force to enforce its views. Which again, is typical for someone claiming to be a libertarian only as long as it means promoting your own ideas.
And yes, I would consider that censorship. It's up to the university to decide which courses meet academic standards.
Hope is the denial of reality
As a libertarian I am against government funding going to any university. Likewise I don't view the lack of government subsidies as being akin to censorship. It's a strange day indeed when censorship means that unless a view is receiving tax payer dollars it is being brutally suppressed by conservative government bogeymen, and anyone taking that view somehow lacks respect for decentralization and local governance.
I'll be the first to admit that this might have knock-on cooling effects on the type of courses that get taught at public universities, I just don't believe that is censorship in any meaningful way, or that the first amendment guarantees a right to tax payer padded paychecks to say whatever reprehensible things you want to say.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 12-22-2016 at 10:09 PM.
I kind of regret that I clicked on "View Post". I mean, this right here is probably the pinnacle of libertarian stupidity:
Private this, private that. I've seen what the private sector is capable of achieving and I'm not impressed. This moronic "Smash everything and let our Golden Calf aka*'Free Market' sort it out!" is kind of the reason why several municipalities over here are*trying*get several areas back from private control.As a libertarian I am against government funding going to any university.
Because it turns out*essential good like water are not such a great idea to privatize - price went up in a lot of cases, and quality went down.
I can also demonstrate that first hand with*my school's newly constructed building -*the amount*of idiocy that has been built into this building is astounding. For instance, we could easily host a U2 concert*because the*company owning our building thought it grand to buy a GrandMA2 and a similarly sized sound controller (both of them amount to ~50K €).
Yes, you may now proceed to find excuses for the failings of this company. Again, I've seen the private industry several times and have not been especially impressed by their*abilities. You just need to*look at the various banking crisis to see that*private companies are just as capable*of burning*through money as the government.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Quite right, Enoch. We NEED to dismiss any teacher who makes political comments a politician dislikes. It's not any kind of censorship to expect that anyone whose paycheck is somehow derived from state funds will only speak when their speech is in agreement with the local legislative and executive majorities. These people are educating our youth, how can we expect them to be right-thinking if we let them be exposed to something other people in the country might say?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't know why, but seeing this thread I suddenly thought that Rand woman would have done the world a favor if she'd never had written her crap books.
Congratulations America
LOL You're talking to the guy who doesn't want public funding for colleges. Try again.
Want to start a book burning? You liberals like to do that sort of thing to Twain's novels why not for her?
EDIT: To be clear not actually talking about liberals burning books
This is an article about a university arbitrarily being singled out and legislators attempting to micromanage it, not about removing all funding of all universities in general. So you try again.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote