“We’re losing a lot of people because of the internet,” Trump said. “We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”
He said this in 2015, folks. And we still elected him. We’re fucked.
Even worse. The single issue voters, or hard core progressive voters who voted independent or wrote in names on their ballot because they didn’t get their way. They know who was better for America out of the two real choices, but made the statement of “I’d rather see the country burn than participate”
The faction of the party that formed a PAC to elect McCain/Palin doesn’t get to lecture people about jumping ship when they don’t get their first choice.
I’m saying that the same PUMAs who jumped ship and tried to give us VP Palin are hypocrites when they scream at progressives for not voting in accordance with their sense of entitlement.
I still don’t understand. Are you saying democrats forced palin through in order to turn republicans off and are now surprised that progressives don’t want to vote for a candidate they don’t like?
In 2008, when Clinton lost the primary to Obama, her supporters formed a PAC to try to get McCain/Palin elected. They didn’t get their very first choice and behaved worse than they accuse progressives of being.
Progressives didn’t form a PAC to elect Trump. Centrists did form a PAC to elect McCain/Palin.
I think everybody in a democracy-ish country is responsible for their voting choice. Choosing to abstain is a valid option, and should stay that way.
However, if you have a preference between the candidates, by abstaining you are mathematically helping the other guy. That’s especially true in our two-party FPTP elections in the US.
Edit to add: it should go without saying that this assumes you have the capability to vote one way or another. You know, since we have a political party that wants it to be difficult to vote.
Yeah, that's always the problem. Sometimes it's just a lack of motivation. Also don't discount voter suppression, like how voting day still is not a holiday and there's a significant lack of facilities in urban areas compared to suburban and rural regions. Nobody should have to wait in line for 5 hours (complete with BS like 'giving them water is a crime') to vote.
They used to claim they were the vast majority, silent majority, and so on, but it seems like they changed their tune on that and now it's "we don't need a majority! We're a constitutional republic"
I can only imagine where the country would be if we reformed the Electoral College and the Senate. It's absurd to be giving 1 million people in Hickle Dickle the same votes as 30,000,000 in another state. Or even worse, in the EC people in small states get 3-4 times the voting power as citizens of some larger states.
The idea behind doing that was so that the people in Hickle Dickle have their needs heard as much as the people from New Franciscago. Why? Because small towns have different needs than big cities, and it’s important to hear from the people living in each area.
However it absolutely needs an overhaul as A) the population difference between New Franciscago and Hickle Dickle have become obscene (you’re talking 30m vs 1m, when the reality is closer to 30m vs 100,000 or less), and B) the electoral college is becoming weaponized to override New Franciscago when it was supposed to balance the two and make sure Hickle Dickle still has its needs met.
The idea behind doing that was so that the people in Hickle Dickle have their needs heard as much as the people from New Franciscago.
No, not really. The actual idea behind the Electoral College (and Senators prior to the 17th Amendment) was so the state Hickle Dickle is in, collectively as a sovereign unit could have its needs heard, as expressed by its state legislature. It was basically intended to work like a parliamentary system (where the prime minister is chosen by members of parliament themselves, not by vote of the public), except with the power given to each of the state legislatures instead of Congress, for enhanced Federalism/separation of powers.
Electors don’t exist to change the balance the power between urban and rural; that’s a side-effect. Their real purpose is to compensate for the fact that different states have different legislative structures [for example: Nebraska is unicameral!] with wildly different ratios of constituents per legislator. They couldn’t do “one legislator, one vote” and have it be fair (read: normalized by population across states), so they did the next best thing and gave each state’s legislature a number of elector slots equal to that state’s representation in Congress, and let them choose people to fill those slots however they wanted.
People think the Electoral College and the Senate don’t work right, and that’s because they really don’t. But that’s not because they were designed poorly for what they were intended to do (limit “mob rule” and provide a voice for States as sovereign entities/the middle layer in the federalist separation of powers), but because we’ve subsequently fucked them up by bolting half-assed attempts at direct democracy to them in the form of the 17th Amendment, the Reapportionment Act of 1929, and state legislators abdicating their power to appoint electors and choosing them by statewide popular vote instead.
At this point, IMO, either implementing direct democracy properly (abolishing the Electoral College and the Senate) or going back to the original design would be an improvement over the broken status quo!
The real problem happened in 1929 when Congressional apportionment was set at 435. Congress regularly increased in size before then. The population has more than doubled since 1930, yet the overall number of representatives hasn’t changed, which means each district gets bigger.
There are 990K people in the largest district by population currently, with 545k in the smallest. (Plot twist: that large district is actually Delaware, which still has only one district, somehow)
I have been saying this for years. The Senate is supposed to be where small states get an outsized voice, but by freezing the size of the House, small states have been getting an outsized voice in both houses on Congress and they’ve been getting a disproportionately high number of electors in the Electoral College.
Based on the 2020 census, Wyoming is the least populous state at 576,851 people. If that were used as the smallest number of people that could be in a district, the US’s total population of 335,073,176 would be divided into 580 congressional districts. Over a third of the population is being underrepresented because the House hasn’t added seats in almost 100 years.
Also we need to go back to giving the Senate back to state legislatures to appoint. By making it another smaller house, we have two places where the “Mob” can control instead of one chamber controlled by the people with another chamber controlled by the states.
State legislatures have had a diminished presence in state elections since the direct election of Senators. Also it would Remove the money from Senate reelection PAC’s, which is a win in my book.
Plot twist: that large district is actually Delaware, which still has only one district, somehow)
Because of the method used to calculate apportionment. It’s mathematically designed to assign each representative in a way that minimizes the average difference in population/representative.
It’s actually very good at doing that, it’s just that a few states are very small and still get the minimum one House Rep and two Senators and four are so big they blow the curve on the other end.
Frankly, we’d be better off in general if we merged some of the states that get one or two House Reps. We really only need one Dakota, for example.
Unless their interest are not obvious to you in so far as that they are voting to maintain a racist hierarchy and privilege that equates to tangible benefits.
More than 50% of white american women voted for trump. Trump is a sexist, they know this. They also know that he will maintain their racist advantages over blacks, mexicans, jews, natives, asians you name it. So they voted for the ability to call the cops on you and have the police shoot you if they see you in their neighborhood.
It is basically a cast system that they voted for. Just in this case the cast system is based on racism.
Anybody knows a better explanation, please, feel free to reply and give your view what the benefits or expected pay-offs were for voting trump as a poor white woman.
edit: i forgot to mention what the expected reward is: if blacks, gays, jews, mexicans, asians, natives are beaten into submission and constantly harassed, then they can’t compete with them for jobs as well, and their kids won’t be able to compete with their kids either, as they will be constantly harassed, bullied and even murdered by the police and other racists.
Regarding your edit: This might be the reason, why people tend to vote against their interests. To weed out competition. For instance, people would happily vote against free school lunch - even if the option of free school lunch would benefit them - just because some different ethnical and/or political group would not receive that benefit either.
I see a very similar behavior in German politics right now: The right-wing party (AfD) is gaining popularity and the conservative party (CDU) is going to lose voters towards them. In order to appeal to voters they want to (very oversimplified) alter social welfare benefits to the worse and keep minimum wage from rising, all while claiming that immigration (among other things) is the issue. But those who are voting for the right wing party and the conservative party as well are the ones who clearly would benefit from better social welfare an a higher minimum wage. These people would rather decline any improvements regarding social welfare and minimum wage, so that others (immigrants for example) would not benefit from them either.
More than 50% of white women voted for Trump? Do you have a source for this?!
I’m genuinely asking here, because that’s gross as fuck if true. I’m a white woman. I couldn’t imagine voting for that POS, however, my mother is suuuuuuper into the “Bible” so I know she did. My parents are unfortunately super fans of his. I didn’t think that there were that many like her though.
Edit: I was so appalled I looked myself. I did find a bunch of stuff supporting it like truthout andthe guardian, which is absolutely fucking infuriating to me.
I did see that when it came to women with college, more did vote for Clinton than Trump, but it wasn’t enough to outweigh when combined with those who lacked a college education.
My thoughts and prayers have started ringing to the tune of "please gods may Trump have a heart attack / stroke at the worst possible time for the Republicans and spare the rest of the world another term of American foreign policy behaving as though it was conceived by racist, classist and eight kinds of phobic Elmer Fudd "
Another term? If he gets in again, he ain’t leaving until he’s dead. It’s glaringly obvious that he plans to become a dictator like his friends Putin and Kim.
That’s why I hope it happens during the election and the ensuing chaos means they can’t consolidate around a candidate. Dems would just reshuffle if Biden bit it mid campaign because so many leftists vote Democrat because it’s the lesser of two evils but the Republicans eat their own.
🤔 I wonder what would happen if someone assassinated Trump right before the election. Neither you nor I would ever do that, but say someone did. What is the protocol?
Or Biden, for that matter? Or say the Trumptards attacked enough polling places throughout the U.S. to seriously disrupt the election and possibly even completely fuck it up. Is there a legal protocol in place? Any election clerks in the house?
Well assassination of a candidate duration an election has some precedent. But it doesn’t happen often for good reason. If you assassinate a political figure you make them essentially a martyr for their campaign or ideals which stops people thinking rationally and doubling down on their emotional reaction to the assassinee’s party or general ideology. People put aside differences to “carry the torch”.
Honestly killing Trump and pining it on leftist bogeymen would be a move I could see some Republicans doing. They have basically primed their base to accept any shlock they want to pass as news and if they go full authoritarian and get enough support on board to basically ignore democratic checks and balances…
I really, really think it greatly behooves western states to try to secede from the U.S. next year.
Like the right wing is completely intractable at this point and compromising with them will only bring suffering so it would benefit the left if California, Oregon, Washington simply left and formed their own country. They have big enough economies where they could do it and survive on their own.
I mean, I am Canadian so dealing with the US as a foreign country with outsized influence is kind of nothing new to me. I think you’ll find the right wing just follows you wherever you go you just change the terms under which you deal with it. American media is a menace here and we essentially have to deal with US gun pollution and American style political discourse from our own citizens even though our Constitutional freedoms and government are completely different than the States.
I do feel like America’s problems are rooted deep in the outsized weight you give your founding fathers and the mythologized history of the two wars that played out on your soil. Breaking free from those fetters and actually updating your constitution to reflect the modern world and making your system more properly democratic using the advancements of political, structural and philosophical thought that’s advanced since the early foundation and adoption of democracy damn near 150 years ago sounds like an amazing idea, buit that require sussession to actually Kickstart that process.
I remember, so clearly, a conversation, debate, argument, with a relative, at a funeral ffs, in 2016. He was a Trump supporter. I was talking about all the awful, terrifying, heartbreaking things that Trump was indicating he would do. My relative said just that. None of that will happen, you’ll see, it will all be fine. Literally every one of those things happened. The indications of much worse things are even stronger this time. Wake up. None of that will happen, if, and only if, we fight like hell to stop it.
“He could invoke powers we’ve never heard a President of the United States invoke—potentially to shut down companies or turn off the internet or deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil,” he added. "We don’t know because the things that are in there, the emergency powers of the president, aren’t widely known to the American people.
Wow, it’s almost like we’ve consolidated too much power in the Executive Branch and should do something about it before a despotic asswipe gets elected by an unhinged, manipulated populace.
If the Internet goes off, it means most of the US will be pissed off at him. Cellphones would be basically useless.
His followers wouldn’t be able to access their favorite propaganda and conspiracy theories, either, so maybe they’d sober up a bit. Either way, it would not be good for him.
I mean, he can’t. Even if he claims to have the executive power, even if he found a bunch of lackeys willing to try to do it for him, he can’t do it. Whatever he did would be unenforceable. You can’t just turn off the Internet. That’s literally the reason we invented it in the first place, it’s a communication network resilient against nuclear strikes and war and bad-faith governance all at once.
He could probably make it very hard to use, given a lot of time, but he’d be eaten alive by the angry populace long before it ever reached that point.
I mean, off for whom? There’s people who think facebook IS the internet and will be forced to go outside if they can’t read their racist memes today. For critical comms, you’d have to shut off way more than 3 or 4 big companies to make a dent. For sensitive, high-bandwidth applications that involve a lot of people being online at once, you would need to hit fewer before the damage is noticeable.
I agree that the internet is far more than facebook. But if you’re blocked at the edge of the network by your ISP, there’s really not much you can do. You’ll have access to nothing, Facebook or otherwise. Not even something low bandwidth.
If At&t, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, and T-Mobile suddenly stopped providing service to all their customers, then essentially no-one would be able to use anything on the internet at all. Even if the backbone itself (which I believe is largely owned by those same companies, but not sure) and some large datacenters that are their own isps were able to keep talking to each other, anything business or user facing would stop.
Some people who run their own mesh networks might be able to stay in contact (and people would try and start some local ones as this disaster unfolds), but that’s so few people.
But we still haven’t established why. It makes no sense that companies that only make money providing a service would stop providing the service. I wouldn’t even be able to pay my ISP because that happens over the Internet.
I was assuming this was the government ordering the companies to. They have no incentive to do so on their own. But I believe there was a bill (which thankfully didn’t pass) that would have given the president the power to essentially order the internet turned off.
You wouldn’t need an ISP to have servers communicate, if push comes to shove. So maybe “effectively off” as we know it, but damn near impossible to stop communication if people need it
Back when that bill I linked was introduced, the generally-accepted narriative was that “sure most governments can shut off the internet to their own countries, but the U.S. can shut off the internet for the whole world.” So, yes, other countries have internet kill switches, but if that’s (still) true, probably no country can more drastically hobble the worldwide internet as a whole.
The root DNS servers are in the U.S… The first internet backbone is in the U.S… In 2010, it seemed like the U.S. government did have the power to make virtually the entire internet grind to a rapid halt.
IIRC there was also language in the bill saying all kinds of bullshit things about how since the internet was started in the U.S. by a U.S. government agency, the U.S. “owned” the internet and thus… had every right to shut off the internet if they so chose or some shit.
Since I first saw your comment, I did a little googling. Not a ton, and the sources I’ve found so far aren’t all that reliable. But mostly the answers I’ve found say that the U.S.’ ability to shut down the internet to other parts of the world is more limited than I’d heard it was in 2010. I’m not sure if it was overstated back then or if things have changed since then (or if the sources I found are wrong and the U.S. government could pretty much destroy the whole internet if it chose to.) But hopefully it’s true that the U.S. doesn’t have that kind of power.
And you don’t even need them, for the short term. Virtually all of your DNS queries are answered by machines much closer to you than the root servers. If you don’t have it in a local DNS cache, you go to the authoritative nameserver for the domain you’re requesting, which is also not a root DNS server, but one of the millions of other zone nameservers. Shutting down the root servers can also be routed around by setting up a different configuration, or just routing the addresses for the roots to something else that you control.
Then you get to the backbones, which are a bigger deal. Shut a few of those down–maybe with the enforcement help of local cops and the FBI, assuming you can get them on board–and you’ll slow traffic to a crawl. No Netflix for most folks, not for a while. But communication itself would still find a way around.
And all of that assumes he can even get anyone to agree to this, and he’s probably the only person with any power who’s stupid enough to think this is a good idea. It just doesn’t work, not on any level, not even if he takes office, still thinks this is a good idea (which he doesn’t, this is an obvious bluff), and can find a bunch of idiots in power willing to help.
Not sure why you are downvoted. Some countries even use them during testing times so students don’t cheat or get distracted or whatever when taking tests. I’m not even kidding
There are countries that turn off the internet all the time. There’s a only a few major Telcos that control all backbone infra. It could definitely happen
Add comment