Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Nope. You should really take them meds... (Score 0) 1430

You clearly can't even look up what you wrote without your meds.

No, I said that the EC is working as intended: it kept a dangerous demagogue (Hillary Clinton) out of office.

Disregarding you again showing that you can't read properly while off your meds... again...

You argued that "lucky then that Republicans took care of that problem more than a century ago" to a comment pointing out that the reason for existence of Electoral College was "to give the slave states more power and it should be clear why that shouldn't be ok".
I.e. There was a problem EC was created to handle - and you argue that there is no longer such a problem.
Ergo, electoral college is no longer needed.
Since "more than a century ago".

Which leaves us with a single reason for EC's existence... which you can't read properly, which you've proven again and again.
Arguing the opposite of what the reason is... i.e. denying that reason too.

In true fascist fashion, you fantasize about the deaths of those who politically disagree with you.

See? More delusion.
Fascists don't fantasize. They get shit done. Trains running on time? Ring a bell? Like that sound reminding you to take more meds.

Besides... Nobody is "disagreeing" with you any more than one could "disagree" with a parrot. Or a broken record played backwards.
Or a can clanging down the flight of stairs.
Nothing you say makes enough sense to even be wrong. It's just noise.

And no one fantasizes about absence of noise. That would be a really depressing fantasy life. Like fantasizing about color gray.
Besides... sometimes it's fun to listen to some noise and nonsense.
Otherwise, one may get a faulty notion that everyone out there is a sane individual. Which, clearly, you are not.

Comment Re:No, no, no - you're just off your meds again lo (Score 1) 1430

No... He asked "When is a good time to change the Electoral College if not now?" with an explicit quote of "To change the Electoral College process now, after the popular vote is over, is sour grapes."

Which you then made into "changing the rules after the election"

They are talking about a completely different red herring - that anything taking place right now constitutes changing "the Electoral College process" - instead of being a built-in part of both election process and the Electoral College.
With rules and laws how to go about each step of the process.
Your red herring about "changing the rules" being more of red herring fillet of the original red herring.

Which is what happens when you stop taking your meds.

Comment Re:Change the law (Score 1) 1430

Oh my..
Taliban drove what out of what? You do realize Americans are still fighting that war?
Clearly, you're not even in touch with reality - let alone the tiny percent of US population ACTUALLY in the military.

Oh... and BTW... Americans only get PULLED OUT from foreign countries if and when, after they kill hundreds of thousands of locals, their own deaths and other loses become large enough to become a POLITICAL nuisance.
They don't get driven out.
If USA could just keep sending robots to kill people on the other side of the globe, most of US population would not care a fig that their "imports" from said country "may contain burned children".

Also, Americans being driven out of America has about as much sense as fish being driven out of water.
Just imagine that "driven out" argumentation where YOUR SIDE of Americans is the one being driven out.
Would Americans be driven out? You just tried to argue that even Afghan civilians could stand up to American army.
Just imagine American civilians standing up to American army. They'd be like the best civilians to ever stand up to American army, driving American army all the way back to America... wait...
And that's disregarding the fact that those Americans are also Americans... who's driving who out again and out of where?

It's a nonsensical and paradoxical idea on the rate of "unstoppable force meeting an unmovable object" - except the object and the force are one and the same.

The US Army is recruited heavily from the poor, and those guys voted for Trump

The US military is not "recruited" - they volunteer. It's a professional, career army.
Also, US military is the most subsidized, social-state, benefits boosted social class in the US.
They are not poor. They are America's middle class - plus guns, training and jobs and benefits (government-provided and otherwise) for life.
It's a socialist meritocracy within US government. Free clothes, home, food, education... plus a paycheck and benefits - as long as you are willing and able to give your life for the community and kill people when you're told.
How did it go again? To each according to what? From each according to...?

On top of that, they live such different lives... all they have in common with other US citizens are the "paper things" - birth certificates, citizenship etc.
US military is NOT "Americans" the same way every other citizen of USA is.
It's a special social class apart from everyone else in USA, created, controlled and financed by US government.
With obedience to said government drilled into them through decades of training and selection for obedience among the ranks.

When was the last time you saw military protesting anything? Going on a strike? Picketing something? How about even ranting against the government on Twitter or Facebook?
Four star generals get sacked for far less than what is everyday ranting against the government for civilians.
Which is not even remotely close to what awaits lower ranks when they get kicked out into genpop, without all that social safety netting they are used to and facing completely different rules to obey.
IF they manage to miss the military prison on their way out.
That's why they obey. And support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That imaginary army you are talking about?
That would be the domestic enemies part. Kandahar, Kentucky, Kent State... same shit. Just another place to occupy.
BTW, that last one... After National Guard shoots and kills unarmed civilians what does government do to face hundreds of thousands of civilian protesters?
It evacuates the President and garrisons the government buildings with military troops.

Only way civilians get to walk out of a face off with US military is if US military practices restraint.
If they are ordered to fight armed civilians... well... Kandahar, Kentucky... every man bleeds the same.

Comment I stand corrected then. With a caveat. (Score 1) 1430

Caveat being that there most likely won't be any leftovers.
Considering that the full cost is "likely to be $6-7 million" and that they are just over the $6 million mark right now.
And that they have made that announcement about "candidate schools" before reaching their goal.
Which in worst/best case (depending how you look at it) might result in a few more Green Party candidates in those states, come next elections.
But most likely, they may even end up in debt. Them lawyers be expensive.
And people knowing where any extra money will go... if they don't want to help them out beyond that mark... it IS their choice to keep giving them money.

Or, if one wants to be a paranoid Democrat about it... worst case may be "helping them reelect Trump in 2020."
"Them" being the Green Party.
I.e. The side standing to MAYBE gain something from the process also taking on all the potential risk. Which, last I checked, was described either as "Nothing ventured, nothing gained" or "In for a penny, in for a pound".

Though, apparently such paranoia lasts less than half an hour before being rationalized away.

BoGardiner statsone
Nov 26 - 02:36:12 AM
I rationalized that it had dawned on her just how harshly history would treat Stein and the Greens for helping make Donald Trump the most powerful and dangerous man on Earth, and she was doing this to salvage their reputation.
I knew it was a gamble, but viewed it like playing the lottery: it can't hurt much, and a remotely likely payoff would be huge.

Linked article was published at 2:09 AM CEST, Saturday Nov 26, 2016, by BoGardiner.

Comment Re:Electoral college does reflect the popular vote (Score 0) 1430

Well, lucky then that Republicans took care of that problem more than a century ago.

Let's just disregard that you just said that electoral college is no longer needed. We know... you have no idea what you are babbling.
You don't think. You just have thoughts. Well... more like pictures of stuff flashing in your head.

One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Hillary

FTFY. Looks like it's working as intended. Check.

See? You read Trump and thought it said Hillary.
Here's what the OP actually said:

One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Trump

You really are off your gourd aren't you? It's sad really...
Well... at least we can all look forward to that day your mental issues finally do you in and release you from all that suffering.

Comment No, no, no - you're just off your meds again loony (Score 1) 1430

not by changing the rules after the election.

It's not changing the rules - it IS the rules. There IS no change of EC. It's just all in your head.
You are misunderstanding someone else misunderstanding the process.

Because you are a loony. You should really get back on them meds. Or the things in the coffee socks will get you.

Comment Re:Change the law (Score 5, Informative) 1430

What he is advocating will result in nothing less than civil war

Lessig may be delusional - but what you are suggesting is beyond retarded.
There is no army to fight such a war. It's no longer 1800s.
US military is now a highly trained tiny percent of the whole population - not a bunch of guys marching in a straight like across the field, armed with flintlocks.
The side going against the army of the US government loses even before a single civilian warrior gets his boots on.

Nor could you get anyone to sign up for such a war. Again - only a tiny percentage of US population wishes to serve at all.
And that's without the whole "Going to a war to shoot me some Americans" thing having a chance of being a bit unpopular among Americans.

Beyond. Retarded.

Comment Re:Change the law (Score 1, Informative) 1430

The difference is in the fact that Trump, even before the voting started, claimed that the system is rigged against him and that he will only accept the results if he won.
I.e. Legality of the election be damned - either HE wins or he wins.

On the other hand... it's not the "dems" who are suggesting that electors should not vote for Trump - THOUGH IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY LEGAL.
Also, there already IS a recount. Or two... maybe three.

Comment Do remember that Lessig... (Score 1, Interesting) 1430

... is the guy who ran for President on the "Elect me and I'll resign after I fix democracy" platform.
But then he changed his mind and decided to run for the full term.
Then he quit.

So it's not really about how much he knows as much as it is about just how delusional he is about the things he thinks he knows.
Cause if we are to base our judgment on the state of his delusion regarding political and issues revolving around elections - nothing he suggested will happen.

Slashdot Top Deals

Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner