Hometown: Ottawa, Ontario
Home country: Canada
Current location: Toronto, Ontario
Member since: Wed Oct 29, 2008, 03:34 PM
Number of posts: 1,033
Hometown: Ottawa, Ontario
Home country: Canada
Current location: Toronto, Ontario
Member since: Wed Oct 29, 2008, 03:34 PM
Number of posts: 1,033
- 2016 (61)
- 2015 (25)
- 2014 (7)
- 2013 (25)
- 2012 (18)
Someone retweeted this on my timeline today. From Twitter user Ross A. Lincoln (https://twitter.com/Rossalincoln) and I'm just going to merge the whole twitter essay into a big paragraph:
There seems to be a lot of confusion, some genuine, some very dishonest, about what is intended by talking up Hillary's pop vote totals. First, and I only say it so you'll have something to refer to before pedanting all over this: yes we know about the electoral college. while it'd be nice if the E.C. would, just once, live up to the lies ppl tell about why it even exists, we know it won't in this case. so, yes, we're perfectly aware Trump will be president b/c of a choke point baked into the constitution to protect slavers' interests. and yes, we're perfectly aware that you win the presidency by getting more electors than the other person. So please shut up about that. the thing is whenever dems win - even if they win big like in 06 and 08 - the dominant narrative is always " they didn't really win". in 2000 Gore won and GOPs controlled the senate by only 1 vote. But Bush 'won' anyway as was treated (and acted) like he had a mandate. in 2006, Dems got a majority in both houses of congress bigger than the biggest GOPs had in modern history. And it wasn't their biggest. yet even though they'd been repudiated hard, immediately GOPs pushed idea "this proves America is a center-right nation" (actual quote) in 08 dems got even bigger majority & press + major dems + gops pushed the idea that dems, not GOPs, had to bring the country together. Dems won actual mandate but were urged from start not to govern from strength but tentatively. (examples too numerous to list here). context: Dem majorities in 06 and 08 were bigger than GOP's in 94, which was treated like the entire world had changed forever. even today's GOP majorities in congress aren't as big as the smallest most recent Democratic majority. Meanwhile, the great lie told by GOPs is that they're 'real' America and that they're a true majority, not liberals. So when they win, regardless of circumstances, press & even many ostensible liberals fall in line w/demands liberals stop being liberal. That's happening now bigly. Even the LA Weekly published a horrid little illiterate screed about how liberals suck. LA Weekly!
but here's the thing: Hill's campaign seriously erred in ignoring key swing states. But she still is getting a historic pop vote margin pushing 3 million more votes than Trump got. Possibly going to have gotten more votes than Obama got in 2012. by any reasonable standard of judgment, clear majority of voters did not want Trump in office and most of those voters wanted Hillary. Trump literally won only thanks to a technicality. And yet everyone is trying to push this idea that liberal votes don't really count. we're told *we* live in a bubble. But as other ppl have noted, Los Angeles looks a hell of a lot more like America than Sapulpa, OK. before anyone accuses me of being a snooty coastal elite, I am from Sapulpa, OK. if Dems reacted to winning E.C. but not pop vote by saying OK isn't a real place and doesn't count, there'd be riots and impeachment. That's literally what is happening to liberals. But we didn't just win the pop vote b/c of a quirk. We won it BIG. There are more of us. if anything, we're the ignored majority. Not conservatives, who literally cannot win fair and square. that is why we keep bringing up the pop vote. We have to keep hammering the fact that we are NOT outliers. We are not "elites". we have to keep reminding people whose default setting is to surrender that clearly they problem isn't that Dems are too liberal. Not to mention the fact that in most of the swing states, Trump's margin of victory is smaller than # of votes Stein got. calls for Ds to abandon core constituencies and core projects are bad and should be ignored. In summary: we should do more of what we've done not less unless we wanna lose forever. THAT's why we keep bringing up the pop vote. FIN
Addendum: As if to prove my point, this is the kind of BS we have to deal with on the regular: https://twitter.com/politico/status/806321124275617792
So, that's just a quick and dirty cut'n'paste of the whole Twitter essay. To read it in its natural environment, please see the link here: https://twitter.com/Rossalincoln/status/806553976527126528
Posted by Saviolo | Wed Dec 7, 2016, 06:39 PM (0 replies)
What a quietly eloquent man. Well spoken, obviously intelligent, and clearly astute and caring. Kudos to Colbert for just letting him talk in this interview:
Also, I'm totally down to watch that basketball game!!
Posted by Saviolo | Wed Dec 7, 2016, 09:37 AM (1 replies)
From Tom Tomorrow, hosted at DailyKos:
Posted by Saviolo | Mon Nov 7, 2016, 02:38 PM (3 replies)
An election worker in Plano, Texas was reportedly injured by box cutter blades that were hidden in a Trump-Pence campaign sign.
According to KTVT, the sign was placed where the suspect knew that poll workers would have to remove it. And after a precinct official ordered the sign taken down, a volunteer was sliced open by the hidden box cutter blades. The blades drew blood but luckily the cuts were not serious.
County Democratic campaign chair Steve Spainhouer told KTVT that the incident was “deplorable.”
The Texas Rangers were reportedly investigating the incident at the request of precinct officials. Collin College said in a statement that all signs on campus were being inspected for sharp objects.
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/deplorable-suspect-draws-blood-from-poll-worker-by-hiding-box-cutter-blades-in-trump-pence-sign/comments/#disqus
Video at link, as well.
Posted by Saviolo | Wed Nov 2, 2016, 03:11 PM (20 replies)
I've posted it a couple of times, but I wanted to get it out there just once more while people still have a chance to use the information here to convince Trump voters who may be on-the-fence-ish.
A large group of contributors on Reddit has collected an enormous trove of links and stories that refute Trump in many different ways. Please find the thread here:
It has the following sub-categories:
A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is racist"
A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is Sexist"
A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is a Criminal"
A final response to the "Tell me why Donald Trump is a homophobe"
A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is Crazy"
A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is a fascist"
A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is a terrible businessman"
A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is a liar"
A final response to the "Tell me how Trump conflicts with the Constitution"
A final response to the "Tell me what's wrong with Mike Pence"
A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States"
And includes some bonus general alt-right debunking resources as well:
Debunking myths about Islam
Debunking the Hillary Clinton KKK meme
Debunking myths about Hillary Clinton defending rapists
Debunking Trump's All Lives Matter cliche
Reminder that Donald Trump is a pedophile
Reminder that Trump is a Climate Change denier
Definitive Answer to the Question "What is the Alt Right?"
So, please use these links, spread this information, talk about it, and stand up to the sociopath on the GOP ticket. Just a week to go, and the hard campaigning work is done, it's just time to do the easy job and vote!
Posted by Saviolo | Wed Nov 2, 2016, 08:54 AM (2 replies)
In case you haven't seen this, a fellow named Owen Ellickson has been writing an ongoing fictional account of the inner workings of the Trump campaign in 140 characters (or less!) at a time, and it's hysterical.
You can find him here: https://twitter.com/onlxn
There's an ongoing plot involving Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, and Alex Jones trying to blow up the US Supervolcano, Roger Ailes is a horrible squid beast, Paul Ryan is deeply depressed at his own lack of principles, Kellyanne Conway only refers to Trump as "it," Boehner and Carson are playing detective to find out who leaked the tax documents... so many threads going on at once, and it's hilarious.
There's a LOT to it, now. You'll have to go back quite a ways. It's divided up into threaded "chapters." Definitely worth the read.
Posted by Saviolo | Wed Oct 26, 2016, 12:51 PM (5 replies)
You’ll Likely Be Reading One Of These 5 Articles The Day After The Election
It’s the morning after the election, and while half the country is waking up breathing a sigh of relief, another large share is disappointed, angry or even panicked. But what demographic voting patterns propelled the winner to victory? How did those patterns play out in the Electoral College map? And what does it mean for the future of American politics?
1. The Clinton landslide
In a staggering rejection of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, voters last night elected Hillary Clinton as the nation’s first female president, 53 percent to 41 percent — the widest margin in a presidential race since 1984. Clinton swept 30 states totaling 413 electoral votes. In an exclamation point, Clinton carried Arizona, Georgia and even Texas. Repudiating Trump, Utah gave its six electoral votes to conservative independent Evan McMullin.
2. Modest Clinton majority
Hillary Clinton became the first woman to win the presidency last night, defeating Donald Trump by a comfortable margin — 50 percent to 42 percent — roughly in line with what polls predicted. Clinton swept all 26 states that President Obama had carried in 2012, plus Arizona, North Carolina and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, for a total of 359 electoral votes. In a stunning repudiation of Trump, Utah gave its six electoral votes to conservative independent Evan McMullin.
3. 2012 Map redux
After the most toxic and divisive presidential campaign in modern history, Hillary Clinton was elected the nation’s first female president last night, defeating Donald Trump 48 percent to 44 percent. However, in spite of Trump’s scandals and defiance of democratic norms, Clinton managed to win by only about the same 4 percentage point margin that President Obama won by four years ago. Clinton and Trump each won 25 states: Trump turned Iowa and Ohio red, but Clinton turned North Carolina blue, for a total of 322 electoral votes — 10 fewer than Obama picked up in 2012.
Lots more detail on these, and two more scenarios in the full article. Demographics play a very important role in all of these scenarios. After all of the scenarios that the team over at fivethirtyeight run, Hillary Clinton won about 4 out of 5 times to varying degrees of embarassing Trump, and there was only one scenario where Trump wins, and that one flies in the face of all of their data to this point in the process.
Full article here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/youll-likely-be-reading-one-of-these-5-articles-the-day-after-the-election/
So, make sure that everyone GOTV and see how close to scenario #1 Hillary can get! It's still in the hands of the voters at this point, and we can't rely on polls, still gotta vote!
Posted by Saviolo | Tue Oct 25, 2016, 08:56 AM (18 replies)
As reported by the Washington Post:
Bernie Sanders can still apparently pack a punch when it comes to fundraising.
The senator from Vermont raised just shy of $2 million in two days online this week for 13 like-minded U.S. Senate and House candidates, according to his campaign committee.
This week, Sanders tapped his massive donor list, sending out emails asking his fans to support candidates blessed by Our Revolution, an organization he launched after exiting the race.
The two-day take was $1.88 million, with more dollars continuing to come in. The biggest beneficiary, an aide said, was Deborah Ross, who has mounted an unexpectedly strong challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). About $300,000 flowed directly to her campaign.
One of multiple solicitations sent out by Sanders referred to a recent warning by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) that Sanders could take over as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee if Democrats take over control of the Senate.
Full article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/20/bernie-sanders-taps-his-donor-network-to-raise-nearly-2-million-in-two-days-for-house-senate-contenders/
Posted by Saviolo | Thu Oct 20, 2016, 10:00 PM (17 replies)
In an interview for French newsmagazine Le Devoir, Trudeau talks about abandoning his commitment to reform Canadian elections and do away with FPTP (First Past The Post voting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting):
Au moment de célébrer le premier anniversaire de son élection au gouvernement, Justin Trudeau se tourne vers l’avenir et reconnaît les nombreux chantiers qui l’attendent. Énergie Est, les communautés autochtones, mais aussi la réforme électorale promise l’an dernier et sur laquelle le premier ministre ne garantit plus qu’il ira de l’avant.
« Si on va changer le système électoral, il faut que les gens soient ouverts à ça », a laissé tomber Justin Trudeau, en entrevue exclusive avec Le Devoir cette semaine pour faire le bilan de la dernière année. « On va regarder comment se déroulent les consultations, les réactions, les résultats des rapports. On ne va pas préjuger ce qui serait nécessaire . Mais quand on dit un appui substantiel, ça veut dire quelque chose. »
What he is saying here (for Anglophones is that he would have to take the temperature of the electorate, first. He would want to know that the voting public was open to such a change. Sounds to me like he's looking towards another referendum, or some such thing, to gauge the public's openness to a reformed voting system instead of FPTP.
Full article here: http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/482514/la-reforme-electorale-n-est-plus-garantie
Elder Canadian statesman, and head of the Broadbent institute, Ed Broadbent, took to Twitter to call the Prime minister out on his backtracking over a series of tweets:
@JustinTrudeau's #electoralreform comments in @LeDevoir are outrageous & transparently self-serving. Let me explain
1st, on process. w/ #ERRE about to start final deliberations, PM Trudeau cynically undermines the whole democratic process
Now, on substance. #LPC made clear commitment that '15 fed election would be last 1 under FPTP
And @JustinTrudeau repeated commitment throughout 2015 campaign
And post-election, reaffirmed promise to scrap #FPTP "to make sure that every vote counts"
You can read the entire very long and very well-referenced Twitter essay here:
Looks like I jumped on this a little early. The ink had not yet begun to spill on Trudeau's comments to Le Devoir. National Post has picked it up (because of course they did), though it seems they're more interested in banging Trudeau in the head about it, instead of much substance. However, they're not wrong when they say that Trudeau's walking back of his campaign promises on electoral reform are extremely discouraging:
Posted by Saviolo | Wed Oct 19, 2016, 03:41 PM (3 replies)
Taking a bus, a train, or a ferry has long offered a level of convenience that air travel can’t. Arrive two hours before a domestic flight, and it can still be a stretch making it before the gate closes; show up at New York's Penn Station 15 minutes before your departure time (to minimize how long you have to stay in that dystopian nightmare of a building), and you’ll have enough time left over to grab a slice. That ease of travel that we gain from not having the intense—and, at times, bafflingly inefficient—TSA oversight found in airports may soon be a thing of the past, though, as a new bill making its way through Congress seeks to expand TSA’s reach onto buses, trains, and ferries, known collectively as surface transportation.
The bipartisan bill introduced last week by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) would require that the TSA assess terrorism risk at all surface transportation facilities—bus depots, train stations, ports—and implement new security models based on those risks. According to website The Hill, the lawmakers cited concerns about whether the TSA is adequately identifying security risks in non-airport transport hubs. According to a report from the Office of Inspector General, the agency is not. Last year, 80 percent of the TSA's $7.4 billion budget was spent at airports, while only two percent went to surface-level transportation. “TSA lacks an intelligence-driven, risk-based security strategy that informs security and resource decisions across all transportation modes,” reads the report, observing a security approach “designed for the aviation mode and chiefly for air passenger screening.” Thune, Nelson, and co. want to change this with legislation that would see train operators gaining access to TSA’s terrorist watch list, more rigorous screening of passengers and employees, and an uptick in TSA canine units at stations and ports.
From Conde Nast here: http://www.cntraveler.com/story/tsa-may-start-securing-trains-buses-and-ferries
Looks like the TSA is looking to expand its security theatre into ground transportation in the USA. Right now they're only talking about watch lists and "an uptick in TSA canine units at stations and ports" but also "more rigorous screening of passengers and employees." Travel within the USA is turning into a very "Papers, please" sort of experience.
Posted by Saviolo | Wed Oct 19, 2016, 08:49 AM (7 replies)