To Disrupt America's 2020 Elections, Russian Internet Trolls Amplify Divisive Messages, Assemble 'Massive' Followings (time.com) 331
An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg:
Russian internet trolls appear to be shifting strategy in their efforts to disrupt the 2020 U.S. elections, promoting politically divisive messages through phony social media accounts instead of creating propaganda themselves, cybersecurity experts say. The Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency may be among those trying to circumvent protections put in place by companies including Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. to find and remove fake content that hackers created to sow division among the American electorate in the 2016 presidential campaign. "Instead of creating content themselves, we see them amplifying content," said John Hultquist, the director of intelligence analysis at FireEye Inc. "Then it's not necessarily inauthentic, and that creates an opportunity for them to hide behind somebody else."
Other hackers are breaking into computing devices and using them to open large numbers of social media accounts, according to Candid Wueest, a senior threat researcher at Symantec Corp. The hacked devices are used to create many legitimate-looking users as well as believable followers and likes for those fake users... Wueest said he observed a decrease in the creation of new content by fake accounts from 2017 to 2018 and a shift toward building massive followings that could be used as platforms for divisive messages in 2020.
Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy responded that policing foreign influence campaigns is "an incredibly hard balance" between the need to slow down bad actors while maintaining "meaningful public discussion."
Other hackers are breaking into computing devices and using them to open large numbers of social media accounts, according to Candid Wueest, a senior threat researcher at Symantec Corp. The hacked devices are used to create many legitimate-looking users as well as believable followers and likes for those fake users... Wueest said he observed a decrease in the creation of new content by fake accounts from 2017 to 2018 and a shift toward building massive followings that could be used as platforms for divisive messages in 2020.
Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy responded that policing foreign influence campaigns is "an incredibly hard balance" between the need to slow down bad actors while maintaining "meaningful public discussion."
Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone somewhere is profiting from this. Who? Well, I don't know.
Fact is that people are so busy fracturing society into groups by defining common enemies and lumping enough people in them through strawmen arguments to make it look like an issue to be concerned about...
I'm wondering where people take the energy to be outraged into all directions at all times.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? (Score:5, Informative)
Facebook profits, more time spent on their site. YouTube profits, more time spent watching cranks instead of the real news.
Russia profits of course, from a weaker West and NATO.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering where people take the energy to be outraged into all directions at all times.
From the conspiracy theorist's perspective, that's the whole point. If you get everybody pissed off in several directions at once they have less energy available to fight for any given cause. A distracted, divided populace is much easier to manipulate and much less likely to rebel effectively - it's called "divide and conquer".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone somewhere is profiting from this. Who? Well, I don't know.
Donald Trump and Brexit, two high-profile right wing success stories that have been achieved with the help of fabricated and fear mongering "alternative facts", from Russia, with Love:
- US foreign policy is in shambles and the country is as divided as ever, because Trump is a divisive person.
- Britain has been de-facto paralyzed for years and will weaken the EU as a whole by the exit.
- Both of these weaken the relations and cooperation between the USA and Europe, the western democratic alliances that form N
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is: people who voted for Trump or Brexit don't think that far and will fall for the next populist idiot with the next elections.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's McCarthy all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
"Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english? I suppose that they are... mmh... doing stuff or something. Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"? Is Israel? What about corporations? Government agencies? It's McCarthy all over again.
Well, it's a scary sounding word (for those too young to remember Scooby Doo, lol) that conveniently doesn't require any actual laws to be broken or for that to be proven in a court of law.
Roosky gang: "Now let's see who this witch really is!"
Roosky gang: "Hillary????"
Hillary: "And it would have worked too, if it weren't for you meddling Rooskies!"
Re: (Score:2)
"Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english?
That they are attempting to influence the results of elections via efforts to change public opinion.
Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"?
Yes.
Is Israel?
Yes.
What about corporations?
Them too
Government agencies?
Technically illegal, but if they're careful they can influence public opinion too.
What's new and different is the level of effort and sophistication Russia is employing, as well as their targets. The other meddlers attempt to co-opt the already powerful which does create a sort of balance via competing lobbying efforts. Russia's going after rank-and-file voters.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought, that every administration, elected body is running Success propaganda close to elected term.
That's where "be careful" comes into play. They can't outright lie or they run afoul of laws against propaganda. So they have to have some basis for what claims they do push into the media, and can "selectively interpret" the data they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they do, as a payback for the 1990s. Doesn't mean that some people don't try really hard to create a new cold war for fun and profit since they can't bomb Iraq anymore.
Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads in an election where Trump and Clinton spent over $1.8 billion [bloomberg.com], or nearly $14 per vote) that random people in other countries posting their opinion about the U.S. election on public forums, Facebook, etc. probably had a greater cumulative influence. The media keeps hyping the Russia angle because they feel they need to discredit the 2016 election. I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a very useful definition of "meddling". By this definition, someone who is an American but can't vote (e.g. has a felony is their past), and expresses a political opinion, is meddling.
every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns
The things the Russians are accused of wouldn't be tolerated in American campaigns. That's actually one of the points of the Mueller investigation - if the Russians were working for the Trump campaign is did do some of the things that have been discussed, then someone is going to jail.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's important to remember that Russia only had to come up with the memes, and fake news. Those articles were snapped right up by the public at large and disseminated across platforms. Our people were more than happy to be part of the problem. And it is important to note that those ads show that they weren't just shilling for a candidate, but pushing any divisive issue they can find, on both sides of the political spectrum. What Russia wants from this is to be able to point at the west and laugh. They
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, I see: you believe Whitehouse press releases.
Re: (Score:2)
If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads ..
Those are some of the early reports that the Republicans/Russians were pushing. The biggest issue wasn't the thousands of dollars of ads, it was the stuff in TFA. Just because campaigns spend money inefficiently, doesn't mean that more efficient methods don't work
Re: (Score:2)
I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election
I don't think you quite understand just how close the 2016 election was, as well as how inexpensive Russian labor is.
10,000 more people in Michigan show up to the polls, and Clinton wins. With turnout so low, there were plenty of people who did not vote who could have been part of that 10k.
That's not to say Russia was entirely responsible - team Clinton could have overwhelmed the Russian efforts in Michigan if they hadn't ignored the state. But that statement doesn't mean the Russian efforts did not exist
Re: (Score:3)
1. Give me context. How many other countries 'meddle' in our election. If fake news and random facebook posts are attempts to 'hack' our election, then there is zero chance that only Russia was involved. Of course they are trying to influence our elections, virtually everyone is. If Saudi Arabia or France
Re: (Score:2)
A bunch of what-if's, followed by blaming the Russians.
If you're going to discuss the effects that any particular group had on an election, you're going to have to discuss what would happen in the absence of those efforts.
Give me context. How many other countries 'meddle' in our election
You'll need some more specifics. Meddle specifically in elections? So far it's Russia. Meddle in our politics in general via lobbying and public relations campaigns? A shitload. That's why we have a lot of laws about things like registering as foreign lobbyist.
Those efforts do spill over into elections, but elections are not themselves th
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. One point that I think gets overlooked is that with most polls predicting a seemingly easy Clinton win, I'd bet a whole lot of Clinton supporters didn't bother to vote. Maybe even 10,000 of them in Michigan.
Trump supporters love to talk about how the "lying" polls tried to keep Trump voters away by claiming he didn't have a chance, but I suspect it hurt Clinton more. I don't think the polls were dishonest. Didn't they all indicate margins of error?
I was fairly sure of a Clinton win too, up until
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they all indicate margins of error?
Yep, though far more important is they all have turnout models. And turnout among Democrats in 2016 was abysmal. Democratic turnout in 2016 was lower than in 2014. That's mostly unheard of - Turnout has always gone up in presidential election years. (Republican turnout was about as expected in 2016).
So it's understandable that the turnout models expected that pattern to continue, as well as an indication of just how terrible the Clinton campaign was at the basics of campaigning.
Re: (Score:3)
If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads in an election where Trump and Clinton spent over $1.8 billion [bloomberg.com], or nearly $14 per vote) that random people in other countries posting their opinion about the U.S. election on public forums, Facebook, etc. probably had a greater cumulative influence. The media keeps hyping the Russia angle because they feel they need to discredit the 2016 election. I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns.
You're focusing on paid advertisements, which is a fraction of the alleged interference. There were also the numerous fake accounts posting both pro and anti-BLM stuff, pushing memes, posting false or partisan articles, and the networks of bots and other fake accounts used to to amplify the visibility of those posts. This is all done without spending a cent on advertising. They probably spent a lot more on wages, developing bots, etc, but those would be hidden (to us) costs. The whole point was to drive
The margins Trump won by (Score:2)
I think it's naive to underestimate the effect Russia had on our elections. Doing so will leave us vulnerable to additional attacks. That said, I'm happy to see Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard pushing policy non-stop. Let the CIA spooks, the FBI and Mueller take care of Russian interf
Re: (Score:3)
(1) You are comparing figures spent in a specific venue to aggregate figures that include the total of all ad spending. That total includes (for example) TV ads which are much more expensive and arguable less effective.
(2) Much of this is getting pushed by free social media accounts, not by ad purchases. Again, these are also more effective than ads, as they are presented as "authentic" and non-paid.
(3) The Internet Research Agency isn't for hire to run anyone's electio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is meddling with your election, you take steps to fix your election.
The point is, the people who usually fix the elections didn't get their result last time around. They're mad as hell, and they're not taking it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
NGO's with a political view to spread looking for funding.
NATO looking for funding.
Clandestine services looking for larger budgets.
Energy interests looking to block the flow of lower cost energy from Russia.
People selling security products and services.
Groups pushing for censorship and control over the internet.
To position funny cartoons, comments as "fake accounts".
People who now want a political test for art, joke
Re: (Score:3)
So, in your world view, the russians were running a million dollar a year troll farm completely for the benefit of a cabal of western businesses and clandestine organizations?
You see how that sounds crazy, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west. Trump, brexit, the far right funded by them in France and Italy and Germany... The goal is to weaken the west by taking advantage of our open and free societies where we try to give everyone a voice.
The internet was supposed to enhance democracy by creating a more level playing field, a meritocracy of ideas. It doesn't work though, people in Russia whose job is to spend all day every day posting carefully designed mess
Re: (Score:2)
Messages and memes are part of the freedom the USA protects for people to share cartoons, art, culture and funny memes.
Freedom of speech. Freedom after speech.
Should a NGO, brand, gov, think tank, academic get to stop funny art? Stop a fun cartoon? Stop a funny meme?
Should Germany get to ban history, art and cartoons?
Should Spain get to block comments?
Should China get to say what Taiwan can publish?
Who gets to say what is going to
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets to say what is going to "enhance democracy"?
Someone has to. Someone has to design the democratic systems we use, decide on the format and the rules.
By the way, demanding that it stays the same and never change because you ad-hom'ed the person proposing he change is just as oppressive and authoritarian as demanding that it does change. Like all things democratic, it's the process and the ability to participate that counts.
Personally I think that an informed population enhances democracy. Disinformation is a direct attack on it. Of course you will now
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why the USA has that great system of allowing publication, comments and freedom of speech.
Who gets to say what is "correctly and prominently attributed" to what standard?
A think tank? NGO? NATO? Germany? China? A person with ideas about a code of conduct? A faith group?
Everyone will have ideas for what is an approved "publication" once any censorship is allowed.
Freedom of speech lets everyone have the ability to publish and enjoy other peoples ideas, cartoon
Re: (Score:2)
Just asking "who?" is not an argument, it's an admission that you don't have a viable plan for a democracy.
No democracy has absolute freedom of speech. Someone always has to decide where the limits are. In the US it was the Supreme Court, e.g. "true threats" and libel laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's your evidence that Russian "funded" any of these right wing groups?
If anyone wants to weaken the West, it's not the right wing groups. Left wing are far more likely to be anti-military, to have a "live and let live" attitude that ensures Russia (and others) can do whatever they want around the world, to allow larges swaths of the country to lower it's quality of life and increase government dependency, open it's borders, abolish ICE, and engage in divisive identity politics and foment guilt and ang
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the meddling in the elections is less about hacking voting machines and creating fake results and more about exploiting social media to distort public opinion.
As long as we have the toxic combination of mendacious for-profit social media companies, it will be trivial to disrupt public opinion. Both platforms make money from this and neither one wants to impose controls that limit user speech or cut ad revenue.
There's no defense against that "exploit" unless Facebook or Twitter is forcef
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned with the way CNN exploits media to distort public opinion. A lot more people pay attention to that garbage than twatter.
Re: (Score:2)
The mainstream media contributes, but these days its kind of a social media amplifier. I'm continually amazed at how much media time is devoted to talking heads promoting and debating what was said on Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no defense against that "exploit"
Mostly I don't think there's any defense against this.
I designed a defense specifically against this.
Let's say you have two political philosophies: Liberal and Conservative. They're diametrically-opposed, and adherents carry them to various degrees.
In a one-vote system or an approval system, you get two parties. Ranked systems can also raise two parties, but there's less need. The two-plus system appears because of damage in these systems: the candidate with the strongest favor--not the majority favor--wins.
With majority-runoff and instant runoff v
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great fix, but it's along the lines of saying we need to rewrite the entire code base to solve the problem. It's technically correct -- I agree 100% percent that the electoral system, especially the primaries, are broken in major ways.
But getting there is extremely difficult -- those two parties have a vested interest in maintaining this system, and will resist any change that undermines it.
Where I live we have switched to ranked choice voting at the municipal level, but we're also a town controll
Re: (Score:2)
But getting there is extremely difficult -- those two parties have a vested interest in maintaining this system, and will resist any change that undermines it.
No they won't. Well, the Republicans will.
The Democrats in power in Baltimore and in Maryland seem to resist change of which they are uncertain. Undermining their party power base is not a large concern; political fall-out--that the change has unintended consequences which make their voters angry--has heavier weight. They're all loss-averse and vulnerable to other typical human cognitive flaws, so they hyperfocus on such things.
Where I live we have switched to ranked choice voting at the municipal level, but we're also a town controlled by Democrats, so switching didn't imperil party control of the elected offices, and only boiled down to making party insiders' choices slightly more at risk.
The Instant Runoff Voting switch actually leaves the election vulnerable t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All of that chaos though mostly comes from being able to dive people into groups. Humans are pretty tribal creatures. "Othering" each other is about as natural as breathing to that end Putnum and others are correct; diversity and inclusion are really not of value to society. They basically reduce our ability to trust one another. Which means rather then a cohesive community we have a population permanently on edge that is easily swayed by the next thing the read online.
You can have Democracy, Multicultu
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian and American people as potential friends -- sure. The respective *governments*? Not so much. Russia especially is a kleptocracy with no tradition of constitutional restraint of power.
Putin does (Score:2)
One of the major problems with Trump and his people is they're not very good at what they do but they don't seem to know or care. As near as anyone can tell Trump got talked into exiting Syria in one phone call
Re: (Score:2)
reddit editor (Score:2)
Fox news? (Score:2, Informative)
You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes, you cannot tell the difference between RT and Fox, and haven't been able to since Obama era. Whatever token thing Facebook does won't change a thing when it comes to the National Enquirer and Fox repeating those fake stories.
Try this, when they're both running commentary shows, flip between Fox and RT. Same talking points, same lies, interchangeable.
Putin never takes over a country by external force, he leverages the traitors inside. That's you Fox and Fr
Re: (Score:3)
The irony is that AC here may well be the Russian operative in the room.
Always remember that Russia is not truly sided with or against any American party, political idea, or institution. What they are against is American and Western strength, and what they are for is anything which sabotages that strength and ability to act. Their goal is to be able to muscle in like they did in Ukraine and Syria and fill the vacuum that results from weakening global contenders.
To that end, they are more than happy to be
Re: (Score:3)
You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes, you cannot tell the difference between RT and Fox, and haven't been able to since Obama era. Whatever token thing Facebook does won't change a thing when it comes to the National Enquirer and Fox repeating those fake stories.
Try this, when they're both running commentary shows, flip between Fox and RT. Same talking points, same lies, interchangeable.
Putin never takes over a country by external force, he leverages the traitors inside. That's you Fox and Friends, Hannity, Pirro....
Hillary was (thankfully) not elected due to her very real deficiencies. No fake news required.
She was worse than a clown. Let that sink in.
You all were so gobsmacked though that you had to come up with some crazy theory as to how she could have possibly lost.
Re:Fox news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Put down the Kool-Aid and walk away.
You sure?
If you wanted to divide, weaken, and destabilize the US you could hardly improve on AOC and Ilhan Omar.
Bullshit, most of the people outraged at Ilhan Omar for pointing out that AIPAC uses money to **GHASP** lobby!!!! ... because it is supposedly anti-semitic to point out that jewish people are not above buying political influence with money like everybody else. However, the people most outraged over Omar's utterances are also the same people who have been deriding George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and other jewish people more liberal than themselves which they don't like for buying political influence with money. Of course that is a steaming pile of hypocrisy since that means that it's OK to sling around anti-Semitic tropes about jews and money if you are, white, Republican and a Trump supporter but not if you are a little brown woman in a Hijab.
Future Stump Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
<Satire>My fellow Americans, this is why we need to eliminate the threat of Democracy. Once only the properly-educated are allowed to choose our great nation's leaders, will we be safe from the threat of Commie election interference! Do you want spies, illegal aliens, and godless heathens casting your vote for you?! This voting test will ensure that No True American will be ineligible to vote.</Satire>
Re: (Score:2)
Closed loops (Score:3)
Trolls use divisive messages (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trolls use divisive messages (Score:5, Informative)
So was Hillary a Russian troll when she declared a quarter of America a "basket of deplorables"?
She was trolling for the same people Mitt Romney was trolling for when he effectively called 47% of Americans a bunch of enitled moochers and his entire Republican audience clapped their approval. Hint: most of those 47% are dirt poor minimum wage workers who don’t pay income taxes because the tax code explicitly exempts them due to them being dirt poor. According to the Republicans these Walmart slaves are simply to lazy to be millionaires.
We don't need this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We don't need this (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the post-truth narrative: everyone lies all the time about everything so believe whatever you want.
It's dangerous because it's basically giving up on democracy and trying to make things better, and instead voting for stupid reasons like pissing off liberals or trying to disrupt the establishment by voting for even more established candidates.
Worst of all it makes people think that their opinions are the most valid and ignore all advice from people who do actually understand the issues. Brexit is basically 25% of the population of the UK experiencing a Dunning-Kruger moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We don't need this (Score:4)
Lots of art, trade, science, culture spread around the world from the UK well before the EU
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That's not an argument for leaving the EU. That's the kind of moronic Rule Britannia bollocks that got us into this mess. Delusions of grandeur that made people think other nations would just be lining up to do great deals with us once free of the EU, when in fact they are all holding back just waiting for the UK to be weak and desperate enough to sign up to anything.
The world has changed, the Empire has gone. The UK is a major player... in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
Politics and politicians were never supposed to be about laying out al
Believe as much of this as you want... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, it's entirely possible that certain Russian groups are having fun screwing with the US. I mean, the US has mucked around in other people's countries for decades, so why not?
That said, it's pretty stupid to blame the Russians for the current, divisive politics in the US. The locals (I'm in Europe, so I'm not involved here)...the locals are doing a bang-up job all by themselves. Decades ago, conservatives didn't much approve of liberal opinions. Downright Puritan, sometimes. Then came the 60's and 70's, and the progressive movement was born and grew. Since roughly the 80's, the progressives have defined whole new levels of intolerance. If you disagree with them, you are not only wrong, you are evil. It's the reaction to this intolerance, not any sort of Russian hacking, that got Trump elected.
The progressives just cannot imagine that half of the country actually disagrees with them. It's so much easier to find some external enemy to blame - it's not that the progs are wrong, or that they've alienated half the country - it's those damned Ruskies.
A few years ago, I thought that the growing backlash might result in some self-examination and a grudging-but-peaceful retreat from this intolerance. Sadly, the idea that the progressives themselves have become the intolerant ones - that differing opinions can legitimately exist - this seems to be beyond their comprehension. Which means that the way forward is likely to be increasingly vicious and even violent.
It ain't the Russians driving this, it's the progressive agenda, and the intolerant people who support it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A few years ago, I thought that the growing backlash might result in some self-examination and a grudging-but-peaceful retreat from this intolerance
Yeah, I thought so, too. I remember when Trump won the NH primary and HuffPo's headline was all caps "NEW HAMPSHIRE GOES RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC!" I thought Trump was going to win since about a month after he started campaigning, and I wondered, "when Trump wins, will the media and the libs on my FaceBook feed reflect and say 'Ohhhh...NH didn't vote for racism and sexism and homophobia...they just want somebody to do something about the opioid crisis that's killing their families and neighbors! Silly us, 6
Should be easy to shutdown then (Score:2)
Since no meaningful public discussion happens on Facebook, it should be an easy balance.
Massive following (Score:2)
Since 1918 (Score:2)
Cross-border social media = election meddling (Score:2)
Don't just talk about it, expose the messages (Score:3)
Just saying the Russians are spreading messages is not helpful, the correct course of action is to figure out the messages and let people know. What people don't realize is that they are playing both sides of the fence, however it seems the news only talks about the right-wing disinfo campaigns. We know for a fact that they do the same thing to galvanize left-wing partisans as well, so why don't we expose that? It would do a lot to ensure people on the right that this isn't just about silencing their views, and would help convince them of the problem. Making it a one-party issue only makes it easier for the trolls to defend.
Myself I became a believer after I encountered a few online who were trying to promote ethnostatism in stilted English while posing as "Americans", in a sports forum of all places. From what I've read stirring up racial animosity seems to be a big part of the plan, including things like drumming up support for BLM while at the same time marshaling forces against it.
Scared guy or evil government? That's the fun! (Score:2)
Anonymity on the Internet is useful to hide from corrupt governments...but they can use anonymity too.
not necessarily inauthentic (Score:2)
Then it's not necessarily inauthentic
So, the "problem" then is that they are "amplifying" true things?
Hahaha from all of us that hate social media (Score:2)
Voice of Russia (Score:2)
Nowadays it's difficult for an user of social media to know where they are readin is coming from, so propaganda is way sthealthier. and really pervasive about it.
Not going to disrupt my vote (Score:2)
How about this for an idea. Look at how the candidates have vote or what core beliefs they lean to. Ignore all the stupid "russian influence" and other garbage and then vote. Don't vote off emotions. Ignore all the stupid.
and shut off Facebook (insert dumb "website" here) and go get some fresh air.
Is the GOP annoyed? (Score:3)
Even posts on Slashdot (Score:3)
So many posts on places even like Slashdot are designed to create vitriol between different schools of thought, political parties, you name it. I don't know how many are pure trolls and how many might just be pissed off at "the other side", but the best way to get past this stuff is to take a step back and evaluate all this stuff pushing our hate buttons. Don't let the trolls control your emotions. Hating everything and everybody is not the best way to go through life. And the headlines of people doing stupid and hate-worthy things do not represent the majority of any subset of people.
If everybody would post a useful/positive post every time they saw a troll post, it would go a long way to getting rid of the unneeded hate bandwagon going around the internet these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just glad they put "meaningful public discussion" inside air-quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the communication was not ok. What the citizens voted on was the Electoral College, whose members then elect the President of the U.S.. Each state of the U.S. gets represented by two electors for the two senators (as in the Senate) and by as many members as it sends to the House. And how those members are elected locally, is determined by the states as they see fit. Most states use a winner-takes-it-all approach.
That by the special arithmetics of the current distribution of votes only
Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? (Score:5, Informative)
If you're not a US citizen then:
There were huge debates at the Constitutional Convention at how best to deal with unequal sized states. (For example large states such as France and Germany in the EU and small states such as Luxembourg and Cyprus.) The solution was to give Electoral Votes close to the size of the state population and then make it a winner take all scenario for each state. The purpose for this was to prevent a candidate from racking up the votes in a large state and thus swamping, and making irrelevant, the wishes of the small state.
Imagine you lived in a union where you joined for common defense; had a common currency, open borders internally, and no internal tariffs - but just about everything else left to the states. Imagine there were huge social and economic differences between these states in which there was little to no common ground.
In the 1780s the main point of contentions were slavery and agriculture v merchant trading policies.
Today we have other issues.
This is why the electoral system helps keep peace. A large part of our current discord comes from trying to make a multi-cultural, continent-wide country have one-size fits all laws. That doesn't work - and it surely doesn't work when it's unequally enforced.
Here's an example we have the crazy scenario where it's close to illegal for one person to transport his legally owned firearms to another (and zero exception for people who make an honest mistake in how they transport these items). Furthermore a resident of a state (say NY) can't buy, own, and keep a firearm in another state. WTF is this? A law that prevents you from legal actions elsewhere. This is like a state making drugs illegal in its state and preventing its citizens from using drugs in another.
The electoral system is there to prevent the large states from stomping on the small states. If not for the electoral college and separation of powers there cannot be a stable union. Take a look at the collapse of the EU.
Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also a key point, at that same Constitutional Convention, it was decided that nothing laid down in that document should not be subject to change by the will of the people, because the founding fathers were wise enough to know they couldn't predict the future, nor lay down a perfect plan to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the people it would protect.
Not exactly (Score:3, Informative)
But they don't teach you that in school because it doesn't fit the desired narrative. Anyway, go read a book called "A People's History of the United States" for starters. We are one hell of a fucked up country.
Re: (Score:2)
Roughly 90% + of the US (the world) was rural before modern industrial farming started in the mid-19thC. According to the US census 5.4 of the US population was urban in 1790. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
First of all urban centers were not large in the modern sense. You couldn't supply the food nor take out the waste. Urban areas were much smaller. NYC, for example, had about 60,000 people in 1800.
Secondly, there weren't any states with numerous
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the electoral system helps keep peace. A large part of our current discord comes from trying to make a multi-cultural, continent-wide country have one-size fits all laws. That doesn't work - and it surely doesn't work when it's unequally enforced.
Here's an example we have the crazy scenario where it's close to illegal for one person to transport his legally owned firearms to another (and zero exception for people who make an honest mistake in how they transport these items).
Are you complaining that we have "one-size fits all laws" or that we don't?
In the case of guns, you might have a valid complaint since the 2nd Amendment should override the 10th. I'm not going to debate the 2nd Amendment here, but clearly the Amendments apply to all states. Isn't that "one-size fits all"? Or do you want the federal government to step in and impose a more specific version of "one-size fits all"?
Do you have any examples of a "one-size fits all" law that the Federal government is trying to
Re: (Score:2)
After Trump won, you say? [wikipedia.org]
It's almost like you're utterly clueless about politics beyond the talking points you've been handed...
Re: (Score:2)
But Trump had the most people at his inauguration ever!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I despise the word "divisive." It's used in a very Orwellian manner.
A: "We want to take your stuff and force you to behave like we want."
B: "Thanks, but no."
A: "There you go spreading your divisive rhetoric again."
Re: (Score:3)
All you need to vote is a driver's license, and illegals have those.
You know how I can tell you've never registered to vote?
The greatest presidential landside in US history was won by 17 million votes. There are, at least, 22 million illegals, and they practically all vote democrat. Do the maths.
You'd think with 22 million cases of voter fraud, the Republican would be able to find at least one case of it. Still waiting on that.
Re: (Score:2)
> You'd think with 22 million cases of voter fraud, the Republican would be able to find at least one case of it. Still waiting on that.
I did not say 22 million cases of voter fraud. I said there were, at least, 22 million illegals living in the USA.
And I think they have found cases of voter fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
>> All you need to vote is a driver's license, and illegals have those.
> You know how I can tell you've never registered to vote?
You know how I can tell you have no idea how sanctuary cities and states work?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more like the *massive* voter fraud in California and Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
Cross reference the things you believe to be facts
That would be lovely if only one (or a small number) of sources were reporting a particular lie.
For example, "Obama was born in Kenya!!" was started by 2 political operatives (one D, one R). Pizzagate appears to be originally from 4chan. "Seth Rich was the DNC leaker" started from one guy.
All of those false stories got reported by larger and larger numbers of outlets, lending credibility to the stories.
If you came in after those stories blew up, you'd find lots of "confirmation" via many sources saying th
Re:It was never Russia. (Score:5, Interesting)
They always demonized republicans, called them racists, ever since LBJ lost the Civil Rights Act battle to them.
Um....you do realize the Civil Rights Act passed, right? With more Democratic votes than Republican votes. [wikipedia.org] And LBJ was instrumental in lobbying FOR the bill.
Also, for those of you as unaware about US politics as this poster, there's this thing called the "Southern Realignment". In 1964, many Southerns were still so pissed off at Lincoln that they refused to join the Republican party. So the political division in the US at the time was not Democrat vs Republican, it was Western Republican + Southern Democrat vs Northern Republican + Western Democrat. Even this is an oversimplification, in that skillful politicians gathered a bloc of other politicians and frequently voted together, regardless of party lines.
The Civil Rights Act was the thing that broke this pattern, because it was so abhorrent to those Southern Democrats that they switched to the Republican party. And as a result of the ensuing party shift, many Northern Republicans became Democrats. This is called the Southern Realignment, and it is one of the major reasons why US politics is where it is today, instead of where it was in the 1930s to 1950s.
This is also the end of the process where the Democratic and Republican parties flipped who was Left and Right. And why you'll hear lots of Republicans falsely talking about how Republicans are all about civil rights - the parties are not in the same political positions as they used to be.