Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Poopymonster]

I knew it!!! Guiliani was in cahoots with democrats all along!!!

Will they call him Jewliani now since he was working for Soros?
/s

[Breccia]

Oh! did you miss this? Claims to be Sydney on Telegram

Calling it now, fake. Who the hell uses Telegram?

[Santti]

Calling it now, fake. Who the hell uses Telegram?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/trump-telegram

Telegram, the privacy-first messaging app founded and led by Russian exile Pavel Durov, seems poised to give those people a new home. According to data analytics company Sensor Tower, by Sunday the app had become the second-most downloaded in the US. On January 12, Telegram claimed that it had attracted 25 million new users in just 72 hours. Great news for growth – the catch is that some of it can be chalked up to a far-right inundation.



https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...ntent-n1254215

At least 15 extremist Telegram channels — akin to chatrooms where the founders have moderating power — have recently been banned, according to a tally by NBC News.

Womp womp.

[Attackrabbit]

Calling it now, fake. Who the hell uses Telegram?

Since Whatsapp updated their privacy stuff and people are abandoning ship both Signal and Telegram are gaining quite a lot of people

[PhaelixWW]

Since Whatsapp updated their privacy stuff and people are abandoning ship both Signal and Telegram are gaining quite a lot of people

The rats must be getting tired of endlessly abandoning ship.

[Santti]

The rats must be getting tired of endlessly abandoning ship.

It must be said though, it is a little bit worrying.

But in an ironic twist, the app is poised to become a new digital haven for conservatives—just as Facebook before it. These right-wing users are drawn to it for the same reasons BLM organizers liked it: It offers the ability to plan and communicate en masse without worrying about the app exerting content-moderation policies or aiding authorities pursuing charges against them. Signal doesn’t appear to have any such policies and doesn’t have access to users’ messages, theoretically making it impossible to cooperate with a police investigation.


And then there is Telegram:


From another part of the world often engulfed in turmoil came Durov and Telegram. As can often happen in the dim, overlapping worlds of Russian business and politics, Durov’s origin story is somewhat hazy. His first company was VKontakte, a Facebook-esque social network he began in 2006. About five years later, he first ran afoul of the Russian government when he refused to silence opposition politicians on VKontakte, according to the Washington Post. Shortly afterward, he fled Russia shortly after police investigated him over a hit-and-run accident, an event he has since described as politically motivated.

Durov envisioned Telegram as the perfect tool for people like those opposition politicians, who wanted to foment change and avoid getting caught doing it. Almost immediately after Telegram launched in 2013, less noble-minded groups recognized its potential, too, and Durov spent part of the decade trying to dislodge ISIS from the platform. (A spokesman for Durov wouldn’t return a request for comment for this story.)


Yikes.

[PhaelixWW]

It must be said though, it is a little bit worrying.

Meh. /shrug

As long as there's an internet, there'll be dark corners thereof.

[Poopymonster]

Meh. /shrug

As long as there's an internet, there'll be dark corners thereof.

And in those corners, you can buy a mail order amputee Russian bride.
Guaranteed half off.

[Felya]

Meh. /shrug

As long as there's an internet, there'll be dark corners thereof.

Not if conservatives demanding free speech have anything to say about it... although... you really can’t get rid of it. The best you can do is police it... even then, the location of the servers and cloud computing make jurisdiction of policing difficult. Internet is awesome...

[shimerra]

And in those corners, you can buy a mail order amputee Russian bride.
Guaranteed half off.

Which half?



Sorry I'll see myself out.

[Breccia]

Pretty sure unless my memory fails me that towards the end there were thinly veiled threats about Europe too.

I think you've misinterpreted him. Several of his posts, including this one on topic, are pretty specific about respecting our allies -- even those we disagree with.

In terms of our non-allies? Well, let's just say there's a reason that, even if you don't want "people like him getting some real power" you'll want them nearby. If nothing else, @Skroe is patient and vindictive to those who fuck the world with a sandpaper condom. Whereever he is, I'm sure he's still laughing at what Russia did to itself as it slowly rusts, burns, withers, and dies of rancid turnip food poisoning.

[Shadowferal]

Porter loses seat on House panel overseeing financial sector

Porter's departure from the Financial Services panel will likely mean fewer headaches for the bank executives, financial regulators and industry advocates that often appear before the panel.

[Benggaul]

This sucks, but she specifically chose to put the Financial Services committee below Oversight and Natural Resources. While I personally think she could have handled all three committees quite well there are a lot of people looking for these seats. Hopefully whoever gets that spot is just as tenacious as she has been.

She may not be on the Committee, but I have no doubt she'll be able to coach some of the other members if they need it.

[kaid]

This sucks, but she specifically chose to put the Financial Services committee below Oversight and Natural Resources. While I personally think she could have handled all three committees quite well there are a lot of people looking for these seats. Hopefully whoever gets that spot is just as tenacious as she has been.

And it was specifically noted to be an exclusive posting. As long as she was given the choice of which she wanted I have no real problem with this. There are a lot of members who want to be on these committes.

[Edge-]

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...ts/6654277002/

Senate Republicans in Texas are disproving the, "Elections have consequences." saying.

Only one day after the Legislature convened with calls for cooperation in a perilous time, the Texas Senate engaged in a partisan scrap late Wednesday over a new rule designed to preserve Republican power.

Last session, when there were 19 Republicans in the Senate, it took the support of 19 senators to allow a floor vote on a bill.

But Democrats flipped one seat in November, and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — a Republican who presides over the Senate — entered the 2021 session with only 18 Republicans behind him.

So for the second time in his six years in office, Patrick pushed to lower the threshold for bringing a bill to the floor, this time to 18 senators, to limit Democratic opportunities to block legislation.

Republicans supported the change, Democrats were opposed, and it passed 18-13 along party lines Wednesday evening.

Set arbitrary rules to maintain power, update arbitrary rules to maintain power after losing a seat.

Seriously, this is like, mustache twisting bad-guy levels of transparently obvious shit.

[cubby]

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...ts/6654277002/

Senate Republicans in Texas are disproving the, "Elections have consequences." saying.

Only one day after the Legislature convened with calls for cooperation in a perilous time, the Texas Senate engaged in a partisan scrap late Wednesday over a new rule designed to preserve Republican power.

Last session, when there were 19 Republicans in the Senate, it took the support of 19 senators to allow a floor vote on a bill.

But Democrats flipped one seat in November, and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — a Republican who presides over the Senate — entered the 2021 session with only 18 Republicans behind him.

So for the second time in his six years in office, Patrick pushed to lower the threshold for bringing a bill to the floor, this time to 18 senators, to limit Democratic opportunities to block legislation.

Republicans supported the change, Democrats were opposed, and it passed 18-13 along party lines Wednesday evening.

Set arbitrary rules to maintain power, update arbitrary rules to maintain power after losing a seat.

Seriously, this is like, mustache twisting bad-guy levels of transparently obvious shit.

This is a prime example of how a minority party (the GOP) has been able to hold onto a majority of power for the last two decades. Their gains in the state senates and houses have had their power exacerbated by changing rules, not just gerrymandering. And it's still working, it's not getting better - it's getting worse.

[SirBeef]

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...ts/6654277002/

Senate Republicans in Texas are disproving the, "Elections have consequences." saying.



Set arbitrary rules to maintain power, update arbitrary rules to maintain power after losing a seat.

Seriously, this is like, mustache twisting bad-guy levels of transparently obvious shit.

So id love someone to show me the both sides of this. Because this is another example where conservative chuds claim Dems are just as bad. If there is even a case of Dems doing this I'd like to see. But were are probably talking a 1:99 ratio of Dem to chud fuckery.

[Breccia]

So id love someone to show me the both sides of this. Because this is another example where conservative chuds claim Dems are just as bad. If there is even a case of Dems doing this I'd like to see. But were are probably talking a 1:99 ratio of Dem to chud fuckery.

The easy, I-did-no-research answer is "they don't need to". Democrats have been gaining popular support for some time now. THey don't need to gerrymander oralter the rules, they're constantly gaining ground.

Go back to 1992. Since 1992, how many times have the Democrats lost the popular vote?

1992 and 1996: Clinton won both times.
2000: Gore famously won the popular vote but lost to W.
2004: W won that one.
2008 and 2012: Obama won both times.
2016: Clinton won the popular vote. Trump claimed otherwise, formed a commission to find the 3-5 million illegal votes, the commission met twice and disbanded after one of them got arrested and one of them died
2020: Biden won more votes than anyone else in history, because that's how population growth works.

The closest you'll see to Democrats changing the rules in recent years is likely their push to end the EC. For reasons made clear above. So, "both sides" is true, as long as you count "Democrats want the Presidential election to favor the person who got the most votes" as "update arbitrary rules".

[Redwyrm]

There should be a "lame duck" provision that prohibits recently minoritied politicians and parties from modifying laws to benefit themselves. Case in point the state (I forget which one) where the congress passed laws limiting the power of the governor once a Democratic candidate won

[Sunseeker]

There should be a "lame duck" provision that prohibits recently minoritied politicians and parties from modifying laws to benefit themselves. Case in point the state (I forget which one) where the congress passed laws limiting the power of the governor once a Democratic candidate won

The best way to do the rule would just to make it require more votes the closer you are to an election.

But you're asking a party who is clearly doing everything they can to stay in power and retain control, to give up power and control.

So....yeah.