#politics
1 messages · Page 9 of 1
well the good intention in the case of the USSR was probably no one else can do this job properly but me.
Then as they where doing the job they started going down the genocide path.
As you said, the Nazi party was ultimately more direct is all.
But that's just speculation with no real facts to support it.
and @valid steeple yeah maybe the kilaks werent rich but I think you might be underestimating how poor the rest of russia was.
Oh side topic if you think the trail of tears was bad read this: https://www.koryogroup.com/blog/koryo-saram-in-central-asia
That's basically my family history.
Ah yeah, narcissism.
wait that's the wrong link it's still good but I meant to send something else
wut, the USSR paved with good intentions?
hmmm.....
I would say it's possible, but that's basically what all politicians want you to believe.
Yeha and the US was made via a revolution too
yes, because the US was not represented, and only had one
russia had two because one made it into a republic democracy
A revolution standing on its own is not good or bad, and just because the outcome is good does not mean those in the revolution were good or did good things, same for if the outcome is bad.
the communisted hated it, and due to not having enough stability, the communists took over
and it was bloodshed
Most revolutions do involve bloodshed yes.
in all reality, the provisional government during 1917 russia was pretty much on a tight rope
while they removed the czar, they still had a war
and the war wasnt popular,
Again I did say those statements are not based on any facts just my opinion. However you still haven't provided anything to convince me that my idea is false or true.
I actually forgot about this
Do you want me to read the whole page?
im reading it at the moment, along with the russian famine of 1921
Do you want me to read it with you then or do you want to pick a part of that article?
sure, by all means, better read it than have me cherry pick
mkay but then I don't know what point your trying to make.
the communists werent kind hearted as many make it out to believe
I mean, the white army wasnt great, but the communists tried to extract even more out of workers during this war
I'm confused where does it say that I'm up to the point of the formation of the red army.
uh, let me go check
War Communism saved the Soviet government during the Civil War, but much of the Russian economy had ground to a standstill. The peasants responded to requisitions by refusing to till the land. By 1921 cultivated land had shrunk to 62% of the pre-war area, and the harvest yield was only about 37% of normal. The number of horses declined from 35 million in 1916 to 24 million in 1920 and cattle from 58 to 37 million. The exchange rate with the US dollar declined from two rubles in 1914 to 1,200 in 1920.
War Communism, in the history of the Soviet Union, economic policy applied by the Bolsheviks during the period of the Russian Civil War (1918–20). The policy’s chief features were the expropriation of private business, the nationalization of industry, and the forced requisitio...
as wikipedia points out in a very nice list: ```
- Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management
- State control of foreign trade
- Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden
- Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes
- Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population
- Rationing of food and most commodities, with centralized distribution in urban centers
- Private enterprise banned
- Military-style control of the railways
so while the red army was having its little war with the white army and other factions, they were also enforcing their decrees upon the civilians
oh boy, dont forget this
Bruh that's a few years in
defending communism
it was never paved with good intentions... it was a power grab by a upper middle class person
ie, lenin
the only "good" intention was to replace one authoritarian ruler with another
even that was barely "good"
also from what it appears to be, the bolsheviks split off from the menshevik faction due to their more radical ideas
Dude you can't prove inentions based on large groups. You need to read a personal diary of a leader or something along those lines. So my opinion still stand that they probably had good intentions, they probably wanted to change stuff for the best.
At least in the begining.
In January 1905, the Bloody Sunday massacre of protesters in St. Petersburg sparked a spate of civil unrest in the Russian Empire known as the Revolution of 1905.[78] Lenin urged Bolsheviks to take a greater role in the events, encouraging violent insurrection.
You mean to say a revolution was bloody? woah /s
and russia continued to bleed long after the formation of the union
russia that had a faction that was my way or the highway, and by highway, im paving you 6 feet under it
well, not you, but the wording to opposing factions
thats really a huge difference between the US when it came to its revolution compared to the soviets. the US allowed each state, at the time, to be represented, and all of them, sharing similar ideals, had differences in how the US were to be run
kind of why we had slavery during the first century...
if it makes the left go rabid, then go ahead
I mean, he's not said it before so. Unlikely.
Life is about more than trolling the left
"look, the city is on fire, hah, that got'em!"
Suuure did, hoss.
something something cutting noses to spite faces
boy I wish that were an exaggeration or strawman, but the sheer amount of "I don't care what happens as long as everyone else gets upset" is, in itself, infuriating
actually, usually whatever trump says the left on twitter goes nuts
this is where I usually say "yeah, that's people for you"
but, uhh.. Have you seen Trump's Twitter?
I have
and?
next tweet is normal enough, next is talking about China "pillaging"
next is saying lunatics will run gov't if Biden is elected, and implying nobody will be safe
there's so much fearmongering, here
campaigning against someone is one thing
but lord have mercy
and... so what? seen it before and it happens again
my point is that, even if "usually whatever trump says the left on twitter goes nuts", I don't entirely disagree with that
it's just not a great place to browse
no, its not
it's demoralizing
if it isnt about hollywood, or artists rants, its politics
fear tactics, pathos, has never been something I agree with in any argument
no, I do not like how polticians use it to their advantage
but its been an issue for years
it works
as it attempts to bring fear and anxiety in a person
logically, it makes sense to bring a sense of fear towards the other party
you remember fear/anxiety more than upbeat messages
I've seen it used, yes. Not to this extent by one single politician, though. Maybe before my time.
even so, doesn't make it right
people have a right to be upset at upsetting things
regardless of who does it
or who has done it before
a majority of Trump's Twitter feed is upsetting, ergo upset people
eh, we dont get what we want, even the romans/greeks did negative slandering towards the opposite party
missing the point
though, I think the romans might have been worse
doesn't matter who did it
besides what was pinned, I dont see much negative
I scrolled down the feed
still scrolling
still pinned, though
people still see it
christing hell, the tweet right below all the images is, once again, about "Biden will take your guns and ban American Energy"
and the continuation about destroying suburbs, removing vaccines..
the one right below that, "I will help, Biden will DESTROY the Country"
it never ends
so. Much. Fear.
that feed is a dark place not worth reading
ban american energy
I'm guessing that that's the fossil fuel stuff
not a clue
So, it's technically not wrong
not the important part, anyway
not the argument I was making
that's a discussion for later, when I actually catch up on the politics before voting
biden has also been making the same statements, it's gross but it's what politics is these days
God forbid they actually focus on policy
I actually checked Biden's Twitter feed for this exact thing when @dusky raft mentioned it
there's a bit there, yeah. I still disagree with it. Bad tactics.
but I still get why a lot of people are upset at a majority of Trump's feed and not Biden's
or, really, just Trump's feed in general
forgetting Biden
biden doesnt appear as active as trumps
yeah, I wanted to mention that every single tweet I mentioned was posted in the last hour, except the pinned one
also trump appears to have more traffic anyways
does biden know he has a twitter?
that's a lot of fear in a single hour
yeah, I dont think biden controls his account
he doesnt seem tech savvy to use it
maybe give someone the phone to send the message?
his Twitter looks very safe
would guess it's likely not him running it
campaign manager
wouldnt shock me
eh, still a platform for him to speak on
I'll hold him to whatever he puts on it just the same
we should really get people who arent 70-80 to hold higher powers of government...
I've seen accusations of flip-flopping in previous elections, and that's usually due to people pikachu-facing the fact that politicians can change their mind about a subject
though sometimes it's warranted
I dont trust biden to be president, mainly since he did squat for 40 someodd years to improve the US
better than.. Well, this.
plus his more racist past...
ignoring Trump's blatant racism
what racism?
voter id?
no, first-past-the-post voting
inevitably leads to a two-party system where the majority of voters feel they didn't get what they wanted
welcome to the more conservative past of the US
that's not a partisan issue
oh, I mean how both parties were more on the right leaning spectrum
I blame no particular party for the voting system. It makes sense until you draw it out and relize the issues
it's the easiest voting system to imagine, and seems fair on the surface
oh, with the whole gerrymandering bullshit, counting undocumented people as a voting population
though the founding fathers didn't trust the common people to vote, hence electoral college, but that's a different issue
that's.. Not gerrymandering.
also fraudulent votes aren't nearly as big an issue as they're made to be
they're almost a non-issue entirely
so fuck verification?
the risk-reward is way off
I see your strawman and raise you a "that's not what I said"
I do think there does need to be a stronger sense of verification when it comes to voting.
along with some voting standard guidelines
current controls, left as-is, stand reasonably well. We can always do better, yes, but there's more issues that come up with that sort of solution that don't work well in practice
what issues?
fraudulent voting, as it stands right now, is almost a non-issue
the question becomes "how do you verify voters?"
which is a whole can of worms itself
with a id system enforced via the state/federal?
federal has realid
or whatever its called
the reason we have social security cards isn't as an identifier or for verification. It was made that way because that's the closest we have to an ID
because when we split as a country, we said "fuck everything British, ESPECIALLY ID systems"
it was never meant to be an ID based system
nothing ties you to SS other than a card
eventually each state created IDs, but there's no federal/country ID
That tea did nothing wrong
the tea was a way to get people riled up over issues that didn't exist
so, yeah, poor tea 😦
it was due to a tea tax
right, but the tax didn't actually affect the average citizen
people didn't care until they suddenly did
well, it was multiple taxes on top of each other,
also it wasn't entirely about taxes
though, considering at the time what happened in the america's, along with finicial issues the UK at the time had,
taxes had to be raised
politics is hard, and history is harder, but here's a nice quote that sums up why it happened:
On this evening, Dec. 16, in 1773, dozens of colonists boarded three ships laden with East India Company tea and dumped the entire stock — 45 tons of tea, worth roughly $1 million in today’s economy — into the harbor to protest Parliament’s recent Tea Act. The act, however, didn’t increase taxes: It lowered the price of tea by allowing the struggling East India Company to sell directly to colonists without first stopping in England. This cut out colonial middlemen and essentially gave the company a monopoly on tea sales.
So, although organizers of the original tea party echoed the popular refrain of “No taxation without representation,” many were motivated by a personal interest that continues to motivate 241 years later: profit. Boston’s wealthy merchants, some of whom made a fortune smuggling Dutch tea, stood to lose big when the Tea Act was passed. John Hancock, one of the main agitators behind the tea party, was among them.
"No taxation without representation" was what people were told
gets people riled up
wikipedia?
no, Time
oh, time...
Time was one source that reported it
I do want to know the source they got that from
but there's verification across publications
where the fuck are the sources?
in the links
so don't entirely blame regular folk for that @mystic ermine 😛
that was economics
ye, east india company
no one economic system is perfect, and no country in the world runs a pure system anyway
the U.S., for example, has checks and balances to limit the power of companies
when a company actually owned a nation state
or the closest to
I didnt know it was the east india company's ship
they dont tell people that
rings nicer when you can think that "the British were coming!" is something someone would have actually said and that Columbus sailed the seas to find America
- During that time everyone in America was British, so saying "the British are coming" would have been pointless
- That crier never made it to the cities he was supposed to go to anyway
- Columbus bad man
and many more stories we tell ourselves at night that aren't true!
with columbus, welcome to 1400/1500's european mentality
history is complicated, as it turns out
considering the spanish, they were so blinded by gold that they fell for traps set by the natives in south america
the Spanish were trying to race to keep up with the British exapansion
they were worried about being overtaken
gold reserves were running quite dry, and Columbus offered a solution. It was both deparation and because they just wanted to get rid of the man
he was pretty annoying
spanish: "fuck it, this guy gets three ships and we dont see him for a few months, if again"
yeah, exactly
they needed to beat the British to spices
everything was spices
they really needed a way to beat the British to spices. Badly.
and they decided to send the crazy man with a death wish (at the time) in hopes that they get rid of him or he comes back with something extremely useful
to his credit, Columbus absolutely found boatloads of gold
gold, platinum, and silver, but the spanish said fuck platinum
considering the rumor of the golden city, it drove the spanish crazy for gold
though, they did find a lake full of gold
everything turned out alright in the end
except for the natives
definitely not for the natives
they continue to get shafted even today
that one's on us right now
still haven't given them any of the land they own back
the land we promised they would have
yeah, the US did meddle with central/south america because we love bananas
well thats the problem, with current state governments established, carving states up into actual mini native nations may be an issue
unless your saying not to make them nations but give them ownership of the land back
that's the only way we managed to ratify the constitution
I mean, the gov't kinda promised the natives they would give the land back
still haven't done it
yeah, it's complicated
that would mean a lot of work and fighting
but on the other hand, it was promised
in the end, its either better to pay it off and make certain lands protected or expect huge chunks of the US to break off
politics is wonderful
it's better for us to do that
not for the natives
still fucking them over, even in 2020
but I dont think there is huge groups of natives litterally looking to break from the US, unless california counts
I don't think so either, but even recently there was some demolition work on a gravesite
it's not really about what they want to do after so much as it's about what they were promised
oh yeah, isnt that infringement on religion?
I honestly think there should be some payment in form of either land or cash/bonds to people who held the land in the past, and protect religious and sacred sites
so, the gov't did offer a settlement to some tribes a while back to comensate for taking the land and not giving it back
it was refused, with them stating that they just want their land back
I think the idea is undoing what was done, or not doing it in the first place for future
the problem with giving land back is that the current owners would be SOL
I mean, I can't disagree with their sentiment
if the land is privately owned
current owners on land that wasn't theirs to own in the first place, sure
much like a squatter owns the house they're squatting in
the problem is that current land owners either dont know or inherited land claimed by the government
and the US is powerless to take property without compensation and reason
also everything we own can be repossessed, including land. Land especially is less ownership and more an agreement
none of us own anything, really
you own the right to use the land to how you see fit, as long as it meets zoning requirements
the logistics of giving land back would be a nightmare for the gov't, yeah
but again, that's "us"-oriented thinking
sure would suck for us, wouldn't it?
sure would be easier for us if we didn't have to, wouldn't it?
or just ignored the problem entirely
which is what caused this whole issue in the first place
and again, still shafting the natives even in 2020 due to this line of thinking
I mean, I dont see a simple solution that wont piss of one side
unless they want to accept the people living on the land to be part of their nation
I personally think we owe it to them to try and figure it out
every other "solution" is easy for us
hm, maybe give ownership of the land to the natives, and remove the ability to inherit the land for non native people
that would be an over time thing
its how national parks and whatnot operate where people do live on the land
though if it were that simple I'm sure it would have been done. Wonder what the problem with that is.
the government sets a certain amount of time and removes the ability to inherit land
It's a tough one due to the amount of time passed.
possibly historical landmarks is one issue with that
though, by doing that, they may violate civil rights laws
ahh, yeah, uh.. Mt. Rushmore. Yeah that would be a tricky one.
definitely some landmarks and historical sites that would need to be figured out
but yeah, its really a catch 22
I still think that we dug our own graves on this one and it's up to us to dig ourselves back out
nothing happened that we didn't do
not sure what the best solution is
again, maybe a government lease to ease in a transfer
people are permitted to keep their property, but children cant inherit the land unless the natives allow it
but I didn't go to school to study politics, zoning, economics, or history so I'm out on figuring this all out unless it comes to cyber security
It's probably an unpopular opinion but those who wish to remain part of the USA with voting rights etc. I think giving them a leg up is in order, those who wish for their own nation help them form one.
if they dont want to be involved at all with the US, and break off, they should be stripped of voting rights.
it shouldnt stop them from forming deals, but otherwise, they stay out of politics
Of course, being part of the USA has its benefits, one of them is voting.
and being part of a larger economy
Yeah.
and not being landlocked
Well I think if the USA was to help them form a nation of their own with land inside the US, it would be prudent to give them free access to the ocean in some form.
I see native nations being more like a national park, protected by the US government, though, unlike a national park, it doesnt stop people who are on the land to use it
I wonder what they want
The problem is precisely that.
far as I know, it's really just "their land back"
There are many of them, they're not all going to want the same thing.
But that ship has sailed, many areas were sold (for a fraction of what it's worth today or not) to settlers.
Many others are "owned" by other citizens of the USA.
wonder if any major cities are in land owned by the native population
I believe many of the major cities used to be, several were sold to settlers.
I'm hesitant to say "Indians" because that tends to offend, but also "Native Americans" is incorrect because(most) native people actually prefer "Indian" anyway
I'm sure some were bought with blood as well.
to be fair, the only people really offended by the naming is not the same people being named
white knights and so forth
Well.. I would say it's a matter of convenience of speech the way in which you refer them, the intent is what matters.
agreed
I know some would argue against that and call me insensitive.. but if I am asked to use a different term by an individual in a conversation I'd oblige.
that's kinda the idea I think
in this day and age, you cant go around and not offend someone
though usually people just offend white people
again, the whole white knight narrative
Lol, German poll, about fear, 53% fear that the world has become a more dangerous place because trump
Only one third worries that they or a close relative gets infected with covid
The world is gonna get a lot safer once germ*n people are replaced
Yeah I think he's actually joking this time. Scratch that I hope he's joking this time.
Do I... ping mods on that one?
Surely calling for the removal of an entire country and its people would be against some guidelines right?
Not their removal lol
once germ*n people are replaced
But they are doing a good enough job at diversifying their population
When you have too many white people left alone with themselves, the start brewing colonisizer ideas
We should figure out which rateo of white to bame gets the country to focus more on social issues rather than imperialism
They're full of.... interesting.... ideas.
This is the type of thinking that leads to genocide.
No, putting too many white people togheder with no supervision leads to genocide
Historically speaking
Yeah that's correlation does not mean causation, plus it's not even correlated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll
This list of genocides by death toll includes estimates of all deaths which were directly or indirectly caused by genocide, as it is defined by the UN Convention. It excludes other mass killings, which are variously called mass murder, crimes against humanity, politicide, clas...
Most of those are still by white people?
Never said they wouldn't do it to other whites, they certainly do
We don't tolerate racism of any form here, as to our community guidelines
That includes racism against Germans or other beer drinking nations
🍻
How is calling for an increase in minorities racism
🙄
The image is tongue in cheek
I am not having this discussion, drop it
Thank you.
I'll drink to that
🍺
sentiment analysis of Trump's and Biden's Twitter posts would be a fun side-project
and not too difficult
I'll work on that when I get off work today
might be able to knock it out in a night
How about just not use twitter?
conversation last night reminded me that Twitter exists
then I just got to thinking about it
I try to avoid social media since it can be so toxic
I did sentiment analysis of trump’s tweets a few years ago for a uni project. Could pull it out and try it on biden’s too 👀
Uhh I don’t recall, I’ll try finding it
There's a few different types with different results, yeah
Looks like Stanford’s NLP lib
hm
was reading further into lenin's works, and appears this guy also wanted to abolish police in russia... and then replaced it with his own
I did sentiment analysis of trump’s tweets a few years ago for a uni project. Could pull it out and try it on biden’s too 👀
@smoky hedge Please share if you find it.
@smoky hedge Stanford NLP uses VADER iirc
not sure what Huginn uses, but I'm using that
too late for me to knock it out tonight, but worth adding to a Grafana dashboard for shits and giggles
This is only the beginning. Get ready to see a lot more of this, and remember whom is to blame. https://t.co/BMXlkn8E6i
4119
14616
🤦♂️
lol what?
some racist tries to blame the behavior of one on a large group of ppl 🤷
I clicked on his profile earlier, classic right wing extremist
racism, homophobia, etc
I mean, I was more interested in the video. like what is going on there?
lol wait
ignoring the content of the tweet
does it really say "german law" on all twitter reports?
thats fucking hilarrious
how did we manage to enforce our laws world wide? 😂
is the account from germany?
no, US
thankfully the account has been temp banned later
over the same tweet
no clue how the first report didnt went thru
well hold on... is that tweet threatening or harassing anyone of those groups listed?
its threatening pedophiles, which isn't based on race, ethnicity, national origin, etc.
Sexual orientation I guess?
threatening anyone like that is bannable, lol
but its not... it mentions transgender, but the tweet isn't directed at that group
why? it says nothing negative (or really anything) about it
you don't see how "transgender normalization" is transphobic?
people are calling for the normalization of stuff all the time
doesn't normalized just means become a normal part of society? isn't that was has happened over however many years?
it has an obvious negative connotation in that tweet
🤷 I guess I just don't see it.
I really do not like how these people are attempting to push pedophilia and make it part of the lgbt community
its a minority of people trying to get it pushed, but its just disgusting how these people believe that exploitation of minors should be normalized
while I do not want to defend pedophiles, there is a difference between (sexually) abusing childs and pedophilia
do you mean in the sense that one is an action, where pedophilia is just "being sexually attracted"
under the conservative eye, both are the same thing
Exactly machine, and imo it should be treated completely different. some people actually take therapy and stuff to get away from that attraction, and I fully respect that and it is a positive thing, that shouldn't be put together with actual child abusers
I think when people say pedophilia, they mean people who abuse children. not just the thought of being sexually attracted. US doesn't have thought police (yet 🙂 )
yeah, in the US, its treated as someone who sexually abuses minors
I just think most people realize that there is a difference or dont care
but that just gets into semantics really. If most people mean, people who abuse minors, then thats what the word represents.
pedophilia is a disorder, child sexual abuse a crime
some child sexual abuse offenders are pedophiles, but not all
some pedophiles molest children, but not all
shall I paint a venn diagram?
xD
Venn diagrams with Mini
lol mini, I understand that. I was saying that people use the word pedophiles informally to refer to people who act on their condition
I wish ppl would educate themselves on an issue before talking about it
but nowadays everybody is an expert
Thats why it is so fun to talk with people about LGBTQ+ or esp. trans issues lol
you think people don't use that word as a descriptor for people who abuse children?
No one knows what they are talking about but everyone has an opinion
Yes, wrongfully so Machine.
I didn't comment on its rightfullness or wrongfullness, just that it happens. and then mini responds with that
I didn't meant to target you with that
I mean, in their defense, everyone expects you to have an opinion as well, so even if you haven't done any research in an area you suddenly need to have an opinion on that.
you presented a fact, and I expressed my feelings about that fact
oh ok, my b
I mean, in their defense, everyone expects you to have an opinion as well, so even if you haven't done any research in an area you suddenly need to have an opinion on that.
Yes, because most people have issues with saying "sorry, I'm not educated enough about that topic to form a specific opinion", which is what you should do
Society doesn't expect that response from you, even if it's a better response. People play it safe and come up with an uneducated opinion on the fly. That doesn't make it correct, but that does explain why that is done.
And it's not like you always can or want to give such a response.
(NSFW)
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/907463873183326208
meanwhile american politicians 🙂
E.g., when I vote for a political party during an election, I take an online test to see which party best aligns with my views. Do I have an educated opinion on all questions that are asked? No; I haven't done research in the economic situation of the state, neighbouring countries and the EU, or the implications of actions taken by us on immigrants or others, etc., yet I still need to answer it with something. And giving "neutral" on everything gives you pretty much zero results.
Well, of course you almost always form an opinion on topics in your head, but you don't have to blast them out in public
But then what am I going to use Twitter for? /s
Exactly 😄
free palestine reeee
Engaging Twitter TERFs is always a terrible idea lol
Got me stuck having to explain biology to people
oh no 😦
local elections in my city going on today
it looks like almost every other voter voted by mail
~800k allowed to vote, on firday they had ~200k mail votes, now that polling station closed, city says 50% of ppl voted
thats gonna be a long night for some ppl, I hope they prepared for so much mail votings
its gonna be interesting here in the US. in past elections, large chunks of mail in ballots have been thrown out for technicalities. And by large chunks, I mean single digit percentages, which is very significant
what kind of technicalities?
I mean, its a "bit" complicated
cause you got two envelopes, the inner one with your vote, and the outer one with the registration
but like, even if you are doing this for the first time, its all clearly labled and there are good instructions
(at least here)
I mean the worst thing that's going to happen with the US's mail voting system is the USPS
I just wish the software they use to submit votes was open source
like after counting, they submit votes to a central location
so that you can make fancy graphs and shit
(of course the actual result is carried physically)
its just a bootstrap interface, but still, better than having to rely on some news site
and its live
like 1/4th of results have been counted right now, and thats visualized
signatures don't match, missing/late postmaks
there is 0 security when it comes to mail in ballots. and USPS has always been a clusterfuck
hell, I dont know if my tax returns were lost in the mail
well, cause its underfunded
In michigan, in the democratic primary, 10,694 votes were disqualified.
and that is in a primary, when way less people vote
trump only won michigan by 10,704 in 2016
so its numbers like that, which will make this election very complicated most likely
I dont trust the mail in ballot nonsense thats being pushed
unless someone wins by such a huge margin on election night, itll probably go on for weeks if not months after
nevermind how thinktanks are saying that biden will win weeks after the election as ballots "trickle in"
in the US, states control the elections
that makes it rather easy, lol
yeah, its not a single election
afaik, constitution is rather clear on that. federal gov doesn't control how they work
so its up to the states to decide, and they are all different
the federal government just tells when its time for election
some have to arrive by the day, some have to be postmarked by the day, etc
and mail in ballots are always counted after election day
cause it takes longer
and they can take weeks, as long as its postmarked
some states can begin counting mail in ballots before hand, but some can't
I just wish the software they use to submit votes was open source
@near glen online voting or over the internet voting is a bad idea and always has been a bad idea
nononno
I don't think that's what he meant?
Oh I misunderstood then lol
its just a system to get the counted votes from the counters to the general public quickly
software should only be used to count ballots, not hold them or be online
I think it should be something like a money counter that checks what is selected
put the ballot into a machine, it reads what was put down
well in the US, they most certainly don't wait until all votes are counted for the news networks to call the race
each network has a whole team of statiticians, and experts predicting results
so that is how the general public gets the results
and this system backs the statistics up with real data
you can see what district voted how
and then shove that into your formulars to predict the others
yes, that is offered by various news sites, they have their own interactive maps
in addition to their predictions
thats what im saying, the news networks display that real data
idk how they get it, but I imagine it has to be free
so why shouldnt the general public get that too?
im sure they can
but its not nicely formatted, or easily readable
so I just look at nyt.com or something
I swear, if I see my local county go blue after all ballots are tallied up, thats going to be insane. The sheer amount of trump/pence signs on all the major roadways and yards tell otherwise.
which is an issue
of course, I dont know what people are going to vote for
because elections are won by votes, lol
but this is pretty much trump country where I live
could be a vocal minority
no not really, id rather private companies get the raw data, and then choose how to display it, than the federal gov doing it
hell yes I do. lol
I always know what private companies motivations are
they want to make money
I trust private companies that dont mooch on the government to bail them out or make deals
and that will always be the case
if the gov displayed the data, they'd get accused of bias in some way. well his name was listed first, wrong color for something etc.
thats all easily solvable
plus, it wouldn't be the federal gov displaying it
each state would have its own system
name list order is by order of submissions
and so id need to go to 50 places to see results
yeah, thats what I dont like, I think gov should pay companies to make open source software and then use that everywhere
Lol private companies have no business near election results
they don't calculate them jroy
again, its not binding, just data to visualize and play with
JRoy, I was saying private companies display the data they get from the states regarding votes counted
each network has a whole team of statiticians, and experts predicting results
Hillary's gonna win this time!!
thats different from polling tho.
But AP has a service for that yeah
your dum election system makes polling kinda useless
yeah
it makes national polling useless
NaPoVoInterCo ftw!!!
I will only believe that if that actually gets put into effect
because the last state just doesnt want to do it
the early ones can enter without immediate consequences
It doesn't need all states which is the great part
But yeah the last state will be the hardest
nobody will join if only one is missing
Well, it just has to be good timing
After this election we'll probably see more states signing it
that hasn't been proved legal yet tho right?
It's theoretically legal
Compact Clause of the constitution says
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State
But it will most definitely get challenged in supreme court
And that's open to interpretation
I mean... its got the word conpact in its name tho right?
Multiple legal scholars at big schools say NaPoVoInterCo is fine
but yeah, itll go to courts for sure
I dont think thats going to be legal in any way as states are entering a compact to override the electoral system in favor of popular vote
I mean... im looking at two legal scholars who say its not fine. you can find lawyers to say anything. But the courts will decide
Yeah it doesn't really matter what people say, up to courts
and 3/4 of the state legislatures
state legislatures = parliament in a state?
yeah, essentially
It would require a constitution amendment
oh dang we talkin bout electoral college
I'd argue it's good to be that complicated
Rarely should there be changes to the constitution since it's so powerful
so the process can be started one of two ways
A convention is called if 2/3 of both houses approve language for an amendment OR 2/3 of state legislatures approve language for one
THEN
The amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
and yes, it 100% should be this hard
here, a change to the consitution just requires 2/3 of the federal parliament I think
lemme check that
what country u in mini
🇩🇪 ❤️
ah 2/3 of federal parliament, plus 2/3 of bundesrat, the parliament with representatives of the states
bundesrat would be translated to federal council
parliament was a bad word
and we also don't make amendments, we just change the text
i love how in europe yall got like 20+ parties in any country
but here in 🇺🇸 it's just 2
sadly not that good here
how many parties in germany?
in the federal parliment with have 6 right now
dayum
im from 🇺🇾 ... we had 3 party system until 2 of the parties merged for the last election (and won rofl)
wdym a 5% barrier?
well, our gov is a coalition of our two largest party right now
5% of votes i assume to get in
but the second largest is loosing hard right now, the greens will be our second largest party and will form a coalition with the largest, the conversates, next year for the election
ouch
and yes, your party needs 5% of votes to be able to get seats in parliament
not ouch, its good that we finally see some change here, lol
the junior partner in this coalition did nothing, so we basically are ruled by conversates for like 15 years?
or longer
like, merkel is in office since 2005
seriously? whats the term limit :I
o i c
or is it, wait
term length is 4 years and she has been reelected 3 times
like, merkel had 6 different vice chancellors 😂
is the vice position almost purely symbolical? or do they have any duties
they are a minister
only 2 things the US vice president actually has to do
the symbolical is our president
you prolly never heard of him
hes cool tho
hes head of state
right yeah, thats what I figured.
official name is Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany
why is the word federal in there twice smh
because we are a federation, god dammit!
we got a different president too, the president of the bundestag
I guess speaker of the federal parliament in your terms
and there is no term limit for merkel
she just doesnt wanna do it anymore
yeah, we have a speaker of the house for the House of Reps (3rd in line to pres)
and we have a President of the Senate (who is the vice president in reality)
also have a President pro tempore of the Senate (who is president of the senate when the vice president isnt there)
Oh heck no I'm not trusting private companies to do it. Actually maybe? Idk I'll have to think about it....
to do what?
Handle votes
I dont think anyone was saying that
I was saying private companies take the results that states provide, and display it to the public
im saying in general I dont trust the government to be compentant in their jobs
they shouldnt be as large as what we see today
or as conservative america says, fuck off, we do what we want.
I dont trust the government to be compentant in their jobs
But do you trust private industry to be? I always find it strange when the same people who say the government can't do their jobs support industry, where you'll also find incompetent people, taking over government work. With the government doing the work you don't have money lost to profit, at the least.
I trust that private industry's movtives aren't changing anytime soon. And their motive is to make money. And to do that, they have to sell a product that people want.
So I guess putting it a better way, I trust the free market (with limited regulation from gov).
saying I trust private companies, might be too easily mis interpreted, so ill change it to say I trust the free market.
And governements are like the opposite of that. If there is a failing gov program, it gets more money. In the free market, if something is failing, its cut out.
But isn't the point of a government program to support the people in something you don't want getting cut out?
As for trusting the market, how has that worked out for healthcare in the US? I don't feel too trusting just from that.
oh for sure, I'm not saying that the government shouldnt be spending money on programs to support people. Just that in government, often the solution is to just spend more money on something. That is the go-to. And that isn't the case in private industry. There are times where, yes, more money is needed. Just in government, they aren't spending their own money, they are spending other peoples money whereas in private industry, they are spending their own money, where if whatever program they are funding doesnt work out, it could seriously affect the future of that company
I think one has a greater appreciation of the risks and consequences of spending money on one thing vs. another when its their own money, their own hide on the line. That isn't really possible in government, cause its never your money. Its always other peoples
Couldn't you resolve that with legally mandated oversight and transparent reporting to the people of said oversight?
depends on the person appointed to said position
they can report
but they can muck up the data either to look good or hide something
sure, and embezzlement is a thing in companies.
and siphoning money in a company is quicker to find, unless your the president thats doing it, then its a death wish on the company
embezzlement is a thing that will happen where ever there are large sums of money floating around. Fraud too. For years and years after the trillion dollar stimulus relief the gov provided, there will be fraud lawsuits going on. With so much money, its pretty much impossible to avoid.
and the whole "your money" thing applies to embezzlement too. companies will have more of an incentive to find it in themselves (unless its so widespread) because its their money.
yeah, private companies/organizations have an incentive to find their fincial leak and plug it fast, and its usually quick. Government doesnt have an incentive to plug holes and hence why some people in government can make huge profits from doing so
Its why I do not like big business, as big business is tied in with government
why be honest in your business practice when you can game the system by pushing regulations/laws that may affect you in the short term, but doesnt sink you
So as part of the special investigation (Russia probe), the investigators were meant to hand over their phones at the end. Dozens of them were handed over wiped, including that of Lisa Page, who conspired with Peter Strzok during the Flynn investigation, and had been removed from the special investigation by Mueller due to her conflict (scathing emails between her and Strzok about DJ Trump).
yeah i doubt biden would be more receptive
but he'd also be a dumbass not to go on
joe's audience would respect biden a lot more if he did it
yeah, probably
Joe would be a better than the last moderators for the presidential debate
I also think he'd be stupid not to accept
I think that everyone knows by now how a debate will go for Biden
So he will do more damage by not showing backbone than the humiliation everyone knows is going to happen
I think isolating them in a room, live on TV would be best to bring out their goals
and I think rogan wasnt originally pro trump?
hes supported republicans in the past, supported bernie and tulsi, and is not affiliated with either party
hes perfect for moderation
and I support the notion of no fact checkers, just undoctored live footage
ugh man. live fact checkers would be a disaster
it would hold up the debates and provide a biased look
and I think rogan wasnt originally pro trump?
he was never happy about trump
nevermind each media outlet would cram their own fact checker in there
yeah, hes more moderate left than far left
im not sure hes far left. he gtf outa california
yeah, itll get to a point where the big tech companies will be gone
apple literally just built their massive spaceship in silicon valley, so they might stay around a little longer
but if cities try putting employee taxes like they tried for amazon, itll just speed things up
I dont think california is going to be willing to get rid of their cash cows
well whether or not they are willing doesnt really matter
yeah, however california is known to fight to keep people in and their money
well damn, looks like biden is looking to bring us into the disaster that was the paris climate agreement
how is that agreement a disaster?
it put the brunt of the work on developed nations while developing nations didnt have to give much of a shit
its legal framework is also wonky
ie
non existent
the agreement couldnt hold anyone accountable
would anyone agree to an agreement that held people accountable?
and knowing world politics, if the US is signed onto it, they would have been held up to a higher standard
@bleak echo nope, because virtue signaling is the best thing these days
do nothing but say your doing your part
ie china
much like their human rights track record
it's an international agreement, everything about it is "virtue signalling" and is only worthwhile as a statement of intent
yeap, which is why I see biden wants to get back into it
even though it will hold the US to a higher standard
Rogan would rather vote for Trump than Biden, but he's not pro-Trump really.
Don't you get fined if you don't meet your targets? but, you can purchase pollution points from somewhere else, etc, etc
The overall goal is something we defo need to invest into, however
There are no fines associated.
oh, maybe I was thinking some other oddball agreement, remember that one from like HS, where, tbqf, our teachers where super competent
Regardless of if you think climate change is something we can realistically have much affect on, investing in energy technology that has a long future ahead of it is smart.
But, really, the agreement is as already stated a total farce, don't need to be in some magical agreement to move forward bar pretending that you care or something
as I've said, I love the idea of NuScale, much faster to commision, cheaper, etc, etc
Realistically speaking, if a country democratically wants to move towards those goals they can.
There are defo some other concerns that we need to deal with, but, like
If they want some measurable enforcement over them, they can tariff countries that do not meet certain criteria.
NuScale is nuclear?
The thing is that the people who complain about deforestation, etc, are generally more than happy to throw out a good metric fuckton of natural land for the installation of a wind farm, so long as it's not happening near them
Yes
small modular reactors
Yeah that pisses me off the most, the wind farm shit.. no one wants to live near them
can't have solar/wind coz ugly/takes up land/NOT NEAR US
There are so many issues with that technology too
can't have nuclear cos scurry
Solar uses precious metals anyway
I mean, nuclear does too, but we use the materials for far less things than the materials used for solar
The thing is, what do you do in 20 years when the panels are obsolete and the cost to replace them is more viable than the next few years of maintaining them? etc
Solars other issue is you have to store it somehow if you want it to be the long term solution
Yeah, that's another issue
Also wondering how easily recycled they are
The thing is that in order to pull this off, we need huge sweeping upgrades of critical infrastructure like power grids, etc; and the changing of restrictions so stuff like "the car which powers the rest of the world when you're not using it" is actually viable
If that's costly/complex then it's unlikely the replaced panels will ever get recycled
I'd imagine that the biggest chunk of it can just be cleaned/melted down, given the whole "it's glass"
it's the backing material which is the issue due to the toxic elements in there
Apparently currently the energy cost to recycle them is prohibitive
There are obviously places looking into viable methods long term
The glass itself is not the issue, it's the parts that are actually hard to produce/acquire
They literally heat the panels (minus the glass and frame) at 500C, burning off all the plastics etc
yea, that's one of the many issues with recycling some of this stuff
It's the same for the turbine blades, the energy costs to actually recycle them in a "lets not just throw it to construction for filler material" is just far too prohibitive to be viable
i hate how much people are blindly against nuclear
nuclear had potential to hugely reduce dependence on burning fossil fuels
the thing is that the nuclear industry is one of the safest options of generating energy out there
exactly
and, lets face it, pretty much every reactor based fuck up has been human error due to.. erm... well, the soviet mindset... Or, human/indicator error
compared to something like solar lol
imagine the amount of waste from replacing panels
And, those are stuff which we've learnt from and know to avoid now, not to mention all the safety mechanisms/requirements these days
combined with batteries which would age and need to be replaced too
yeah
wish it wasnt overlooked
The thing is that we're basically somewhat past the point where nuclear can help us too good if we wanna hit some of the goals as we've sat on hands for too long praying that wind/solar become more viable
wind is even more of a joke
and, well, they have in terms of cost/energy, but, none of their major "oh fucks" have been solved
I really think nuclear/geothermal is the best way to go
Issue with stuff like geothermal is that it's gonna run out eventually, and rip when it does
But, hopefully we'll be on mars by then...
Geothermal uses heat from the core
It doesn't rely on a fuel source like fossil fuel and nuclear
You put pipes in the ground and shove water through it
No, it relies on the heat from the earths core which has been slowly dissipating since the beginning of earth
the issue with renewables is "what do you do with all the stuff you've made for renewables to work when they're EOL"
I think our goal is still to be emission free in energy by 2040 or smth
Coal will be gone at last 2035, most likely earlier
e.g. what do you do with the panels and their toxic elements, what do you do with the massive ass turbine blades which are currently unrecyclable in a viable manner bar throwing them into the construction supply chain as filler
What do you do with nuclear waste? What do you do with co2?
then there's also the vast amount of land that these options can take, which people often scream about in regards to "we don't want them near us"
Solar doesn't take any land, just your roofs
Wind is for rural areas and doesn't take much land either, just out them between fields
I'm not saying that we shouldn't persue renewables, I'm saying that there are a lot of concerns about stuff like their impacts on the greater good
you then have to run all the cabling for that, have excavators plowing mass chunks of land or errecting large structures
on the roof is also not 100% viable, e.g. I live in a studio with two other flats attached, what about the large residential blocks with hundreds of people living in them with very little roof estate, etc
what do you do with those panels in 20 years?
What about the people who can't afford to get panels on their roofs or have landlords who don't wanna permit that stuff in their places, etc, etc
The panels on the roof of my parents are 20 years old
Still going strong
And if you are not a house owner, of course it's not really possible to install solar
But like, every new house should have solar
Every new giant fabric building
Like, here, aldi and stuff put solar on all their shops a few years back
They already returned their investment
they are still very expensive compared to buying from the grid in a lot of places
For stuff like aldi, etc, it makes a lot of sense
The place is generally open during the day, when the sun shines
The issue is what do you do when the sun goes down?
batteries xD
Giant super market chain
Yes, we know, places are throwing out solar panels like hot cakes, and that's good until you have to replace them
im guessing german government forced them to buy those panels
tax rebate?
They are money printers
tax savings, generating your own power is also good too
maybe because carbon regulations dont allow cheap coal power
maybe im wrong
but where i am solar doesnt make much money because there is cheaper power
stores like aldi, all of the costs are on stuff like lights during the days, ofc you have the refrigration running 24/7, but, during the day you probs make enough for that with the entire roof 🤷♂️
Sadly we don't have good carbon regulations in germany, just the EU ones with the certificates
It's is ok I guess
yeah when u have a massive roof like that all in the sun it works out
I do kinda hope that solar and stuff like powerwall become the norm, ofc that involves the time for the price of housing to rise so high that adding that on is fuck all in comparision, or the cost and hells of dealing with distribution to get it fitted, etc, dropping
Panels are dirt cheap
but, at the same point, these products all have materials which we're not entirely sure of how to deal with safely long term
Yes, but imho, it's generally pointless if your intent is for the greater good if you're not using batteries
This is my parents roof, 6kw peak of solar plus solar thermo stuff, so free hot water
in my neighborhood in ca people get solar just for the tax rebate, but you have to buy from one of the providers approved by the state through this stupid program
so they buy expensive ass panels which dont make sense but then get money from the state
We had those Programms like two decades ago, lol
which comes from taxing poor people
Now its just free market
In CA, they just do that to keep the lights on - coming soon
For storage
We have 10gw installed power for pump storage
That's why our grid doesn't collapse at night
think hydro
You pump water up a hill
But, the pump also sends it back up the other way
And let if fall down
yeah make sense
It works, but, a hefty chunk of land mass
So you hearvest potential energy
Not to mention the ecological issues if you gotta grow your storage
its basically a battery just not using chemical energy
Their stuff to capture carbon from the air is interesting too
Ofc, the issue is that they need to produce something which can be used in industry which isn't going to negate the entire efforts, think there might have been something tbqh, or we gotta go looooooong term storage
How does that work? Hydraulic ram pump?
Yep, just revert it
Speaking about land use
That's where coal is coming from
We moved autobahns, we moved whole towns, destroyed forests
am not saying that using coal is good either
We really need to get the fuck off coal
The thing is that we really need to find a way to drive the cost of energy down
It's just like, if we would have started earlier, all that thoughts, money and technology we out into getting coal out of the ground, if we would have invested that into renewables, we wouldn't have issues
We would have storage technologies
We would have solved all these issues
renewables have their own long term issues with world impact
Which are addressable
I'm just waiting until we have toxic sludge pools of old solar panel parts
It's not impossible to properly recycle them
Iirc EU for the longest time paid to develop that
Lemme look that up
Yeah, solar is covered by WEEE,Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
So the EU founded PV cycle, so currently takes up 90% of the recycling market for PV, and is funded my solar manufacters and importers
Thankfully, their website is not responding \o/
German site loads tho
Basically, you get a registration number if you buy a panel
And you are accountable for recycling that
So yeah, I don't see toxic sludge pools of old solar panels happening in the EU any time soon
And outside, since exporting old panels without registration is a nono too
The problem with them is that the life of them is so long that in 10ish years we'll have a whole heap that need to be recycled. But there isn't the demand for it yet, so there will likely be too many to do so safely and efficiently. It's a chicken before the egg situation that we don't know how it will go. Not to mention the act of recycling them is harmful to the environment itself.
That and solar by itself in its current form is unlikely to be capable of replacing fossil fuels, and manufacturing is impactful to the environment by itself. China produces between 50 and 60 percent of the worlds supply and it's not at all done with environmental concerns taken into account.
Have you not read what I said?
Recycling infra is in place already
And has been for like a decade
And most panels sold in the EU are produced in the EU, since we have Tarifs in chinese panels
We're only at 90-95%, and most of that's glass/aluminum
and... this is what I say about renewable energy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI
Waiting for someone to hate on PragerU without actually watching the video.
yeah, they do have some videos im not too keen on, however I dont mind them as much as some other media outlets made them out to be
Who's that guy?
I mean, there are some claims in that video that are "easily" solvable, namely the ones about child labour/bad labour environments. Other than that, not gonna get into this, cause everything I'd say would be absolute pure guesswork on my end.
the problem with bad labour environments is how is it enforced to not be bad?
a lot of these rare earth metals come from nations who dont have strong laws or dont enforce their laws
That's mainly a political problem, those countries either need to get their act together or others need to force them to do so. It's not easy, absolutely, yet it's a problem that is solvable without sacrificing the environment or economy unlike the other pointsthat were talked about in the video. In the long-term, assuming they will eventually get their act together, those issues will be no more.
Meh I didn't watch the video I just know people like to hate on prager without watching their videos.
Never heard of Prager before
they are a conservative media outlet on youtube
I'd rather go to renewable personally but it's not to save the environment I just like the idea of being independent.
thats where I see these energy types being used more
I mean it being good for the environment is a nice side thing but independence is the main reason.
independence from the energy grid
however, the whole saving the environment is bullshit from the mining operations point of view
I don't know much about that part about this topic but you should expand on that.
ever seen an open pit mine?
The vid is pretty one-sided, doesnt mention alternatives. The only pro fossil stuff is money, which is a bad argument.
He also ignores that there are other storage technologies, like I shared earlier, and that there will be technological advances in that area (where as we are at peak fossil since we have been doing it since forever already). Also no mention that europe manages to adopt green energy pretty widely.
Idk, of course it's not the end all solution and it's not perfect, but it's the best bet we have right now, if we want to prevent the climate catastrophe to get even worse
ever seen an open pit mine?
@dusky raft I send pics earlier of the giant holes they dug here
Which takes up a ton of land and fucks up the eco in the area...
when it comes to the US/Europe, if its out of sight, out of mind, not our problem
oh hey, california is burning
we need to save the environment there
we need more solar panels ASAP
We need to save it everywhere