Facebook Braces Itself for Trump to Cast Doubt on Election Results:
Facebook spent years preparing to ward off any tampering on its site ahead of November's presidential election. Now the social network is getting ready in case President Trump interferes once the vote is over.
Employees at the Silicon Valley company are laying out contingency plans and walking through postelection scenarios that include attempts by Mr. Trump or his campaign to use the platform to delegitimize the results, people with knowledge of Facebook's plans said.
Facebook is preparing steps to take should Mr. Trump wrongly claim on the site that he won another four-year term, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Facebook is also working through how it might act if Mr. Trump tries to invalidate the results by declaring that the Postal Service lost mail-in ballots or that other groups meddled with the vote, the people said.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, and some of his lieutenants have started holding daily meetings about minimizing how the platform can be used to dispute the election, the people said. They have discussed a "kill switch" to shut off political advertising after Election Day since the ads, which Facebook does not police for truthfulness, could be used to spread misinformation, the people said.
The preparations underscore how rising concerns over the integrity of the November election have reached social media companies, whose sites can be used to amplify lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory messages. YouTube and Twitter have also discussed plans for action if the postelection period becomes complicated, according to disinformation and political researchers who have advised the firms.
[...] The preparations underscore how rising concerns over the integrity of the November election have reached social media companies, whose sites can be used to amplify lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory messages. YouTube and Twitter have also discussed plans for action if the postelection period becomes complicated, according to disinformation and political researchers who have advised the firms.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @08:13AM (42 children)
In 2016, news people would ask Trump if he would accept the results. They never asked Hillary. She didn't really accept them. Democrats (obviously with her approval) took things to the courts, and years later she still makes comments claiming that somehow ("Russia", etc.) she was cheated.
In 2016, there was a TIME magazine cover featuring a cartoon of stereotypical Trump supporters rioting over the election, carrying tiki torches and weapons. The actual reality is that Hillary supporters rioted. They aren't even really done rioting! They especially rioted the day after the election and the day of the inauguration.
In 2016, Obama said there would be no fraud, but Trump was just losing. Reality was the opposite, with witnesses reporting ballots being filled out after the election in Broward County, FL.
In 2020, we're told that Trump might use his government power to mess with things. That happened in 2016, with falsified evidence presented to a FISA court in order to get a warrant to spy on Trump. Just last week an Obama lawyer plead guilty to that. Of course, he's the scapegoat, at the bottom of Obama's corrupt intelligence agencies, and orders obviously came from the top. That shit makes Nixon look like a saint.
In 2020, the postal worker union endorsed Biden. Say what? They will be delivering ballots? They will be delivering some ballots.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Tuesday August 25 2020, @08:36AM (23 children)
Somehow the US political establishment, especially the Dems, have lost sight of what really matters: policies. Maybe it is Trump's very effective smokescreening and misdirection (not a criticism of Trump, it is his job as a politician).
I saw bits of Biden's inaugural address (or whatever its called). It seemed to be that he was strong on rhetoric but very weak on substance. His address was essentially "vote for me, because I'm not Trump". Nothing that I could see about foreign policy e.g. whether US supports Europe, Russia or China. Nothing that I could see about budgets e.g. continue to support the military spend, or increase science spend, or something like that. Nothing at all really.
It's a losing proposition I would say.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 25 2020, @01:07PM (8 children)
Nothing is a losing proposition when the entirety of the media, captains of industry (esp. Big Tech), half the country under the control of the opposition party is being allowed to burn, and the puppet masters in the MIC are pulling out all the stops and then some this time to stop Trump. Trump is the president, but it doesn't seem to count for much because he doesn't seem to be able to arrest the aforementioned en masse or call in drone strikes on them. The Speaker of the House has now declared the President of the United States to be an "Enemy of the State," so I don't think those who hate Trump will have long to wait before they get the satisfaction they've been thirsting for.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:23PM (4 children)
Naked fascism in full support.
Didn't realize the US was filled with traitors to democracy. Or, just Russian agents pulling a long con. Who knows with these amazing intertubes??
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 26 2020, @01:15AM (3 children)
It's a pretty pitiful fascism that doesn't result in mass, summary execution of characters like you. It's almost like they are servants of a lawful republic who don't possess dictatorial powers.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 26 2020, @09:27AM (2 children)
Really, Phoenix666, my estimation of you is much reduced. Are you perhaps having a senior moment? Please try to remain rational.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 26 2020, @01:00PM (1 child)
Are you disappointed I haven't drunk the Democrat Kool-Aid, or are you asserting that undesirable Americans are being locked up en masse, etc., and we really do live in a fascist country? If the latter, aren't you afraid to be posting criticism of the regime lest they come and arrest you in the night? If American democracy has died, why don't you take up arms and march on Washington?
If you can still speak freely, elect representatives you like, and all of that democracy stuff, then by definition you do not live in a fascist country. Being able to do all those things and still, contrary to those facts, believing you live in a fascist state makes you the irrational one.
And by the by, nowhere in my contract does it obligate me to "remain rational*."
*according to a random dude on the Internet who fronts as a dead ancient Greek
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 26 2020, @11:16PM
No, more a matter of tone. You seem a bit on edge, of late.
And, I am not an American. But there is an interesting idea that the Philosopher Hegel had, that those who think that government is supposed to produce benefits for them are just wrong, whether it is health care, or contract enforcement and dispute resolution. You might think national defense, but that is where the rub is.
Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, §455.
So in a war, the nation can take all your stuff, if it needs it. Requisition. And it can even take you, and put your life at risk, and take it if you refuse. Much the same in the case of a pandemic. We will take your freedoms, make you wear a mask, lock you up until the danger you pose is past, whatever it takes, because the health of the nation is more important than any one citizen. Now, in a democracy, every rational citizen undertakes their duty out of their own free will. In a fascist regime, it is the opposite.
So, Phoenix666, I hope you are well, and staying safe. Perhaps step away from SN for a day or so.
And who is this "random dude" on the internet who "fronts as a dead ancient Greek"? Makes us living ancient Greeks look bad, does stuff like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @09:31PM (2 children)
Rhetoric like that from the Speaker of the House ("Enemy of the State") encourages the crazy violent leftists.
House member Steve Scalise was wounded and nearly killed by a Bernie supporter. A bunch of AR-15 ammo pierced the congressman's lower abdomen, severely damaging his organs.
Senator Rand Paul was attacked by his unhinged lefty neighbor. (not over yard waste, as some claim) The senator got broken ribs and lung damage.
Say, where are the attacks going the other direction politically? Could it be that the right is more peaceful and less unhinged? They certainly have the weaponry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @01:52AM
That's why the libs want this war with Russia so bad so they can conscript true American patriots and send them overseas to die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @09:31AM
See! This is why we need to ban insulting rifles, so they do not randomly and by themselves go piercing Republican Congressmen (exception for Gym Jordan noted) and damaging their organs. You never see Chrysler products doing that, do you?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday August 25 2020, @02:34PM (4 children)
Sorry, but "Not Trump" is a good reason to vote for Biden. I'm not really thrilled with him as a candidate, but I'd support a doorknob before I'd support Trump. And I distrust facile promises. In the past the parts of the promise that I disliked most were the parts that tended to be kept. This was true whether I supported the candidate or not, and whichever party the candidate made the promises to.
I'm sure part of the reason is that actual working plans don't make good sound bites. This, however, doesn't encourage me to trust politician's promises.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PiMuNu on Tuesday August 25 2020, @02:53PM (1 child)
> "Not Trump" is a good reason to vote for Biden
Well, it might be enough - but it is a pretty weak stance that failed in 2016. It leaves Biden very vulnerable to whatever politics Trump wants to push.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @01:54AM
Whatever Biden "pushes", it will be socialism, hateful, worst ever, end-of-the-world. Even before Trump that was the entirety of the Republican policy document.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @08:36PM (1 child)
I think that's what keeps you trapped in the situation. It's a recurring joke, one I as non-american heard a decade ago or more from South Park as a duché and a turd. You should suck it up and break out of it, it's worth it to let Trump (or anyone else) have four more years if second-rate parties are allowed to grow, so that you will one day not have to pick between a duché and a turd. When a party reach 5% they can receive public funding for the next election.
These are links to the candidates I could find on Twitter, since that's where politics happen now! It's the nitter interface for twitter. This way you can subscribe to the candidates feeds as RSS.
Republican:
https://nitter.net/GOP [nitter.net]
https://nitter.net/realDonaldTrump [nitter.net] (Cand.)
https://nitter.net/Mike_Pence [nitter.net] (Vice-cand.)
Democrats:
https://nitter.net/TheDemocrats [nitter.net]
https://nitter.net/JoeBiden [nitter.net] (Cand.)
https://nitter.net/KamalaHarris [nitter.net] (Vice-cand.)
Libertarians:
https://nitter.net/lpnational [nitter.net]
https://nitter.net/Jorgensen4POTUS [nitter.net] (Cand.)
https://nitter.net/RealSpikeCohen [nitter.net] (Vice-cand.)
Green Party:
https://nitter.net/GreenPartyUS [nitter.net]
https://nitter.net/HowieHawkins [nitter.net] (Cand.)
https://nitter.net/AngelaNWalker [nitter.net] (Vice-cand.)
Alliance Party and Reform Party:
https://nitter.net/alliancepty [nitter.net]
https://nitter.net/reformparty [nitter.net]
https://nitter.net/JoinRocky [nitter.net] (Cand.)
Constitution Party:
https://nitter.net/donblankenship [nitter.net] (Cand.)
Party for Socialism and Liberation:
https://nitter.net/pslweb [nitter.net]
https://nitter.net/lariva2020 [nitter.net] (Cand.)
I did not bother finding twitter accounts of candidates with ballot access to less than 100 electoral votes [wikipedia.org].
This is my contribution to foreign interference with the election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @12:10AM
*gasp!*
Did you say NITTER?! It looks and sounds so much like that "N" word! I can't be using something like that!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @05:16PM (8 children)
Trump looks and talks like a goddamn idiot but he is weakening our enemies, bringing us peace in the Middle East, and making moves that are good for long-term strategy. If you turn off the TV, ignore his orange face, and look at the results, Trump is the best president since Roosevelt or Lincoln while his biggest problems are either natural disasters like Covid or are something that the Democrats did.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @05:33PM
Trump is caught in a middle-eastern political power play that will not really benefit the US. The poles of that conflict are Saudi Arabia, a Sunni theocracy, and Iran, a Shia theocracy.
Saudi Arabia has strategically aligned with Israel, which forces us to take that side, no doubt in part to Trump's family and friends with ties to Israel.
It would do us best to stay out of that shithole area.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday August 25 2020, @05:35PM
You get my point I think. Not that I necessarily agree with you - but if the Dems don't come out with some sort of policy then I believe Trump will win based on exactly the arguments you propose. And so he should.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 26 2020, @02:08AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @09:32AM (2 children)
You just don't get it, do you, khallow?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 26 2020, @01:13PM (1 child)
Oh look, a whiny AC adding nothing to the conversation, again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @11:18PM
Better than a whiny khallow, who adds nothing to the conversation but the opportunity to whine about how he adds nothing to the covfefesation. Hey, have you read von Hayek lately?
(Score: 3, Touché) by dry on Wednesday August 26 2020, @05:21AM
The Kurds were your enemies? Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel was a peace move? Putting Tariffs on Canada so American breweries have to buy cans from China is a good long term strategy? Cheering on China's human rights abuses is also a good long term strategy? Not to mention dividing Americans more then anyone in a 150 years does not seem smart, but I guess a civil war is one way to get dictatorial powers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2020, @11:49AM
He's bringing peace to the middle east by continuing all of our unconstitutional forever wars against countries that didn't attack us. He brought peace to the middle east when he vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have ended the US's support of Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen, after Saudi Arabia funneled money into his hotels of course. That is the most amazing peace I've ever witnessed!
And I'm not sure how 7+ million people losing health insurance under Trump helps us in the long-term. Or his tax cuts for the mega rich. Or much of anything he's done.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @01:17PM (4 children)
Exactly. Just like Al Gore. Look at John McCain. He accepted the election results. Look how much class and grace his speech had when he lost. Vs the democrats, absolutely NO class whatsoever when they lose. They are sore losers. The republicans lose with dignity and honor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @03:20PM
oh fuckin gimme a break. can you be more obviously biased
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday August 25 2020, @07:21PM
Can you say the same for Trump, since he's the key player here?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @01:59AM
I liked the dignity and honor on show when the losing (rep) State Senates and Governors passed laws after losing the elections to strip the new (dem) Governors of their powers. Real nice losers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @09:36AM
Republicans loose with delusions, conspiracy theory, voodoo economics, and the Secret. Oh, and massive cray-cray! What the fuck was Don Jr and his "girlfriend" on last night, anyway?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:44PM (12 children)
The Democrats response to the election result was terrible. They refused to acknowledge that running a candidate that half the population already strongly disliked was a terrible idea. The bullshit, "Her turn." campaign was insulting to many who don't think the presidency should be a hereditary office, as well.
When they went after Trump for his criminality and corruption, they concentrated on one issue only. The list of Trump's crimes in office is massive. Even if the Republicans were going to be accessories to the criminality and violate their oaths to uphold the law, it would have been useful to get these issues more airtime to inform more of the population. A missed opportunity.
I did not vote for either. Neither was qualified, and both had massive negatives that made them unfit to serve. But, I will point out that the only reason we have a far-right facist as president, instead of the center-right candidate that the Democrats ran, is that the election results were ignored (Clinton won by several million votes), and instead the president was chosen using an undemocratic system that was originally put in place to protect the institution of slavery.
Similarly ignoring the results of the election is how we got the mental midget who went along with advice to illegally invade Iraq from far-right groups like the Heritage Foundation (who encouraged using 911 as an excuse to execute their plan to militarily invade Iraq to steal its natural resources). Babby Bush, who was an Apocalyptic Christian, saw this as a way to hasten the, "end times", and even referred to the invasion as a, "crusade".
I wish we had a different voting system than first past the post. We could have other parties that better reflect the population. The Clintons pushed the Democratic party solidly right of center. Now the Democratic Party convention that was just held, was dominated by *Republican* speakers who oppose the authoritarian bent, criminality, and corruption of the Trump administration. So, we have the Democratic party that is led by folks who would have called themselves Rebuplicans a decade or two ago, and a Republican party that is led by folks who would have called themselves Nazis a few more decades ago.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 25 2020, @08:57PM (6 children)
and instead the president was chosen using an undemocratic system that was originally put in place to protect the institution of slavery.
I don't think this is correct at all. In 1787, when the Constitution was written, slavery hadn't quite become the big issue it did decades later when it finally was a major issue leading to the Civil War. The big issue with forming the government then was to keep all the states on-board and willing to join a union. Remember, states had a lot more power and sovereignty back then, and they were organized under the Articles of Confederation, which gave the nation a very weak central government (with no head-of-state even!) which was too ineffective, and which was why they decided to throw it out and write the Constitution after only about a decade of existence as a new nation. Trying to coordinate a popular election across the different states for a single office would have been a logistical nightmare, and high-population states would have had much more sway than low-population ones (i.e., the southern agrarian states), so they came up with the Electoral College to both make the election more feasible, and to give more power to the low-population states, not to prop up slavery intentionally, but to keep those states in the union instead of having them decide to leave and form their own country. Remember, they were still very worried that England might want to come back and try to retake these rebellious colonies, and they were right to worry about this because it happened in 1812. Furthermore, early on, 5 states didn't even have popular elections for President: the state legislatures chose the Electors. It wasn't until later that all states had popular elections leading to the choice of Electors.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @10:41PM
Original AC that you are responding to.
Slavery was front and center at the founding of the United States. It was one of the reasons for the revolution; England was rumored to be considering ending slavery. [1] Slavery was also enshrined in the Constitution, one of the two most important of our nations founding documents:
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
"All other persons" refers to enslaved Africans in America.
This section is critical to understand the electoral college. The distribution of electors for the electoral college was based on population.
Under Clause 2, each state casts as many electoral votes as the total number of its Senators and Representatives in Congress.
And, the 3/5 person clause + electoral college was to ensure that Southern slave states would dominate the presidential elections and have a disproportionate number of representatives in Congress (the main issue for the South always was protecting the institution of slavery). Southern states received a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves (who could not vote for said "representatives") were uncounted. Despite the numbers of people who were enfranchised with the vote being greater in the North (initially only white male land owners), and Northerners and Southerners being at opposite sides in many politically important issues such as tariffs, the south controlled the presidency for the early years of the nation (not a single Northerner elected; hell, not a single non-slave owner elected).
1 https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-revolution-fought-to-save-slavery/ [counterpunch.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 26 2020, @05:27AM (4 children)
I was reading the Federalist papers on why the collage. One of the big reasons was to not have a populist elected, but rather a Statesman. Look at the rules, the electors not being politicians nor rabble and being able to decide independently who to vote for. Also remember that the runner up became Vice-President being the 2nd most qualified in the electors opinion.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday August 26 2020, @09:33AM (2 children)
Disclaimer: I don't know history very well, so feel free to educate me.
I don't think we'll find very many Statesmen in politics today. Ignoring that problem, I also question this idea about the electoral college being a good thing. What is really preventing the electoral college from giving the voters a big "F U" with a middle finger and voting who who they want or who they were bribed to vote for? Does an electoral college really make sense today?
(I acknowledge the populist problem.)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 26 2020, @08:37PM
I also question this idea about the electoral college being a good thing. What is really preventing the electoral college from giving the voters a big "F U" with a middle finger and voting who who they want or who they were bribed to vote for? Does an electoral college really make sense today?
What *is* preventing them, or what *was* preventing them?
These days, the electors are bound to vote for the person they're told to vote for by their state governments, and those choices are made by the popular elections in each state. There have been cases of "faithless electors" (electors who claimed they'd vote for one candidate, but then voted for another), but this action is illegal now, and results in prosecution, as upheld by a court case (SCOTUS, I think). I guess if you could somehow convince enough electors to willfully commit a crime and vote for someone else, and then suffer the penalties for it (which would be really bad if bribery were discovered, and you can throw in conspiracy which is really bad), it might work, though if a real conspiracy were discovered they may very well throw out the results. It's never happened in history, so it would be an interesting legal case. Anyway, the fact that it's a crime keeps more than 1 or 2 electors from ever risking criminal penalties for this, and this isn't enough to sway the election.
Back in the early days, I imagine the problem would be feasibility. Some electors were chosen based on their states' popular elections, other electors were chosen by the state legislatures (who held an election amongst themselves to choose which presidential candidate that state would vote for; the people got no say, other than being able to elect their legislators). None of these electors know each other, and it takes quite some time to travel from any random state by horse and carriage on dirt roads to Washington, DC to vote in the Electoral College, much less between various states. And presumably, these electors weren't just random Joes, they were people of means and with political connections, for them to be chosen for this role. Good luck bribing enough of them to change their vote. And I don't know if it was illegal back then to be a "faithless elector", but as I said these people were probably politically connected, so changing their votes would probably look really bad for them and affect their political careers.
In short, if giving the voters a big "F U" was a real weakness of the Electoral College system, I think we would have seen this over the last ~230 years. This has never been one of the major complaints about the EC system.
Does an electoral college really make sense today?
That depends on your values and goals. Do you think the President should be popularly elected, and that every citizen's vote should count the same no matter what state they're in? If so, then the answer is "no". Not everyone agrees with this position, however, even today.
If you believe that people in rural states should have their votes count more than people in heavily-populated states, because you think rural states should somehow get an advantage, then the answer is "yes". There are a LOT of people in this country in 2020 who still believe this (namely, people from rural states, and also people from rural parts of more-populated states).
Personally, I think the whole thing should be thrown out. The Constitution should be tossed out and a new one adopted which wipes out our tricameral system, and adopts a Parliamentary system like those in Germany, Japan, UK, and most other developed nations. The head of state should not be elected by the people at all; s/he should be chosen by the legislative branch, so that you don't get government shutdowns when the two branches can't agree. This system works well in every other country. For comparison, look at which countries have Presidential systems like ours, and which don't. Countries with systems more like ours include: Russia, Brazil, El Salvador, Turkey. Countries with parliaments include Japan and all the leading western European nations. Which would you rather be like, Russia and Brazil, or Germany and Japan? Furthermore, when the US and allies defeated Germany and Japan in WWII and helped set up new governments there, why did they not push a system just like ours, when they had the chance? Same goes for Iraq more recently. If our system is so great, why wouldn't we have pushed it on countries we've defeated and rebuilt? The simple answer is: because it sucks. It might have made some sense in 1787 when almost all the leading nations were still monarchies and they didn't have much experience to go on, but we've had a lot more experience now worldwide with democratic systems to see what works well and what doesn't, and our creaky antiquated system does NOT work well.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday August 27 2020, @02:42AM
At the time, voting wasn't trusted so it was somewhat expected that the electors might give voters the FU in favour of a better candidate. I don't know if the founders expected the President to have so much power either, I suspect that Congress was supposed to have a greater role then how it evolved. In Great Britain, the Glorious Revolution had happened almost a century before where Parliament's supremacy was cemented so the idea of a powerful leader working against the legislature may not have been seriously considered. Cabinet used to be more important too, with more independence I believe.
Today, it seems like an anachronism, the electors don't have independence so it seems like an extra unneeded step. It's awkward how to elect one person in a large country. Personally living in a Parliamentary system, I'm inclined to consider it superiour, though our elections could be improved. I like the idea of a mix of representatives representing districts and representatives representing the whole nation or portions of the nation.
The Federalist paper I read was number 68, http://www.electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/federalist68.asp [electoralcollegehistory.com]
The Wiki page is easier reading, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 [wikipedia.org] especially Hamilton's understanding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @09:42AM
If you do not discriminate between "collage" and "college", we may well assume you never went to collage. Or your name is Charlie Kirk, or his (dead from the COVID-19) sugar daddy, Bill Montgomery, who is dead. [politico.com] Charlie dropped out of Community Collage, so there is that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday August 26 2020, @01:24PM (4 children)
Probably because they had no evidence to go with that list of crimes.
I sense a trend here. Cool story, bro, but it has nothing to do with reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @08:13PM (1 child)
Read the reports you deceitful lazy sack of shit!
And yes yes legally the electoral college win is allowed, but I so wish we could read your replies from the reality where Hillary won the EC and Trump won the popular vote. My god it would be glorious.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 27 2020, @03:17AM
Which reports, which you have yet to mention, have evidence in them? Your post is strangely devoid of such.
The electoral college win is not merely "allowed", it's the law. And now you're claiming something (that somehow I'll behave like you) despite it being completely unfalsifiable. Sorry, a fantasy is not a serious argument.
All I can say is that I wasn't obsessed over that election. I didn't vote for either nor would I protest, if one received the electoral vote, but not the public vote - you know, like what actually happened?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2020, @11:53AM (1 child)
You mean like Saudi Arabia funneling money into Trump's hotels, a violation of the emoluments clause?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 27 2020, @01:14PM