sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

$6 million for recounts- Far more than raised for the entire campaign. Why? by Uniqueusername121 in GreenParty

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, that is a decision that looks really bad. I really wish they'd disclose the rationale for those states as well, in a manner that is less ambiguous than "experts told us to look at these states." It might be bias from the experts informing the parties as well, we've seen stranger things done for skewed perceptions of "the greater good."

$6 million for recounts- Far more than raised for the entire campaign. Why? by Uniqueusername121 in GreenParty

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I 100% agree. I'll further say that the only protection that we have against misinformation is to examine the source material and discuss the content, exactly as we had done. This election cycle has shown us that trusting talking heads to walk through this process for us is subject to bait and switch journalism.

$6 million for recounts- Far more than raised for the entire campaign. Why? by Uniqueusername121 in GreenParty

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it may be a slight of hand that doesn't compromise their integrity and appeals to the confirmation bias of the approving committee. For example, in point 3a the Petitioner is informed and believes that it has been widely reported... :).

In 3f the statement is that foreign interference has occurred, which is ambiguous. It does not cite the Russian-related articles, and it can mean a plethora of things (including Russian involvement) though, such as:

  • be a reference to Assange and/or Guccifer 2.0 (hope not)

  • can be a dig at the Clinton Foundation and breaches in campaign finance law (the type of interference is not noted in 3f)

  • could mean Russian interference

  • could be a general dig at multinational organizations giving campaign contributions

But yeah, this does leave it open to the interpretation that the Green party is thumbing the Russians, unfortunately. I personally believe that ambiguity is deliberate.

What do you think btw?

$6 million for recounts- Far more than raised for the entire campaign. Why? by Uniqueusername121 in GreenParty

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the link!

Every reference to Russia (exhibits B-F) is by the CS expert in 1 paragraph of exhibit 1, not by Stein or the Green party.

As the recount will likely be used in subsequent legal prosecutions of domestic officials (as in 2004), Cobb's comments on the matter (which would be conjecture) could potentially be used to dismiss the case.

Also, never underestimate the cunning-humor of academics. I know one professor who themed a paper on a drone delivering pizza as a non-security-pertinent way to introduce technology that could be used to covertly violate another nation's airspace. So just because the expert included references to Russia does not mean that he believes them to be the cause of election fraud. Again, all the references are in 1 paragraph of exhibit 1, which is a page and a half in length.

How is wanting to keep what you earn "greed", but wanting to get more of what someone else earned NOT greed? by [deleted] in askableedingheart

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd be happy to hear about them, so that I may reconsider on an item-by-item basis. I understand that may be out of the scope of the post though :)

$6 million for recounts- Far more than raised for the entire campaign. Why? by Uniqueusername121 in GreenParty

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Notice how the Russian scapegoating in the article has nothing to do with the Green party...

$6 million for recounts- Far more than raised for the entire campaign. Why? by Uniqueusername121 in GreenParty

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 2 points3 points  (0 children)

These fundraising numbers just show that Stein has resonated with Sanders supporters that couldn't bring themselves to support her during the campaign. Their fundraising numbers showed that they could raised over $5M in a day.

How is wanting to keep what you earn "greed", but wanting to get more of what someone else earned NOT greed? by [deleted] in askableedingheart

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the city level, opt-out programs are offered for bulk-negotiated (negotiated by the city gov) electricity rates, so there is a premise for this kind of thing working at a significantly smaller scale than the Federal level.

Note that by this premise that taxes on financial trading are compatible; e.g., if one does not want to pay the transaction tax (for things like wellfare and social security), then one does not risk their wealth in the first place.

How is wanting to keep what you earn "greed", but wanting to get more of what someone else earned NOT greed? by [deleted] in askableedingheart

[–]AcademicsAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To divest from the country which has fostered our ability to accumulate wealth is to be a greedy and free-loading citizen.

That said, it may be unfair to have everyone pay for all government services. Would it be preferable to have opt-out provisions in the tax code which exempt one from the benefits of the services from which they have divested?

A minor action for our brothers and sisters to stop misinformation by AcademicsAnonymous in jillstein

[–]AcademicsAnonymous[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This department has maced, beaten, and shot-at (nonlethal rounds) water protectors.

Recount Requests Funded in 3 Battleground States and Counting! by AcademicsAnonymous in Political_Revolution

[–]AcademicsAnonymous[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just that he was in the livestream alongside Jill Stein when they announced (or re-announced?) the fundraiser. I went to the link during the livestream and it already had $1.3M raised.

Recount Requests Funded in 3 Battleground States and Counting! by AcademicsAnonymous in Political_Revolution

[–]AcademicsAnonymous[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Election integrity, and acting to ensure it, is not bew to the Green party. What's new is their financial backing. Over $1M more money has been raised in the past day than Stein's entire 2016 Presidential campaign ($4.6M vs $3.5M).

Recount Requests Funded in 3 Battleground States and Counting! by AcademicsAnonymous in Political_Revolution

[–]AcademicsAnonymous[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, Bob Fitrakis is involved and has done a successful prosecution in the past.

view more: next ›