[Bored chemist]

Did you notice that she's talking about protest groups, rather than riots?
So... she didn't say what you claimed she did.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Did you notice that she's talking about protest groups, rather than riots?
So... she didn't say what you claimed she did.

Hilarious, play your word games troll. These are the same "protests" that were setting fires across the country.

13 secound vid mostly peaceful 🤣

.
"They are not going to stop... they are not going to let up and they should not" Karmala Harris

[alancalverd]

But where is the evidence of a rigged election?

[Bored chemist]

Did you notice that she's talking about protest groups, rather than riots?
So... she didn't say what you claimed she did.

Hilarious, play your word games troll. These are the same "protests" that were setting fires across the country.

13 secound vid mostly peaceful 🤣

.
"They are not going to stop... they are not going to let up and they should not" Karmala Harris

And protest should continue, shouldn't it?
The  black people (to be simplistic about it) should continue to protest against the violence wrought on them by a corrupt state, shouldn't they?
What else should they do?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Did you notice that she's talking about protest groups, rather than riots?
So... she didn't say what you claimed she did.

Hilarious, play your word games troll. These are the same "protests" that were setting fires across the country.

13 secound vid mostly peaceful 🤣

.
"They are not going to stop... they are not going to let up and they should not" Karmala Harris

And protest should continue, shouldn't it?
The  black people (to be simplistic about it) should continue to protest against the violence wrought on them by a corrupt state, shouldn't they?
What else should they do?

I dont think anyone really disagrees with police reform. The protests where they were peaceful is fine. But the protests were so violent in areas the national guard had to be called out to stop the violence.

Its was the joke of last year no matter how bad they got the main stream media, even when standing infront of burning buildings called them peaceful. Democrats even bailout out of jail protestors that had been arrested. Utter hypocrisy, the Democrats were supporting both the violent riots and non violent protests.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

But where is the evidence of a rigged election?

What apart from the Time magazine article?

Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used. You see the exact same % ratios across multiple states and precincts,  one data analysts stated the possibility of it happening naturally are impossible.

The evidence will come not that it will make any difference Al gore knew Bush stole the election in Florida we all do today, that didn't manage to get Bush jr out of the white house,  tho really it should.

[Bored chemist]

What apart from the Time magazine article?

That isn't evidence of a rigged election.
Did you think it was?

But the protests were so violent in areas the national guard had to be called out to stop the violence.

No
They didn't "have to" call in the national guard, they chose to in order to make it look as if the protests were something special.

The protests where they were peaceful is fine.

The Right wing racists and corrupt cops think that peaceful protests are fine too- because after a century or two, they haven't really changed things.

Understandably those being persecuted don't agree.

I guess you think they should lust lie down and let someone kneel on their neck until the problem goes away.

[alancalverd]

Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used.

Algorithms are not used. Votes are counted, then ignored and the electoral college chooses a president without having to explain their decision. How can that be rigged? They chose Trump, then they dumped him because he was an embarrassment to the Party, but refused to convict him because he is a malicious litigant  and knows who voted in the Senate.

Nothing to do with democracy or voting.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used.

Algorithms are not used.

Votes are counted by machines,  which can be manipulated by algorithms.  Some were even directly connected to the internet.

Votes are not counted by hand they are verified by hand and counted by machine.

Votes are counted, then ignored and the electoral college chooses a president without having to explain their decision. How can that be rigged?

We already went over this, the electoral college is a means to balance the different populations from state to state. And a fail safe if there is a nomination  the elite dont like.

They chose Trump, then they dumped him because he was an embarrassment to the Party,

The membership choose trump just like the membership of labour choose Jeremy Corbyn.  The party members never wanted either.

but refused to convict him because he is a malicious litigant  and knows who voted in the Senate.

There were no grounds to convict, the trial was an attempt to prevent trump running again. Completely political.

Nothing to do with democracy or voting.

The American system should change but the establishment, doesn't want democracy,  Trump won in 2016 by mistake, they didnt take him seriously and he slipped through, seems clear they wont allow that again. Effectively every election from now on, unless something changes will be a farse.

[alancalverd]

We already went over this, the electoral college is a means to balance the different populations from state to state.

and I pointed out that this disenfranchises voters in the more populous states, so the president is not chosen by popular vote but by a rigged system.

Rounding up to 3 significant figures we see

2016      Clinton  65.9 million       Trump 63.0       Trump wins

2020      Biden   75.0                   Trump 71.0        Biden wins

So as I said earlier, the popular vote does not choose the president so the count is irrelevant and not only future but all previous elections were farcical. This is underlined by the ridiculous pomposity of the "final count" in Congress, which merely confirms the inbuilt contempt of politicians for the electorate.

The only function of an algorithm in a paper-counting exercise is to determine whether an indistinct mark is a cross or not. In a civilised country we do it by discussion between the candidates' agents and the returning officer, whose criterion is "clear intention to vote for..." and who, being a civil servant, will be paid the same whatever the outcome. The UK having a high standard of literacy, as a candidate or agent I've never had to review more than 0.1% of indistinct votes and we generally agreed that whilst "bastard" was not a "vote for", the absence of any other mark on the paper could not be construed as a vote for anyone else. 
 

[Bored chemist]

Votes are not counted by hand they are verified by hand and counted by machine.

And the hand count verified that the machine count gave the right answer.
Which is exactly what the algorithm is meant to do.

So, what, exactly, is your problem?

There were no grounds to convict,

Even the Republicans said there was.
The evidence also said so.
So did Trump's lawyers in the trial. (Though they then said that nobody should have taken him seriously)

[evan_au]

Share with you this time magazine article

Yesterday, this Time magazine article (and all other news) suddenly disappeared from Facebook.

This week the Australian government is debating some draft legislation: "No free News on the internet", which would see Facebook and Google paying traditional print media monopolies for access to News.

So, to highlight some of the ambiguities in the draft legislation, Facebook ran a field-trial of their draft algorithms that implemented the draft legislation. Suddenly, the government is lashing out (or back-pedaling furiously, depending on your viewpoint):
- The Pandemic - that's not News! That is Public Health!
- Bushfires - that's not News! That is Public Safety!
- Statements by Government Ministers - that's not News! That is Good Government Communication!

The US elections have monopolized world news for the past year - it's time to move on to something more productive.
- And you shouldn't pay any attention to narcissists - it just encourages them!

[charles1948]

I'd advise all posters to refrain from making political comments.  They might cause you trouble in the future.

[Bored chemist]

They might cause you trouble in the future.

That, in this context, is a political statement.

[alancalverd]

This week the Australian government is debating some draft legislation: "No free News on the internet", which would see Facebook and Google paying traditional print media monopolies for access to News.

It's an interesting point. Legitimate news sources like traditional newspapers and broadcasters pay their own reporters and agencies for factual content and employ writers to turn it into a product. So one would expect the product to be copyright-protected  as with any other manufactured literature or broadcast. And they also carry liability for harm caused by inaccuracy, libel, etc. Why should Facebook benefit for free from other people's work and at the same time deny liability on the grounds that they are just repeating stuff published by someone else?

[alancalverd]

I'd advise all posters to refrain from making political comments.  They might cause you trouble in the future.

The great advantage of being on the old Special Branch list of suspects was that I never got cold calls or telephone scams - every incoming call was monitored by The Powers That Be and they certainly weren't going to waste their time listening to people persuading me to change my internet password. Hopefully someone in GCHQ is reading this and will restore the service. In return I promise to become a potential Enemy of the State and renew my CND membership.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Share with you this time magazine article

Yesterday, this Time magazine article (and all other news) suddenly disappeared from Facebook.

This week the Australian government is debating some draft legislation: "No free News on the internet", which would see Facebook and Google paying traditional print media monopolies for access to News.

Ok why are you blaming the government? They serve corporate interests.

You are missing the bigger picture, it's the media corporations that have been pushing for these laws for years now along with the oligarchy that owns and controls them.

The primary issue is that they are all going bankrupt,  essentially because no one wants to read their fake news, propaganda and draft narratives. Traditionally these institutions drove the narrative, the internet and independent media has destroyed their model.

So they have been seeking a way to claw back income and also suppress the competition,  the idea being that the smaller media producers won't be able to cough up the funds once the new system is in place compared to the bigger players.  So in part this law is an attack on smaller alternative media.

They also seek to shut alternative media out of social media as the bigger companies have a greater ability to bargain with companies like Facebook.

What Facebook decided was that rather than pay any money to traditional media they would just block all of it. Google by contrast made an exclusive deal with rupert Murdoch,  that only Murdoch media will now be available on Google Australia,  and there is the perfect solution for the oligarchy,  only the traditional controlled voice of the Murdoch press will be heard and all other voices alternative or not, will be silenced.

This is about narrative control, and a war between traditional media controlled by the oligarchy and independent media that is free in its thoughts and content. The Australian government is little more than a lacky to oligarchic power.

[alancalverd]

If you collect and publish news, you must expect to pay your reporters and be held accountable for what you print.

By recycling other people's product, Facebook neither paid for its creation nor accepted liability for its content.

Time to restore accountability and protect  legitimate business.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

If you collect and publish news, you must expect to pay your reporters and be held accountable for what you print.

By recycling other people's product, Facebook neither paid for its creation nor accepted liability for its content.

Facebook's entire business model just like Google's is theift of private data that is never compensated for,  most don't even realise Facebook and Google are taking their data,  and then selling that data on to 3rd parties.

In an America lawsuit related to cambridge analytica the Judge told the plaintiffs that if they use Facebook they have no rights over their their data, and no privacy. The case happened a few months after Zuckerberg proclaimed PRIVACY to be the facebook service motto.

Not paying their way is the main business model of most companies. Many journalists that work for traditional media are unpaid interns. Hard to feel sorry for one group of lying exploiters not being paid by another group of lying exploiters, when they all avoid paying for anything whenever possible.

Time to restore accountability and protect  legitimate business.

This isn't about legitimacy, this is about control, much of the transitional media lie consistently they are losing money because they are terrible journalists, that produce a terrible product. A terrible product that always supports the next war, lies about Russian interference and any other nonsense the CIA tells them to.

Traditional media is illegitimate as a news source.

[Bored chemist]

Traditional media is illegitimate as a news source.

Uncharacteristically, Jolly is right about that.
For example, The Sun "newspaper" makes a loss.
But the owners still pay to have it  printed as a propaganda sheet  to get the naïve to support the billionaires.

However, it does raise an interesting question; where the heck should we get actual information from?