Tendo City

It was well written, but maybe even better presented.

So, that Nunes memo is out... and there isn't much in it. The main thing it says, really, I think, is that the Republicans are still focused on the Steele dossier. First, they continue to pretend that it is "discredited" and false. The memo undercuts this argument by admitting that there are some things in the dossier that have been confirmed, in the middle of a very deceptive statement about the dossier, but the main focus is that later part, on trying to discredit the dossier.

The problem is, their attempts to discredit it do not touch any of the contents. Instead they're saying "don't believe the dossier because the Democrats helped fund it and Steele said he opposes Trump". The first part of that is deceptive because they always somehow forget to mention that a Republican group first funded the research behind the dossier, and the second isn't nearly as important as the actual contents. The context of why opposition research was collected matters, but so do the findings! And that is the problem with the Republicans' case against the dossier: they don't try to actually disprove it, but just to convince people to not believe it because of its funding and writer. Then they try to minimize admissions of the fact that the FBI has proven at least some things in the dossier to be true, while raising all kind of outrage about the idea of using the dossier as a source for anything, such as, here in the Nunes memo, for a FISA warrant for blatantly deserving target Carter Page.

This is interesting because, well, if they knew it was all false, wouldn't they be trying to disprove the CONTENTS of the dossier, and not only discredit its creation? But no, they don't... which is a tacit admission that there is truth to it. And if there is truth to it, of course the FBI should have been looking at it early in its Russia investigation.

Here's the thing, though: the usefulness of that dossier is surely now limited. Mueller must have found info by now that goes far beyond anything in that dossier, and those three FISA court extensions on Carter Page that Nunes gripes about so much here were surely based almost entirely on ongoing information they found out about Page's Russian connections, not anything relating to the Steele dossier! Because that information is all quite classified the public won't learn those details, but seriously, I find the Republicans' continued obsession with the Steele dossier kind of crazy on a factual basis because there is no way it has much relevance to whatever the current state of Mueller's investigation.

Seriously, as I've been hearing said quite a bit, it says a lot about how little Trump and the Republicans have that this is all they can come up with to try to undercut the investigation. Seriously, this is it? There's nothing here!

There is on way that their Steele obsession makes sense, though: as the best thing they can manage right now in their effort to try to come up with justifications to fire Rosenstein and Mueller. Unfortunately for Trump, while he may try to use this as cover to fire them, the Nunes memo here does nothing at all to undercut Mueller, and very little towards Rosenstein either. Trump doesn't care about such details of course, he only wants to not be embarrassed by having to leave office early, but these things matter and if he tries something based on this I think there would be a strong blowback.

So, two new reasons to be worried about our democracy!

First, Donald Trump thinks that it's fun to say how people (Democrats) who did not stand up and applaud him at the State of the Union are traitors. I think it's fairly obvious how this is a very directly authoritarian statement -- you applaud Glorious Leader, or you die! The choice is up to you...

Trump is dumb, yes, but with lines like this we are reminded of how dangerous his ignorance is.


And second, a Republican in the Pennsylvania State House thinks that they should impeach their state Supreme Court because the court ruled against the Republicans' very effective gerrymander in that state. Now, Pennsylvania may be a battleground state for statewide elections (president, senator, governor), but the state house and senate, and the US House delegation, are very strongly gerrymandered in the Republican's favor. The current, post-2010 13 to 5 Republican gerrymander even survived Obama's 2012 Presidential win without losing a seat, which was impressive when apparently Democrats got more votes statewide that year for the House.

But there have been several legislative challenges to this gerrymander, and recently one based exclusively on the state constitution (and not the federal one) won -- the state high court decided that the districts are an illegal partisan gerrymander. Now, the high court has a 5-to-3 Democratic majority. So, this Republican's idea is, impeach the five dissenters in order to hold political power, whether the courts or people want to or not. And with the veto-proof, more-than-two-thirds majorities Republicans have in both houses of the statehouse, they could do that if they want...

And as with Trump, the danger here towards our democracy is quite direct and obvious. Even if this doesn't happen, that it would even come up as a possibility says a lot about the state of this nation right now, sadly...

Trump's team has had a great week, huh. :) Mueller indicted over a dozen Russians for hacking and interfering with the 2016 election in a bunch of proven ways, several people have flipped and are talking in ways that have made Paul Manafort's chances of not either being in prison for a long time or flipping even less likely, Trump's several month long steady increase in his poll numbers, fueled by the tax bill and the State of the Union address, seems to have started to turn against him, and, worst of all, he had to make maybe the greatest sacrifice any American has ever made: he didn't go golfing for a weekend because it'd look bad after that horrible school shooting. No one has ever sacrificed so much...

But yeah, as far as the Mueller investigation is concerned, the big question is if Manafort can be made to talk. You flip him, you probably get serious stuff on Trump. Maybe Mueller can find that stuff even without Manafort, though --flipping Gates is potentially a big deal on that point, as he was close to Manafort.

Anyway, it's been an eventful but encouraging week.

Crisis actors. Never mind how, crisis actors are to blame for everything.

On the one hand, the activism of the children from that Florida school where the shooting happened is fantastic and really encouraging! We need that, and a lot more people who are willing to put in the effort to fight the NRA and their lackies in Congress, in order to make any progress.

However, considering how insanely powerful the NRA is, how they control the Republican Party and have some influence over the Democrats as well, and how the Republicans control the government now, this will take a long time to get anywhere. It will take not only short-term activism, but sustained effort over years, for the serious change we need -- starting with a real assault weapons ban, more background checks, wait times for gun purchasing, etc, then maybe sometime moving up to handgun restrictions and such. The NRA and its backers won't take any of that without a hug efight and given that they are in charge right now the likelihood of anything happening this year is sadly remote.

Now, there have been some good articles saying that pessimism like mine are part of the problem, that by saying that you give up and let the current situation continue... but that's reality, they are in charge and it will be VERY hard to get any of the gun restrictions the US badly needs passed.

So, may this movement continue...

Also see: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/...#read-more

I wonder, is there anyone who actually can fully follow all of the crazy stuff that's happened over the last week-plus? With Trump around almost every day is an exhausting month-long marathon...

But in right now's news, it looks like Conor Lamb, the Democrat, won the US House special election in Pennsylvania! This seat went for Trump in a landslide and the now-resigned former Republican representative didn't even have a Democratic opponent in the last two elections ('14 and '16), 6), so I've been skeptical all along about if Lamb would win... but it looks like he managed it, if by the narrowest of margins. Right now that margin is barely over 500 votes, and that is probably going to narrow a bit before it's finalized. Ideally this race would be a blowout win for the Democrat, to repudiate Trump and his efforts to destroy America and replace it with a Trumpian dicatatorship, but a win is a win and it's really really great to finally win one of these competitive special elections! The blue wave seems to be real...

Keep America Great Again. Kapa

Amusingly "Keep America Great" is apparently the subtitle to a horror movie, The Purge: Election Year. Yeah, that sounds about right for a Donald Trump slogan...

That one involved a riot that killed a lot of senators. Those movies are dark comedies, intentionally so. The premise is ridiculous, but it's supposed to be ridiculous. At the same time, I'm pretty sure that sub title an attempt by the movie writers to make fun of "make America great again".

Don't lose track of one thing. That slogan is basically Trump saying that America was broken before, and it's fixed and awesome now. He already accomplished his goals, and wants to make sure it stays good. That's what a slogan like that means. So, Trump thinks he's doing well.

I don't watch horror, so I've never seen them. Dark comedies? Okay.

Quote: Don't lose track of one thing. That slogan is basically Trump saying that America was broken before, and it's fixed and awesome now. He already accomplished his goals, and wants to make sure it stays good. That's what a slogan like that means. So, Trump thinks he's doing well.

Well, yeah. It's a government that he is in and Donald Trump is the best, most important, and really the only person in the world, so of course everything is better now!

Seriously, watching him speak, it's pretty painful. I usually avoid listening to almost everything he says because he is such a disgusting person, but you can't avoid it all. I saw a few clips of his speech at the recent Pennsylvania rally, and there's one bit where he's basically mocking the concept of acting Presidential. So in his warped mind disgusting misbehavior is normal and good, and decency, decorum, and believing in the office of President or literally ANYTHING America stands for somehow are so dumb they're funny? That 40-something percent of the American people believe someone like that should hold any kind of office ever is incredibly sad and a really bad sign for the future. Sure, right now there's a strong reaction against Trump and I think it will continue and we will continue to win for the time being, but this shows that this kind of appeal can work...

In his mind, and the minds of people like him, acting with dignity is a comforting lie the polite tell each other.

... John Bolton as National Security Adviser is a very scary thing. I wonder which horrible war he will start first? War with Iran, war with North Korea, or war somewhere else? Gah...

War on muppets.

Fortunately he only watches cable news, but if Fox News ever does a segment on this then yeah, war on muppets it is!

He's already cutting funding to PBS. It's possible he's known for a long time now.

Well that's what he says, but that budget bill he signed recently actually INCREASES domestic spending, it doesn't cut it. That that bill both increased domestic spending (and not only on the military!) and also said 'and none of this money can go to Trump's wall he wants to build' made Trump and the alt-right pretty angry, you might have noticed... the Dems won big on that one without people even noticing until it was pretty much over!

On another note, I did watch most of the Stormy Daniels interview on 60 Minutes, and between that and articles about some of Trump's other victims, it's an important reminder that Trump was pretty much exactly the same as people like Harvey Weinstein and such. It's the classic "casting couch" thing -- lure woman to condo/apartment/what have you with promise of a part, surprise-demand sex once she gets there, then probably never get around to giving her that part. The only difference between Stormy Daniels and other victims is that once confronted with that situation, she chose to consent. Other victims of his did not however, such as Summer Zervos who is now suing him for defamation after he denied the incident: http://time.com/5210922/summer-zervos-la...ald-trump/ . That lawsuit will probably be in court for years, but it has a good chance of eventually succeeding. I hope it does, because Trump's teflon scandals-bounce-off-me coating is incredibly frustrating to see, when he has done such nasty things.

I didn't watch that interview, because I honestly don't care about that particular scandel beyond whether or not it was consensual. I don't even care that she's a porn star, that's her business, but it's literally the only thing anyone brings up about her. She is yet another on a long list of women Trump has abused. That said, sure, I hope she wins that lawsuit.

Did you watch the interview before that one, with the secretary of education? That was utter madness, and that person stands to hurt kids across the country in real ways.

Betsy DeVos is wildly incompetent, yes. She also wants to destroy public education and replace it with more charter schools, which are not better and would make education worse. Keeping that from happening is important. She also got the job she has because of corruption and nepotism -- her brother Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, was a huge Trump backer who also tried to help set up some backchannel connections with Russia. And yeah, she has a thing for saying really dumb things, like she did in that interview. So yes, there are plenty of reasons to dislike her.

However, I do wonder if she gets SO much focus and hate because she's a woman. I mean, there are a lot of people in Trump's cabinet who are incompetent, and the whole cabinet's PURPOSE is to destroy the government and undermine federal agencies with mismanagement and actively destructive policies, pretty much. Excepting national security, almost every other cabinet secretary has been chosen because they hate and want to destroy the department they are administering. Betsy DeVos is very far from the worst, most worrying, or most potentially destructive member of this cabinet; I'd choose Scott Pruitt for worst cabinet member for sure, every time. He is doing a good job at literally burning the planet to the ground as quickly as possible, and undoing as many environmental rules as he possibly can; it will take a lot to recover from this damage. Fortunately some states, led by California, are fighting back against him. And "National Security Adviser John Bolton" is a really scary thing too! But it's DeVos who gets the most hate, and she's one of the only women. I do doubt that that's a cooincidence. To compare her to maybe the other most incompetent cabinet secretary, Rick Perry is, going by what I read, basically an empty chair, an utterly incompetent nothing who has no clue about the Energy Department's mission (nuclear energy and research, mostly) and doesn't have anywhere near the intelligence to lead that department. But while he gets mocked by the press every so often, DeVos gets FAR more attention despite being maybe actually a little bit less wildly incompetent than Perry is...

Keep in mind the sheer number of people DeVos is threatening to affect immediately, for many families, and the attention becomes clear. I do agree that damage to the planet outweighs everything else though.

True. Pruitt has some of his own (pretty serious) corruption scandal stuff going on, but Trump has made it clear that he's fine with that; Trump is tired of some of his people leaving for ethics reasons, why can't they see that, like The Donald, you should just ignore the people complaining about that and be as corrupt as you want? It's not like congress is going to do anything about it to enforce the rules against this administration, after all!

In other news, Mueller's got his first person sentenced to prison because of this investigation. It's only a month in prison, but still, that's something. Also it's now known that Mueller is indeed investigating the president... but he's telling Trump that it isn't a criminal investigation yet, either because of Justice Department standards against criminally prosecuting a President, or in order to try to get Trump to agree to a meeting. Either way, knowing that there is a real investigation into Trump's own actions is great. May the investigation continue to be successful.

That month long sentence was intended both as pressure and to keep that person out of the way for a little bit longer. Rest assured more is coming.

Ok I think I'm the first of us to stop laughing long enough to say something about the recent, let's say, developments.



So Trump's lawyer got- BAHAHAHAHAHA!

Laughing? Yeah, there are plenty of reasons to be amused by these idiots recently... from Cohen and Manafort's flailing, probably doomed efforts to not go to prison because of their very obvious mountains of crimes and ties to Russians and (often Russian) gangsters; to the House / Trump people trying to undermine Comey (who is in the news again because he just wrote a book about his take on the 2016 campaign and Trump) by releasing some of Comey's memos... and failing badly because the memos are detailed and back up Comey's book; to Trump over and over ranting incoherently on Twitter because he's worried about these investigations and the damage they are doing to his administration; to more rumors and fact backing up parts of the Steele dossier; to Hannity of all people being a client of Cohen's; and so much more... yeah, things are crazy now, and in some strange and often amusing ways. It's hard to even know where to begin, so much is going on and so much of it is so bad for this administration... :D

This is the perfect reaction video to Trump claiming it's other people ruining his administration.



The prequels have given us a gift. Don't let them take it from you.

The Star Wars prequels are great movies and always have been! My thoughts on those haven't changed much with time, I still like them.


On another note though, this Comey book and his PR tour hasn't changed my core thought on him, that he got Trump elected by his decision to release that memo, in a way that went against prior FBI policy, and he needed to be fired for it. So, Trump's decision to fire him was good and necessary... but his reasoning why was quite bad, and is why, despite agreeing that he should have been fired, that Trump actually did it deserves to be the big scandal that it is. Trump fired him in an attempt to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation, after all! That's really bad. But had Hillary won despite his interference, I'd have expected her to fire Comey as well, because he needed to go for doing what he did to her.

In the book Comey apparently says that he may have decided to release that memo in part because he thought Hillary was going to win, and didn't want people afterwards to say how he'd been hiding this, but that's no good excuse, not with how important it proved to be and considering that there wasn't actually anything behind it -- Hillary was cleared before the election, after all!

So no, just because Comey turned on Trump after Trump's election, and has some amusing anecdotes about how awful Trump is and how he doesn't care about things like truth, it doesn't mean I like Comey now.

I remember thinking "eh, they're ok", but my opinion on the prequels has gotten worse with time. For me, they're incoherent, boring, and badly written. Also, the visuals has managed to age worse than the orig trig.

That's one of the few things OB1 and I always agreed on (and hopefully still do), that the prequels are great movies. Attack of the Clones is the only movie I actually was excited enough for that I watched its trailers over and over before its release, for example, and it did not disappoint. George Lucas is a great moviemaker! The new post-Lucas Star Wars movies are so, so much worse than anything he worked on...

Oh, and for all the people who said, back then, that the prequels were unrealistic because there's no way a democracy could die like you see in the films... I hope that they've apologized, since we now have had real life experience in exactly how that can happen. Democracy isn't dead yet, but it's been pressured in a way those critics surely did not imagine in the early '00s. That wasn't very long ago, but it's enough...

Oh right, there was a bunch of political stuff in those movies, wasn't there? Sorry, I kind of tune those parts out.

It's not just 'some political stuff', the entire plot of the trilogy is about how a democracy fell and was replaced with an evil murderous dictatorship, while a man raised among its protectors (the Jedi) turned on them and destroyed them. That's what the story of the prequels is, and it's well conceived and written.

A Black Falcon Wrote:It's not just 'some political stuff', the entire plot of the trilogy is about how a democracy fell and was replaced with an evil murderous dictatorship, while a man raised among its protectors (the Jedi) turned on them and destroyed them. That's what the story of the prequels is, and it's well conceived and written.

The thing is ABF, just because the concept of a democracy falling to war mongering is a valid one to tell in a story, and the "point" of the story, it doesn't make it good. A story can have an admirable lesson but still be told utterly terribly. Heck, there are stories with reprehensible lessons that are told in absolutely amazing ways. "Thank You For Smoking" comes to mind. Basically, the "moral" of a story has almost nothing to do with whether it's good or bad.

Also, Trump is not half the war monger the Bush administration was. Trump's presidency has more in common with Idiocracy, and the Ster Wers prequels were not primarily about that politics stuff. It was about "family", apparently, according to George RR Lucas. I can forgive you for thinking it's about Palpatine though, since the movies themselves tend to meander around forgetting what they are about, not unlike the Hobbit trilogy.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:The thing is ABF, just because the concept of a democracy falling to war mongering is a valid one to tell in a story, and the "point" of the story, it doesn't make it good. A story can have an admirable lesson but still be told utterly terribly. Heck, there are stories with reprehensible lessons that are told in absolutely amazing ways. "Thank You For Smoking" comes to mind. Basically, the "moral" of a story has almost nothing to do with whether it's good or bad.

Sure, of course having a good idea doesn't automatically make something good, but fortunately the Star Wars prequels do a lot of things really well, so they're great regardless. When compared to the original Star Wars trilogy, really the only thing they definitely do worse is humor, which I've always thought isn't nearly as good in the prequels as it is in the originals. But the story, writing, characters, visuals, etc, I at least have always thought that the Star Wars prequels do all of those things great, regardless of what people say. The prequels are really great movies.

My order for how much I like the Star Wars movies goes 6 > 4 > 5 = 3 > 2 > 1 > R1 > 7 >= 8. I'm not sure which is worse between 7 and 8, both do so many things so wrong... in some ways 8 is better, but in other ways it's worse...

Quote:Also, Trump is not half the war monger the Bush administration was. Trump's presidency has more in common with Idiocracy,

Well, Trump's instincts are less warmongering than Cheney's, but with our new National Security Adviser (Bolton) I'm sure we'll be involved in more wars soon, since he is a huge fan of war. The only questions is about how long it'll take Trump to listen to him.

But yeah, Trump is nothing like Palpatine. Palpatine is an evil genius with a clever and devious plan, while Trump is an idiot who happened to take advantage of America's greatest weakness, racism, to chance into the Presidency. Where they are similar is that both are antidemocratic people who, once in power, act to undermine the democracy that they lead. We are fortunate that Trump is as incompetent as he is, because him and his team have been damaging our democracy in a lot of ways and that will continue for as long as they are in office...

But yes, so far our system is holding just well enough that Trump's antidemocratic tendencies, and tweets, haven't led to an American dictatorship or such. But his success as far as he has gotten shows our system's weaknesses in ways people didn't imagine before. The idea of America falling to autocracy is much more plausible today than it was when the Star Wars prequels released.

Quote:and the Ster Wers prequels were not primarily about that politics stuff. It was about "family", apparently, according to George RR Lucas. I can forgive you for thinking it's about Palpatine though, since the movies themselves tend to meander around forgetting what they are about, not unlike the Hobbit trilogy.

Sure it's about family, but it's also about politics. Those are the two major focus points of the films' plots.

Quote:not unlike the Hobbit trilogy

On that note, I saw all three Hobbit movies in theaters when they released, and they were good. They're a big step down from the exceptional original Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, more so than Star Wars original series vs. prequels almost certainly, but I still liked them. They're too long for the amount of story they have to cover, but I liked them and don't mind that they stretched The Hobbit over three films; two would have been better, but three works.

Watch these.

I've heard of those videos, but I don't love movies enough to want to watch half hour long movie review videos. Games, yes. I love games, playing or watching. But movies? With the limited amounts of time there is, I don't have much interest in spending lots of time watching people talk about movies. So yeah, I haven't watched those, and don't know if I want to. Plus, aren't they pretty critical of the movies? While I agree that they're a big step down from the exceptional brilliance of the LotR movie trilogy, there were more than enough things I liked in the Hobbit movies that they were a decently good time overall.

I only post those so that you can see where I'm coming from when I say those movies have fundamental flaws that made them a chore to watch. I remember leaving the theater with my family after the third one, and we all just couldn't keep in our disappointment with that trilogy any longer.

I understand if you don't have time to watch those, but if you're going to say they're fine, those videos are my criticism. There is no short form way to get it across. Suffice it to say that even the actors and director hated the project, and there was a LOT of executive meddling.

I wonder, is there ANYTHING Scott Pruitt could actually do to get fired by Trump? Because the incredibly corrupt stories about him just keep flooding out to the press, but Trump, of course, doesn't care one bit about any of that and wouldn't fire someone just because they are insanely corrupt and horrible. That's probably a plus to him, really, considering how Trump himself is even more corrupt...

Now, in most cases Trump does eventually tire of people who have stories this bad going out all the time, but Pruitt has been so good at destroying the environment and thus giving Trump "wins" (which no sane person would call a win) that he's an exception. So, he stays on, despite how large the mountain of corrupt and awful stories gets. I hope something changes to force him to leave soon, the world needs it...

Here's Some More News.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvlj0Iz...uQF0l3VGng

They are BACK!

Some More News? It's great to see that they're back with that, and yeah it seems to be as funny as it was before.

In other news, Trump seems to have decided he wants war with Iran, not North Korea. Great, that's SO much better...

Cracked fired him & all their other comedians, but it's good to see he's landed somewhere and is set on continuing the show even if he had to change the name.

So I was at the Maine Democratic Party's 2018 state convention this weekend, and it was worth it. I'm still not sure who I am voting for for governor -- the primary is this summer, and we've got 7 Democrats (and 5 Republicans, not that that matters for my vote) running. Now, the primary will be run as a ranked choice vote (maybe for the only time, depending on how the ballot issue also on the same ballot goes) so I don't need to choose only one person, which is great, but I do need to choose what order to put them in. With this many candidates it's tough, and even after hearing their speeches there are good reasons to support several of them -- do you go for a more liberal person, or someone who is aiming for general-election appeal? Because it's ranked choice, do I put a (or some of the) candidates who aren't doing as well higher than the candidates polling better? Etc. I'm still not sure. Ranked choice makes things a lot more interesting and better, so I hope the referendum to keep it passes and its use expands!

Of the three conventions I've been a delegate at now (2012, 2016, 2018), this was the first not in a presidential year. And I could tell the difference; there were a lot of people there, but fewer than 2016, no question. The location this year might be part of that, but there are more issues to cover at a presidential convention than an off-year one like this, so it makes sense. I just hope that Maine Dems do better than we have in recent years, Paul LePage really CAN'T be allowed to be replaced with another Republican...

Trump behaves like a fascist, which doesn't say much for Trump, but really doesn't say much for fascists. Were they ALL ignorant morons?

God damnit democrats!


(You'll have to go pretty far in, like the 16 minute mark.)

You're doing it again! STOP TRYING TO APPEAL TO THE FAR RIGHT! STOP IT! JUST STOP IT! This is why polls are starting to shift back in Trump's direction. You're just terrible democrats. You just are.

On a (slightly) lighter note... this is one of the places that Trump's destruction of the Republican Party has brought us.

So, there are a lot of competitive races that will be decided here in a couple of weeks in Maine's June 12 primaries. One that is not competitive, however, is the race for the Republican candidate for Senator. This likely-to-lose-in-the-fall candidate will face off against incumbent Independent (but caucusing with the Democrats) Angus King and (angry-left, somewhat minor candidate) Democrat Zak Ringlestein. There is only one Dem running, since no major candidates are going to take on Angus King given his popularity and that he does caucus with us. That there would be a Republican challenge was inevitable, though. And indeed, two candidates ran, Eric Brakey and Max Linn. Both are going to be on the ballot.

However, too late to remove him from the ballot, after Brakey challenged Linn's supporter signatures to the Secretary of State, Linn was disqualified because too many of the required signatures he submitted were invalid, either because they are doubles, aren't of valid voters (out of state, dead, what have you), or other reasons. Linn was quite upset about this, but there's nothing he can do to get back on the Republican ballot, he didn't have enough signatures. Anyone who votes for Linn will have their vote "counted" as if they submitted a blank ballot on that race.

So, naturally, like any good diehard Trump supporter, Linn... decided to keep running anyway. Yes, really. Despite not actually being a candidate, Linn is running a campaign. Most notably, he has put up signs with his name on them along roadsides. He has put up a LOT of signs with his name on them. In fact, even here in very Democratic southern Maine, there are more Linn signs around than for any other candidate. How many signs did he make, anyway? They say "Trump Strong" on top, in a red bar, then Linn below, with a blue background.

Naturally, everyone else, including the Maine Republican Party, finds Linn's move here pretty strange. After all, he is not a candidate! Linn's response to that? Trump-style unhinged craziness. Here's what Linn posted on his Facebook page about the subject: "When unelected bureaucrats and radical judges, given to us by the Democrats, tell us "no", we who support President Trump and are #TrumpStrong must unite and tell them "YES!'" He's saying this because Secretary of State Dunlap is indeed a Democrat, since here the state legislature elects the secretary of state and such as the Dems hold the legislature, but the disqualification was not a partisan issue, it was a purely factual one. This distinction is irrelevant to Trump's willing copies, though, so there they are, forests of Linn signs everywhere. Linn also had this to say on Twitter, as if he's an actual candidate, which he is not: "“The outpouring of support from across the State has truly been humbling,” Linn tweeted Thursday afternoon. “Clearly Maine GOP voters want a high energy, Trump Strong candidate!”"

Oh, and Linn hasn't stopped at flooding Maine roads with his signs, either -- he's even put a bunch of them up over in New Hampshire, the next state over, for no apparent reason! Yes, really. Why, nobody knows. People in New Hampshire are not amused, as the signs are not legally allowed to be there. Supposedly the Linn campaign agreed to take them down, but come on, how did that ever happen in the first place? Only a campaign as unwilling to follow the law as Linn's would do such a weird thing... the claim in one of the articles below that the campaign "didn't know" that they had signs up in New Hampshire is questionable at best. Who knows how this happened but it's pretty silly.

Is this the future of America, fake or disqualified candidates who run anyway, just to assuage their egos and mess with the election system? Because some people are sure to vote for him anyway because of these signs, even though there's no point... but it won't be a majority, surely Brakey will get most of the vote (even if you count all blank ballots for Linn), so all Linn will do is show how odd his decisions have been. This country...

Here are links to some articles on this saga. I started with the point where Linn got disqualified, though of course the story goes back before that. Read if you want more on this amusing saga. Who knew with that first fight where Linn would go later...

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/24/d...-max-linn/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/officials-m...mpaigning/
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/05/29/c...to-voters/
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/05/31/d...hampshire/
http://www.fosters.com/news/20180601/sig...r-in-dover

If we had a ranked voting system instead of winner take all, this wouldn't mess with the system.

However, those in power are stubborn, and like to keep in place whatever system got them there.

And now, now at the end of all things, you see the truth of it. Our system always had problems.

Yeah, I really hope that the referendum to keep ranked choice voting passes, it'll be on the ballot at the primary. I don't know which way that will go... the Democrats are mostly in favor, but the Republican party is opposed unfortunately so it could lose. I think that's shortsighted, because while with ranked choice LePage would never have won the first time, isn't it just as easy to imagine a time where it's the Republicans who would be hurt by not having it? I'd certainly think so. But no, they want to keep not-so-good old first-past-the-post. I disagree.

Quote: And now, now at the end of all things, you see the truth of it. Our system always had problems.

The end of all things? I sure hope not, America can be saved from the antidemocratic forces tearing it apart... who knows if it WILL be, but it can be.

Good videos there. Maine's ranked choice system uses instant runoff, for the record. It seems like a fairly good system.

For that second video though, I have no idea why the "independence of irrelevant alternatives" would actually be a desirable thing, as that theorem posits, so most of that video feels kind of pointless because it's defending a critically flawed case. First, no option on a ballot is irrelevant, regardless of if that person or choice ends up winning or not! Whether a candidate or option wins or loses has no bearing on its importance or value on the ballot. And second, of course adding or removing options from a ballot is going to change the outcome, and it should. People make choices based on the options in front of them, and they are going to make different choices when given different options. Removing one option from a ballot SHOULD change the outcome to some extent, and there's nothing whatsoever negative about that.

That the only way to solve this not-a-problem situation is dictatorship is just more proof that it's not a good idea in the first place, but it didn't take that to make me think that, I dislike the idea regardless.

I think you misunderstood. In reality, you actually agree with the notion. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives" refers to election spoiling, such as someone voting for an independent 3rd party, thus changing the results that otherwise would have gone to a certain candidate. You know, the 2000 election. That is what is meant, and I think you would be in favor of an electoral system that did it's best to reduce it.

That's why I am starting to think a mixture of ranked voting with cardinal voting would be superior to simply any version of ranked voting. Cardinal voting allows someone to rank "getting punched in the face" as a sufficiently worse option than getting $10 and getting $11, and not just "the third place option".

Cardiinal voting would probably be too confusing to use in a general election, though...

Quote: I think you misunderstood. In reality, you actually agree with the notion. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives" refers to election spoiling, such as someone voting for an independent 3rd party, thus changing the results that otherwise would have gone to a certain candidate. You know, the 2000 election. That is what is meant, and I think you would be in favor of an electoral system that did it's best to reduce it.

I wonder, how realistic would it be in a real-world situation to have something like you see in that video there, where five different election methods all result in a different winner? They have to have carefully designed that sample to give that kind of result.

I mean, I do think that ranked choice is overall a better and more fair system than first-past-the-post. It's not perfect, but no method likely to be used is.