Sad to see the BBC continuing to protect predators. You’d think some hard questions would have been asked after Jimmy Savile.

It was the wrong Dana.

The person recommended was a heritage foundation goon, but dementia don only knew the celebrity.

Jefferies is an AIPAC recipient. Kushner is Trump’s bribery guy. And Israel’s as well. Maybe Russia and the Saudies.

Point being, there’s only one reason to meet with Kushner, and that’s some form of bribery.

Well, it fails at number 1. Flat out.

And it also fails number 2.

All while introducing new failure conditions.

RCV is a bad system. We’re already doing a version of it more isn’t a fix, it’s just more complexity to an already broken system.

The actual way to get the very things you want are with Cardinal voting systems like STAR.

Let’s look at that track record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-negative_responsiveness#Specific_examples

Three massive, and provable failures that flipped an election due to a spoiler candidate. The very thing RCV claims to prevent.

There’s a reason why Condorcet only used his version of RCV as an example of a system that could not reliably produce the pairwise winner.

Then about 50 years later an Englishman reinvents the system but for multiple winner elections. Then later another Englishman strips out the multi-winner part and we’re back to the same system described in Condorcet’s 1785 Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix.

Translated that’s Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions.

I say very slight because of the many, many, glaring flaws of the system.

The fact that it does not eliminate the spoiler effect is a major one.

All it does is kick the spoiler effect down the road a bit. It eliminates the also ran candidates. As soon as a third party candidate actually becomes halfway viable, the spoiler effect kicks in harder than ever and skews the election the other way.

And FairVote (the assholes who keep pushing a broken system) know this.

The simplest argument against RCV is thus, the current US primary system followed by a General election functions nearly identically to a version of RCV capped at two rounds.

Blue Dogs tend to vote with the pack if they can’t be the single special snowflake. (i.e. the checks don’t clear as well when they have to be split five ways)

Ranked Choice is a slight improvement over our current system, but it was first invented in 1785 and has some inherent flaws. Flaws that can be exploited by bad actors to subvert elections.

May I suggest STAR. It was designed in 2014, and makes it much harder to subvert an election.

Fun fact, a simple majority can remove the filibuster. The House never had one, and the senate only adopted it as an internal rule.

Joel Kaplan served in the Whitehouse and then was instantly hired by Zuckerberg to “engender ties to conservatives” right as Obama took office.

Kaplan is one of the people who drove 2020, by exempting right wing disinfo sites from Facebook’s news truthfulness standards, and by putting his thumb on the scales of the algorithm to promote right-wing content.

Well, the Binance hack took a grand total of 20 minutes, so the hackers had time to look at more than one site.

Or 86. Which can kill surprisingly fast, although not when you think about it.

Yeah, a lot of the ancient occult wisdom was made up in the last couple of centuries. Con artists saturate that space, or rather, they created that space.

But Left and Right in a political context is directly traceable to the French Revolution and the events of 1789, and is well documented because of the removal of censorship on newspapers that I had mentioned.

Right wing philosophy boils down to “obey me or else”.

The origin of the words left and right in a political context comes from the French Revolution. Specifically from the events of the Estates General, and the writing of the failed constitution of 1789.

The first vote, “Should the Monarch have an absolute veto over laws passed?” was determined by seating. Those in favor (the nobility and clergy from the richer areas) sat to the right of the speaker’s podium, those opposed (people who wanted democracy, which included the some of the country nobles, country clergy, and the near entirety of the third estate) sat to the left.

This pattern repeated on most questions, those who supported monarchy sat to the right, democracy to the left. The newspapers, which were recently completely freed of censorship, started using left and right as shorthand for the two sides.

The philosophers then stepped in. Tomas Paine and Edmund Burke for two English language examples. Paine actually traveled to France and served in the legislature, despite not speaking French. Edmund Burke stayed in England and wrote about how the masses needed to be controlled by their betters, who should be selected not by birth, but by wealth. Burke was not a noble, but he was rich.

Edmund Burke is the father of Conservatism. He was somewhat explicit that the thing he wanted to conserve, was power over others. Later writers have obfuscated things a bit, but if you look, the message is the same.

So, when a right-winger loses, it’s someone who really wants unchecked control over others being told to fuck off.

Propaganda fueled that war, or did you forget Fox News existed? Created specifically to fuel wars and boost GOP talking points, by a billionaire who hated that Nixon was forced to resign.

He did buy it because Americans consumed it. Now they consume what he prints. Well, the ones still reading it.

An important note here, the family says they have the receipt for the diapers.

So it’s an accusation of shoplifting. Not actual shoplifting.

The problem with tankies specifically is that they cheer when their authoritarians do shit, like when they cheered in 1956, and again in 1989.

Both times tanks were rolled out to literally crush left wing uprisings against the pretend leftwing governments.

They cheer for Russia invading its neighbors.

At least most of us in the west are horrified about the shit our governments are doing. Tankies just cheer.

Evidence based on immigration filings from decades ago…

It doesn’t matter what judge they found, it’s still a fishing expedition that should have never been allowed.

Don’t play team sports with people’s lives in service of fascism.

Not just refusing to remove disinformation, but also actively removing the accounts of Lula supporters and for a brief time Lula’s official campaign account.

All because Zuck specifically hired Joel Kaplan in 2009 to “engender closer ties to conservatives”. Joel Kaplan, who as a Bush Lawyer, participated in the Brooks Brothers riot of 2000, which stopped the recount in Florida, and then was rewarded with a Bush Whitehouse position.