TheMightyEthan Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Lol, okay, I just wanted to make absolutely clear that I'm not defending this thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted October 9, 2016 Report Share Posted October 9, 2016 We are living through a very significant political-historic moment. I can't look away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 9, 2016 Report Share Posted October 9, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 I see. Assuming SA as a government hold significant amounts of money in US based accounts. But surely, as soon as this law looked like it might be passed, SA would (if they were sensible) just close all their accounts no? It just seems utterly unworkable from a practical perspective. Setting aside the international relationship damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 But it has to be not just US-based accounts, they would have to divest all financial holdings with institutions that do business in the US too, regardless of where the actual funds are located. It seems like that would be difficult to do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted October 11, 2016 Report Share Posted October 11, 2016 After this terrible segment by Fox News in NYC Chinatown, Asian Americans have been really talking and thinking about the Asian American experience. Shit like this has always been there but with my and other close generations, I think this is going to increasingly be talked about. At least for Chinese Americans with parents who came over in after American and Chinese relations got good in the 70's, a lot have and are now starting families. I'm sure similar things is going on with Koreans, Japanese, those from the various Southeast Asia countries and let us not forget those from and around India*. Some of us just take it, some of us speak up and some of us spit fire back but as a collective I think as a whole, we are really think about how we are treated by some people and as a collective. *Distinct but I think are close. While technically Asian, from Pakistan and westwards are probably distinct from what most people consider Asian. Frankly, these distinctions are pretty messy and arbitrary. Also folks of that part got a whole other suite of issues to deal with (e.g., durka durka). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 "the asian subcontent". Over here due to the influx of folks from that region for empire reasons "asian" usually meant folks from india n pakistan, but (i assume from american influence) is starting to lean towards east-asians. Russians just sit twiddling their thumbs in the weird european-asian venn diagram. anywho I came here to ask a question about the 2nd amendment but when I went to copy paste it I realised it's not quite wholly phrased in the "being necessary to the security of a free state" bit how I thought it was. (I thought the word "tyranny" was included in there somewhere given we're taught it was a response to us). Heh when you think about it this is the ultimate culmination of the revolutionary war in that going from no taxation without representation to potentially being represented by someone who isn't taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 British colloquialism would traditionally have been "Oriental" for Far East Asian cultures, though I understand the term to be somewhat of a pejorative these days. "Asian" in UK is, I think, understood to mean both Western and Eastern Asian with nearby communities influencing which you think of first. Someone in Bradford is likely to think of Asian as Indian, Pakistani etc. Someone from Aldershot more likely to think Nepalese (a lot of former Gurkhas there). Certain parts of London (East Finchley springs to mind) would associate the term with Japanese descendants. Feels a bit uncomfortable putting folk in boxes like that though... :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Feels a bit uncomfortable putting folk in boxes like that though... :/ But you're British! Categorization is up there with queuing as your national pastime! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 I just kind of realized that I don't think terms like Asian American seemsly exist in most other countries. Asian British or African German seems like odd combinations of words. It gets better if I use country of origin but even then it is a bit odd. Maybe I'm frazzled from just waking up and it all will fit together soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Heck, over here "White African" is an ethnic group cos we know not all africans are black and not all blacks are from africa (quite a few are caribbean cos of colony stuff). Asian British is an officially used term too (given well colonies again). Officially I am "White British" for example when filling out gov forms n such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_ethnicity_in_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity_categories I have heard of some brits moving to US n getting called "African American", which is wrong on so many points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 My African classmates in college and law school were always tickled to be called "African American" by their classmates, especially their African American classmates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 I once saw a documentary which was talking about black people living in Africa, who had never left Africa, and referred to them as African American. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Obama: "I would advise Mr. Trump to stop whining" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 I'm guessing it's a US thing in the context I've seen it, and with Malicious using it as "spooky halloween name" it's not something good. But what's "MAGA". I tried googling it n found there's a few Krava Maga classes in my city, so I guess Google doesn't know either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Make America Great Again! You can see it in my avatar. It's Trump's slogan for his campaign. SAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 wrt "African American" v "British Asian" I think there is more of a tendency in the UK to be either / or. People who consider themselves British who are of Asian descent would just be called British. People who consider themselves Asian and living in Britain would be "Asian". Man, Obama is one of the most underrated (in America - the rest of the world seems to think he is pretty great) presidents of all time. I hope you all realise how lucky you are / were to have him in charge during a pretty shitty time in the world. The whole "rigged election" thing could go one of two ways for Trump, it will either galvanise his supporters to go out and vote their asses off to try to beat the system (worst case scenario) or, it will leave them feeling totally disenfranchised with the system so they don't even bother (hope springs eternal). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 @Mal: Ahhh. Hadn't noticed there was a hat on your avatar. My brain just kinda went "anime girl" n left it at that @TN: See my thinking on the "it's all rigged" is: 1. There's likely thousands of ballot counters across the country from a broad range of political backgrounds. It'd be an immense conspiracy in same sense of faking the moon landing. 2. If he wins the "rigged election" then what does that say about how he won. If it was rigged he shouldn't be able to win, unless he rigged it in reverse....3. Though ultimately the electoral college is fucked up so wouldn't matter on the popular vote in theory. (which kinda confuses me on why all the effort to sway the popular vote) Ultimately he's just laying the foundations for his (hopeful) failure so he can be like "I never stood a chance against crooked hillary!". But yeah the disenfranchising people thing is kinda toxic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 1. Nearly all votes are cast on computers, and a good chunk of the computers have no paper printout ballot, meaning there is absolutely no way to verify their count, you just have to believe that they counted right. 2. Yeah... 3. Electoral College delegates are bound to vote certain ways based on the outcome in their state, so while the popular vote total for the country as a whole doesn't technically matter the outcomes in each state does. This potentially makes the election more susceptible to rigging though, because if you strategically hack the voting machines in a few key counties in a few key states you can potentially change the outcome of the election without actually altering the national totals very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Huh, I thought US had opposed computer voting cos of the whole "but it can be hacked" thing. We still rock old solid paper n pen ballots over here. I guess that alone makes it easier to push the idea that it's rigged given it's "computers". Are they super bound to their states popular vote? I'd understood it as being more of a "suggestion" for them and while 99% of the time they'll go with the popular vote, they technically can pick whatever. So a few pennies in the pockets of the delegates n hey presto. Especially given I believe they cast all their states votes on one candidate, rather than a pick n mix based on the pop vote ratio. (e.g My state has 5 votes, the pop vote puts Hillary at 60 n Trump at 40%, so I put in 3 for Hillary n 2 for Trump. Instead I put all of them towards Hillary). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 The electoral college is complicated. Various states have different laws binding their delegates to different degrees. For instance some states just say they have to vote a certain way, but provide no penalty if they don't. At least one state has a law that if a delegate votes for anyone other than the candidate who won that vote is invalid and constitutes the delegate's resignation, and the remaining delegates are to appoint someone else to fill the slot. To my knowledge none of them have ever been tested in court so it's unknown how enforceable they are. Each state gets one delegate for each member of Congress it has, so a total of 2 each for their 2 senators, plus however many Representatives they have (based on population). Most states are winner-take-all, so whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state gets all the delegates from that state, but Maine and Nebraska give their 2 "senator" delegates to the overall state winners and then assign the "representative" delegates based on who won each congressional district. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 ^Simples^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 This was posted a year ago. There's also one on the Electoral College, but I feel like you can view any video on it to understand how borked the whole thing is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Gerrymandering is a real problem, but it has nothing to do with presidential elections. U.S. federal elections are actually run by each state individually, generally under the purview of the secretaries of state. To rig a federal election would require collusion among the secretaries of state of both parties, which makes no goddamned sense. It's also grossly irresponsible to claim the election is rigged without any proof. Last time that happened here was on the eve of Lincoln's election; it was part of the rhetoric leading up to the civil war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Depends at what level the rigging is occurring. If you've snuck malware onto the voting machines you don't need the cooperation of the secretaries of state. And because of the way the electoral college works if you were strategic about it you wouldn't even necessarily need to do it in very many jurisdictions to change the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.