chowchowchow

15 ms·

151.
by chowchowchow 8y ago
> I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair. I don't think I said anything to that effect -- aside from that the current system is unfair -- but you seem to be arguing against a bit of a straw man he
152.
by chowchowchow 8y ago
To me your point of view reads as superficially civil but deeply cynical underneath. The current system is unfair , and you criticize people who want to fix it because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned with the
153.
by chowchowchow 8y ago
I’m sorry but I thought the issue we were talking about was whether global winner-take-all, IE most votes cast in the country determines the winner, is disenfranchising compared to our current electoral college system.
154.
by chowchowchow 8y ago
I don’t see how this is an insightful comment. You’ve just provided a different way of saying there’s a winner and a loser. Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s. Unde
155.
by chowchowchow 8y ago
This is a poorly drawn equivalence as the winner take all system doesn’t imbalance vote value like the electoral college does. IE you’re just saying winner takes all disenfranchises people who don’t vote for the winner which is a tautology.
156.
by chowchowchow 8y ago
shh
157.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
I see, so the pessimistic view you suggested above is that Apple has had such remarkable success selling to its subset of the market in spite of its inability to integrate big data into its products. This could be true, though it seems a bi
158.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
Isn't Apple's entire business model selling to a minority of users who are willing to spend more for their products?
159.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
This comment only makes sense if you accept the premise that the working well with big data is more valuable than a secure experience.
160.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
Agreed. Deleted last year and, despite all the incredibly disheartening news and current events, my well being has improved so much over the past 14 months.
161.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
Sure. Hope you find these sources acceptable. Re retweeting Russian propaganda accounts: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-campaign-staffers-pushed... I'm not saying they knew what they were doing at the time, but th
162.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
> Nixon (most likely) wasn't complicit in the break-in, he covered it up after he learned of it. That's quite a thin distinction and not at all exculpatory of him anyway. So if Donald Trump learned about activities by his campa
163.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
wait wait, you are totally crossing wires. In the watergate analogy "collusion" would be Nixon's direct complicity in the Watergate break in. Nixon was denying all involvement one year after the crime was reported. The crime
164.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
> don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year I don't know. I'm not a federal investigator, I don't really know how long these things take or what "should&qu
165.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
> Are the Clintons off-limits Umm, no. Not off limits. But also not relevant, for the same reason I didn't bring up George W. Bush and his administration. Your pivoting of this discussion into one of my personal opinions about the C
166.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
> If something being suspicious is cause to believe it, That's not what I said at all, I was talking about the reality of the suspicious acts, not the reality of their implications. But the immediate refocus to the Clintons, when no
167.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
That's way overstating it -- people may jump to conclusions that don't match objective reality, but the string of suspicious meetings, consistent omissions from security clearance forms and testomonies, peculiar behaviors by advis
168.
by chowchowchow 9y ago
Who said illegitimate? I take artificial in this context to mean not inherent, so like if you ran history over again the nations people have organized into over the centuries would be different.