Elerond

It seems that only demographic segment where Trump lost voters compared to Romney was white women, which may come to bite republicans in future considering that white women is single largest demographic group in US. Even though Clinton and Democrats have clearly lost more support among people, they aren't currently in power and those that are in power are the ones that need to make people happy, their opposition needs only to undermine people in power and offer alternative in election.

Rigged system they say States that passed voting restrictions saw decreased turnout, flipped to Trump http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/states-new-voting-restrictions-flip-trump-article-1.2866395?utm_content=buffereb48e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

Guardian decided to play the role that Fox has done past 8 years, as Fox can't be trusted anymore to do their job as party that they support is in the control.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796396412325871616 Theory why Clinton didn't win. It also make me think that she is speaking about this forum

Wyoming, which has population bit less than 600k has three electoral votes, so about 1 vote per 200k people California, which has population of about 39 145 000 has 55 electoral votes, which is about 1 vote per 700k people.

Source? Anyhow, another interpretation: http://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/ Above maps are based on poll results before election not actual results.

It seems that 47% of eligible voters didn't bother to vote. So at least there is lot of people that people can blame for next 4 years. No need for self-reflection It also seems that only ethnicity group that matters in US is whites.

Until the actual election results I would have agreed with your friend because my experience is many people, including some forum members, did seem almost obsessed with the email scandal But I would ask your friend when was Trump homophobic, because I can recall when he demonstrated other forms of bigotry but not homophobia ? When he chose Pence, who is openly and actively against LGBT rights and protections and who thinks that conversion therapy is not just okay but better target for governmental funding than AIDS prevention, you know that he isn't big supporter of LGBT people.

Do they also include VP that in interviews tells that if they win election they will as soon as they get in office start to remove LGBT protections, rights, including same sex couples to marry?

You forgot that people that didn't vote, also vote for Trump. Except if you live in area where Clinton won, then you voted for Clinton if you didn't vote for Trump. That was the first group listed m8. Anyways it looks like Clinton may have won the popular vote. This just gets better and better. Sorry I am just blind. It is nice to see that yet again candidate for establishment and democratic party that rigged the election loses election by winning popular vote because of rules by establishment.

You forgot that people that didn't vote, also vote for Trump. Except if you live in area where Clinton won, then you voted for Clinton if you didn't vote for Trump.

It seem that best case scenario has happened. Trade agreements and cheap foreign labor supporters now control house, senate and president's office.

Now we're back fun-time pondering! What's in for Trump to run and deliberately lose? What will he gain? Lets go in conspiracy rabbit hole and presume that conspiracy theorists are right Then there would be several things that Trump would gain by losing purposefully First he would have corrupt president that is willing to use her office to help her friend in office Clinton already has big part of governmental official in her pocket. Trump is facing criminal charges and tax fraud charges etc. and he wants them to go away Trump will get direct line to White House and influence its decision without needing to sacrifice his businesses like he would need in case that he becomes president. Presidential campaign has again made Trump relevant which is probably good for his reality tv shows. and so on.

The problem there isn't specifically too much information though, it's people cherry picking only information that fits their preconceived positions or not being equipped to filter it. Either can and does happen even when there isn't huge amounts of information. People who lack time or critical faculties can always go to a news site to get a filtered appraisal anyway, doesn't mean that that should be the only option for any complicated subject. And you have to ask what the alternative is. I'd far rather have too much information than too little, and the idea of having someone deciding the Goldilocks Zone of information for me does not appeal. I don't really want Fox News or CNN deciding which emails are relevant or whether climate change exists because I know perfectly well what their positions will be irrespective of what reality actually is. Cherry picking is possible when there is so much information that person can't reasonably spent enough time to internalize it themselves, so they turn to somebody else that has that time and they trust will tell them what that information contained. Which usually means that there is high change that they will get only parts of information that fits their preconceived positions about subject which makes them more likely ignore any information from other sources that goes against what their trusted sources say. Meaning that we are currently living scenario that you speak about, where Fox News, CNN etc. instances decide what emails are relevant and whether climate change exist, because most people don't themselves have time, resources, knowledge, and energy to look these subjects so they will listen somebody that they think will tell them "the most important details" about those things. Although locking away the information is not the solution, but I don't think that how things current run is way to go either. I don't also have comprehensive solution give out. But I would recommend that people don't only trust singular source or sources that all game from same origin, but instead look wider range of sources. Also people should avoid just following someone else's ideas if they don't understand and agree with them. "Citizens have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to watch carefully how their political leaders and representatives use their powers, and to express their own opinions and interests." - Larry Diamond

Climate change is a topic that shows how information overload can make information obscure and how people can't comprehend all the information that they get and usually seek somebody that gives shorter, simpler and straightforward answers. It is topic where people have hard time to tell what is false and what is truth, which is why conversations of said topic are usually more based people precognitive notions about subject than actual facts and studies. And where people's opinions about subject seem to be on same line as scientific studies about subject. It is probably subject where I see even people appeal to authority even in circles that should be experts. In short climate change topic in my opinion is excellent example how too much information, especially badly structured and presented information can make that information meaningless and leaving people on mercy of lobbyists.

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. The problem lies in that there is just too much data. By leaking hundreds of thousands emails that mostly contain nothing of importance, they create data block than isn't verifiable by any common person, because it take month probably years for person just to read all that information let alone alone check if all those emails are real. And then when somebody highlights one email from that pile, it is very difficult to check if if it is only email about subject or tone of earlier and later correspondence between same parties or parties from same circles. In other words there is so much information that for most people that read about wikileaks emails, it would be same if emails that aren't highlighted by somebody didn't exist because they will never read them. Drowning people on too much information is what big law firms nearly always do in tv series (and probably in some extent in real life) all the time by sending every unnecessary document with documents that opposition actually wants in order to hide those documents from their opposition. So one could ask why people use tactics that are meant to obscure and hide information if they want to inform people. Drowning people in too much information gives impression that you don't hide anything from them even though you are doing just opposite, because if people can't get information because there is too much noise then people are just in same place when there was just silence.

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda. Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.

lol In that sentence Clinton don't propose rigging Palestine election, but instead she says that USA did mistake in supporting Palestinian election especially when taking consideration fact that parties who oppose USA and its allies interests were the most popular ones. Meaning that Clinton thinks that USA made mistake in accidentally supporting its enemies and in that process undermining its allies. What nice way of saying that democracy should only be supported when the people vote for the ones that i like. Democracy is just way to give people express what direction they want their government to go, if said people are your enemies it isn't necessary best move to give them more power to oppose you and your allies more. And when you talk to said allies after you have given their enemies more power to oppose them bring up that you did it for principality to support democracy for all costs, especially when you are representative of nation with long history doing opposite isn't necessary best way to go about things. But of course who knows maybe things would be better if Clinton had just said "**** you" to Israelis and told them that they just need to suck it up that Palestinians voted know terrorists and Israel haters to represent them and nobody would use that against Clinton now.

lol In that sentence Clinton don't propose rigging Palestine election, but instead she says that USA did mistake in supporting Palestinian election especially when taking consideration fact that parties who oppose USA and its allies interests were the most popular ones. Meaning that Clinton thinks that USA made mistake in accidentally supporting its enemies and in that process undermining its allies.

Would be worth more if the authors were the same. But ah well, is images. First is from WP's editorial board and second is from WP's opinion's column by two ex United States Deputy Attorney Generals, one who served under Bill Clinton and another who served under George W. Bush, meaning that comparison is on same level as these elections are at general level "Who cares about facts, when my stories are much more entertaining"

Speaking about building writing portfolio, I would say that writing adventures for table top rpgs is excellent way to build your portfolio and learn elements that are unique in games compared to other forms of media, like branching story arcs, player agency etc..

Trump has nearly got more free media coverage than all other candidates have bought and free media coverage together. Of course lots of it has not been positive, but reality is that even bad press is better than no press at all, because people will not vote you if they don't know that you exist, in other cases you have opportunity to convince them to vote for you. So ironically Trump candidacy is probably reality because of media outlets that now oppose him most. Maybe next time those outlets will think before chasing clicks... but who am I kidding that will never happen

Maybe Platon was right. Only great philosophical minds can lead country and other people need to serve their vision To me choice for as our great philosophical leader is clear, there is nobody better qualified to tell people what they should think than Bruce

Being proud of one's own sexuality and being proud of one's ability to get away of molesting other people because they are famous are at least to me very different things even though they both have their roots in sex, as first is about person's right over their own body and second is person right over somebody else's body.