363

Newsweek.com

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dhork@lemmy.world 219 points 11 months ago

"We're losing a lot of people because of the internet," Trump said. "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."

He said this in 2015, folks. And we still elected him. We're fucked.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 113 points 11 months ago

'We' didn't elect him. A horde of deluded, ignorant douchebags in just the right states did.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 121 points 11 months ago

No, a bunch of empty land elected him.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 53 points 11 months ago

I can only imagine where the country would be if we reformed the Electoral College and the Senate. It's absurd to be giving 1 million people in Hickle Dickle the same votes as 30,000,000 in another state. Or even worse, in the EC people in small states get 3-4 times the voting power as citizens of some larger states.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 31 points 11 months ago

The idea behind doing that was so that the people in Hickle Dickle have their needs heard as much as the people from New Franciscago. Why? Because small towns have different needs than big cities, and it's important to hear from the people living in each area.

However it absolutely needs an overhaul as A) the population difference between New Franciscago and Hickle Dickle have become obscene (you're talking 30m vs 1m, when the reality is closer to 30m vs 100,000 or less), and B) the electoral college is becoming weaponized to override New Franciscago when it was supposed to balance the two and make sure Hickle Dickle still has its needs met.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

The real problem happened in 1929 when Congressional apportionment was set at 435. Congress regularly increased in size before then. The population has more than doubled since 1930, yet the overall number of representatives hasn't changed, which means each district gets bigger.

There are 990K people in the largest district by population currently, with 545k in the smallest. (Plot twist: that large district is actually Delaware, which still has only one district, somehow)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_congressional_districts

[-] tmyakal@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

I have been saying this for years. The Senate is supposed to be where small states get an outsized voice, but by freezing the size of the House, small states have been getting an outsized voice in both houses on Congress and they've been getting a disproportionately high number of electors in the Electoral College.

Based on the 2020 census, Wyoming is the least populous state at 576,851 people. If that were used as the smallest number of people that could be in a district, the US's total population of 335,073,176 would be divided into 580 congressional districts. Over a third of the population is being underrepresented because the House hasn't added seats in almost 100 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

The idea behind doing that was so that the people in Hickle Dickle have their needs heard as much as the people from New Franciscago.

No, not really. The actual idea behind the Electoral College (and Senators prior to the 17th Amendment) was so the state Hickle Dickle is in, collectively as a sovereign unit could have its needs heard, as expressed by its state legislature. It was basically intended to work like a parliamentary system (where the prime minister is chosen by members of parliament themselves, not by vote of the public), except with the power given to each of the state legislatures instead of Congress, for enhanced Federalism/separation of powers.

Electors don't exist to change the balance the power between urban and rural; that's a side-effect. Their real purpose is to compensate for the fact that different states have different legislative structures [for example: Nebraska is unicameral!] with wildly different ratios of constituents per legislator. They couldn't do "one legislator, one vote" and have it be fair (read: normalized by population across states), so they did the next best thing and gave each state's legislature a number of elector slots equal to that state's representation in Congress, and let them choose people to fill those slots however they wanted.

People think the Electoral College and the Senate don't work right, and that's because they really don't. But that's not because they were designed poorly for what they were intended to do (limit "mob rule" and provide a voice for States as sovereign entities/the middle layer in the federalist separation of powers), but because we've subsequently fucked them up by bolting half-assed attempts at direct democracy to them in the form of the 17th Amendment, the Reapportionment Act of 1929, and state legislators abdicating their power to appoint electors and choosing them by statewide popular vote instead.

At this point, IMO, either implementing direct democracy properly (abolishing the Electoral College and the Senate) or going back to the original design would be an improvement over the broken status quo!

[-] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 38 points 11 months ago

Don't forget the tens of millions of Americans who stayed home because "both parties are the same"

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 24 points 11 months ago

Yeah, that's always the problem. Sometimes it's just a lack of motivation. Also don't discount voter suppression, like how voting day still is not a holiday and there's a significant lack of facilities in urban areas compared to suburban and rural regions. Nobody should have to wait in line for 5 hours (complete with BS like 'giving them water is a crime') to vote.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

If the Republicans allowed real democracy to happen, they'd never get elected. They've said this pretty openly.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

They used to claim they were the vast majority, silent majority, and so on, but it seems like they changed their tune on that and now it's "we don't need a majority! We're a constitutional republic"

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website 44 points 11 months ago

We have to go see Bill Gates

This line... Lol

"Hi Bill, you're the CEO of the internet, right? I'm going to need you to turn it off for me. Thanks."

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

He saw that South Park episode and thought it was a documentary.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Well he doesn’t know Al Gore personally, for some reason he never seemed to show up to Epstein’s parties

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CarlsIII@kbin.social 23 points 10 months ago

It’s amazing, he’s said so many terrible things, I’m still learning about stuff like this he said years ago.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 76 points 10 months ago

"He could invoke powers we've never heard a President of the United States invoke—potentially to shut down companies or turn off the internet or deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil," he added. "We don't know because the things that are in there, the emergency powers of the president, aren't widely known to the American people.

Wow, it’s almost like we’ve consolidated too much power in the Executive Branch and should do something about it before a despotic asswipe gets elected by an unhinged, manipulated populace.

[-] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 9 points 10 months ago

Again. With nothing to lose this time...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nicerdicer@feddit.de 61 points 10 months ago

No matter where an election is coming up - people tend to vote against their interests. This meme popped up in my head when I read this thread:

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Hegar@kbin.social 53 points 11 months ago

He's also promising to go into people's houses at night and wreck up the place.

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

And sell our children's organs to zoos for meat?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 48 points 11 months ago

"Things the person speaking does not fully understand for $200."

[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Wait until he hears about amatuer radio licensing, unlicensed spectrum, and experimental radio. It will blow his fucking mind.

I bet he actually thinks that all data is transported by fortune 500 companies that will do as he says "or else."

[-] spider@lemmy.nz 43 points 11 months ago

If Trump elected, America has "turned off its brain", I say

[-] zcd@lemmy.ca 23 points 11 months ago
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

Turned its brain back off

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 38 points 11 months ago

Thankfully, he thinks unplugging the router in the Oval Office breaks it for everyone else, too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My thoughts and prayers have started ringing to the tune of "please gods may Trump have a heart attack / stroke at the worst possible time for the Republicans and spare the rest of the world another term of American foreign policy behaving as though it was conceived by racist, classist and eight kinds of phobic Elmer Fudd "

[-] misterundercoat@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

Another term? If he gets in again, he ain't leaving until he's dead. It's glaringly obvious that he plans to become a dictator like his friends Putin and Kim.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Please Donald piss off the wrong people. I double dog dare you.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 15 points 10 months ago

If the Internet goes off, it means most of the US will be pissed off at him. Cellphones would be basically useless.

His followers wouldn't be able to access their favorite propaganda and conspiracy theories, either, so maybe they'd sober up a bit. Either way, it would not be good for him.

[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

I mean, he can't. Even if he claims to have the executive power, even if he found a bunch of lackeys willing to try to do it for him, he can't do it. Whatever he did would be unenforceable. You can't just turn off the Internet. That's literally the reason we invented it in the first place, it's a communication network resilient against nuclear strikes and war and bad-faith governance all at once.

He could probably make it very hard to use, given a lot of time, but he'd be eaten alive by the angry populace long before it ever reached that point.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] docAvid@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago

Who are the wrong people? Have people similar to them offered significant resistance to past fascist regimes?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 20 points 10 months ago

It was built to survive a nuclear war.

It will survive Trump.

Even if I have to drive a station wagon full of backup tapes myself.

[-] rckclmbr@lemm.ee 24 points 10 months ago

There are countries that turn off the internet all the time. There's a only a few major Telcos that control all backbone infra. It could definitely happen

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] donuts@kbin.social 12 points 10 months ago

He already turns everyone else off, so why not?

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

The internet has gone to shit. Let’s hear him out. Speaking as a web developer who just sat through a wireframe meeting, I’m not completely averse to the internet disappearing.

[-] bunnyfc@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

computers were a mistake (I'm a software engineer)

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

I'm starting to lean towards the industrial revolution should never have happened.

[-] PeregrinoCinzento@lemmy.pt 8 points 11 months ago

"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

  • Douglas Adams.
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago

That's the sort of thing that leads to actual unrest.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] autotldr 9 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Donald Trump may turn off the internet if elected to a second term in the White House, a former staffer has warned.

Miles Taylor, Trump's former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, was asked on MSNBC about what potential damage the former president, who is the frontrunner in the GOP primaries, could do in government without breaking the law.

I think Americans still don't understand the full extent of the president's powers and things Donald Trump could do, bubble-wrapped in legalese, that would be damaging to the republic."

"He could invoke powers we've never heard a President of the United States invoke—potentially to shut down companies or turn off the internet or deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil," he added.

In a Republican debate later that month, Trump said he was "open to closing areas" of the internet to prevent terrorism.

Removing internet service in certain areas of the U.S. would require multiple companies to turn off their cell towers and fiber networks, and to restrict satellite access to people living in those regions.


The original article contains 636 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago

His MAGAlings must be shocked that he said he'd consult Bill Gates. Of course, cognitive dissonance is like water off a duck's back to them, so that won't last long.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
363 points (89.7% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3859 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS