Bernie Sanders Wants To Ban Facial Recognition Use By Police (venturebeat.com) 154
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wants to put an end to police use of facial recognition software. Sanders called for the ban as part of a criminal justice reform plan introduced over the weekend ahead of a two-day tour of South Carolina. From a report: The plan also calls for the ban of for-profit prisons and would revoke the practice of law enforcement agencies benefiting from civil asset forfeitures. Sanders kicked off his campaign by saying "I'm running for president because we need to understand that artificial intelligence and robotics must benefit the needs of workers, not just corporate America and those who own that technology."
Hmmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
The plan also calls for the ban of for-profit prisons
Ahhh, stick in that poison pill, buddy.
Re: Hmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You could just prohibit private prisons from providing any labor for anything that didn't directly benefit the prison or provided a product or service outside the prison. Farming, mopping the floors, painting, laundry, etc, would all be OK as long as was solely for prison benefit, but making shit or doing labor that was for external benefit would not.
This would make the "slavery" accusation a bit tougher to swallow. It still doesn't solve problems related to prisoner treatment or private prisons skimping
Re: Hmmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
They also need to be prohibited from any lobbying on criminal sentencing legislation. They have a profit incentive on longer sentences.
Re: Hmmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
They also need to be prohibited from any lobbying on criminal sentencing legislation. They have a profit incentive on longer sentences.
Only 8% of prisons in America are private.
The prison guard unions in public prisons are a much bigger source of funding for harsher sentencing legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't mean private prisons should be able to lobby on issues pertaining to them (although prison unions also should not be bale to). The fact is private prisons just reinforce the concept of prison as punishment rather than rehabilitation as they seek to maximize profit.
I truly wonder what Americans who aren't me think of our country's sky high incarceration rates that rival shit-holes we often hold up as us being better than. Clearly these people aren't making the connection that this puritanical, people
Re: Hmmmmm (Score:4, Informative)
I truly wonder what Americans who aren't me think of our country's sky high incarceration rates
I can tell you, from talking to my fellow Americans, that most of them are oblivious to the problem, and are unaware that America's incarceration rates are ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world.
that rival shit-holes we often hold up as us being better than.
We really don't rival them. Per capita, America imprisons 4 times as many people as China or Russia. We are on a whole different level.
Clearly these people aren't making the connection that this puritanical, people must pay for their sins shit doesn't work
Recidivism rate in Norway: 20%
Recidivism rate in America: 68%
It's only 8% (Score:2)
This is one of my pet peeves. There's a problem, people do something to reduce the problem, and that reduction is used as a reason why we no longer need to do the thing that reduced the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And government unions should, I assume, also be prohibited from lobbying on issues that could benefit them.
And construction and technology companies should, I assume, also be prohibited from lobbying for infrastructure projects.
Re: (Score:2)
If those union ar ein the habit of treating there member like slave, allowing them to rape each other, giving them substandard housing and food then, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
The labor isn't the problem.
The contracts with the government that guarantee a certain number of prisoners are.
If you think quotas on speeding tickets are bad, then you're gonna love quotas on felony convictions.
Re: Hmmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Still too many problems, for one they charge an arm and a leg per prisoner for another once one is built you have incentive to keep it full which leads to lobbying for more behaviors punishable by being sent to the for profit prison.
Its just a bad idea.... why anyone would think outsourcing something like a prison is a good idea is beyond me...
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't solve the myriad of other private prison issue.
From rights abuses, to feeding the people food that's become human grade consumable, to turning the prisons into a gladiator arena.
Re: (Score:2)
All people doing work should make at least minimum wage, whether they are in prison or not. and no, prisoners should not be paying for prison.
Close (Score:2)
FTFY.
Take with Bernie salt (Score:5, Insightful)
Facial recognition in public places will almost certainly be upheld by any reasonable court. What needs regulating is what police do with that. Key point: don't make arrests based solely on it; the failure factor is too large. Fine as an investigation tool, but other information is necessary to confirm before action is taken.
As for the forfeiture game: some states now only allow it if there's a reasonably related conviction. The Feds allow it without significant restrictions. So some crimes are charged under federal law rather than state/local in order to grab the property (especially, cash) at any time, whether or not there's an arrest, charge, or conviction, for police financial benefit. THAT needs to be changed, Bernie or not (and it's almost certainly *not*).
Re: Take with Bernie salt (Score:2)
Key point: don't make arrests based solely on it
What's the fucking point in looking for fugitives and nutjobs if you can't act on the info??
Re: (Score:3)
Key point: don't make arrests based solely on it
What's the fucking point in looking for fugitives and nutjobs if you can't act on the info??
Don't worry, I've got a couple of anemic looking girls floating in a saline pool, hooked up to eletrode computer things that can predict who will commit crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the fucking point in looking for fugitives and nutjobs if you can't act on the info??
Same reason responsible journalists don't publish articles based on a single shaky source. They get confirmation from a second to ensure that they're right before it goes to press. No reason why police shouldn't do the same thing. Facial recognition alone shouldn't be enough probable cause for an arrest with as many false positives that are currently generated.
Re: (Score:2)
Facial recognition alone shouldn't be enough probable cause for an arrest with as many false positives that are currently generated.
The fear mongers want you to think that this is exactly how it will be used: immediate incarceration for anyone whose face is a 95% match for the suspect. That's what Bernie wants his supporters to think so that he'll be seen as the best guy to protect them from run-amok technology.
That's not how it is going to be used, however. The police and the courts have much better things to do than arrest everyone based solely on a FR match. Too many people are believing that CSI and all the other magic-technology-
Re: (Score:2)
> The police and the courts have much better things to do than arrest everyone based solely on a FR match.
Really, they do not, not when poor quality information makes convictions easier helps them earn promotion for effective police work, and increases their seizure of civil assets. There are many good officers in the world doing difficult work, but facial recognition has proven too erratic and easy to misuse.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the fucking point in looking for fugitives and nutjobs if you can't act on the info??
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but surveillance footage can be used to pinpoint if someone was in a particular place at a particular time, and used as evidence in a trial. Facial recognition could make that process easier if you're trying to find a person in a crowd, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
But facial ID is used to scan everyone all the time for police.
Which seems \to be a violation of out constitutional rights.
Re: Take with Bernie salt (Score:2)
Haven't you heard? The Constitution was repealed in 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe that the only possible way to ever use facial recognition is to immediately and blindly arrest whoever it says? Are you that clueless?
Re: (Score:2)
The point is they don't just do that, they look at and house facial information for everyone.
This leads to 'fishing' expeditions by police.
It leads to machine learning looking for patterns and the red flagging you if what it considers your pattern to be 'unordinary'
Sure, is seem great from the position of 'they are only looking for a person', but historically that's not what happens when you have someone/something constantly looking for excuse to arrest/harass some one.
Except now law enforcement just raises
Re:Take with Bernie salt (Score:5, Interesting)
If the law called for it, the courts would happily uphold the right to murder for sport. Likewise, if a ban on facial recognition use by law enforcement is enacted, it will uphold that.
From a philosophical standpoint, there is a vast difference between simply being recognizable in public and having a vast network of recognizers linked through a database tracking your every move through a public space. It's yet another example of a right not needing to be protected in the past due to the simple impracticality of violating it. Technology has greatly reduced the cost of violating that basic privacy, so now we need a law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is a mixed bag. On one hand, copying works is now cheap and easy. On the other, profiting from a work takes a lot less time than it used to. Easy distribution applies to both copyright holder and infringer alike. Technology has now made distribution without eventual passing into the public domain possible (even though in practice, quite hard)..
Re: Take with Bernie salt (Score:2)
"US police don't have a vast database of every day people to connect back to."
My brother, you of all people know this is untrue.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It doesn't matter what laws are passed against government use of pattern recognition technology; companies will still sell it to consumers and businesses.
Case in point: the city that I live in has banned the purchase of LPR (license plate recognition) technology by the city. No problem, as I run my own LPR camera system. The data I've provided the police
Re: (Score:2)
I like that your personal anecdote os what you base tying an entire country together with LPR.
I mean, did it even occur to you to think about how bad actors will use it? hmm? NO, of course not, you've used it twice, so clearly it's perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I've thought about it. Do you carry a smartphone? You know, the kind with built-in GPS, that the police can use to subpoena your location history from Google and your cell carrier? Have you ever thought about how bad actors could use that against you?
The horse is long out of the barn where location privacy is concerned. LPR and FR sold to consumers w
Re: (Score:3)
Facial recognition in public places will almost certainly be upheld by any reasonable court.
What you are describing is the current situation where there is no law forbidding use of facial recognition by law enforcement.
Add the proposed law, and the situation changes. Law enforcement does not have a "right to use a particular technology", and the law is government restricting what government can do. It should stand up in court just fine.
As for the forfeiture game: some states now only allow it if there's a reasonably related conviction.
If by "some" you mean "few", this is accurate. Also, said states are allowed to impound the assets "until their investigation is complete". And for "totally unr
Necissary costs that should be minimized. (Score:5, Insightful)
This, and healthcare, are services that are much better represented as necessary costs of society, rather than as profit-minded income maximization 'opportunities.'.
When you see prisons as an opportunity for income - then the maximization of that ideal will shift increasingly towards jailing more folks - which is exactly what has happened in a large number of cases, including rather tragic and common juvenile prison judges just sending thousands of children to facilities effectively for income, with little chance of any actual reform.
When you see it as a cost to be minimized to slightly above pure requirements, then all the usual libertarian ideals are much better served better than viewing them as a thing to make maximized money on - when the end goal is social benefit, then jail as it is defined here now is rarely the best option.
It's ironically one of the situations where the libertarian ideal should NOT be to use the free market, in order to maximize freedom from government oppression.
That, or outlaw any cooperation between government and private interests to serve government roles if you really intend to minimize government. Otherwise, the market will fill the void with maximum horror in the same role.
Most folks agree that some kind of jailing is required in some circumstances - it's the motivations to picking who to jail that get messed up when someone gets increasing money for increasing incarceration, and is allowed to influence decision makers.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:3)
It's ironically one of the situations where the libertarian ideal should NOT be to use the free market, in order to maximize freedom from government oppression.
Norway is pretty much the polar opposite of libertarian and the US justice system, but anonymity is dwindling just as fast here as everywhere else. Electronic payments, electronic tickets, sensors, logs and registries everywhere there's a soft pressure that you either do it the easy way or it gets very inconvenient and expensive. For example if I want to ride the public bus the only cash option is 58% more expensive than a single electronic (card/app/sms) non-anonymous ticket. If I were to use it for a dail
Re: (Score:2)
"You think a self-driving car will go anywhere without informing the mothership?"
actually, yes. Otherwise it won't be safe enough to use.
Re:Necissary costs that should be minimized. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is kind of odd, considered that in most of the rest of the world the government pays almost 100% of healthcare costs and STILL manages to pay less than in the US per patient, most often with better service.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a system that favours private insurance, to the point where BOTH the insurance companies and the healthcare professionals have an interest in having the prices levitate out of control. There's no benefit for either side in "competing", and when competition fails, the only option left is regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at history, the government actually done a really good job.
The only time it gets bad is when the GOP intentional tries to make it fail.
Those of us that understand history, government economics, government project, and success rate understand that a public health care is the best way to go with citizens.
But the GOP lies have brainwashed simpletons into thinking the private industry is the best, especially without any real competition!
90% of federal government project are on time and within budget.
as
Re: (Score:2)
90% of federal government project are on time and within budget. as oppose to 20% or project in the private industry.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
lol. Now, removed business, kickbacks and other ways the profits are hidden and moved around the world.
Also., 5%at every stage, not one 5% overhead charge.
yes, the government pays for 50% og healthcare(kinda) but that 50% would be cheaper without the for profit part.
Plus, right not the cirtizens are restrict by the private industry one what and where they can get it.
The fact I half to pass two hospitals to go to a hospital to get care is ridiculous.
The fact that healthcare s tied to work is ridiculous.
The f
Re: (Score:2)
It is more complicated than greedy managers squeezing profits out of hospitals, yes. That can be part of the problem, but you are correct that waving a magic wand to get rid of for profit medical services would not change things a large amount.
Looking under the covers, the bulk of the "profits" go to wages, where local associations of doctors who negotiate the pay of their members with the local hospitals. There is nothing automatically wrong with that, but...
The US medical system as it exists is primaril
Re: Necissary costs that should be minimized. (Score:2)
Yet the beginning of medical care price hyperinflation coincided with the demutualization and stock market floatation of our major insurance companies.
He's also the first presidential candidate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
but short of killing suspected drug addicts on the spot nothing's more cost effective.
Ahh, the old Maduro drag em out and shoot em in the head. Coincidentally, it's also extremely effective for taking over the entire criminal enterprise as it does almost nothing to remove demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but I don't believe an atheist Jew can take enough bible belt states.
Because you know that will be one of the main points Fox News will harp on.
facial recognition is flawed (Score:2)
He's not going to win anyway... (Score:2)
I recently did an analysis of Democratic polls, mostly around who is everyone's second favorite choice. This race is shaping up to be Biden (electability with midwest whites) vs Warren (Democratic ideas). Sanders will be lucky to win one state outside of Vermont.
Like most of his pronouncements, Sanders talks big but doesn't care to understand that most police budgets are controlled locally. So unless he thinks he's going to get a whole bunch of moderate Democrats (not to mention Republicans) to outlaw the t
Re: (Score:3)
"Sanders talks big but doesn't care to understand that most police budgets are controlled locally"
he does, and that's irrelevant.
They outlaw using specific technique from being admissible in court.
You know what else would make it hard for criminals? just routinely searching everyone's home.
Catching criminals isn't an all in affair. Having rights means not all criminal will be caught, or be easy to catch.
There are almost no far-left people in America. I suggest you look up what that means.
Or keep being Fox n
It's a much larger plan of fundamental reform (Score:4, Informative)
Ban for-profit prisons.
Make prison phone calls and other communications such as video chats free of charge.
Audit the practices of commissaries and use regulatory authority to end price gouging and exorbitant fees.
Incentivize states and localities to end police departments’ reliance on fines and fees for revenue.
Remove the profit motive from our re-entry system and diversion, community supervision, or treatment programs, and ensure people leaving incarceration or participating in diversion, community supervision, or treatment programs can do so free of charge.
End Cash Bail
End the use of secured bonds in federal criminal proceedings.
Provide grants to states to reduce their pretrial detention populations, which are particularly high at the county level, and require states to report on outcomes as a condition of renewing their funding.
Withhold funding from states that continue the use of cash bail systems. Ensure that alternatives to cash bail are not leading to disparities in the system.
Ensure Law Enforcement Accountability and Robust Oversight
Rescind former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ guidance on consent decrees.
Revitalize the use of Department of Justice investigations, consent decrees, and federal lawsuits to address systemic constitutional violations by police departments.
Ensure accountability, strict guidelines and independent oversight for all federal funds used by police departments.
End federal programs that provide military equipment to local police forces.
Create a federally managed database of police use of deadly force.
Provide grants for states and cities to establish civilian oversight agencies with enforceable accountability mechanisms.
Establish federal standards for the use of body cameras, including establishing third-party agencies to oversee the storage and release of police videos.
Mandate criminal liability for civil rights violations resulting from police misconduct.
Limit the use of “qualified immunity” to address the lack of criminal liability for civil rights violations resulting from police misconduct.
Conduct a U.S. Attorney General’s investigation whenever someone is killed in police custody.
Establish a federal no-call policy, including a registry of disreputable federal law enforcement officers, so testimony from untrustworthy sources does not lead to criminal convictions.
Provide financial support to pilot local and state level no-call lists.
Ban the use of facial recognition software for policing.
Provide More Support to Police Officers and Create A Robust Non-Law Enforcement Alternative Response System
Establish national standards for use of force by police that emphasize de-escalation.
Require and fund police officer training on implicit bias (to include biases based on race, gender, sexual orientation and identity, religion, ethnicity and class), cultural competency, de-escalation, crisis intervention, adolescent development, and how to interact with people with mental and physical disabilities. We will ensure that training is conducted in a meaningful way with strict independent oversight and enforceable guidelines.
Ban the practice of any law enforcement agency benefiting from civil asset forfeiture. Limit or eliminate federal criminal justice funding for any state or locality that does not comply.
Provide funding to states and municipalities to create civilian corps of unarmed first responders, such as social workers, EMTs, and trained mental health professionals, who can handle order maintenance violations, mental health emergencies, and low-level conflicts outside the criminal justice system, freeing police officers to concentrate on the most serious crimes.
Incentivize access to counseling and mental health services for officers. Diversify police forces and academies and incentivize officers to live and work in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Blatant Money Grab (Score:2)
Senator Sanders (whom I refer to as Senator Sellout) is only looking to milk as many suckers as he can before he gets his payoff from the Party, then he's going to quit. That was his plan in 2016, and he's repeating it now.
Senator Sellout knows that tech geeks have money, so he's pandering to them. Then, after Uncle Joe Biden gets the nomination, the "Democrats" will browbeat the suckers that bought Senator Sellout's snake oil, telling them to "vote Blue no matter who."
Frankly, we're screwed at this point.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Some places have that $15 min now or soon. But the one that needs to go up is the $2.13/hr one.
Re:the most important policy. (Score:4, Informative)
or you are in an industry that has very small margins, and the race to the bottom is cutting your already low margins.
Yay ! Price increases all around !
Re: (Score:2)
No business which depends for existence (Score:2)
Just as true today as it was in 1933. On the plus side it's good all the way around [businessinsider.com].
Yes, some businesses will go under. 80% in the first five years. Subsistence wages might extend that a fe years. Slave Labor [youtube.com] maybe a bit longer. But an economy built on low wages is just a house of cards waiting to collapse.
Re: No business which depends for existence (Score:2)
+1 FDR FTW
Re: (Score:3)
There are entire industries, like fast food, that are unsustainable if they have to pay living wages. They are subsidized, on way or another, by everyone else. If you don't pay enough to live on, your employees will rely on food stamps, rent subsidies, subsidized medical care, subsidized public transport, and so on.
The sad part is, the workers get on a tiny portion of the subsidies. Most of them go to the corporate shareholders who own the companies. You and I can buy our $1 tacos and $2 hamburgers so that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they need to pay starvation wages to make their billions in profits?
In a word, Yes!
You want $15/hr, great, here you go. By the way I reduced the number of hours you work by 25%, make sure you meet your daily quota as I'd hate to bring in a new guy to take your place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it doesn't really work that way because a person can only get so much work done.
McDonalds need to puss x amount of hamburgers, no matter what.
What you posit is nonsense.
Price gets increased by wage increase / number of unit sold.
Then that number is moved around because different things have different price point, but that's it in a nutshell.
If a place cuts staff by 25%, it will have longer lines, and I won't go there.
Place who do what you claim either stop doing it, or go out of business due to custom
Re: the most important policy. (Score:2)
Except that's not what happens (Score:2)
The problem with human civilization isn't running out of stuff. We're pretty resourceful actually. The problem is figuring out how to keep us moving forward. We had 1200 years of stagnation in the form of the Dark Ages. You'd think that on a science and tech forum people would be more worried about that than they would somebody getting paid $15/hr to f
Re: (Score:2)
No one can do 8 hours worth of work in 6 hours.
Please stop spewing nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
4. Stop money-grubbing and accept the drop in profits as the cost of doing business in a civilized society.
Re: (Score:3)
Or the owner can only make 400 times what his average employee makes instead of 450 times while remembering back in the '60's it was only 50 times the average employee.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: the most important policy. (Score:2)
And they still make billions in profits. They can raise wages I would imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart is the biggest company in the world, by revenue. They make billions in profits on hundreds of billions in revenue. For Q2, 2019, they made($3.6 billion in profit on $130 billion in revenue). They have 2.1 million employees, meaning they make about $1700 per quarter per employee. It's about $3.40 per hour per employee - that's pretty thin.
How much do you think they should earn on the work of their employees?
Re: (Score:2)
It almost like they could raise prices.
Since the price increase would be, basically, increased employee cost for people who where making under min. when the change happens/ number of units sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Their largest cost is cost of goods sold, which probably runs over 40% of total revenue, and perhaps more. Wages are second.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Several studies of places that have implemented a $15 minimum are conclusive that the move kills jobs. This only happens because no one would employ anybody if it isn't profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
NO, there aren't any studies that show that. JFC you people.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, Walmart (for example) has 1.4 million employees. If they devoted $1.4 billion a year in profits to increasing wages, that's $1,000 per employee, or about 50 cents an hour for a full time employee.
It's a lot more complicated than "Walmart is greedy," but that doesn't generate donations to the reelection fund, so nobody wants to say it. Or hear it, for that matter.
Re:the most important policy. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone else find it out (Score:2)
One more thing, the markets server people (Score:2)
Re:the most important policy. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more a case of being a hypocrite. If you have 2 rich guys and one is screaming that rich people are evil and the source of all of society's problems, then that's going to be the one that seems suspicious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more a case of being a hypocrite.
No it isn't. I personally benefit from many government policies that I think are stupid.
The way democracy works is that you vote for what (or who) you want, and if you lose, you accept the result.
It is not hypocritical to accept a democratic result, but still speak in favor of changing it in the future.
I don't agree with Bernie on much, but there is nothing wrong with him benefiting from current policy while also arguing that those policies should be changed.
Re: the most important policy. (Score:3)
Re:the most important policy. (Score:5, Insightful)
"rich people are evil and the source of all of society's problems,"
he doesn't say that, he is addressing the issue around the rich.
And you can be rich, and want more taxes for the rich. Only a simpleton would think otherwise.
I own a car, and also think cars should be regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to know exactly how much Trump has, but he claims to have $4 billion. Many doubt that, but still acknowledge around 1-3 billion.
It reminds me of the old Chris Rock quote. "Shaq is rich. The person who signs Shaq's paycheck is wealthy." Those are two completely different orders of magnitude and trying to conflate the two is pretty disingenuous.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A systematic automated system determine who is a criminal is not the same has handing out pictures.
The police have a photo and going to to find a match is not the same as collecting constant data on everyone.
JFC, grow up.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we do. We have history.
Anytime in history where large amount of data are kept about the populace, it turns into a fucking nightmare.
All of a sudden its:
"Why are you here?
"You aren't normally here."
"Why did you deviate from your routine?"
"Why where you here a few minutes within the time a suspected criminal was here?"
and:
"I just decide to take a different route." doesn't fly with those kind of people.
With enough data(not as much as you think), you can always fins something 'explainable or weird' that me
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder about that, seems the media is pushing Joe Biden even though populace has larger support for Bernie. Interesting reasons for that, I'm sure.... Biden is part of the system (government, big business, military-industrial complex, etc.) , Bernie is not
Biden's already collapsing (Score:2)
Meanwhile Biden's aids are Telling him not to campaign [thehill.com] because, like Hilary, the more people get to know him the less they like him.
Biden's "Gaffes" aren't just gaffes either. They're indicative of a certain [politico.com] mindset [bloomberg.com] that's not going to fly in the General.
Biden has one assent: Obama. But it's looking like that's not going [vanityfair.com] to pan out [time.com]. Biden can't even top Bernie in name recognition.
In short, Biden will fizzle o
Re: (Score:2)
the more people get to know him the less they like him.
well know. The more people who believed random facebook pages, the less they liked her.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why no one realizes they are a victim of observation bias
Re: 46 (Score:2)
Biden is in the pocket if the CCP. Many Big Media companies are also in the pocket of the CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
She wasn't unpopular, you dolt.
Uh, yes parties are private groups, no part of the constitutional election process.
.
Feel free to start one.
The fact that other parties can't get enough interest with the people to hold there own national debate just means that party doesn't have interest.
Re: 46 (Score:2)
"Feel free to start one."
In many states, the Democrat and Republican faces of the Establishment Party are written into law. It is orders of magnitude easier for a Demopublican to get on the ballot than for a 3rd Party candidate. The reality of the Law is often quite different from the wholesome fairytales we were taught in civics class.
Source: Back in the day I was a founding member of an alternative policy party.
Re: (Score:2)
People who believe that are the reason Trump will get reelected.