Anonymous Threatens to 'Not Be Kind' to 'Russian Asset' U.S. Rep. Greene

[MamboDervish]

All I can say is that your position falls squarely within Thomas Paine's

I look forward to that being "all you can say".

​

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”​

[The American Crisis]​

I don't qualify as either.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of course there is - because Canada has a parliamentary political system

Right.

with proportional representation,

Wrong.

The territories are each allotted one seat REGARDLESS of population - just like the smaller US states are.

The remaining seats are divided up into provincial allocations using a rather complex formula and then the actual boundaries of the allocated seats are determined into units of (more or less) equal population using another rather complex formula. (However, unlike in the US no attention is paid to which party the people in the proposed districts voted for.)

Then, when there is an election, in EACH individual electoral district elects whichever candidate in that electoral district gets more votes than the second highest vote total. That candidate is elected and goes off to Ottawa as an MP EVEN IF the NATIONAL vote for their party was only 6,695 out of the national total of ~25,000,000 (that's ~0.027% of the people electing ~0.29% of the elected members [and that means that the votes of those voters are worth 10 votes of an average voter] for those who are interested).

Please learn what "proportional representation" ACTUALLY means. One of the easiest ways to make one's self look both ignorant and foolish is to use technical terms that one doesn't have the faintest clue as to the meaning AND to continue using the technical term incorrectly even after it has been pointed out - repeatedly - that the term doesn't mean what the user thinks it means.

vastly different from the American two-party system, which is grotesquely skewed in favor of the states with the least population.

Only in the Senate and the skewing isn't anywhere near as "gross" as you want every one to believe.

In Canada, a person's vote means much more, and when one of your parties fails to achieve overwhelming control, then you're forced into forming coalitions with other popular parties, which can then influence policy.

Now, on that point, I do have to agree. Of course, you do realize that the difference between the NDP (travelling through the Liberal Party of Canada) and Conservative Party of Canada is much greater than the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. In fact, you wouldn't actually be wrong to say that "The NDP and the Conservative Party of Canada have concrete policy implementation proposals that represent the interests of different socioeconomic segments of society while the Republican Party and the Democratic Party only say that they represent different segments of society in order to get elected so that they can represent the interests of the same socioeconomic segment of society."

Here in the States you can win government control with a minority, and effectively ignore the political wishes of most Americans. The fundamental structure of Canadian politics precludes that from happening.

Did you know that Canada has elected majority governments when only a minority of the electorate voted in favour of the party that ended up forming the government?

Did you know that the last time that the party elected to be the governing party got more than 50% of the popular vote in a Canadian election was 1958? That party got 53.7% of the popular vote and won 78.5% of the seats. (The elected party got 50.0% of the popular vote in 1984 and that party won 74.8% of the seats.)

It really would help you support your position (and not look foolish) if you had at least one of your "facts" correct.

 

[The Mark]

She ran unopposed. Her opponent dropped out 2 months before the election. Her constituents didn't have any choice.

For it to be slander and liable it has to not be true.

What anonymous is doing is hacking. They are getting documents.

It can't be slander or liable if documents are presented that confirm what is being said.

It could only be slander or libel if someone showed that evidence presented was falsified by them. Or something like that, I'm not a lawyer who knows the details of law around that stuff.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It could only be slander or libel if someone showed that evidence presented was falsified by them.

Nope, what has to be shown is [1] that the Defendant published the material, [2] that the material is defamatory, and [3] that the material caused damage.

IF the material fits both of those criteria AND is true, THEN the Plaintiff also has to show that the publishing of the material was done with [4] actual malice. It is NOT required to show actual malice if the material is false.

It is also NOT necessary to prove that the person who published the material was the person who created the material - the mere fact of publishing the material is sufficient. It is the publishing that is the tort, NOT the creating.

Or something like that, I'm not a lawyer who knows the details of law around that stuff.

Did that help?

 

[The Mark]

Nope, what has to be shown is [1] that the Defendant published the material, [2] that the material is defamatory, and [3] that the material caused damage.

IF the material fits both of those criteria AND is true, THEN the Plaintiff also has to show that the publishing of the material was done with [4] actual malice. It is NOT required to show actual malice if the material is false.

It is also NOT necessary to prove that the person who published the material was the person who created the material - the mere fact of publishing the material is sufficient. It is the publishing that is the tort, NOT the creating.

Did that help?

Yes actually.