In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 07 2017 09:53 LegalLord wrote: Surely if the CIA decided that they were confident enough to share their "consensus view" with WaPo, the reasoning for that "consensus view" is sufficient to be able to make the argument? After all, they apparently got the FBI on board, so it can't just be bunk.
It definitely can be bunk but, being an that I'm an actual independent, I have more trust in them than most. As such, I'm willing to believe they aren't "Lying" although I would not go so far as believe that they are telling me the truth. Consensus view is enough for me--its just not enough for me to call it evidence.
As someone who has actually worked directly with each of the three agencies in question in certain capacities in the past I will simply say that they are perfectly capable of bullshitting when it suits them, and of garden variety incompetence. A "consensus view" not backed by proof is about the equivalent of jack shit.
I also see some traces of politicized intelligence in their current release which does not inspire trust.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Luckily we now have an inside look into how RT operates:
On January 07 2017 08:44 On_Slaught wrote:
On January 07 2017 07:51 LegalLord wrote:
On January 07 2017 06:50 Doodsmack wrote: Declassified report on the hacking is out -
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
Technically he won and technically he won fair and square. Foreign state actors impact everything, just look at Obama's administration putting funds towards a group seeking to defeat Netanyahu (The ultimate hipster, Obama, influencing elections before it was cool). You have one shot here, and it's at the 9/11 truther level of probability. Trump gave money/bribed or sent a message to Russian hackers or leadership to help him hack the his opponent's campaign.
Even then he technically won. Period. We could see a just impeachment on grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors. Fun times, and great Article 2 stuff! Get the rhetoric back to realville. Don't try to delegitimize a legitimately elected President just because your sorry lass lost. Russia didn't force Hillary to use that secret server to attempt to dodge FOIA, or do underhanded things to the Bernie campaign, or collude with media figures. It's not Podesta et al doing normal hard-nose campaign stuff that sunk her, stuff we might find in GOP figures email accounts. It's the unethical and illegal behavior. How about we moveon.org from Hillary's last saintly defenders and judge the soon President Trump on what he does in office? I mean it should be easy pickins', right?
I am pretty sure that if Trump's dirt was hacked, including his Apprentice tapes, it might just be too much to overcome. To think his character and willingness to be corrupt is above Hillary's is naive.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
Technically he won and technically he won fair and square. Foreign state actors impact everything, just look at Obama's administration putting funds towards a group seeking to defeat Netanyahu (The ultimate hipster, Obama, influencing elections before it was cool). You have one shot here, and it's at the 9/11 truther level of probability. Trump gave money/bribed or sent a message to Russian hackers or leadership to help him hack the his opponent's campaign.
Even then he technically won. Period. We could see a just impeachment on grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors. Fun times, and great Article 2 stuff! Get the rhetoric back to realville. Don't try to delegitimize a legitimately elected President just because your sorry lass lost. Russia didn't force Hillary to use that secret server to attempt to dodge FOIA, or do underhanded things to the Bernie campaign, or collude with media figures. It's not Podesta et al doing normal hard-nose campaign stuff that sunk her, stuff we might find in GOP figures email accounts. It's the unethical and illegal behavior. How about we moveon.org from Hillary's last saintly defenders and judge the soon President Trump on what he does in office? I mean it should be easy pickins', right?
While I agree with you that no matter what comes of this (baring he gave money or actually worked with the Russians to hack which let's be honest, did not happen) He won the election and nothing is going to overturn that.
This really take a lot of his mandate away (as much of a mandate you can get from losing 3 mil pop vote but crushing the EC (wash?)) And gives dems a real good leg to stand on when opposing him on the big stuff. Hell depending on how bad it gets you could 4 year stop the SC nom on the grounds that we have to have a clean election for a SC nom to go through
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
On January 07 2017 10:09 Doodsmack wrote: Obama pledging to publicly advocate for Obamacare repeal if he sees a viable replacement plan. Seems pretty realist of him.
Easy pledge since its the only viable replacement would be single payer and there is no indication at all that Republicans are looking towards that. And if they did do it he would be happy I imagine.
Right now we have more voodoo with promises of repealing ACA taxes and yet offering a replacement that keeps pre-existing conditions while repealing the mandate and not more expensive then the ACA already is. Simply impossible.
On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet.
On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet.
I see insufficient basis for your first claim. A great many forms of government have been tried in the world, with modern knowledge, we may be able to come up with some things that work a bit better. which instincts do you believe would make it not possible?
On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet.
I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved
I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention
What a strange document. There's a lot of stuff in there which has nothing to do with hacking Clinton's email server. RT? Fracking? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It's just an anti-Russia document. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Putin fan since there's bad shit regarding him but I don't get the anti-Russian sentiment.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
Instead, we got a 25-page list of assertions without support, some of which I could easily demonstrate to be false
On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet.
I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved
I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention
what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically?
People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way.
Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers?
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
Instead, we got a 25-page list of assertions without support, some of which I could easily demonstrate to be false
Any examples?
I don't know about "false" but the fracking bit was certainly silly. They are concerned about "US natural gas production on the global energy market" so they wanted to elect Trump?
Because Trump is going to do more to stop fracking than Hillary would have? Like wut?
But I'm still curious if you're supporting Hillary's run for Mayor (when she announces)? Or would you advise her against it?
On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet.
I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved
I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention
what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically?
People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way.
Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers?
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be partially being sarcastic or something, but i'm not sure.
also, what does it mean to be "democratic", and why would that necessarily be a good thing? if it's demonstrable bad, or demonstrably false, then what value does it serve for society?
On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet.
I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved
I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention
what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically?
People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way.
Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers?
No, that's why I'd want to get rid of primaries. They're hugely egalitarian and favour popular vote which gives 'bible thumping southerners' great influence. Just let parties decide the candidates.
This is not easily done in the US because there's only two parties. In a way it combines the worst of all worlds. The very populist direct democratic vote in the primaries and the gridlock into two opposed camps. It also doesn't help that huge parties are easily able to be undermined by extremist forces. The Tea party has it way easier inside the Republican party than any extremist party in Europe.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday that criticism from the left wing of his own Democratic Party helped feed into the unpopularity of Obamacare, his signature healthcare reform law.
Obama has been spending part of his last two weeks in office urging supporters to speak out against plans by Republicans - who will soon control both the White House and Congress - to dismantle the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
At a town hall event with Vox Media, Obama acknowledged the politics have been stacked against his reforms, mainly blaming Republicans who he said refused to help make legislative fixes to Obamacare, which provides subsidies for private insurance to lower-income Americans who do not have healthcare plans at work.
But Obama also said Liberals like former Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders had contributed to the program's unpopularity.
During Sanders' campaign for the presidential nomination, he proposed replacing Obamacare with a government-run single-payer health insurance system based on Medicare, the government plan for elderly and disabled Americans.
"In the 'dissatisfied' column are a whole bunch of Bernie Sanders supporters who wanted a single-payer plan," Obama said in the interview.
"The problem is not that they think Obamacare is a failure. The problem is that they don't think it went far enough and that it left too many people still uncovered," Obama said.
Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Sanders, agreed that many people would rather the government "take on the private insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies" and play a bigger role in providing healthcare.
"There are many millions of Americans, including many of Bernie's supporters, who don’t understand why we are the only major country on earth that does not provide healthcare as a right and they don’t understand why we pay more but get less for what we spend on healthcare," Briggs said.
Polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation last month showed 46 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Obamacare, while 43 percent have a favorable view. Americans are also split on whether the law should be repealed.
Trump and congressional Republicans have vowed to quickly repeal the law, but Obama and Democrats have argued they should reveal a replacement plan before dismantling the program.
More than 20 million previously uninsured Americans gained health coverage through Obamacare, according to the White House. Coverage was extended by expanding the Medicaid program for the poor and through online exchanges where consumers can receive income-based subsidies.
On January 07 2017 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
Instead, we got a 25-page list of assertions without support, some of which I could easily demonstrate to be false
Any examples?
I don't know about "false" but the fracking bit was certainly silly. They are concerned about "US natural gas production on the global energy market" so they wanted to elect Trump?
Because Trump is going to do more to stop fracking than Hillary would have? Like wut?
But I'm still curious if you're supporting Hillary's run for Mayor (when she announces)? Or would you advise her against it?
Yeah, pretty much.
The document was really weird. I also have misgivings on how competent those guys are btw, I still remember how WMD in iraq was either a big fat fuck up or a big fat lie.
I feel like it's just USA imperialism at work here.
On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet.
I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved
I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention
what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically?
People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way.
Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers?
No, that's why I'd want to get rid of primaries. They're hugely egalitarian and favour popular vote which gives 'bible thumping southerners' great influence. Just let parties decide the candidates.
This is not easily done in the US because there's only two parties. In a way it combines the worst of all worlds. The very populist direct democratic vote in the primaries and the gridlock into two opposed camps. It also doesn't help that huge parties are easily able to be undermined by extremist forces. The Tea party has it way easier inside the Republican party than any extremist party in Europe.
So you want the party bosses and elites to decide who gets to run for what offices and you think thats less egalitarian? do you realize that there are elections where the one party is the only party? You're basically just selecting who wins the office at that point. Thats literally inviting in and asking for corruption instantly. You either have no idea what a primary is or are an idiot.
The parties are forced to compromise their principles pivoting to represent the most amount of people possible in exchange for power. What more do you want from people? Do you believe some people don't deserve a vote?
On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote: I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand.
Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet.
I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved
I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention
what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically?
People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way.
Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers?
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be partially being sarcastic or something, but i'm not sure.
also, what does it mean to be "democratic", and why would that necessarily be a good thing? if it's demonstrable bad, or demonstrably false, then what value does it serve for society?
democratic Ie to represent the majority's decisions. It works decisions by decision on a small scale with time to debate and argue but basic compromises have to be made for stability and lo we get electing representatives and judge them on their decisions to see if its in line with the ones we'd make in their positions. I get sarcastic because some people don't like to think their positions through enough for my respect.
On January 07 2017 07:55 LegalLord wrote: [quote] I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
On January 07 2017 07:51 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
Instead, we got a 25-page list of assertions without support, some of which I could easily demonstrate to be false
Any examples?
I don't know about "false" but the fracking bit was certainly silly. They are concerned about "US natural gas production on the global energy market" so they wanted to elect Trump?
Because Trump is going to do more to stop fracking than Hillary would have? Like wut?
But I'm still curious if you're supporting Hillary's run for Mayor (when she announces)? Or would you advise her against it?
Yeah, pretty much.
The document was really weird. I also have misgivings on how competent those guys are btw, I still remember how WMD in iraq was either a big fat fuck up or a big fat lie.
I feel like it's just USA imperialism at work here.
There were WMD's in iraq we sold them to them. There was a nuclear program at some point but it had been discontinued. The regime in power had an interest to bluff that it had a program despite not having the money at that point to do it.
EPT
