|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 13:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:42 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 07 2017 13:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Or just remove the primary process altogether. At election time anyone with enough signatures can get on the ballot. They are not allowed to disclose their party and doing so will get them fined. Accusing your opponent of being in a party will be an even bigger fine. That money goes into funding social security. The more mud is slung, the more into social security. So your answer to the system is to just end the system and invite chaos instead? You're trying to deny a basic human instinct to organize and instead just telling them to be hush hush about it and disenfranchising the people who are too dumb to keep a secret. People can organize all they want. But candidates and their teams can only talk about their policies and promises. So you're in the group of people that are sure that super pacs and candidates and their teams have no involvement with each other at all? Do you understand how dumb what you are proposing is? You're just replacing the focus on the organization that decides who gets elected instead of the people we're electing in the first place. Literally enforcing the thing you are trying to change. If you can get 4,000,000 signatures then you can run for president. When you run you can't mention of talk about your party or affiliations. When you're in office you can't talk about it. You team, partners, and allies can't talk about it. No advertisements allowed, no flyers allowed. If superpacs want to influence people money will have to be poured into union halls and door knockers.
And how you you propose people somehow get 4 million signatures? Do you suspect that there might be some sort of organization in order to collect these signatures? Then might this organization continue later when either the people in the organization want to get someone else in office or someone who wants to get into office Incentivizes this organization to get the signatures?
Then what do you propose these people actually talk about then? Might they chose to campaign on a select series of issues that they feel will get them elected? Might they then find a team of legislatures enough to get a majority that they can agree with in order to then get through laws and whatnot to actual govern so they can deliver on what they talked about during their campaign?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump's latest thoughts on the hackery:
|
On January 07 2017 14:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 07 2017 13:42 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 07 2017 13:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Or just remove the primary process altogether. At election time anyone with enough signatures can get on the ballot. They are not allowed to disclose their party and doing so will get them fined. Accusing your opponent of being in a party will be an even bigger fine. That money goes into funding social security. The more mud is slung, the more into social security. So your answer to the system is to just end the system and invite chaos instead? You're trying to deny a basic human instinct to organize and instead just telling them to be hush hush about it and disenfranchising the people who are too dumb to keep a secret. People can organize all they want. But candidates and their teams can only talk about their policies and promises. So you're in the group of people that are sure that super pacs and candidates and their teams have no involvement with each other at all? Do you understand how dumb what you are proposing is? You're just replacing the focus on the organization that decides who gets elected instead of the people we're electing in the first place. Literally enforcing the thing you are trying to change. If you can get 4,000,000 signatures then you can run for president. When you run you can't mention of talk about your party or affiliations. When you're in office you can't talk about it. You team, partners, and allies can't talk about it. No advertisements allowed, no flyers allowed. If superpacs want to influence people money will have to be poured into union halls and door knockers. And how you you propose people somehow get 4 million signatures? Do you suspect that there might be some sort of organization in order to collect these signatures? Then might this organization continue later when either the people in the organization want to get someone else in office or someone who wants to get into office Incentivizes this organization to get the signatures? Then what do you propose these people actually talk about then? Might they chose to campaign on a select series of issues that they feel will get them elected? Might they then find a team of legislatures enough to get a majority that they can agree with in order to then get through laws and whatnot to actual govern so they can deliver on what they talked about during their campaign?
It's this weird idea that people organize amongst themselves and candidates can only talk about what issues they support. That way money cant be spent on advertising, but instead has to be spent on people knocking on doors having private conversations with citizens. Imagine when super pacs can't just be used on ads and flyers and emails and us to be used hiring people to directly interact with the voter base.
Image when the voters can't really just vote on party lines since that won't show up on their ballot. How do they know which person to vote for? Suddenly they have to research them.
It's a crazy world where people have to get organized and educated about who they're voting for since they can't actually tell who the democrat candidate and who the republican candidate is.
And what about 3rd party? What if 4-5 candidates all have similar messages about almost free education? What if 3-4 have almost the same message on border protection? You'd have to actually reach out and find out about their policies and allies if you want to know how to vote down party lines.
Suddenly endorsements from unions, interest groups, and organizations start mattering much more than how many ads you can play on TV. Suddenly you know that ____ is the democrat if ____ Union tells you. Suddenly people get more directed and controlled by local level groups. Suddenly local elections start mattering more and more since you can't just vote on party.
It's great actually.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
|
On January 07 2017 13:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2017 13:39 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:37 zlefin wrote:
but what details make such a system operate? and how well does it work in practice? that's why we need more tests to work out the details; what feedback mechanisms to use, what checks. how do we identify the suitable people? how do ensure a wide enough mix of them?
proper ideology isn't feasible to use, as ideologies are in generally not that well defined, and most people do not in fact subscribe to any ideology.
political literacy might be feasible, but it's not so easy to do; how do you prevent the tests from being gamed? especially with ubiquitous internet to find the info to answer the questions. You're askign the same questions that people having been asking for the entirety of humanity in one form or another. Representative democracy is the least worst form of government that we've found so far for the modern world. On January 07 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
The problem isn't democracy, it's that a democracy requires a sensible and informed electorate, but politicians require an idiotic and emotional one. They care a hell of a lot more about themselves than they do a healthy democracy. So this is what we get, them whining about people falling for "fake news" is the height of hilarity. You're blaming a dog for being a dog. Politicians are suppose to care about themselves more then a healthy democracy because that's all they are incentived to do. This is exactly the fault of representative democracy. There's a different read. Instead of accepting a closed off, ignorant electorate, they can agree that an inclusive, informed, and sensible electorate benefits all of us, including them. This was a tougher sell before they lost control of the masses to someone like Trump. Now they may be able to see the risk of intentionally keeping our electorate limited and/or ignorant. the electorate is ignorant all on its own. it does not require any "elite" or politicians to keep it that way. basic economic theory of self interest, as well as practical observation of that, amply demonstrate so.
I don't think you understand the point, or you think ~50% (maybe more) of humans are inherently incapable of being informed, sensible, voters?
|
Sounds like a conservative estimate. The Athenians have been memed into useless wars 2500 years ago and those guys didn't even have the internet. The value of modern democracies is in the rule of law, categorical rights, effective administration and so forth. Any form of actual participation usually goes wrong awfully fast.
And I don't mean that people don't vote the way I want. Most people don't even know what they want. People will often shift their positions around rather than change their political affiliation. See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives
|
On January 07 2017 14:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 14:08 MilkDud wrote:On January 07 2017 13:30 LegalLord wrote:
We should create a system where good, smart people who understand proper governance get to vote, while everyone else does not. Perhaps a "political literacy and proper ideology" exam to receive voting rights. I think that will solve the problems you all are worried about. How do you determine who is good and smart? By what standards? As soon as you have an entity determining what is 'good/smart', you give that power to them, and power ultimately corrupts. By the standard that I deem most suitable to ensuring that the proper people are allowed to vote and everyone else is deprived of that right. How else?
I approve of your thought experiment. Mostly on parallel grounds brought up by the Russia story, not zlefin's rationalist-utopian perspective you quoted (equally applicable in that case). It's the only logical result to the thought train of illegitimate-because-hacking --> But it was crazy underhanded dealings her campaign tried to hide? --> no they were garden variety misdeeds idiot, GOP does that shit too --> so clearly these votes of idiots were so influenced by Russian involvement that Trump should never have been elected --> your vote didn't count and was illegitimate because of sinister Russian hacking, identical to applying foreign standards to who gets to vote ... who gets to have a legitimate vote in a legitimate election ... which is only those people that agree with my perspective on governance and this exam on literacy and ideology.
|
On January 07 2017 16:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Sounds like a conservative estimate. The Athenians have been memed into useless wars 2500 years ago and those guys didn't even have the internet. The value of modern democracies is in the rule of law, categorical rights, effective administration and so forth. Any form of actual participation usually goes wrong awfully fast.
And I don't mean that people don't vote the way I want. Most people don't even know what they want. People will often shift their positions around rather than change their political affiliation. See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives
This is the election where a non-conservative won and a non-conservative ideology is in the White House. Which despite people like xDaunt repeating it endlessly, nobody grasps. American conservatives are frequently Russia hawks, not least of which was because the Reagan conservative revival happened during the clash of ideologies in the Cold War.
If you have a basic understanding of who's who in factions, you would know this is nationalists & populists that might stand accused of pivoting to Russia. Some prominent RINOS have shown more charity towards Russia lately. Conservatives are out of power and it's about time you acknowledged it's Republicans or Trump Republicans as a broad group and not some ideological minority that really would take quite some long arguing to build the case that they've changed a darn thing in loyalties.
|
On January 07 2017 11:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote: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?
There is no overcoming human greed and desire for power.
We can try and we might come up with something slightly better (most of Europe has something slightly better then the US) but in the end you will always have corruption and populism.
And while I don't agree with LegalLord that only allowing tiny sections of the people to vote is the solution (we kinda tried that in the past, many variations of it with 'intellectuals', landowners, men, white people, ect, we don't seem to do it any more)
I do agree that a scarily large number of people is 'not fit' to vote because they do not inform themselves enough. Its something we just have to accept and deal with.
Democracy and capitalism suffer from the same problem, if everyone was perfectly informed it works amazing. But that doesn't happen in the real world.
On January 07 2017 13:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:37 zlefin wrote:
but what details make such a system operate? and how well does it work in practice? that's why we need more tests to work out the details; what feedback mechanisms to use, what checks. how do we identify the suitable people? how do ensure a wide enough mix of them?
proper ideology isn't feasible to use, as ideologies are in generally not that well defined, and most people do not in fact subscribe to any ideology.
political literacy might be feasible, but it's not so easy to do; how do you prevent the tests from being gamed? especially with ubiquitous internet to find the info to answer the questions. You're askign the same questions that people having been asking for the entirety of humanity in one form or another. Representative democracy is the least worst form of government that we've found so far for the modern world. Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
The problem isn't democracy, it's that a democracy requires a sensible and informed electorate, but politicians require an idiotic and emotional one. They care a hell of a lot more about themselves than they do a healthy democracy. So this is what we get, them whining about people falling for "fake news" is the height of hilarity. You're blaming a dog for being a dog. Politicians are suppose to care about themselves more then a healthy democracy because that's all they are incentived to do. This is exactly the fault of representative democracy.
Democracy is a terrible government full of faults.
Its also the best government we have been able to come up with.
Calling a Representative Democracy the worst form of government ignores how bad everything/everyone else has done in the world.
|
On January 07 2017 20:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 11:28 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote: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? There is no overcoming human greed and desire for power. We can try and we might come up with something slightly better (most of Europe has something slightly better then the US) but in the end you will always have corruption and populism. And while I don't agree with LegalLord that only allowing tiny sections of the people to vote is the solution (we kinda tried that in the past, many variations of it with 'intellectuals', landowners, men, white people, ect, we don't seem to do it any more) I do agree that a scarily large number of people is 'not fit' to vote because they do not inform themselves enough. Its something we just have to accept and deal with. Democracy and capitalism suffer from the same problem, if everyone was perfectly informed it works amazing. But that doesn't happen in the real world. Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:39 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:37 zlefin wrote:
but what details make such a system operate? and how well does it work in practice? that's why we need more tests to work out the details; what feedback mechanisms to use, what checks. how do we identify the suitable people? how do ensure a wide enough mix of them?
proper ideology isn't feasible to use, as ideologies are in generally not that well defined, and most people do not in fact subscribe to any ideology.
political literacy might be feasible, but it's not so easy to do; how do you prevent the tests from being gamed? especially with ubiquitous internet to find the info to answer the questions. You're askign the same questions that people having been asking for the entirety of humanity in one form or another. Representative democracy is the least worst form of government that we've found so far for the modern world. On January 07 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
The problem isn't democracy, it's that a democracy requires a sensible and informed electorate, but politicians require an idiotic and emotional one. They care a hell of a lot more about themselves than they do a healthy democracy. So this is what we get, them whining about people falling for "fake news" is the height of hilarity. You're blaming a dog for being a dog. Politicians are suppose to care about themselves more then a healthy democracy because that's all they are incentived to do. This is exactly the fault of representative democracy. Democracy is a terrible government full of faults. Its also the best government we have been able to come up with. Calling a Representative Democracy the worst form of government ignores how bad everything/everyone else has done in the world.
I have a theory which is that most of the problems we have these days come from people having not a clue on earth about how good they have it.
You know who doesn't whine about democracy and "the system"? Immigrants from non democratic countries.
I think a good time as a citizen somewhere where newspapers get shut when they are critical, political opposent get jailed and journalists shot in front of their door, and where judges take orders from the president (you know, like in Russia), would stop a lot of the crap I've been reading here and elsewhere about how fucked everything is.
American institutions are great. What suck is people and the fact they apparently think and vote with their feet.
Reminds me that joke from Louis Ck: "We are a generation of spoiled idiots: people are like: duuuuuh my phone sucks. Your phone doesn't suck, your phone is amazing. It's your life that sucks around the phone."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 07 2017 16:17 mustaju wrote:Victim-blaming! Nice.
Not sure you could really call the DNC "victims" or that any informed person would disagree with the conclusion that they are quite incompetent as an organization.
Further Trump twitting on the issue:
At this point all I'm convinced of is that Trump, reading the full classified version, has been convinced that a hack occurred and that the DNC is a bunch of sore losers.
|
So Trump talking crazy again about Mexico paying for his fucking wall. When he was in campaign i thought that well, he was addressing dummies. But now?
I mean, is he gonna bully Mexico, a relatively poor country into paying for a useless wall supposed to be directed against their own citizen? What's the logic? That makes absolutely 0 sense.
4 years of that crap will damage Us' image for decades. American image in the world is extremely precarious, and Obama has done a good job at making the word "america" a bit more positive again. With a megalomaniac bombastic clown talking crazy at its head, I'm not sure how the image of the country is going to survive.
|
it's quite easy to make mexico paying for that wall without them noticing, that's a non issue
how it is handled though, that's gonna be taugh for the image portrayed since there were better and easier way to act sneakier with a more efficient diplomatic approach
|
Like, the only way to influence an election is to hack the voting machine. One couldn't, you know, hack into private emails and release them to the public to create a atmosphere of permanent scandal with a weekly "leak" during 6 months.
Clearly that didn't help Trump to win, at all.
Jesus Christ...
That being said, now that it's established that hhe winner of this election is Vladimir Putin, Trump's legitimacy is quite tenuous. It's just a bit pathetic to see him alone pretending that everything is normal.
|
yeah, you don't like trump... that's a moot point. his win was legitimate. clinton has the charisma of a rabid frog, that also played a role here. even obama said that he'd have liked a third term (basically implying that hillary wasn't cut out for the job)
I think it's time to lay back on the salt and move forward.
|
On January 08 2017 00:31 Incognoto wrote:
yeah, you don't like trump... that's a moot point. his win was legitimate. clinton has the charisma of a rabid frog, that also played a role here. even obama said that he'd have liked a third term (basically implying that hillary wasn't cut out for the job)
I think it's time to lay back on the salt and move forward.
I don't like Trump that's true. But he is president that's what it is.
No the point is that Russia did interfeer successfully in a great democracy's election, and probably succeeded to change its result via cyber war and hacking institutions and key politicians. The point is not to rant, but to worry, because that's gonna happen again, and Putin has made very clear he supported far right leaders in Europe and in general anyone who will weaken and destabilize the free world.
Trump is a sad joke but it's a four years joke. But wait until Putin starts to attack French's institutions to have Le Pen elected.
|
On January 08 2017 00:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 00:31 Incognoto wrote:
yeah, you don't like trump... that's a moot point. his win was legitimate. clinton has the charisma of a rabid frog, that also played a role here. even obama said that he'd have liked a third term (basically implying that hillary wasn't cut out for the job)
I think it's time to lay back on the salt and move forward. I don't like Trump that's true. But he is president that's what it is. No the point is that Russia did interfeer successfully in a great democracy's election, and probably succeeded to change its result via cyber war and hacking institutions and key politicians. The point is not to rant, but to worry, because that's gonna happen again, and Putin has made very clear he supported far right leaders in Europe and in general anyone who will weaken and destabilize the free world. Trump is a sad joke but it's a four years joke. But wait until Putin starts to attack French's institutions to have Le Pen elected.
4 year joke? America has shown itself being okay with this. We are russian's puppet from hence forward.
|
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation’s top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.
...
The public report lacked the evidence that intelligence officials said was included in a classified version, which they described as information on the sources and methods used to collect the information about Mr. Putin and his associates. Those would include intercepts of conversations and the harvesting of computer data from “implants” that the United States and its allies have put in Russian computer networks.
Much of the unclassified report focused instead on an overt Kremlin propaganda campaign that would be unlikely to convince skeptics of the report’s more serious conclusions.
...
Vice President-elect Mike Pence told reporters that he and Mr. Trump had “appreciated the presentation” by the intelligence officials and described the conversation as “respectful.” Mr. Pence said the new administration would take aggressive action “to combat cyberattacks and protect the security of the American people from this type of intrusion in the future.”
New York Times
Pence admits an intrusion by Russia occurred...retaliation needed. Those who have business interests in Russia should never be entrusted with foreign policy with Russia, at least if you care about corruption and conflicts of interest. See any bias in Republican concerns about Clinton and Trump's corruption/conflicts?
|
On January 07 2017 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:56 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2017 13:39 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:37 zlefin wrote:
but what details make such a system operate? and how well does it work in practice? that's why we need more tests to work out the details; what feedback mechanisms to use, what checks. how do we identify the suitable people? how do ensure a wide enough mix of them?
proper ideology isn't feasible to use, as ideologies are in generally not that well defined, and most people do not in fact subscribe to any ideology.
political literacy might be feasible, but it's not so easy to do; how do you prevent the tests from being gamed? especially with ubiquitous internet to find the info to answer the questions. You're askign the same questions that people having been asking for the entirety of humanity in one form or another. Representative democracy is the least worst form of government that we've found so far for the modern world. On January 07 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
The problem isn't democracy, it's that a democracy requires a sensible and informed electorate, but politicians require an idiotic and emotional one. They care a hell of a lot more about themselves than they do a healthy democracy. So this is what we get, them whining about people falling for "fake news" is the height of hilarity. You're blaming a dog for being a dog. Politicians are suppose to care about themselves more then a healthy democracy because that's all they are incentived to do. This is exactly the fault of representative democracy. There's a different read. Instead of accepting a closed off, ignorant electorate, they can agree that an inclusive, informed, and sensible electorate benefits all of us, including them. This was a tougher sell before they lost control of the masses to someone like Trump. Now they may be able to see the risk of intentionally keeping our electorate limited and/or ignorant. the electorate is ignorant all on its own. it does not require any "elite" or politicians to keep it that way. basic economic theory of self interest, as well as practical observation of that, amply demonstrate so. I don't think you understand the point, or you think ~50% (maybe more) of humans are inherently incapable of being informed, sensible, voters?
I understand the point fine. many people could if they spent the vast amounts of time required to learn things properly, but they don't.
I think you are unaware of the large amounts of research demonstrating that most voters are in fact not that informed or sensible, and the reasons therefore. you should read the book I mentioned earlier, it's quite enlightening and very well sourced.
legal -> your snark is pointless and unhelpful, some of us are trying to have a real discussion, and your not raising points we're not already aware of; and snark is a bad way of raising them anyways.
|
On January 07 2017 23:40 LegalLord wrote:Not sure you could really call the DNC "victims" or that any informed person would disagree with the conclusion that they are quite incompetent as an organization.
I think they are legitimately victims of a malicious act that preyed upon older people not having the cyber-security competency of our generation. You are deflecting from something that's considered a crime by blaming the victim for it. Considering the hack was a result of a long reported attempt to destabilize western political systems as a whole which was the wide context of the report you clearly are aware of, I question your impartial judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
