If one person can pervert a system, that system sucks.
You can raise the bar arbitrarily high, though. Make the destruction of the system require lots of coordinated effort, and then make coordination difficult. Coordination is hard for humans as it is, even without a system that actively subverts it. That's why we have lots of issued labeled together as "tragedies of the commons".
You can, but then you run head-first into another problem: this "bar-raising" undermines the legitimacy of the system in the eyes of the people and, not unjustifiably, makes them feel that it is undemocratic. Worse: this is a positive feedback loop. The more you raise the bar, the angrier people get and the more radical they will get in their attempts to tear it down, and so the more bar-raising is needed.
This is the unfortunate paradox that Matthew Yglesias highlighted in "American Democracy is Doomed" : people are raging against horse-trading, organized parties, and 'elites' poo-poohing the "will of the people". This is totally defensible, but to some extent horse-trading and elite rule are the only things that make governance possible. I don't know any solution to this problem.
Well, I think a parliamentary system with proportional representation would help a lot. In those systems, the parties/lists might trade horses, but you know that your vote bought some measure of strength for a platform you actually believe in. Oh, and real civil-service protections to keep government staff from being fired for political reasons, including for security and military officials.
One might argue it already is. Then you have a bad system with a lot of friction to change it.
How did you come to that conclusion?
That is the full sentence I wrote. I do not allow people to reword the things I write to make the statement change its meaning, as you have done here by shifting the subject from "the approach" to "everything". There is a mighty difference between bringing an approach to an end and bringing everything to an end. We already have a ton of people on this planet speaking for others, I figure it's my bag whether I defend against it or not. I've noted that most people who like to speak for others will take other's words, twist them a bit, then ask a leading question to change the conversation in a way that allows them to speak for others in a very unique way. It's an efficient technique when things are going well, given it can raise interest in groups. It's not so great when things are off the rails. All of that is regardless of whether an individual had intent to do it or whether they may formulate rationalizations to defend their actions in the future. Speaking for others isn't right and it's a wasteful, recursive operation.
Nevertheless, I will clarify that I am claiming the intent by humans to force everything into an objective reality here is causing issues for what can be considered the meta or unknown - the yet to be if you will. I don't consider the unknown anything magical necessarily, but I do consider it the result of causality based on both the current state of the universe plus some yet to be discovered phenomenon that governs quantum events and the rest of the unknowns around us. It is a direct observation that we struggle to explain these "types" of intuition of the unknown with objective descriptions or knowledge.
A good example that I give is aliens. About half of people believe in aliens and half don't. No probabilities exist that make any sense to us to figure out if aliens exist, so we are left looking for an objective (observed) alien signal to "prove" they exist. Any tendency to say "there are no aliens" is illogical, given the lack of proof of them is not proof they don't exist. On the other hand, claiming "there are aliens" has some reasonable intuitive basis, given we're claiming we exist and we're here on this rock in the middle of a HUGE universe. It's faith that aliens exist, but it is not observed, yet, so it can't be objective. Faith is based on a few primaries, including sacredness which is a regard with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual. Making something sacred is primarily elevating the belief in the unknown, based on an intuition which is not forced by recursive self-supporting speculation or speaking for others.
So, claiming there are (objective) aliens is illogical, given lack of proof. Someone saying they have faith there are aliens is fine, however. Saying people who have faith there are aliens are wrong (because it is not yet observed) is speaking for others, given their internal frame is faith based and a truth to them.
There are certainly other examples. Michael Faraday believed there was a single unifying force in the universe, but was unable to prove it before he died. He did manage to pop off inventing the electric motor, but his master intent of discovering anti-gravity went undone. Still, he had faith anti-gravity (or shielding of gravity) was possible.
I know this because I have read his words saying as much.
So, I have faith that anti-gravity will be discovered. Nobody else in existence can tell me otherwise, given they'd be speaking for me while doing so. And there's the point I was making to begin with - speaking for another's faith is speaking for their internal frames, which are subjective in nature. Not everything here is objective, so expecting that it is is also akin to speaking for all others here. We have free will, and I won't let anyone tell me otherwise.
I've left off discussing issues with faith in aggregates. Religion has gone horribly wrong in the past, and will likely do so again in the future.
Thank you for the question!
~ don't give in to apathy, no matter how depressing we must stay involved in politics ~
Agreed, whether "we" refers to the voters or the IT industry.
Enter systemic, omnipresent, pervasive mass-surveillance.
Tables turned 180°.
How many people were required to institute Executive Order 12333? How about NSPD 51?
Effectively, Trump hijacked the Republican Party. That does not sound like a strong mechanism to me.
The Republican Party was hijacked by globalists a long time ago. G.H.W. Bush probably was very influential after Ronald Reagan was shot (1981?). Bill Clinton continued GHWB's globalization programs. G.W. Bush was mostly a figurehead. Like Clinton before him, Mr. Obama continued the globalization program, and transformed the globalists' boots-on-the-ground imperial war machine into a kinder, gentler aerial bombardment regime-changing machine.
Señor Trump wasn't supposed to win. The hysteria exhibited by some in response to Señor Trump's opening moves  is certainly engineered by those whose globalization programs are now on the executioners' block.
I am sure there is a better term than "hijacked".
Over the years Congress has given away a lot of cultural and practical power to the Presidency, partly because it allows them to look good in the short term, by pushing decisions over to the executive branch and then giving "oversight".
That isn't to say that spying and warrentless wiretapping isn't/wasn't a problem, but I think we'll come to realize that it was nothing compared to what we've done now.
People don't see widespread government surveillance as a policy failure which requires increasing one's civic participation. They see it as a validation and even vindication of their cynical view of government. The problem with the latter is that it excuses them from doing anything about it. Worse, it excuses them for voting for "anti-government" politicians. Chavez was and Putin still is radically anti-government. That's basically like 80% of their political messaging.
After all if you have a 50% chance of taking the whole pot you, do you want to change the rules?
If your choices are to have a 99% chance of taking 50% of the pot or to have a 50% chance of taking 100% of the pot and a 50% chance of someone else taking it and you being imprisoned or murdered by them, you pick the one that doesn't involve a significant risk of catastrophe.
The problem is you don't get to pick before the election, you get pick after. And then it isn't a 50% chance anymore. If you won the pot you have no incentive to change and if you lost then you don't have the power to change.
This is one of the problematic consequences of the 17th Amendment. Originally US Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. The purpose of the US Senate was to represent the states in the federal government, so it was inherently a check on federal power. States don't want too strong a US President.
But we got rid of that in a fit of populism in the 20th century. Meanwhile it's still the case that only a third of the Senate seats are on the ballot in a given election. And consider what the circumstance is when you simultaneously want to limit the executive and have the power to do it: It's the lame duck session.
To do it you need a) to currently have control of government (Presidency + House + a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate), and b) to not control any of those in the incoming government, so you fear what the new government will do, enough to pass laws to limit their power.
But since only a third of Senators can change at once, and it's unheard of that all open seats switch from one party to the other, that never actually happens. So the President gets stronger but never weaker, because we decided to dismantle a check on federal power and replace it with nothing.
Conservatives are the ones that created this nightmare in the days after 9/11. "Liberals" simply did not remove it.
When it comes to civil liberties, smaller government is always a good thing but literally no party supports that. :/
I (1) don't think Clinton would have been worse policy-wise, (2) think Clinton would have been more psychologically stable and competent, and (3) the GOP in Congress would have actually criticized and raised concerns about what she was doing to score party points.
The current situation is terrifying to me. I'm tired of being labeled a liberal or conservative, because I don't fit in to either camp, and get accused of being one by the other, and am tired of these arguments about who's at fault. It just needs to stop.
He never even remotely implied that. This comment is incredibly dishonest.
To clarify, your point may be entirely correct, I just don't think using Hillary Clinton advances your argument usefully.
The last President to shrink the NSA, CIA, etc was Jimmy Carter. Every other one increased it. Reagan got them into arms deals with Iran. Bush Sr, former CIA director, was a staunch ally. Bill Clinton expanded ECHELON, tried to regulate cryptography (remember the Clipper chip?), Bush Jr passed the Patriot Act, Obama expanded the NSA and in pursuit of leakers filed more acts under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents combined.
At what point can we conclude that the problem is bipartisan? Of all prominent nominees this time around, only Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz said anything against the continued expansion of the surveillance state. Of all prominent nominees for 2012, only Ron Paul spoke out against the surveillance state. For 2008, only Kucinich and Ron Paul spoke out against the surveillance state.
If Hillary Clinton were an isolated example, then your point would be good. But she is not. She squarely represents the political mainstream.
It was also under the Carter administration - and under Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate - that the FISA Act was passed, which is what eventually led to all this secret surveillance.
the FISA Amendments Act of 2008
And neither of the major US parties (and especially not the Democratic Party, whose major factions include both a center-right faction and a moderate left faction) are unified cohesive parties with strong discipline as you might find in a multiparty parliamentary system; the FISA Amendments Act passed with every Republican that voted in either house (except one in the House) and a minority of Democrats on each house supporting it, and the majority of Democrats in each house opposing it.
That's like saying speed limits led to to the problem of people driving fast. FISA was a set of limits put in place because the surveillance was already happening. Oversight where there was none prior.
And why was Carter able to shrink them? Because Nixon was caught using them to gain political power. The problem is beyond partisan politics. You either support the intelligence agencies, or you don't get elected. Simple as that.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th... for a conspiracy theory about how far that support might have gone. (I personally put that theory in the range, "quite plausible, but unproven".)
So? It's not like we have an unlimited pool of candidates of every possible variation such that we can choose the one that best averages all the views of a party. Consider that we were fairly closet to having Bernie Sanders and not Hillary Clinton be the person in that position. That should illustrate how ridiculous it is to use a single person to stand in for the entire group.
> She ... the only person I had as an alternative to Trump to vote for.
That's irrelevant. There was a discussion about liberalism and conservatism, and someone replied with criticisms about Hillary Clinton instead of liberals in general or liberalism (note this wasn't about Democrats and Republicans, so that D is a red herring). Even if Hillary were more representative of the norm in all mainstream liberal ideas, using her specifically would not be appropriate. As it is, she diverges fairly heavily from traditional liberal ideas in some aspects, which makes it even more of a bad idea.
"When it comes to civil liberties, smaller government is always a good thing but literally no party supports that. :/"
The fact you missed the importance of that statement and got angry is, ultimately, on you.
"Uh, that's not the silver lining from my POV. The silver lining is that liberals will realize that maybe limited government is a good thing, because they can't always rely on their person being in power. "
The context of the first half of my comment that triggered you was responding to was specifically blaming liberals. (i.e. the tribal politics you despise)
So I'm uncertain what part of my comment caused you to believe I believed Hillary Clinton (or even a majority of democrats) genuinely believe in less government is better for many forms of civil liberty. However, any literal reading of the text should make it clear you misunderstood my comment.
So for the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase what I said in the comment you responded to in the hopes you'll better understand:
Both Democrats & Republicans believe "big government" is the solution to civil liberties problems. They just do not agree with "which liberties" deserve that solution.
There is no legitimate government interest that justifies government intervention that restricts the 1st amendment (or passing judgment on people based on the contents of their religious beliefs). Both parties engage in it from different directions.
Same is true of privacy (as I assume you were attempting to mention with domestic spying programs).
Literally no "tribe" that holds elected office shares my belief system or values to a degree substantial enough I genuinely feel represented by the US Government.
> Conservatives are the ones that created this nightmare in the days after 9/11. "Liberals" simply did not remove it.
What reason is there to believe that the core of the Democratic party was not fully supportive of activist intervention overseas and domestic spying? Why portray this creation as a result of Conservatives?
That is all I was responding to and the fact you don't get that is confusing at this point. I've tried to put it to you that way a few ways now.
As opposed to the delusional GOP supporters who are always suckered into the small-government-yay/taxes-are-evil meme and then sit idly by while spending is increased after cutting revenue.
The secret surveillance goes to the FISA surveillance act, from back in 1978.
I'm not inclined to put a party's stamp on this, I too believe it's systemic. But if you must, that was under Democrat Jimmy Carter's Presidency, with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
I am very much with you in not wanting to apply party labels here.
Perhaps you should try to re-frame your statement in the context of local vs state vs federal government.
In reality, a government does not have to be big to be corrupt enough to willfully harm or infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. The "enforcement" piece of a local government doesn't have to be large to harass or detain or jail people. Or protesters. Or anybody they dislike for being ___________ or having voted __________.
The terrifying thing about Trump's administration is that he's fueling this delusion of an America that doesn't exist any more, empowering corruption at the local level (Martial Law) while simultaneously removing options for citizens to redress where grievances about their civil liberties matter -- at the federal level.
The problem has a solution: states right. ~400 million people will never agree on a leader or have their beliefs encapsulated by 1 person/party.
More choice, more parties, more power distribution
It is one of those issues the GOP drops whenever they control the Federal government.
Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen.
It also doesn't work when anyone can freely migrate between the states. You can't have large social assistance programs and high taxes in one state and the opposite in an adjacent state and not expect an unsustainable influx of low income people into the state with more benefits and high income people and businesses into the state with lower taxes.
The problem with the federal government is that it's structurally too susceptible to special interests. Instead of an exception-free flat tax and a UBI that nobody can cheat, you get a tax code full of deductions for donors and a welfare system full of subsidies for industries with strong lobbies like insurance and finance. Instead of a normal-sized military that defends the country, you have a corrupt money train into the military industrial complex.
Probably the only fix for it is to put the important bits in the constitution, e.g. there shall be a flat value added tax the rate to be set by Congress, Congress may provide a universal basic income to every citizen in the same cash amount, no other federal taxes or federal social assistance shall exist, military spending in peacetime is capped at 5% of GDP (where "peacetime" means "no enemy soldiers on US soil"). Remove as much discretion and complexity from the federal government as possible, and if something isn't suited to be done simply and uniformly then the states have to do it.
> The problem with the federal government is that it's structurally too susceptible to special interests. Instead of an exception-free flat tax and a UBI that nobody can cheat, you get a tax code full of deductions for donors and a welfare system full of subsidies for industries with strong lobbies like insurance and finance. Instead of a normal-sized military that defends the country, you have a corrupt money train into the military industrial complex.
> Probably the only fix for it is to put the important bits in the constitution, e.g. there shall be a flat value added tax the rate to be set by Congress, Congress may provide a universal basic income to every citizen in the same cash amount, no other federal taxes or federal social assistance shall exist, military spending in peacetime is capped at 5% of GDP (where "peacetime" means "no enemy soldiers on US soil"). Remove as much discretion and complexity from the federal government as possible, and if something isn't suited to be done simply and uniformly then the states have to do it.
Yes, the way fiscal/monetary policy is built would need changes but I think it can be figured out. I think you hit on the "solution" I had in mind to a large degree.
When I made that comment what I envision is basically this:
A) A progressive federal tax system that funds the LEO, Military, Justice, and International obligations (i.e. Embassies, foreign policy) without deductions or much chance of modification via a constitutional amendment that no state is going to willingly override. (i.e. The tax rate will be progressive, be based on multiples of the median household income, and will not allow for deductions beyond a standard deduction of all income below the poverty line. In peacetime, there is a % cap of GDP for the tax rates outside of covering the cost of the poverty line UBI.)
B) The social safety net has to be built into that ultimate amendment as well. Yes, some people will try to cheat...but the government can just reduce payments if they do so fraud shouldn't be worse than unemployment now. (i.e. A UBI for the unemployed equal to the poverty line without trying to gauge the "why" of unemployment.)
C) A state of War requires the consent of 50%+1 of State governors to release the funding cap on the Federal government (as a check against the Federal government just "deciding" terrorists are enemy soldiers on US soil or other loopholes).
D) The Federal Government only intercedes in forms of regulation as a mediator between states or if the constitution is violated.
E) The basic structure of the Federal government otherwise remains the same.
The progressive income tax was created by people who are bad at math. What they're trying to create is the effective tax rate curve that you intrinsically get when you combine a flat tax with a UBI. You can make it as progressive as you like; "more progressive" just means a higher flat tax rate which pays for a higher UBI.
And a flat rate eliminates twelve different kinds of tax cheating, and allows you to use a consumption tax that encourages investment over consumption, and eliminates the need for individuals to file tax returns at all because all tax can be collected by businesses, which saves millions of man-hours every year and makes everybody happy.
And the UBI is the safety net, so you don't need that either.
If I tax you at 50% on $500k and 10% on anything under $500k, the relative value of $500,001 vs. $500,000 is ~$.40. It really does have an impact on behavior that isn't as simple as a mathematical curve.
Is $600k nice under such an arbitrary set of numbers? Yes.
Would you take $500k for a better working environment? Probably. The utility of those additional before-tax dollars is reduced even before you get into the relative utility of an extra $50k on such a large salary.
Realistically, you want a compensation range between the poverty line of ~$15k (not letting them die and encouraging them to work through a lack of luxuries) and wealthy ($500k or so in annual income) where the additional utility of the dollars simply isn't enough to be worth hoarding for yourself. And yes, if you have income over $500k/year (~10x median household income) you are just running up the score in practical terms and if you want to do that you should be able to...but society should also be able to collect a reasonable amount of that excess money to sustain the society that enabled you to reach that kind of income.
Similarly, lets take the example of a UBI that ignores employment status:
Let us also posit that the minimum wage is equal to the UBI amount ($15k).
State Minimum Wage: $15,000
You want the UBI to (mostly) focus on the unemployed. So you set a progressive tax rate.
+$15,000 :: The UBI
-$15,000 :: Standard Deduction (the only deduction)
+$15,000 :: The Earned Income
-$6,000 :: 40% Tax Rate (to quickly recover the UBI)
$24,000 in actual income (i.e. Tax of +$9k)
+$60,000 :: The Earned Income (Theoretical Median Household Income)
-$30,000 :: 50% Tax Rate (to quickly recover the UBI)
$45,000 in actual income (i.e. Tax of -$15k)
+$180,000 :: The Earned Income (~3x median income)
-$30,000 :: 50% Tax Rate (to quickly recover the UBI on the first $60k)
-$36,000 :: 30% Tax Rate (we are no longer recovering UBI)
$129,000 in actual income (i.e. Tax of -$51k)
+$1,000,000 :: The Earned Income (~3x median income)
-$132,000 :: 30% Tax Rate (we are no longer recovering UBI, up to $500k)
-$300,000 :: 60% Tax Rate (to discourage excessive compensation)
$538,000 in actual income (i.e. Tax of -$462k)
Still progressive, very simple to process, and pretty low overhead.
> And a flat rate eliminates twelve different kinds of tax cheating, and allows you to use a consumption tax that encourages investment over consumption, and eliminates the need for individuals to file tax returns at all because all tax can be collected by businesses, which saves millions of man-hours every year and makes everybody happy.
The cheating comes from the itemized deduction process. If all deductions are the standard deduction of $X for all private citizens in the US and the brackets are standardized, the calculation difference between a flat vs. progressive tax is a toy project any intern could produce and could be publicly available for free for the cost of maybe ~$1k every time they change the tax rates.
I agree the tax cheating is a problem but all that requires to "fix" is the removal of itemized deductions. The points of vulnerability to this approach also exist in a flat-consumption tax model. (i.e. Someone has to collect the tax on behalf of the government and nothing stops them from lying about their income other than criminal penalties)
It's $.50, because $500,001 is more than $500,000 and you're taxing anything over $500,000 at 50%.
> -$30,000 :: 50% Tax Rate (to quickly recover the UBI on the first $60k)
> -$132,000 :: 30% Tax Rate (we are no longer recovering UBI, up to $500k)
> -$300,000 :: 60% Tax Rate (to discourage excessive compensation)
You don't need this and you don't want it. You have people making $200K paying a lower marginal tax rate than people making $20K. That makes no sense and is anti-progressive. Your highest tax bracket is more than 20% higher than the existing one (and really 40% higher vs. the long term capital gains rate), but you don't need that money unless you want to pay for a higher UBI, and if you did then you could just use a 60% flat tax rate and let the higher UBI make up for it.
Just use a flat tax with a UBI. All of the complexity really is completely unnecessary.
Also, if you have a UBI you don't need a minimum wage.
> The cheating comes from the itemized deduction process.
The cheating comes from not treating similar transactions the same. Part of that is all the deductions, but part of it is that two different people can make the same dollar and pay a different tax rate. So then you get families cheating because dad makes $240K from the family business and the three children are off at college making nothing, so instead they all get nominal jobs in the family business making $60K each and dad is down to $60K and out of the high tax brackets. And so on with a hundred other ways to redistribute income within a family/corporate hierarchy/whatever to arbitrage non-uniform tax rates.
If there is only one tax rate you can't do any of that.
> The points of vulnerability to this approach also exist in a flat-consumption tax model. (i.e. Someone has to collect the tax on behalf of the government and nothing stops them from lying about their income other than criminal penalties)
VAT solves this easily. Every time a business sells something it has to submit VAT and can only deduct the VAT collected by its suppliers if they actually paid it, so now you have every link in the supply chain with a financial incentive to report the others if they haven't paid.
Here's a newsflash -- the Dems are just as responsible for our current state of affairs by doubling down on pointless identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and hopeless fake news. Such adherence ideological extremism will only serve to destroy the Democratic party before 2018.
If you're going to restate someone's argument, do it in a way that they would agree with.
> Here's a newsflash -- the Dems are just as responsible for our current state of affairs by doubling down on pointless identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and hopeless fake news. Such adherence ideological extremism will only serve to destroy the Democratic party before 2018.
1) As the other person mentioned, its a ridiculous exaggeration. You ignored the second half of my comment and went on a tangent like the other person did.
2) The Conservatives won through white identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and propaganda news produced by Bannon who now holds various key government positions. This is the pot calling the kettle black (at best).
3) The Conservatives already are launching attacks on the 1st amendment (and other portions of the Constitution) against legal residents of the US and its citizens. That is evil in its most pure form in America. It is also evil when Progressives do it. They just, frankly, do it differently and the problem here is you are clearly OK with one and not the other. I call either party attacking the Constitution evil.
I don't think that having the Republicans tell me to act more white and Christian, when I'm actually only sort of white and not Christian at all, is unifying. It feels a lot more like being singled out and attacked.
Same rubbish, slightly nicer packaging.
Which only exists because the left has been playing identity politics for so long and has lately been demonizing being white.
Trump started this with his racist birther lies, aimed at undermining a legitimate black president. He then made a series of racist attacks on other non-whites, and he also adopted an old racist slogan: America First. As a result, the KKK newspaper was almost the only newspaper to endorse Trump for President. (The other was owned by a large Republican backer.)
All of this is ultimately about white supremacists holding on to or regaining lost privileges and demonizing anybody who isn't white.
Your doing it right now, demonizing everyone that voted for trump as a white supremacist. Keep it up if you want but the more you do the more you'll ensure they'll never vote for the left again.
How is "America First" racist?
Didn't you look at the audiences (and flags) in Trump's rallies? Didn't you hear him attacking Mexicans as rapists, attacking an American judge for being of Mexican heritage, insulting a non-white Gold Star family, and on and on?
Trump has a long history of racism, dating back to being sued along with his father for not renting to non-whites. He has also boasted about his superior "German genes".
Also look up all the cartoons from Dr Seuss Went to War, like this one
He never said Mexicans were rapists. He said some illegal Mexicans were rapists. Which is provably true. It's not opinion. Its also true that 80% of women crossing the border get raped, so something bad is going on down there and we're enabling it.
For the Mexican judge, its standard to dismiss a judge for having a bias in the case. 100% normal. And given how the media construed Trumps statements on Mexicans, and how he wants to build a wall, and how the Mexican judge is a member of La Rasa, you don't think she might have a bias?
I could go on but I won't. I've lost all respect for the media and the left in general. They can call me racist, sexist, I don't care anymore, because I've seen the lies they repeat and the bullying tactics. If the left thinks they can get back their credibility next election, they will be in for a big surprise.
> They can call me racist, sexist, I don't care anymore, because I've seen the lies they repeat and the bullying tactics.
Trump is the biggest bully around, and the biggest liar by a very considerably distance. He always projects his own faults onto other people, which is a well-known ploy, in psychology. Rather than apologize for blatant lies, he attacks the honest press to try to discredit them. This is deliberately corrupting America, and Trumpery is deliberately corrupting the American population.
It is, frankly, the most despicable thing I've ever seen in recent US politics, and there's no honest way to deny it.
Trump is, as a matter of fact, a 3x-married serial adulterer, a sexual predator, a racist and a pathological liar. It's a huge stain on America's character that he was elected, and there have been an unprecedented number of protests against him both in the US and across the world.
And why is voting along racial lines only a problem when white's do it? Have you been calling out black people for always voting democrat?
The America First Committee literally didn't want to fight the Nazis, and claimed that doing so would be of no help to Jews.
 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
Zero difference. At best the LP serves as a safe and convenient parking place for quasi-protest votes.
USA has elected and politically appointed judiciary doesn't it? If so then is that at all unexpected, which politicians would put their guy in the judges seat if they thought they'd then have to obey the law.
> checks and balances
I'd say the two are mutually exclusive.
However, Trump broke all the rules when running for President (by, for example, crudely insulting opponents and by being a pathological liar) and he seems to be keen to break all the rules now.
The system worked when both Republicans and Democrats had a similar view of the democratic process, even if they differed on policies. Trump is systematically wrecking the process.
Plenty of people are theorizing about this turning into a de facto coup, including Michael Moore.
Systematic how (what's the system, so far)? Wrecking how? What process? Talking in vague codewords without meaning (except in your head) does not tell me anything about what's wrong. I cannot agree with this kind of babble.
Because, there will always be someone jockeying to rule over the masses (financially or otherwise), whether it's moneyed corporations and individuals directly or those who manipulate a government, irrespective of whether they claim they want it to be small.
The idea behind a democratic government is simply self-rule. As such, advocating for its weakening is advocating a silencing of your own voice. And where does that lead?
A strong democratic government is a good thing for "the people" when it functions properly and protects the less powerful. But, it doesn't. Our government has long been captured by those who are in position to bend it to their will (i.e. those same parties who would rather you dispense with government so they can rule more efficiently).
So, that is the trick: subverting government, then convincing the weak that the only fix is to dismantle it.
But, the solution is to get the money out and return it to the people, not do away with it altogether and invite a small minority to rule over the masses with impunity.
Yeah I've really enjoyed the last several weeks' display of disrespect for democratic results and the office of the executive. Very refreshing! If only we could convince people to hold on to this feeling!
Republicans took over the Congress
The Intercept is definitely a leftist publication but to say that they are partisan Democrat just isn't true. They were one of the few publications that consistently reported on the outrageous drone bombing campaigns during the Obama administration. Glenn Greenwald was even accused of being a Trump supporter by people in the Hillary camp for about as long as they were running against each other.
Where do they say that? I don't see it in this article. Thanks.
In light of this, is anyone who has confidently declared "my personal threat model doesn't include nation-states" reconsidering?
After all, proper computer security protocol isn't going to protect you from being disappeared.
On the other hand, "it'd be a shame if your wife saw these messages to your old girlfriend" doesn't seem that much of a stretch.
Not to get too tinfoil, but do we really know this?
At any given moment 90k in the US alone are missing, and 60% of those are adults (source: google)
The document is from some time after 2009, as it makes references to Obama delaying the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. I failed to find any passage where he references previous statements he made in the past. From these observations, I am guessing that the prediction you are talking about is of some overreaction that takes place some time after 2009.
However, I am failing to find this prediction of overreaction you are referring to in the document. I’m assuming that’s a failure on my part to read between the lines in bin Laden’s writing, and I’m hoping you could clarify that.
Mind you, the "one side" isn't a particular political party, it's both, depending on the context that lead up to the discussion.
If only Nixon had had that tech.
14 mentions of Trump. 8 mentions of Bush. 2 mentions of Reagan.
10 wistful mentions of Hillary Clinton being the better choice. 4 mentions of Obama. 1 mention of Bill Clinton expanding ECHELON.
Obama had 8 years building and using it this entire apparatus, after 8 years of Bush putting it into place after 9/11. Trump had been taking it for a test drive over the past 2 weeks.
Can we please rename HN to "Silicon Valley and Democrats Only" so lurkers know what they are getting into?
Above the parent comment is a chain essentially saying "lets dispel this notion of reasonable republicans"
Obama is at 8.
Your link doesn't help either: it doesn't support your implied claim that TI is far-left or far-right.
While I can't comment on your intent, your reply appears to fit the description of a Bandwagon Fallacy:
The Bandwagon Fallacy (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" (or someone in power who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks or does something, it must be true and right. E.g., "Whether there actually is large scale voter fraud in America or not, many people now believe there is and that makes it so." Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Over 75% of Americans believe that crooked Hodiak is a thief, a liar and a pervert. There may not be any evidence, but for anyone with half a brain that conclusively proves the case!”
But apparently, critical thinking skill is becoming rarefied even at HN.
Perhaps you should put your Rational Debate cap back on and try this again. If I have any say in the matter, truth determination in the Age of Alternative Facts will be more rigorous than ever.
Evidence: A large pool of people who vote on the bias of a site, reported by allsides to be far-left
How is that not supporting????????
(Also, your perception about how the evidence works does not seem to align with the description on the web page. The "blind survey" bit is greyed out, and it says it's based only on "secondary research" and the confidence level in the rating is "low or initial".)
If there was a buzzword contest for 2016 I would nominate "cognitive dissonance". It requires far less intellectual effort to be dismissive of ideas and concepts that produce cognitive dissonance, than it is to wrap ones mind around the petty divisions that weaken our society.
Divided, to be more easily conquered? We could all do with a little Sun Tzu these days. Seems it might put our predicament in context.