President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I love that Trump's reaction is to say that he doesnn't think much of The Atlantic as a magazine.
As if his opinion of the magazine is remotely relevant to the issue at hand.
Ad hominems work too well on his supporters to not do it.
****ing hunter
Can we just admit a basic intelligence test is required to be allowed to cast a ballot and just start over without giving power to TV personalities?
Like fucking no wonder these scumbags want to eliminate the DoE
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Spoiler
ha
You can file for an Exception 2 Policy (e2p) which would be trivial to get approved at that level
Hilariously, this site actually says it isn't.
Usage of signal isn't problematic because of its encryption, which is solid.
The problem of government officials using such apps is likely that they avoid government archives and logs. We can also surmise that this might be the likely purpose of using Signal to begin with. This denies the possibility of oversight, and also makes future transparency impossible.
For example if your officials and appointees are debating bombs and military operations, it is understandable that this needs to be done securely. However, it should also be done legally and in a manner which allows scrutiny.
There is of course also the matter of secure and non-secure devices. Signal has strong encryption, but in these cases is probably used from non-government devices. A secure app isn't very relevant if a device is compromised. With a private device updates and patching is in the hands of the user, as is security settings. Since users tend to be idiots, taking control or listening in on such devices would often be trivial.
Physical attacks are also simpler on such devices, since the usage of 3rd party hardware is also in the hands of the user. Examples could be flash drives for computers, memory cards for phones etc. This is a more complex vector of attack, but is is also a powerful one.
Anyone who has used a secure device, especially within operations of a large corporation or government entity, knows that this does not tend to be smoothest of experiences. Cumbersome devices, limited budgets, lack of administrative rights, limited external hardware use and lengthy safety procedures add up to make the experience slow and less than glamorous. Which is generally why it is important not to make it optional.
One of the problems of the MAGA movement is that they seem willing to hold their political opponents to all possible standards, even fictional ones. However, they don't hold the politicians and bureaucrats they view as "their side" to any standard at all, except loyalty to Trump. This likely creates an atmosphere of no accountability.
As for intelligence work, it is seems rather obvious that when things are this lax, one should consider this administration compromised. Professional intelligence personell and hackers / social engineers have made short work or far more careful people than these.
-
On a sidenote, when it comes to politics in general, this debate isn't as cut and dry as it was in this particular case. For the politician, his / her work has both a public side and a citizen side. For example, if I am debating which firms should be granted public contracts, this is a public side where we should have an expectation of scrutiny. However, if I am discussing the contents of the party platform, this is a citizen side issue.
Politicians can also find themselves at odds with the government, one example would be during your civil rights movement. That opens a whole other can of worms.
Usage of signal isn't problematic because of its encryption, which is solid.
The problem of government officials using such apps is likely that they avoid government archives and logs. We can also surmise that this might be the likely purpose of using Signal to begin with. This denies the possibility of oversight, and also makes future transparency impossible.
For example if your officials and appointees are debating bombs and military operations, it is understandable that this needs to be done
You are only allowed to talk about classified information over secure devices and networks. Can't text other cleared people about classified information on personal phones. Can't even take personal phones into classified areas.
It doesn't really matter if they were using government issued classified phones, once they pulled in the citizen it becomes a mishandling case
I agree with your post just want to make the distinction that there is no scenario where this is okay. They can use cleared devices on Signal with prior approval and discuss CI amongst cleared individuals to their hearts desire but once an uncleared individuals is brought into a confidential conversation you have a problem.
But, ultimately I would assume no heads will roll
Can we just admit a basic intelligence test is required to be allowed to cast a ballot and just start over without giving power to TV personalities
It's an undemocratic position but one I'm willing to entertain. The question is: How do you measure intelligence? And what's the threshold? Are we measuring anything else? What are the downsides of requiring passing intelligence tests to vote? It's an idea I've given thought to but have a hard time justifying it on principle.
Intelligence is no guarantee of smart decision making. See the "intellectual yet idiot" phenomenon.
Intelligence is no guarantee of smart decision making. See the "intellectual yet idiot" phenomenon.
Hey, brah, how do you feel about an administration that uses non-government forms of communication in order to avoid documentation?
It's an undemocratic position but one I'm willing to entertain. The question is: How do you measure intelligence? And what's the threshold? Are we measuring anything else? What are the downsides of requiring passing intelligence tests to vote? It's an idea I've given thought to but have a hard time justifying it on principle.
FWIW I’m against it .
I dislike maga (not the people but the way they think ) but they have the right to voice too .
Something luciom should start thinking about ….
IMO it actually force the people in power to take care of them and because they didn’t , they pay the price for it today .
Unfortunately maga gave the confidence to crooks like trump shrug.
So sadly they still going to blame someone else then trump for their misery .
How to fix it today , I have no idea .
lolllll
It's an undemocratic position but one I'm willing to entertain. The question is: How do you measure intelligence? And what's the threshold? Are we measuring anything else? What are the downsides of requiring passing intelligence tests to vote? It's an idea I've given thought to but have a hard time justifying it on principle.
universal democracy was a mistake, but one which is very hard to reverse.
originally most democratic countries selected on proxies of intelligence in in some very serious sense, wealth & income in many cases.
the census in Latin was the assessment of wealth of individuals to determine their place in society. and their right to vote among other things.
but people who nowadays lament that trump voters are dumber/poorer than democrat voters should remember that for decades the bottom rung of voters (in income terms) was won by democrats.
anyway for the USA a theoretical suggestion could be that you have to pass the same test people have to pass to naturalize or you can't vote.
you can take it as many times as you want with 6 months intervals, and it expires after 10 years.
this also fixes the age issue on both extremes. if a 11y old passes the test he can vote. if a very old person doesn't anymore (presumably because of cognitive decline), he can't vote.
for people who want equality the downside is that elected politicians invariably will care less about the bottom rung of society (yes, even less than today). just think about the current discourse on cutting Medicaid or food stamps.
another downside would be that if a simple law can change the franchise requirements then it can spiral into removing the right to vote of political opponents, so the requirements have to be a constitutional level change.
It's an undemocratic position but one I'm willing to entertain. The question is: How do you measure intelligence? And what's the threshold? Are we measuring anything else? What are the downsides of requiring passing intelligence tests to vote? It's an idea I've given thought to but have a hard time justifying it on principle.
Elitism is too easy to corrupt. You give a body the power to limit the power to vote or hold office on hazy limitations like "intelligence", and you will eventually find that this body is either in charge of your country, selling it to the highest bidder or both.
A simple age-limit for voting is discriminatory and does not always make sense. Still, like flipping a random coin, it is tough to make it unfair.
Now, there is actually an alternative to election that is tough to corrupt and does not rely on arbitrary limitations, namely sortititon. But the only people who tend to like it are serious politics-nerds, and we don't listen to those guys anymore.
It strikes me when good, motivated, capable people who have the common interest get in, sortition is a very poor alternative, but sortition would also result in something so much better than the USA has now.
I also think sortition would be better than any offering the dems currently have too.
It strikes me when good, motivated, capable people who have the common interest get in, sortition is a very poor alternative, but sortition would also result in something so much better than the USA has now.
I also think sortition would be better than any offering the dems currently have too.
I would agree that "sortition vs election" in a healthy democracy is the interesting debate.
That it could beat an unhealthy democracy or autocracy is a fairly easy sell. Then again, in such places you would likely never see sortition be implemented in a fair manner. Catch-22.
