USA Politics

Ranked ballots is a great idea. You need a sound counting system for it though, so not feasible everywhere.

I'd very curious to see what effects it'd have on elections here, as the voter turnout is very high and there are multiple major parties with different overlaps.
 
Hm, that is an interesting topic but it is really hard to pull off. In tight security models there are three things that need to match : a possession, a knowledge, and a measurement. In Hollywood when you see some military dude access the installation, he puts the key in the hole, enters the pin and then the retina scan lets him in - key is in his possession, he knows the code, and he has been identified positively with a retina measurement.

The thing is when I vote there's a piece of paper with my name and PIN on it and my ID card has my name, photo and PIN. That is really convenient, in my country I'm bound by law to carry a proper photo/PIN document such as state ID card or passport at all times. I go to booths and show my card and the dude says you can use booth 3 now, sir. Very fast, convenient and hassle free for the citizen - two of three security tiers ok (bar the knowledge). Same thing is with the direct biometric, you aren't tightening the system by introducing the "what you know" question, a passcode of sorts. You're changing the measurement parameter from human-bound (booth officer looking at me and then at a picture on the ID card) to machine-bound, e.g. biometrics.

The problem here is the locality of the database and the physical access to the terminal. The analogue voting place has names on paper - just for the people that are designated to vote at that particular spot. Therefore the digital terminal should only handle users for the location, or else present a system-wide security hole where a single compromised device can grant someone access to the voters database. You also cannot tie voter ID to vote anywhere in the network - you can authenticate the voter and prepare the system to accept his vote as is, without any metadata tied to it that could reveal John voted for the Democrats. Therefore there must be decoupling between terminal unique ID and voter unique ID, where the terminal is allowed to push an anonymous vote, and not voter himself, if that makes sense to you. Following on this I could write another paragraph why physical security is important, but the point is that having a voting app in the app store for general smartphone usage is the worst idea you can possibly get.
 
I agree with @Zare .. in concept, it is good .. but in reality there are many issues. Add to there, there is no national ID and there would be massive push back if they tried to implement one, each state runs it's own election system , and you have lawsuits about having people show a state id at the polls that are still ongoing.
 
I'm also pretty sketchy on the idea of government gathering that much in the way of biometrics. Besides, we should be lowering barriers to elections rather than increasing them. Biometrics aren't needed because electoral fraud in pretty much every western nation is extremely rare (no matter what some Republicans say).
 
Ugh, the polarization of Western politics leaves any libertarians or moderates in a bad spot.

On the one hand, the Orange Clown isn’t competent to lead. He can’t even appoint and retain a functioning cabinet and I’ve serious doubts that he’ll leave the country better than he found it. Of course, his campaign promises were tailored to agitate while being too vague to be actionable. Shame on the Republicans for falling asleep going into the primaries.

On the other side, I abhor the idea of safe spaces, trigger warnings, identity politics, the oppression olympics, de-platforming and people throwing shrieking fits over anything they may remotely disagree with. Many call themselves Marxists but Marx would likely call them bourgeois socialists whereas Mao and Stalin would likely have all of the snowflakes sent to the Gulag. Trotsky would probably have exported them as agitators abroad in order to be rid of them. I saw firsthand on an ill-timed visit to Portland Oregon just how badly the radical left can behave and, trust me, I’d much rather talk to a Trump supporter whom I disagree with on most things than a neo-Marxist solipsist whom I disagree with on fewer things. Shame on the Democrats for pandering to adults with childish, narcissistic mentalities and pushing Hilary Clinton on a voter base that didn’t really want her. That also goes for some of these so-called “blue wave” congressional candidates pushing the PC, coddle the masses, agenda.

I think there needs to be a moderate/libertarian resurgence and I have some hope that the IDW’s (Jordan Peterson et al) popularity shows a middle shift but even they get loopy and idiosyncratic sometimes.
 
Last edited:
SJWs are a loud minority among progressives. Their presence has been blown way out of proportion because it has good entertainment value. Also, most of them aren't Marxists, that's just a silly notion that is being pushed by some conservative talking heads who accuse all left-leaning people of being "commies". I'd argue "cultural Marxism" is just a repackaging of the Nazi conspiracy theory of "cultural Bolshevism", but alas.

IDW is very hit-and-miss. Pseudointellectuals like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin are associated with it, and Jordan Peterson has become ridiculously overhyped and has a cult-like fanbase that includes a sizable number of alt-right symphatizers. Not sure why Ben Shapiro, a very textbook conservative, is considered to be a member of an alternative movement, either. I do like Maajid Nawaz, Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein. Sam Harris and Christina Hoff Summers are also pretty decent but I do disagree with them quite a bit. I actually really like Joe Rogan's podcast, but not because he's an intellectual political voice (and I know he doesn't think of himself as one either).
 
I want to re-emphasize that I am a libertarian leaning moderate.

Flash, I held that same opinion until I got more accidental exposure to what SJW’s in large numbers can be capable of (no, I’m not in the linked video but have experienced the overall effects of this type of action). I also observe that many progressives (like Portland’s mayor) will cave in to SJW extremism out of fear of being branded illiberal even if they themselves are not as extreme. It’s the proverbial tyranny of the inflexible minority.



Many SJW’s carry the trappings of Marxism (including hammer and sickle emblems) but I’d agree with you that they’re not truly Marxists in the dialectic materialism and class consciousness sense — particularly in that they’re generally university students and young urban middle class who are oblivious and apathetic toward the actual working class. They seem to be, however, big fans of nanny state authoritarianism where a higher power protects them from anything they deem unpleasant (which seems to be most things).

On the other side, the so called alt-right degenerate very quickly into conspiracy theories, their own brand of identity politics and crypto-fascism.

Joe Rogan can be entertaining — I like his standup — and I agree he’a only incidentally political. He also has guests on his podcast from across the political spectrum.

While I went to one of Peterson’s lectures earlier this year and read his 12 Rules book, my take on him is that far from being a genius he was just a disgruntled professor who fell into the spotlight by virtue of not wanting to have his students take over the classroom (imagine “Professor Peterson, today the class’s pronoun lists are these and we’ll be recording this lecture to ensure your compliance.”). But, C-16 itself has yielded no legal action against anyone as far as I’ve read. Prior to that, despite his prolific youtube presence, I only knew of Peterson because he was on Bill Mahr once and happened to sound smart.

That said, he’s more moderate than not, even when he meanders into Incel validation and carnivore diets, etc. Also, contrary to Peterson’s opinion, I know atheists exist (he seems to think otherwise) and that Solzhenitsyn doesn’t singlehandedly refute Marxism as he claims.

I find Shapiro, Milo, Rubin, Crowder etc, tiresome and kind of repetitive. Crowder’s pretty good at debating but I see the interrupting/reframing tactic working for him there. I know Milo’s basically done as a public figure anyway.

I like Christina Hoff Summers but she seems to get easily rattled.

My overarching view is that I’m ready for the whole SJW v Alt-right wave to pass. Not interested in partying like it’s 1939.
 
Last edited:
Agree with your sentiments. I, too, want the SJW & alt-right nonsense to go away as quickly as possible. I think it will, anyway, because a social democratic type of left-wing populism that actually cares about the issues is gaining traction in the US, and alt-right has been disillusioned with Trump's lack of antisemitism and continuation of interventionist policies.
 
Saphrax said:
While I went to one of Peterson’s lectures earlier this year and read his 12 Rules book, my take on him is that far from being a genius he was just a disgruntled professor who fell into the spotlight by virtue of not wanting to have his students take over the classroom (imagine “Professor Peterson, today the class’s pronoun lists are these and we’ll be recording this lecture to ensure your compliance.”). But, C-16 itself has yielded no legal action against anyone as far as I’ve read. Prior to that, despite his prolific youtube presence, I only knew of Peterson because he was on Bill Mahr once and happened to sound smart.
Click to expand...
Bill C-16 will eventually lead to legal challenges. Gender identity is important; protecting it is a key plank of Canada's current government. That said, very few governments or businesses in the country are actively violating people's gender identities; it'll almost certainly be a small town somewhere, or a small business somewhere, making bad decisions. I support the idea of gender identity as a protected class, absolutely. It doesn't cost me anything if someone feels like they're a different gender than they were assigned at birth, and it can cost them a hell of a lot if someone decides to vociferously oppose that concept.

In general, I believe that protected classes should only be established in the face of discrimination; a level playing field only needs to be established by government force when people have proven incapable of leveling the field themselves. Our understanding of what fields exist are the only reason protected classes continue to expand. I also find the "safe space" concept, as it has been created in modern areas, to be disturbing. Very "thought police" like. When I was in university, a "safe space" was a place for people to go where the persons there wouldn't discriminate for the specific purpose of escaping discrimination; the idea of a bunch of privileged white people who don't want to hear other viewpoints hijacking that idea bothers me significantly.

I believe my ideas & beliefs stand up within the marketplace of ideas.
 
LooseCannon said:
Bill C-16 will.
Click to expand...

To me, the hate crime laws (utterances of slurs during the commission of a crime against a person), instutional anti-discrimination laws (refusal to employ, loan to, rent to, or provide public services to a person based on that person’s demographic characteristics) cover what’s necessary.

The slippery slope is when a person’s right to voicing an opinion is infringed upon.

Example: a bank refusing a loan to a trans person who has as good of a credit history as others the bank has loaned to = unlawful discrimination (imo). Or a person who follows trans people around calling them slurs is guilty of criminal harassment (imo).

However, someone who says they believe there are only two genders shouldn’t be penalized for expressing that belief. Likewise, no one should be compelled to use language they disagree with under threat of criminal penalty.
 
Saphrax said:
However, someone who says they believe there are only two genders shouldn’t be penalized for expressing that belief. Likewise, no one should be compelled to use language they disagree with under threat of criminal penalty.
Click to expand...
Canada has hate speech legislation against other protected classes, however, and there is an extremely narrow definition of what this constitutes. The controlling law has always taken a very narrow view of what contemplates "Willfully promoting hatred". Simply saying that "there's only two genders" wouldn't pass that muster. R. v Keestra has the controlling language.
 
LooseCannon said:
Canada has hate speech legislation against other protected classes, however, and there is an extremely narrow definition of what this constitutes. The controlling law has always taken a very narrow view of what contemplates "Willfully promoting hatred". Simply saying that "there's only two genders" wouldn't pass that muster. R. v Keestra has the controlling language.
Click to expand...

A standard like the Keegstra ruling makes sense to use in firing of a public servant since it covers a representative of an educational system teaching hate rhetoric (and testing students on it no less) to public school students who were compelled to listen to it.
 
Last edited:
Saphrax said:
A standard like the Keegstra ruling makes sense since it covers a representative of an educational system teaching hate rhetoric (and testing students on it no less) to students who were compelled to listen to it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a very strict standard. It would boil down to someone who not only expresses hate-filled opinions but also has a reasonable chance to control the outcomes of the audience. IE, a crackpot on a street probably wouldn't be enough, it would need to be someone in a decent position of power, and the language has to brook more than disagreement. Hate speech legislation specifically excludes private conversation, so you can't be arrested for talking about it in public private. It would need to be a violent opinion (IE, kill all the transgendered persons) from a person speaking to an audience with at least some captivity (teacher, pastor, politician, police officer, etc).
 
Last edited:
LooseCannon said:
Yeah, it's a very strict standard. It would boil down to someone who not only expresses hate-filled opinions but also has a reasonable chance to control the outcomes of the audience. IE, a crackpot on a street probably wouldn't be enough, it would need to be someone in a decent position of power, and the language has to brook more than disagreement. Hate speech legislation specifically excludes private conversation, so you can't be arrested for talking about it in public private. It would need to be a violent opinion (IE, kill all the transgendered persons) from a person speaking to an audience with at least some captivity (teacher, pastor, politician, police officer, etc).
Click to expand...

There are occupational restrictions on free speech in certain sectors of the US. In the military, for example, one is not allowed to publicly make public political statements while wearing the uniform or identifying oneself as a resprentative of the US armed forces.

Of course, people violate that rule left and right but it does get prosecuted administratively and in courts martial cases.

An interesting example was this West Point graduate and commissioned officer who had displayed “communism will win” while in cadet uniform. His punishment was an “other than honorable” discharge from the army, which has heavier repercussions than just getting fired from a job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...him-out/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ef2a1ab52bcb
 
Yeah, absolutely. Freedom of speech in the usa only applies to the government; private employers are well within their rights to tell employees what they can and can't say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top