Discussing American politics as civil human beings

topkek thread guys.

 

Or for straight-up talking factually incorrect nonsense. But hey.

 

*sigh*

 

When it comes to Pox and computers and game management, I don't constantly disagree with Sok. My knowledge and experience in those realms is meager compared to him.

I will leave it up to the lobby to evaluate the differences, if any, between that and our interactions (Sok vs me) in relation to history and politics.

Sok, IMO, is a wizard when it comes to game management, and game logic, and other such similar action.

As a medical provider, I discuss the nitty gritty personal details of life with 20-25 patients per day. The system is failing too many of these folks. I am tired of telling people meds aren't covered, their med costs are up, services are not covered, a 2nd opinion is not covered, that their deductible was increased again. That I STILL have not heard back from Labor & Industries or the VA. Those mofos are slower than heck btw, and people are suffering right now!! Oh well, maybe next month. So yeah, it wears me down and pushes me from despair to anger every single week. (Some of the aforementioned are on private insurance, while most are under the thumb of the government). I will be changing jobs soon, so at least I won't have to see it so much. Probs gonna take a massive pay cut, but health and happiness are worth it. Still trying to convince the wife. But I digress. History has been my passion for decades. 9/11/01 pushed me into politics.

 

Each of the branches holds varying amounts of power depending on the political climate and the present capacity of the other branches. In theory, a unified congress has the capacity to change and pass any legislation they desire through even the most hostile of judicial and executive stances. They can even make significant strides in amending the constitution, although state governments in opposition can stop that.

While congress has a great deal of potential legal power, the eclectic composition and split nature of the houses complicates that power. In cases of domestic politics with a dead-locked or otherwise unproductive congress, the Supreme Court gains a comparative increase in power, as does the President to a less extent. This is part of why recent decisions from the Supreme Court seem especially important: they currently have a greater effect on national law than does congress. The President can also use some presidential powers and make appointments through a dead-locked congress, or otherwise change execution of the law. The extent of the increase in a President's power relies in part on the President's willingness to exert that power; the populace and other lawmakers have multiple times in the past attacked presidents for potentially over-stepping. Both the actions by the SC and the POTUS become proportionally more important as congress uses less of its theoretical power.

In regards to foreign affairs, the President always has a great deal of power, because of the construction of the constitution. In that realm the President is the primary organ of the United States, with congress and the SC especially taking on secondary roles.

While the President may not always have a great influence, he (or potentially she, after the next election) matters a great deal right now, when the USA faces many foreign dilemmas and a locked-up congress.

 

That's very much up to the representatives in the congress -- what may look like tyranny to one group may look like prudent initiative to another, and combativeness takes a variety of forms. I doubt there would be any inclination to unify the congress or the courts based on actions of the president, unless those actions step over lines on a global level. The President often draws more criticism for exerting more power, but I wouldn't expect that frustration to act as a primary unifying force. If congress is agreed enough to make a decision, they will do so; otherwise, the President's actions become another small issue on which a large body of people must agree.

 

Because an insufficient portion of the population cares enough about that kind of security to make it a big issue. I'll be honest, I'm part of that group -- governmental institutions can track me as much as they want, look through all my emails, dredge through every piece of information available about me, heck, check out files saved on my computer; they can track my every waking moment for all I care. So long as that information isn't getting broadcast out to the public or actually stolen, it's not a problem. Now, I wouldn't want a chip put in me or anything, because that sounds like an enormous technological, and personal, hassle. Although the apparatus may not be perfect right now, I believe it's possible to create an administrative system that could sufficiently cross-check and manage that information to prevent such abuses by individual persons. Information is scary stuff, but that fear is rooted in some deep, deep cynicism.

 

Although there is a good likelihood of it being stolen (Government databases are frequent targets of hacking attacks, provided they can be discovered) the more likely possibility is that the Government itself is "buying" or receiving "shared" information from corporations, which also sell that data to Governments and each other.

Also, this is relevant: http://geointv.com/archive/mastering-the-human-domain/

Which ties into the JADE helm 2015 exercise which had "Mastering the Human Domain" as part of it's logo, and made infamous from the conflicting Press Releases about whether or not the people lending property and the like were paid or not, that it had Texas and parts of California and other states listed as "hostile" etc.

Personally, I very much see the value in personal data collection and figuring out "human geography", although there are some specific issues in general which I'll get to later.

I do not, however, believe in wide-spread data collection domestically. There are a number of issues with that right out: The first is that if it goes beyond publicly posted materials (Facebook entries, posts on Poxnora or other DOG forums, and the like) and goes to, as you mentioned, computer files (not published publicly) actually getting around to tracking your every waking moment (and maybe also your not-so-waking moments as well) and so on, it's a breach of privacy. Not just for you even, but also everything you come into contact with. Even if you're personally fine with not having privacy, everything about(concerning) you being compiled impacts everything about(around) you as well.

Secondly, why do you feel it's fine for the Government to have access to that information but not the Public? Ostensibly, the reason you don't want that information broadcast is because you don't want people to abuse that information (either through singling you out and mocking you, or using that information to harass or steal from you). Yet it has been shown (Snowden, IRS, others) that members of government can and will be willing to carry out abuses.

The main difference between your average member of government, and some other member of the country is that the there is a higher than average amount of people involved in government which desire Power (not always a bad thing mind).

Thirdly, the IRS admits that it handles tax laws in a way that is meant to be obtuse. Most likely it's where Gruber got the idea for the "tortured" language used in the "Obamacare" bill. Even if they don't circumvent the law, they could use that information to manipulate the complex legalisms and selectively enforce various aspects in order to fit what they know a given person can deal with (or more than what a given person can deal with if they want to cause serious trouble). Meaning they could make your life much more expensive. Private corporations have already been known to raise prices for some customers for which they believe they'll pay, rather than having a set price for everyone, etc.

Finally, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920

^- Article talks about the failure to tally the number of Federal Crimes detailed in federal law.

Literally, no one knows the total variety of criminal offenses one could potentially be prosecuted for under Federal jurisdiction.

Which means if they have total awareness of your actions, it is highly probable they could find some offense for which to arrest you for (and it'd likely be something you hadn't even heard of before). Maybe you're okay with that, I dunno.



*In general, the main problem with wide-spread data collection, foreign and/or domestic, is that there isn't enough man-power to really go through it all. As such, you need to rely on AI (which obviously has it's own issues). Further more, particularly when it comes to digital information, there is a high possibility of incorrect, or outright fraudulent statements being collected. Consider how many people have answered the question: "Are you at least 18/21 years old?" and lied about it (speaking of Federal crimes...). The GeoInt guy talks about how old data, new data, bad data, all data is good data, but I'm rather unconvinced.

Finally, for Foreign data collection, particularly for Military use, it seems clear that it is a preamble to an offensive, or of political manipulations/proxyisms, and I for one could do with far fewer offenses in my life-time. Of course, there's also other general issues related to the ethics of spying, which applies everywhere, but certainly spying on foreign populaces would be a breach of that nations sovereign rights, etc. But from a practical standpoint I still understand it.

 

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I believe that the rule of law is critically important. And the supreme law of the land is supposed to be the constitution and Bill of Rights (BoR). Keeping the corruption of government to a minimum is paramount. Innocent until proven guilty is very, very important. Anyone that can read and understand English knows without a shadow of a doubt that the USA PATRIOT Act "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment. The slippery slope of picking and choosing which laws we follow and which we don't is not the path I believe to be best for this, or any other nation. If the law is incorrect, wrong, bad, impractical... we should change the law, NOT apply it at random as the feelings of this or that leader(s) shift with the proverbial breeze.

Kalasle's reasoning makes sense to him. And that is his decision to make. I would like him to join team 4th A FTW. Again, that is up to him.

Finally, as Sec of State, Hillary had classified to top secret information on a personal server. Russia, or China, or some random teens could access that information more easily on said server than if in a more secure location. She was negligent, at the absolute minimum. And her chance is eroding, again.

 

I feel you are as close to 100% correct on this matter as a human can be in a few sentences. Too many good people on this planet live in HORRIBLY regressive countries. USA looks good compared to them. Canada, IMO, seems quite a bit better managed than America. My 2 pesos.


Regarding post #157:

One measure that was introduced and passed in the not-too-distant-past seems most relevant.

"October 14, 2013

(CNSNews.com) -- Bureaucracies in the Obama Administration have thus far published approximately 11,588,500 words of final Obamacare regulations, while there are only 381,517 words in the Obamacare law itself.

That means unelected federal officials have now written 30 words of regulations for each word in the law."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/11588500-words-obamacare-regs-30x-long-law

"March 29, 2012

During the long, painful debate that led to the passage of Obamacare, Republican lawmakers made a single request of their colleagues, the press and the public: Please read the 2,700-page bill. That request was mostly ignored, even by many of the members of Congress who voted for what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Now, it's someone else's turn not to read the bill. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week, some justices made it abundantly clear that they, too, haven't read the entire law, even if they are considering a constitutional question that could kill the whole thing."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacares-2700-pages-are-too-much-for-justices/article/1204606

Last Edit, for real this time:

My 4 preferred candidates for POTUS are all doing well at the moment. Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina.

Carly Fiorina "won" the debate IMO. She went after Hillary with intense gumption and pizazz!! Loved it.

 

The reason I'd rather not have information broadcast is hardly because I wouldn't want a wide audience to see those things for potential abuse -- on the contrary, if that many people want to take the time to read the stuff I write (most of the personal documents I'm talking about are journals, notes, drafts, correspondence, etc.), more power to them. There are two parts to why I'd rather not have everything I owe shown to the world: first, because it is incomplete, and second, because particular people might see it, rather than a large group. The second reason also involves the first. For the first one, it's because some of my documents are haphazard and incomplete, and I'd rather people see those in a more polished form -- if that comes from any point of fear, it's a fear of doing the ideas contained therein a disservice, and by extension a disservice to anyone who reads it. To heck with my worries, I want the stuff people steal from me to actually be good, and plenty of it isn't yet. (I'd also like people to not steal so that I can potentially afford food and housing, but that runs secondary.) As for the latter reason, 7 billion people can know about it for all it perturbs me, so long as the two or three who matter most don't. Usually, those correspondence express still-transient emotions or ideas, which may either change or solidify; in the same way I wouldn't want inaccurate or incomplete ideas sent out to a larger group of people, I wouldn't want potentially temporary thoughts about someone else sent to that person.

So really, those are the two reasons why I wouldn't want everything I write or say broadcast: I don't want it stolen wholesale, and most of it just isn't good enough yet for other people to see -- they're time is worth more than that.

In regards to potential breaches, it's much easier to control the potential breaches and illegal actions of a small group of known individuals than the population at large. If someone steals an idea, it's easier to crack skulls within a selection of known individuals than it is to hunt through the entirety of the net to find one guy. Internal enforcement of that particular kind of problems makes more logistical sense than relying on the broader police force.

Aside from those ideas on enforcement, potential theft, and worth, I would be more than happy to make everything I write and do public. I'd be thrilled to have other people read as much as they want. I wouldn't be as thrilled if hordes of anonymous people started mocking me or harassing me, but the internet makes that completely possible already. People haven't chosen to yet, though. Harassing others, yes, but there's a lot more going on in those cases than just public information.

 

TRUMPMANIA: GOP DEBATE SETS CNN RATINGS RECORD

Regardless of how well you think Republican frontrunner Donald Trump performed at Wednesday night’s CNN debate, there is no question he is generating unprecedented interest and excitement. Last night CNN earned its highest ratings ever.

(Highlighting my addition)

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/trumpmania-gop-debate-sets-cnn-ratings-record



C-SPAN2 cuts away to DJT live right about 3:50, FYI.

 

But kal, this response, though I'm sure fully accurate and perceptive to your own needs, ignores the fact that the gathering of information by the government is a systemic issue that could easily be used for purposes far, far more nefarious than showing others things that one person wrote. Data is very quickly becoming a major resource, and the potential for the government to find data to support whatever abuses they feel they need to perpetrate is incredible, especially as the NSA and the role of technology in everyday citizens' communications grow.

You say you don't want inadequate or unformed ideas spread to the public. This seems like one of the abuses the government has available to it through widespread surveillance and data collection. Given enough data, you can find numbers to support nearly any initiative you want. The misinformation that can be created from that type of centralized documentation is astounding. You do point out that it's a fear rooted in cynicism, but from the other side arguing that the NSA is fine could be seen as a trust rooted in naivete.

Personally, I really don't like the NSA, and I think the reason that Americans tolerate it is largely rooted in their ignorance of how much it can do. There was a good Last Week Tonight on this topic that demonstrates this point pretty well.

 

Well, I guess you're a true exhibitionist then. Cool.

In my experience however, most people are not at your level in this regard. I can respect your personal stance, but I would not respect trying to force it upon others.

I wouldn't mind if it was a voluntary data collection (for example, you submit your info rather than it being taken), though of course that would defeat the purpose of the practice.

I will say, however, that there are a few points to keep in mind, though not necessarily for Kalasle specifically:

1. Aspects of it started as clandestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Since the 60's. The US still officially denied its existence even after a former CIA head had come out saying it's a thing.

Even if it hadn't, there's absolutely no reason to believe there would not be a clandestine operation(s) as well, possibly masking activities on their end by blaming the known collection system. Or, for that matter, hack the known collection system and bypass some of the other hoops.

2. It's not some singular entity. In fact, the main reason for them to go "public" with it is to pave the way for removing liability of telecommunications and similar companies for selling/sharing your personal identifiable information. It would, of course, be one thing for them to use that information to enhance their business (specifically, ostensibly private information such as purchase records, activity on company owned sites, etc.) but it's another to claim that information as their private property to sell or distribute as they see fit.

At the very least, the copyright over-reach (though granted not an issue for all companies) that can sit side-by-side with this kind of practice in terms of data management feels pretty darn bad.

3. I've nothing in particular against data collection of public information (such as this post for example). However, what I do have an issue with is private email information (short of someone publishing them openly, etc.) using remote access to web-cams/microphones, to, without a warrant, spy on people in their homes/offices. That sort of thing. It's the intrusive data collection I've actually got a problem with.

4. Just because something seems inevitable doesn't mean there aren't potential countermeasures. The main thing of course being wide-spread use of encryption. However, the Government will often attempt to force there to be a back-door in encryption, so that they can access and decrypt the data at their leisure... which might be fine, if they went through the process of requiring a warrant detailing the specific data that they are looking for and all that jazz.

Also, even if there aren't countermeasures. People dying in car crashes isn't something that can be stopped, short of getting rid of cars. Even (especially?) AI-driven cars have accidents after all. That, of course, doesn't mean that laws and protections aren't put into place. While they aren't all necessarily ideal (I still have a big issue with mandatory insurance, though I do understand most of why they are in place). In this case, for the most part, government regulation has been to reduce the likelihood of someone dying in a crash, from various DUI laws, to mandatory safety features like belts and bags and the like, to road safety and maintenance.

In the case of data collection and breeches of privacy, the government regulations are demanding measures that INCREASE the likelihood of these breeches and the like.

Fair enough. However, I would point out that rather than the presence of harassment, the concern would be the degree of harassment. While particularly damaging incarnations of this almost undoubtedly do have something more going on, the point is that you'd be opening yourself to more risk, when supposedly the purpose of it from a Government standpoint is to reduce risk.