US Politics: Now with Alt Facts

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure and we've seen Trump supporters chased and beaten by organized mobs, and cops in Dallas shot and killed by someone who identified as BLM.

He did not, actually, identify with BLM. He specifically was pissed off at them for not doing enough.

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It doesn't matter which side of the political argument you're on, violence is not the answer. Outside of self-defense of course. I don't think blindsiding a guy in the side of the face as he's talking to an interviewer counts. 

And I disagree. History does too. Violence often is a very good, very powerful, and very final answer. You might not want it to be the answer, but violence often works - and often works far better than nonviolence. We think a lot about the great changes in history that had nonviolent starts like the Civil Rights movement and Gandhi - but we don't talk about the ones that failed, and there are a whole lot of ones that failed. 

[Mudguard]

13 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

I promise you that Alex (and, to a far lesser extent, people like me) are actually involved in improving election systems all over the world, all year around, no matter the election cycle. Conferences happen all the time, committee meetings happen all the time, papers are written all the time, governments invite him (and even me) for consulting on constitutional matters all the time. The fact that this makes it into the news only around election days has nothing to do with fickleness of advocacy, but with the news cycle.

For the second paragraph, you are simply wrong. Fraud is extremely likely (look at the stakes!), and successful fraud is undetectable by definition. This is the fundamental principle behind the construction of voting mechanisms. Voter ID laws, again, are a thing that most other democracies have fixed, and therefore enjoy higher trust in the electoral process. The free world is not interested in having its biggest player (the US) undergoing a crisis of trust in the electoral process. (This crisis includes, among many other things a crisis of trust in identification, authentication, secrecy, and correctness.) This is fixable, most countries have indeed fixed it. So will the US. 

The urging of a recount in 3 states wasn't an effort to improve the electoral system.  It was a desperate attempt at overturning the election.  He didn't need to urge first the Clinton group and then Stein to file for recounts in order to improve the election system.  He also didn't need to urge the filing of recounts in those 3 particular states.  That wasn't a coincidence.  The recounts themselves did nothing to change the system.

I have no problem with his normal job of trying to improve the electoral system.  He should stick to that.  I'm only taking issue with his efforts in a pointless recount that was not back by any credible evidence whatsoever.   You keep discussing his day job when that's never been at issue.

My second paragraph asserts that in person voter fraud is extremely unlikely, yet you claim that it's extremely likely.  I have no idea why you think that, when all evidence is to the contrary.  Is it a semantics issue?  How about if I assert that in-person voter fraud, which is the type that would be made more difficult with voter ID laws, happens extremely infrequently, so infrequently that the numbers are negligible?  Are you disputing this claim?  In the US, any type of voter fraud happens extremely infrequently.  

I disagree with your definition of successful fraud.  Successful fraud is not necessarily undetectable, it's just not detected.  

I don't see a crisis of trust in the electoral system in the US.  There's no evidence of mass fraud that would make rational people question the results.  The process has worked fine.  The main people I see trying to stir shit up are those who are unhappy with the results (some Democrats for Trump winning and Trump for losing the popular vote) or those who have a vested interest in election voting mechanisms reform because it's their job, like Halderman.  

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He did not, actually, identify with BLM. He specifically was pissed off at them for not doing enough.

And I disagree. History does too. Violence often is a very good, very powerful, and very final answer. You might not want it to be the answer, but violence often works - and often works far better than nonviolence. 

And sometimes it doesn't.  

Like sucker punching a random dude on the sidewalk, for example, which accomplishes nothing, and is likely counterproductive.

[Castel]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

And sometimes it doesn't.  

Like sucker punching a random dude on the sidewalk, for example, which accomplishes nothing, and is likely counterproductive.

Exactly, it's all well and good to recreate that Starship Troopers scene about "violence never solving anything" but I'm very dubious about the idea that Richard Spencer is the guy for whom we need to suspend the basic rules of society for her, and if there's any benefit to that. 

[Tempra]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I am not claiming Trump is doing anything illegal...but he may be violating the Espionage Act

FTFY.

 

 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tempra said:

FTFY.

Not really. I'm saying that he can put himself in a position that would violate the espionage act, and is doing so that ALSO would jeopardize the country. 

He hasn't violated any laws yet. It can still be criticized, and should, and not because it's illegal but because it's fucking dangerous as hell. I don't care that much about it being an issue with the Espionage Act  - though I would have thought you would, but apparently that doesn't really matter to you - but I do care about it being incredibly stupid, irresponsible and dangerous. Apparently you don't care about that either. Cool beans. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And I disagree. History does too. Violence often is a very good, very powerful, and very final answer. You might not want it to be the answer, but violence often works - and often works far better than nonviolence. We think a lot about the great changes in history that had nonviolent starts like the Civil Rights movement and Gandhi - but we don't talk about the ones that failed, and there are a whole lot of ones that failed. 

 In context, sure. How this particular event (the Richard Sherman cold cock) qualifies? I don't see it.

[Rippounet]

54 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Real life isn't a movie or a comic book and we aren't at war with the alt-right.

Eh, that's actually a real question. Given what I read on the internet here or there, black/arabic Muslim gay women probably feel like war has very much been declared against them these days.

I mean, I don't support physical violence and am extremely pacifist myself but how much verbal violence should one endure before answering with physical violence? Isn't it predictable that hate speech or the advocacy of white supremacy will lead to some kind of violent reaction? And how should one consider groups that actually support the political implementation of racist or sexist policies?

Let's bear in mind that in some countries, what Richard Spencer says or does is illegal. Yeah, I know the US is big on the 1st amendment but then... If you want to exercise 1st amendment rights to verbally attack people different from you (and also promote policies harmful to them), you should expect to assume all the consequences of that, right? I mean, surely you can't take freedom of speech without any kind of responsibility for said speech?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 In context, sure. How this particular event (the Richard Sherman cold cock) qualifies? I don't see it.

Oh man, cold-cocking Richard Sherman would be pretty funny.

I'm willing to argue that specifically punching Richard Spencer doesn't help (I think it has, it does, and we've seen it as a galvanizing moment of resistance, but I can see arguments otherwise) but I don't think that blanket saying 'no violence, ever' is the right choice. Sorry, I don't. 

And this is awesome.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Let's bear in mind that in some countries, what Richard Spencer says or does is illegal. Yeah, I know the US is big on the 1st amendment but then... If you want to exercise 1st amendment rights to verbally attack people different from you (and also promote policies harmful to them), you should expect to assume all the consequences of that, right? I mean, surely you can't take freedom of speech without any kind of responsibility for said speech?

Freedom from physical assault for expressing your views either verbally or in writing? I think we can safely start there.

[Tempra]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really. I'm saying that he can put himself in a position that would violate the espionage act, and is doing so that ALSO would jeopardize the country. 

He hasn't violated any laws yet. It can still be criticized, and should, and not because it's illegal but because it's fucking dangerous as hell. I don't care that much about it being an issue with the Espionage Act  - though I would have thought you would, but apparently that doesn't really matter to you - but I do care about it being incredibly stupid, irresponsible and dangerous. Apparently you don't care about that either. Cool beans. 

Stop being disingenuous at every turn.  I have already stated agreement with you in unequivocal terms that using an unprotected phone is unwise. (It's unclear whether this is actually true).  

Anyways, we have strayed far from the question of whether Trump's aides are violating federal law by using their RNC emails and do not appear to be having a productive discussion.  So, I'm moving on.

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Freedom from physical assault for expressing your views either verbally or in writing? I think we can safely start there.

Not really, if said view promote policies or actions that are themselves violent to others.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Oh man, cold-cocking Richard Sherman would be pretty funny.

I'm willing to argue that specifically punching Richard Spencer doesn't help (I think it has, it does, and we've seen it as a galvanizing moment of resistance, but I can see arguments otherwise) but I don't think that blanket saying 'no violence, ever' is the right choice. Sorry, I don't. 

 Fair enough. I can agree with that bit. Perhaps I overextended a bit.

 

/And nice catch on the Sherman Freudian slip. Lulz.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Not really, if said view promote policies or actions that are themselves violent to others.

Actions yes. Words? Not so much.

[Altherion]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And I disagree. History does too. Violence often is a very good, very powerful, and very final answer. You might not want it to be the answer, but violence often works - and often works far better than nonviolence. We think a lot about the great changes in history that had nonviolent starts like the Civil Rights movement and Gandhi - but we don't talk about the ones that failed, and there are a whole lot of ones that failed.

I completely agree with you, but given the liberal position on guns, wouldn't it make more sense for liberals to keep things strictly within the bounds of the law?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tempra said:

Stop being disingenuous at every turn.  I have already stated agreement with you in unequivocal terms that using an unprotected phone is unwise. (It's unclear whether this is actually true).  

How is it unclear if this is true or not? We have multiple reports of him doing so, and we know that the white house had given him a secure phone - which apparently he isn't using any more because it doesn't have features he likes - like twitter.

Just now, Tempra said:

Anyways, we have strayed far from the question of whether Trump's aides are violating federal law by using their RNC emails and do not appear to be having a productive discussion.  So, I'm moving on.

They are potentially violating policies from day one, and could be violating the law depending on what they deleted.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I completely agree with you, but given the liberal position on guns, wouldn't it make more sense for liberals to keep things strictly within the bounds of the law?

Liberals are very much specifically against keeping things within the bounds of the law. You're mistaking liberals for some odd version of them in your mind.

Plus, as it turns out, there are a whole lot of liberals who are now flocking to buy guns. I think this is a good choice; the liberal side simply ditching the idea that guns are bad and going full out in 2nd amendment support knocks a massive plank out of the conservative side with not a lot of cost, can result in replacing a lot of the NRA leadership and would likely end up in a lot of actual reform done. 

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Liberals are very much specifically against keeping things within the bounds of the law. You're mistaking liberals for some odd version of them in your mind.

Plus, as it turns out, there are a whole lot of liberals who are now flocking to buy guns. I think this is a good choice; the liberal side simply ditching the idea that guns are bad and going full out in 2nd amendment support knocks a massive plank out of the conservative side with not a lot of cost, can result in replacing a lot of the NRA leadership and would likely end up in a lot of actual reform done. 

To the first statement, no, not really -- the kind of violence that "often is a very good, very powerful, and very final answer" is very much against post-WWII liberal values. To some extent, this is even codified in international law.

The second paragraph is interesting if it is widespread -- I kind of doubt that it is.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

To the first statement, no, not really -- the kind of violence that "often is a very good, very powerful, and very final answer" is very much against post-WWII liberal values. To some extent, this is even codified in international law.

Depends on what you mean, but the post WW2 era liberal values are littered with fairly militant revolutionaries who advocated open violence and killing of enemies. There's also a lot of peace in there, but MLK was a lot more effective because there was a Malcolm X, and give peace a chance was a lot more effective because of the threat of riots. 

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

The second paragraph is interesting if it is widespread -- I kind of doubt that it is.

Only anecdotal, but I know a lot of my friends are showing quite a bit of newfound interest in gun use.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Maybe I missed it up thread, but I really love how when Trump tried to tough talk Mexico and threatened to cancel the meeting with Nieto, Nieto straight up cancels it.  Well played!