51–60 of 77 posts
As an Australian who lives in the US, the vast chasm between how elections work in the two countries still boggles my mind. First, the US needs mandatory voting. This is what Australia has. The argument against this has always been about uninformed people voting and "fraud". I used to be sympathetic to this argument until I saw the massive scale of voter suppression that occurs in the US. Mandatory voting immediately…
How about 20 days? Apparently the site was down on the 3rd and won't be back until the 23rd, unless I read that wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should compare the antifa vs. fa fatality count sometime. It would put the "both sides are equally violent" hypothesis into some perspective. Or guns and ammo count.
How would you even begin the comparison? Seems like it would quickly devolve into subjective shitshow when deciding what gets included in each count.
It's already been researched. 50 murders vs zero in 2018, and the other years and reports have similar results.
As an Australian who lives in the US, the vast chasm between how elections work in the two countries still boggles my mind. First, the US needs mandatory voting. This is what Australia has. The argument against this has always been about uninformed people voting and "fraud". I used to be sympathetic to this argument until I saw the massive scale of voter suppression that occurs in the US. Mandatory voting immediately…
In general this shows a lack of understanding of the US system of government common to folks not from here (and honestly to at least half the people who were born here). Broad national-level statements like "election supervisors are an elected position" are almost always wrong for huge swaths of the country. Not a single election judge, election helper, or poll watcher (three distinct positions with distinct roles) i…
I don't think the OP is ignorant of this, or not necessarily. I think they're saying we need federal standards for national elections, which would necessitate a constitutional amendment, sure. (Among the dubious features of our constitution is its amendment mechanism.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general this shows a lack of understanding of the US system of government common to folks not from here (and honestly to at least half the people who were born here). Broad national-level statements like "election supervisors are an elected position" are almost always wrong for huge swaths of the country. Not a single election judge, election helper, or poll watcher (three distinct positions with distinct roles) i…
> You simply cannot make broad sweeping changes across the country to something like an election. It's controlled by every state individually. You can even see this in mail-in balloting where some states allow it, some don't, the dates are all different, etc. This is a pain is the ass but it's by design. The US was explicitly founded to not have a strong, centralized federal government. So that makes it very difficul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, you are advocating removing government officials by violent means? Please explain the difference between that and domestic terrorism. To say American elections are "compromised" is both a gross exaggeration and a Dunning-Krugeresque oversimplification. Gerrymandering is absolutely a problem and needs to be dealt with. It's the primary (no pun intended) reason for the polarization of our elected offi…
You raise an interesting point: How would you differentiate revolution against a fascist government from terrorism?
At their outset, revolutions and [domestic] terrorism are usually indistinguishable. The American Revolution was certainly viewed as terrorism by the Crown, whether they had that word for it or not. History is written by the victors, and to a certain extent the worthiness of your cause is determined decades or centuries later by whether or not you were successful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's probably not true that all Trump supporters want a civil war Probably ? Dude. Don’t be ridiculous. Exactly this kind of demonization of the opposing political party is causing so many problems today.
That's fair. It's definitely not true. I considered changing the words but decided to keep probably since it is after all a more accurate statement (being a weaker assertion) and partly because it's more damning of his supporters I admit.
Link: https://cyber.dhs.gov/ed/20-04/
From the article:
"Update all Windows Servers with the domain controller role by 11:59 PM EDT, Monday, September 21, 2020,
Apply the August 2020 Security Update to all Windows Servers with the domain controller role. If affected domain controllers cannot be updated, ensure they are removed from the network."
America has corrupt elections. From Gerrymandering, Voter Database purges, Voter Suppression through closing polling places, making it hard or impossible to vote by mail. All of it is intentional. And it won't change because those who are elected are the ones that set the rules.
It can absolutely change if those who are elected are physically removed from their rule-setting positions by the disenfranchised. Historically, you can’t cure fascism by voting, even in situations where the elections haven’t been compromised.
Could you show/explain what kind of data do we have on this? How sure are we of this result?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if those who are elected are physically removed from their rule-setting positions > you can’t cure fascism by voting Perhaps advocating was the wrong word but I only see one way to interpret those two statements side-by-side.
You are building a strawman, the observation from OP in no way condones any violent attitude. It is a historical fact that authoritarianism in general (monarchies, despots and so on) has only been brought down through violence, the comment you are replying does not advocate or imply that, you are the one reading that. Malice is in the eye of the beholder.
Is there any other way to take the comment in question?