171–180 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RoW thinks Portland is borderline civil war anyway. Only a true American could conceive of hundreds of masked, rifle-bearing men marching around and clashing with other groups as a protest.
Sure, but this seems like something where the Americans have it right. Despite all the guns, Portland doesn't seem any more violent right now than, say, Paris during the yellow vest protests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Major changes sometimes involve civil war, not usually . Statistically non-violent rebellions are more successful than the violent ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w
> Statistically non-violent rebellions are more successful than the violent ones. Countries that are already mostly democratic don't need violent rebellions?
A few facts about these events: - Based on data collected by from only some polling places, there is a huge discrepancies in results comparing to official ones. Most poling places refused to post results. People, who demanded to post results (as the law requires), were arrested. You can read more about it at belarus2020.org - A lot of journalists left state media. Replacements were brought from Russia's state's propa…
> Based on data collected by from only some polling places, there is a huge discrepancies in results comparing to official ones. Most poling places refused to post results. People, who demanded to post results (as the law requires), were arrested. You can read more about it at belarus2020.org Whatever country you're in, this is a good time to think about becoming a poll watcher. The exact arrangements vary but electi…
https://www.statista.com/chart/22512/belarus-presidential-el...
Then they were absent this year, and the official result was the exact same 80%.
Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come, at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice. If one side (an authoritarian oppressor) is not afraid to use violence, and the other is prevented from using any response, the oppressor will win. This is why major changes usually require civil war. This is also why authoritarians definitely do not want their population to have access to we…
> Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come, at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice. No, it doesn't. Recent history tells us exactly the opposite: 1) Rise of democracy in Latin America in the 70s and 80s (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Brazil) 2) Collapse of communism on Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s. 3) Democracy in Eastern Asia in the 80s (Indonesia, Korea, Phil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is important to understand who the poll watchers are and what their motives are. In the U.S. in the 1980's poll watching was used as a cover for voter intimidation when white males in combat boots and 10 gallon cowboy hats and even some with guns, many off-duty police officers, were recruited and sent to African American and Latino communities to stand near polling places with signs saying they are patrolling the…
What you are saying is true. But it is irrelevant in Belarus. See picture above representing a typical independent observer in Belarus.
EDIT: sorry, Belarus does not directly connect to Kaliningrad, there is a gap of about 50 miles with Lithuania and Poland on either side. But the general point still stands
Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come, at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice. If one side (an authoritarian oppressor) is not afraid to use violence, and the other is prevented from using any response, the oppressor will win. This is why major changes usually require civil war. This is also why authoritarians definitely do not want their population to have access to we…
> Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come, at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice. No, it doesn't. Recent history tells us exactly the opposite: 1) Rise of democracy in Latin America in the 70s and 80s (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Brazil) 2) Collapse of communism on Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s. 3) Democracy in Eastern Asia in the 80s (Indonesia, Korea, Phil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come, at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice. No, it doesn't. Recent history tells us exactly the opposite: 1) Rise of democracy in Latin America in the 70s and 80s (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Brazil) 2) Collapse of communism on Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s. 3) Democracy in Eastern Asia in the 80s (Indonesia, Korea, Phil…
The carnation revolution Portugal was not violent have you got those revolutions switched
So, when guys with guns depose a dictator it gets a little harder to argue that it is very peaceful.
However I thank you for bring up the fact that there was no blood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come, at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice. No, it doesn't. Recent history tells us exactly the opposite: 1) Rise of democracy in Latin America in the 70s and 80s (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Brazil) 2) Collapse of communism on Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s. 3) Democracy in Eastern Asia in the 80s (Indonesia, Korea, Phil…
The fall of the( USA supported) fascist regime in Greece was not in fact bloodless.
Again and again: my point is that the democratic forces opposing the dictatorship didn't engage in violence.
The violence in the crisis that led to the collapse of the dictatorship of Colonels was by the dictatorship itself and the war against Turkey.
All repressive regimes repress. My point is how the democrats should respond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are crypto voting systems that do not allow anyone (including the government) to know if you voted or what your vote is (identifying you), but still allows tallying and validation. Are they safe against "rubber hose cryptanalysis"? Such as forcing you to verify your vote while I can see you?
I’m not an expert, but couldn’t you keep a link between your public key and your vote while the election is open. Allow subsequent votes that will nullify votes associated with your public key. And when the polls close, this link gets deleted. This way you can be intimidated to vote and verify a certain way, then after your intimidator leaves you alone, you simply cast another vote. And after the deadline passes any…
Even beyond any theoretical security measures one huge benefit of in person voting is it limits the available attack. With IPV to steal an election you have to find a way to either physically bring enough people to enough polling places to swing the election or corrupt the poll watcher system and steal it in the counting phase. With electronic voting anyone in the world has a chance to attack you. Anything that requires Joe/Jane Citizen to reliably or securely operate their computer is kind of doomed for a long time IMO.