Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
We're fortunate that Fireworks don't bother my dog. Raised in Santa Ana, fireworks don't even raise his heartbeat. He probably thinks they're just gunshots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 17:50:31
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
cuda1179 wrote: While I definitely agree that Russia tried to influence the election, I can see how one might argue that what they did didn't effect the overall outcome.
For about 4 years the right-wing media acted like two black guys with a stick standing in front of a polling place in Philadelphia was a mortal threat to the voting rights of Americans*. If that was a big deal but the Russia stuff was debatable, then it's not a very honest argument.
In any event, if we agree that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, then it's largely immaterial if it was effective or not. You'd be pretty mad if I was firing a gun at your house even if I didn't actually hit the house.
*And I'm not engaging in whataboutism, that was one of the clearest cases of voter suppression I've ever seen in the last decade. The charges should never have been dropped.
I'm not saying that Russia interfering isn't an issue. It totally is and something needs to be done.
d-usa wrote: Pass a simple “no helmet, no welfare” law, the government will stay out of their lives, nobody has to pay for their decision, everybody is happy.
I have to ask, where do you live that welfare pays so well you can ride a HD?
d-usa wrote: Pass a simple “no helmet, no welfare” law, the government will stay out of their lives, nobody has to pay for their decision, everybody is happy.
I have to ask, where do you live that welfare pays so well you can ride a HD?.
I’m talking about “get in a crash without a helmet (or even seatbelt), can’t qualify for disability due to any injuries sustained from that accident” kind of rules. If the government can’t tell you how to protect yourself, why should the government be on the hook and pay for your failure to protect yourself?
cuda1179 wrote: While I definitely agree that Russia tried to influence the election, I can see how one might argue that what they did didn't effect the overall outcome.
For about 4 years the right-wing media acted like two black guys with a stick standing in front of a polling place in Philadelphia was a mortal threat to the voting rights of Americans*. If that was a big deal but the Russia stuff was debatable, then it's not a very honest argument.
In any event, if we agree that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, then it's largely immaterial if it was effective or not. You'd be pretty mad if I was firing a gun at your house even if I didn't actually hit the house.
*And I'm not engaging in whataboutism, that was one of the clearest cases of voter suppression I've ever seen in the last decade. The charges should never have been dropped.
We need to go harder after citizens without ID than foreign governments to protect our elections.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 18:32:35
I just thought of this, but haven't many in this thread declared that even foreign non-citizens still have Constitutional rights in the US? If that's how people feel, then doesn't Russia still have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want within US borders?
Not saying that I like the idea though.
Hacking emails and divulging that info is definitely criminal. Running a unilateral smear campaign without US collusion is something else. Still slimy, but should it be illegal?
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of this, but haven't many in this thread declared that even foreign non-citizens still have Constitutional rights in the US? If that's how people feel, then doesn't Russia still have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want within US borders?
Not saying that I like the idea though.
Hacking emails and divulging that info is definitely criminal. Running a unilateral smear campaign without US collusion is something else. Still slimy, but should it be illegal?
They can be regulated like every other person/corporation/entity.
Step 1 to regulation would be admitting they needed to be regulated, so once we make it past that tiny step at the White House we can make some progress.
What kind of regulations do you want? I'm guessing that much of what you would suggest would be a huge Constitutional overreach that would effect the free speech rights of the masses.
We need to go harder after citizens without ID than foreign governments to protect our elections.
It's actually kind of funny now cause there is still no evidence of citizens without ID effecting an election outcome, but now there is evidence of a foreign power influencing one and I fully expect that nothing will be done about it while the GOP will go on another binger about "illegals voting in droves" come 2020.
cuda1179 wrote: What kind of regulations do you want? I'm guessing that much of what you would suggest would be a huge Constitutional overreach that would effect the free speech rights of the masses.
I forgot that we currently have no regulations about this, sorry...
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of this, but haven't many in this thread declared that even foreign non-citizens still have Constitutional rights in the US? If that's how people feel, then doesn't Russia still have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want within US borders?
Not saying that I like the idea though.
Hacking emails and divulging that info is definitely criminal. Running a unilateral smear campaign without US collusion is something else. Still slimy, but should it be illegal?
There's a difference between saying what you want about a foreign election and overtly becoming an actor in said election. Russia is accused of hacking private servers to steal information (dirt) to give to someone else, as well as hiring counter-protestors, and conspiring with members of a campaign to help them win said campaign.
Foreign non-citizens have protections under the Constitution but most of those apply to just that, foreign non-citizens (and most of those protections are basic). The Russian State has no constitutional rights under US law, and even if it did it still wouldn't have leeway to violate federals laws as they are accused of doing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 19:21:19
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of this, but haven't many in this thread declared that even foreign non-citizens still have Constitutional rights in the US? If that's how people feel, then doesn't Russia still have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want within US borders?
Not saying that I like the idea though.
Hacking emails and divulging that info is definitely criminal. Running a unilateral smear campaign without US collusion is something else. Still slimy, but should it be illegal?
There's a difference between saying what you want about a foreign election and overtly becoming an actor in said election. Russia is accused of hacking private servers to steal information (dirt) to give to someone else, as well as hiring counter-protestors, and conspiring with members of a campaign to help them win said campaign.
Foreign non-citizens have protections under the Constitution but most of those apply to just that, foreign non-citizens (and most of those protections are basic). The Russian State has no constitutional rights under US law, and even if it did it still wouldn't have leeway to violate federals laws as they are accused of doing.
But would a Russian corporation have rights? They're people too.
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of this, but haven't many in this thread declared that even foreign non-citizens still have Constitutional rights in the US? If that's how people feel, then doesn't Russia still have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want within US borders?
Not saying that I like the idea though.
Hacking emails and divulging that info is definitely criminal. Running a unilateral smear campaign without US collusion is something else. Still slimy, but should it be illegal?
There's a difference between saying what you want about a foreign election and overtly becoming an actor in said election. Russia is accused of hacking private servers to steal information (dirt) to give to someone else, as well as hiring counter-protestors, and conspiring with members of a campaign to help them win said campaign.
Foreign non-citizens have protections under the Constitution but most of those apply to just that, foreign non-citizens (and most of those protections are basic). The Russian State has no constitutional rights under US law, and even if it did it still wouldn't have leeway to violate federals laws as they are accused of doing.
The hacking is illegal, and I've stated as much. It's still a bit fuzzy as to collusion though. As for hiring counter protestors, is that even illegal? Should it be?
cuda1179 wrote: It's still a bit fuzzy as to collusion though.
There is no question that the Russian government attempted to collude. The entire deal with Trump Jr. has made in undeniable. The only ongoing question is to what extent the Trump campaign knew about it and tried to collude themselves, which honestly I think is also undeniable when it comes to the answer but common sense isn't applicable in a court of law.
As for hiring counter protestors, is that even illegal? Should it be?
Specifically no and yes. There are laws against foreign powers influencing elections in the US. And yes it should be for stupidly obvious reasons.
cuda1179 wrote: It's still a bit fuzzy as to collusion though.
There is no question that the Russian government attempted to collude. The entire deal with Trump Jr. has made in undeniable. The only ongoing question is to what extent the Trump campaign knew about it and tried to collude themselves, which honestly I think is also undeniable when it comes to the answer but common sense isn't applicable in a court of law.
As for hiring counter protestors, is that even illegal? Should it be?
Specifically no and yes. There are laws against foreign powers influencing elections in the US. And yes it should be for stupidly obvious reasons.
Just so we're clear, you don't think foreign citizens should have full access to Constitutional rights.
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of this, but haven't many in this thread declared that even foreign non-citizens still have Constitutional rights in the US? If that's how people feel, then doesn't Russia still have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want within US borders?
Not saying that I like the idea though.
Hacking emails and divulging that info is definitely criminal. Running a unilateral smear campaign without US collusion is something else. Still slimy, but should it be illegal?
Very specific rights (Trial by Jury) but arguably the first amendment would apply. The real issue is that while politicians and corporate big wigs claim 'money is free speech' and 'Corporations are people'. Bribery is not free speech, no matter how you dress it up. Further, these people are not speaking on their own behalf, but on the behalf of foreign powers (who have no rights in America beyond what Congress allows.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: [
Just so we're clear, you don't think foreign citizens should have full access to Constitutional rights.
Obvious trap is obvious. The ability to bribe a public official is not a right. It's a crime.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/04 20:33:09
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Cheesecat wrote: and making your dick stink being more of a culprit for the losing sales.
What percentage of genitalia of the near 150,000 people who purchased HD bikes in 2017 and all the millions in the preceding years have you had in and around your face to state that as an empirical fact?
Having your crotch near a hot engine that spews out gassy smoke for long periods of time, tends to make the genitals very smelly I mean that's just science.
I thought bikers wore trousers and pants?
You'd think that until you see idiots wearing shorts and a tshirt with no helmet while riding
We called them "Organ Donors" in the ER.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
cuda1179 wrote: It's still a bit fuzzy as to collusion though.
There is no question that the Russian government attempted to collude. The entire deal with Trump Jr. has made in undeniable. The only ongoing question is to what extent the Trump campaign knew about it and tried to collude themselves, which honestly I think is also undeniable when it comes to the answer but common sense isn't applicable in a court of law.
As for hiring counter protestors, is that even illegal? Should it be?
Specifically no and yes. There are laws against foreign powers influencing elections in the US. And yes it should be for stupidly obvious reasons.
Just so we're clear, you don't think foreign citizens should have full access to Constitutional rights.
They don't and no one has argued that they do, but congrats on trying to segway a separate topic into the current Republican hissyfit. Pointing out that illegal immigrants still have rights is not the same thing as saying they have identical rights to citizens.
Technically there are people who hold duel citizenship that can vote. despite being foreign nationals.
Technically the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship positively or negatively. We just ignore it, except in the case of the Indian Nations were some laws exist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 21:01:32
d-usa wrote: Foreign citizens within the US can have rights as regulated as those of citizens.
Next thing you know we are gonna pretend we think the should be able to vote as well.
Technically there are people who hold duel citizenship that can vote. despite being foreign nationals.
Because for the most part, dual citizens are only considered dual citizens outside of both their countries. The USA considers me a US citizen, and Germany considers me a German citizen, and anywhere else I’m both.
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of this, but haven't many in this thread declared that even foreign non-citizens still have Constitutional rights in the US? If that's how people feel, then doesn't Russia still have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want within US borders?
Not saying that I like the idea though.
Hacking emails and divulging that info is definitely criminal. Running a unilateral smear campaign without US collusion is something else. Still slimy, but should it be illegal?
Very specific rights (Trial by Jury) but arguably the first amendment would apply. The real issue is that while politicians and corporate big wigs claim 'money is free speech' and 'Corporations are people'. Bribery is not free speech, no matter how you dress it up. Further, these people are not speaking on their own behalf, but on the behalf of foreign powers (who have no rights in America beyond what Congress allows.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: [
Just so we're clear, you don't think foreign citizens should have full access to Constitutional rights.
Obvious trap is obvious. The ability to bribe a public official is not a right. It's a crime.
No one brought up bribery, we were talking about paying protestors. Obvious strawman is obvious.
cuda1179 wrote: As for hiring counter protestors, is that even illegal? Should it be?
Specifically no and yes. There are laws against foreign powers influencing elections in the US. And yes it should be for stupidly obvious reasons.
Just so we're clear, you don't think foreign citizens should have full access to Constitutional rights.
They don't and no one has argued that they do.
.
You have made it clear that you don't think foreign citizens have the right to protest or spread propaganda. So, when illegal immigrants march for Immigrant rights you think that should be banned too, right?
America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
I've said it before to American dakka members, but I'll say it again on this symbolic day. Only Americans can defeat America.
Russians, Putin, foreign interference, North Koreans, Klingon, a POTUS on the take, or whatever the hell it is...
It doesn't add up to a bucket of horsegak.
Your country is in this state, because you as a nation have allowed it to be in this state: the hollowed out parties, the erosion of your constitution, voter apathy, gak politics etc etc
A USA fully engaged in the democratic system, confident in itself and its values, with an informed citizenry holding its politicians to account, would laugh Russian interference out of town.
This is not me blaming individual American dakka members, because myself and the rest of British society are responsible for the gakstorm that is British politics...
We're just as bad and we need to up our game as well.
But when you read Tocqueville, and re-visit it from time to time like what I do, and read those words of wisdom, you see the solution in front of you...
One day, America will get its revolutionary and early republican zeal back, and the Trumps and the Clintons of this world will be lucky if they get to run a hotdog stand, never mind a super power.
Only Americans can defeat America.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
cuda1179 wrote: As for hiring counter protestors, is that even illegal? Should it be?
Specifically no and yes. There are laws against foreign powers influencing elections in the US. And yes it should be for stupidly obvious reasons.
Just so we're clear, you don't think foreign citizens should have full access to Constitutional rights.
They don't and no one has argued that they do.
.
You have made it clear that you don't think foreign citizens have the right to protest or spread propaganda. So, when illegal immigrants march for Immigrant rights you think that should be banned too, right?
Straw men should have constitutional rights as well.
cuda1179 wrote: As for hiring counter protestors, is that even illegal? Should it be?
Specifically no and yes. There are laws against foreign powers influencing elections in the US. And yes it should be for stupidly obvious reasons.
Just so we're clear, you don't think foreign citizens should have full access to Constitutional rights.
They don't and no one has argued that they do.
.
You have made it clear that you don't think foreign citizens have the right to protest or spread propaganda. So, when illegal immigrants march for Immigrant rights you think that should be banned too, right?
Straw men should have constitutional rights as well.
You do know what a strawman is, right? When someone quite literally states that foreign people should not be able to protest, calling them out on it isn't a strawman.
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
