Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

From a purely technical standpoint it could even be argued that requiring identification (at the federal level) is unconstitutional.  The language isn't the clearest on that point, but it appears to indicate that the federal government is not allowed to create a national level ID system (due to the need for such a system to obtain data from citizens that might be protected [the data, not the citizens]).  There appear to be several ongoing investigations as to what kind of data would be appropriate for the federal government to acquire in such a system.

That said, I can see where a national ID system would be useful. Look at Social Security Numbers: they were supposed to be just for, well, a person's social security file, but they've pretty much morphed into a generic ID number. Stick a photo on there and start issuing 'em at the DMV, require people to update the photo every 6 years or so, and there ya go. And far more people have an SSN than driver's license, because it's nigh impossible to function without one. Unless you're really hard-line Amish or somesuch.

Not that I want a national ID, but there's a place for one that's currently being filled haphazardly.

The most amusing part is that is actually criminal for the SSN to be used for identification (employers get away with it because if you are a participant in the SS program [like basically every US citizen that works] they require it in order to prove that you have in fact paid into the system),  If the number is not being used to verify your participation, it is unlawful to even ask for it.

[mainiac]

Tens of thousands of people had the same level of classification access as Manning, but it took years for someone to reveal the blatant war crimes and lies to the public that he finally revealed.

It's not like you get a classified clearance and they hand you a flash drive with all the classified information in the world.  An unbelievably large amount of information is classified.  Most of it isn't remotely sensitive.  Manning was working with information that was sensitive and that the vast majority of people with classified clearance didn't have access to.

And while Manning certainly made some things public that weren't known, newspapers regularly published stories about abuses by american soldiers and US attacks killing civilians long before Manning went public.  I'm not trying to say what she did wasn't important just that the idea that some sort of conspiracy was keeping it under wraps is absurd.  It's like the drug trade.  We know there is a huge illegal drug trade going down.  What individual informants do is give us the specifics about when, where and by who.

[smjjames]

We have STATES bigger than entire european countries, and like alway said, 'from sea to shining sea' is about as far as it is from Portugal to Moscow.

With a country the size of the US, the problem comes down to how do you enforce this kind of stuff without disenfranchising people. As far as voter fraud goes, we already have pretty good systems to prevent that sort of thing.

[mainiac]

The geographic size strikes me as completely irrelevant.

[smjjames]

I was mainly trying to make a point about population size.

[Starver]

We have STATES bigger than entire european countries, and like alway said, 'from sea to shining sea' is about as far as it is from Portugal to Moscow.

Texas alone stretches over much of central Europe, if shifted over for direct comparison. (How you'd do that is anyone's guess. Maybe plenty of lubricating oil.)

Texas is the second largest state in the Union, of course, after Alaska.  (Which I've known to annoy some Texans. To whom it was pointed out that we could divide Alaska into two halves, but then it would send Texas into third place!)  Alaska stretches about as wide as the main 48 do (partly thanks to the Aleutians).

There's some fun comparison-maps out there, BTW. Look out for Australia (or Australian states) in comparison with Europe/NA subsets/etc...

I think that this effectively says that it 'all goes to show'...  But not necessarily says what it shows.

We now return you to your normal programmes.  (Or programs, if you insist.)

[SquatchHammer]

In any case, Voter Fraud is rare in the US.

That is correct. That is why when ever the push for more ID voter laws is really a front for a way to keep voters (i.e. most of the minorities that have problems with getting I.D.) from voicing their opinions.

I approve of a mandatory paid holiday for voting.

[Sergarr]

All this talk about "USA is too large to enforce this stuff, unlike Europe" seems kind of fallacious to me, since Russia is even bigger geographically, yet has no apparent problems with passporting people.

In thread-relevant news: your possible future President, reposting an image of his face plastered on a train Thomas-style. It's hilarious.

[SalmonGod]

Tens of thousands of people had the same level of classification access as Manning, but it took years for someone to reveal the blatant war crimes and lies to the public that he finally revealed.

It's not like you get a classified clearance and they hand you a flash drive with all the classified information in the world.  An unbelievably large amount of information is classified.  Most of it isn't remotely sensitive.  Manning was working with information that was sensitive and that the vast majority of people with classified clearance didn't have access to.

And while Manning certainly made some things public that weren't known, newspapers regularly published stories about abuses by american soldiers and US attacks killing civilians long before Manning went public.  I'm not trying to say what she did wasn't important just that the idea that some sort of conspiracy was keeping it under wraps is absurd.  It's like the drug trade.  We know there is a huge illegal drug trade going down.  What individual informants do is give us the specifics about when, where and by who.

Yeah, that there was widespread military abuse was known.  But it's not just that she fleshed out our knowledge about something that was already known, or that she told us some things we didn't know.  There was stuff in there that directly contradicted important official statements that had been made to the public.  Most memorable example for me:  We'd been told repeatedly that the military doesn't keep official body counts, which allowed them to deflect the subject for years.  But Manning's leaks showed us definitively that there were in fact official numbers, and that it was internally known Iraqi civilians made up over 60% of deaths.  If that's not something being actively kept under wraps, I don't know what is.

Besides the point, anyway.

You can argue that some specific thing isn't true or doesn't count as a conspiracy, but the general stance that conspiracies can't/don't happen in the modern world is absurd to me.  It's a major pet peeve of mine.  But maybe our difference is in what we consider to be conspiracy. 

To me, if a government organization is involved in or knows something that people deserve to know, but they choose to avoid disclosure, then it counts.  Maybe it shouldn't.  But we're kind of forced to use the word in this manner, when you get called a conspiracy theorist for trying to discuss things of that nature.  For example, the old ACTA thread I pointed out.  It was international trade politics being conducted in a manner that wasn't particularly extraordinary... but it's something that effects a large number of people, who knew something was going on there and wanted to know more, but the government refused to officially disclose information.  And on this very forum, people were called conspiracy theorists for sharing what we did know thanks only to leaks.

[Frumple]

All this talk about "USA is too large to enforce this stuff, unlike Europe" seems kind of fallacious to me, since Russia is even bigger geographically, yet has no apparent problems with passporting people.

Well, you've got about a third the population, and so far as I'm aware much of the land is even emptier than in the states. Helps a bit.

[Max™]

I recall something about a conspiracy study that had flawed math but still put across a rather obvious seeming point: asking x people to keep a secret for y years is going to end up with z percent of them messing up at some point, expecting x to be huge and y to be significant implies absurdly low z, which is an awfully charitable position to take for someone who is usually engaged in making claims about potentially dastardly secrets and moustache twirling villainy.

[misko27]

All this talk about "USA is too large to enforce this stuff, unlike Europe" seems kind of fallacious to me, since Russia is even bigger geographically, yet has no apparent problems with passporting people.

In thread-relevant news: your possible future President, reposting an image of his face plastered on a train Thomas-style. It's hilarious.

And Russia is a shining beacon of Freedom and Democracy isn't it? Oh wait... The issue isn't about "too big to enforce", but rather "too big to enforce on too many people without serious concern for personal liberty". Communist and formerly-Communist countries can be excluded on this basis alone, since you guys have records for reasons that are not examples for the US to follow.

The point of reference here is problematic. Russia is much bigger, but has far fewer people, and fewer personal liberties. China has a LOT more people, but the vast majority of them are concentrated in the coast; and anyway, China also has the "doesn't take personal liberties into consideration". Canada and Australia (and maybe Brazil) would actually be better comparison, if they applied. Canada doesn't have your fascist "Photo ID", as far as I know, so it comes down to Australia and Brazil, since I only know that they have enforced voting and nothing else.

Self-edit: Canada used to have non-compulsory ID, but they were discontinued. Australia interestingly has compulsory voting but NO national ID whatsoever, proving to have the worst of all worlds. Brazil has both compulsory voting and compulsory ID.

In any case  though, it doesn't matter. People would have a shit fit for no other reason than "HUGE GOVERNMENT DATABASES WITH OUR INFORMATION" (you might say "but don't those already exist?", to which I would respond "yes they do") i.e. the same reason there is not National Gun registry.

[Rolepgeek]

where it talked about the idea that the effect of scandals are the result of the politician's power/support and allies,

It's an idea.  It happens to be a very stupid idea.

What you are talking about is essentially a conspiracy theory.  It's not quite a conspiracy theory but it has the essential element.  A huge number of people would need to be keeping mum.

The Watergate hotel conspiracy had like under 20 people and it couldn't even stay under wraps for 4 years.  The typical domestic terrorist cell has someone turning states evidence around the time it hits 10 members.

The world just doesn't work this way...

Wait.

What?

It has nothing to do with secrecy. It's not saying the scandals are literally manufactured. It's saying their resulting effect on the person's popularity/standing/career is more dependent on their power and influence and number of supporters than it is on the actual severity of the scandal. That doesn't have anything to do with secrecy, it has to do with people liking their friends and people they support and the psychological effect wherein upon being challenged on a position, people stick to it harder.

In what way is that a conspiracy theory? It's essentially a proposed addendum to the model of how the political market/economy/machine functions.

[mainiac]

All this talk about "USA is too large to enforce this stuff, unlike Europe" seems kind of fallacious to me, since Russia is even bigger geographically, yet has no apparent problems with passporting people.

Russia is so good at passporting people that after they finish passporting all the people in their countries, they lend their neighbors a hand.

[mainiac]

where it talked about the idea that the effect of scandals are the result of the politician's power/support and allies,

It's an idea.  It happens to be a very stupid idea.

What you are talking about is essentially a conspiracy theory.  It's not quite a conspiracy theory but it has the essential element.  A huge number of people would need to be keeping mum.

The Watergate hotel conspiracy had like under 20 people and it couldn't even stay under wraps for 4 years.  The typical domestic terrorist cell has someone turning states evidence around the time it hits 10 members.

The world just doesn't work this way...

Wait.

What?

It has nothing to do with secrecy. It's not saying the scandals are literally manufactured. It's saying their resulting effect on the person's popularity/standing/career is more dependent on their power and influence and number of supporters than it is on the actual severity of the scandal. That doesn't have anything to do with secrecy, it has to do with people liking their friends and people they support and the psychological effect wherein upon being challenged on a position, people stick to it harder.

In what way is that a conspiracy theory? It's essentially a proposed addendum to the model of how the political market/economy/machine functions.

I thought you meant the effects of a scandal like the prisons, not a personal scandal.  Yeah, that would be a bit closer to the mark with personal scandals.