Coriolanus
Banned
How about the Hague convention? I mean, that was backed by Teddy.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
How about the Hague convention? I mean, that was backed by Teddy.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yes and I agree with them completely. That doesn't state states can't used unmanned drones, or technological superiority that protects their soldiers. It judges who they can target, bans certain weapons , and how they are to treat captives and civilians. I'm in favor of all those things and would apply them to drones. I think drone strikes can fit in that frame work and some uses that the US has done are in violation of them. Again. We have to define more specifically what that is not just pretend that every use is immoral and wrong (unless your a pacifist)
benjipwns
Banned
I said sacrificing liberty and security. Which is what their proposals all would do. And is pointedly not why they knocked them down as unfeasible.
The memo says that the government knows it can't get away with it yet and that's why it shouldn't be mentioned publicly that they're attempting to eliminate electronic security. Members of the government pretty clearly regularly admit they wish they could find a way to compromise electronic security and both hide and maintain it.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't know what what your first quote means and of course this has relation with warrants its at the very heart of it. Preventing the state from exercising it legitimate powers of search and seizure.
If you pretend it's only about snooping your fooling your self. It's about the idea that in an increasingly digital world encryption can be used to prevent the state from doing things it cant be stopped from doing in the real world. Like searching papers with a warrant, stopping weapons, illegal economic transactions, etc.
I made the argument about libertarians because they're the only ones that would cheer this. It's the state being stopped by technology which is something they couldn't do with political and democratic power.
I didn't stop with the direct subject of that article.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is where you try to bate me with giving a simplistic answer. That paints me as some authoritarian radical.
I don't want a system that eliminates the possibility of democratic control.
This leads to a lot of different policies and proposals.
None of them wholesale elimination. Things like regulations, standardization, bans on certain practices, etc.
benjipwns
Banned
There's no "bating" here. I'm asking a simple question engendered by the last quote from the article. Do you want encryption to be illegal?
I take by your "fear" that you would be okay with the government outlawing encryption.
I take by your "fear" that you would be okay with the government outlawing encryption.
And maybe even murdering people without trial if they're alleged to have encrypted something?!?
I mean, I can see how you read it that way. To me the memo really reads like "welp, the NSA asked us to go look into how difficult it would be to read everybody's email, so now I guess we have to write this memo, executive summary is it would be quite difficult." It does not strike me as representing an aggressive government initiative. Although obviously if the executive summary was "just use this password" then it probably would become one.
I guess I'm like, I don't really think it's news that the NSA is trying to read everybody's email, except in the sense that it strongly suggests they are not already doing so, which is a little bit news to me. I don't love it and I agree with you that they should probably stop and that the government should publicly set up procedures and limitations for if there's a justified reason to access somebody's private information.
But those public procedures and limitations should probably look...a lot like what's in this memo? So I don't understand the outrage over this specific story. This is more or less what I want the government to do, tell the secret agents to cool their jets and work on creating limited cooperative policies for information access that the public might actually support.
If you think there could never be any justified reason to read somebody's email, that's a separate question. And probably one that goes pretty quickly back to the fundamental legitimacy of the state.
DON'T GO IN THERE METSFAN IT'S A TRAP
benjipwns
Banned
This article and task force isn't about reading everyone's e-mail. It was about eliminating electronic security altogether.
The reason it would be perceived as that, is that's literally what all the proposals are. Even if the companies "cooperate" it's still destroying electronic security because any backdoor for a third party is a backdoor for all third parties.
That's why it goes on to lament that even if they get all the big corporations on board there's still the dang open source encryption the development of which can't feasibly be stopped.
The latter being why I'm asking if people here are literally are on board with the outlawing of encryption.
The reason it would be perceived as that, is that's literally what all the proposals are. Even if the companies "cooperate" it's still destroying electronic security because any backdoor for a third party is a backdoor for all third parties.
That's why it goes on to lament that even if they get all the big corporations on board there's still the dang open source encryption the development of which can't feasibly be stopped.
The latter being why I'm asking if people here are literally are on board with the outlawing of encryption.
Coriolanus
Banned
No one said that the state can't use drones, not that it can't use technological superiority to protect its soldiers. I was defending that drone bombing be reserved for clear and imminent threats, and if they're neither, then they shouldn't be used, and standard methods should be employed to capture your enemy. Should they resist arrest, then that's that.
To say that this will put soldiers at additional risk is obvious. That is the cost of not indiscriminately killing your enemy. To refuse to face this risk is to defend the right to indiscriminately kill anyone you deem an enemy, even if they bear no arms. At which point anyone's an enemy, really.
benjipwns
Banned
Here's something we can all agree on, Hillary Clinton needs to drop out: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/73675/hillary-clinton-come-clean-get-out
RustyNails
Member
I'm glad Awlaki and his spawn are dead. I don't agree with drone bombing his ass though. US can jump through a million hoops to justify it was legal, and honestly I don't think it was. I would have preferred a trial and sentencing and....if he "somehow"...died on his way to the federal supermax, my world's smallest violin is not gonna play itself.
Coriolanus
Banned
Pray tell, why?
RustyNails
Member
Just looked up his kid...Turns out he was innocent. My bad.
Well, that just reinforces why drone bombing a US citizen is bad.
And_Gignac
Member
Melkr_ you slacking man.
-Bernie Sanders 46%
-Hillary Clinton 30%
-Joe Biden 14%
-Martin O'Malley 2%
I cant keep up with all these good news. I need my brother in crime ErasureAcer to come back.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
China to Announce Cap-and-Trade Program to Limit Emissions
So many people just assume China doesn't give a crap about the environment, and I'm sure many people will completely dismiss this news and assume this is only smoke and mirrors to fool the world governments for whatever reason, but Chinese people are still humans who do care about the future of the planet, and China is facing many of the same risks of climate change as anyone else.
The main problem is that China's economy simply can't handle the same types of regulations other countries can. They're still only at about $13,000 GDP per capita, well below the $30,000+ we usually see from developed nations. That still puts them pretty firmly in the category of newly industrialized country, and yet they're still committed to do something about it. It's deplorable that a well developed economy like the United States can't try to do what they can as well.
At least Obama's doing what he can through the EPA with the Clean Power Plan, which is kinda like a cap and trade deal, since the punishment for states not reaching the carbon goals is the EPA stepping in and putting a cap and trade policy on the state. That plan would also die if a republican president wins, giving you another reason to be afraid of a republican president even if that president doesn't have a congress he can work with.
So many people just assume China doesn't give a crap about the environment, and I'm sure many people will completely dismiss this news and assume this is only smoke and mirrors to fool the world governments for whatever reason, but Chinese people are still humans who do care about the future of the planet, and China is facing many of the same risks of climate change as anyone else.
The main problem is that China's economy simply can't handle the same types of regulations other countries can. They're still only at about $13,000 GDP per capita, well below the $30,000+ we usually see from developed nations. That still puts them pretty firmly in the category of newly industrialized country, and yet they're still committed to do something about it. It's deplorable that a well developed economy like the United States can't try to do what they can as well.
At least Obama's doing what he can through the EPA with the Clean Power Plan, which is kinda like a cap and trade deal, since the punishment for states not reaching the carbon goals is the EPA stepping in and putting a cap and trade policy on the state. That plan would also die if a republican president wins, giving you another reason to be afraid of a republican president even if that president doesn't have a congress he can work with.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
in absentia trials are illegal in the US
So its either don't kill him till he hand himself over or say he's fighting a war we can kill him.
I mean I'd support some kind of death warrent procedure so there is a judge and we have some evidence but I don't think that's going to appease many. I think their opposition is more to the wars than process.
I am normally in 100% agreement with Elizabeth Warren, but along with what I believe is Bernie's current position, I think they are dead wrong on taxation, as per my [post=177245831]post[/post], the other day.
So, on her recent appearance on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, they had the following exchange:
As I stated previously, I believe if Bernie wants a real shot at putting on a pair of official White House slippers, he is going to have to give up on taxing high fliers to the hilt.
So, GAF, what say you? Could this be the rarest of things; agreement between at least one staunch Bernie supporter and the majority of GAF members?
So, on her recent appearance on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, they had the following exchange:
As I stated previously, I believe if Bernie wants a real shot at putting on a pair of official White House slippers, he is going to have to give up on taxing high fliers to the hilt.
So, GAF, what say you? Could this be the rarest of things; agreement between at least one staunch Bernie supporter and the majority of GAF members?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Encryption is a scary think to me. I mean I love it for protecting me from people trying to hack me. But I don't like its ability to hid bad actors and criminals from the states reach. I want to be able to have the ability to police people on the web if need be so the peoples through their government can't be governed by people who use technology to evaid laws we've established.
I mean I don't want to ban encryption but I don't want the government to be unable to do its job if a court or the peple says it should(I have a lot of problems with the current system and its practices). So I know why they want backdoors and want to keep it secret. They want the ability to go legit state actions (notwithstanding Benji's objections) while trying to minimise this knowledge to empower bad actors.
I think this is a fine balance as long as we have a democratic power controlling this (questionable!). And attempting to keep it away from bad actors.
There is questions on if this does more harm than good but other solutions like making sure the government never has the ability lean to far on the idea that the state should never have the power to invade privacy of suspected criminals (which warrants allow for) or foreign powers.
I don't know what the solution is but I'd push aganist denying democratic system power from ever having any kind of that power. I know the questions that raises and I'm not fully in support of many of those things. I don't know where fully I stand. Just not on the side of the state never having power.
I'm just trying to say its a lot more than backdoors or know backdoors. There's a lot of moving parts and values we've never really grappbled with because we've not been livin in the world where this is possible.
Jack Remington
Banned
This is really not a reasonable position.
Jack Remington
Banned
At the very least it should be curtailed extensively. One change I'd make if repealing it entirely were not an option (which it should be) would be to ban nuisance groups from being able to make FOIA requests.
But in all seriousness, FOIA is straight garbage.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Daniel B·;179880577 said:
Progressive taxation has been a pretty popular concept since Abraham Lincoln first put it in place in 1862. It's pretty commonsensical to say that 15% of taxes on someone who uses 90% of their income to survive is not equal to 15% of taxes on someone who can survive on 1% of his income.
Since inequality started rising in the 1980s, the rich are having an easier and easier time while the poor aren't keeping up, so doesn't make sense to make taxes even more progressive and shift the tax burden further on people that went from making millions to making making billions?
As far as it impacting Sander's chances, income inequality is the only thing Sanders has to stand on. It's his entire campaign, and if he instead chose to run a more standard campaign of simply attacking the frontrunner he'd be instantly overshadowed by someone like Biden or O'Malley who could do the exact same thing with except with far more presence.
I think this type of worry can only come from someone that extremely overestimates Bernie's chances. He's a unknown senator from vermont who has no help from party endorsements or big money donations and looks more like a crazy grandfather than a president. There is absolutely no room at all for him to play it safe in any form. The one and only way he becomes president is if his socialist ideas hit home with the public.
If you think there's no way for the public to accept something like a raising the upper tax bracket from 40% to 50%, then you should probably just switch to thinking that Bernie has no chance at all, which clearly is a common thought.
The most exciting thing about his campaign to me is him experimenting the boundaries of what too far left is. That's not something that gets tested very often. On the off chance the experiment proves amazing popularity, then I guess he wins, and if he flames out, leftist democrats can use that data to see exactly where "too far left" is. Either way, I do expect the experiment to result in showing that "too far left" is much farther left than current beltway knowledge sees it.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
How do you determine that. And would you change your tune if these nucence requests showed Clinton in an iran contra type deal?
Fenderputty
Banned
A Bernie fan who doesn't want higher taxation on the wealthy? Wat
PhoenixDark
Banned
Good luck to Bernie when he finally gets honest about his tax views and proposes increasing the top rate to 60%+
Daniel B·;179880577 said:
I hate to do this to you, but I don't agree at all.
Not only is increasing taxes on the rich (especially the Social Security tax cap) the right thing to do from a policy perspective, but most Americans support it. That includes 45% of Republicans.
Now, taxing corporations more may also be a good idea, but I don't see any benefit to abandoning raising taxes on the rich.
Coriolanus
Banned
Always remember that your group won't always hold the White House.
FOIA, much like welfare, is terrific. Yes, there might be some abuse every once in a while, but the idea that it is widespread and should be curtailed is fucking scary.
I mean, why? Can you explain your position in detail here?
The government derives its power from the assent of the people, so we're the managers. It seems not only reasonable but necessary for us to have access to as much information as possible on its actions and decisions. Think of it as the bureaucratic equivalent of body cameras on police.
Obviously in this case Hillary's being put in a difficult position, but, like, again, I don't think Hillary engaged in any meaningful misbehavior, so I don't really favor changing important civil rights legislation because of a temporary political irritation. And, as metsfan suggests, if Hillary really did send an email that was like "OK so go ahead and attack Benghazi, pls print," frankly I'd like to know.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Remember when you all thought his statement on taxing the rich was going to be the end of Bernie the first time?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=165399365#post165399365
Bernie had 8% of the vote at that time going by RCP averages. Now he has 26%. That's what I mean when I say he's challenging conventional wisdom of what's too far left.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=165399365#post165399365
Bernie had 8% of the vote at that time going by RCP averages. Now he has 26%. That's what I mean when I say he's challenging conventional wisdom of what's too far left.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What actual weekly e-mail news have we had lately that this person is salivating over? The story was running pretty thin for a few weeks. The last batch of releases didn't have anything in them either.
Nothing. There is nothing new in this "scandal".
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/if-you-accuse-hillary-clinton-lying-you-should-be-careful-truth-yourself
Trump's wise to exploit the whole "all talk, no action" theme; the voters are very receptive this time.
That 62% lines-up well with Cruz + the three non-politicians' numbers.
That 62% lines-up well with Cruz + the three non-politicians' numbers.
We will have to respectfully disagree on Bernie's chances; he's already made quite a big splash and I haven't seen anything to suggest that he accepts, in his heart, that he has no chance, and he is putting in this amazing 110% effort, merely to get Hillary (or Joe) to adopt more progressive policies.
On personal taxation, I have no issue with the current tiered income tax levels, but, to win the Democratic nomination, he needs to win over a good deal of Hillary supporters and to do that, I strongly believe he needs keep personal tax levels at current levels, and instead go after corporations to fund his programs and other taxable entities, that aspirational Americans will have little issue with. I fundamentally do not accept that earnings above 413K should be taxed at a higher rate than the current 39.6% and the cap on Social Security should remain.
If and when corporations pay a reasonable rate of tax, on the trillions(?) of existing profits stashed off-shore and on future profits, income equality will start to be addressed. We can always hope...
ErasureAcer
Banned
What these numbers tell me is NH hates Hillary or really loves Bernie. If Bernie can just win Iowa. No candidate has won both of the first two states of IA/NH and lost the nomination. Go Bernie.
Damn
.I wonder though. I strongly suspect (and granted, this is mainly from the perspective of UK politics - been in U.S. slnce 07), people say they are all for higher taxes and then actually vote for the low tax option...
Latest breaking news on Clinton's emails: https://youtu.be/WqhhAe1UE58?t=75
Jack Remington
Banned
It could be a system where if you file a FOIA suit, you have to go before a panel and explain why there's a compelling interest in getting this information. And if the panel decides you're just being a nuisance/troll, you and your group are barred from ever filing another FOIA suit for the rest of time.
Truth is I don't mind most of your idea, but the banning for life thing is a bit harsh. Sure it's abused, but news outlets get a lot of use from it as well. If you carve out an exemption for legit news sources it'd be better.
Good idea! And the panel could be called a court, and the people on it could be judges, and the whole system could have already existed since the act was passed.
I'm just not sure why you think he'd compromise his policies in order to become more electable. It runs against the whole intent of his campaign.Daniel B·;179891089 said:
Also, delineating "aspirational Americans" from the rest of the population is... curious.
lolololololololololol
Jack Remington
Banned
With penalties for nuisance requests?
Penalties for frivolous lawsuits are built into our legal system, yes.
Wow, I mean, just... wow. I can't even.
Give out coupons for Antony Robbins tapes instead of food stamps?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked