-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
store data in a less secure in country warehouse than a more secure offshore one
No. a secure in country warehouse not an insecure internet linked offshore one. I also don't believe overseas private or public companies or operators should be involved in any way.
-
@Paekakboyz said in US Politics:
it's a private platform for the moment isn't it? or some rules about who can post/comment.
Anyone can sign up/post/read. It's basically the same as twitter but without the political censorship. So of course that means certain people will demonise it. They haven't made the same silly mistakes Gab made so there is more potential for it to grow
I prefer fragmentation of the social media rather than government takeover/regulation. An alternative to twitter will do more keep them inline than government interference (which will just formalise the same censorship)
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
store data in a less secure in country warehouse than a more secure offshore one
No. a secure in country warehouse not an insecure internet linked offshore one. I also don't believe overseas private or public companies or operators should be involved in any way.
You do realise that the' in country' warehouse will likely be just as accessible remotely?
-
It all sounds a bit 'commie' making every function of government one owned and run by the government.
Funnily enough the same arguments apply as any other private v public function. Who can do it best and at the least cost.
'Best' means all sorts of things and you can't view them seperately. Efficiency, Security, Repeatibility, Capability, Improvement drivers etc.
Reputation is massive in getting lucrative govt work (almost as important as who you know). Once estalished on the gravy train you invest a huge amount to live up to promises and that can disappear easily from errors. -
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I do agree that state based cyber security is probably well behind the standards but that is also why many outsourced to private companies.
Private companies that hold the data in Europe somewhere.
What makes you think the data is more secure, or less accessible to tampering if it is held in the US rather than Europe? Would it be all that mission-critical data that is held in the US, on AWS, Azure, GCP and iCloud server farms owned by some of the most overtly left-leaning organisations in the country? The truth is the data privacy and integrity laws in Europe are pretty bloody strong, arguably stronger than in the US. As to the use of private security companies, do you have any evidence that they know less about cybersecurity than the State of Rhode Island?
Something else you need to consider is that the states themselves make their own decisions about this stuff. If the people of said State of Rhode Island want to make its Electoral College votes contingent on the outcome of a cage fight that's their call, all they need is to get it past their state legislature. It's not the place of the federal government to tell a state how to conduct an election, it's ultra vires.
-
its a really interesting dilemma
a founding principle of republicans, as i understand it, is small government, limited federal oversite, giving the states the power
would really show the trumpians compared to true republicans if they wanted him to come in and show them all how things should be done
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
a founding principle of republicans, as i understand it, is small government, limited federal oversite, giving the states the power
No it is not
At times the Republicans have been for massive federal power. For instance the founder of the party waged war on several states. It was quite a big deal.
-
No there's at least 5 different factions. I would argue more.. and they disagree with each other on fundamental issues like the scope of the federal government. That's why your comment about 'true republicans' doesn't make sense.
Which republican president shrunk government and handed power back to the states? There's a tiny number of congressmen and senators that talk about it.. but they are just one of the (smallest) factions. There's many more that speak about how to use federal power.
A truism of US politics is that the party that doesn't have the Presidency suddenly discovers the limits of Presidential power.
I expect the Republicans will now pay more attention to Presidential overreach (good). Meanwhile the Dems and their surrogates will turn a blind eye to it (bad)
Of course binary thinkers will only recognise it when the other 'team' does it
-
Am not a scholar of Merkin politics but I found the following pod cast interesting.
BBC New York correspondent talking Presidents and politics from the 1980s onwards.
Goes for about 53 minutes.
Makes some interesting points about how he believes the generation of politicians who weren't involved in WWII started the rot, and puts a lot of blame on Clinton.
-
Many claims that people's think there's no evidence of voter fraud simply because they are repeatedly told they have none by CNN and MSM
It's common knowledge that the Pennsylvania whistle blower did not recant and all that was a media fabrication.
Plenty of evidence here that the media is purposefully lying. Many sworn affidavits from voting workers.
-
The US constitution specifically gives States the right to assign electors and the responsibility to organise federal elections as they see fit within the constitutional parameters set out.
It was also written by authors heavily influenced by the concept of three separate but equal branches of government, being the executive, legislative and judicial branches. A key and highly influential concept within that is the role of the judiciary to resolve problems and make rulings on whether laws have been followed and appropriate remedies where they haven't.
None of this is recent in the history of the USA and its constitution. Some are foundational concepts.
Essentially, the rules are set by state legislatures, carried out by the state executive (usually under the authority and oversight of the secretary of state/commonwealth), and issues are resolved via civil processes first, and in court where necessary as the arbiter of disputes. This is the understood mechanism for over 100 years.
It's one thing to wait for certification of results, or request recounts, or even go to court over specific issues. It's another to allege massive bipartisan fraud at all levels in multiple states and go to court and lose 20 times, and continue to make the allegations when the whole point of the entire system is that the courts are the final arbiters. It's especially quite something for a judge to ask a lawyer to answer a question as a member of the bar in an election court case. To paraphrase, that's a paddlin'.
The only way to get systemic reform of the election machinery into federal control is constitutional reform. That's not impossible, but I have to say that it's extraordinarily unlikely.
-
@Godder said in US Politics:
It's especially quite something for a [Republican] judge to ask a lawyer to answer a question as a member of the bar in an election court case. To paraphrase, that's a paddlin'.
You missed out the most damning part 😉
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
These futile legal actions are an assault on the entire American system. All at the whim of one man
Looks like the system is working to me. Entitled to use the court process to ensure a fair election, don’t present compelling evidence it doesn’t go anywhere.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
These futile legal actions are an assault on the entire American system. All at the whim of one man
Looks like the system is working to me. Entitled to use the court process to ensure a fair election, don’t present compelling evidence it doesn’t go anywhere.
His cheating angle is being eaten up by his hardened support base. I don't believe that is healthy
US Politics