Achilles

This is my favorite thing about Gfted1; his complete lack of self-awareness. lovin' that internet, indeed.

I love how these are the only two options

Don’t try to reason with Gfted1. He’s proudly impervious to it.

I'm completely serious. Your argument seems to be that so long as we have something called "election day" then we have democracy. By those lights, Cuba had a democracy. By other lights, just having a day set aside for voting isn't enough to clear the bar. Other qualifiers are necessary. Just trying to figure out which side of that fence you want to be on. As I tried to outline for Darkpriest, this isn't more of the same. Are you not paying attention to what the people who helped to make these tools are saying or are you simply unaware? Or do you simply not care because you've already decided you have it all figured out and any new information is just a distraction? For the sake of our future, I hope you're wrong.

And with this, I'm starting to question whether or not you're here in good faith.

Not sure there was an answer to either of the questions in there. EDIT: Let me ask the question another way: Guard Dog's argument seems to be that so long as a society has something called "Election Day", democracy exists. Do you agree that this is the best way to operationally define "democracy"? Assume that election day, as executed, looks exactly like picture you painted of Belarus earlier.

I can't tell if you're being intentionally hyperbolic so that you can troll or if you're just a bit obtuse. The technology, its reach, and its scope have only come into existence in the recent past. That is why this particular technology is a unique threat now. The tools to persuade have always existed. The tools to tailor and target specific messages at specific audiences have not. And with that, I honestly do think you're intentionally wasting my time now. The last word is yours.

I asked four questions. I'd start by answering any of the last three (the first one was rhetorical).

You are using this definition of the word, "manipulate": I am using this one: If I can gather enough data on you to craft a tailored message that will result in you acting in a way that I want you to, then inundate you with that message, at some point there's a pretty good chance that you'll end up doing what I want while thinking it your idea. For the third time, if you aren't aware that this is happening, you need to do more homework.

No, I said there's a problem with the current state of our democracy because the vote is being manipulated. Again, you appear to be under-informed on the issue and I recommend more reading. Marketing is one thing. Manipulation is another. You are either confused re: the extent to which the latter is happening or you're conflating the two.

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm guessing that English isn't your primary language and I suspect that there might be a bit of a language barrier here. To clarify: my argument is that social media needs to have less power, not more. That they not be permitted to hide behind their "we're just a platform and couldn't possibly be held responsible for content" antics. Lastly, I think it's be great if we brought back the equal time rule and extended it to all media, social or otherwise.

I'd suggest reading up on voter manipulation and voter suppression. You appear to be under-informed. This might be a good start

Is there a difference? In both cases the vote is being manipulated. Is an election still democratic when the vote is being manipulated? "Dumb" (to use your term) is one thing. Coercion is another.

Fidel has elections didn't he? Were those democratic?

Well said.

That's one take. Another take is that populism is that a common response to economic hardship and that most people don't pay attention to what their elected leaders are doing, let alone pay enough attention to keep track of what the "electorate's will" is. I've said it before and I'll say it again: politicians will turn on a dime when the electorate tells them to. The fact that they don't is a failure of an informed electorate. The buck stops with us. I've asked a number of people over the years to operationally define, "establishment". No one can. If I get hurt and need an operation, I want an "establishment" surgeon to perform the operation. If my car breaks down and needs repairs, I want an "establishment" mechanic behind the wrench. When I buckle my seatbelt on an airplane, I'm really hoping there's an "establishment" pilot flying me to my destination. Amateur hour is great for comedy clubs. I prefer to keep it out of meaningful things like leading the free world, etc. I don't blame politicians for being politicians. I blame the voting public for allowing the bad ones to remain in office.

Our immigration system is currently set up to make legal immigration impossible for most people, so the argument that he's only concerned about illegal immigration is misleading. Under Obama a program was passed that prioritized investigation of illegal immigrant who were also criminals and basically provided cover for "illegal immigrants" who were brought here as children (meaning that the U.S. was the only country they had ever known). Trump reversed this. Again, disingenuous. He and his initial AG, Jeff Sessions, set up a system that summarily makes the other legal path, asylum, not only impossible as a pathway to entry but a deterrent for people who are even thinking of asking for it. AKA "children in cages", etc. Where the kindest thing that you can say about his other actions is that he's bending the truth. on this one he's outright lying.

I've already post on why the first part of this is misleading. As for the second part, his track record is public information. It's not difficult to make something *sound* benevolent and/or rational.

If it's between governments having access to this data and corporations, I'd prefer it be governments (but really, I'd rather no one did).

I get the joke, but people don't buy budwieser thinking that maybe they'll open the can and find champagne inside.

Trump has been a public figure since the 1970's. Anyone who didn't know what they buying with their vote in '16 lived under a rock.

I guess it depends on how you define winning an election. There are serious problems that need to be addressed and can't wait another 40 years for a third party to become relevant. "Winning" to me means having someone in the White House who either makes strides toward solving them or doesn't actively seek to make them worse. I know that you already believe that with the current choices that's literally a coin toss, but I don't share that opinion.

Ok, well there's my answer I wish you luck then.

The point of the argument isn't whether or not the citizens feel as though the decisions made thus far are satisfactory. The questions are: would the candidates select Justices that are ideologically different from one another and would those those differences be meaningful? And keep in mind this is just one example. Same questions apply to cabinet positions, agency appointments, diplomatic assignments, etc. To tie this back to the original post(s): believe it or not, Guard Dog and I share a lot of the same concerns re: the state of our democracy. Where he and I differ is on how to fix the problem. I'm resigned to a vision of the future where progress is made incrementally, as voters demand it and hold elected officials accountable for delivering it. My impression of his take is that he's willing to let the chips fall where they may now and retain his ideological purity until a popular candidate emerges who can implement all the changes he would like to see. In other words, I think the better candidate now is preferable to waiting for a perfect candidate eventually-slash-maybe-never.

We've had mail in voting for more than 150 years. The military uses it all the time to account for the ballots of deployed service members. Republicans themselves have pushed mail-in voting for years. But for some strange reason, it's rife with opportunities for corruption *now*. Here's how the process works: Voter either adds themselves to an early ballot roster or applies for an absentee ballot Voter receives the ballot, completes it, signs the envelope, and mails the ballot back to the state The signature is then checked against the signature on file and then either placed in the "nice" pile if the signature is a match, or placed in the "naughty" list if there is an issue with the signature (either it looks off or is missing or the state requires that a witness signs the envelope as well). Some states do this as soon as the ballot is received. Others wait until election day to start this process. The voter is responsible for following up to see if their ballot is on the "naughty" list and make necessary corrections if applicable. The envelopes in the "nice" list are opened and the ballots within are processed and tabulated on election day. So in order to commit fraudulent voting, one would have to: Somehow intercept an absentee ballot application or forge an early ballot application (breaking into a mailbox?) Know all the information about the actual voter that would be required to complete said document Somehow intercept the mailed ballot (breaking into a mailbox?) Complete the ballot Match the signature that the state has on file for the voter (could create this themselves in step one, but would raise suspicion if the voter had a signature on file via DMV etc) Mail in the ballot If someone managed to accomplish all those things, they would have risked federal level fraud charges to pick up one additional vote for their candidate Which seems like a pretty ****ing stupid thing to do which is probably why all attempts to root out voter fraud have yielded almost zilch (because some people are, apparently, just that ****ing stupid). Better question might be, how is mail in voting less secure than in-person voting. (full-disclosure: I live in an early ballot state and have voted by mail for almost all of my adult life) You and I are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My partner works in healthcare and has been neck-deep in the pandemic since this started. If Person A has a major life threatening illness that requires regular treatment, and is cut off from that treatment due to a pandemic (the illness will surely kill them painfully if they catch it due to co-morbidities, so they'd rather take their chances with what they have over what they might catch), then does their death from lack of treatment count as a COVID death? It sounds like you would argue "no" because that person didn't die from COVID. Some people would argue "yes" because that person died *because* of COVID. Surely, racking up a death that occurred due to a car accident or shooting would probably qualify as fraud, but I'm not sure what you're referencing specifically.