I'm more banking on who she has a big grudge against, and she's going to be, if successful, in charge of the bastards that called her a Russian agent all these years...
I'm still trying to figure out how someone like Musk posting opinions on social media is foreign interference, but an international organization that grooms politicians and holds political summits isn't.
Wasn’t that the thing where the WEF just picks people and says “these are our picks for young leaders” with zero involvement from the people they pick?
Nawww, Brown Hillary the CFR member would never lie about her "totally legitimate change of heart 2 months before the election" to gain power and enact the policies she always agreed with for decades prior, what are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist!?
The flip-flopping opportunist is flip-flopping at the first sign of resistance? Say it ain't so! I never could have seen this coming. Oh wait, yes I can, and I did.
I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.
It's a complicated issue, because as individuals get more destructive power some freedom has to be curtailed or we're in a Great Filter situation. The destructive power an individual today has vs somebody from say the 50s is immense, both from technology and information.
For example, right now any person in the country in their own home can print a smallpox virus using commercial available gene printers for a small amount of money that anyone who knows how can afford. It still takes some technical skill to accomplish, but not really that much.
Unfortunately the people keeping us safe (in government and Big Tech) are also techno fascists.
The real problem with spying on Americans is there's no real oversight to it. One solution is to have like a freedom of information act process where anyone can request information on anyone else, but the process is somewhat costly and open to curtail abuses.
For example, right now any person in the country in their own home can print a smallpox virus using commercial available gene printers for a small amount of money that anyone who knows how can afford. It still takes some technical skill to accomplish, but not really that much.
How many times have they prevented this sort of thing via mass spying?
The real problem with spying on Americans is there's no real oversight to it.
I think the real problem is that it's unconstitutional, and oversight wouldn't change that, nor would it keep them in check. They'd either corrupt the oversight board, or simply ignore them.
There's even a name for it working: parallel construction.
Of course it works. Believing the dogma that they haven't caught anybody is like saying "but torture doesn't work!" or "lie detectors don't work!". All of them work, in their own way, but not in some perfect strawman way you might want them to.
And it's only unconstitutional if it's "unreasonable" and they're searching your person, house, papers, or effects. Your internet electrons leave your vicinity and they're not your personal effects. Whether it's "unreasonable" is for society and the courts to decide.
Really it's a simple question, do you trust every capable person in the country not to produce and distribute smallpox or do any other way of mass destruction? If so then you're nuts, but ok. If you don't then you either somehow prevent crazies from acting out or you restructure society to protect against all likely events like that.
Or you do nothing and wait for your inevitable end.
Spying has successfully halted exactly zero of those type of plots, nor are they capable of doing so, nor are the people pushing them interested in doing so.
Your idea is based on a false premise: the "Great Filter" does not exist because the Fermi Paradox is wrong.
Ask yourself: "What is the range in lightyears that our strongest radio telescopes can detect our strongest outbound radio transmitters?
The answer is any of our radio telescopes could not detect an omni directional transmission from even Proxima Centauri. There is no way we can ask "Where is everybody?" when we can't even see them. And because of that there is no reason to consider that every single civilization has somehow been filtered out, because we couldn't detect them even if they were at our closest neighbors.
It's possible for undetectable aliens to exist AND for us to extinct ourselves through technology or other mass destruction.
It's not a false premise at all, you're simply grasping for any means not to address the real issues (because you know I'm right).
I used homegrown smallpox as an example because it's a real possibility today, this moment. Are you're going to be okay with your 'eccentric' neighbor working away in total privacy on his hobby nuclear bomb, or would you insist something be done about that?
As I said initially, every year individuals become more powerful and so more dangerous to even civilization itself. At some point even a nuclear bomb will be an easy build, so your position surely cannot be "for all time". How long can we allow individuals to do whatever they want in private?
Are you're going to be okay with your 'eccentric' neighbor working away in total privacy on his hobby nuclear bomb.
I am absolutely ok with that, because there needs to be a massive reduction in population, and at least small pox doesn't care who dies.
More importantly, a society that keeps kicking people out and hurting them until they have nothing but hatred left deserve to end. A society that keeps bringing diverse groups together, which inevitably results in conflict deserves to end. But none of those things will end humanity. At most they might destroy a nation.
The only thing that can end humanity is exhaustion of easy energy leaving humanity trapped at the bottom of the gravity well. And that problem is solved by removing useless eaters, the services circlejerk, and the brown swarm.
I am absolutely ok with [my 'eccentric' neighbor working away in total privacy on his hobby nuclear bomb]
Well you're insane then. A nuclear bomb going off in a city is likely to end civilization.
You guys have apparently no concept of how close to armageddon we are. You should read up on history where one Soviet commander just refused to launch nuclear weapons even though he was trained and required to in response to an alert. These close calls have happened several times and that's with whole governments working to prevent them. Put that power into your random mental case and it's game over.
Also biological agents destroying America or other major power could easily lead to the end of civilization.
But even so you think with technology 200 years from now we're going to have the same privacy we do today? I sure hope not because we'll all be dead.
If your society is kicking out the people capable of building nuclear weapons or synthesizing extinct bacteria, then that society isn't worth preserving. You just don't fucking get that.
Nevermind the problems with claiming that some lone wolf individual is capable of building a factory capable of synthesizing 2 kg of plutonium without being noticed all by himself, while also being competent enough to recalculate all the explosive lenses and assembling it all by himself and THEN transporting it to a target without setting off the radiation detectors that are pretty much everywhere.
society isn't worth preserving. You just don't fucking get that.
Oh I get it. You believe "there needs to be a massive reduction in population" and society isn't worth preserving unless you can build mass destruction weapons in privacy.
In other words you are exactly the kind of person who should be monitored and kept track of by these agencies.
the problems with claiming that some lone wolf individual ... competent enough to recalculate all the explosive lenses
THEN transporting it to a target without setting off the radiation detectors
Buy a house in the city and build it there, not even to mention that "radiation detectors" are invading your privacy. Would you still support your same policy if people could use it to build civilization-ending weapons? "But they can't do that now".
You're one of those people who apparently can't understand hypotheticals - we'll never know how you'd feel if you didn't eat breakfast unless you actually skip breakfast that day.
Radiation Detectors are not FISA warrants, brainlet. Not to mention all the different regulatory hoops and investigation one has to go through to even be allowed near the stuff. Also, nuclear weapons are NOT civilization ending, else civilization would have already ended when we detonated 5000 of them over the last century. At best they can destroy a city block, because anything larger is purely in the domain of state actors, which again, FISA doesn't apply to.
You had more of a point when you were talking about diseases, but no disease will ever have 100% death rate and transmissible at the same time. As a disease increases in lethality it must necessarily decrease in transmissibility because the transmission window decreases.
The only threat to civilization is government. The people in control of government have never heard of a new method of tyranny that they did not like. Their ideal civilization is an eternal unchanging feudal society where they are at the top. Such a society cannot have frontiers, because frontiers are by definition too far away to control effectively and bring in new resources which means new wealth, which is always a threat to their control. And you are advocating for exactly that.
Any chance she's doing what Dems and Rinos do and simply LYING to get power?
Certainly hope they have learned to say whatever to get where they want to be...and mean none of it.
I'm more banking on who she has a big grudge against, and she's going to be, if successful, in charge of the bastards that called her a Russian agent all these years...
Get listed as a domestic terrorist by the regime? Nah, no grudge at all!
Tulsi is literally part of the WEF young leaders coalition.
She’s controlled opposition.
You should also remember, they can impeach individual cabinet members
I'm still trying to figure out how someone like Musk posting opinions on social media is foreign interference, but an international organization that grooms politicians and holds political summits isn't.
And brags about "penetrating cabinets" of western governments.
Google that and you get a bunch of fact checks about "conspiracy theorists" misinterpreting what he said lol
Because our side KKK UBER HITLER SATAN!
“How do I ask the JQ without asking the JQ”
Wasn’t that the thing where the WEF just picks people and says “these are our picks for young leaders” with zero involvement from the people they pick?
She could disavow it.
Which nobody would buy or care if they did because the same "she is just lying" would be applied here.
She has an aipac guy like the lot of them.
100% chance.
Because she's been lying to our side for ages.
Nawww, Brown Hillary the CFR member would never lie about her "totally legitimate change of heart 2 months before the election" to gain power and enact the policies she always agreed with for decades prior, what are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist!?
Well, she is a former Democrat.
Borat said it best. To give a woman power, is like to give a gun to a monkey. Wahwahwewah!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NzLs-xSss0
The flip-flopping opportunist is flip-flopping at the first sign of resistance? Say it ain't so! I never could have seen this coming. Oh wait, yes I can, and I did.
It's a complicated issue, because as individuals get more destructive power some freedom has to be curtailed or we're in a Great Filter situation. The destructive power an individual today has vs somebody from say the 50s is immense, both from technology and information.
For example, right now any person in the country in their own home can print a smallpox virus using commercial available gene printers for a small amount of money that anyone who knows how can afford. It still takes some technical skill to accomplish, but not really that much.
Unfortunately the people keeping us safe (in government and Big Tech) are also techno fascists.
The real problem with spying on Americans is there's no real oversight to it. One solution is to have like a freedom of information act process where anyone can request information on anyone else, but the process is somewhat costly and open to curtail abuses.
How many times have they prevented this sort of thing via mass spying?
I think the real problem is that it's unconstitutional, and oversight wouldn't change that, nor would it keep them in check. They'd either corrupt the oversight board, or simply ignore them.
There's even a name for it working: parallel construction.
Of course it works. Believing the dogma that they haven't caught anybody is like saying "but torture doesn't work!" or "lie detectors don't work!". All of them work, in their own way, but not in some perfect strawman way you might want them to.
And it's only unconstitutional if it's "unreasonable" and they're searching your person, house, papers, or effects. Your internet electrons leave your vicinity and they're not your personal effects. Whether it's "unreasonable" is for society and the courts to decide.
Really it's a simple question, do you trust every capable person in the country not to produce and distribute smallpox or do any other way of mass destruction? If so then you're nuts, but ok. If you don't then you either somehow prevent crazies from acting out or you restructure society to protect against all likely events like that.
Or you do nothing and wait for your inevitable end.
You can't trust the government to watch itself. The proscribed oversight is:
They can ask for a warrant with probable cause.
They can ask the American people to change the Constitution if it's really that important.
We boogaloo.
It's illegal for the agencies to spy domestically, in some cases, but it's not unconstitutional.
Only the law would need to change, which is why the agencies so badly want somebody who won't work to get the law to expire or be repealed.
Spying has successfully halted exactly zero of those type of plots, nor are they capable of doing so, nor are the people pushing them interested in doing so.
In short. Please commit neck rope.
Your idea is based on a false premise: the "Great Filter" does not exist because the Fermi Paradox is wrong.
Ask yourself: "What is the range in lightyears that our strongest radio telescopes can detect our strongest outbound radio transmitters?
The answer is any of our radio telescopes could not detect an omni directional transmission from even Proxima Centauri. There is no way we can ask "Where is everybody?" when we can't even see them. And because of that there is no reason to consider that every single civilization has somehow been filtered out, because we couldn't detect them even if they were at our closest neighbors.
I said "a" Great Filter situation.
It's possible for undetectable aliens to exist AND for us to extinct ourselves through technology or other mass destruction.
It's not a false premise at all, you're simply grasping for any means not to address the real issues (because you know I'm right).
I used homegrown smallpox as an example because it's a real possibility today, this moment. Are you're going to be okay with your 'eccentric' neighbor working away in total privacy on his hobby nuclear bomb, or would you insist something be done about that?
As I said initially, every year individuals become more powerful and so more dangerous to even civilization itself. At some point even a nuclear bomb will be an easy build, so your position surely cannot be "for all time". How long can we allow individuals to do whatever they want in private?
I am absolutely ok with that, because there needs to be a massive reduction in population, and at least small pox doesn't care who dies.
More importantly, a society that keeps kicking people out and hurting them until they have nothing but hatred left deserve to end. A society that keeps bringing diverse groups together, which inevitably results in conflict deserves to end. But none of those things will end humanity. At most they might destroy a nation.
The only thing that can end humanity is exhaustion of easy energy leaving humanity trapped at the bottom of the gravity well. And that problem is solved by removing useless eaters, the services circlejerk, and the brown swarm.
Well you're insane then. A nuclear bomb going off in a city is likely to end civilization.
You guys have apparently no concept of how close to armageddon we are. You should read up on history where one Soviet commander just refused to launch nuclear weapons even though he was trained and required to in response to an alert. These close calls have happened several times and that's with whole governments working to prevent them. Put that power into your random mental case and it's game over.
Also biological agents destroying America or other major power could easily lead to the end of civilization.
But even so you think with technology 200 years from now we're going to have the same privacy we do today? I sure hope not because we'll all be dead.
If your society is kicking out the people capable of building nuclear weapons or synthesizing extinct bacteria, then that society isn't worth preserving. You just don't fucking get that.
Nevermind the problems with claiming that some lone wolf individual is capable of building a factory capable of synthesizing 2 kg of plutonium without being noticed all by himself, while also being competent enough to recalculate all the explosive lenses and assembling it all by himself and THEN transporting it to a target without setting off the radiation detectors that are pretty much everywhere.
And you call me insane.
Oh I get it. You believe "there needs to be a massive reduction in population" and society isn't worth preserving unless you can build mass destruction weapons in privacy.
In other words you are exactly the kind of person who should be monitored and kept track of by these agencies.
Yeah, that could never happen
Buy a house in the city and build it there, not even to mention that "radiation detectors" are invading your privacy. Would you still support your same policy if people could use it to build civilization-ending weapons? "But they can't do that now".
You're one of those people who apparently can't understand hypotheticals - we'll never know how you'd feel if you didn't eat breakfast unless you actually skip breakfast that day.
Radiation Detectors are not FISA warrants, brainlet. Not to mention all the different regulatory hoops and investigation one has to go through to even be allowed near the stuff. Also, nuclear weapons are NOT civilization ending, else civilization would have already ended when we detonated 5000 of them over the last century. At best they can destroy a city block, because anything larger is purely in the domain of state actors, which again, FISA doesn't apply to.
You had more of a point when you were talking about diseases, but no disease will ever have 100% death rate and transmissible at the same time. As a disease increases in lethality it must necessarily decrease in transmissibility because the transmission window decreases.
The only threat to civilization is government. The people in control of government have never heard of a new method of tyranny that they did not like. Their ideal civilization is an eternal unchanging feudal society where they are at the top. Such a society cannot have frontiers, because frontiers are by definition too far away to control effectively and bring in new resources which means new wealth, which is always a threat to their control. And you are advocating for exactly that.