6 ms·

You have to remember that half, possibly more than half, of the country is more than okay with what the NSA was doing and is doing. It's not at all surprising

You have to remember that half, possibly more than half, of the country is more than okay with what the NSA was doing and is doing. It's not at all surprising that Congress would indemnify people for, more or less, doing what Congress authorized them to do. If we don't like it, we could consider, maybe not voting the same people into that Congress. Over. And over. And over. And over. And over. And over. A full 24 Senators and 63 Representatives have held their seats for over 36 years. That's not what you'd expect of a citizenship that was actually upset about being spied upon by their government.

llmthrow103 2y ago
It's obviously not a problem of electing the wrong people. There are enough checks and balances in the system to ensure that there is no change forthcoming.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  The system is, indeed, set up to minimize revolutionary churn. The tilt that we're seeing right now towards fascism and white nationalism has been some 40 years in the making. It takes a lot of organization to tilt the whole thing. This is a feature, not a bug. The system is architected, when something is controversial, default to no motion.
timewizard 2y ago
> You have to remember that half, possibly more than half, of the country is more than okay with what the NSA was doing and is doing. I doubt this. I'd also be interested to see if those people actually know, on any real level, what the NSA was actually doing. > If we don't like it, we could consider, maybe not voting the same people into that Congress. Over. And over. And over. And over. And over. And over. They so reliably do the opposite of what people want and yet continue to win. You don't find this at all odd and you put it down to lack of consideration on the part of the electorate. > That's not what you'd expect of a citizenship that was actually upset about being spied upon by their government. The joys of being old enough to remember the Church Committee, The House Select Committee on Assassinations, The JFK Records Review Board. PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY NOT OKAY WITH THIS. Yet those who carry water for the deep state are unimpeded by this. Please see this, or at least, don't repeat simple falsehoods about the electorate. It's like coming across a drowning man and laughing in his face about his predicament.
- sethaurus 2y ago
  Forgive me for being obtuse, but what exactly are you claiming here? Are election results being faked?
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    They aren't. Fewer than 3/4 of eligible voters voted in 2020. In general, somewhere around 10% to a third of eligible voters actually vote in primaries, which are the elections that actually have the most impact on office holding. Nobody needs to fake election results when Americans just don't show up to vote. It's a disquietingly under-informed and apathetic electorate.
    - timewizard 2y ago
      > Fewer than 3/4 of eligible voters voted in 2020. This is not completely true[0]. I'd also give the advice that you shouldn't take a "nationwide" average to mean much of anything. The wikipedia article shows wide variation across the states which is true for almost any statistic you can think of. > actually vote in primaries Bernie voters might give you a hint as to why. I guess this is the problem Mayor Pete's "shadow" app was meant to solve. It honestly seems like parties don't genuinely like people voting in primaries. The person who's "turn" it is might lose. > elections that actually have the most impact Unfortunately we're talking about the legislature here because they write the laws in question and are the proper party to wage your grievances against. Have you ever looked into how competitive those primaries actually are? Anyways this is why I vote for Greens and Libertarians. Then they might stand a chance of cracking 5% and getting recognized fully by the Federal Election Commission. > Americans just don't show up to vote. All evidence to the contrary. What they don't do is vote in senate elections. There districts with as low as 25% voter turn out. Which means you only need 12% of the eligible population to turn out for you to secure your seat. So you're right. No need to cheat. Just be arbitrary and capricious to the point that busy and worried people no longer feel that using their time in the voting booth can actually change something. > It's a disquietingly under-informed and apathetic electorate. As always, back to where this conversation starts, who should bear the responsibility for this? I don't think blaming the electorate itself brings you anywhere other than helping to chase people further away from an important civil institution. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...

llmthrow103 2y ago

It's obviously not a problem of electing the wrong people. There are enough checks and balances in the system to ensure that there is no change forthcoming.

shadowgovt 2y ago
The system is, indeed, set up to minimize revolutionary churn. The tilt that we're seeing right now towards fascism and white nationalism has been some 40 years in the making. It takes a lot of organization to tilt the whole thing. This is a feature, not a bug. The system is architected, when something is controversial, default to no motion.

timewizard 2y ago

> You have to remember that half, possibly more than half, of the country is more than okay with what the NSA was doing and is doing. I doubt this. I'd also be interested to see if those people actually know, on any real level, what the NSA was actually doing. > If we don't like it, we could consider, maybe not voting the same people into that Congress. Over. And over. And over. And over. And over. And over. They so reliably do the opposite of what people want and yet continue to win. You don't find this at all odd and you put it down to lack of consideration on the part of the electorate. > That's not what you'd expect of a citizenship that was actually upset about being spied upon by their government. The joys of being old enough to remember the Church Committee, The House Select Committee on Assassinations, The JFK Records Review Board. PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY NOT OKAY WITH THIS. Yet those who carry water for the deep state are unimpeded by this. Please see this, or at least, don't repeat simple falsehoods about the electorate. It's like coming across a drowning man and laughing in his face about his predicament.

sethaurus 2y ago
Forgive me for being obtuse, but what exactly are you claiming here? Are election results being faked?
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  They aren't. Fewer than 3/4 of eligible voters voted in 2020. In general, somewhere around 10% to a third of eligible voters actually vote in primaries, which are the elections that actually have the most impact on office holding. Nobody needs to fake election results when Americans just don't show up to vote. It's a disquietingly under-informed and apathetic electorate.
  - timewizard 2y ago
    > Fewer than 3/4 of eligible voters voted in 2020. This is not completely true[0]. I'd also give the advice that you shouldn't take a "nationwide" average to mean much of anything. The wikipedia article shows wide variation across the states which is true for almost any statistic you can think of. > actually vote in primaries Bernie voters might give you a hint as to why. I guess this is the problem Mayor Pete's "shadow" app was meant to solve. It honestly seems like parties don't genuinely like people voting in primaries. The person who's "turn" it is might lose. > elections that actually have the most impact Unfortunately we're talking about the legislature here because they write the laws in question and are the proper party to wage your grievances against. Have you ever looked into how competitive those primaries actually are? Anyways this is why I vote for Greens and Libertarians. Then they might stand a chance of cracking 5% and getting recognized fully by the Federal Election Commission. > Americans just don't show up to vote. All evidence to the contrary. What they don't do is vote in senate elections. There districts with as low as 25% voter turn out. Which means you only need 12% of the eligible population to turn out for you to secure your seat. So you're right. No need to cheat. Just be arbitrary and capricious to the point that busy and worried people no longer feel that using their time in the voting booth can actually change something. > It's a disquietingly under-informed and apathetic electorate. As always, back to where this conversation starts, who should bear the responsibility for this? I don't think blaming the electorate itself brings you anywhere other than helping to chase people further away from an important civil institution. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...