The General US Politics Thread

I'm not seeing anything about a hack on the major news sites.

Yahoo link. Yahoo apparently got some sort of exclusive privileges to the story. It's being repeated on the tv news channels but little of it has reached anything online. The hack took place sometime during July.

I don't understand why the US uses voting machines without paper trails. In Canada we still use the primitive but less hackable method of putting an "X" on pieces of paper.

Conspiracy nut with 161,000 YouTube followers arrested after threatening people online.

He threatened gays, and also apparently "Satanics", because I guess he saw those two things as related. He called himself a Christian Warrior and indicated he said he wanted to carry out a massacre soon. Interpol found out and got involved.

I imagine his followers won't believe the, ahem, "official story" of why he was arrested and call him a martyr.

I'd love to see more of these freaks do stupid things that get them arrested, and made public and plastered all over the news. Not just one or two.

Well, stupid things that don't result in harm to others who aren't involved. That said, yeah, that was satisfying.

Sure it is. If the government legalizes something it is, in effect, endorsing that behaviour—or at the very least stating that the behaviour is acceptable.

Every "incel" creep I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with online has made the argument that prostitution must be legalized because they have the right to get laid, and that the government, by making prostitution illegal, is getting in the way of their rights. They've usually gone on to insist that as men they have a right to buy sex from women and that anyone who stops them from doing so—including women who do not wish to sell—is either a vile misandrist, out to oppress men and an evil, abusive "alpha male" trying to keep all the sex for himself.

Like I said before, I'm on the fence about legalization of prostitution. There are reasons to legalize it, and obvious benefit to doing so. But let's not pretend that every person who wants it legalized is doing so because they're a crusader for women's rights. Case in point—this guy who wants prostitution legalized, but female adultery, female premarital sex, and dressing immodestly punishable by law (he shows up in the comments too; it's exciting). When some of the worst human beings I have ever had the displeasure of encountering want an activity legalized that's cause to, if not keep it illegal, at the very least pause and ask "what attitudes are we about to enable here?"

edited 29th Aug '16 10:36:16 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Not liking someone or their motives for wanting something is not a reason to make something illegal, whether the action itself can justifiably be outlawed is the only factor.

In something a little more on topic, apparently Huma Abadeen is leaving Anthony Weiner. Trump, being Trump, decided that it was appropriate to imply that Weiner was somehow given access to state secrets or something simply because he and Abadeen are married, and this is somehow a knock against Clinton.

Because Abadeen doesn't know how to keep work stuff to herself, or Clinton's to blame if Abadeen did something indiscrete, and Weiner is enough of an asshole to just blurt out political secrets and Clinton is to blame if he does??? This is the power of insinuate and insane troll logic.

x6 Ballotpedia has a state-by-state breakdown of voting equipment used. It does appear the majority of states do use paper or have a paper trail.

edited 29th Aug '16 10:39:52 AM by megarockman

That's nonsense. If someone wants to legalize PCP so that they may more easily access it before they rob banks or knock over corner stores than their motivation matters. A lot, actually.

If the legalizing of prostitution further encourages anti-women attitudes among guys who think they are entitled to sex, then there is an argument there for keeping it illegal in the name of defending not only the prostitutes, but other women in society.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying I'm in favour of keeping prostitution illegal, or locking up women who have no other way to make a living (the men who purchase their services, on the other hand, can rot). I'm simply disputing the notion that only an evil misogynist or slut-shamer would fight legalization—or that those who want legalization are universally doing so for good reasons. There's a whole bunch of misgoynists and slut-shamers who want it legal, because it will help them reassert their notions about their right to sexually and socially dominate women.

It isn't nonsense, laws affect everyone, you can't collectively punish an entire society because someone wants something legalized for a bad reason, the only issue is whether the action can justifiably be outlawed.

What the hell.

The pimps can rot.

Arguably legalization would allow for the creation of unions, but the fact is even if legalization occurred it would probably take another generation at least for prostitutes to really feel they can go to the police if they are attacked, robbed, or raped on the job, because it will take that long for the cops who don't care to cycle out of the system/retire.

If enough people want it legalized for that bad reason than you absolutely can and should. To stick with the example I gave, if a high enough percentage of a drug's users want it legalized not so that they can enjoy the high, but so that they can use it to more easily indulge in violent and illegal behaviours, then there is a good case to be made that said drug should remain illegal. Same reason why some guns are illegal—a high enough percentage of those who buy them have been shown to want them for the purposes of slaughtering their fellow citizens.

Same thing here—if the legalization of prostitution further normalizes male beliefs about how they are entitled to sex and can buy and sell women, and causes sufficient damage to the rest of the women in a society, then there is a case to be made that it should not be legalized. I don't necessarily want to make that case; I'm just pointing out that it's possible to do so.

Finally I'd note that the idea that society is punished if a thing is made illegal is ludicrous. Punishment involves loss of a right, not loss of a privilege. Drug use is not a right. Unfettered access to all guns is not a right. Sex is not a right.

I have sympathy for women who are forced into prostitution because they have few other options in life. I think that punishing them does nothing to get them out of prostitution or into better employment, and I think that on that basis, locking them up is stupid.

Men who buy the services, of prostitutes, conversely, do not have my sympathy. They contribute to a cultural notion that men are entitled to sex and buy women for the right price. Accordingly, I have no qualms about punishing them for that.

You don't have to agree with me—but my position is consistent.

edited 29th Aug '16 11:09:29 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Guns directly make killing someone easier, hard drugs directly effect people physically. Your argument against prostitution being legal is that it might change how people view gender issues in negative ways, it is not okay to punish people (making anything illegal means you are punishing people who engage in it) because of you predicting it will indirectly increase something that isn't illegal in the first place (sexism is wrong, but your thoughts on issues are not crimes). And being imprisoned can easily ruin or end someone's life, the default state of any action should be legality until a concrete harm can be demonstrated. Whether there is concrete harm from prostitution is debatable, but thinking too many people who want it legalized are morally repulsive does not qualify in any circumstance.

EDIT: In response to the second part that was edited in, your beliefs about the issue do not make the idea of criminalizing only one party in a consensual activity remotely justified. And what if the client is a woman and/or the prostitute is a man?

edited 29th Aug '16 11:18:35 AM by Yoshigalitarian

Guys you're veering away from US politics here, and taking on both a narrower and broader conversation here.

As a MN resident, I can confirm that I voted on a paper ballot in the 2012 election.

Succinctly and definitively well said.

You also make the heteronormative assumption that all prostitutes are women who are patronized by men.

This is distinctly untrue.

edited 29th Aug '16 11:17:40 AM by blkwhtrbbt

That assholes might benefit is not a reason to refrain from doing anything. Assholes benefit from breathing, but nobody's trying to criminalize oxygen.

More important than the idea that some shitheaded guys might be able to hire prostitutes is the very real harm that criminalized prostitution is doing to women on a constant basis.

Really, so the existence of people buying books means they are entitiled to force me to sell my books whether I like it or not?

edited 29th Aug '16 11:29:16 AM by flameboy21th

Jim Jeffries has a pretty good take on this in his latest special. With the risk of taking him too seriously, I'll paraphrase: "Prostitution in Australia was legalized, the world didn't end. It was taken off the streets and placed into brothels, where it was regulated. There are bouncers to keep out the shitbags, and the women are regularly tested, and the customers are submitted to a visual check, so all in all it's safer for both the men and women. And if you're into family values, the divorce rate went down."

Surprised Huma Abedin hadn't left Weiner earlier.

No, I make the "borne out by every study ever conducted" assumption that a majority of prostitutes are women who are patronized by men. They are. That's a simple statistical reality.

Sure, there are male prostitutes who are patronized by men, male prostitutes patronized by women, and female prostitutes patronized by women. All of those exist. So do a whole lot of other varieties, given the spectrum of human sexuality.

The bulk, of prostitutes, however, are female and are patronized by male clientele. More importantly to the point I'm trying to make, the notion that men are entitled to women's bodies and can buy them when they are not freely offered, is an age old sexist notion that's wired into society at a fundamental level, and in consequence, is the attitude that I worry about endorsing or further normalizing. The inverse notion, of women being entitled to men's bodies is nowhere near as prevalent (though obviously just as toxic); I can't speak to what negative attitudes may exist within the LGBT community.

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

Sure...but I'm not in favour of criminalizing the selling of sex. I'm in favour of criminalizing the buying of it. I don't want to lock up the prostitutes, I want to fine or lock up the Johns.

Not a great analogy. Everybody needs oxygen. Nobody needs to patronize a prostitute. More importantly, my concern is not that some assholes will get laid, but that society's acceptance of their buying of sex will encourage them to harass more women.

It's easy to justify, actually. You may not agree with it, but it's certainly not difficult to justify. Just as some places have decriminalized the consumption of illegal drugs, but continue to make the dealing of them illegal, it's perfectly possible, from a legal perspective, to decide that the Johns are committing a crime that's worthy of punishment, but that the prostitutes are not.

That's without getting into the fact that calling prostitution a consensual act is pretty iffy. If someone is hooking because they have literally no other way to make money, there's an argument to be made that the sex is non-consensual. If your options are "have sex with these men or the power gets turned off" are you really consenting? Or are you being exploited and abused?

It gets treated exactly the same way. It's mostly men who think that they are entitled to sex and can buy it, but it's not an attitude that should be encouraged among any group.

In any case, it's been suggested that we are getting off topic and we probably are. Moreover, this isn't honestly a subject I have much invested in. As I've said several times now, I don't support prostitution being fully criminalized. I just wanted to make the point that you can oppose fully legalizing it for reasons that go beyond hating women.

New post to try and get us back on track. Former Obama advisor declares Trump is a clinical psychopath.

I enjoy watching the Democrats take the gloves off.

edited 29th Aug '16 11:52:53 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Re: elections: I've posted stuff about the vulnerability of election systems to hacking before. Most states have been made to realize by now the importance of the paper trail and abandoned touchscreen-only voting machines that were pushed after Florida 2000, but not all have. And as pointed out, the new worry is that the voter databases are just as vulnerable a target, as are the central computers that do the vote tabulation..