SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Do you trust your government?
| 6% | 31 votes |
| 48% | 220 votes |
| 4% | 20 votes |
| 2% | 10 votes |
| 10% | 50 votes |
| 11% | 52 votes |
| 13% | 60 votes |
| 2% | 13 votes |
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls.
-- Lenny Bruce
(Score: 2, Informative) by Darth Turbogeek on Monday January 18 2016, @02:31AM
... Unless YOU are the one running it with an iron fist. And even then, the trust level = zero. There will always be someone out to get you.
Now given we are not iron fisted dictactors, of course you can not trust a government. They are not interested in you, do not give a shit about you and will exist long after they stamp you out of existance. The only time they will give a shit is if you rock the boat and that is when you get stamped on like an ant.
Not that private enterprise is any better, pretty much any ruling system run by humans for humans is going to fuck the plebs over and be utterly ruthless about it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by redneckmother on Tuesday January 19 2016, @06:44PM
re: private enterprise
In the USA, mega-corporations ARE the government.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 26 2016, @04:38AM
Not that private enterprise is any better, pretty much any ruling system run by humans for humans is going to fuck the plebs over and be utterly ruthless about it.
Private enterprise is not a ruling system. And if as redneckmother claimed, megacorporations really were the government, then the NSA's overreach wouldn't happen.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday January 26 2016, @08:48PM
Are [washingtonsblog.com] you [truth-out.org] sure? [lockheedmartin.com] Lots of companies get paid by the NSA. Lots of companies get information from the NSA. Lots of companies get protection from the NSA (and other spy agencies of course.)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 26 2016, @09:07PM
Are you sure?
Yes. The cost to US business from losing business in relevant high tech sectors will more than counter those minor benefits. Sorry, it's pretty dumb to claim that helping Boeing or a Wall Street firm with a few bids would more than counter the losses from selling less IT gear and services. The assertion that "megacorporations" rule is ignorant because it ignores that agencies like the NSA are just as well funded, far less accountable, and with more real world power.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday January 26 2016, @09:20PM
Lockheed Martin isn't losing any sales because of it. Nor is Exxon-Mobile. Not all corporations will agree, just like not all government departments agree (For example, the State Dept. financing Tor while the FBI keeps trying to shut it down.)
And what companies are losing sales? Show me the dip in Apple's or Google's stock price because of the NSA revelations. Didn't really happen, because there's not really an alternative. Maybe China -- do you trust China? They're doing the same thing. So is Russia. So is most of Europe. Nobody's losing much money because there aren't many viable alternatives.
And by the way, how much money has this telemetry crap in Windows 10 cost them? Nobody forced them to implement any of that, but they did it anyway. Presumably the data they get back *is* worth any lost sales or they wouldn't be doing it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 26 2016, @11:10PM
Lockheed Martin isn't losing any sales because of it. Nor is Exxon-Mobile. Not all corporations will agree, just like not all government departments agree (For example, the State Dept. financing Tor while the FBI keeps trying to shut it down.)
Some corporation benefits a little so it must be that they control the government. I already expressed my opinion on that belief.
And what companies are losing sales? Show me the dip in Apple's or Google's stock price because of the NSA revelations.
Just because you didn't look, doesn't mean it didn't happen [independent.co.uk].
“It’s clear to every single tech company that this is affecting their bottom line,” said Daniel Castro, a senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, who predicted that the United States cloud computing industry could lose $35 billion by 2016.
Forrester Research, a technology research firm, said the losses could be as high as $180 billion, or 25 percent of industry revenue, based on the size of the cloud computing, web hosting and outsourcing markets and the worst case for damages.
Moving on:
And by the way, how much money has this telemetry crap in Windows 10 cost them?
You ignore, of course, the huge resistance to adopting Windows 10.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:35PM
Sure, I agree there. But my point was actually pretty close to what you just said -- just because some corporations lose a little doesn't mean they *don't* control the government either. Because different corporations have different priorities. Different corporations capture different regulatory bodies. Comcast cares more about owning the FCC than the FAA; while Boeing is probably the other way around.
Yeah, quite possible. But what you quoted are *worst case predictions*, not events. Those are like the numbers the RIAA uses when they talk about how much revenue they lost due to piracy.
And it's not like any of this spying is new. What's new is that the general public knows about it now. But we know many of these companies were providing this information and cooperating with the spy agencies for years with no complaints. They don't care about the spying, they only care about the bad PR.
But that's not stopping Microsoft from spending a ton of money to implement it anyway. Apparently any losses from that "huge resistance" are still less significant than the gains from spying.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 29 2016, @11:23AM
spending a ton of money
Sounds like a lot of cost then for Microsoft.
And it's not like any of this spying is new. What's new is that the general public knows about it now. But we know many of these companies were providing this information and cooperating with the spy agencies for years with no complaints. They don't care about the spying, they only care about the bad PR.
There's also bad PR from nobody getting punished for this creation of bad PR. US intelligence screwed over a massive part of the US economy and got away with it. That's not a sign of a corporate lapdog.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 01 2016, @03:07PM
You say it like you really believe it.
Say, if megacorporations really were the government, who's to deny the private initiative of an innovative company (named NSA) providing collection, analysis and distribution of information services, mmm?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 01 2016, @10:36PM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 01 2016, @11:28PM
Since when the "US business as a whole" is of any concern for an individual business? Isn't the "pereat mundus, fiat my business" (aka competition) one of the matra of free market? (
Wanna bet on what NSA could do if operated as a business and wanting to... errr... monetize their capabilities?
In a "the megacorps are the govermnent" scenario, can you discount that a "private NSA" (or many of them) would ever be created?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 02 2016, @01:20AM
Since when the "US business as a whole" is of any concern for an individual business?
Since when have we been speaking of a single business?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 02 2016, @02:00AM
I thought you were using the "business" term as "the economy" or "the business phenomenon". If you weren't, please clarify.
Anyway, to shorten the discussion: while I agree that govts are not to be trusted, I'd add "and neither the corporations". Maybe the very specific case of NSA overreach would not have happen exactly like it was, but given enough power (govt like, yes?), they will create NSA-like structures on their own
(to put it in another way, I suspect the NSA overreach doesn't upset too much the megacorps, what irritates them more is the fact that capability is not under their control)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 02 2016, @05:44AM
Since you forgot a plural in:
There's not enough money in "collection, analysis and distribution of information services" to justify the huge loss current and future US business.
I thought you were using the "business" term as "the economy" or "the business phenomenon". If you weren't, please clarify.
No, that's accurate. This is the key point of "business" that routinely gets ignored. Business is not a monolithic entity. While sure, there are a few companies that may benefit handsomely from NSA wholesale spying and other shenanigans, there are plenty of US businesses that don't. And if things really were run by businesses, you would expect the larger portion of businesses who lose out to NSA interference to have already prevailed (if only to create a hollow display of contrition with token punishment of NSA officials, even that has not occurred!). To instead assert that US business must be somehow benefiting from such a one-sided and parasitic relationship, is begging the question.
Anyway, to shorten the discussion: while I agree that govts are not to be trusted, I'd add "and neither the corporations". Maybe the very specific case of NSA overreach would not have happen exactly like it was, but given enough power (govt like, yes?), they will create NSA-like structures on their own (to put it in another way, I suspect the NSA overreach doesn't upset too much the megacorps, what irritates them more is the fact that capability is not under their control)
I see no indication here that megacorp irritation is something that matters. And why should we "trust" businesses? There's no need to any more than there was a need to trust government.
And concerning my earlier remark in this post about the diverse nature of business, division of power has long been a way for democracies to deal with powerful entities. Businesses naturally are divided against one another via the mechanism of competition. They have natural means of control, namely via their capital (no capital, no business). OTOH, there are only a few government spy agencies with resources comparable to the NSA and a remarkable lack of accountability there.
As for me, I wonder if someone out there has an ulterior motive for the persecution of business. After all, business is a rival power structure to government and would have to be subdued in order to gain power over society. And that feeling grows stronger when I read glib, circular rationalizations of brazen government abuse, telling me that such abuse must have somehow benefited the business world even though it clearly does not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2016, @08:23AM
Yeah, same here... better read qt, the feeling subsides.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 02 2016, @08:54AM
How's that competition working again on the ISP market in USofA?
Is the competition a stable mechanism? I doubt it, there is too much of positive feedback built inside it: the stronger one becomes, the lesser chances are for an actual competition to appear/survive. Where's the corrective/control mechanism in competition?
I hate the idea of representative democracy (direct democracy would be much better in my opinion, the Swiss people are practising a form of it for some time), but at least there are some old and accepted foundations on which it works (when it works).
But I hate more the idea of a capitalistic feudalism (indentured servitude?), in which the megacorps are free to exert their power based only on the contractual laws - you take the contract or you don't, no matter how vital is the object of the contract for you, the buyer.
Remember Daraprim [theguardian.com]? Where was the competition to defend the citizens?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 02 2016, @02:58PM
How's that competition working again on the ISP market in USofA?
Pretty well actually. Most parts of the US have three or more competitors.
Is the competition a stable mechanism? I doubt it, there is too much of positive feedback built inside it: the stronger one becomes, the lesser chances are for an actual competition to appear/survive. Where's the corrective/control mechanism in competition?
The corrective/control mechanism is new entrants into the market.
But I hate more the idea of a capitalistic feudalism (indentured servitude?), in which the megacorps are free to exert their power based only on the contractual laws - you take the contract or you don't, no matter how vital is the object of the contract for you, the buyer.
So what? You have yet to show that this is a credible problem. It's vague talk of ISPs and shifty pharmaceutical companies.
Remember Daraprim? Where was the competition to defend the citizens?
Getting shafted by medical regulators. It's quite clear that the Daraprim monopoly was only going to last a little while.
The problem here is that government monetizing its power looks similar to businesses ruling the roost. For me, the test is not that they have common interests, but rather what happens when there's a conflict of interests between government and business. In the US, when that happens, the business has to give way. The NSA example is just a really high profile one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @10:08AM
Pretty well actually. Most parts of the US have three or more competitors.
I can't find any data to back that up. Or are you only talking about shitty, non-viable competitors? Things like dial-up or satellite don't count.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 06 2016, @05:38PM
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday February 08 2016, @03:21PM
Of course. Each private enterprise rules over its employees. If you now say that's only a limited domain, well, of course it is. As is the domain the government of California is ruling. Or even the government of the United States (although sometimes one gets the impression that American politicians don't know that fact).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:16AM
Each private enterprise rules over its employees. If you now say that's only a limited domain, well, of course it is. As is the domain the government of California is ruling. Or even the government of the United States (although sometimes one gets the impression that American politicians don't know that fact).
No, that is a ridiculous comparison since you aren't paying attention to the important parts, the limits and the purpose of the organization. After all, we could say similarly (to take this argument to its natural absurd end) that a referee of a soccer game rules the players in that game. Virtually all competitive and cooperative sports has rules and hence, has players who are ruled by the rules in your loose sense of the term. It doesn't even start to make sense to declare sports a ruling system as a result both because of the ridiculously narrow constraints of the rules of the game (the rules don't apply to you, if you aren't playing that game) and because sports rules are meant to have fun and/or provide entertainment, not run a society or control someone.
Similarly, businesses have rules, but they don't rule anyone. If you don't like the rules or anything else about the business, then you can readily quit. There is an easy out, because the point of the business is to make money, not control employees. Thus, we have the same two factors, strong constraints on the application of rules and a purpose that is something other than controlling people.
And that's relevant because in the original statement we had:
Not that private enterprise is any better, pretty much any ruling system run by humans for humans is going to fuck the plebs over and be utterly ruthless about it.
Business people can be as ruthless as they want to be. But they'll either run out of employees or go to jail, if they are too ruthless.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:00AM
If you don't like the rules of your country, you also can readily quit, by just moving to a different country and changing your nationality. Yes, you'll have to find another country that accepts you, but that's also true for business; you have to find another company willing to employ you (and no, in reality most people do not have the option to just not seek employment at all; those who have that option will in general also have no problems finding a country willing to give them their nationality — and in principle, you're not required to have a nationality; it's just that without one, your life will be very miserable — as will be your life without a job, for most people).
Yes, there are certain limits how far companies can go. But that's again also true for countries. If you want examples, just look at the real world. If you can't find at least five examples after a few seconds, you've obviously not been following world affairs, ever.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:17PM
If you don't like the rules of your country, you also can readily quit, by just moving to a different country and changing your nationality.
I see here the same glib appeal to equality like when you claimed [soylentnews.org] that businesses "rule" in the same sense as governments rule. Here, that's not readily quitting. You can't just up and leave a country spontaneously. You can do so with a job.
The problem with this fallacy remains the same. They aren't equal. For example, you have to move and you have to find a country that will take you in. That's not the act of the moment unlike quitting a job is. Further, the arm of the state is long. They may still be able to reach you in another country and continue to persecute you, say via extradition or kidnapping. A business is very limited in what it can do in that respect (unless the agents of the business should choose to break the law) even when it invokes the power of the state (that is, sue. They still have to demonstrate standing.).
If you want examples, just look at the real world. If you can't find at least five examples after a few seconds, you've obviously not been following world affairs, ever.
Let's use one real world example then. There are something like two million refugees from North Africa and Syria (with a lot of the Syrians in turn probably refugees from various countries as well) attempting to take refuge in Europe in 2016. Many of them just didn't make it, drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or other adversity. Then we have people stuck at borders in camps and always with the threat that they get deported back to where they come from.
There is no similar analogy in the job hunting world. You don't risk death when you quit a job. You aren't forced to just stop looking for work. You aren't forced to return to your former employer. Finally, there's a good chance in Europe that they'll be non citizens their entire life. It's not that hard to find an employer where you work on equal footing with people already there. Seniority has its perks, but they are perks that you can acquire by working there long enough.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 18 2016, @10:11AM
Those are two words that should never be used together in a sentence.
You are an employer. You have trillions of dollars, and trillions of dollars worth of assets, which your employers are supposed to manage, in your interest. You have hired those employees, then neglected to hold them accountable. You are a complete, and utter fool. The employees have decided to use that money, and all those assets for their own interests. Worse, they have made laws making it illegal for you to benefit from those very same assets. Those employees have made it illegal for you to even challenge them in court.
Remember that movie, 'Wag the dog'? Government is the tail, and, "We, the people" are the dog.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 21 2016, @11:07AM
I disagree. There are actually well-governed countries where you can put reasonable trust in the government. Not complete and not for everything but you wouldn't trust yourself for everything either.
My country isn't one of them:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/malaysia-agency-says-money-in-razaks-personal-account-isnt-from-1mdb-1438615126 [wsj.com]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-03/malaysia-says-about-700-million-in-najib-accounts-are-donations [bloomberg.com]
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/2-macc-directors-in-1mbd-probe-transferred-to-pms-department [themalaysianinsider.com]
I wouldn't trust the US Gov either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26 2016, @03:32AM
Just don't trust the Malaysian airplanes, because they have a tendency to disappear or crash unexpectedly.
Still trust them?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tizan on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:58PM
The word government is used as some entity with mind and intelligence...apart from states like Russia and Egypt...that is not the case.
Most of us are involved in government in some sort or the other (we work for companies that contract to build road generally stuff for the government to be used by the people) ...trust or no trust is like trusting your neighbor or your family because some of them are gubernment. Government in democracies are just funnel of money from people to projects for (other?) people...Yes there is corruption...blame the damn individuals involved not the word 'government'....or you don't like the projects that government prefer like the military or police or healthcare or education or roads or airports etc...then pick somebody who will pick projects you like or better do it yourself !
Has anybody ever heard somebody say "I am from the government" I have not but I have heard "I am from Lockheed Martin" and they run many government projects like Sandia Labs !
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 01 2016, @12:43AM
Most of us are involved in government in some sort or the other (we work for companies that contract to build road generally stuff for the government to be used by the people) ...trust or no trust is like trusting your neighbor or your family because some of them are gubernment.
So if I trust the mugging victim, then I should trust the mugger too? After all, they're both part of the same system.
(Score: 1) by tizan on Monday February 01 2016, @03:56PM
Its like saying i distrust society...there is no intelligent entity for it. you distrust the individual...mugger or government servant not some generic word that encompass a whole population.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 01 2016, @10:33PM
Its like saying i distrust society
Which let us note, is not a bad thing in itself. Further, we still have the obvious observation that society is not government.
(Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Wednesday February 03 2016, @11:56PM
Governments aren't bunches of individuals. They are collectives. Like all collectives, if there's a rotten part you must excise that part to trust the rest. You don't trust your body with a cancer in it. You remove the cancer. You don't fix a carton of eggs into omelets and serve them if one of the eggs is rotten. You throw away the rotten egg before trusting the collection.
(Score: 1) by tizan on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:14PM
I was just trying to point out that government is a broad brush ..so broad that it does not exist in reality except that the money the people that form governement are paid from are from direct taxes. There is nothing that really define a thinking entity that is government except i suspect in Kingdoms and such where one ruler can take all the blame.
When somebody say "trust and government should not exist in one sentence" does that mean when the weather services say a tornado is coming go and hide...do you go out and test it out by yourself ?
If a few FBI agents misbehave ...does that mean you will not trust the CDC, Weather services, air-control, FDA, Army, The company who is tarring the roads etc...
Most people will say I don't trust my cousin and not I don't trust my whole family if a cousin is a bad apple.
(Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:27PM
Most people who have an untrustworthy cousin only trust the rest of the family so far as they don't cover for the cousin's shenanigans.
Do I trust some of the people in the government? Sure. Do I trust some departments more than others? Absolutely. Do I trust the government as a whole when from the top down at the federal level there's support for spying on its citizens and covering it up? Absolutely not. Do I trust that the government won't use helpful domestic agencies to cover up their activities? No. So I have some level of trust for some functions of the federal government, but I remain wary.
Do I trust most police officers? Less and less, honestly, with all the news about how they not only abuse their power but then cover for one another to ensure they can continue abusing it. Do I trust the city, state, and county governments they work for? Sure, as soon as they make the police officers accountable for their misdeeds more often than not.
(Score: 1) by tizan on Friday February 05 2016, @05:38PM
"Do I trust that the government won't use helpful domestic agencies to cover up their activities? No. So I have some level of trust for some functions of the federal government, but I remain wary."
This is where i am lost ...what do you mean by "government" here ...politicians ?
Or do you mean one part of governement
In that case are there systemic problem like
NASA would systematically make FBI or the Justice Dept etc to cover their ills ?
Or the CDC making the cops cover up their bunglings ?
Do we have systemic problem like that across all departments of government ?
I am a reasonably informed person...I am not aware of such things apart from the fact that i am not aware what the CIA or NSA or some FBI are doing. Because of these 2 or 3 agencies i am not going to impugned people at the Park Services or Weather Services say by calling the misdeeds of CIA as mideed of government.
(Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Friday February 05 2016, @07:27PM
The NSA, CIA, and FBI have ties into all the agencies and into private companies. Customs is used for the NSA to put backdoors into communications equipment. Customs and the TSA are used by the FBI to do warrantless searches of air travelers well beyond what's necessary for the safety of the plane and passengers. The military gives free military-grade hardware to local law enforcement. AT&T and Verizon have huge listening posts on behalf of the NSA. The people at the top of these agencies, at the top of the Executive, and the overseers in Congress allow all of this to happen and encourage it. That means that nothing under their purview is likely to be unadulterated by the surveillance and enforcement folks.
(Score: 1) by tizan on Friday February 05 2016, @08:44PM
The question should not be "Do you trust your Government ?"
It should be
"Do you or should you trust anybody ?"
If that is the state of affair...may well go and live in Somalia...there is no government and one has to kill to live or be killed.
(Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Monday February 08 2016, @06:39PM
I'll keep the US, thanks. We have problems but it's still better than Somalia.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Monday January 18 2016, @01:06PM
I love my country but I fear my government
I love my country but I fear they're watching me
All the time
Isn't that a crime
I see them fighting all their wars on the TV screen
Mindless corruption with no accountability
Can't you see
Every time I try to fight it they deny it
Every time I try to show it they control it
All the time
They have cameras
They have guns
They've got big atomic bombs
And they'll do everything they can
To frighten me/you
They try to tell me that everything's okay
They will distract me in every bloody way
It's so insane to live this way
They spy on me using everything they got
They'll try to change me and control
My every thought
All the time
Yes it's a crime
Don't wanna live in constant fear
Don't wanna live on a TV show
Don't wanna live through a microscope
I wanna feel like I'm in control
I wanna live in a fearless state
I wanna live without the hate
I wanna be able to decide my fate
I wanna break out of this cage
Take it back
(Welcome to the future)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ2BXSoPhn8 [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Webweasel on Friday January 22 2016, @06:09PM
Government spies are everywhere,
in your home and in your hair,
lurking in their secret lair.
Counting Dollars;
They know everyone you know,
they see everything you show,
and everywhere you go they slowly follers.
Government spies will come to you,
and there's not much you can do.
cept to sit there til they're through with their spying;
They will count up all your cash
they will go through all your trash
then they'll confiscate your stash
and leave you crying.
Well, their leader is a wimp,
his assistant is a simp,
who also functions as a pimp
sometimes, down in miami beach;
"secret sources" pay the tag,
and they pay them by the bag,
It's enough to make a grown man gag
and screech.
Government spies are everywhere,
in your home and in your hair,
lurking in their secret lair,
counting money;
they know everyone you know,
they see everything you show,
they go everywhere you go,
and it ain't funny.
-Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers- 1973
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 1) by riT-k0MA on Monday January 18 2016, @01:58PM
We place this [twimg.com] much [iol.co.za] trust [news24.com] in out president, Jacob Zuma:
(Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Monday January 18 2016, @06:31PM
You have no case to complain about the lack of options. He's already listed as "Zaphod".
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday January 19 2016, @03:31PM
The loony who thinks that taking a shower can stop you catching HIV?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by riT-k0MA on Tuesday January 19 2016, @04:24PM
That one.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday January 26 2016, @02:56AM
It could be worse! Your president would be Robert Mugabe.
It's amazing he was actually popular in Zimbabwe once. I saw an example of it once when I was in Harare in 1986 as he walked out of the Parliament building and into his limo. Now he's just another ancient, morally bankrupt, decrepit old African despot with a Hitler-like toothbrush mustache. At least Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda, and Nelson Mandela had the good sense to retire.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by riT-k0MA on Tuesday January 26 2016, @05:16AM
Mugabe is Zuma's role model.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:49PM
That does work though, you just have to keep showering 24/7.
That way you don't get HIV, but you don't get laid either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26 2016, @09:58PM
Can be please stop with the links on every word in a sentence? It's not funny, witty, or interesting.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday February 01 2016, @11:39PM
Much. better. like. this.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 18 2016, @02:15PM
You could rate that on a scale of 10-1. Approximate meanings would be:
10: Trust everything the government says and does without question.
9: Mostly trust what the government says and does, but sometimes question it.
7: Don't really trust what the government says or does without independent verification, but think that they mostly get it right.
5: Don't trust what the government says or does without independent verification, but also believes the verification is insufficient and they sometimes get away with lying.
3: Believe that the government mostly is lying and cheating, but some specific areas or offices are OK.
1: Believe that absolutely nothing the government ever says or does is either legal or true. They're just there to take your money and oppress you.
I've met people who are at 10 on this scale. I've also met people who are at 1 on this scale. Most seem to fall somewhere in the 3-7 range. I'm at about a 6 - I want independent verification, but I tend to see the civilian agencies like the SSA and National Weather Service as mostly reasonable while the NSA and DoD are definitely not to be trusted.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @05:48PM
Speaking as a citizen of the USA:
I'm am on more of a 3-5 line of thinking. Some things they do right. But a lot of what they do is screwed up because of bureaucratic bloat from party infighting or branch politics. But one thing is certain, it is mired in corruption from the bottom up. We have judges taking kickbacks from private jails to lock people up for profit. And we have had presidents and vice presidents who have profited directly from war. Then we have police departments with no transparency who's officers can literally get away with murder and theft. There are good people in all of this, good politicians, judges, police, etc. But there are so many rotten, festering, stench emitting apples that the good apples are beaten into line and just go with the flow. They then watch their retirement clock tick down so they can cash out on a pension and forget all the bad things they witnessed or took part in. I know people who have working in various government jobs and let me tell you, it is a fucking corrupt mess. From the justice system, military, homeland security, all the way to the top. One day, we're going to have to flush out the rotten apples. And they won't go without a fight.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 19 2016, @04:37AM
3.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @06:11AM
5.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 20 2016, @12:49PM
but I tend to see the civilian agencies like the SSA and National Weather Service as mostly reasonable
US postal service, DNR, Library system, city treasurers office (prop tax), county records office, ...
Libraries are weird. My county-wide federated system has 16 libraries across the county (essentially there's one library with 16 equal branches), but this county org was created by state statute and governed from the state capital by a state appointed board. Meanwhile each building gets municipal funds to operate and my branch is a part of the federal library depository system. So somehow everyone from the mayor to the prez is theoretically simultaneously in charge, yet it doesn't collapse. Of course I bet that situation is different everywhere in the country.
DOD is weird. The lower the level the more trustworthy and the higher the level the less trustworthy. Psychopathy always floats to the top in any org, maybe the head of the postmasters is a lunatic, would not be surprised.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26 2016, @03:35AM
If you want to take that 6 down to a 3 or 2, just become informed as to how fucked the politics and media are, yes, using as many real examples as possible. [noagendanation.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @05:11PM
I would like to trust the government, but it is extremely difficult to gauge in its current broken form. We have elected officials who have intentionally broken the system for their own personal gain.
Can you imagine how much better off we would be if the right wing of the country was powerless (no doubt, the effect of criminal gerrymandering)? They do not represent the will of the people (based on election number and public opinion polls), but have rigged the system to stay in power.
We have children getting murdered in the streets every day because of guns. We have an entire third of the country (the black population) who have not been able to go outside for decades without fear of being arrested or shot on sight. We have children born here who cannot obtain a free education because they are brown and thus deemed "illegal." We have an ongoing war on gender-fluidity and LGBT rights. We have GMO foods being forced down our throats by lying state governments. We have global climate change DENIERS in power, which will lead to a worse future for our progeny than the Holocaust (remember, it was just 20 years ago that these same people ran a candidate for president who the link between lung cancer and smoking!). And the government, with its broken funding and broken political process, is POWERLESS to do anything to fix these issues.
We should have taken the money from the Iraq war and built up our own country. Bridges are collapsing every day. College tuition, which could have been paid for with the money we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, is through the roof. Home ownership is down, because we are too busy paying off our student loans.
I would trust the government if it were in the right hands. As it is, no way. Not until we get someone elected that represents the best interests of the people.
And before you right-wingers come and bash me, imagine the following scenario: Al Gore wins 2000. How much better off would we be right now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @04:16AM
This is a diverse country. The left doesn't represent the will of the people either. If your ideal government is one where you ignore the political beliefs of such a large portion of the people then just remember that it is not a democratic one.
What goes by "left" in this country is closer to what my view is but that does not make me ignore their dirty political acts, their incompetence, or make me trust them just because they might be the lesser evil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26 2016, @09:41PM
Can you imagine how much better off we would be if the right wing of the country was powerless (no doubt, the effect of criminal gerrymandering)?
Oh that's cute, you think that the Democrats aren't guilty of the same thing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by _1156277 on Monday February 01 2016, @12:04AM
Who said the Democrats aren't part of your right-wing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @12:07PM
If Gore won in 2000 I would be a Canadian citizen right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @11:21PM
Wow, lucky us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 13 2016, @03:18AM
That's unusual. A sarcastic Canadian.
(Score: 2) by SrLnclt on Monday January 18 2016, @06:00PM
Eight options for a yes/no question. So which of the remaining 6 options is the joke response?
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 18 2016, @08:20PM
Eight options for a yes/no question. So which of the remaining 6 options is the joke response?
Joke Options: Yes or No
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 19 2016, @03:40PM
Obviously Zaphod.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:59AM
Well, remaining five (arguably four). "Abstain due to NSA fears" is an implicit no.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 1, Troll) by BK on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:48AM
I trust cowboyneal's government...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Username on Monday January 18 2016, @08:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:52PM
then pull our troops out
That's a very ineffective way to prevent wars. Obama should have paid attention in sex ed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @11:32PM
In all likelihood he did and would have abstained from war altogether. The only alternative is to stay put and blow a load and we all knows what that entails ...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GlennC on Wednesday January 20 2016, @09:14PM
Not that President Obama hasn't been useful to the Military-Industrial Complex and ISIS, but he was only continuing the policies of those before him.
"Hope and Change" quickly turned into "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss."
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @04:59AM
"Hope and Change" quickly turned into "Bwahahahaha, you believed all that horse shit I promised you?"
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday January 19 2016, @02:30AM
Trust a concentration of power? Heck no! Doesn't matter if it's government or industry, if it has power, it abuses it. Power corrupts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @06:35PM
Hot? One vote...
E.T. call home... Clinton's home.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--09SY9Tfb--/as0ktcr170urdtof29vy.jpg [kinja-img.com]
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Archon V2.0 on Wednesday January 20 2016, @05:24PM
> Hot? One vote...
HILLARY CLINTON IS A SOYLENTIL!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2016, @05:18PM
Hillary Clinton's one vote did not come from Bill. I Miss Monica.
(Score: 5, Funny) by dyingtolive on Sunday January 24 2016, @10:42PM
I'd vote for Monica over Hillary any day. She's obviously had more presidential material in her.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by srobert on Wednesday January 20 2016, @12:01AM
No, I don't trust the government. BUT, I trust corporations and wealthy individuals even less, and government is the only way We the People stand any chance against them. Trust government? No. But empower government, verify, and hold officials accountable? Yes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Non Sequor on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:02AM
I'm inherently skeptical of anyone who claims they know how to fix things. Every party's platform is garbage. Trying to come up with a better platform is like trying to design a better garbage dump: in the end, you're just making rearranging waste.
At the same time, I new the fact that people on opposing sides of any issue or both unhappy with the status quo as being a feature not a bug. As noted above, both sides have bad ideas about how to change things, so if either one of them were actually happy for once, that's when we'd be in serious trouble.
If you're happy with your government, that probably means that you're screwing over someone else.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Wednesday January 20 2016, @07:58AM
I fully trust them to accept my tax dollars.
For other things... Well... mumble...
(Score: 3, Touché) by CirclesInSand on Friday January 22 2016, @04:58AM
Why wouldn't you trust them? I know exactly what to expect from the police. I know what to expect from legislators. I know what to expect from presidents. I know what to expect from the TSA, any spokesman for NSA....I know what to expect for soldiers opinions of themselves, I know what to expect from public school teachers, I know what to expect from just about any member of the government. No need for distrust, they'll meet my expectations.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday January 21 2016, @03:21PM
Is the "I'm going fishing" option a reference to this post: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=11022&cid=273300#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 21 2016, @03:42PM
That line of text is... perfect. It sums up my feelings about thugs in suits in such an elegant way. Thank you!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday January 21 2016, @05:00PM
If you didn't get the punchline in the subject, it's because you miss some context: well, I'm located in Italy.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31 2016, @11:35PM
or stop drinking.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @12:05PM
After Trump goes in there like a wrecking ball and cleans out the corrupt cronies. TRUMP 2016!!!
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday February 01 2016, @10:05PM
There are actually fools here, anonymous no doubt, who actually said they trusted the government! They must be deaf and blind, retarded, confused, or pathological liars. Maybe the NSA hijacked their pointing device and forced them to click "yes". Hmmm.... if that can happen then I need to start wearing my tin foil hat again.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:07PM
Or, they work at a cush gov't job where they can't get fired and don't actually do anything. I was told by one that all he does all day is watch porn on the Gov't computer.
(Score: 1) by shanen on Tuesday February 02 2016, @08:25AM
Sure I trust my government. For very small values of "government" and very fuzzy values of "trust".
In all other cases, not so much.
(Hint: Follow the money.)
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 1) by CHK6 on Wednesday February 03 2016, @01:42PM
Are we voting on the concept of "government" or the level we trust our fellow humans? Well it doesn't really matter because it's one in the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:57PM
I think I just puked a little after reading that last post option, and seeing the fact that it has been selected 8 times . . .
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday February 05 2016, @08:31AM
There's "yes", "no", and "Hell no, bring on the anarchy!"
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2016, @09:57PM
Tony Abbott wasn't that bad
(Score: 2) by novak on Monday February 08 2016, @03:45PM
Zaphod Beeblebrox would be an improvement.
novak
(Score: 3, Touché) by e_armadillo on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:38PM
Lloyd Christmas or Harry Dunne would be improvements . . .
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @09:21PM
Well, George W. was fairly close.
(Score: 1) by Snospar on Saturday February 13 2016, @12:08AM
Anyone who implicitly trusts their government is a fool. Long gone are the days when these people were "Public Servants", now they are there to feather their own nests at the expense of everyone else. They love the celebrity aspect of the job but more important is the long tail sponsorship and shady Directorships that await them after their term.
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.