[foob]

And now information about your account has been leaked, and will be lumped in with more nefarious accounts. I have a feeling that a significant number of people have similarly made accounts out of curiosity. I've had my parents and some less technically inclined friends recently ask me what Parler is because it's been in the news. These aren't people that fall under the alt-right categorization in the slightest, and they're also not people who would think to use fake information if they were signing up for something to see what it is like.

Even if the platform had terrible and dangerous content on it, we should avoid assuming that everybody on it supported that content, and we shouldn't celebrate their personal information being leaked.

[mr_overalls]

I don't care if my personal information was leaked. I followed discussions, posted a comment or two like, "What evidence do you have for that?" There seemed to be tons of other accounts that did the same, along with accounts by obvious Lefts who were there to troll. I highly doubt there will be blowback for the kind of participation I did.

I am absolutely a privacy advocate. However, in the case where the continued existence of our democracy hinges on rooting out violent domestic terrorists, I am willing to make tradeoffs. At this point, you should think about Parler as a jihadi forum for rednecks.

[mleonhard]

I don't understand your claim that terrorists are a threat to our democracy. As long as most of the people in the country believe in democracy, the country will continue to have democracy.

The real threat to democracy is allowing leaders to stop following the democratic process. For example, on 02021-01-06, 147 congresspeople voted to throw out the votes from an entire state, even after their party had pursued the appropriate legal remedies [0]. Next time, they may succeed in throwing out votes. At that point, USA will be an oligarchy. This is the real threat to democracy.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/...

[macintux]

Those Congresspeople were responding to, and enabling, the same terrorists. These are not two separate discussions.

[mleonhard]

Can you please explain how they were enabling the terrorists? Did the congresspeople get the Capitol Police to stand down? Even if they did, that is a separate thing from throwing out votes.

The country could have terrorist acts every day and still have democracy. Our congresspeople could have their meetings in an underground bunker, wear body armor all the time, and travel in armored vehicles, and it would still be democracy. Democracy means the people decide who has power.

Terrorists can use violence and may change some people minds, but they cannot destroy our democracy. Democracy exists in the minds of US voters.

[hannasanarion]

Lauren Boebert was livetweeting the location of Pence and Pelosi so that the mob could "get her".

[mleonhard]

That crime is separate from trying to throw out votes.

[mr_overalls]

At this time, it's becoming clear that the GOP establishment is in favor of de facto one-party rule. They are seeking to overturn the results of a democratic election, and many of them are encouraging voter disenfranchisement and even stochastic terrorism to retain their grip on power.

[mike00632]

The attack last Wednesday was literally successful in preventing a vote about an election and you can't fathom how terrorism is a threat to democracy? Imagine if those two quick-thinking staffers didn't grab the electoral votes and take them to the bunkers.

[no-s]

>>147 congresspeople voted to throw out the votes from an entire state, even after their party had pursued the appropriate legal remedies

Hey wait, they had the opportunity to vote their conscience on it? Does that mean they were Constitutionally empowered to raise and decide the question?

The USA is a republic, and explicitly not a democracy, said status having been debated early on and pure democracy was found seriously wanting in the qualities needed for a just and lasting society of free people.

[mleonhard]

No. The constitution does not allow them to throw out votes.

A republic is a form of democracy. Arguing semantics has no place in HN.

And "vote their conscience" is a weasel phrase. They had a duty to tally the votes, a procedure to follow. Some of them didn't want to follow the procedure. Changing the procedure requires a constitutional amendment, agreement from a supermajority of states. Regardless of their individual thoughts on the matter, the laws of the land do not allow them to vote to disregard the law.

[no-s]

>>And "vote their conscience" is a weasel phrase. They had a duty to tally the votes, a procedure to follow. Some of them didn't want to follow the procedure.

So are you neglecting the Electoral Count Act of 1887? If the law and procedure requires they must vote when a proper objection is raised, it is not against the law to vote as they see fit, aka vote freely. This is the generally accepted meaning of "voting their conscience", not vague or misleading and thus not a weaselly phrase.

Perhaps you should cite the Constitutional support for the premise that Congress must vote a particular way when a vote is taken in this case. Especially when actual law and rule allows for the particular question to be raised and put to a vote.

>>A republic is a form of democracy. Arguing semantics has no place in HN.

There is a distinction, as described in Federalists no. 10, Madison proposes that representatives are elected to protect us from the failings of democracy. It is my understanding this is the generally accepted distinction of why we don't vote directly or bind our Senators and Representatives to vote a particular way. I feel it is germane because it means the actions taken were consistent with the specific republican form of government in the USA and to imply they were un-democratic or a threat to democracy is to imply the government is a different form.

In other words there is nothing wrong or unlawful with contesting the electors the way they did. Their only risk in Congress is if Nancy Pelosi (or whomever is Speaker) can gin up a ⅔ majority of members present for a quorum and win a vote to expel the objectors. And of course that can be for any reason she pleases, just like the impeachment. Which is why we may interpret the stated reason as partisanship.

[mleonhard]

You imply that I am ignoring some important point of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 [0], but you do not state the point or how it makes the behavior of the Republican voters OK and not an attack on democracy. Please behave in a more respectful way.

I reviewed the act. It contains rules for handling the situation when a state has not properly selected its electors or certified its votes. Pennsylvania did properly select its electors and did certify its results before the deadline.

The act allows congresspeople to submit written objections, with grounds. The objections submitted on 02021-01-06 were the same lies that were rejected by Republican judges in Pennsylvania and the US Supreme Court. You can read them in [1]. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey eloquently explained the situation to the Senate [2].

I see nothing in the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that would allow Congress to throw out a state's votes. If you can find it, please reply.

Throwing out a state's votes is unacceptable. And it is unconstitutional, regardless of any acts passed by Congress short of constitutional amendments. Our nation has democracy written into its core. No party can throw it away with a vote.

[0] https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/24/ST...

[1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2021/01/06/hou...

[2] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2021/01/06/sen...

[MrMan]

if the mass killings that right wing people want, come to pass, that for me would be a loss equal to "threat to democracy"

[MrMan]

i think we are post-privacy.

we need compassion to restrain ourselves from harming others

but I dont think anyone can expect to hide from anyone else on this rock at this point.