• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jimmy Carter: ‘America no longer has a functioning democracy’

So, the man who hobnobs with Hamas and claims they are not corrupt is now saying the U.S. is no longer a functioning democracy?

It appears that he is at least a tiny bit shaky on the concept.
 
TheNextEra said:
I'm not the one claimiung they are all filled with super nerds, you are. Obviously you think YOU have VAST knowledge on the matter
Click to expand...

No. I have low-to-intermediate knowledge of this matter.

But continue to elevate the NSA to the point of godhood in your mind. It is quite amusing.
Click to expand...

not at all. I simply elevate it above the DHS. In a similar fashion, I "elevate" Navy SEALs above your standard JROTC unit when it comes to combat efficiency.
 
cpwill said:
No. I have intermediate knowledge of this matter.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. That much is clear.

cpwill said:
not at all. I simply elevate it above the DHS. In a similar fashion, I "elevate" Navy SEALs above your standard JROTC unit when it comes to combat efficiency.
Click to expand...

ALL government agencies are run by careeer management, including the NSA and they are mismanaging funds. To claim otherwise is denying reality and ignore the debt.
 
TheNextEra said:
No, you don't. That much is clear.
Click to expand...

Full disclosure: modified to point out it is low-to-intermediate. I have a little under a decade of experience in and around the IC. How much do you have? As I recall thus far your evidence depends upon your personal assessment of a neighbor you had once.

ALL government agencies are run by careeer management, including the NSA and they are mismanaging funds. To claim otherwise is denying reality and ignore the debt.
Click to expand...

No one has claimed there isn't fiscal waste at NSA. There is. Which in no way means that there is not a qualitative difference between the NSA's ability to effectively conduct Computer Network Defense / Exploitation v the DHS's. You give the NSA's tools to the DHS, and you are handing a .50 cal to the kid who did really good in the bb-gun competition.
 
cpwill said:
Full disclosure: modified to point out it is low-to-intermediate. I have a little under a decade of experience in and around the IC. How much do you have? As I recall thus far your evidence depends upon your personal assessment of a neighbor you had once.
Click to expand...

I held a TS/SCI clearance for over 15 years. I Worked in my career while inthe military in SIGINT and MASINT. I saw some of those "geniouses" you seem to think work there. Are some of them really really good? Yes. Others are not. I don't elevate ANY agency to godhood as you claim because the management is what matters. The management is lacking in both the NSA and DHS.

What I did see is mismanagment of funds, fraud waste and abuse, which I reported several times to my superiors. The NSA managment is just as corrupt as any other agency. So when you say the NSA is run by professionals and DHS is not, you are incorrect.

You were talking about who was RUNNING the agencies.
 
TheNextEra said:
I held a TS/SCI clearance for over 15 years. I Worked in my career while inthe military in SIGINT and MASINT. I saw some of those "geniouses" you seem to think work there. Are some of them really really good? Yes. Others are not. I don't elevate ANY agency to godhood as you claim because the management is what matters. The management is lacking in both the NSA and DHS.
Click to expand...

I don't claim management isn't lacking in either, though I will claim that it is superior in the NSA relative to DHS. My point is and has always been that when it comes to cyber, NSA is the NFL, and DHS is the middle school second-string. DHS is and has been staffed by sub-par actors. Your claim that anyone here is elevating anyone else to godhood is only indicative of the fact that you have to create a strawman argument in order for your arguments to have merit, as no one has done so.

What I did see is mismanagment of funds, fraud waste and abuse, which I reported several times to my superiors. The NSA managment is just as corrupt as any other agency. So when you say the NSA is run by professionals and DHS is not, you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

Staffed. The term (if you will go back and read) is staffed. and the DHS is indeed widely staffed by amateurs who got into their positions because they happened to have a credential (a masters degree) while the NSA is indeed widely staffed by people who got into their positions because they demonstrated capability within a field (SIGINT). No one (other than you) said anything about corruption or abuse of funds.
 
and you replied and the response was:

cpwill said:
....not really. It's just opinion sort of in the same way that the belief among most NFL players that - currently - the Jets kinda suck is "just opinion". DHS is an unfortunate joke, widely staffed by people out of their element (you find counter-examples: within the Coast Guard, for example. But Big DHS? Not so much. The scissors video was all too unsurprising.).



Yeah. There is a definite qualitative difference. The NSA, for example, is staffed by the super nerds of the super nerds. If you are extremely good at what you do, you may get a chance to compete for a chance to try out for the NSA's players (there is a reason Snowden wasn't NSA, but rather a contractor whose job it was to give out accounts and passwords). The DHS, however, was staffed in a hurry, and so the call went out for anyone who had a Masters Degree - which turned out to mean a lot of retired or former teachers. So the NSA is staffed by SIGINT ninjas... and the DHS is staffed by the lady who got bored teaching 10th Grade Social Studies. Qualitative. Difference.
Click to expand...

and I stand by my statements. The NSA is a professional organization, and is indeed run by relative professionals. Comparing a G.O. slated for NSA to Big Sis? Really? The DHS, continues to suck relative to the NSA.
 
cpwill said:
:doh In other news, apparently there was no democracy before the invention of the internet. :roll:
Click to expand...
Carters comments were pretty broad sweeping. He was referencing the out of control government agencies that operate without oversight, the failures of congress, the usurping of powers by the president, the expansion of spying on US citizens, etc.

One thing is certain...Carter just put his hood pass up for review.
 
It's such a sad story that the only time a US politician will tell the truth is when he is out of office. :(
 
greyhat said:
The NSA doesn't make policy; it is but an signals intelligence collection agency. Policy is created and implemented by politicians- take your grievances to them.
Click to expand...

Who me? Grievances?! With NSA? The National Security Agency?! You are kidding right?

I was just speculating. There are "If's" in my statements you know?
 
cpwill said:
No. His idiotic statement presupposes the necessity of an internet as a precondition for democracy. Otherwise, observation of the activity on it could not effect democracy.
Click to expand...

I think this still misses the point. Look: democracy existed before any sort of mass media had been invented. But surely no one is so foolish as to believe that if government controlled all the major media (nightly news, cable TV, radio talk shows) it would be a good thing. The government--and more specifically, certain politicians with their own individual interests--would use the tools at hand to promote their interests, and that promotion would in turn require that the free flow of information be strangled. For a society that uses mass media regularly as a means by which to trade ideas, that would effectively inhibit the functioning of democracy.

As our society relies increasingly on social media for the dissemination of new ideas, a government agency which can subvert the normal social processes by which some ideas gain traction and others do not, has the power to effectively inhibit the functioning of a democracy.
 
cpwill said:
9/11 Commission Report p 88

The NSA had an "almost obsessive protection of sources and methods, and its' focus on foreign intelligence and its avoidance of anything domestic" helped create the "wall" in U.S. intelligence that resulted in missing the 9/11 plot before it happened.

IOW - all the stuff that we are shocked - shocked - to find going on in here is what we told them to go do.
Click to expand...

Many who have expressed concerns, do not seek to eliminate all domestic surveillance. Instead, their objections concern the magnitude of domestic surveillance. Many who have raised concerns about the scope of the domestic surveillance almost certainly would accept targeted domestic surveillance when there is reasonable evidence of suspect activity--activity that poses a reasonable threat to security. The key threshold is the existence of reasonable evidence.

Does that mean that some risks would be missed? Yes. But even blanket surveillance can't eliminate all risks. The Boston Marathon terrorist attack provides an example.

As the relevant information is classified, it is unclear whether the widespread domestic surveillance activities actually produced outcomes that could not have been attainable with more carefully-tailored surveillance. In other words, was there really sufficient marginal benefit to justify the scope of the domestic surveillance? That some plots were identified in testimony before Congress does not address the issue as to whether those plots could not have been found absent the blanket surveillance.

One should strike a balance between risk reduction and activities that pose a risk to personal freedom and privacy. Without balance, one can either miss too many risks or one can lose important elements of liberty that have defined the U.S. in its historic experience. In both circumstances, the costs outweigh the benefits and society is worse off.
 
cpwill said:
In a similar fashion, I "elevate" Navy SEALs above your standard JROTC unit when it comes to combat efficiency.
Click to expand...

That recruiter lied to me.
 
The question is then, are we still a functioning Republic? That should have been the retort to Jimmy. I don't look to a guy who was one of the crappiest presidents for cogent political commentary. Now, if I was wondering about the effectiveness of humanitarian efforts, Jimmy would be a guy I'd listen to.
 
cpwill said:
No. His idiotic statement presupposes the necessity of an internet as a precondition for democracy. Otherwise, observation of the activity on it could not effect democracy.
Click to expand...

It would still affect democracy. There's other pieces involved, but the internet is big enough now that it would have an effect.
 
rocket88 said:
It would still affect democracy. There's other pieces involved, but the internet is big enough now that it would have an effect.
Click to expand...

If you equate "democracy" with "mass action". It could just as easily help democracy as harm it.
 
America has never had a functioning democracy
 
instagramsci said:
America has never had a functioning democracy
Click to expand...

That is debateable. But in terms of the last 50 years or so, you're quite right.

Certainly the rule of law is dead.
 
j-mac said:
That depends on what you think a democracy is.
Click to expand...
I think Mr Carter misspoke. It has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with government gone wild and corrupt.
 
fmw said:
I think Mr Carter misspoke. It has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with government gone wild and corrupt.
Click to expand...

To the extent that being governed in accordance with democratic principles means that the government is controlled by the people by way of their elected representatives, then it has everything to do with democracy.

If a loose definition of democracy is that the consent of the governed is required for government actions, and that the general will of the people determine government policy, then we're not even close to being governed in accorance with democratic principles.

I think that was Carter's point, and he's spot on. Sad, but true.
 
Indeed, it is quite surprising to see Carter making important, relevant, and factual statements regarding our government's system of corruption and tyranny.
 
Morrigi said:
Indeed, it is quite surprising to see Carter making important, relevant, and factual statements regarding our government's system of corruption and tyranny.
Click to expand...

Actually, for the last 10 years or more Carter has been making important, relevant and factual statements regarding the government's system of corruption and tyranny. This latest may be the best, but he's been offering such honest criticism for many years.

It won't be talked about by Brian Williams or Diane Sawyer, but he's been making them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom