Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Also, how dare people not be fully aware of the deliberately arcane and obfuscated work that goes on in our financial system! Why isn't everyone an expert at things I'm an expert at!The other side of that coin is, why do people who aren't experts in a field think that they can spout off like they are?
I know, right? Good thing this is an isolated incident. I'm not sure how we'd function as a country if, say, there were a substantial number of non-experts commenting upon, say, global climate change. Luckily, you always challenge them on that and point out how they shouldn't be spouting off when they aren't experts in the field!
Either that was so profound that...
No that's not it.
I'm not equating buying off one vote to buying off a canidate.
I was illustrating the spirit of the difference.
A guy who votes his conscience vs a guy who accepts money to do otherwise.
A company that funds a campaign with similar ideals vs one that uses said funds to manipulate a campaign.
A company is not going to donate to a canidate who's stated goals run contrary to thier agenda, so...I dunno really where the crime is here.
Besides, if the canidate decides he owes comapny X to totally vote against the way he campaigned, then it's on the canidate.
If we were to not allow anyone to contribute to a campaign ever, that would be golden. Divy up the campaign fundage people add to thier income taxes, and go from there.
A Forbes op-ed piece:
The good stuff is mostly on the second page, it takes the guy a bit to get over himself.
I love the way he derides the protesters' appearance and such. If that's his pic, he's no prize himself, and has some serious issues, not to mention a mean streak reflective of his unearned privilege.
It's telling how nasty the paid shills of the uber-wealthy are getting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expert (ex·pert)
Noun:
A person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.
Strangely, I don't see anything in there about "A person who has utterly f!$$ed things up."
Odd.
I'm not equating buying off one vote to buying off a canidate.
I was illustrating the spirit of the difference.
You tried.
You failed. Because the result is the same. The person with he money controls the government.
Expert:
Ex = has-been
Spurt = a drip under pressure
Then I stand by my final assertion:
No one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign legally.
Then I stand by my final assertion:
No one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign legally.
Also no one should be able to discuss any politics. If you do so you are giving free advertisement, thus contributing. And I don't mean on message boards or social media, I mean everywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I stand by my final assertion:
No one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign legally.
are you saying you want an independent organization to oversee equal time on public airwaves for candidates?
Well hell's bells Pres! What're we gonna do? We can't be havin' no shadow guberments run by teh evil corporashuns, or teh peoples!
I think somewhere between the two extremes is reality...but how can you fairly legislate that? That a union can donate gobs but a corporation can't? Or the KKK can but United Way can't? Or a local VFW can, but ACORN can't?
are you saying you want an independent organization to oversee equal time on public airwaves for candidates?Then I stand by my final assertion:
No one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign legally.
Nope. We don't need campaign adds. Channels can run debates because they will generate viewership, and others will pay for advertising during those times.
Honestly, though, I dunno hwo that works. Everythime a canidate or the president calls a press conference, does their campaign or our tax money pay for the time?
<sarcasm>
Nothing like taking everything to ridiculous extremes as a proven problem-solving technique.
</sarcasm>
I think somewhere between the two extremes is reality...but how can you fairly legislate that? That a union can donate gobs but a corporation can't? Or the KKK can but United Way can't? Or a local VFW can, but ACORN can't?
This is the kind of false equivalence I dislike. It's like hey, Joe Nobody, you can donate half a billion dollars to a political campaign too if you want, it's totally fair! Unions don't have the kind of money that multinational corporations do, mainly because a union's function isn't to make money.
But regardless, my compromise is as follows: Forcibly split up the two parties into smaller parties or encourage third parties to become involved (Constitution Party, Reform Party, Green Party, Libertarian, etc.). Allow unchecked corporate/union/individual donor money to pool into the PRIMARIES, but in the general election have a set amount of money to be given to each party candidate in federal elections (president, senator, representative). This would, of course, mean that fringe viewpoints would have as much airplay as the moderates, but if we are to assume people are rational inputs and vote their conscience, by and large the more moderate candidates will still win. However in extreme times an extreme candidate may be elected, which is fine and counter to the race to the homogeneous middle we have now. By and large, though the popularity of wacko candidates on the right makes me think extremism might be trending.
The guy who pepper sprayed two hemmed in women is being docked vacation days.
Just another example of the union losing power. This poor guy got that vacation thanks to the tireless work of his union and some big wig just up and takes those benefits away.
Then I stand by my final assertion:
No one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign legally.
Just to chime in and give my two cents. In others western countries, you can find some variations on the following system:
1) election costs are sponsored by the government (that is, reimbursed aftervards by the gov' to political parties who got a score above some level, 5% or whatever). Such costs are seen as a normal part of a functioning democracy, and so financed by tax; it also enables the gov' to set an upper limit on said costs.
2) private donations are prohibited or topped at a low level (something like 5000$ in France per capita and per party).
3) during the campaign, some public office regulates TV time and exposure to ensure that each candidate gets equal treatment (to keep some private TV channel to air only the favorite candidate of its boss).
4) election costs are audited afterwards (usually by some supreme court). Shenanigans result in the invalidation of the election or of the candidacy.
Well, one good thing about Occupy Wall Street! that you naysayers can't deny is that it keeps Comrade Anklebiter off the boards!
Well, one good thing about Occupy Wall Street! that you naysayers can't deny is that it keeps Comrade Anklebiter off the boards!
So I guess that you DON'T own a smartphone... :)
Keep going : you have been getting prime time over here for almost two weeks now, almost every day. Comments run along the line of "if even the american people, usually very supportive of capitalism, begins to boil with anger, maybe it's time to do something to reform the system".
So I guess that you DON'T own a smartphone... :)
No, I don't.
Anyway, I doubt that Occupy New Hampshire is making the prime time in France, but I thank you for the encouragement. I'll write more tomorrow (maybe), but I have to go to work now.
:(
So I guess that you DON'T own a smartphone... :)
No, I don't.
Anyway, I doubt that Occupy New Hampshire is making the prime time in France, but I thank you for the encouragement. I'll write more tomorrow (maybe), but I have to go to work now.
:(
Right it is. Not New Hampshire specifically, mind you, but the whole "occupy whatever you have at hand wherever you are on the american continent" thing definitively is. It's a so un-american behaviour that it regularly gets headlines, with spikes whenever the police plays rough.
The guy who pepper sprayed two hemmed in women is being docked vacation days.
Seems to me he could use some disciplinary time off.
I'm sure this will set his mood straight though. /sarcasm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. Tony Baloney.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Favorite sign so far: I'll believe that corporations are people as soon as Texas executes one.
are you saying you want an independent organization to oversee equal time on public airwaves for candidates?Then I stand by my final assertion:
No one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign legally.
Nope. We don't need campaign adds. Channels can run debates because they will generate viewership, and others will pay for advertising during those times.
Honestly, though, I dunno hwo that works. Everythime a canidate or the president calls a press conference, does their campaign or our tax money pay for the time?
Unsure about that, man- I think you may switch politicians from the pockets of corporations to the pockets of television stations.
Unsure about that, man- I think you may switch politicians from the pockets of corporations to the pockets of television stations.
There are a few things to keep in mind:
The airwaves belong to The People of the US, broadcasters are given permission to use them, subject to a variety of regulations (less regulations now then when I was a kid). If broadcasters want to keep their licenses, they can be required to devote a share of their time to debates or political speeches.The current state of political debates is a total joke. The two parties get together, agree on safe questions and rules, and have a scripted BS session.
Our election system is also a total joke. We are one of the only countries outside of central Africa that can't manage a simple election. We need to ditch the Electoral College, and have all primaries and such on the same day. We also need to homogenize voting rules and systems, and have things like run-off voting. We should teach voting in school and bring back civics as a subject that needs to be addressed in school.
Get private companies out of the voting process.
Minimizing the effects of money on politics isn't easy, but it isn't a new issue, or one that only exists in the US. Just because it is difficult doesn't mean we should just give up and let it be a free-for-all.
You may call the going to extremes silly, but it's what we do.
Unfortunately, when we legislate stuff, we tend to take common sense completely out of an equation.
There have been children suspended from school becasue they brougt a GI Joe guy sized gun to school, under the no guns policy.
You see crap like this happen all over the country.
Now, tell me with a straight face this wouldn't happen with some kind of equal time legislation.
You may call the going to extremes silly, but it's what we do.
Unfortunately, when we legislate stuff, we tend to take common sense completely out of an equation.
There have been children suspended from school becasue they brougt a GI Joe guy sized gun to school, under the no guns policy.
You see crap like this happen all over the country.
Now, tell me with a straight face this wouldn't happen with some kind of equal time legislation.
So kids should be allowed to bring guns to school?
I know you are not saying that, but just because you can find examples of abuse doesn't mean that legislation is pointless.We need LIMITED, simple laws that people will support enforcing. Laws should NOT require common sense to enforce, because common sense isn't common. Laws need to be enforced across the board not selectively or by discretion of police or judges. Those laws need to be written by humans, not corporations. When laws are misused, folks need to be held accountable.
You may call the going to extremes silly, but it's what we do.
Unfortunately, when we legislate stuff, we tend to take common sense completely out of an equation.
There have been children suspended from school becasue they brougt a GI Joe guy sized gun to school, under the no guns policy.
You see crap like this happen all over the country.
Now, tell me with a straight face this wouldn't happen with some kind of equal time legislation.
That strikes me as an argument that is equally applicable to any law ever written. Extremes (in rhetoric, and in law-enforcement) are unproductive, but then again, so is chaos. :)
I'm actually wondering how the equal time thing could be taken to extremes.
I'm actually wondering how the equal time thing could be taken to extremes.
I demand equal time for the Church of Pinky McPinkerson! ;-)
I'm actually wondering how the equal time thing could be taken to extremes.
Equal time for 800 potential candidates who signed a form.
So kids should be allowed to bring guns to school?
I know you are not saying that, but just because you can find examples of abuse doesn't mean that legislation is pointless.We need LIMITED, simple laws that people will support enforcing. Laws should NOT require common sense to enforce, because common sense isn't common. Laws need to be enforced across the board not selectively or by discretion of police or judges. Those laws need to be written by humans, not corporations. When laws are misused, folks need to be held accountable.
No, I'm saying as things are, its easier when adjucating laws or policies, most people seem to jsut flatline balck and white decisions, instead of exercising any authority to bring common sense into the situation. It's easier not to, and less chance of a lawsuit.
I'm actually wondering how the equal time thing could be taken to extremes.Equal time for 800 potential candidates who signed a form.
i still think there is a limit of people running based on party.
Today I was scheduled off for a personal option day, and next week I am on vacation and was going to get out my tent and start occupying Veteran's Park with the rest of the socialist/Libertarian hippies. (Not surprisingly, I'd guess that half of the Occupy NH activists were Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters or members of the Free State movement--one of them came to the first meeting, armed, with a sign reading "Peace Now!" and a t-shirt reading "Free Palestine!")
So, of course, late Wednesday night, the Manchester PD arrested 5 protestors, issued summons to about 15 others and put the kibosh on Occupy New Hampshire.
At least, as far as I know. They all communicate through Facebook and Twitter, and I refuse to use either of these media to stay in the good graces of Freehold DM, so I'm going to have to try to run into one of them in person.
Remind me later to mention how the homeless reacted when Occupy NH tried to discourage drinking in the park! Hee hee!
i still think there is a limit of people running based on party.
And if we had to give equal time to..
The Abe Lincoln party
Democrats
The Marihuana Reform party
The Party for Marihuana Reform
The Judian Peoples front
The Peoples front of Judea
Republicans
Unsure about that, man- I think you may switch politicians from the pockets of corporations to the pockets of television stations.There are a few things to keep in mind:
The airwaves belong to The People of the US, broadcasters are given permission to use them, subject to a variety of regulations (less regulations now then when I was a kid). If broadcasters want to keep their licenses, they can be required to devote a share of their time to debates or political speeches.The current state of political debates is a total joke. The two parties get together, agree on safe questions and rules, and have a scripted BS session.
Our election system is also a total joke. We are one of the only countries outside of central Africa that can't manage a simple election. We need to ditch the Electoral College, and have all primaries and such on the same day. We also need to homogenize voting rules and systems, and have things like run-off voting. We should teach voting in school and bring back civics as a subject that needs to be addressed in school.
Get private companies out of the voting process.
Minimizing the effects of money on politics isn't easy, but it isn't a new issue, or one that only exists in the US. Just because it is difficult doesn't mean we should just give up and let it be a free-for-all.
Chuck me up for 1 person who does not want to get rid of the electoral college. I think it needs reform, but getting rid of it would add so much complication that we as a society cannot deal with.
The big reason for me is granularity. Right now, not every vote counts. I think this is a good thing. We do not have the accuracy in the voting system to get an exact count of the vote. Votes get lost, mail in ballots are not fully counted until weeks later, there is corruption all over the system. By not having every vote count, we reduce the effect that these things have on the system while still having a good ballpark number. Voters in NY do not need to worry about corruption in FL as much.
Now, I would like to see the electoral college revamped. 1. Get rid of winner take all. Make electoral votes split based off of proportion of votes won. 2. Get rid of the +2/state - it makes it so not every vote has the same weight.
|
Just gonna say, a police officer who lets a murderer escape through incompetence is not as bad as the murderer. But I think you're talking more about corruption, right?
2) The US Government and regulatory agencies made it sickeningly easy for the vampire squids to do what they did. The are equally culpable.
that depends if the police officer let the murder go because the murderer bribed him. Which is the case with the US government.
You guys really need to look where your money is coming from. Cause your federal reserve is a private company that is not held accountable by ANYONE including your government all because your government signed it off for bribes a long time ago.
When someone tried to change that (kenedy) he got assassinated... funny isn't it :P
Today I was scheduled off for a personal option day, and next week I am on vacation and was going to get out my tent and start occupying Veteran's Park with the rest of the socialist/Libertarian hippies. (Not surprisingly, I'd guess that half of the Occupy NH activists were Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters or members of the Free State movement--one of them came to the first meeting, armed, with a sign reading "Peace Now!" and a t-shirt reading "Free Palestine!")
So, of course, late Wednesday night, the Manchester PD arrested 5 protestors, issued summons to about 15 others and put the kibosh on Occupy New Hampshire.
At least, as far as I know. They all communicate through Facebook and Twitter, and I refuse to use either of these media to stay in the good graces of Freehold DM, so I'm going to have to try to run into one of them in person.
Remind me later to mention how the homeless reacted when Occupy NH tried to discourage drinking in the park! Hee hee!
hey, twitter is FHDM approved! I am sorry that your movement seems to be floundering, though. Did the cops just tell everyone to go home or what?
i still think there is a limit of people running based on party.And if we had to give equal time to..
The Abe Lincoln party
Democrats
The Marihuana Reform party
The Party for Marihuana Reform
The Judian Peoples front
The Peoples front of Judea
Republicans
Sure,, why not? Sometimes people with unusual messages go away when you give them a forum -launched by their own petard in a sense. Not that I want them to just up and leave, min, i just want to have the opportunity to give them a proper listen and dismiss them after having heard all the facts.
|
So, of course, late Wednesday night, the Manchester PD arrested 5 protestors, issued summons to about 15 others and put the kibosh on Occupy New Hampshire.
Here's an article about this: Occupy New Hampshire.
Honestly, if that puts the kibosh on the movement, it's a weak movement.
]hey, twitter is FHDM approved! I am sorry that your movement seems to be floundering, though. Did the cops just tell everyone to go home or what?
Spoilered for length and possible boringness:
The original intention was to go back to Veteran's Park on Monday, but come Monday, most of the students went back to school and the homeless people moved in. They stayed in Victory Park until Tuesday. During this period, the noon General Assemblies were getting about 50-75 people attending, but the evening GAs (which I couldn't attend) were pulling in 150-200, nightly.
Anyway, on Tuesday, some of the organizers met with the mayor and the chief of police and the authorities said that although they had nothing against Occupy NH and were in fact happy about how they had dealt with the homeless and law-enforcement, they were going to have to start enforcing the law soon. ONH had already decided to march to Veteran's Park, spent the night there, and the next night at curfew were told to go home and issued summons, which, as I understand, will be court orders to stop trespassing. Five protestors refused to leave, engaged in civil disobedience and were arrested.
They had already formed a committee to look into private property to continue occupying, so I'm sure the group isn't quite dead yet. But I'm going to have to drive up there and hit the pavement before I know for sure.
Honestly, if that puts the kibosh on the movement, it's a weak movement.
My words, not to be taken terribly seriously.
Thanks for the article, though. Now I know when the next meeting is!
|
|
Honestly, if that puts the kibosh on the movement, it's a weak movement.
My words, not to be taken terribly seriously.
Thanks for the article, though. Now I know when the next meeting is!
No problem. But yeah, I got the impression that the town and the protestors were getting along reasonably well, and that the arrests will prove to be less of a big deal than it may look on the surface.
It's certainly much more refreshing than pepper spray.
By the way, how rich are the rich 1%? How are they defined?
My friend found this cnn link that defines the top 1% of household income at ~340K anually.
Chuck me up for 1 person who does not want to get rid of the electoral college. I think it needs reform, but getting rid of it would add so much complication that we as a society cannot deal with.
The big reason for me is granularity. Right now, not every vote counts. I think this is a good thing. We do not have the accuracy in the voting system to get an exact count of the vote. Votes get lost, mail in ballots are not fully counted until weeks later, there is corruption all over the system. By not having every vote count, we reduce the effect that these things have on the system while still having a good ballpark number. Voters...
Honestly, I am surprised by your hypothesis that errors (in the best case) are inavoidable in the US electoral process.
I don't see why it would be so. Germany is a federal democracy with a population of the same order of magnitude than yours (81 millions, roughly a fourth of your 317 millions) and as far as I know, they don't lose ballots, nor forget to count votes until weeks later.
Faith in the electoral system is a BIG deal in any democratic system. People who feel that their vote won't even be considered stay home.
Maybe the US would have a greater percentage of voters if such faith could be restored. And maybe it's exactly why the system hasn't been fixed earlier...
Chuck me up for 1 person who does not want to get rid of the electoral college. I think it needs reform, but getting rid of it would add so much complication that we as a society cannot deal with.
The big reason for me is granularity. Right now, not every vote counts. I think this is a good thing. We do not have the accuracy in the voting system to get an exact count of the vote. Votes get lost, mail in ballots are not fully counted until weeks later, there is corruption all over the system. By not having every vote count, we reduce the effect that these things have on the system while still having a good ballpark number. Voters...
Honestly, I am surprised by your hypothesis that errors (in the best case) are inavoidable in the US electoral process.
I don't see why it would be so. Germany is a federal democracy with a population of the same order of magnitude than yours (81 millions, roughly a fourth of your 317 millions) and as far as I know, they don't lose ballots, nor forget to count votes until weeks later.
Faith in the electoral system is a BIG deal in any democratic system. People who feel that their vote won't even be considered stay home.
Maybe the US would have a greater percentage of voters if such faith could be restored. And maybe it's exactly why the system hasn't been fixed earlier...
Mail in ballots are not counted until weeks later for logistic reasons. They may not have been recieved yet, and they all have to be physically opened and counted, with man-power restrictions. Generally, the mail in ballots are not enough to sway a state one way or annother, so well before we have all the votes counted we know our result. Mail in ballots are mainly used for people who are traveling and request them (mostly miliarty) or the elderly who have trouble getting to a voting booth.
Now, corruption is also a major problem. It currently mostly occurs in the "swing states" - ones that have roughly equal number of democrats and republican voters. Every national election has a significant number of stories about voter fraud, intimidation, "clerical errors" in areas with high density of one party.
|
|
My friend found this cnn link that defines the top 1% of household income at ~340K anually.By the way, how rich are the rich 1%? How are they defined?
So the rich are defined by income, and not by, say, accumulated wealth? Does this measure influence?