Little Blackfly posted:I had totally forgotten who crazy he was. I'm just watching some of his youtube videos now, and I cannot believe how much stuff there is under his real name. This video is unavailable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:This video is unavailable. Yeah that link is all hosed up for some reason
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuk-KLISp0g Let the smooth tones of a Brian Boyko voiceover soothe you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Everytime I see this thread, I get this song stuck in my head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNJmfuEWR8w What would Brian Boyko do if he was here right now...
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:If you're going to lobby for electoral reform you might as well shoot for PR, it's just as likely to happen and people support it more because it's simpler. British Columbia and the UK both had referenda on preferential voting and it lost because it's too easy to attack and present as being complicated and destructive. The problem that you have in America is that there isn't a large third party that loses out in elections that would benefit from PR enough to campaign for it, like the Lib Dems (and UKIP, funnily enough) in the UK and the NDP in Canada. Both the main two parties in the US have nothing to gain from moving towards PR since it increases the chance of a minority party getting representation from impossible to quite likely. The parties in America are already a lot more heterogeneous than in other western democracies, so you'd probably end up with the parties fragmenting in a PR system since the various factions could win by themselves in a PR election. The main two parties don't want to lose any of their power and influence so they aren't going to make it any easier for people outside of them to get elected to powerful national offices. PR is IMO better than majoritarian electoral systems; but the political will needs to be there for it and that can only happen when there are at least three parties getting significant number of votes and seats in Congress. That doesn't look likely; especially since things are stacked against third parties in America to a much greater extent than in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
We like to talk about third parties a lot but let's not forget the largest national third party in the US is the Libertarian Party, otherwise known as Republicans With Weed And Even Less Empathy. I have a hard time believing a viable Libertarian Party would do much to improve the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
There's also the Greens which aren't that far behind, but on the other hand they love to screw over any other vaguely left wing third party and good luck getting any of the minor American leftist parties to stop bickering about petty rifts long enough to put together an actual voting bloc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:There's also the Greens which aren't that far behind, but on the other hand they love to screw over any other vaguely left wing third party and good luck getting any of the minor American leftist parties to stop bickering about petty rifts long enough to put together an actual voting bloc. Do you think that would change under a PR system though? FPTP creates an incentive structure that party institutions learn from. It probably wouldn't shift immediately, but its hard to predict what parties would look like under a different electoral system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuk-KLISp0g Go 101 with Brian Boyko.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
So here in Illinois, there's a rule where you have to have a certain amount of signatures to show up on the ballot, but no one checks to see if you actually have enough signatures unless they're challenged(or something similar to that, I don't remember the exact details). There was basically a gentleman's agreement that it's a stupid and outdated rule and that you don't challenge anyone unless it's clearly a joke(ie Mickey Mouse or Ben Dover) or malicious(like 10 misspellings of a candidates name to confuse voters). Even the Democrats and Republicans respected it. Then on the last possible day for the 2012 elections, the Greens challenged every other third party's presidential candidates and got them pulled, even though most of them ended up getting decent vote totals even with just write-in access. It gave the Greens no real advantage because they weren't going to win any electoral votes anyways and pissed off every other third party, but they did it anyways. I have a feeling if we do change, it'll take a long time for all the old grudges to die down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I just took a semester in graduate level persuasion theory Ohhhh now I understand why you've been lecturing us about persuasiveness like we give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:So it's futile. Death is certain
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:This is an interesting discussion as it makes me think of where the difference between bribery and campaigning lies. You can lie to all hell and that's fine but if you pay someone in order to make them vote for you then you're anti-democratic. If money equals speech, then where does the boundary lie between campaign and bribery? There is no bundary. Money is speech, so outlawing dumping a wheelbarrow full of money on a senator's office floor is just like outlawing talking to a politician. How could you ban people from talking to politicians, you fascist? Oh and if that politician just happens to pass a bill giving you huge tax breaks afterward, you can't just assume it had anything to do with bribery, maybe your wheelbarrow full of speech was just super convincing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:So here in Illinois, there's a rule where you have to have a certain amount of signatures to show up on the ballot, but no one checks to see if you actually have enough signatures unless they're challenged(or something similar to that, I don't remember the exact details). There was basically a gentleman's agreement that it's a stupid and outdated rule and that you don't challenge anyone unless it's clearly a joke(ie Mickey Mouse or Ben Dover) or malicious(like 10 misspellings of a candidates name to confuse voters). Even the Democrats and Republicans respected it. Then on the last possible day for the 2012 elections, the Greens challenged every other third party's presidential candidates and got them pulled, even though most of them ended up getting decent vote totals even with just write-in access. It gave the Greens no real advantage because they weren't going to win any electoral votes anyways and pissed off every other third party, but they did it anyways. I have a feeling if we do change, it'll take a long time for all the old grudges to die down. first you take out the girondist/mensheviks
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
I hope every cent of the five million is spent running this ad on prime time television
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
As this thread is about money in politics, California did a thing:quote:Last week, California became the second state to back a constitutional convention to limit money in politics, reports SFGate. Its state Senate approved the measure 23-11 on a party-line vote, and the Assembly had passed it in January. The proposed convention would "limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech," and "would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited." The subject of Constitutional Conventions has been gaining a lot of steam lately, it'd be pretty interesting to see one happen since we don't have much format or structure to base them on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:So here in Illinois, there's a rule where you have to have a certain amount of signatures to show up on the ballot, but no one checks to see if you actually have enough signatures unless they're challenged(or something similar to that, I don't remember the exact details). There was basically a gentleman's agreement that it's a stupid and outdated rule and that you don't challenge anyone unless it's clearly a joke(ie Mickey Mouse or Ben Dover) or malicious(like 10 misspellings of a candidates name to confuse voters). Even the Democrats and Republicans respected it. Then on the last possible day for the 2012 elections, the Greens challenged every other third party's presidential candidates and got them pulled, even though most of them ended up getting decent vote totals even with just write-in access. It gave the Greens no real advantage because they weren't going to win any electoral votes anyways and pissed off every other third party, but they did it anyways. I have a feeling if we do change, it'll take a long time for all the old grudges to die down. Third parties are pretty funny once you dig past the Greens and Libertarians. We've got Communist, Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Freedom Socialist, Socialist Equality, Socialist Action, Socialist Labor, Worker's Socialist, and Worker's World Parties. Because leftists have zero concept of compromise or unity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Third parties are pretty funny once you dig past the Greens and Libertarians. We've got Communist, Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Freedom Socialist, Socialist Equality, Socialist Action, Socialist Labor, Worker's Socialist, and Worker's World Parties. Because leftists have zero concept of compromise or unity. This documentary aptly describes it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Then on the last possible day for the 2012 elections, the Greens challenged every other third party's presidential candidates and got them pulled, even though most of them ended up getting decent vote totals even with just write-in access. It gave the Greens no real advantage because they weren't going to win any electoral votes anyways and pissed off every other third party, but they did it anyways. I have a feeling if we do change, it'll take a long time for all the old grudges to die down. I don't think many functional political parties follow the "we're not going to win anyway so let's not bother with vote-getting" school of thought. The problem is that FPTP encourages parties to fight off and drive out all parties ideologically similar to them, in order to avoid the risks of vote-splitting and spoiler effects, and because even parties that don't have a shot at winning can still accrue significant benefits if they manage to get enough votes. The big two parties don't usually bother bullying third parties into nonexistence since their combined voter counts are usually insignificant, but those third parties themselves have to fight over every last vote. A party with 0.65% of the vote doesn't have the luxury to ignore parties with 0.15% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Garrand posted:Everytime I see this thread, I get this song stuck in my head He'd jerk to a pony rear end or two, that's what Brian Boyko'd do!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:As this thread is about money in politics, California did a thing: God, if they actually trigger one and get a balanced budget amendment passed... Should make for some interesting times 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:26
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:God, if they actually trigger one and get a balanced budget amendment passed... I know a perfect way to balance the budget: stop spending federal tax dollars on any state that doesn't pay into taxes more than it receives from the feds. That should make it much easier to pay off any debts.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:God, if they actually trigger one and get a balanced budget amendment passed... In this political climate the convention would be more likely to come back with some type of regional partition plan and the whole drat country would fall apart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:In this political climate the convention would be more likely to come back with some type of regional partition plan and the whole drat country would fall apart. If it means getting rid of Florida... 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Third parties are pretty funny once you dig past the Greens and Libertarians. We've got Communist, Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Freedom Socialist, Socialist Equality, Socialist Action, Socialist Labor, Worker's Socialist, and Worker's World Parties. Because leftists have zero concept of compromise or unity. There's a couple factors you have to consider here. One is that many far-left parties aren't designed in the same way as the Democrats or Republicans or Greens, they're designed to be organizations in which every member is intended to be active, involved, and politically conscious, so they form the organized core of broader milieus which form around certain issues or upswings. This structure obviously leaves less room for political disagreements; I could sign up to join the Democratic Party tomorrow despite the fact that I have enormous disagreements with it but it wouldn't really cause problems for the party because it would just expect me to go out and vote and donate money occasionally. Being a member of a socialist party organized in such a manner requires you to be much more active and connected to the party's political line and obviously if you have serious disagreements with the party's policies it is significantly more difficult to be a member, although the structure if properly organized does make it easier for people with disagreements with the leadership to change party policy. Another is that leftism has suffered serious reversals both in the US and internationally for large sections of the last 20 years, and downswings inevitably lead to more sectarian bickering and splintering. Fortunately, this seems to have started to change in the past few years. It's also possible for multiple socialist groups to put their differences aside when there is the prospect of gains. My party (Socialist Action) supported Socialist Alternative's candidates in the last elections including Kshama Sawant, and our comrades in the Seattle area worked with the Socialist Alternative campaign and within their unions to get support for Sawant, while our comrades in Minnesota did the same for Ty Moore. We're looking at doing joint electoral campaigns with other socialist parties in the Connecticut area for 2015, where a number of parties would run candidates for different local elections and all of the parties would support each others' campaigns. Obviously, there is more work to be done in things like these and sectarianism and splintering are real and harmful issues to the left, but there are genuine reasons why so many different small parties exist and you have to understand them in order to work together. At least we can all agree to hate the Spartacists though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:The subject of Constitutional Conventions has been gaining a lot of steam lately, it'd be pretty interesting to see one happen since we don't have much format or structure to base them on. No we do have plenty of format or structure to base them on. But anything at them would have to be agreed to by at least 3/4 of the current states to be enacted, which is why any attempts at holding even the convention always fall apart and lead nowhere. As you can see through history, it's been hard enough to get a single thing agreed upon for a normal amendment and passed; full on changes would take a lot more effort. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
I loving love American politics. It doesn't get as crazy as this in Germany,
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ohhhh now I understand why you've been lecturing us about persuasiveness like we give a poo poo. Most folks do care, you're just an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Most folks do care, you're just an rear end in a top hat. In some ways, you're both right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:If it means getting rid of Florida... I still don't understand why earth went to war over this, the Xindi were doing them a favor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
The most hilarious thing to me is that they are teaming up with Jack loving Abramoff. Did they not even watch Casino Jack and the United States of Money? The guy is a life-long Republican who loves deregulation and putting as much cash into politics as possible. He's just going to milk the goddamn thing dry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
If Boyko really believes he's "fighting against systemic corruption in DC" by being a part of mayonnai.se, I'll be pretty  But of course the more likely option is he'll go "OH WELL" and use the paycheck he gets to commission a ton of creepy MLP fanarts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:But of course the more likely option is he'll go "OH WELL" and use the paycheck he gets to commission a ton of creepy MLP fanarts. Paycheck - that's cute. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No we do have plenty of format or structure to base them on. But anything at them would have to be agreed to by at least 3/4 of the current states to be enacted, which is why any attempts at holding even the convention always fall apart and lead nowhere. Unless you're trying to hawk a poorly sourced book.....
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Over/under on how many times "we started a conversation" will be used when this inevitably fails?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Everyone's bashing this idea but I don't see what they've got that's any better. Some have even said that "taking money out of politics" doesn't do enough, but that seems like precisely the solution. Because, you insufferable toddler, many people here do actual shoe-leather activism (read: get off the couch and go to a place to do a good thing). Can you part the smug long enough to grasp the fact that this Super-PAC isn't going to work, isn't a well-formed idea in any sense of the word, and - most damningly - is actively detrimental to the cause of helping people? It is not possible to do what they claim in this manner. It is not a possible thing. One percent of human beings in this country control more than fifty percent of the wealth. Suppose you get every single American - every man, woman, and pansexual gender fluid otherkin brony - to donate. Let's suppose you get the entire disenfranchised collective (the 99%) to give everything. We cash in our 401(k)s. We sell all of our stocks, deplete the retirement accounts. We sell our cars, our houses, and the clothes on our backs. We sell kidneys; we donate plasma; we give our children up into slavery for the cash. 99% of the country is all-in. We give everything. We would still be out-spent. 1% controls > 50% of wealth. This is not a by-golly just give it the-old-college-try. We aren't going to win this for the gipper. This isn't a possible thing to do in this way. This money would be better spent unionizing workers, providing safe spaces for kids, and feeding hungry people. There are many things a person can do to help, and many of the people in this forum are engaged in those things. Five million, or fifty, or five hundred million isn't even on the radar or the collective 1%. And they sure as hell aren't going to sit idly by and ignore campaign finance reform, as Boyko claimed in his second post. Edit: to put five million dollars into context you can perhaps relate to, the god damned Ouya raised almost twice that on kickstarter. Five million is nothing. Hyzenth1ay fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Yikes. I thought I was being pretty clearly sarcastic, and even if you couldn't tell I was the guy who did this: and I'm also the fifth reply in the entire thread OwlBot 2000 posted:Liberal Professor discovers ONE WEIRD TRICK to wresting power from the ruling class. Socialists hate him! But I understand, because this "MayDay" thing makes me furious as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Yikes. I thought I was being pretty clearly sarcastic, and even if you couldn't tell I was the guy who did this: Ahhhh... I'm an idiot then and missed you were being sarcastic. You cool. Edit: in my knee-jerk jerkishness I offer my apologies for gettin mad Hyzenth1ay fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
 I'm so glad this thread came backe: SedanChair posted:I dare you to watch all of this without closing the window or slamming your laptop closed Going back to this Masterpiece, I just noticed that in this god awful firefly fan video or whatever the hell this is, he's got the Weyland-Tutani logo. Fucker can't even get being a weird creepy sperg right 
Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
 "sorted by: BEST"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:10
|
|
