|
Main Paineframe posted:Happens more often than one might expect, usually when some profoundly unpopular businessman or politician with more money than charisma tries to brute-force an election by pouring in money.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Mr. Pither posted:The thing I still can't get over about Mr. Boyko is how he can pivot from "Well, I guess child abuse is wrong, strictly speaking..." and "D&D players need their own Stonewall" and "I'd gladly go anywhere to flee this corrupt kleptocracy we live in" to trying to run for political office in Texas in a few short years. That post where he tries to spin his past as this series of meaningful soul-searching experiences that inform his deep empathy for the people is comically absurd once you have an idea of his actual past. But damned if he didn't borrow as much as he could from Obama-era branding and marketing practices. For some reason it really drives home to me just how empty politics and politicians are.  this 4chan post pretty much nails him fermun posted:The man climbed up a very small mountain while in New Zealand, and probably learned some wisdom, like beat up children and run for office. to make things clear, most "mountains" that size are literal suburbs in auckland
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well that's because you're an idiot. HTH
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Leofish posted:I still can't believe that in America the Free, there are people who are actively trying to stymie the vote, of all things. The thing that "people fought and died for." People say that. People fought and died for your right to vote. And yet some of the people in power are trying to make it harder to do that one thing, one of the few times where everyone is genuinely supposed to be equal. As long as you're 18, it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, if you're sick or healthy, no matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, everyone gets one vote. Well, there are some criticisms of early voting specifically in that the sample of population opinion is spread out over time, inviting certain forms of manipulation, abuse or plain old absurd outcomes if the practice becomes too universal. I'd really prefer a federal mandate that election day be a national holiday and that the US employ a stricter version of Australia et al.'s voting requirements. (not factoring in voting from abroad of course, but that's meant to address a different set of exigencies).
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, there are some criticisms of early voting specifically in that the sample of population opinion is spread out over time, inviting certain forms of manipulation, abuse or plain old absurd outcomes if the practice becomes too universal. I'd really prefer a federal mandate that election day be a national holiday and that the US employ a stricter version of Australia et al.'s voting requirements. (not factoring in voting from abroad of course, but that's meant to address a different set of exigencies). This might be a fair point IF the GOP was trying to implement a national voting holiday in place of early voting, rather than nakedly stating in emails that this is designed to cost democratic votes and simply making it harder for anyone who isn't well-off and white from voting
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well that's because you're an idiot. HTH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:This might be a fair point IF the GOP was trying to implement a national voting holiday in place of early voting, rather than nakedly stating in emails that this is designed to cost democratic votes and simply making it harder for anyone who isn't well-off and white from voting Oh, I'd never suggest the GOP is being anything like interested in forwarding effective election law- I just don't want folks to think that the proposed changes increasing voting availability are absolutely and unquestionably good- the use of the word "progressive" in the context of policy always makes me nervous due to the combined elements of binary conflict and historical inevitability that tend to accompany it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Oh, I'd never suggest the GOP is being anything like interested in forwarding effective election law- I just don't want folks to think that the proposed changes increasing voting availability are absolutely and unquestionably good- the use of the word "progressive" in the context of policy always makes me nervous due to the combined elements of binary conflict and historical inevitability that tend to accompany it. Fair enough, I use it mostly in the sense of trying to get as many people able to vote as possible, which is something that is constrained by the current system in a way that early voting helps. I'd much prefer mandatory voting designed to be equitable for everyone to participate without it being a disproportionate sacrifice for some, but I don't have much hope of that happening in the current climate or the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Just so I know for future reference, this is the part where you start scaremongering about leftist "radicals" without even bothering to examine what the left actually stands for in order to feel better about the fact that you're supporting a rightwing party owned by corporate interests, right? What? How did you get any of that out of my post? I'm a socialist, I'm just critical of the Tea Party's methods and pointing out that slapping a leftist veneer over the Tea Party would be a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Am I to understand none of this will ever work, because Reddit is obsessed with it (as every other google link I've found about it goes back there), leading me to believe nothing will come of this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
For once, Reddit is the least of its problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Anyone got the math on how impossible it is to out spend the rich? I remember it being next level insanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:Anyone got the math on how impossible it is to out spend the rich? I remember it being next level insanity.  Also, the richer you are the larger percent of your income you can afford to toss at politics instead of refrigerators.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
A rich person has just as many votes as you do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
And if votes were the only thing that mattered that would be a relevant and worthwhile statement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:A rich person has just as many votes as you do. It's what happens after the votes are cast that matters. Elections happen once every 4 years between a very limited field of potential candidates. Lobbying keeps going all year round. Even if this money could be used to upset a few congressional seats, and be lucky enough to find candidates not already being influenced by industries, it's still nothing compared to the money that is leveraged every month at members of Congress to support certain policies. This problem cannot be addressed by trying to beat the rich on their own terms, there is simply no way to maintain the spending necessary to even compete.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:
Where is this chart from?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:It's what happens after the votes are cast that matters. Elections happen once every 4 years between a very limited field of potential candidates. Elections happen every two years, and lobbying is not a mysterious magic bullet. They certainly help influence what laws look like, but they generally can't completely change a politician's positions, because they still have to win re-election. The 18th Amendment passed on a huge wave of popular support, and despite the business opposition to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
The fact that rich people only have one vote doesn't really matter when their financing of election campaigns makes it nearly impossible for anti-business candidates to even get on the ballot for one of the major parties unless they were in before the wealth gap started widening again and have incumbent advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, there are some criticisms of early voting specifically in that the sample of population opinion is spread out over time, inviting certain forms of manipulation, abuse or plain old absurd outcomes if the practice becomes too universal. I'd really prefer a federal mandate that election day be a national holiday and that the US employ a stricter version of Australia et al.'s voting requirements. (not factoring in voting from abroad of course, but that's meant to address a different set of exigencies). You make good points. I was looking at it from the angle that, if you have several days of advance voting in multiple locations, it allows for a greater amount of chances for someone who may be working on Election Day to have a chance to get to a polling station. A national holiday would work, too, but I still would fear that certain industries that typically remain open on holidays (like food service) would remain open due to increased holiday business, and their employees would still have a difficult time getting to the polls. I'm not as familiar with Australia's rules, though I'm aware their vote is compulsory, but I would assume some privision to allow an employee time off to vote, or extended polling hours on election day would accompany a proposed U.S. national holiday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:A rich person has just as many votes as you do. Sure, but they have far greater ability to influence how others vote, and also to influence how the candidates behave once elected.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Elections happen every two years, and lobbying is not a mysterious magic bullet. They certainly help influence what laws look like, but they generally can't completely change a politician's positions, because they still have to win re-election. Yeah fair enough, I was dumb to discard midterms like that. ummm and? that wave of popular support wasn't generated by trying to outspend private interests during elections. We aren't saying it's hopeless, we're saying trying to push for change by by creating a superPAC from crowdsourced funding is misguided and pointless. That money would do way more good being spent with advocacy groups than trying to back specific candidates on a single issue like this. We're not saying it's a hopeless cause and that the rich private interests can't be opposed, just that THIS method will not succeed based on its own stated strategy being deeply naive and misguuded. And affiliating themselves with scam artists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:Abramoff isn't running the PAC, the only formal affiliation he has with them is that he participated in a really lovely AMA with Lessig on reddit to promote Mayday PAC. Abramoff is a tacit supporter, but is not in any position of authority in the PAC. Right now, Abramoff is on a speaking tour about "beating corruption" and selling a book about it. It's being brought up less as a "you're giving money to Jack Abramoff" thing as it is a "Lessig has such bad judgement that he would listen to Abramoff/ use him to sell his own lovely ideas." It just reflects poorly on Lessig's judgement. True, he won't have the ability to powerbroker anymore, but that was only part of the equation from the start for Abramoff. He is also very much about making himself rich, be it through making right wing propoganda films (which he did before lobbying), through his lobbying, through illegally muscling a casino owner out of his casino boat, through speaking fees, through potentially "consulting" with PACs.... It's not just an indicator of bad judgement, he's also scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Someone convicted of fraud and corruption, who even you admit still cares greatly about making himself rich, is the best Lessig can do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Maybe he is a big fan of Red Scorpion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I assume I'm late to the party on noticing this ad on SA, but I like the counter on the page it links to:quote:code:
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What? How did you get any of that out of my post? I'm a socialist, I'm just critical of the Tea Party's methods and pointing out that slapping a leftist veneer over the Tea Party would be a bad thing. A Socialist veneer over the Tea Party; An extremely influential and ideologically consistent political force who are shifting the political spectrum left while playing chicken with a global system that they wish to ultimately dismantle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Crust First posted:I assume I'm late to the party on noticing this ad on SA, but I like the counter on the page it links to: $5.6m raised, which can be found between 3.5m and 4.5m if the slider is to be trusted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
I forgot after laughing at all the photoshops for the n-teenth time, but did anyone ever do a Boyko the Hutt one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Bluemillion posted:Where is this chart from? From here: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Put together by G. William Domhoff
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I forgot after laughing at all the photoshops for the n-teenth time, but did anyone ever do a Boyko the Hutt one? No, but someone should do a picture of him on that fat, crossdressing guy crying over the dead rancor for when this crashes and burns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:A rich person has just as many votes as you do. My vote can affect 2 senators and 1 representative. A rich person's vote can affect the same thing. HOWEVER, the rich person's money can affect 435 representatives and 100 senators, and a lot more than that in many cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Bluemillion posted:Where is this chart from? UCSC. Taerkar posted:My vote can affect 2 senators and 1 representative. And, you know, there was that study showing what we already knew which is our votes don't actually make any difference in policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Miltank posted:A Socialist veneer over the Tea Party; An extremely influential and ideologically consistent political force who are shifting the political spectrum left while playing chicken with a global system that they wish to ultimately dismantle. This is an extremely good point. On the other hand, the irony is that the Tea Party lost a lot of support because the average voter doesn't want to risk destroying capitalism by accident. But still, this really illustrates the wishy-washyness of the left, and our ultimate attachment to capitalism and reluctance to take any action that might upset our still relatively cushy position in the global economy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Miltank posted:A Socialist veneer over the Tea Party; An extremely influential and ideologically consistent political force who are shifting the political spectrum left while playing chicken with a global system that they wish to ultimately dismantle. lol if you think the Tea Party is ideologically consistent on anything other than "gently caress anyone who isn't Tea Party". Hodgepodge posted:This is an extremely good point. Holy poo poo, since when is not wanting to plunge every country on earth into a Mad Maxx style post-apocalypse seen as "wishy-washy"? Political change takes time, learn some goddamn patience you babies. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:But still, this really illustrates the wishy-washyness of the left, and our ultimate attachment to capitalism and reluctance to take any action that might upset our still relatively cushy position in the global economy. No, dude, it illustrates that some people on the left understand the realities of modern society, and others want to plunge the entire world's economy into freefall as some sort of example of their devotion to insane ideological purity. e: I mean we're already seeing backlash against the Tea Party from everywhere that isn't the rabid right wing. Is that really your ideal model for a hypothetical left-wing party? Dogmatically ideological to the point where you alienate everyone that isn't already 100% on your side, dooming yourselves to become more and more irrelevant as popular opinion turns against you? BBJoey fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Holy poo poo, since when is not wanting to plunge every country on earth into a Mad Maxx style post-apocalypse seen as "wishy-washy"? Political change takes time, learn some goddamn patience you babies. A default on US debt would be a major blow to global capitalism but it obviously wouldn't have ushered in a road warrior wasteland. How much time exactly do we have to spend waiting on political change? At the current rate things are going the planet will be completely hosed within a few generations. How are you even a socialist if you view the current global economic system as too dangerous to dismantle? I can promise you 100% that capitalists will never allow us to legislate private capital away over a series of decades or something equally ridiculous. Miltank fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that if you want to destroy capitalism, the Tea Party offers a rather good blueprint.Who What Now posted:Holy poo poo, since when is not wanting to plunge every country on earth into a Mad Maxx style post-apocalypse seen as "wishy-washy"? Political change takes time, learn some goddamn patience you babies. Do you really think that capitalism can be dismantled without consequences? The "tea party" solution to capitalism is far less bloody and painful to the average person than an actual revolution. You can't shift the climate to the left if your ideals and principles are always- even rhetorically!- secondary to maintaining a smooth and stable economy. I'm all for the Bertrand Russel approach, but he was explicitly a moderate socialist, and he existed in an environment in which even America was seriously worried about the prospect of a Communist revolution. In that environment, he did not need to be an extremist, because there were people in Russia literally lining people up against the wall and shooting them for the socialist cause. If anything, a voice of moderation was needed then; but now we have nothing but moderates. The problem with what the Tea Party almost did is that the result very well might not be socialists, or even relatively benign liberals, coming to power in the current political climate. If even here on D&D we aren't even willing to consider courses of action which might disrupt the smooth functioning of capitalism, then the time when that climate changes and socialists are a power bloc to contend with in a crisis will never come again. Fascism is doing just fine though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Lol lookit all the wannabe revolutionaries itt
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:Lol lookit all the wannabe revolutionaries itt Look at all the people willing to stand by and do nothing while we subject our planet to an entirely avoidable yet devastating and irreversible catastrophe and let millions of children starve to death just so a small handful of people can have hundreds of of billions of dollars they could never spend itt
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Destroy all Humans How much has Brian Boyko given to Star Citizen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:42
|
|