|
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. Instead of sending your money to these people to send it to other people while taking a cut, just send it to people you like in the first place.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:But Fischmech, I don't have the marketing savvy of Boyko. How can I raise $5 million to send?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:Yes but there are already laws on the books that dictate acceptable content, why can't private adverts smearing one politician or another that don't originate from the a political campaign be barred under a regulation controling truth in advertising and the like? Freedom of speech is already curtailed in certain circumstances, is it really impossible to extend those circumstances to political attack ads? e: Especially ones that lie in the guise of speculation? The thing is that "raises taxes when needed" is both true and also used as an attack ad slur. And so on. Very few attack ads actually resort to making poo poo up wholesale; even Swift Boat Vets cannily kept just within the boundary of plausible deniability. Discendo Vox posted:The problem is that the regs in question were source, timing and quantity-dependent, and were found to both have a chilling effect and raise potential issues of uneven application (it wasn't clear why all media companies weren't being fined for their editorials, for example). This is really quite major. Media has been clearly pushing their own supported views for centuries, and there's never been a real way to restrict it. Samurai Quack posted:FCC broadcast regulations and truth in advertising regulations. Regulations that only apply to a minority of media don't account for much (Fox News definitely isn't covered) and "advertising regulations" can't really change anything either. Discendo Vox posted:Notice how you need shell groups in there for this to be effective- that's why I keep harping on transparency regs. And pre-CU we had a ton more shell groups to skirt campaign laws, because each $100 Delaware corp had its own separate limits..
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:Their website used to be called 'MayOne' and mayone.us still redirects to their website. I wonder what prompted they to shed what is at the very most a faint echo of socialism. They called it may one initially because it was a play on the term "mayday" in the sense of a cry for help. Then they realized a) they were getting wildly made fun of as "mayOne" and b) people weren't getting the joke anyway. At least that's what I remember from one of Boyko's older things about it, I don't think he was aware that May Day was actually supposed to be about socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:If he wrote that stuff under another name, sure, but he uses his real name and googling someone you're considering hiring as your CTO is probably a pretty decent idea. If they were about having decent ideas in the first place, they probably wouldn't be doing this whole project or even considering him to employ.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
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). A national holiday is bullshit because tons of people still have to work on national holidays, often the very people currently being squeezed out by normal voting rules. Vastly expanded voting periods is preceisely the real answer, if for no other reason than the fact tha the all-mail-in ballot states effectively have very long polling times with no apparent issues; so why can't we do that with polling stations too?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am not saying that a holiday (even an enforced one) would solve all electoral problems; please reread my earlier post and check its context. The reason we aren't having problems with expanded polling periods is in part because the practice isn't as widespread as it could be, and because methods to fully abuse and exploit the situation are still being worked out. It is impossible to abuse it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
AndreTheGiantBoned posted:Why don't you guys just vote on Sunday, like most European countries do? On Sunday tons of people are working still. Discendo Vox posted:
But it seriously isn't possible to "abuse" long opening times unless you get into something silly like having the polls stay open for two years straight. Most people have already decided what they want to vote for by September or so, so why not make that when polling starts to open? Among other things it will kneecap tendencies of the campaign machines to get ever more intrusive as election day proper approaches.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 15:38
|
|