|
looool at all of this
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Khablam posted:Wait. Wait. And to think, he put all of this up on the net himself!
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Dude is a straight up new Chris-Chan, right down to the oversimplified political understanding taken word for word from his dad.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
Drastic Actions posted:A bunch of people on my twitter feed have been posting about this for the past few days. It seemed kinda dumb on the face of it, so I didn't give any money. Otakus are what sad nerds identified as before 2010, the new, hip obsession for the malsocialized is MLP. As seen above. He's actually looking really bad now  And yeah this is all retarded because until Scalia or one of his toxic ilk among the puppet appointments to the supreme Court finally retire or choke on a pretzel, ain't no campaign finance restrictions gonna stick.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:hes not advocating for campaign finance restriction. He's advocating for this: So a per-vote subsidy, only optional and targeted towards candidates instead of parties, and therefore worthless. While doing absolutely nothing to fight the spread of PACs which are the biggest problem. I mean, a per vote subsidy is a semi-good idea if you're looking to get more people to vote in gerrymandered districts but the way this is implemented is like giving everyone a token to pretend they are big rich 1%ers for a second while they choose which candidate to try and buy off, only to get told to sit down by the real Rich who control more tokens then the rest of the country combined
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's a bit like giving a flat, universal tax rebate, except in the form of democratic electoral "speech". It's a step in entirely the wrong direction-and I say that as someone who thinks Citizens United was probably rightly decided. I'd actually like to hear your thoughts on CU and/or what you think could be done to deal with the influence of private funds dis-proportionately affecting elections.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:he believes that most politicians don't actually want to take money from superpacs and big money but is left with no choice due to the lack of alternative. Once the citizen-funding method is in place, everyone will start using that and superpacs will just shrivel away. what that's retarded most politicians are already independently wealthy, if they all didn't want the money they wouldn't need it Do they really not realize that if you don't sign up with the big money, the big money outspends you and you lose? Jesus gently caress this guy is dumb
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
gently caress you for linking that
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I find it more surprising that this Lessig guy is dumb. I can understand some brony guy not knowing what the gently caress, but this Lessig guy should know better. Seemigly smart people can be surprisingly dense about stuff outside their wheelhouse. Especially academics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
There really should be a public service announcement to remind morons that the 300 lost
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I like the comparison he makes to the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. He DOES know that they all loving died because the Persians snuck up behind them, right? I was just mentioning that. So many people saw that movie and think it's such a cultured reference to say they are like the 300, apparently never picking up on the fact that they lose
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
I think DV's point is that Citizens United isn't what causes the problems of money in Politics, but that given it the best we can do is push for transparency, since actual restrictions to money in politics would at this point require a constitutional amendment to fix. which fair enough, but I wholly disagree with the idea that money can be considered equivalent to speech, no matter what the SCOTUS says e: vvvvvv pretty much yeah Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Ytlaya, to the extent that you say that people can't evaluate all the relevant information, you're identifying a problem with democratic government, not with political spending. To the extent that something is "done about" that problem, it will entail restricting the ability of some people to speak, or removing voting power from the people who are subject to that speech. Money is not speech. By allowing it to act as such without restrictions you are allowing those who control the most resources to drown out the voice of all those who control less than the elite, which means no candidate will ever represent a cause that opposes those elites. You are betraying your America-centric perspective here, since all over the world democracies have restrictions on campaign funding and expenditures without the entirety of liberal democracy hadn't been cast off as a failure because of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Of course it's not, but the talking point obscures the underlying arguments. Making it illegal to pay for a newspaper or a movie would obviously be unconstitutional. 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? Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Because the right to criticize the government is at the very center of what freedom of speech protects. I'm not really sure what "other laws" you're talking about. FCC broadcast regulations and truth in advertising regulations. It just seems to me that the Democratic process is somewhat undermined by the ability of private entities to fund shell groups which can then blatantly lie about things like 'death panels' and saturate the airwaves and media outlets with them. is there a point where freedom of speech is protecting the right to distort and mislead more than it is protecting the ability to criticize the government?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted: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. Yeah the more I think about it the more I realize trying to fight this side of the battle is the losing proposition when gerrymandering does far more to give dis-proportionate power to the media blitz than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
 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
|
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:I just got into an argument with a friend-of-a-friend on Facebook about this silly PAC. Eventually I put forth a big old effort post (as both a poli sci major and actual activist) on why this is a lovely idea, and how if people want to make a difference they should be donating to candidates/to charity/go out and volunteer. The other part responds saying that she is lazy and doesn't want to put in the effort required, so she just was going to give money. I honestly did not know what to say; how do you engage with someone like that? (rhetorical question) fine but give money to organizations that sponsor shoe leather activism rather than this bullshit not everyone is going to be the type to be boots on the ground, but this is straight up a scam, money can help but it won't be helping here
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:D'you mean activists who go door-to-door or activism for actual shoe leather? I'm phone typing okay obviously the latter
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Oh poo poo, I forgot that Lawrence Lessig was a big backer of Americans Elect, the "election reform" scheme that was so obviously a dumb scam that only Thomas Friedman took it seriously. Ahahahah I was just thinking today that this poo poo reminded me of that :online primary' thing, whatever it was, that just took in money and went no where. Figures it's the same band of idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Cantor lost because he made himself a prominent tea party vocal supporter in an effort to replace Boehner, then when that failed fell back into line and betrayed the batshit crazies he had been courting. Dude played with fire and got burned, his status as persona non grata with the tea party after the debt ceiling collapse was way more relevant to a primary than any amount of funding. Which is beside the point that money doesn't actually matter all that much in congressional elections (in fact it's debatable it matters much at all in elections in general, as I recall. People assume it has an effect but advertising and mass market campaigning hasn't really ever been demonstrably proven as the most important factor in elections), gerrymandered districts are, which deliver reliable seats to the majority of incumbents, who then leverage their position for monetary favours from industry. Mr. F, you really don't know what you're talking about. But please, by all means throw your support behind a project headed by Jack loving Abramoff, a man second only to Dick Cheney in concentrations of Evil and greed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:You know, i've been looking through articles about why Cantor lost and they go all over the place between him supporting immigration reform, then another article showing that the overwhelming majority of voters actually wanted immigration reform, to simply him being an rear end in a top hat to everyone, but whatever, it seems that every article called his loss shocking. Again, Primary. Most voters support immigration reform, but the Tea party emphatically does not. The much smaller voter pool for primaries is what is giving the Tea Party such crazy leverage over republicans. It's a shocking loss since a completely unknown candidate waltzed in and gutted the sitting House Majority leader, but the circumstances that created this possibility are particular to Cantor's situation, you couldn't just say this could be repeated with the same funding disparity in pretty much any other primary. Plus, while you do have a point that the left is less unified and galvanized than the Tea Party, it's super loving disingenuous to directly compare the two, as though labour unions, one of the principal galvanizing forces of the left, haven't been systematically crushed in the last 4 decades, while the Tea party has had rich idealogical lunatics like the Kochs and various flavours of southern 'job creators' to astroturf them into existence. You aren't upsetting our apple cart here with your startling revelations of the challenges of the North American left, and your smug condescension is either a deliberate attempt to get a response or betrays your deep naivete about the political balance that currently exists. Which, again, if you are willing to give any credence to an idea this stupid and any leeway to an organization that has Jack Abramoff as a spokesman, naivete would be a pretty much guaranteed bet. Also way to ignore the rest of my post and other posters points that the real issue of money in Politics is lobbying, not campaign spending. Talk about stunning upsets against big spending all you want, that does nothing to deal with the influence lobbyists have on Congress and the Senate, influence that tends to be stronger on new blood than incumbents. Until the old boys club of lobbyists and congress is much more directly addressed, pretty much any candidate that does get in its going to get sucked into it and just become another part of the problem. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Well, i'm not sure a radical left version of the Tea Party would shut down government and just mirror whatever the tea party did (but a leftwing version of it), that's just speculation. And i don't 'admire' the tea party, except their ability to get elected and pissing off the biggest plutocrats. Mainstream Republicans just do whatever the opposite Democrats do just because, while Tea Partiers do what they do in the name of their ideology. I think that's an important distinction; i've listened to some of the tea partier rhetoric and many think corporate welfare/american adventures into countries where they don't belong, etc. is bullshit. I'd like to see what happens if the 'radical' leftists actually voted with some of the tea partiers on those common ground issues and we got some change. in what way had the tea party opposed corporate welfare in anyway. They are entirely reactionary and completely misinformed. And also hugely racist. The Republicans are blocking all Democratic legislation because of the tea party, not in spite of them. They call Obamacare socialism, for God's sakes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Educating voters, making them less susceptible to the kind of ads that campaign financing focuses on. Voters are on the whole more aware than most people give them credit for. The most meaningful thing to be done is get out the vote campaigns and other projects to help disenfranchised voters (predominantly the poor and minorities) be able to actually take part in the system. Expanded vote hours, more voting locations, early voting, etc. That's where the fight needs to be. Especially in the light of all the bullshit voting restrictions pouring out of the GOP.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
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.... No loving way that last one doesn't happen
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Are there not advance polls in U.S. elections? The last election we had in Ontario had polls open at multiple locations every day for a full week, a week before the actual election day. The one before that had ten days of advance polling. From what I understand (and what Fermun said) it's a crap shoot from state to state as to how progressive the voting standars are, but the GOP had been moving to restrict early voting in several states as part of their disenfranchisement campaigns.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Lol lookit all the wannabe revolutionaries itt
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted: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 I'm on to you OwlBot, you won't be getting me all riled up Seriously though, this is the same conversation that happens over and over in D&D; proto-marxists bemoaning the complacency and unwillingness of the citezenry and the left to overthrow their capitalist oligarchs and risk what stability they have on a huge upheaval of society that would likely leave them dead or similarly maligned. No revolution in human history has ever occured without thousands, hundred thousands, even millions of deaths, and widespread suffering for the innocent. People calling for the violent upheaval of the system always seem to cast themselves as glorious leaders of the new age, but this is just as dumb as believing yourself to be a Randian Captain of Industry. Chances are the violent overthrow of the system will have you up against the wall as likely as anyone else. That people prefer what stability exists over the very slim chance that things could be improved if it all got blown up first is not them being selfish or ignorant, it's people simply choosing to live, which is what the vast majority of the human race will always choose to do, because it makes the most sense. Bemoaning the unwillingness of the people to start the revolution is the narcissistic whining of privileged fucks wanting to feel smugly superior to the common man as they enjoy the same comforts of society as everyone else. I am not okay with the way things are; that's why I join advocacy groups, that's why I try to get involved with politics to get different policies pushed, that's why I would totally be glad if the Kochs suddenly came down with a bad case of polonium poisoning. But I also understand the desire to just live, which is why I still go to work everyday, still vote every election, and am still willing to try and change things using our current system rather than wish for a radical fringe group to come in and tear out the foundations of society in a bloody uprising. But hey, if you're really really commited to sparking agitation of the populace against the government, I hear self - imolation on the steps of the capital has worked wonders for that in the past. (as far as climate change goes, you are taking absolutely the wrong tack if you want people to listen. Saying the 'planet will be hosed' in a few generations has about as much impact as saying the rapture is coming. The planet will be fine, and humanity will still be here, we're quite resilient to being wiped out. What will happen, and in fact is happening now, is areas across the globe will change dramatically, forcing the adaptation of lifestyles and societies in those regions. Rapid adaptation, which will entail suffering of countless millions if action is not taken now to a) curb the effects and b) prepare to mitigate the suffering that will come. The more efficient and ecologically balanced our society is, the better we will be able to accomplish those goals, which is why it's Important to work towards. Don't try to get people afraid of the end of the world. People long ago stopped paying attention to that) (again, none of this is directed at you, OwlBot )
Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
The problem with "a Tea party of the left" is that the tea party is insane. Like, totally detached from reality insane. If were taking about a radical group willing to protest and strike and organize resistance to government actions pushing against the common good, then yeah, I'm all for it, but the last thing we need is more ideologically brainwashed idiots pushing for policy decisions without actually understanding what tge problems or solutions to our issues are. e: Default under the tea party would've meant axing what little remains of the social safety net and casting the poor out into the cold even more than they already are, to say nothing of the massive infrastructure damage that would occur. Like, their demands literally made no sense, they wanted to cut all government spending without giving up any government service. if we had a leftist group pushing for GMI or CEO wage caps or w/e than yeah, using the debt ceiling as a way to leverage for progressive change than fine great, at least that would actually have a real end goal that could be accomplished, and you could actually iron out exactly what needs to be in the policy to satisfy demands and avoid default. But what I don't want to see is a group detached from the consequences of its actions, willing to default out of spite or accelerationist tendencies. A US default wouldn't have been 'a blow against global capitalism', it would've been economic turmoil that would've devasted the poor the world over. If that's the end goal of the organization, that's hosed up. Don't praise the Tea Party people. The Nazis also got a lot of poo poo done, that doesn't make them a model to aspire too, regardless of your aims. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Well you've already obviated that problem by calling them a tea party of the left, by definition having a better understanding of real issues like science, the environment, poverty, DEBT and racism. The tea party aren't crazy because they're uncompromising, they're crazy because they're right wing and uncompromising. And actually delusional about reality. No compromise in calling for progressive policy and social progress, I'm right there with you. But the call to allow a default is in the same vein as calling for a revolution, which is the problem I'm having with the whole 'tea party of the left' Milktank was taking about. The goal of progress has to be the driving force, not the goal of taking down capitalism at all costs. A radical left like that is just as possible (in theory at least) , and just as dumb, as the tea party is. Basically as long as the goal is helping people, rather than taking down the system, I can see the merrits, but those goals are distinct, and in many ways mutually exclusive. We aren't nearly at the point where I think wishing for a global default to prime the land for the new age is in anyway intelligent or helpful. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:People don't want to "take down the system" because they want violence or revolution, they feel it's an unfortunate necessity if they want to make any lasting progress. It may very well be, but don't set out calling for it, because that is exactly what will push most people away. Don't start with the mind set that it has to happen because no one will want to follow you into turmoil for the off chance of things maybe getting better when they could also get a lot worse. Summing up my point here; Radical left willing to risk default to change policy = great. If it takes default, fair enough, sometimes tearing down the system is the only way to overcome its resistance. Radical left aiming to cause default to take down the system = terrible. This is a group whose end goal is illogical and damaging, one that clearly doesn't really understand what it is proposing and wouldn't know what to do if it did get into the position of changing things. The latter is what I hear when someone says "tea party of the left", and yes, there are people that misguided about the world out there. I don't want to associate actual progressive movements with groups like that, because one is actually trying to help people, the other is blinded to the results of its actions and would be willing to burn the world to the ground to satisfy its idealogical nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Wtf, what happened to my mock thread, I came here to see bronys getting owned repeatedly not Goons owning themselves Bryan left us high and dry so we reverted to natural goon D&D state of arguing over things we actually agree on. Someone should do more photoshops.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:Yeah this thread is like month old milk, it's gone bad. I am actually ashamed of my participation in that
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:43
|
|