Slashdot Mirror
Electoral System That Lessig Hopes To Reform Is Keeping Him Out of the Debate (usatoday.com)
schwit1 writes: Lessig has raised a million dollars, which is nothing to sneeze at, but he's being given the cold shoulder by the Democrats when it comes to participating in the debates. I think he's got a good argument for being included — he's certainly as serious a candidate as some of the others, and I'm hearing a lot about his campaign.
Why are they keeping Lessig out? According to Lessig, it's for the same reason he wants in: "My view is that if we can get this message [of reform] into the debate it would change the dynamics of this Democratic primary entirely. This issue framed in this way totally blows up the Democratic primary."
Hillary and Bernie, he says, are promising the moon to voters, but can't deliver. Lessig told me, "If I can get on that stage and say the rocket can't get off the ground, and we have to change this dynamic first," the narrative shifts in a way that the leading candidates can't address.
Why are they keeping Lessig out? According to Lessig, it's for the same reason he wants in: "My view is that if we can get this message [of reform] into the debate it would change the dynamics of this Democratic primary entirely. This issue framed in this way totally blows up the Democratic primary."
Hillary and Bernie, he says, are promising the moon to voters, but can't deliver. Lessig told me, "If I can get on that stage and say the rocket can't get off the ground, and we have to change this dynamic first," the narrative shifts in a way that the leading candidates can't address.
Oh my, someone told this gent there was going to be a primary race. Sorry, we've only got a coronation scheduled here.
It doesn't matter whether he can get into the debates, not really. Just look at what happened to Dr. Paul. When the people with real power make that decision it sticks. Only the blessed are given any chance at all to win the primaries.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
It's the Democrat Party and the media that is keeping him out of the debates. The Electoral System has nothing to do with it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Republicans are currently blowing up their establishment. It takes some balls to do that, especially if you're a politician. They're trying to shake things up and get the Old Guard to move on. This has come from the ground up over the past few election cycles and it appears to be working.
Why can't the Democrats do that same?
You are all Cows. Cows say MOOOOOOOOO. MOOOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOOOOO! Mooooooooooo cows moooooooooo. mooo say the cows. YOU VOTER COWS!!!
by showing up as competitive without having a SuperPAC at all.
I don't see Lessig's referendum only strategy to be any more likely to come to pass than his previous let's build our own SuperPAC attempt. He could have actually ran for senator and had some impact from within the system. It would have also gotten him more of a podium for advocating for these changes.
Lessig has raised a million dollars, which is nothing to sneeze at
A million dollars is nothing. Sorry to break this to you but that's not even enough to be a serious contender in a lot of state level elections. A million dollars is a rounding error in current day presidential elections. Someone like Hillary Clinton can raise multiples of that in a single evening. $1 million might seem like a lot to some people but it really isn't.
but he's being given the cold shoulder by the Democrats when it comes to participating in the debates. I think he's got a good argument for being included — he's certainly as serious a candidate as some of the others, and I'm hearing a lot about his campaign.
No he really isn't a serious candidate at this point. Almost nobody knows who the guy is and he has (near as makes no difference) no money to buy recognition with. He's a political lightweight with essentially zero name recognition. I have nothing against the guy and I think he's got some interesting ideas but right now he is definitely not a serious candidate. He's basically a one issue guy who has offered to resign after fixing those issues (campaign finance, gerrymandering, voter access) which basically makes him a non-starter. Basically that means that even if he were successful (which he almost certainly wouldn't be) you'd be voting for his VP to be president and a new VP to be named later.
Some would say that she could have avoided Obama exposing her corruption by not being corrupt in the first place.
If people in this country where actually educated about how their government works and capable of forming their own opinions. I don't think it would matter much who gets to yell the loudest.
For years I have believed even the local dog catcher must signal they are corruptible or they will not advance to the next step up the ladder let alone President. Corruption is endemic to politics.
You will not be heard in American Politics if you plan on rocking the boat.
Some would say that she could have avoided Obama exposing her corruption by not being corrupt in the first place.
Lol, stop with the crazy talk!!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Have gnu, will travel.
Lessig is being kept out for the same reason the DNC is vehemently resisting having more debates: nothing shall put Hillary's candidacy at risk.
Would require a time machine, so no, not possible.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Lessig seems to think that people who have power will give it up willingly. Why, because "it's the right thing to do"? Ha, Lessig, tell us another funny one.
We're not going to get approval voting or any other method that satisifies the Condorcet criteria, because Duverger's Law, simply restated, ensures the power of the current political elite.
Lessig did some reasonable work with Creative Commons (even if CC0 is the only free license, CC is still successful). He should use those talents to try to educate people that the "Two Party" system is a cabal of political oligarchs who fleece the people by convincing them they have a choice when in reality there is only "fork over your money or something bad might happen".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If your goal is to get money out of politics, you have to get politics out of money, which is ... good luck with that. My point is that the entire notion that you can remove money from politics, when the fact is that politics is all about stealing some people's money by using power that is provided to the governments by the mob, who want that theft to happen, shows that people who want to see money out of politics without addressing the larger issue of government oppression of the individual is dishonest.
Politics are used to create the divide between those, who make more money and those who make less. Politics are used to create the notion of so called 'just society' based on disproportionate taxation of those, who are in a complete minority of-course by their very definition. To tax in a disproportionate manner while expecting the votes to have equal power is disingenuous.
Taxes are created by the governments to steal money from those, who have money, tax loopholes are then provided to those, who are willing to subsidise specific politicians. Get rid of income and wealth related taxes and then you may have your equal voting, but you will not have equal individual voting power with disproportionate taxation of individuals.
You can't handle the truth.
Sure, a political lightweight who's the only one with the intellectual courage to put his money where his mouth is and take on the the core political distortions from which most other political distortions flow.
Being right doesn't matter if you can't make a difference. He cannot and (probably) will not get elected, nor does he have a big enough voice to influence the campaign. Trump is an ass with nothing useful to say but he's an ass with a big enough wallet and enough name recognition to make himself heard.
Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with Mr. Lessig on the issues he's concerned about. But I don't think he's going to even make a ripple in this election much less actually affect the public debate in a meaningful way.
We have a democracy, although I think you have a rosier view of what a democracy really is. All the power is in the hands of the voters, they merely decide to abdicate this power every 2 years.
What corruption? The only leaks have suggested she might have miscategorized the security status of some emails, an administrative error not an issue of corruption.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, you idiots will believe pretty much anything.
First, it's several hundred emails, at least.
Second, mishandling classified material is a FELONY, not an "administrative error".
Third, even if one accepts your patently risible characterization of "administrative error", how FUCKING TRUSTWORTHY DOES THAT MAKE HILLARY!? Yeah, NOT TRUSTWORTHY AT ALL and therefore unqualified to be President.
Finally, Hillary! has downright LIED multiple times regarding her email server - WHICH NEVER SHOULD HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE as it was an ILLEGAL METHOD TO CONDUCT GOVERNMENT BUSINESS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROPER CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGALLY-MANDATED FOIA OVERSIGHT.
Geez, you're one Thalidomide-brained moron of a shill.
...that's the party primary system. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and are not an official part of the electoral process.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
publicity upset that it will obtain less free publicity than anticipated.
The idea that there was no security risk here should be patently absurd to anyone reading slashdot.
Anyone else read it as "Hillary and Bernie, he says, are promising *to* moon..."?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I would venture that more are educated about the basics of our government, and that they are capable for forming opinions.
I would agree that more and better education would be very excellent, and would help.
But I have to disagree on the "who gets to yell loudest' part.
And one does not have to depend on the other.
emt 377 emt 4
He is not in the debate because he has no support
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
....and incorrect pedantry at that. If he had said something about the Constitutional electoral process, you'd have a point, but that's not the case. Would you happen to also be one of those who jumps in with the correction 'the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy' except the fact that its representatives are democratically elected?
Much as I like his platform, it's hard to treat him as a serious presidential candidate in the context of what a debate is likely to cover when his stated position is that he cares only about passing campaign finance reform and then will resign.
From Lessig's own campaign page (https://lessig2016.us/)
"He will serve only as long as it takes to pass the reforms necessary to fix our corrupt political system. Once passed, he will resign, and the vice president becomes president of a government that works."
That means if you want to have a debate about foreign policy, talk to the VP. Tax policy? Talk to the VP. There may be some people who like the single-minded focus this implies, but since we're talking about a 4-year term, that leaves a huge swath of debate issues left in an unanswerable state, especially since he hasn't named his VP yet.
I tend to believe that the Republican party is more involved in undermining their Democratic opposition, rather than seeing Democrats trying to undermine each other at this point. Biden is already positioned as the white knight who will reluctantly accept the burden of representing the party once Hillary's baggage overwhelms her, and the Democrats don't need the negative karma of poisoning their own well to do that; they would want Hillary to be able to bow out and make a graceful handoff rather than scorch the earth behind her.
Oh please... Voice vote on the convention floor robbed Ron Paul of the nomination?
It's a conspiracy I tell you!
Um.. No, he didn't have enough delegates to win the nomination though the process... Next you will tell me we never landed on the moon and 9/11 was an inside job.. (Or my personal favorite, Obama was born in Kenya because his birth certificate is *obviously* falsified copy... )
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is a stupid story. First, the Electoral college doesn't decided who is nominated by either major party. Second, the Electoral college has even less to do with who CNN chooses to let into their debate. Third, who has heard of this person to start with? Doesn't that have more to do with why CNN didn't/won't put them on the stage with the other "serious" contenders?
Not to mention....Why would this story make it to Slashdot? How's this "news for nerds" anyway?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
I love some of Lessig's ideas, but he doesn't have a prayer of getting into any position to implement them. The current electoral system is rigged so that only the two major parties have any hope of getting a candidate elected to national office. You have to get inside the system in order to have the power to change it -- But why in the world would either party allow in someone whose stated goal is to upset the apple cart and make it harder for the party to win in the future?
The only people in favor of electoral reform are those outside the system. The ones inside the system benefit too much from the status quo.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
So, government would have no say in the business realm?
Picking winners and losers, I would agree, but to say government has no authority is anarchy.
And politics is not automatically about stealing people's money.
That power can be used that way, and is, but that is because our choices in any given election are dictated by wealth/power.
Politics are increasingly being used to create a divide, but not for the reasons you state.
The wealthy are the divide creators, and that in service of maintaining and advancing their wealth.
That you don't seem to see that indicates a narrow or willful view to me.
Taxation, disproportionate or otherwise
A, money should not equal speech.
B, those who make more money are the ones benefiting from our legal system. They have more to protect, use more services, etc.
Paying more seems fair to me.
C, taking the government budget, dividing by the number of citizens and expecting each to pay that amount? really?
Could that work? Why would you expect that? This fails on practicability as well as on fairness.
" To tax in a disproportionate manner while expecting the votes to have equal power is disingenuous"
Oligarchy/ plutarchy.
Pure and simple. Might as well go back to Warlords and Kings
Your statement amounts to "those who pay more should have more say". That is not democracy.
"Get rid of income and wealth related taxes and then you may have your equal voting, but you will not have equal individual voting power with disproportionate taxation of individuals"
Why is this so? Excepting that greed among those who have want it so, what principal makes this necessary and definite.
emt 377 emt 4
You are all owls. YOU OWLS!
Money needs to be out of politics.
Which is essentially impossible. So, the only real solution is create total transparency so that we know exactly who is funding what and for how much.
If you want to change the system, why the hell would you run for president? Any true change is going to happen in the legislature.
I would join the argument that our electorate fails.
I would argue that the choices are not what they should be.
I would also argue that what is left of our democracy is fading, over this very issue.
emt 377 emt 4
And that never made any difference to the military members who had far less serious security violations than Queen Hillary and were prosecuted and punished. If any serving member of the armed forces had done what she did they would be living in the Fort Leavenworth bed and breakfast for years. In all likelihood there may have been no serious security breach but there is no doubt there was a serious security violation. What she did was illegal but then she's Hillary and laws don't apply to her. Yet another fine example of our masters being above the law that applies to all us peons.
It is ironic that a candidate whose campaign is based on denying others the ability to speak is complaining that he is being denied the ability to speak.
So, government would have no say in the business realm?
- correct. Nor in money.
Picking winners and losers, I would agree, but to say government has no authority is anarchy.
- no, it's freedom, you can say freedom is anarchy and I have no problem with that, why do you?
And politics is not automatically about stealing people's money.
- it is. It is automatically about stealing some people's money tu pay for something that those people would not give money to on their own in the same way.
Politics are increasingly being used to create a divide, but not for the reasons you state.
- politics is always about creating a divide. Try and find politics that are not creating divide, that type of politics does not exist. Politics is about taking from some and promising others something for it, it's always about creating a divide.
The wealthy are the divide creators, and that in service of maintaining and advancing their wealth.
- actually AFAIC the wealthy in a free market capitalist economy reduce the divide by building businesses that make your money go further and reducing the divide. The divide is created by the politics of greed and promise of free stuff and promise of theft from those who have more to provide the loot to those who don't have as much regardless of how the wealth is generated.
A, money should not equal speech.
- it is speech. It is political speech first of all, money is the speech of the politicians who offer to steal and offer something for nothing to those, who would give them the political power. Once that it is the case, those with money will try to protect themselves from those, who want to steal from them, and those with money will use money to buy more votes, to buy more speech. De facto money is speech, always was, always will be, not because of any court rulings, because of what the world is.
B, those who make more money are the ones benefiting from our legal system. They have more to protect, use more services, etc.
Paying more seems fair to me.
- you mean those with more means should expect to pay more disproportionately so that those with fewer means will not mob together to steal from them?
You think this is also 'fair'? Well, it's realistic that those with more to protect will spend more to protect it. What you are doing though, you are equating disproportionate (so called 'progressive') taxation with 'justice'. The interesting thing is that you seem to have convinced yourself on this subject enough not to see the immorality of that stance.
C, taking the government budget, dividing by the number of citizens and expecting each to pay that amount? really?
- first of all that is Constitutional (capitation tax), secondly that is not even the subject I am bringing up. I am talking about the immoral nature of marginal income and wealth taxes, not absence of truly Constitutional taxation principles.
Could that work? Why would you expect that? This fails on practicability as well as on fairness.
- 'fairness' can never be achieved in the eyes of those, who want to steal more from those who have more. As long as somebody has much more than you do, you will always say it is unfair to tax you and not them, even though objectively are completely outpaying you in the size of taxes they are paying in every way, in absolute amounts, percentage wise, in everything.
Pure and simple. Might as well go back to Warlords and Kings
- Strawman argument. how about going back to Constitutional taxation, capitation and excise taxes? Seems impossible to you? That's how US of A was built before 1913 in the first place
You can't handle the truth.
I tend to believe that the Republican party is more involved in undermining their Democratic opposition
IMHO Hillary has done this to herself. The fact that the MSM hasn't really touched on this, the NYT hasn't run daily headlines on this (email scandal) is proof that the coronation is still highly possible, if not for the GOP carrying the weight. Now, I am no big fan of the hypocrites in the GOP nor their complete lack any real substance on things they could be hanging on Obama and the DNC.
But here, the Email Scandal is going to bite every one of the "There is no proof" Democratic Apologists and the DNC as a whole in the ass. Anyone who has anything to do with Hillary and Bill (the rapist) will end up being toxic for years.
And the GOP is more or less is incapable of doing anything useful, which is why someone like Trump can stay on top of the polls, months after he should have gone away.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
John Dvorak is that you?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If any serving member of the armed forces had done what she did they would be living in the Fort Leavenworth bed and breakfast for years.
A certain General Patreaus might disagree with you. Now, if you were talking about just peons, then you have a point. But the double standard is enchantingly broad.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yeah, James K. Polk was a real loser.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I watched the Republican debates several times the last election cycle. I noticed that when Ron Paul would disagree with something that the core Republican voters hold dear he'd get booed. He never let it bother him, several times he'd go into lecture mode and explain his position like a college professor explaining something to a class. I saw a lot of thoughtful looks when he was done. No one liked what he had to say but he did make them think about it. Sadly the end result was Mitt Romney. I abstained from voting in the presidential election. Fuck me if I voted for either of those shitstains. I couldn't figure out which one was less shitty.
Perhaps, but having him be able to speak his message in the national debate would start the ball rolling. We may not be ready to fix the rotten core of our system this cycle, but it's important to expose the real problem so when the next president manages to fix nothing substantive, people will know why and have possible solutions in mind.
It may take some time, but it has to start somewhere.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
This country, or at least those in low electoral counts, will curse the day, if they get rid of the the electoral college. The only reason politicians today, give any rats ass about small count states, is BECAUSE of the electoral college. Base it only on popular vote, and those states can kiss ANY money from DC, goodbye. While they are at it, repeal the 17th amendment, and put the election of senators, back into the hands of the state legislators, where it belongs. As it stands now, the people have two houses. The house of representatives, and the senate. This leaves the states, out of the loop, in the republic. The states are to be the ones electing the senators, which gives the states, their "voice" in Washington DC.
My solution for Campaign reform is simple. Only Citizens (not just anyone) can donate to a campaign (and only to campaigns they can actually vote for), organizations cannot. No PAC, no Corp, No Union donations. Period.
PACs, Unions, Corps etc can run their own damn advertisements for whatever candidate they want. This keeps them from being able to cry about 1st Amendment rights as pseudo persons. No collusion between entities would also be a restriction.
By restricting money in this way, we allow the people (actual real kind) to have a voice that can be heard. Right now, we get lip service every 2 to 4 years, and then it is back to "fuck you peon" politicians.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You don't seem to understand how politics works.
That actually pissed me off more than Hillary. At least she's a damn civilian. Patreaus actually commanded men that he held to higher standards than he did for himself. What a travesty. He should have been court martialed. I kept a safe when I was in the Air Force. Those regulations pertaining to classified materials are draconian and carry harsh penalties. To see people at the top ignore the law with contempt is abominable. To see people excuse them is even worse.
Didn't she set up this email server because that's what the previous secretary of state did?
You sound like Dr Evil, thinking $1 million is real money.
Overall spending, 2012 Presidential Election:
Dems: $964 million
Repubs $1.12 billion
(https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/)
Yes, when the amount you've raised is 1/1000 what EITHER candidate in 2012 spent, that is precisely a "sneezing at" amount. It's nothing.
-Styopa
This might come as a galloping shock, but the rules changed between administrations, and what was acceptable before is no longer.
But that's ok, you can just keep going with the 'Blame Bush' strategy, still strong after 7+ years. Or is it the lovely "but they did it, so it must be ok if I do it too" fallacy that Congress loves so much?
Second, mishandling classified material is a FELONY
Stop using bold and CAPS. It is annoying. I am all for a witchhunt and I do think Hillary is a witch, but she did not mishandle classified material. The emails were classified after the fact. When she received it, it was ordinary correspondence.
Gasoline is not flammable in liquid form. Pouring gasoline on a weak fire can put the fire out. That's part of what makes gasoline a safe and stable fuel for motor vehicles. The gasoline has to be mixed with air; then the vapors are explosively flammable.
From TFS:
Yes, that's precisely why he can't get on the stage. The entire circus is predicated on the illusion that the rocket can get off the ground. Circus de-bunkers are not, pretty much by definition, members of the circus.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Seriously? Either you didn't really think about this and where just angry, or you really are NOT a Paul supporter
I have no idea what a Ron Paul supporter would see in Obama and how such a person couldn't see at least SOME redeeming qualities in Romney who was *much* closer to Ron Paul than who was elected. I didn't much like Romney myself, but even if I didn't agree with everything he was head and shoulders above the alternative. So you just sat home on your hands because Romney didn't hold the extreme positions of the likes of Ron Paul? Shame on you.
Folks need to stop this "all or nothing" set of litmus tests for political campaigns when it comes to the general election, it's not healthy thinking. Yea, sure, during the primary fight it out, root for your choice of candidates, but once the nominee is named and confirmed, you stop the bickering and support the winner, or the other party will win, every time.
Don't you see? The Democrats are, right now, out stirring the pot about the Republican party's "break up". Just last week I got more than one "So, you cannot pick a speaker? How can you pick a candidate in the Republican party?" comments from my friends who are left of me. It's in all the media, it's a calculated play to keep disenchanted folks who's candidate didn't win from voting, to drive a wedge between the Ron Paul zealots and the eventual nominee (who will not be Ron Paul). So they LOVE folks like you, who are easily persuaded to sit at home on their hands while they are sending busses to pick up THEIR voters and bring them to the polls.
On Ron Paul directly.... Where I appreciate much of what he says, and I really like his constitutional stance on a lot of things, his foreign policy and stance on privacy lack practical understanding of reality. Christy's "instruction" of Paul on the use of NSA monitoring data is a prime example of where he looses touch with reality and refuses to allow even reasoned discussion of ways this can be done within constitutional bounds. Where I get his position, and I see the principle he's trying to uphold, there ARE reasonable ways to justify some of what the NSA has done but Ron can not or will not engage in that discussion. His foreign policy positions are also inflexible and brittle in a world where to be effective requires a bit more nuance than rigid ideology, more taking steps in the right direction and less forcing ones ideology.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I hadn't heard that before. Do you have a link?
I like the concept, but we already have rules that are easily circumvented about "no collusion" between a SuperPAC and a campaign. Laughable loopholes you could fly a C-130 loaded with trucks through.
The problem is that we have elected lawmakers making the election laws. It's a profound conflict of interest that is oft ignored.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
We actually have lots of choices. The problem is that we allow ourselves to be convinced that our only choices are those that are sanctioned by the 2 dominant parties.
Our voter turnout is usually not even 50% in years when there is no presidential election.
If anything the part of our system that is broken is the part we've had since the beginning (the electoral process). This process basically condemns us to a 2-party system, along with giving us fringe general election candidates who were chosen by (usually the extreme) 5% of each party, and removing the importance of voting in all states except swing states.
I think this has more of a detrimental effect on our elections than money, because it breeds apathy.
Democracy isn't enough.
Evidently you do not know how classified information works.
Yes, information that was previously unclassified can be classified later.
However, information that is generated by classified sources are classified from the moment they are created and they are classified whether they are marked as such or not. Anything generated by a classified system is automatically classified. All classified systems and info need to be brought into accountability.
Even better is when you put classified info on an unclassified system. The whole thing now becomes classified. Her email server at the FBI probably has a TOP SECRET sticker on it by now.
She was pretty high up as far as authority went, and there's a high probability she was presented with raw data that was so time sensitive, it was unmarked.
Even giving her the benefit of the doubt, it does not matter. She should have known better.
Those of us who have handled classified info in the past can easily see the problem with her situation here.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Why can't the Democrats do that same?
The Republicans are so fightable, and so terribly bad at making appear that they are not evil, stupid, backward, and generally raping the planet, that they are kind of uniting the Democrats behind a "We don't want to vote for Clinton but we have to vote for a not-Republican and Clinton is the only option the part leadership is letting us vote for" standard.
The Republicans are also throwing open their primaries as part of a strategy the last couple of elections, whereas the Clintons sewed up the party leadership in a serious way this election, undoubtedly with help from Obama after a backroom deal she made with him when he was elected and she got SecState.
What does Polk have to do with any of this? He wasn't single-issue, and he neither pledged to resign nor resigned.
Is this really shocking? It's Larry Agran in 1992 all over again.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
Every once in a while we need to be able to mod a post +10 Interesting+Insightful+Informative. This is one of those posts. What infuriates me the most is that if anybody here did the same thing, we'd already be rotting in jail the rest of our life. The double standards and hypocrisy of our government makes me very sick.
What probability do you estimate that Biden will be the nominee?
The only lunatic here is you, government of USSR was the only legal owner of all businesses in that country. Do you want to compare records of what a government can do to environment relative to what businesses do absent government?
Chernobyl was not a free market capitalist enterprise.
You can't handle the truth.
Less than 0.1%.
Nah, that couldn't be it. Must be a CONSPIRACY.
I've got an insulted witch looking over my shoulder.
The fact that the MSM hasn't really touched on this, the NYT hasn't run daily headlines on this (email scandal) is proof that the coronation is still highly possible, if not for the GOP carrying the weight.
I know it might be hard to believe but maybe, maybe the issue really ISN'T that important to be running "daily headlines" on the story?
And the GOP is more or less is incapable of doing anything useful, which is why someone like Trump can stay on top of the polls, months after he should have gone away.
I feel like it's 2012 again, when flashy, 'fun' (but stupid) candidates gain the limelight for the GOP, before they finally settle on the safe, boring, more electable guy.
>far less serious security violations than Queen Hillary and were prosecuted and punished.
Any reference to someome being prosecuted, for "far less"? So far their is zero evidence that any intellegence was compromised. So a single prosecution, beyond simple administrative action like losing security clearence, where no compromise actually occured, and no intentional disclosure was intended in their actions.
I don't see where Romney would have been an improvement over President Obama. I don't believe anything he says and when I look at his record I don't really think he would have done a better job than the current clown. At least President Obama doesn't claim to be a conservative. The way the modern so called Republicans have performed inspires no confidence at all. Chris Christy? He'd wipe his ass with the 4th amendment. The reason the House can't elect a speaker is because everyone is finally getting fed up with the bullshit and lies. This runaway mess we've got started with a supposedly conservative president who was anything but. Call it sitting on my hands if you like but I'll be dipped in shit before I vote for the likes of Mitt Romney. I voted for Bush and that left a shitty taste in my mouth. I'm so fucking ashamed of myself. There's a reason that Trump and Carson are leading and it's a simple one. We're tired of their fucking lies.
I agree; I support Lessig and would support him for President if he were actually willing to do the job. I think he'd be able to do a lot of good on various issues.
I don't think his resignation pledge is compatible with taking him seriously; our nation deserves better than that. Our offices are not tools for stunts.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
He was quad-issue. And he planned never to run for a second term.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
All you did by staying home is make it easier for the more left candidate to get elected. Which may be of little consequence to you, but if Romney was in office today, there would be a whole raft of things that could be accomplished which would have fit the platform of Ron Paul more closely than where we are now. Just remember, YOU helped that happen.
I get that you are angry, but you need to let reason and not emotion dictate what you do. Having an "all or nothing" "My way or the Highway" stance in politics is rarely going to allow you to advance your cause, especially when you are in a very small minority like most Ron Paul supporters are. Think. Isn't it better to have *some* of what you want over nothing?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is insightful? Previous Secretaries of State used private email servers, including Colin Powell. It's illegal now, but that's because the law was changed about a year after she left the job.
In the meantime, all the stupid Benghazi accusations going around make me extremely reluctant to believe anything a Hilary basher says. It may be the "boy who cried wolf" situation, and we know how that turned out.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There is no evidence that Bill Clinton ever raped anyone. He's clearly a jerk who skirted the legal definition of sexual harassment, but I've never seen any serious allegation of rape.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And, with our present voting system, we'd still have a two-party system. If you know how things work, you know that votes for third parties are not going to affect the elections. (I have voted third-party at times, mostly for protest votes, in 1980 for Anderson in a tiny bit of support for him getting government campaign money. I've never voted third-party with the hope of electing someone.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't see where I'd have gotten anything I liked out of Romney. Hell, Bush was president for 8 years and he did his best to destroy the country. The sad thing is this supposed liberal we have now only continued the worst of the Bush policies. I didn't cause this shit, the Republicans did. Since the Republicans took over the Senate and the House just what have they accomplished? Name one single thing? They did help President Obama continue his assault on American citizens with that sadly misnamed "Patriot" act. God damn to hell whoever named that piece of legislation. "Patriot" act, shit...that's like the "People's" Republic of China. An oxymoron if ever there was one. Kind of like "honest" politician. I mean it man, I'm fed up. It's sad when you look back at Clinton like that was the good old days. Tell me, weren't the Republicans supposed to be the party of LESS government? Hmmmm?
Again, THINK about your high school government class...
The Republicans cannot do anything but put bills on Obama's desk, they don't have the ability to override his veto. In the house they can pass ANYTHING they want and have. In the Senate, they are in the majority but they do not have enough votes to get cloture without democratic support. So anything you *think* they should do, requires some kind of negotiated solution with Senate democrats AND with Obama. They can bring any bill to the floor they want, but without the ability to get it past the various cloture votes, the bill will die on procedure.
So with that background, what do you think they should have done by this point? Obama and the democrats both have a firm grip on the brakes and the procedural ability to apply them on any bill. They are using their limited power to tie up the legislative process, much like the republicans did when the democrats where in the majority but couldn't force cloture themselves.
In my view, I would have hoped the republicans would have taken a bit more aggressive stance too, but there is an argument for being less combative with the democrats and choosing to not bring a bill up for debate unless you know it's actually going to get to a final vote, pass and Obama will sign it. You can argue that there is no point in beating a horse you know will die, and it only lets your opponents demagogue and pillage you in the press, giving them free PR to use to their advantage.
Blame the democrats for this lack of progress, at least as much as the republicans. I don't believe the democrats are interested in compromise agreements and don't debate in good faith. I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't compromise on ANYTHING and means "My way or the highway" when he says it. You need enough votes to get cloture and you need the president's signature or enough votes to override his veto and if you don't have BOTH of these, the opposition can prevent any progress.
So, again... Stop with the angry emotional response and think logically about what's going on.... The Democrats are ringing the anger bell as often as they can and like Pavlov's dog you are reacting in anger. Stop letting them control you this way because it doesn't help you or the case for Ron...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yeah, NOT TRUSTWORTHY AT ALL and therefore unqualified to be President.
If all previous examples are anything to go by, then it actually makes her perfectly qualified...
1. Select by LOTTERY
https://equalitybylot.wordpres...
2. Candidate should QUALIFY in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/f...
Casteism
My problem with the Republicans is mainly where they've agreed with the President. The horrid "Patriot" Act being the worst offense but there are others. If all they're good for is to agree with the President about pissing all over the Constitution then to hell with them. I'm not voting for people that attack my Constitutional protections. The fact they claim to care about individual freedoms and oppose big government but routinely fail to show it in what they vote for only makes me despise them more than the Democrats who I know Love big government. I see the Democratic party hating on Bernie Sanders too since he's not a sellout like the Bitch. As much as I disagree with his politics I have to respect his integrity. That's all the money people in both parties care about, the whores.