I am a big fan of Lessig and his work and I agree with what he is trying to do but I think this is a terrible idea. The best that could come out of it is if he uses the presidential debates as his pulpit and bows out. Even then he will have spent a lot of money and done damage to his cause by hurting his own credibility and MayDay.us PAC's credibility. If he goes any further, he will also hurt the primary chances for Bernie Sanders, whom Lessig all but endorses in his post. Even if he were somehow to win, he would not have the power as president to do what he wants to do. He had the right approach with MayDay.us to swing the congress, and he should stick with it.
Second, it is easier to win voters in safe seats than in partisan battle ground seats: Following from the first lesson, we saw a significant difference in the willingness of both Republicans and Democrats to support the issue of reform in safe, rather than divided, seats. Though we didn't have enough opportunities in primaries to prove this point, the data suggest that it is much easier to rally both Democratic and Republican voters to reform, when the voters don't perceive their decision as affecting the ultimate likelihood of their party's candidates to prevail in the general election. Put differently, if partisanship doesn't matter — because the seat is a safe seat anyway — voters are more willing to be moved on the basis of reform.
Lessig has been very clear that most of what they were trying to do for 2014 was to learn if and how to move votes on this issue. Don't think they are missing these lessons.
Second, it is easier to win voters in safe seats than in partisan battle ground seats: Following from the first lesson, we saw a significant difference in the willingness of both Republicans and Democrats to support the issue of reform in safe, rather than divided, seats. Though we didn't have enough opportunities in primaries to prove this point, the data suggest that it is much easier to rally both Democratic and Republican voters to reform, when the voters don't perceive their decision as affecting the ultimate likelihood of their party's candidates to prevail in the general election. Put differently, if partisanship doesn't matter — because the seat is a safe seat anyway — voters are more willing to be moved on the basis of reform.
Lessig has made it very clear that most of what they were trying to do in 2014 was to figure out if and how to swing elections on this issue. Don't think they are missing these lessons.
And of course, if you can't "buy" all that fancy advertising, you have to get out your ground game - pounding the pavement, pounding on doors, pounding your message.
Actually, that can be expensive too. It's legal to pay people to collect signatures for a petition, for example. The SCOTUS has knocked down attempts to ban this, so don't expect that everyone "pounding the pavement" is a volunteer.
For example, Lessig seems convinced that the voters will vote for whoever has the biggest campaign chest. I'm not so sure; I'm thinking perhaps the politicians themselves are influenced by the PACs. For example, Chris Dodd's donations to the Obama campaign to pass more copyright laws may not have made the voters change their mind, but it might have convinced Obama that he needs to push for legislation in the MPAA's favor.
If the later scenario is the case, then Lessig is really doing it wrong.
Actually, this has been exactly Lessig's point. He is quick to point out that the problem with campaign finance isn't so much the corruption of the voters through advertising, but the corruption of the politicians through constant begging rich people for money.
I don't entirely agree; I think the millions going into advertising to misinform the voters are a huge part of the problem, but it's worth listening to Lessig's point, which agrees with yours. Much of the "fundamental reform" he is demanding is targeting the issue of how politicians raise money and the effect of that process on their decision making.
So please, quit your belly aching about the money. It is not an issue.
Are you being dense or intentionally deceptive?
Of course it's an issue. It is THE issue. Yes each of us should make our own decisions on how to vote. But the money IS corrupting the decision making of a large portion of the voters and of all the politicians.
You joke, but I think this is a serious question. NSLs and associated gag orders are clearly totalitarian and wrong. The Citizen's United decision is wrong -- corporate entities do not have rights. However -- if we assume that corporations do not have first amendment rights, are NSL gag orders unconstitutional or illegal?
One way I can see it is that it is constitutional for the government to prohibit e.g. Twitter from publishing these reports, and Twitter can then do their responsibility under the law in telling their employees not to publish the data (like any corporate NDA). Then if an employee does leak it, it is a breach of contract between them and Twitter, but it would be unconstitutional for the government to go after the employee for violating the gag order. As far as the government is concerned, the entity known as "Twitter" leaked the data and violated the gag order. The government can go after Twitter, but for what, fines? In this case "piercing the corporate veil" would be a violation of the first amendment. (Incidentally, what are the penalties for violating these gag orders?)
On the one hand, I applaud corporations standing up to this abuse. However, I think winning this case based on the false premise of Corporate Free Speech would be a very dangerous precedent and entrenching of Citizen's United-style logic.
I've seen people try to refute this straw man a lot lately. I don't think anyone is saying there is literally no difference between the two parties. What I mean when I say something like "the Democrats and Republicans are the same" is that they are either the same on issues I consider important (like the GP's "support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process") or not sufficiently different on issues I consider important (climate change, taxes). Of course they differ significantly or insignificantly or just-for-show on some other issues, but that does not negate the fact that they are the same when it comes to the issue under discussion. You may be choosing one of these two parties because you want to vote, for example, for or against abortion, but that does mean that you are also voting for indefinite war and other awful policies with either choice. It also implies that the differentiating issue is more important to you than the non-differentiating ones.
Massachusetts, Washington and Arkansas (and probably Colorado) legalized marijuana. Montana "reformed medical marijuana". Oregon had a referendum to legalize, which failed.
Correction: Massachusetts legalized medical marijuana. Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for recreational use.
5% would be nice. Even being liberal, I really hoped for it and expected it. But Johnson only got 1% of the vote. Where were all the libertarians yesterday?
So why not push for it? We've all got 3 years to push for and implement Instant Runoff Voting for all elections in our respective states and end this clown show in 2016 and for good.
It's war, not a courtroom. The burden of proof is a little different and combatants don't get trials.
The U.S. is not at war with Pakistan or other countries where drone strikes are taking place. There are two options here: 1) The Pakistani government does not approve of these attacks. If this is the case, we are lucky they don't take it as the act of war it is. Then your statement would apply. 2) The Pakistani government does approve of these attacks. If this is the case the U.S. is assassinating citizens of a foreign country on behalf of their government without any semblance of due process.
I think there are two factors at play: 1. They don't have answers to all the questions from some 3rd party candidates, so your % match for Stein is based on fewer issues than it is for Romney or Obama. 2. Many people really do agree with much of the Green party platform (and perhaps more so, the Justice Party, which is more economically moderate) but don't know it or ignore it or deny it.
I don't have mod points for you, but this really addresses the crux of the issue of why we must vote for a 3rd party. Neither of the two Featured Candidates believes in the Constitution, so even the hope that one will appoint better supreme court justices is misplaced.
So before you say, "The two parties are totally different!" ask yourself this: are you really looking at all possibilities, or have you narrowed your field of view to the point where two fascist parties appear to be worlds apart?
I'm surprised to see Al Franken on the sponsors list ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968 ). He appears to champion net neutrality, and I would think fighting this kind of thing would be on the same agenda.
I used to use Opera for several years, but switched to a mix of Konqueror for most web browsing, Firefox for gmail and other broken sites and KMail for other mail because Opera just didn't fit in well with the rest of the desktop and my applications. You could tweak the look some with skins, but I could never get it to use my Qt style. At the time I was also using the OS-X-like menu bar which Opera wouldn't use, and there were some other annoyances.
Since Opera uses Qt I would think it would be a great browser for KDE, but so far that hasn't been the case. Any improvements here?
Slashdot Mirror
I am a big fan of Lessig and his work and I agree with what he is trying to do but I think this is a terrible idea. The best that could come out of it is if he uses the presidential debates as his pulpit and bows out. Even then he will have spent a lot of money and done damage to his cause by hurting his own credibility and MayDay.us PAC's credibility. If he goes any further, he will also hurt the primary chances for Bernie Sanders, whom Lessig all but endorses in his post. Even if he were somehow to win, he would not have the power as president to do what he wants to do. He had the right approach with MayDay.us to swing the congress, and he should stick with it.
And that was exactly their takeaway:
Second, it is easier to win voters in safe seats than in partisan battle ground seats: Following from the first lesson, we saw a significant difference in the willingness of both Republicans and Democrats to support the issue of reform in safe, rather than divided, seats. Though we didn't have enough opportunities in primaries to prove this point, the data suggest that it is much easier to rally both Democratic and Republican voters to reform, when the voters don't perceive their decision as affecting the ultimate likelihood of their party's candidates to prevail in the general election. Put differently, if partisanship doesn't matter — because the seat is a safe seat anyway — voters are more willing to be moved on the basis of reform.
Lessig has been very clear that most of what they were trying to do for 2014 was to learn if and how to move votes on this issue. Don't think they are missing these lessons.
And that was exactly their takeaway:
Second, it is easier to win voters in safe seats than in partisan battle ground seats: Following from the first lesson, we saw a significant difference in the willingness of both Republicans and Democrats to support the issue of reform in safe, rather than divided, seats. Though we didn't have enough opportunities in primaries to prove this point, the data suggest that it is much easier to rally both Democratic and Republican voters to reform, when the voters don't perceive their decision as affecting the ultimate likelihood of their party's candidates to prevail in the general election. Put differently, if partisanship doesn't matter — because the seat is a safe seat anyway — voters are more willing to be moved on the basis of reform.
Lessig has made it very clear that most of what they were trying to do in 2014 was to figure out if and how to swing elections on this issue. Don't think they are missing these lessons.
To my knowledge, Lessig's group isn't concerned with individual donors. He's only concerned with Political Action Committees, or PACs.
Where do you get that idea? As far as I know, this is only true in so far as some limits on direct individual contributions have so far survived.
And of course, if you can't "buy" all that fancy advertising, you have to get out your ground game - pounding the pavement, pounding on doors, pounding your message.
Actually, that can be expensive too. It's legal to pay people to collect signatures for a petition, for example. The SCOTUS has knocked down attempts to ban this, so don't expect that everyone "pounding the pavement" is a volunteer.
For example, Lessig seems convinced that the voters will vote for whoever has the biggest campaign chest. I'm not so sure; I'm thinking perhaps the politicians themselves are influenced by the PACs. For example, Chris Dodd's donations to the Obama campaign to pass more copyright laws may not have made the voters change their mind, but it might have convinced Obama that he needs to push for legislation in the MPAA's favor.
If the later scenario is the case, then Lessig is really doing it wrong.
Actually, this has been exactly Lessig's point. He is quick to point out that the problem with campaign finance isn't so much the corruption of the voters through advertising, but the corruption of the politicians through constant begging rich people for money.
I don't entirely agree; I think the millions going into advertising to misinform the voters are a huge part of the problem, but it's worth listening to Lessig's point, which agrees with yours. Much of the "fundamental reform" he is demanding is targeting the issue of how politicians raise money and the effect of that process on their decision making.
So please, quit your belly aching about the money. It is not an issue.
Are you being dense or intentionally deceptive?
Of course it's an issue. It is THE issue. Yes each of us should make our own decisions on how to vote. But the money IS corrupting the decision making of a large portion of the voters and of all the politicians.
How do plan we make people care?
Here's a plan. Here's another plan. Here's another plan.
You joke, but I think this is a serious question. NSLs and associated gag orders are clearly totalitarian and wrong. The Citizen's United decision is wrong -- corporate entities do not have rights. However -- if we assume that corporations do not have first amendment rights, are NSL gag orders unconstitutional or illegal?
One way I can see it is that it is constitutional for the government to prohibit e.g. Twitter from publishing these reports, and Twitter can then do their responsibility under the law in telling their employees not to publish the data (like any corporate NDA). Then if an employee does leak it, it is a breach of contract between them and Twitter, but it would be unconstitutional for the government to go after the employee for violating the gag order. As far as the government is concerned, the entity known as "Twitter" leaked the data and violated the gag order. The government can go after Twitter, but for what, fines? In this case "piercing the corporate veil" would be a violation of the first amendment. (Incidentally, what are the penalties for violating these gag orders?)
On the one hand, I applaud corporations standing up to this abuse. However, I think winning this case based on the false premise of Corporate Free Speech would be a very dangerous precedent and entrenching of Citizen's United-style logic.
I've seen people try to refute this straw man a lot lately. I don't think anyone is saying there is literally no difference between the two parties. What I mean when I say something like "the Democrats and Republicans are the same" is that they are either the same on issues I consider important (like the GP's "support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process") or not sufficiently different on issues I consider important (climate change, taxes). Of course they differ significantly or insignificantly or just-for-show on some other issues, but that does not negate the fact that they are the same when it comes to the issue under discussion. You may be choosing one of these two parties because you want to vote, for example, for or against abortion, but that does mean that you are also voting for indefinite war and other awful policies with either choice. It also implies that the differentiating issue is more important to you than the non-differentiating ones.
Everything you just listed, except the "single breadwinner", IS "keeping up with the Joneses."
link?
Massachusetts, Washington and Arkansas (and probably Colorado) legalized marijuana. Montana "reformed medical marijuana". Oregon had a referendum to legalize, which failed.
Correction: Massachusetts legalized medical marijuana. Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for recreational use.
Pick one. How do we get it done?
5% would be nice. Even being liberal, I really hoped for it and expected it. But Johnson only got 1% of the vote. Where were all the libertarians yesterday?
After voting for a 3rd party in this election, we all have a mission over the next 2 years to push for and implement IRV in our respective states.
So why not push for it? We've all got 3 years to push for and implement Instant Runoff Voting for all elections in our respective states and end this clown show in 2016 and for good.
It's war, not a courtroom. The burden of proof is a little different and combatants don't get trials.
The U.S. is not at war with Pakistan or other countries where drone strikes are taking place.
There are two options here:
1) The Pakistani government does not approve of these attacks. If this is the case, we are lucky they don't take it as the act of war it is. Then your statement would apply.
2) The Pakistani government does approve of these attacks. If this is the case the U.S. is assassinating citizens of a foreign country on behalf of their government without any semblance of due process.
I think there are two factors at play:
1. They don't have answers to all the questions from some 3rd party candidates, so your % match for Stein is based on fewer issues than it is for Romney or Obama.
2. Many people really do agree with much of the Green party platform (and perhaps more so, the Justice Party, which is more economically moderate) but don't know it or ignore it or deny it.
Also, the guy Nader has actually endorsed: http://www.voterocky.org/rocky_barack_mitt
So before you say, "The two parties are totally different!" ask yourself this: are you really looking at all possibilities, or have you narrowed your field of view to the point where two fascist parties appear to be worlds apart?
I'm surprised to see Al Franken on the sponsors list ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968 ). He appears to champion net neutrality, and I would think fighting this kind of thing would be on the same agenda.
95 octane is standard gasoline in Europe? that might explain the price a little. 87 is standard in the US and 93 is "premium".
I used to use Opera for several years, but switched to a mix of Konqueror for most web browsing, Firefox for gmail and other broken sites and KMail for other mail because Opera just didn't fit in well with the rest of the desktop and my applications. You could tweak the look some with skins, but I could never get it to use my Qt style. At the time I was also using the OS-X-like menu bar which Opera wouldn't use, and there were some other annoyances. Since Opera uses Qt I would think it would be a great browser for KDE, but so far that hasn't been the case. Any improvements here?
So in other words, you are a leech and YOU are what's wrong with the government. (well, one of the things).
Lemmy, I agree with all your ideas, well put.