Re:Maybe the voters just rejected THEM...
on
Mayday PAC Goes 2 For 8
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
so now, we just have "whoever has enough money to spend" is in charge of determining Free Speech.
>Maybe the voters think that the voters should be exposed to more information on a candidate than just what the news shows them, because the news goes out of its way to favor certain candidates and certain policies.
The news is biased, solution: unlimited political advertisements, which are surely non-partisan in nature. Surely you jest. Your solution for somewhat biased news, is purely %100 subjective information presented for the sole reason of supporting a certain canidate available only to those with enough money, who generally want to use this to support canidates to further remove the people who aren't making as much's ability to buy canidates of their own by removing more of their money.
>Also, this was a wave election for Republicans. I wouldn't expect anyone using Communist imagery (and who launched on a Communist holiday*) to do well in this environment.
well it depends, certain issues like min wage raises, and legalization of marijuanna show the public does have support for libertarian socialist principles. What people are sick of is the democrat party.
As for May First, its a holiday to commemerate 8 men tried and excuted in the US of A for the soley political crimes, in a kangaroo court, set up and ran by the US government. May first is a socialist holiday true, but anyone who believes in freedom and democracy to any extent, or likes to brag about due proccess, or checks and balances in government should also celebrate.
almost everyone I've met IRL, votes democrat or republican because its expected of their social group. 90% of their beliefs come around some vast conspiracy theory started by the other party, that they are brave political soliders working to stop. They over-analyze every last thing everyone from the other group says or does to fit the conspiracy, to self-affirm their beleifs to generate more conspiracy.
Once again, your back with false equvilance, mistating cause, effect, or actual conditions on the ground for some hypothetical solution, then ignoring whatever facts don't suit you.
>Corporations cannot do anything that can get a jail sentence. A corporation cannot do anything at all. It is nothing more than a legal structure that people operate under.
so corporations are not people, I agree. They have been ruled in court to be people, which is bad, because as you've stated, they are clearly not people.
>If we wanted a system that took the best aspects of capitalism, you'd let the states compete to see who can do the best job to win the chance to run the country as a whole.
no, we'd just have more of the same.
companies succeede when they recruit great workers. Once they get big enough, the bosses get arrogant, and fool themselves into beleiving their own propaganda about that they themselves built the company, and any worker could accomplish the work at hand. Once this happens, its a slow down hill.
Capitalism is a lie. Things only work, when the workers care to make them as such. They care work under any system that doesn't stop them from doing so. Bosses are not needed.
not neccarily. Many businesses suck at what they do, they just suck less than the next business, and stay in business through a combination of volume of scale, and a handful of previous successes.
Truth is, There are very few businesses that have lasted as long as the US government. Most don't make it 100 years. Most don't have the faintest idea what keeps them in business, or how they got to where they are, especially after a few generations of founding, and all the original talent has gone, and then fail when the money runs out.
term limits are generally a bad idea, because there are no term limits of lobbyists, and no term limits on party leadership types who determine who gets to run in the first place. The only thing term limits will do, is keep the maverick independant minded types out.
You did have one good idea, proportional representation. This way, your not really voting against anyone, because if a ticket is split three ways, especailly if the top two canidates have similar ideas, a third, unpopular canidate is not representing everyone who hates him, and no one "spoils" the vote. The party system is how this country has always worked, but our political system does not take into consideration that reality.
I'd go one step further and add both recall elections(vote to remove politician from office), and ballot iniatives at the federal level. This way, if a politician does something stupid, the vote doesn't soley have to be about his party, or his political stances, but about dumb shit he does, because the next election will feature another canidate from his party who does not have to be him.
Thats actually a good start, for a first election.
I don't know why people expect rapid ground moving change to happen over night. If mayday was a real grassroots movement, it'd take it a long time for its people to gain the experiance enough to compete with corporate firms with lots of experiance. The demands of organizations full of unexperianced people to compete with proffesionals overnight is the reason why activist movements fail.
For a new concept its doing well considering how young it is.
> Its not about finding and electing good candidates.
and who controls information about canidates. Thats the problem.
> Its about punishing bad representatives. Instilling fear into representatives that if they go too far they will loose their office
the system is set up to prevent this on two accounts:
1. there is no method of removing sitting politicians in federal office from power, without accusing them of a crime(i.e. recall)
2. the conversation on politics is controlled via news media. the news can make issues go away if need be, and causes distractions.
3. In a two party system people often have serious moral objections to policy, but at the same time don't like the other party's values.
The easiest way would be to institute recall elections, where a canidate could be removed based on popular discontent, and two other politicians from both parties could have the option to run.(as opposed to voting for a bad politician vs someone with ideas you completely disagree with)
The only other option is to institute party based proportional representation, where people could vote their ideas, and diffrent parties with similar ideas can form alliances after the fact.
foul launguage is a problem for society. I mean serious. These kids will grow up and not be offended by foul language, and won't teach their kids to be offended by it either.
So essentially the 'potty mouth' is a self-created problem.
As for your anecdotal evidence, it seems to contradict studies and everyone elses anecdotal evidence, indicating a perception bias on your part. Do you have anyway to defend your comments besides "HURRR LIEBRALS", and "DAMN COMMIES", and tired cliches and baseless rhetoric?
the problem is that we don't have any real populist political canidates. What we have is a guild of trial lawyers that create laws to generate lawsuits, and make money in lawsuits instead.
And of course shakedown of industries for token gestures, that include cash bribes to further lobbying efforts.
The problem we have in America isn't that we have socialist politicians, the problem is the socialist politicians have been replaced with jackass "cronyists" who are simply more capitalists, who really don't give a rats ass about corporations further than what they can shake them down for.
the worst part is that its *not* just conservatives, unless you want to slap the "conservative" to include many mainstream "liberals".
Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Clinton, et al, come to mind as people who have jumped on the fear mongering bandwagon in the past.
>Can this "debate" please not go on like climate "Debate" has?
that would be a godsend, instead of a onesided monolouge ending in a massive restriction of rights and putting innocent people on terrorist watchlist as long as other forms of harrassment.
Which is exactly what happened. from around 1980-2001, when all of a sudden muslim terrists became a the new threat to society.
Copyright law as designed now only exists to protect corporations with big enough legal budgets to write copyrights and patents, and spend the time in court.
then only rich and powerful companies have licenses. This is a bad idea.
not only will it all but prohibit all potentially legitimate use, it will not stop illegitimate requests like this, or even patent trolls, as they will have funds to pay.
>I feel like I've lost my entire cultural identity in effort to be part of the culture I've spent the majority of the last decade in.
to be honest, most white male nerds lost most of their identity with traditional white and male culture years ago.
IT and technology up until very recently was a soul crushing job that almost perminatnly marked you as an outcast, with no life outside your own. The reason is you have an undeniable value to society, any society, and any society that has the technology you create will be better than the ones without it.
That gives you leverage, and the rest of the intellegista fears you, because most of them are worthless hacks who have class and status, that is very relivant to the people who gave it to them.
>In that yes, if a vulnerability does not afford strategic value internationally, yeah, release it if it'll increase public security. But i'm inclined to believe we'd all agree that there's a cost benefit going on.
the war is not an international struggle against a foreign enemy, but a perpetual war against her own people.
Given that the NSA got caught red handed basicly spying on everyone in the USA, and then lied about it, its very reasonable to assume they have domestic targets.
The FBI has been caught red handed making up terrorist plots by bribing and conning the poor and desperate into fake terrorist plots.
Its only reasonable to assume that the NSA would at least be partially complicit in framing poor, outcast, and downtrodden Americans to further the homeland security state.
Its also not unreasonable to combine the above with a very large schism between written law and values of the populace to explain the largest prison system in the world, and highest incarceration rate in the world.
There is no benefit to the American people. The percieved beenfit, is that most of us *like to think* we are a class above, or superior to the class of people being harrassed, arrested, incarcerated by the system, until we find out we are not.
>It's really not in the NSA's job description to be exposing vulnerabilities in public systems so much as exploiting them.
it is. It is their job. Its why they established the DES, AES, SHA standards. I frankly would like to see more transparency in the agency, as well as public funds used to further security projects that actually protect the people, protect vital infrastructure, and increase transparency, instead of fear mongering and cloak and dagger bullshit. This is not a video game or a movie.
If the NSA spent their time soley finding exploits and fixing them in software and hardware that ran essential infrastructure and consumer goods(think payment systems), they'd do more to deter crime(making cracking far harder, and harder to break into systems), protect national intrests(chineese hackers won't be able to get in, peroid), than they would leaving backdoors open to attack people.
What they miss is that most exploits are not discovered, they are leaked. Oppertunist and disgruntled employees leak exploits. Spies steal them. Cloak and Dagger shit gets far messier than seen in the movies. Spies are not always found.
They won't do this, because the biggest threat to NSA, is disgruntled citizens, not attacking anyone, but voicing dissent, and people demanding the government actually live up to its own stated values.
not really, because ebola is mostly in Africa, where no one is going to pay a lot of money for this.
No profit potential, no drugs. That holds true for both parties, but you don't here too much about big pharma, because they donate alot to the dems.
Or it might get funding once Bill Gates or some other wealthy philanthropist decides he is going to pay for it. Or he might not give a shit, and no one develops this vaccine. Isn't philianthropy great. A few rich people make small exceptions to capitalism so they can gobble up social capital, but rarely respond to crises in a regular and predictable fashion that would be required of a truely public service that would replace them.
and this is my argument against constitutionalism.
I'm not saying the US Constitution is bad, but I'm just saying not only is it ineffective, its impossible for a document, any document to serve the role as an iron clad guaruntee of rights, or to protect the people.
In the history of the United States, since day one,(or at least since the Alien and Sedition acts), the government has blatantly ignored or re-interpreted the constitution to fit whatever they wanted to do anyway.
On the other side of the coin, the constitution gets used as a banner and an excuse against needed change.
your ignoring the facts of social constructs and the ability to influence people with "soft power".
While it might "litterally" be one man, one vote, its long established the tenants of true democracy is an educated and informed populace. Its something we do not have, because the system prevents it. In addition, you also have to count "what do the votes go to", a first past the post system, that in previous times was an indirrect vote, i.e. the vote was designed to give the populace as little say on the outcome for practicle terms as possible. We have a media system that is in bed with the government, and media news sources that report right back to party bosses as well as a third loyal to the system as a whole, and openly hostile to the opposition.
Televised debates are not run by disintrested third parties, but by a join committee run by the major two parties, which excludes third parties. There are no other televised debates.
The two established parties established themselves before we were a democracy, i.e. didn't have a direct vote. Third parties excluded because its an all or nothing system. A small party can't get big enough without going through some phase where they split a ticket, leaving to the win of an unpopular canidate(gets less than %33 of the vote).
There is no direct democracy at the federal level at all, no recalls for bad politicians, and little if any accountability.
This is not getting into law enforcement harrassment of activists and those with views that deviate too far from, or those who do any sort of political activity without a sponsor already in government willing to get them out of trouble.
As far as politicians go, they blatantly lie. If suddenly a politicians got into office willing to do things the %1 hated, they'd either bribe him, or have him censored for something. If he's in the party system, he'd be coerced or bribed into submission, unless of course someone else in the %1 wanted to back him.
If voting ever changed anything they'd make it illegal - Emma Goldman(the real source of the quote)
Slashdot Mirror
so now, we just have "whoever has enough money to spend" is in charge of determining Free Speech.
>Maybe the voters think that the voters should be exposed to more information on a candidate than just what the news shows them, because the news goes out of its way to favor certain candidates and certain policies.
The news is biased, solution: unlimited political advertisements, which are surely non-partisan in nature. Surely you jest. Your solution for somewhat biased news, is purely %100 subjective information presented for the sole reason of supporting a certain canidate available only to those with enough money, who generally want to use this to support canidates to further remove the people who aren't making as much's ability to buy canidates of their own by removing more of their money.
>Also, this was a wave election for Republicans. I wouldn't expect anyone using Communist imagery (and who launched on a Communist holiday*) to do well in this environment.
well it depends, certain issues like min wage raises, and legalization of marijuanna show the public does have support for libertarian socialist principles. What people are sick of is the democrat party.
As for May First, its a holiday to commemerate 8 men tried and excuted in the US of A for the soley political crimes, in a kangaroo court, set up and ran by the US government. May first is a socialist holiday true, but anyone who believes in freedom and democracy to any extent, or likes to brag about due proccess, or checks and balances in government should also celebrate.
almost everyone I've met IRL, votes democrat or republican because its expected of their social group. 90% of their beliefs come around some vast conspiracy theory started by the other party, that they are brave political soliders working to stop. They over-analyze every last thing everyone from the other group says or does to fit the conspiracy, to self-affirm their beleifs to generate more conspiracy.
oh hai there hairyfeet, its been a while.
Once again, your back with false equvilance, mistating cause, effect, or actual conditions on the ground for some hypothetical solution, then ignoring whatever facts don't suit you.
>Corporations cannot do anything that can get a jail sentence. A corporation cannot do anything at all. It is nothing more than a legal structure that people operate under.
so corporations are not people, I agree. They have been ruled in court to be people, which is bad, because as you've stated, they are clearly not people.
>If we wanted a system that took the best aspects of capitalism, you'd let the states compete to see who can do the best job to win the chance to run the country as a whole.
no, we'd just have more of the same.
companies succeede when they recruit great workers. Once they get big enough, the bosses get arrogant, and fool themselves into beleiving their own propaganda about that they themselves built the company, and any worker could accomplish the work at hand. Once this happens, its a slow down hill.
Capitalism is a lie. Things only work, when the workers care to make them as such. They care work under any system that doesn't stop them from doing so. Bosses are not needed.
not neccarily. Many businesses suck at what they do, they just suck less than the next business, and stay in business through a combination of volume of scale, and a handful of previous successes.
Truth is, There are very few businesses that have lasted as long as the US government. Most don't make it 100 years. Most don't have the faintest idea what keeps them in business, or how they got to where they are, especially after a few generations of founding, and all the original talent has gone, and then fail when the money runs out.
what principle?
I hope your not one of those people who likes to talk about poor people demanding handouts?
term limits are generally a bad idea, because there are no term limits of lobbyists, and no term limits on party leadership types who determine who gets to run in the first place. The only thing term limits will do, is keep the maverick independant minded types out.
You did have one good idea, proportional representation. This way, your not really voting against anyone, because if a ticket is split three ways, especailly if the top two canidates have similar ideas, a third, unpopular canidate is not representing everyone who hates him, and no one "spoils" the vote. The party system is how this country has always worked, but our political system does not take into consideration that reality.
I'd go one step further and add both recall elections(vote to remove politician from office), and ballot iniatives at the federal level. This way, if a politician does something stupid, the vote doesn't soley have to be about his party, or his political stances, but about dumb shit he does, because the next election will feature another canidate from his party who does not have to be him.
2 for 8.
Thats actually a good start, for a first election.
I don't know why people expect rapid ground moving change to happen over night. If mayday was a real grassroots movement, it'd take it a long time for its people to gain the experiance enough to compete with corporate firms with lots of experiance. The demands of organizations full of unexperianced people to compete with proffesionals overnight is the reason why activist movements fail.
For a new concept its doing well considering how young it is.
>The objections you offer are meaningless.
not really.
> Its not about finding and electing good candidates.
and who controls information about canidates. Thats the problem.
> Its about punishing bad representatives. Instilling fear into representatives that if they go too far they will loose their office
the system is set up to prevent this on two accounts:
1. there is no method of removing sitting politicians in federal office from power, without accusing them of a crime(i.e. recall)
2. the conversation on politics is controlled via news media. the news can make issues go away if need be, and causes distractions.
3. In a two party system people often have serious moral objections to policy, but at the same time don't like the other party's values.
The easiest way would be to institute recall elections, where a canidate could be removed based on popular discontent, and two other politicians from both parties could have the option to run.(as opposed to voting for a bad politician vs someone with ideas you completely disagree with)
The only other option is to institute party based proportional representation, where people could vote their ideas, and diffrent parties with similar ideas can form alliances after the fact.
which correlates neatly with the widespread introduction of violent videogames. 2014 is now, 1994(20 years ago), is the introduction of "DOOM".
foul launguage is a problem for society. I mean serious. These kids will grow up and not be offended by foul language, and won't teach their kids to be offended by it either.
So essentially the 'potty mouth' is a self-created problem.
As for your anecdotal evidence, it seems to contradict studies and everyone elses anecdotal evidence, indicating a perception bias on your part. Do you have anyway to defend your comments besides "HURRR LIEBRALS", and "DAMN COMMIES", and tired cliches and baseless rhetoric?
aparantly not.
please call us back after you've found reality.
the problem is that we don't have any real populist political canidates. What we have is a guild of trial lawyers that create laws to generate lawsuits, and make money in lawsuits instead.
And of course shakedown of industries for token gestures, that include cash bribes to further lobbying efforts.
The problem we have in America isn't that we have socialist politicians, the problem is the socialist politicians have been replaced with jackass "cronyists" who are simply more capitalists, who really don't give a rats ass about corporations further than what they can shake them down for.
the worst part is that its *not* just conservatives, unless you want to slap the "conservative" to include many mainstream "liberals".
Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Clinton, et al, come to mind as people who have jumped on the fear mongering bandwagon in the past.
>Can this "debate" please not go on like climate "Debate" has?
that would be a godsend, instead of a onesided monolouge ending in a massive restriction of rights and putting innocent people on terrorist watchlist as long as other forms of harrassment.
Which is exactly what happened. from around 1980-2001, when all of a sudden muslim terrists became a the new threat to society.
most of them.
Glaring exceptions for the ones in politics, the media, teaching in high schools, serving on PTAs, and participating in some forms of religeon.
Copyright law as designed now only exists to protect corporations with big enough legal budgets to write copyrights and patents, and spend the time in court.
then only rich and powerful companies have licenses. This is a bad idea.
not only will it all but prohibit all potentially legitimate use, it will not stop illegitimate requests like this, or even patent trolls, as they will have funds to pay.
>I feel like I've lost my entire cultural identity in effort to be part of the culture I've spent the majority of the last decade in.
to be honest, most white male nerds lost most of their identity with traditional white and male culture years ago.
IT and technology up until very recently was a soul crushing job that almost perminatnly marked you as an outcast, with no life outside your own. The reason is you have an undeniable value to society, any society, and any society that has the technology you create will be better than the ones without it.
That gives you leverage, and the rest of the intellegista fears you, because most of them are worthless hacks who have class and status, that is very relivant to the people who gave it to them.
These are social values in capitalism.
>In that yes, if a vulnerability does not afford strategic value internationally, yeah, release it if it'll increase public security. But i'm inclined to believe we'd all agree that there's a cost benefit going on.
the war is not an international struggle against a foreign enemy, but a perpetual war against her own people.
Given that the NSA got caught red handed basicly spying on everyone in the USA, and then lied about it, its very reasonable to assume they have domestic targets.
The FBI has been caught red handed making up terrorist plots by bribing and conning the poor and desperate into fake terrorist plots.
Its only reasonable to assume that the NSA would at least be partially complicit in framing poor, outcast, and downtrodden Americans to further the homeland security state.
Its also not unreasonable to combine the above with a very large schism between written law and values of the populace to explain the largest prison system in the world, and highest incarceration rate in the world.
There is no benefit to the American people. The percieved beenfit, is that most of us *like to think* we are a class above, or superior to the class of people being harrassed, arrested, incarcerated by the system, until we find out we are not.
>It's really not in the NSA's job description to be exposing vulnerabilities in public systems so much as exploiting them.
it is. It is their job. Its why they established the DES, AES, SHA standards. I frankly would like to see more transparency in the agency, as well as public funds used to further security projects that actually protect the people, protect vital infrastructure, and increase transparency, instead of fear mongering and cloak and dagger bullshit. This is not a video game or a movie.
If the NSA spent their time soley finding exploits and fixing them in software and hardware that ran essential infrastructure and consumer goods(think payment systems), they'd do more to deter crime(making cracking far harder, and harder to break into systems), protect national intrests(chineese hackers won't be able to get in, peroid), than they would leaving backdoors open to attack people.
What they miss is that most exploits are not discovered, they are leaked. Oppertunist and disgruntled employees leak exploits. Spies steal them. Cloak and Dagger shit gets far messier than seen in the movies. Spies are not always found.
They won't do this, because the biggest threat to NSA, is disgruntled citizens, not attacking anyone, but voicing dissent, and people demanding the government actually live up to its own stated values.
not really, because ebola is mostly in Africa, where no one is going to pay a lot of money for this.
No profit potential, no drugs. That holds true for both parties, but you don't here too much about big pharma, because they donate alot to the dems.
Or it might get funding once Bill Gates or some other wealthy philanthropist decides he is going to pay for it. Or he might not give a shit, and no one develops this vaccine. Isn't philianthropy great. A few rich people make small exceptions to capitalism so they can gobble up social capital, but rarely respond to crises in a regular and predictable fashion that would be required of a truely public service that would replace them.
isn't capitalism great?
That is something I can get behind.
and this is my argument against constitutionalism.
I'm not saying the US Constitution is bad, but I'm just saying not only is it ineffective, its impossible for a document, any document to serve the role as an iron clad guaruntee of rights, or to protect the people.
In the history of the United States, since day one,(or at least since the Alien and Sedition acts), the government has blatantly ignored or re-interpreted the constitution to fit whatever they wanted to do anyway.
On the other side of the coin, the constitution gets used as a banner and an excuse against needed change.
and general welfare, don't forget general welfare.
Here is a classic mistake your making:
your ignoring the facts of social constructs and the ability to influence people with "soft power".
While it might "litterally" be one man, one vote, its long established the tenants of true democracy is an educated and informed populace. Its something we do not have, because the system prevents it. In addition, you also have to count "what do the votes go to", a first past the post system, that in previous times was an indirrect vote, i.e. the vote was designed to give the populace as little say on the outcome for practicle terms as possible. We have a media system that is in bed with the government, and media news sources that report right back to party bosses as well as a third loyal to the system as a whole, and openly hostile to the opposition.
Televised debates are not run by disintrested third parties, but by a join committee run by the major two parties, which excludes third parties. There are no other televised debates.
The two established parties established themselves before we were a democracy, i.e. didn't have a direct vote. Third parties excluded because its an all or nothing system. A small party can't get big enough without going through some phase where they split a ticket, leaving to the win of an unpopular canidate(gets less than %33 of the vote).
There is no direct democracy at the federal level at all, no recalls for bad politicians, and little if any accountability.
This is not getting into law enforcement harrassment of activists and those with views that deviate too far from, or those who do any sort of political activity without a sponsor already in government willing to get them out of trouble.
As far as politicians go, they blatantly lie. If suddenly a politicians got into office willing to do things the %1 hated, they'd either bribe him, or have him censored for something. If he's in the party system, he'd be coerced or bribed into submission, unless of course someone else in the %1 wanted to back him.
If voting ever changed anything they'd make it illegal - Emma Goldman(the real source of the quote)