|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States41995 Posts
On October 13 2016 01:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 01:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
GH, use your words. Don’t make people guess what you are referencing. If you have a proof of fraud, bring it or stop claiming it took place. Take a look for yourself. http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/ That is a civil action filed with the court that has not been resolved and is currently facing a motion to dismiss. It hasn’t even progressed to discovery at this point. That isn’t proof of anything. On what grounds did they file a motion to dismiss? Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:59 TheYango wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:
No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up to fix the democratic process.
The problem is that "standing up for the democratic process" by nonparticipation has the opposite effect of what you want. If the parties perceive you to be an ideologue who won't be swayed, they stop giving a shit about what you think. That means you progressively get LESS of what you want, not more. In order for people's interests to be catered to by the parties, the parties have to feel like they have to actually cater to those interests in order to get your vote. If you won't vote for them anyway, they won't care. If you'll vote for them either way, they also won't care. I don't understand how people reconcile this with the actual history of the United States?
For a hundred years not one Presidential nominee tried to win by appealing to the slave vote because the slaves couldn't vote and therefore no politician gave a shit. By disenfranchising yourself you're giving yourself the same political power they had and hoping that at some point some whitey will come along and change the system.
|
On October 13 2016 01:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people reconcile this with the actual history of the United States?
I'm not clear what you're referring to?
|
On October 13 2016 02:02 JW_DTLA wrote:
If you want to cite garbage lawsuits, make sure they didn't just get dismissed in the second to last document.
That is a proposed order that isn’t executed. It is standard for the attorney to file it with a motion. The motion has not been ruled on yet.
|
On October 13 2016 02:02 JW_DTLA wrote:September 21, 2016 47 47-1 Proposed Order on Motion to Dismiss Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Having considered the papers submitted by the parties to the Court, as well as any argument on the same, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and dismisses this matter for lack of Article III standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/48-D.E.-48-Prop-Ord-on-MTD-9-21-16.pdfIf you want to cite garbage lawsuits, make sure they didn't just get dismissed in the second to last document. [
Except the case hasn't been dismissed.... (read the title of what you're citing)
|
Seems like a pretty good case for dismissal though 
|
On October 13 2016 02:07 farvacola wrote:Seems like a pretty good case for dismissal though
Given that the attorneys filing the suit fucked up service, I wouldn't be surprised.
|
On October 13 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Taking a risk? For what? He told me the result of taking a risk. The third party candidate isn't viable. Even if I vote for them. Why the hell would I pick that hill to die on? There are better options later on.
Well, if you prefer taking to arms after the fact instead of simply voting with your conscience, then sure, there are "better" options... Of course, you will argue that "viable candidates" means it is inevitable and thus why bother voting 3rd party, etc, etc. We're sure to be going in circles at this point. In this hypothetical scenario with two actual fascists, I would hope there is enough dissent that a sufficient amount of sensible people would vote outside of the two established parties... But you, apparently, are not one of them, and would just vote for one of the fascists instead. I really hope that you did not mean that.
|
|
|
On October 13 2016 02:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 01:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
GH, use your words. Don’t make people guess what you are referencing. If you have a proof of fraud, bring it or stop claiming it took place. Take a look for yourself. http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/ That is a civil action filed with the court that has not been resolved and is currently facing a motion to dismiss. It hasn’t even progressed to discovery at this point. That isn’t proof of anything. On what grounds did they file a motion to dismiss? On October 13 2016 01:59 TheYango wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:
No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up to fix the democratic process.
The problem is that "standing up for the democratic process" by nonparticipation has the opposite effect of what you want. If the parties perceive you to be an ideologue who won't be swayed, they stop giving a shit about what you think. That means you progressively get LESS of what you want, not more. In order for people's interests to be catered to by the parties, the parties have to feel like they have to actually cater to those interests in order to get your vote. If you won't vote for them anyway, they won't care. If you'll vote for them either way, they also won't care. I don't understand how people reconcile this with the actual history of the United States? For a hundred years not one Presidential nominee tried to win by appealing to the slave vote because the slaves couldn't vote and therefore no politician gave a shit. By disenfranchising yourself you're giving yourself the same political power they had and hoping that at some point some whitey will come along and change the system.
That's a terrible analogy. You should stop when you are ahead. In this scenario the slaves can vote, and if the slaves outnumbered whitey 8 to 1 it would simply be a matter of convincing them to start voting for notwhitey.
So in this analogy you might be whitey yelling at GH that you are the only train in town and he can either sit in the back or walk.
|
Wouldn’t the DNC have a publicly listed representative to accept service of process, just like most corporations? Who hires some bush league process server to just hands paperwork to the first person that appears in front of them and says they work for the DNC?
|
On October 13 2016 02:19 Plansix wrote:
Wouldn’t the DNC have a publicly listed representative to accept service of process, just like most corporations? Who hires some bush league process server to just hands paperwork to the first person that appears in front of them and says they work for the DNC?
The problem is that the Plaintiff tried to effect personal service on DWS by serving someone else in a way that was not compliant with the rules, and the Court had none of it. Different problem, but just as stupid.
|
On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process.
People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people.
If you want to use the Stalin/Hitler example--then actually use it.
Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie.
Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Trump.
So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time.
Establishments are establishments for a reason, they are the aggregated opinions and thoughts of the politically active populace. The best way to have no say in policy, to have no ability to change how the world works, to have no way to prevent people like Hitler and Stalin from taking power is to segregate yourself from the establishment.
And if you don't agree with the establishment--you do what every group that has forced change do, you march, you protest, you upend the status quo, you block traffic, risk losing job, risk jail time, and force your voice and face into the establishments goals until they are forced to ask you "What can I do to get you on my side."
Protesting your vote is not actually protesting, its simply silencing yourself because you're too much of a coward to do what actually needs to be done. The GOP supporters already know what they plan to do should they be forced between choosing Hitler and Stalin, the second amendment is their go to 100% of the time.
|
On October 13 2016 02:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:02 JW_DTLA wrote:
If you want to cite garbage lawsuits, make sure they didn't just get dismissed in the second to last document. That is a proposed order that isn’t executed. It is standard for the attorney to file it with a motion. The motion has not been ruled on yet.
I didn't understand who was doing the proposing. I thought it was the judge and they were still going to have a response.
|
On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Trump. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time.
Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted.
Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people?
|
On October 13 2016 02:26 JW_DTLA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:04 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 02:02 JW_DTLA wrote:
If you want to cite garbage lawsuits, make sure they didn't just get dismissed in the second to last document. That is a proposed order that isn’t executed. It is standard for the attorney to file it with a motion. The motion has not been ruled on yet. I didn't understand who was doing the proposing. I thought it was the judge and they were still going to have a response.
The Defendant, the DNC and related parties, filed a proposed order to their motion to dismiss the case with the motion itself. And its a really common mistake, my clients do it all the time. Its why I loath online dockets, because our clients camp them.
In normal people terms, motions are just one side asking the court to do something. They file the motion itself, which details the thing they want, why they should get it and the evidence to support it. They also file a proposed order which clearly details the outcome they would like to see from the motion. None of it is binding, its is like a really formal suggestion and its standard under the federal rules. It it isn't used in every court. Most of the states I work in don't want proposed orders. The New Hampshire court clerks will call you up and yell at you if you file one.
On October 13 2016 02:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:19 Plansix wrote:
Wouldn’t the DNC have a publicly listed representative to accept service of process, just like most corporations? Who hires some bush league process server to just hands paperwork to the first person that appears in front of them and says they work for the DNC? The problem is that the Plaintiff tried to effect personal service on DWS by serving someone else in a way that was not compliant with the rules, and the Court had none of it. Different problem, but just as stupid.
That is beyond stupid. I got to focused on how mad I would be if a constable just threw a summons into some random employee's hand and didn't even ask if they were authorized to accept service.
|
On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Trump. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people?
Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry?
When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2?
Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler.
|
On October 13 2016 02:26 JW_DTLA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:04 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 02:02 JW_DTLA wrote:
If you want to cite garbage lawsuits, make sure they didn't just get dismissed in the second to last document. That is a proposed order that isn’t executed. It is standard for the attorney to file it with a motion. The motion has not been ruled on yet. I didn't understand who was doing the proposing. I thought it was the judge and they were still going to have a response.
The general rule is that courts don't like to do anything and, accordingly, if one wants the court to adopt a particular order, one better write it for them if the local culture dictates it. In the federal courts, judges above the Magistrate level almost never author anything proposed, and with magistrates, proposed orders are called a Report and Recommendation. As Plansix mentioned, local court culture determines the propriety of filing a proposed order.
|
In my experience the judges lower courts like to write their own orders. Some will ask you to write one after they rule and then wait 5 months to sign it. Its a flexible system.
|
On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Trump. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler.
Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man.
|
On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy.
All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler. Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man.
Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue.
I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
