So basically some completely random black guy from South Carolina wins the South Carolina Democratic Primary. His name is Alvin Greene, and he is a 32 year old Army veteran who is currently unemployed and lives with his parents. No-one knows who he is, he has never participated in any political activities before, and he didn't spend a dime on campaigning. He beat out Vic Rawl, a former state legislator, for the nomination. He also has a pending felony charge for "showing obscene photos to a SC college student, and suggesting sex afterwards."
As you can see by the above interview, he has no idea wtf he is doing, has no platform, and is overall kind of an "out-there" person. Some people believe that the Republicans "planted" him there, but I generally don't think that's actually possible.
Edit: Seems like a nice enough guy though. Kind of makes me think of Forrest Gump, if he ran for election.
Here's a map for district by district results for the Primary:
From the map, it looks like he not only won, but won by a decisive margin, 59-41.
Alvin Greene has been on the phone all day. That's to be expected for the guy who just won South Carolina's Democratic Senate primary and is facing incumbent Republican Jim DeMint in November. But everyone calling Greene has just been trying to find out who the heck he is — and one thing reporters learned Tuesday is that a criminal complaint was sworn out against him last year for allegedly showing obscene photos to a South Carolina college student and suggesting they go to her dorm room.
Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed military veteran who lives with his parents, defeated Vic Rawl on Tuesday for the Democratic Senate nomination despite having run essentially no public campaign — no events, no signs, no debates, no website, no fundraising.
The result has baffled political observers, who had heavily favored Rawl — a former state legislator, attorney and prosecutor who had the edge inasmuch as he actually campaigned and tried to win. Many in South Carolina (which has grandly lived up to its reputation as a political circus this year) suspect that somewhere, a crafty GOP political operative is snickering.
As far as the local political press can discern, the only positive step Greene took toward campaigning was when he plunked down a $10,400 check in March to satisfy the state's filing fee and get on the ballot. He never registered a campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission or filed a financial disclosure with the Senate Ethics Committee.
So why did he run, and how did he win? "I campaigned," Greene, who spoke rapidly and seemed distracted, told Yahoo! News in a brief interview. "It was a low-budget campaign. I funded it 100 percent out of my own pocket, and kept it simple — it was old-fashioned." Asked what, precisely, that campaign consisted of, and how much he spent on it, Greene demurred. "Not much. I had friends helping me."
He said he hasn't yet reached the $5,000 spending limit that triggers a requirement to file with the FEC, despite having spent that $10,400 filing fee (a pretty penny for someone with no job). Like any good politician, Greene tried to deflect questions about the particulars of his campaign to talk of "the issues."
"I graduated from the University of South Carolina," he said. "We have more unemployment than any other time in South Carolina history. Hold on, I have another beep."
Shortly after his Yahoo! News interview, the Associated Press reported that Greene was arrested in November on the obscene photo complaint. Charges are pending, and he hasn't entered a plea. One could, of course, note that such charges wouldn't necessarily hurt a candidate in a Palmetto state election season that's featured plenty of sensational sexual charges.
Greene's candidacy has raised suspicions that he may have been induced to run by Republican operatives in order to sow dissension in the Democratic ranks. It's not uncommon in South Carolina for Republicans to recruit African-American challengers to run against white frontrunners in Democratic primaries in the hope of drumming up racial tensions. (Greene is black.) The straw candidates aren't supposed to win — they're just supposed to create a racially divisive primary to damage the candidate's ability to put together a coalition in the general election.
It's nothing new to Nu Wexler, the former executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party. "In 2004, on the last day you could file to run in the primary, we were wrapping things up when an SUV with a Bush-Cheney sticker dropped off three black guys who came in to file to run in some local races, and they all paid the filing fee with sequentially numbered cashier's checks from a local credit union," he said. In 1990, famed South Carolina political consultant Rod Shealy was convicted of violating campaign laws after recruiting a black candidate to run in a GOP primary for lieutenant governor in the hope of drawing out racist voters — a maneuver he thought would bolster support for his candidate.
Greene denies that he's a plant. But even if he is, the lack of an actual campaign seems to indicate that whatever plan he might have been a part of was quickly abandoned. Wexler says there may never have even been much of a strategy: "You have consultants doing this kind of thing just because they get bored, and they want something to tell good stories about. It's almost like fraternity pranks."
Greene's success is a testament both to the lackluster quality of the campaign run by Rawl (who raised $186,000 and ran ads) and to the, um, peculiar voting habits of South Carolinians. State Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler speculated to AP that Greene won because his name came before Rawl's on the ballot. Wexler says Greene is a "big name in South Carolina."
We called the South Carolina Democratic Party to ask if it intends to support Greene's candidacy, but haven't heard back. It could attempt to challenge Greene's win by claiming that he didn't pay the filing fee out of his own pocket — which, if true, would be a federal crime. "It puts them in a tough position," Wexler said. "You can't exactly start challenging the filing fees of every candidate."
Gonna be interesting to see the theories on how this dude got into this position. I'm guessing it has something to do with the democrats having decided beforehand that they wanted to nominate a black guy (demographics and all that).
Just looking at it from outside this seems like a bad joke. I mean I'm sure the guy is a perfectly pleasant man but he seems to have no qualification what so ever.
Isn't it what you really want? Middle aged family man, ex-military, middle class, didn't spend a fortune on election, no special interests other than general ideas on serving community? It's a dream.
On June 12 2010 05:28 StarBrift wrote: Gonna be interesting to see the theories on how this dude got into this position. I'm guessing it has something to do with the democrats having decided beforehand that they wanted to nominate a black guy (demographics and all that).
Just looking at it from outside this seems like a bad joke. I mean I'm sure the guy is a perfectly pleasant man but he seems to have no qualification what so ever.
That's not really the way the American primary system works. Democratic party leaders absolutely did not want this guy nominated. Primary elections are like regular elections, but to determine who *the* official Democratic/Republican/whatever party nominee will be. They tend to have lower turnout than main elections, but to have something like this happen is almost beyond belief. The man had no campaign.
South Carolina easily has the MOST entertaining political atmosphere in the US. Seriously, check out what's been going on over there in the last year, it's HILARIOUS.
On June 12 2010 05:37 neohero9 wrote: South Carolina easily has the MOST entertaining political atmosphere in the US. Seriously, check out what's been going on over there in the last year, it's HILARIOUS.
Agreed. What is going on in this state? WTF?
South Carolina: making the rest of us feel better about ourselves since 1663!
He seems like a good guy at least. He seems like an average Joe, who wants to get things done but probably can't because his lack of political knowledge.
my guess is this guy won because his name was first on the ballot... so people look and go "oh i want to vote for a D" and his name just happened to be first
he had no campian with television but he did state that he had a more personal one where he got in touch with his voters. Most likely people got fed up and voted him in out of spite.
Well I won't judge the man's intelligence based on how well of a public speaker he is. However it sure is hard to get elected to office when you can't get your ideas out to the public. This does not seem possible in this day and age.
LMAO. This guy is both good and bad at the same time. People think he was planted by the Republicans so they could get a free win. I mean, he is obviously a bit ignorant, but at least he admits when he doesn't know something. Wikipedia said he claimed he needed to know more about free trade before supporting it fully.
Hmm, the times are hard now, I can't get a job now after the military and I don't really know what to do. Hey, there is an upcoming election here, I wonder...
He's also in trouble with the law for showing pornography to younger people.
The reason he won seems obvious tho. My understanding is that he ran against a Judge who wasn't very well known either. His name ends with a G and his opponent with an R. If you have ignorance on both then most people will vote for the first name on the list and that is likely what happened here.
The Democratic party has asked him to back out but he refuses.
On June 12 2010 07:04 On_Slaught wrote: He's also in trouble with the law for showing pornography to younger people.
The reason he won seems obvious tho. My understanding is that he ran against a Judge who wasn't very well known either. His name ends with a G and his opponent with an R. If you have ignorance on both then most people will vote for the first name on the list and that is likely what happened here.
The Democratic party has asked him to back out but he refuses.
Uh... the Dems actually asked him to step down. Where did you get that he refused?
The way you phrased the porn thing makes it sound like he was showing it to minors. He showed it to a university student and then asked her to go back to a room.
This man is an inspiration. How many teens and 20 year olds currently live with their parents and are unemployed? He gives hope to all of us. Maybe one day if we work hard, get our message to our supporters and.. *shake head, mumble mumble* we too can win a democratic primary.
On June 12 2010 07:17 Warrior Madness wrote: This man is an inspiration. How many teens and 20 year olds currently live with their parents and are unemployed? He gives hope to all of us. Maybe one day if we work hard, get our message to our supporters and.. *shake head, mumble mumble* we too can win a democratic primary.
I'd say only in SC. When every politician has a sex scandal attached to them, it lowers the bar considerably for the rest of the hopefuls
Well to be honest I have to agree with what a lot of people in this thread have said before me. He seems more honest than most other politicians combined.
Also, if this guy won, how bad was Vic Rawl at campaining if he actually spent a lot of money and still managed to lose?
99% of the time I hear people complaining that the candidates are all the same old dried up men, and the moment some maverick shows up people are like wtf? This'll be interesting to see how it pans out. One thing I am curious about is he kept on referring to his message, but never said exactly what it is other than that he can relate to the people.
As a unserious side comment, it's not like this guy needs campaign money, he is going to get plenty of publicity regardless.
On June 12 2010 05:28 StarBrift wrote: Gonna be interesting to see the theories on how this dude got into this position. I'm guessing it has something to do with the democrats having decided beforehand that they wanted to nominate a black guy (demographics and all that).
Just looking at it from outside this seems like a bad joke. I mean I'm sure the guy is a perfectly pleasant man but he seems to have no qualification what so ever.
I think you're severely overestimating the qualifications of your average politician.
He's not a maverick, he's outright ignorant. He doesn't seem honest at all; he dodged several questions as "no comment", could provide zero specifics on his campaigning and was almost surely backed by someone else to pay that 10k fee. I fear for the state of the world if public cynicism of intelligent, well-informed politicians has grown so great that this sort of candidate becomes attractive. I don't want a soccer mom or an average joe as the administrator of my state. I want someone smarter than me with a background in economics and public policy.
He won because of two things: 1) his name was first on the ballot. 2) Nobody on the democratic side gave a shit about this primary because they know that the republican candidate is an overwhelming favorite to win.
This guy is surely an idiot, and he has a felony to boot.
It's sad because this shows how little thought people actually put into their votes. It makes me wonder whether a democracy is really the way to go sometimes.
Surprised no one has mentioned the obvious yet: he ran for the Democratic party, he's black, and his name is Al Green! I guarantee you a lot of people voted for him simply b/c of his name.
On June 12 2010 07:04 On_Slaught wrote: He's also in trouble with the law for showing pornography to younger people.
The reason he won seems obvious tho. My understanding is that he ran against a Judge who wasn't very well known either. His name ends with a G and his opponent with an R. If you have ignorance on both then most people will vote for the first name on the list and that is likely what happened here.
The Democratic party has asked him to back out but he refuses.
Uh... the Dems actually asked him to step down. Where did you get that he refused?
The way you phrased the porn thing makes it sound like he was showing it to minors. He showed it to a university student and then asked her to go back to a room.
NPR reported that he refused.
And I know he was showing it to university students not minors. Nothing I said was incorrect.
Considering all the bullshit the state went through with their previous leaders, his standing with the courts with regards to this charge is pretty big.
Even without that tho just listening to him is depressing. He sounds like he didn't even graduate HS.
There is one interesting thing to note. It cost over 10,000$ to put your name on the ballot. Somehow he got the money for that yet he can't afford an attorney for his upcomming trial. Apparently the state is going to look into this and ask why they are being forced to pay for his attorney if he could afford 10k. (they talked about this in the vid a little and he claims it was his money)
So when is the election? And will the Democratic Party help him run and prepare him for the campaign?
He is probably a honest man but in most cases I still wouldn't want him as my representative. I would prefer a candidate with more knowledge about the worldly matters and a sex scandal above a honest Joe who doesn't seem to know the basics about much of the things he has to do. Naturally his impression as not to smart could come from a lack of public speaking abilities (which is quite easy to teach somebody) and not a lack of mental capacities but deep down I doubt it.
I'm sorry to say this but most people just aren't smart enough to become successful honest politicians. You have to take into account so much facets of a problem most people just can't see this and only see the simple solution that perhaps works for short time but causes a lot more problems down the road.
Unfortunately most politicians are only doing what get's them reelected instead of looking for what's best for the country and thus defacto not true honest politicians in my book. A true honest politician must not be afraid to make the unpopular decisions although it probably will cost him his reelection. For a politician the good of the country should always come first and his own job second (I know. I'm an idealist).
I don't know his opponent but depending on how I would perceive his honesty it would influence my choice. If I would think his opponent is a little less honest but has a far greater knowledge about what he is talking about then that's where my vote would go. If I think his opponent is a great deal less honest I would vote for this guy.
Even though he may not have the greatest knowledge it would be refreshing to see how he would take on the job. Perhaps he wouldn't accomplish much because of his lack in political skills but hopefully it could at least cause a shock effect.
"Today, South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler asked Alvin Greene to withdraw from the race for US Senate... 'Today I spoke with Alvin Greene, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the US Senate, and asked him to withdraw from the race.'"
I do suppose it's possible that he would refuse the Dems help, as well. He stated in an interview that the Dems never supported him at all, though, so I don't know what he would have refused.
I didn't mean to sound like you said he was showing porn to minors; simply that it could be read that way with the language you used. "Younger people" is kind of vague, and when used in a story about a politician, the mind tends to leap to the most sinister possibilities.
On June 12 2010 07:45 3clipse wrote: I don't want a soccer mom or an average joe as the administrator of my state. I want someone smarter than me with a background in economics and public policy.
So true. I mean if the average Joe would run the country the country would be completely run into the ground in a few decades.
Cynical note: To bad people with a high IQ tend to have relatively fewer children per person as people with a low IQ.
Well, South Carolina's going to be a red state again.
I'd be annoyed that the Dem candidate sucks, but this is honestly nothing new in a deep South state. Although, if this dude wins, I will laugh so hard.
hahaha he actually came off kinda cute in that interview even though it was super tough. if nothing else i'm at least interested in how this turns out and about the general state of south carolina politics, which hitherto I can confidently say had never entered my mind before.
On June 12 2010 09:00 niteReloaded wrote: the guy is weeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrddddddd
Can someone expain what this election actually means in the USA? Is it like starleague preliminaries for the US President or the congres or what?
It is for the US senate (two senators from each state). In pretty much any US election you will have Democrats vs Democrats and Republicans vs Republicans. The two winners face off in Democrat vs Republican, and whoever wins becomes the senator. This guy won the D v D election so he'll move on to face the opposing party's candidate.
Note that these elections are generally about how much money a candidate can collect and spend from large corporations, law firms, unions, banks etc etc. EXCEPT FOR THIS GUY LOL.
Senate races have fewer candidates and are easier to follow because of it (100 total, 2 per state can be elected. The House of Reps has 435 based off of the state's population. Senate + House = Congress) so its really strange this guy made it through.
On June 12 2010 08:04 Golden Ghost wrote: So when is the election? And will the Democratic Party help him run and prepare him for the campaign?
He is probably a honest man but in most cases I still wouldn't want him as my representative. I would prefer a candidate with more knowledge about the worldly matters and a sex scandal above a honest Joe who doesn't seem to know the basics about much of the things he has to do. Naturally his impression as not to smart could come from a lack of public speaking abilities (which is quite easy to teach somebody) and not a lack of mental capacities but deep down I doubt it.
I'm sorry to say this but most people just aren't smart enough to become successful honest politicians. You have to take into account so much facets of a problem most people just can't see this and only see the simple solution that perhaps works for short time but causes a lot more problems down the road.
Unfortunately most politicians are only doing what get's them reelected instead of looking for what's best for the country and thus defacto not true honest politicians in my book. A true honest politician must not be afraid to make the unpopular decisions although it probably will cost him his reelection. For a politician the good of the country should always come first and his own job second (I know. I'm an idealist).
I don't know his opponent but depending on how I would perceive his honesty it would influence my choice. If I would think his opponent is a little less honest but has a far greater knowledge about what he is talking about then that's where my vote would go. If I think his opponent is a great deal less honest I would vote for this guy.
Even though he may not have the greatest knowledge it would be refreshing to see how he would take on the job. Perhaps he wouldn't accomplish much because of his lack in political skills but hopefully it could at least cause a shock effect.
From the perspective of an Originalist, it's arguable that it's better to have someone who is either unaware or unwilling to wield the maximum power of a Congressional Senate office than someone who is familiar with the sleazy dealings of modern politics. People like that would rather see a deadlocked or inactive Congress (which is essentially how the system is designed) than one who exercises power toward the ends of expanded government authority. How's that for cynicism? =)
LOL I can't wait to see how this unfolds. rofl I can't see how anyone could be so fucking stupid to put him in for politics-games. He's inarticulate, flustered, has a a way below par background considering the media, and I haven't seen him actually convincingly provide any evidence that he even has a legit platform.
All that said, I hope he shapes up, that this wasn't a computer bug or ploy... I'll have my popcorn ready ^^
I don't know much of US politics, but this guy seems fairly legit.
He just seems like an average joe that is trying to help his state. He stated in the interview he wants to focus on issues such as unemployment. At least the guy can relate, hes been unemployed for 9 months.
Well since 99% of all the politicians in the united states are bitches of their campaign financers, i can understand why you would want to vote for someone who didnt spend a dime on the campaigning.
On June 12 2010 21:11 GG.Win wrote: I don't know much of US politics, but this guy seems fairly legit.
He just seems like an average joe that is trying to help his state. He stated in the interview he wants to focus on issues such as unemployment. At least the guy can relate, hes been unemployed for 9 months.
Hes not very good at public speaking though.
And how did he come up with the $10,000 needed to register his candidacy? This is all very suspicious and chances are he is not legitimate.
I laughed so hard when the guy ask: What kind of error could lead to one candidate receiving more vote than were cast? And the other guy answer: It's an old southern tradition. Then they both started to laugh.
So funny, it's almost like socialist election in my country.
On June 12 2010 21:33 nttea wrote: Well since 99% of all the politicians in the united states are bitches of their campaign financers, i can understand why you would want to vote for someone who didnt spend a dime on the campaigning.
Ok I concede that you may have a point.
Still though...the general United States population doesn't even think about how corrupt politicians are so I doubt this.
On June 12 2010 21:33 nttea wrote: Well since 99% of all the politicians in the united states are bitches of their campaign financers, i can understand why you would want to vote for someone who didnt spend a dime on the campaigning.
Ok I concede that you may have a point.
Still though...the general United States population doesn't even think about how corrupt politicians are so I doubt this.
I don't think that's true. A large majority of Americans are extremely cynical towards politicians.
On June 12 2010 18:45 Snausages wrote: I wish I could move back to Ohio. This state is such a joke to me...
EDIT: At least we have some of the highest-quality drinking water in the nation!
Ohio is better? From what I understand, Ohio is one of the more racist states in the Midwest.
The Democrats have already called Mr. Greene to ask him to step down, but I don't think he's going to do so. It'll be interesting to see if he actually gets official support and campaign funds from the Democratic Party, or if they're just going to give up on this one and leave him out to dry.
The day after the primary election, the media reported that Greene was facing felony obscenity charges stemming from a November 2009 arrest for allegedly showing a pornographic Internet site to an 18-year-old female University of South Carolina student and then propositioning her[10] in a computer lab.[11] The mother of the victim has claimed that USC authorities had warned Greene not to visit certain parts of campus in the past.
I love this guy, I would vote for him. He doesn't see the need to manipulate media or people with money to win the election and he doesn't understand the need to run against someone - he only knows how to show people what he's for. The reason why the interview is so awkward is because the person interviewing him is doing it as if he were a normal politician, which he obviously isn't.
By the way, according to wikipedia, he actually has a bachelor's degree in Political Science from University of South Carolina. So, he shouldn't be totally clueless.
I would like a Forrest Gump leading my... *thinks about it* ... as my friend. Interesting, just a degree in Political Science? Means that my teacher can be voted in too, hes more qualified, hes got a Masters...
On June 13 2010 05:24 Rinrun wrote: I would like a Forrest Gump leading my... *thinks about it* ... as my friend. Interesting, just a degree in Political Science? Means that my teacher can be voted in too, hes more qualified, hes got a Masters...
Sarah Palin has a bachelors in communications and she got to be governor of alaska (until she figured out there was like, actual work to be done).
I'd rather have clueless politicians than "qualified" ones, if any at all. Perhaps that way there would be less projects to fund, less money to be stolen.
Well quite an interesting turn of events, he was honorably yet involuntarily discharged from the military; from wikipedia
However, one need not complete a term of service to receive an honorable discharge, provided the reason for involuntary discharge is not due to misconduct. For instance, a person rendered physically or psychologically incapable of performing assigned duties will normally have their service characterized as honorable, regardless of whether the condition or disability was incurred in the line of duty, provided they otherwise exceeded standards.
very strange candidate, best political story in a while though. Gogo Forrest Gump#2
On June 12 2010 05:28 StarBrift wrote: Gonna be interesting to see the theories on how this dude got into this position. I'm guessing it has something to do with the democrats having decided beforehand that they wanted to nominate a black guy (demographics and all that).
Just looking at it from outside this seems like a bad joke. I mean I'm sure the guy is a perfectly pleasant man but he seems to have no qualification what so ever.
How can you say you'd vote for him if he hasn't given (that i've seen in multiple videos and interviews) a SINGLE plan for what should be done and how it should be done in the state.
Personally i'd rather have evil than stupid. I'll take Cheney over Palin any day of the week. At least evil works for someones good.
On June 13 2010 05:37 Yurebis wrote: I'd rather have clueless politicians than "qualified" ones, if any at all. Perhaps that way there would be less projects to fund, less money to be stolen.
How'd we fall from the writers of the Federalist Papers to dimwits who assume governance is an impossible conundrum?
On June 13 2010 05:37 Yurebis wrote: I'd rather have clueless politicians than "qualified" ones, if any at all. Perhaps that way there would be less projects to fund, less money to be stolen.
How'd we fall from the writers of the Federalist Papers to dimwits who assume governance is an impossible conundrum?
We don't know this guy's deal yet, but you can be certain that the average incumbent puts himself, his campaign supporters, and the party ahead of his constituents. Polls show that Americans are generally fed up with politics as usual, but they mysteriously refuse to hold incumbents responsible by voting them out of office - thus nodding to the cycle of corruption.
On June 13 2010 05:37 Yurebis wrote: I'd rather have clueless politicians than "qualified" ones, if any at all. Perhaps that way there would be less projects to fund, less money to be stolen.
How'd we fall from the writers of the Federalist Papers to dimwits who assume governance is an impossible conundrum?
To be fair, I'm sure there were dimwits in those days as well. They just couldn't read, so they had no way of disseminating their views. Nowadays they'll just let anyone talk.
On June 13 2010 05:37 Yurebis wrote: I'd rather have clueless politicians than "qualified" ones, if any at all. Perhaps that way there would be less projects to fund, less money to be stolen.
How'd we fall from the writers of the Federalist Papers to dimwits who assume governance is an impossible conundrum?
Pretty sure the person you are looking for is Rupert Murdoch.
On June 13 2010 04:54 Chuiu wrote: I love this guy, I would vote for him. He doesn't see the need to manipulate media or people with money to win the election and he doesn't understand the need to run against someone - he only knows how to show people what he's for. The reason why the interview is so awkward is because the person interviewing him is doing it as if he were a normal politician, which he obviously isn't.
What the hell are you talking about? The questions asked are extremely basic. The reason it was the most awkward interview ever is because the interviewee is unable to speak. He sounds like a fourth grader who just got thrown into the role. Clearly there is something off about him. I don't know if it is a matter of very low intelligence or mental illness, but there is something wrong here. Clyburn may very well be right that he was planted by Republicans.
This is almost as bad as the Kentucky election (The democrats nominated a guy who is in charge of the votes to keep Rand Paul out of office). I can't decide which is more pathetic...
I haven't looked into this one though, perhaps this guy is legit.
Edit: How come they never questioned Obama about how he grew up poor and then after high school took a tour around the world then attended prestigious schools including Harvard (Though I have never seen anyone confirm he attended two other than Harvard). Seems unfair.
On June 14 2010 07:30 tryummm wrote: This is almost as bad as the Kentucky election (The democrats nominated a guy who is in charge of the votes to keep Rand Paul out of office). I can't decide which is more pathetic...
On June 14 2010 07:30 tryummm wrote: This is almost as bad as the Kentucky election (The democrats nominated a guy who is in charge of the votes to keep Rand Paul out of office). I can't decide which is more pathetic...
when did this happen?
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky. Funny how the populace tends to forget that KY's government infrastructure was involved a pretty large gun-running, drug-running ring during the 70s and 80s with Columbians.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory?
On June 14 2010 07:42 Judicator wrote: Nope. If anything I would be betting for Rand Paul with some kind of dirt, because he's partially of that good ole boy network.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that voting for an attorney general to hold elected office is "pathetic" and represents a grand conspiracy against the electorate, especially since attorney general is often an elected position to begin with
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory?
Haha...the conspiracy theorist card? Isn't that like 5 years old?
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory?
Absolutely none, just a baseless conspiracy theory. The links he posted above do nothing to substantiate it.
On June 14 2010 07:56 Pandain wrote: For the people who would vote for him, this should change your mind.
In a society where people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, someone being "charged with a crime" should not be equivalent with them being guilty of it and should certainly not be a disqualification for elected office.
This is not a defense of Green specifically, just a general remark on how frighteningly authoritarian americans seem to be with regards to crime and justice issues.
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory?
Absolutely none, just a baseless conspiracy theory. The links he posted above do nothing to substantiate it.
that's basically the point
it's completely ludicrous to imagine that suddenly a plurality of democrats all across kentucky spontaneously decided that the only way that they could stop the juggernaut of rand "criticizing BP is un-american" paul was to nominate the only person on the ballot who was capable of rigging an election
even though if this person was capable of rigging an election and was only doing so to defeat rand paul (as opposed to his own personal gain), it stands to reason that he could also rig the election in favor of whoever else the democrats nominated instead of himself
winning the primary doesn't affect his ability to rig the election should he for some idiotic reason choose to do so
This is sooo funny. For someone who is cynical (and yes I sometimes enjoy seeing politics fail) about the system I find it hilarious that something like this can happen. I mean how does a complete no name get elected? Someone who spent literally $0 on campaigning held no formal rallies or meetings, I mean how does he get elected? I think these are the likely things that happened (in order of likelihood):
1. He was chosen by pure luck fueled by the ignorance of the voters. 2. He has a very generic political name Alvin Greene lol, it just sounds like a senator 3. He is a plant, Republicans planted him because they knew he would fail (how they got him to win the primaries is a completely different story) 4. There is just a massive mistake and really he only got like 20 votes.
Edit: Also I forgot to mention I think this guy is straight up baller status, he doesn't fuck around when answering questions he is just like 'yes', 'no' or gives a 1 line response haha. I'm interested to see what he says in political debates or when asked about his stance on particular issues.
Democrats elect someone strange in their own primary .. and they blame the Republicans. If he was a plant all you had to do was not vote for him, jesus
On June 14 2010 13:28 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Democrats elect someone strange in their own primary .. and they blame the Republicans. If he was a plant all you had to do was not vote for him, jesus
First of all, people are not blaming the Republicans. They are suspecting that he is a Republican plant, which isn't a ridiculous suspicion at all considering the circumstances. South Carolina Republicans have done far worse in the past.
Secondly, voters wouldn't have been aware he was a plant if he truly is. That's the entire concept of a plant you idiot, that it's not known.
My mind is blown.. and I actually am really starting to pity this guy (the CNN guy was being really unprofessional and cruel in his interview). He has no idea what a laughing-stock he has become and will probably find out at sometime. Also, he seems to be fairly honest in wanting to run for the senate (regardless of whether he decided to on his own)... I hope this doesn't ruin his life (even if the felony charges are true, he doesn't seem like a horrible person).
Maybe we're just overlooking at how little the majority of South Carolinians are intuned with the political process?
As an unaware citizen without much or any political knowledge, my signals to whom to vote for would be: - First person on the ballot (Greene) - Racial identification (Greene is black and identifies with a majority of South Carolinians)
Of course, this is not to rule out all underhanded play by the Republicans but we cannot overlook those aforementioned points. Also, going into a ballot without prior knowledge, conforming is a perfectly rational decision.
On June 14 2010 13:45 ultramagnetics wrote: My mind is blown.. and I actually am really starting to pity this guy (the CNN guy was being really unprofessional and cruel in his interview). He has no idea what a laughing-stock he has become and will probably find out at sometime. Also, he seems to be fairly honest in wanting to run for the senate (regardless of whether he decided to on his own)... I hope this doesn't ruin his life (even if the felony charges are true, he doesn't seem like a horrible person).
If this really is all illegitimate then he certainly doesn't deserve any pity, and if it does "ruin his life" well he probably deserves it for participating in something like this. If it somehow is for real then I guess after he almost certainly loses in the actual election ( I don't know who in their right mind would vote for him after watching his interviews, regardless of his personality or policies his public speaking is on par with a nervous 5th grader) everyone will forget about him.
On June 12 2010 05:32 Go0g3n wrote: Isn't it what you really want? Middle aged family man, ex-military, middle class, didn't spend a fortune on election, no special interests other than general ideas on serving community? It's a dream.
Agreed. He seemed sincere. There is obviously a question about his discharge from the military and the upcoming felony charge court appearance, but if one simply looks at his personality he seemed genuine to me.
I live in a country where people (perhaps with good reason) don't trust politicians at all. One of the most despised groups in society because they are either from big business if they're from the right or they're ex-unionists if they're from the left (broadly speaking). And here is a guy who has nothing to do with formal politics, has served his country and seemed genuinely motivated to do something for ordinary people.
I withhold judgement on the man. Just because he hasn't been trained to parrot answers to the media and 'stay on message' I don't think that makes him either a moron or a plant or a disaster.
On June 14 2010 13:28 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Democrats elect someone strange in their own primary .. and they blame the Republicans. If he was a plant all you had to do was not vote for him, jesus
First of all, people are not blaming the Republicans.
Then what's all this talk about plants? Help, we were setup by somebody else!
They are suspecting that he is a Republican plant, which isn't a ridiculous suspicion at all considering the circumstances. South Carolina Republicans have done far worse in the past.
More likely, all those people voted for him without vetting him at all, and now they're embarrassed about it.
On June 14 2010 13:28 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Democrats elect someone strange in their own primary .. and they blame the Republicans. If he was a plant all you had to do was not vote for him, jesus
First of all, people are not blaming the Republicans.
Then what's all this talk about plants? Help, we were setup by somebody else!
They are suspecting that he is a Republican plant, which isn't a ridiculous suspicion at all considering the circumstances. South Carolina Republicans have done far worse in the past.
More likely, all those people voted for him without vetting him at all, and now they're embarrassed about it.
I think that just about every single person who voted for him just saw him as "Not that one guy, so I'll vote for him since he's the other Democrat". And isn't the Democratic primary kind of a moot point in South Carolina?
On June 14 2010 13:28 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Democrats elect someone strange in their own primary .. and they blame the Republicans. If he was a plant all you had to do was not vote for him, jesus
First of all, people are not blaming the Republicans.
Then what's all this talk about plants? Help, we were setup by somebody else!
They are suspecting that he is a Republican plant, which isn't a ridiculous suspicion at all considering the circumstances. South Carolina Republicans have done far worse in the past.
More likely, all those people voted for him without vetting him at all, and now they're embarrassed about it.
The talk about a plant is because this is a very suspicious case on many levels. Why is that so difficult for some of you to understand? He has absolutely no money, and yet he came up with $10,000 and refuses to say where he got it from. Does that sound ordinary to you?
'More likely'? Your scenario makes no sense at all. How do you explain where he got the money from then?
On June 14 2010 13:28 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Democrats elect someone strange in their own primary .. and they blame the Republicans. If he was a plant all you had to do was not vote for him, jesus
First of all, people are not blaming the Republicans.
Then what's all this talk about plants? Help, we were setup by somebody else!
They are suspecting that he is a Republican plant, which isn't a ridiculous suspicion at all considering the circumstances. South Carolina Republicans have done far worse in the past.
More likely, all those people voted for him without vetting him at all, and now they're embarrassed about it.
I think that just about every single person who voted for him just saw him as "Not that one guy, so I'll vote for him since he's the other Democrat". And isn't the Democratic primary kind of a moot point in South Carolina?
No, because DeMint has said some truly ridiculous things and he's vulnerable. That makes the idea of a plant even more likely.
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory?
Absolutely none, just a baseless conspiracy theory. The links he posted above do nothing to substantiate it.
Can you give me any reason why the person in charge of the votes should be able to run? Or why shouldn't they change who is in charge of the votes? You're saying there isn't a likelihood there will be cheating? Have you seen the North Carolina video yet where the Senator assaults a college kid? Do you see how they spit on the Constitution? When they pass unconstitutional laws they are committing a felony. You don't think it's possible they would cheat on elections when politicians have done so in the past and they even set out bribes to vote for certain legislation.
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory?
Absolutely none, just a baseless conspiracy theory. The links he posted above do nothing to substantiate it.
Can you give me any reason why the person in charge of the votes should be able to run? Or why shouldn't they change who is in charge of the votes? You're saying there isn't a likelihood there will be cheating? Have you seen the North Carolina video yet where the Senator assaults a college kid? Do you see how they spit on the Constitution? When they pass unconstitutional laws they are committing a felony. You don't think it's possible they would cheat on elections when politicians have done so in the past and they even set out bribes to vote for certain legislation.
I looved it how the interviewer asked him if it wouldnt be better to step aside because he has some troubles with the law n shit. Thats so crazy, 0.75% of americans sit in jail, so if america would be truly democratic, 0.75% of politicians should be GUILTY criminals, just to corectly represent the ppl living in the USA.
On June 15 2010 03:35 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I looved it how the interviewer asked him if it wouldnt be better to step aside because he has some troubles with the law n shit. Thats so crazy, 0.75% of americans sit in jail, so if america would be truly democratic, 0.75% of politicians should be GUILTY criminals, just to corectly represent the ppl living in the USA.
That's very illogical thinking. Applying that logic we should have a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders because they represent a certain portion of our population as well.
On June 15 2010 03:35 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I looved it how the interviewer asked him if it wouldnt be better to step aside because he has some troubles with the law n shit. Thats so crazy, 0.75% of americans sit in jail, so if america would be truly democratic, 0.75% of politicians should be GUILTY criminals, just to corectly represent the ppl living in the USA.
That's very illogical thinking. Applying that logic we should have a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders because they represent a certain portion of our population as well.
Luckily we do have quite a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders. I would be highly surprised if nobody who was an elected public official had some kind of weird sexual tendencies/tastes, and there have been plenty of instances of deaths in questionable circumstances with famous politicians nearby (ted kennedy anyone? how about dick cheney?). So we are well represented, don't worry one bit.
I just want to know where he got his money from. He's unemployed and most unemployed people don't have $10000 lying around to spend on a campaign.
As for the campaign itself, if he did do the "personal style" of campaigning, it should be easy enough to find some of the locals he introduced himself to.
As much as I like the idea of the little guy winning, the details in this election is really fishy at the moment.
On June 15 2010 03:35 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I looved it how the interviewer asked him if it wouldnt be better to step aside because he has some troubles with the law n shit. Thats so crazy, 0.75% of americans sit in jail, so if america would be truly democratic, 0.75% of politicians should be GUILTY criminals, just to corectly represent the ppl living in the USA.
That's very illogical thinking. Applying that logic we should have a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders because they represent a certain portion of our population as well.
Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
On June 15 2010 04:44 Adila wrote: I just want to know where he got his money from. He's unemployed and most unemployed people don't have $10000 lying around to spend on a campaign.
As for the campaign itself, if he did do the "personal style" of campaigning, it should be easy enough to find some of the locals he introduced himself to.
As much as I like the idea of the little guy winning, the details in this election is really fishy at the moment.
Didn't he spend most of his adult life (since 19 iirc?) in the military? And he was honorably discharged less than one year ago? So he should have some savings.
On June 15 2010 03:35 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I looved it how the interviewer asked him if it wouldnt be better to step aside because he has some troubles with the law n shit. Thats so crazy, 0.75% of americans sit in jail, so if america would be truly democratic, 0.75% of politicians should be GUILTY criminals, just to corectly represent the ppl living in the USA.
That's very illogical thinking. Applying that logic we should have a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders because they represent a certain portion of our population as well.
Luckily we do have quite a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders. I would be highly surprised if nobody who was an elected public official had some kind of weird sexual tendencies/tastes, and there have been plenty of instances of deaths in questionable circumstances with famous politicians nearby (ted kennedy anyone? how about dick cheney?). So we are well represented, don't worry one bit.
I knew someone would respond that way. I didn't claim that we haven't had any leaders that fit those terms. What I said was that following his logic we should. Also, you were only able to give examples of one of the categories. And they were very weak examples at that.
On June 15 2010 03:35 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I looved it how the interviewer asked him if it wouldnt be better to step aside because he has some troubles with the law n shit. Thats so crazy, 0.75% of americans sit in jail, so if america would be truly democratic, 0.75% of politicians should be GUILTY criminals, just to corectly represent the ppl living in the USA.
That's very illogical thinking. Applying that logic we should have a few murderers, psychopaths and sexual sadists as leaders because they represent a certain portion of our population as well.
Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
This is the map for the district by district results of the election. According to this map, not only did he win, but he won pretty overwhelmingly throughout the state.
On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
Personally, I believe that each group needs to be represented, but not necessarily by one of them. Even murderers and psychopaths deserve representation, but I would argue that a non criminal who understands their pleas is equally suited, if not more so, to represent them as a murderer.
On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
you do know that the USA is not a democracy right?
This literally made my day! It's so absurdly hilarious xD 60% of the voters took the burden of going to an election station and make a cross next to somebody's name despite not even knowing who they vote for ^^
On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
you do know that the USA is not a democracy right?
Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!?
On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
But you do know what a democracy is, right? Only because you don't like them doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country, like the USA claims to be. I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
you do know that the USA is not a democracy right?
yes, it's a presidential republic or something like that, that doesnt really change the stuff I said.
On June 15 2010 06:30 Try wrote: Personally, I believe that each group needs to be represented, but not necessarily by one of them. Even murderers and psychopaths deserve representation, but I would argue that a non criminal who understands their pleas is equally suited, if not more so, to represent them as a murderer.
why should they be better qualified to represent the criminals?
Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!?
We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term.
BTW even if there is conclusive proof of vote fraud in this country we wont do anything about it. Just ask Diebold. Honestly I think if they find evidence of fraud they should sue the South Carolina election committee and try to get an injunction to stop the actual senate election and try to vacate his win. I may live in a shitty state, but thank God Himself I dont live in South Carolina.
Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!?
We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term.
...
I am sorry but your consitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. Your government might be quite complex and rather unique in the world, but it still is a form of democracy. And what do you mean by saying that the US doesn't have a legislative branch. What do you call the congress?
Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!?
We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term.
...
I am sorry but your consitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. Your government might be quite complex and rather unique in the world, but it still is a form of democracy. And what do you mean by saying that the US doesn't have a legislative branch. What do you call the congress?
I don't want to start an argument over this, but you are wrong, and you are free to google or research as much as you want if you don't believe me.
a very short counterargument for your point is the fact that america has appointed officials, as well as some officials who elected in a non-democratic manner
On June 15 2010 04:56 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Thats not illogical, thats consequent! Although you may not like that aspect of your population, its still there.
Of course it's there. The point is that just because they exist doesn't mean we should have such people as our leaders.
But you do know what a democracy is, right?
Do I know what a democracy is? Don't condescend me when you're the one making the ridiculous argument.
Only because you don't like them
Of course I don't like sexual sadists and psychopaths. That is the natural and logical reaction to have to such people.
doesn't mean they do not have their right of power in a democratic country
I never said they do not have the right. The point is that they shouldn't be elected merely because they represent a portion of our population. There is also quite a significant amount of people with extremely low IQs and mental deficiencies, should they be elected as leaders?
You're misunderstanding the term "representative" to mean that every group of people should have an elected official. You're forgetting that the most important thing in a democracy is that we elect our "best and brightest", not our cruelest and most mentally deranged.
I think the original point you were trying to make is that criminals deserve a second chance and can still be good people regardless of their crimes. I completely agree and it's sad how criminals of lesser crimes can be ostracized in this country. However, you have now gone too far and presented a number of illogical arguments.
I don't like homosexuals, so they should not lead?
For your sake I hope that you don't actually mean that you yourself dislike homosexuals. Also, homosexuality is a horrible comparison. Sexual sadism and psychopathy are clear inferiorities that often lead to causing pain to others. Whereas homosexuality is merely a neutral difference.
Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!?
We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term.
...
I am sorry but your consitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. Your government might be quite complex and rather unique in the world, but it still is a form of democracy. And what do you mean by saying that the US doesn't have a legislative branch. What do you call the congress?
I don't want to start an argument over this, but you are wrong, and you are free to google or research as much as you want if you don't believe me.
a very short counterargument for your point is the fact that america has appointed officials, as well as some officials who elected in a non-democratic manner
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
The United States is not a democracy because strictly speaking, the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy. Democracy in the pure sense means popular rule, and the fact that both the president and congress can rule while unpopular in the United States illustrates the point that she is not a democracy, but a republic by design.
Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, but by electoral college. The fact that the democratization of the electoral college makes it necessary that a presidential candidate be also popular in a majority of states doesn't change the principle behind the process.
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
The United States is not a democracy because strictly speaking, the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy. Democracy in the pure sense means popular rule, and the fact that both the president and congress can rule while unpopular in the United States illustrates the point that she is not a democracy, but a republic by design.
Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, but by electoral college. The fact that the democratization of the electoral college makes it necessary that a presidential candidate be also popular in a majority of states doesn't change the principle behind the process.
You are an idiot for arguing about whether or not USA is a democracy. Yes you are correct from a "pure" sense, but by popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. This is what normal people do instead of starting a straw man argument.
omgomgomg its motkle come down from forum heaven to smite the worthless rabble muttering unintelligible nonsense in the sacred portal of the perennial politics thread bow down ye mortals, this man is a TL god (no seriously he's right cut it out)!
The United States is NOT a democracy; it is a constitutional republic, a twisted form of representative democracy. In a representative democracy, the majority always rules no matter what. However, in a constitutional republic, like the United States, the people, namely the minority, are protected by constitutional law that limits the power of the government. If you have read the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton makes it a point that the "tyranny of the majority" is a major problem that we must avoid. The presence of an independent judicial system also prevents the US from a truly democratic system.
In a true democracy, a 51% representative majority can vote to throw the minority off a cliff if they would like. There hasn't been a true direct or representative democracy since Athens.
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
The United States is not a democracy because strictly speaking, the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy. Democracy in the pure sense means popular rule, and the fact that both the president and congress can rule while unpopular in the United States illustrates the point that she is not a democracy, but a republic by design.
Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, but by electoral college. The fact that the democratization of the electoral college makes it necessary that a presidential candidate be also popular in a majority of states doesn't change the principle behind the process.
You are an idiot for arguing about whether or not USA is a democracy. Yes you are correct from a "pure" sense, but by popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. This is what normal people do instead of starting a straw man argument.
I thought we were debating democracy from a denotative rather than connotative understanding of the word. In common usage, in the Soviet Union or North Korea, the system of government was called a "democracy." The principle of popular sovereignty was accepted by Hitler as well as by Cromwell. This is sufficient to rebut your argument.
"tyranny of the majority"
This is also a term which must be clarified. Of course, there is such a thing as a majority oppressing a minority, but Tocqueville meant something different when he applied the concept to the future of the American Republic in his book. He foresaw that the real danger of democracy was not to minorities, but to individuals, because in a democratic society, on every level of thought and feeling, there would be very few examples of a real "minority," not because of popular oppression, but because popular sovereignty is something to which the common man is far more inclined to surrender his own beliefs and thoughts, than the sovereignty of an individual or a minority. Hence a tyranny of "the mild and gentle kind" which "degrades men without oppressing them."
I daresay that if there be any popular discontent with the present condition of "democracy" in America and elsewhere, it is not attributable to reversion to older forms of oppression, against which we are too well insinuated, but dangers which are novel and which we consequently misread. The fallacy of this entire thread of arguing is the assumption that popular sovereignty means popular government, which it does not. The people of the United States no more govern than the Queen of England. Furthermore, they do not want to govern. They want government in their name and for their happiness, but they are loathe to partake in the labours or responsibilities. They consequently allow the bureaucratic machinery of government to grow to monstrous proportions, to the extent that they may rightfully excuse themselves from the impossible duty of being an "informed citizen." Thus popular sovereignty is reduced to a farce and a fool, thrashing about blindly, unable to exercise her own authority except in ignorance, incapable of good government except by capitulating her rights.
Therein lies the paradox; the supreme power is impotent to secure its own wishes.
I agree with most of the above. The bureaucracy beings living for itself, outside of popular control. I don't know what this man is doing but I believe he was put there. I could go on but I'll hold my mouth until I can find out a little more. Large entities are difficult to trust, and even more difficult to pierce through.
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
The United States is not a democracy because strictly speaking, the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy. Democracy in the pure sense means popular rule, and the fact that both the president and congress can rule while unpopular in the United States illustrates the point that she is not a democracy, but a republic by design.
Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, but by electoral college. The fact that the democratization of the electoral college makes it necessary that a presidential candidate be also popular in a majority of states doesn't change the principle behind the process.
You are an idiot for arguing about whether or not USA is a democracy. Yes you are correct from a "pure" sense, but by popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. This is what normal people do instead of starting a straw man argument.
I thought we were debating democracy from a denotative rather than connotative understanding of the word. In common usage, in the Soviet Union or North Korea, the system of government was called a "democracy." The principle of popular sovereignty was accepted by Hitler as well as by Cromwell. This is sufficient to rebut your argument.
This clearly shows you are an idiot because you clearly didn't see my point. You are just making a straw man argument here. And no we are not arguing from the connotative understanding of the word, that was you purposefully flipping out over the use of the word when the meaning of his post was perfectly clear. Now take all your big words and shove them... That is sufficient to rebut your garbage.
You are just making a straw man argument here. And no we are not arguing from the connotative understanding of the word
No, the straw man argument is the circular argument which you are defending:
-By custom democracy is defined as the system of government used by the United States and Western Europe -Therefore the United States is a democracy by customary agreement.
Were that there was some higher purpose behind the assertion whereby axiomatic assumptions may be indulged to satisfy the final purpose, but here the axiom itself is the final purpose. Is there anything more awfully banal than saying that something is something else because people agree that it is?
you purposefully flipping out over the use of the word when the meaning of his post was perfectly clear.
Not at all. He asked for views to the contrary, I provided him with some.
<3 moltke. Also, on topic, the whole election seems fishy, but it seems premature to label it a conspiracy until there's actual evidence to support such an accusation.
Please don't start this again... The US is a representative democracy. About the stuff you've quoted: Why the hell would anybody advocate having criminals in the government!?
We are not a representative democracy. If we only had the legislative branch that would be true. Funny you mention wikipedia, because they list the United States as a Federal Constitutional Republic, which is actually the correct term.
...
I am sorry but your consitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. Your government might be quite complex and rather unique in the world, but it still is a form of democracy. And what do you mean by saying that the US doesn't have a legislative branch. What do you call the congress?
I don't want to start an argument over this, but you are wrong, and you are free to google or research as much as you want if you don't believe me.
a very short counterargument for your point is the fact that america has appointed officials, as well as some officials who elected in a non-democratic manner
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
It's not the manner in which you are elected, it's the manner in which you choose to be governed. Read the first few amendments in the US Constitution and pay close attention to the wording. Note how the Constitution does not grant you any rights but instead limits what the government can do.
Individual states may be considered sovereign and have their own constitutions. The federal government only has as much power as the states have delegated to it. This serves to decentralize and shift power back to a more local level. However, this is all theory as states have given up much of their freedom for federal money.
Signs of a republic are visible and the framework still intact. As the government usurps more power from the states, we move away from a republic and more towards a democracy. People in power want you to believe the US is a democracy as it would mean getting an agenda across that much easier.
I remember reading somewhere how the founding fathers distinctly did not want a democracy. After the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what type of government they had been given. To which he replied,"A republic, if you can keep it".
On June 13 2010 05:37 Yurebis wrote: I'd rather have clueless politicians than "qualified" ones, if any at all. Perhaps that way there would be less projects to fund, less money to be stolen.
How'd we fall from the writers of the Federalist Papers to dimwits who assume governance is an impossible conundrum?
It's impossible to rule over a man who concedes to it. The very act of coercive rule means that you are forcing others into doing things they would not otherwise do, i.e., paying you tribute (tax), following your rituals (law), etc. And if the slave concedes to be ruled (without duress), then it's not governance but voluntary "exchange". So yes, it's quite impossible.
On June 13 2010 05:37 Yurebis wrote: I'd rather have clueless politicians than "qualified" ones, if any at all. Perhaps that way there would be less projects to fund, less money to be stolen.
How'd we fall from the writers of the Federalist Papers to dimwits who assume governance is an impossible conundrum?
We don't know this guy's deal yet, but you can be certain that the average incumbent puts himself, his campaign supporters, and the party ahead of his constituents. Polls show that Americans are generally fed up with politics as usual, but they mysteriously refuse to hold incumbents responsible by voting them out of office - thus nodding to the cycle of corruption.
The voters have little chance do change anything on their own, so the incentive to vote is almost nil. The ones who have the most incentive to engage in political action are interest groups' organizers, lobbyists, mafia men, etc. Only those who can leverage votes or politicians themselves.
Calling people lazy for not voting is analogous to calling hardcore BW players boring for not buying sc2. It speaks more about the product itself being unrewarding than people being "dumb". Not a mystery, people are different, and the one-size-fits-all of democracy can't ever satisfy everyone (or even a majority of people if you consider nonvoters are unsatisfied)
This guy is amazing, we need everybody in SC to vote for this guy, lets get him actually in the senetor position. This will also really motivate other people to try and put their hat into the ring in other states, which I think will lead to a very interesting next few years of elections.
I'd just like to point out that being a sexual sadist or a psychopath is nothing wrong or bad. When abnormality is regarded as something negative by a majority of people is when you should realize that something is very wrong with our society. It's disgraceful and disgusting how you people lump personality differences together with the act of killing another person.
Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy
Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed.
The United States is not a democracy because strictly speaking, the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy. Democracy in the pure sense means popular rule, and the fact that both the president and congress can rule while unpopular in the United States illustrates the point that she is not a democracy, but a republic by design.
Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, but by electoral college. The fact that the democratization of the electoral college makes it necessary that a presidential candidate be also popular in a majority of states doesn't change the principle behind the process.
You are a very eloquent and surely a quite knowledgable person, but your whole post makes me feel like you argue just for the sake of arguing. What you say is by no means false, but I also don't see how it contradicts my position. I never argued that the US is a pure democracy. Obviously Athenian democracy wouldn't work in a country with 300 mio citizens... However, the US fits quite well in the definition of a representative democracy, where elected individuals form an independent ruling body charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives.
It is a valid statement to say that "the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy", but this is the way representative democracy works all around the world with the difference that in some countries the president holds more power than in others.
The utilization of the electoral college system as opposed to popular vote doesn't change anything either. It is still the people that elects its representatives, although one might argue that it is not the fairest way to hold an election.
So basically I wonder: do you disagree that the US is a representative democracy or do you dislike the term representative democracy in general?
Honestly, this really reminds me a situation that we can all really relate to: liquidbet voting.
Now what do I mean by this? At least in my situation, there seems to be no way ever to keep track of all of these starcraft players. So when I asked to pick between all of these players where I have no idea who they are and how well they play, I simply pick the ones that have a name that I like, ie "light" "sea" etc - those players that I think would win or that I have heard some where before.
Alvin Greene is lucky to be named what his name is.
Regardless of this man's competence, I am glad to see a normal person who is not a career politician reach office in spite of corrupt power protective political parties. We need more one-term politicians a la George Washington, etc. Career politicians are hurting the country.
On June 15 2010 04:44 Adila wrote: I just want to know where he got his money from. He's unemployed and most unemployed people don't have $10000 lying around to spend on a campaign.
As for the campaign itself, if he did do the "personal style" of campaigning, it should be easy enough to find some of the locals he introduced himself to.
As much as I like the idea of the little guy winning, the details in this election is really fishy at the moment.
Didn't he spend most of his adult life (since 19 iirc?) in the military? And he was honorably discharged less than one year ago? So he should have some savings.
Then why were said savings spent on an unexpected bid for office, and not on a lawyer for his felony charges? It's a very suspicious set of priorities.
First of all, Alvin Greene is an absolutely perfect name to have for this kind of thing. It sounds similar to soul singer Al Greene, it's first on the list due to the alphabet, it sounds black in a state where a lot of Democratic would be black. Now, I don't know whether this kind of thing happens often: people enlisting in the primary and then not campaigning(maybe they reconsidered after paying), or even more than two or three people enlisting for a primary in general. I thought it didn't, though I'm not sure about that. In any case, then it would be quite an unusual step to take for that man, quite clever too, recognizing his name's potential and enlisting, knowing that with so few people signing up for this he'd have a shot. Alvin Greene didn't appear all that clever to me, and 10400$ is a lot of money, so someone had to have told him to go through with this, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.
Don't get why anyone thinks this guy even has a future as a great politician. Do you think he could resist power, money or sex better than a career politician? At least you know the professional politician won't run his constituency into the ground in one go because he has to get reelected enough times to buy his mansion.
I've still yet to hear this guy on anything besides defending himself from medias onslaught of irrelevent questions about him, his life and how he got into office. If the guy sounds this bad about regular shit, ask him some real questions and see how he responds to those..
Actually this makes more sense now that I've thought it about it some more. I mean, there's basically just two strange things going on here:
1)Unemployed guy with no money spends 10k on the registration fee 2)He wins despite basically doing no campaigning at all
I can definitely believe 1. I mean, it's a terribly stupid thing to do, but I see so many people with no money going into debt to buy expensive stupid stuff. It's not so unlikely that this guy decided to do this on a whim.
I can believe 2 also. He has a great politician name, and his opponent also did very little campaigning (probably thought he was running unopposed lol). Throw in the stupidity of the average voter and voila.
So basically, both events are believable although unlikely on their own, so it's not impossible for them both to happen together. If it's not impossible, it's going to happen eventually.
The best part about this whoel fiasco is that he didnt cheat to get elected. he just got fucking voted in. Noone even knows who he is, and they all voted for him. South Carolinians are the only ones to blame here, the ones who voted for him. The only way that state can get out of this is if he cheated to pay for the name on the ballot (had somone else pay it).
I am laughing really hard at South Carolina right now.
Bump! He gave his first official speech today at a junior high school. The speech is about 7 minutes.
I'm seriously concluding this guy as a professional troll. He ends the speech with "let's reclaim this country from the communists and terrorists." ROFL He talks about himself during the justice part attempting to be clever and even makes looks like he's trying to be clever.. I dunno, the way he acts is just to awkward. It's definitely a must-see though!
I'm seriously concluding this guy as a professional troll. He ends the speech with "let's reclaim this country from the communists and terrorists." ROFL He talks about himself during the justice part attempting to be clever and even makes looks like he's trying to be clever.. I dunno, the way he acts is just to awkward. It's definitely a must-see though!
I just finished a recap on CNN and that terrorist statement was WIN!
"We need justice in the judicial system" - and the room breaks into applause. It sounds like they gave him a chance at the start, and halfway through they're just humoring him.
on a serious note though, this guy is like the perfect candidate for all the guys fed up with politics to vote for. arent non-voters the strongest "political party", everywhere? if he can mobilize these guys to vote for him, he might even have a chance.
I hope this guy stays in office as long as possible. As a social experiment, can a seemingly below average guy do as good or better than your standard political suit? Time will tell.
Besides, even if he screws up- who the hell cares anyways. It's not like the world will end. I'm not really into politics really at all but it seems to be that south carolina is one of those states where nothing that ever happens even matters.
On July 20 2010 19:27 CharlieMurphy wrote: I hope this guy stays in office as long as possible. As a social experiment, can a seemingly below average guy do as good or better than your standard political suit? Time will tell.
Besides, even if he screws up- who the hell cares anyways. It's not like the world will end. I'm not really into politics really at all but it seems to be that south carolina is one of those states where nothing that ever happens even matters.
Time to get some more Alvin Greene discussion going, with midterm elections coming up in a month!
He was on MSNBC tonight with Lawrence O'Donnell. Immediately claimed that Jim DeMint (incumbent Republican senator) started the recession all by himself, before even introducing himself lol. Is obviously still sticking to talking points, although he did go off on a few questions and seemed to extend out. For the most part though, he's the same as he was a few months ago when he did all the interviews initially.
If you have a Facebook I'd recommend "liking" Alvin Greene.. no idea who runs the page (definitely isn't Alvin himself since he's denied it multiple times) but it's pretty hilarious. Plus they post links to interviews quite often so it's pretty easy to keep up to date with all things Alvin Greene.
I still think the story is hilarious and want to see how it ends out. I'm not a big fan of DeMint myself so I'd love to see Greene win.. although that may turn out to be very, very bad.
Did republicans go to the democrat primaries just to fuck with them? Should I get out of this country because there is a state in the union with people who would consciously vote for this guy? Or should I move to South Carolina because I want some of whatever they are on?
On July 20 2010 19:27 CharlieMurphy wrote: I hope this guy stays in office as long as possible. As a social experiment, can a seemingly below average guy do as good or better than your standard political suit? Time will tell.
Besides, even if he screws up- who the hell cares anyways. It's not like the world will end. I'm not really into politics really at all but it seems to be that south carolina is one of those states where nothing that ever happens even matters.
The Civil War started there! :<
Hahaha. I just finished reading Team of Rivals. And this makes me appreciate and like your comment all the more
On October 12 2010 16:38 KwarK wrote: "Two lawmakers are concerned you may have some kind of mental impairment, what do you say to that?" "well I say that back to them then"
I watched Colbert or Stewart totally rip on him about a week ago. Was pretty amusing that this no-name guy got it, but soon we'll have a dog for Senator, and probably get more done.
Looking at why he was discharged from the Army, and watching his interviews, he is probably mentally retarded in some function. Now if it's minor, or if he's a well functioning severely mentally retarded person I can't say, but he does have a mental handicap of some sort. It's also possible he is autistic in some function.
i thought the CNN guy was pretty professional about it. i mean he's going to sound retarded no matter what u ask him.. If u want bitchy interviewers look at FOX news
I posted this earlier but it got no replies, it's a pretty harrowing explanation of how he won:
On October 07 2010 12:30 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: The South Carolina Democratic Party INSANELY denied Former Judge Vic Rawl's protest of the election based on some pretty obvious evidence that there was some sort of fraud or shenanigans. This is what Vic Rawl had to say about it:
I wanted you to hear from me that we will not be appealing last night’s decision by the Democratic Executive Committee to reject our protest of the election results. My campaign for the United States Senate has ended.
The issues we raised about the lack of election integrity in South Carolina are real, and they are not going away unless people act. I assure you that I will continue to speak out about our frail and vulnerable election system in the months to come.
Here are the issues raised by Vic Rawl in his protest: A) The absentee ballots, the ones with a paper trail, overwhelmingly went in his favor, while Alvin Greene took very little. B) The unverifiable, paperless ballots overwhelmingly went to an unemployed half-wit with no service record and no publicity aside from a website and a felony charge. C) Alvin Greene didn't fucking campaign. D) The machines used to count votes in South Carolina have been verified as unreliable and vulnerable to attack. E) The machines used to count votes in South Carolina are made by a company that believe The Bible should replace The Constitution as the governing document in the United States.
A very enlightening video and quote/link to The BRAD Blog:
GRETCHEN CARLSON: How did [Alvin Green] get enough votes? How did he win? ... Are you saying you believe that there was fraud in the vote counting?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN: I'm saying I believe there was hacking done into that computer. Remember, these are the same machines that the state of Ohio, the state of California, uh, Louisiana, uh and Alabama, I believe --- all outlawed this machine. I think that 49 states have decided that this machine is not reliable, and ought not be used for campaigns.
Yet, South Carolina --- the administration of South Carolina --- decided to go down to Louisiana and buy these machines, machines that Louisiana discarded. So, maybe somebody wanted machines that were easily hacked into.
The fact of the matter is, that's a proven fact, and we had no business with those machines in South Carolina, but this administration made the decision to buy machines that 49 states rejected as being unreliable. Why?...
D) The machines used to count votes in South Carolina have been verified as unreliable and vulnerable to attack. E) The machines used to count votes in South Carolina are made by a company that believe The Bible should replace The Constitution as the governing document in the United States.
It's actually in the video, and aside from the sources and experts they referenced and multiple verified hackings of electronic machines including the new one last week that was hacked four times by different groups (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8118) and pretty much every expert and anyone with any sort of techincal knowledge of systems stating that electronic voting is a really bad idea I have nothing. If the fact that he got a large majority of the paper votes and his opponent got a very small minority of them but for some really strange reason a guy who didn't campaign got 59% of the vote on the uncountable, vulnerable machine that almost every other state in the nation has declared unreliable doesn't constitute reasonable doubt to you I don't know what I can do to convince you.
GRETCHEN CARLSON: How did [Alvin Green] get enough votes? How did he win? ... Are you saying you believe that there was fraud in the vote counting?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN: I'm saying I believe there was hacking done into that computer. Remember, these are the same machines that the state of Ohio, the state of California, uh, Louisiana, uh and Alabama, I believe --- all outlawed this machine. I think that 49 states have decided that this machine is not reliable, and ought not be used for campaigns.
Yet, South Carolina --- the administration of South Carolina --- decided to go down to Louisiana and buy these machines, machines that Louisiana discarded. So, maybe somebody wanted machines that were easily hacked into.
The fact of the matter is, that's a proven fact, and we had no business with those machines in South Carolina, but this administration made the decision to buy machines that 49 states rejected as being unreliable. Why?...
Im not too opposed to this, if he can stick to his guns and get thrown around by the suits, I might even be able to get behind him. He really is just the average dude, giving other average dudes a voice i suppose.
All that aside though, the interviewer was kind of a dick. "do you even have a car you poor dumb negro?" im pretty sure he said that
On October 13 2010 02:53 Tha_Docta wrote: The peoples man lol
Im not too opposed to this, if he can stick to his guns and get thrown around by the suits, I might even be able to get behind him. He really is just the average dude, giving other average dudes a voice i suppose.
All that aside though, the interviewer was kind of a dick. "do you even have a car you poor dumb negro?" im pretty sure he said that
Nothing about this guy is average. Why do people keep saying this? He is clearly "below average" and is of questionable intelligence.
Would it be cool to see an average guy in office? Yes, and i'm sure there are hundreds of examples across the country. However, as an "average" guy myself, this guy does not represent me in any way, and i'm sure most others would agree.
FYI, at least 29% of the state (well over 200,000 people) actually voted for this guy.
He lost, but this is sad for democrats. None of those people can complain about Republicans voting for Angle in NV just to spite the other party since this is very comprable in terms of canidate fail.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.strategictelemetry.com/docs/maps/ST_SC_Senate_DEM_060810.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://theshamelist.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/being-there.jpg)
This state is such a joke to me...
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/GreeneAlvin.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs885.snc4/71861_1195241799766_1190070445_30880263_5022885_n.jpg)
