On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote: Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work.
Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed?
And please tell me you are not an economics student.
Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost."
Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble.
If it's all about socialism, by isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart?
What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis?
Again the welfare state is only part of the problem. You said it yourself that having a single-currency that spans various culturally diverse regions is another part of it. I wasn't just referring to Europe's economic failure though, in general they are falling part at the seems. You're right that we have seen economic crisis after economic crisis in Europe, but we've also seen the rise of Islamic extremism, the rise of extreme nationalism, the loss of civil liberties, and the undemocratic EU growing stronger and stronger.
What civil liberties are we losing over in Europe?
Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy for starters.
Specifics please? Not disputing that there may be instance of this across a continent that encompasses some 350 million people, but don't just throw those terms out there without anything to back it up.
The right to bear arms isn't considered one of our core civil liberties across the continent anyway, so it isn't there 'to lose' in the first place.
The right to bear arms is a nature right, whether the British/French/Polish government recognizes it or not. Though actually, the first recorded legal reference to a "right to bear arms" was actually in the English Bill of Rights.
Forgive me for not providing examples, but most European countries have laws against "unpopular" speech, especially so-called "hate speech;" both on the "far-right" and the "far-left." Additionally, most European countries have draconian gun laws and in some countries guns are (for all intents and purposes) flat-out banned (such as in the United Kingdom).
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
hat lies have teacher unions ever told? that there are too many kids in classes and they are underpayed? that sports and music and art are being cut to keep the militaryt horses fed? stop repeating things you hear and think
Lol I don't think you understand what I meant by -- PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
Companies and Unions can both lie. They lie about the candidate they want to win. I just thought it was funny because it shows what side of the isle the comment is coming from.
Also you know that there are more Unions than just teachers' Unions, right? =)
The odds on Obama are plummeting lately. During the conventions, it was 55% for Obama to win
Then leading up to the first debate, Obama spiked to 78%
After first debate Obama was at 65%
Yesterday it was 61%
Today, now its 56%.
I wouldn't put much stock (ha ha) in Intrade shifts that occur in the absence of the influx of information, especially in light of people potentially wanting to cash in on the off chance Trump's "drama bomb" is meaningful.
By definition if me and two other people say "hey I don't like this law" and try to change it, we are an interest group. Outlawing interest groups is outlawing freedom of speech. The problem isn't interest groups, it's campaign finance. Can we please agree to distinguish between the two?
Also, the founding fathers also believed women shouldnt vote and that slavery should be allowed to exist (with slaves counting as 3/5 of a human being of course). The mark of an advancing and civilized society is to continually change with the times (which is also why the constitution can be amended btw), and those who dont are sure to fall off and whither with time.
I agree with your last statement, however, things are being done without amending the Constitution. Executive order and regulation is not how the US government should work. Set law within the confines of the Constitution, other issues should be delegated to the states and limited or allowed by state constitutions. This would, however, limit the Bill of Rights to strictly the federal government, so there are some issues that would need to be addressed on a state level if the state constitution does not specifically state those rights. Would this be a 'touchy feely' government? No, but do you really want the government in your business? For everything the government gives, it has to take away from somewhere either financially or infringement on your life.
No one has ever said things shouldn't 'evolve', just the legal mechanism is what the fight is over. We are either a land governed by law or by men who make the rules up as they go.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group You don't have to be in or have a political party to voice concerns as a group. You and 10 of your friends can pool your money and take an add in the paper. So if you own a business with 10 employees you should be able to take an add as well. Now your employees might not agree with the ad, but it is your business.
But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in. The owner of the business earned that money and paid the worker for helping. So the owner can do whatever he wishes with the money. Is there a company wide vote about the budget every year? No because the owner (or whoever the owner appoints) sets the budget.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers. Companies are made up of individuals.
Also we are a Republic, not Democracy. =P
I underlined a sentence that you need to reread carefully. We're not talking about the owner's take-home pay, of which he can gladly spend to his favorite political party. You're talking about the corporation's assets. These assets were earned collectively and are owned, collectively. Yes, the owner(s) can ultimately sell the company and take whatever assets are there -- and then it becomes their personal money to spend. But as long as the corporation exists, it is the corporation's money, and doesn't belong to any actual living person. Corporations are NOT people.
And then there is the separate matter of letting unlimited money into our political process, from corporations or actual people. This too is disgustingly derisive to our democratic process.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
edit: the dirty laundry bit is as much of a bad thing as a good thing. All attention on dirty laundry (sells eyeballs), no attention on actual politics (doesn't sell eyeballs)
Yeah stopping the Rodney King style beatings..not a BETTER thing.
seriously? how can you interpret me to mean this? srsly
I agree that there is an absolute over saturation of information out there to anyone who gets CNN, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. However, to argue that its not better now than before is ludicrous. Literally just now I watched Romney going back and flip flopping on the issues or Iraq and Syria. This further confirms for me that he is someone that absolutely does not deserve my vote. Whereas before modern technology, he could have gotten away with telling people what they wanted to hear to gain more votes, now its clear that is doing this, and thus turns many voters against him.
I'm skeptical that anybody is being turned away from Romney for this reason. I think the amount of oversaturation of information has actually just made people stop caring about facts entirely. Everybody's got facts. Facts are cheap. Facts mean everything. Facts mean nothing.
Because it is just one example of how wrong you are...that I mentioned in the post you quoted...
Actually facts do mean everything, youre half right. How you can think that people are not turned off by Romney's constant double talk absolutely confounds me. Never in any other election has the left wing media went after a candidate so harshly for doing just that than this one. To think that this was not the reason for Obama's massive lead in the polls is a bit naive. It was not until the first debate, which was filled with information and facts, that Romney surged back to be only down by a few points to Obama. But as he gets caught in more and more lies, that resurgence is slowly eroding.
On October 24 2012 11:39 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
romney is so used to buying everything he wants since the day he was born of course he thinks he can buy the election.
Do you actually know the man? This just sounds like a prejudice against wealthy individuals.
and you do know him? he makes 10 times more in a year with "investments" (that have a discount tax he wants to completely eliminate) than me and my dad will make combined in our entire lives but aw shucks he loves his wife and his kids (but not his dog) and I am supposed to relate to him? let me tell you, i will never do drugs but that story about obama selling cocaine is entirely more relatable to me. i don't even like the drug war so i would say obama dealing coke almost makes me like him more
So you relate to coke dealers more than successful businessmen, got it. And you like people who sell coke.
On October 24 2012 12:10 Leporello wrote: I have to confess that I'm a fan of what the abortion issue has meant lately. It used to be a great rally-cry for Republicans. They talked it up every election, and yet no matter how much government control they'd get, abortion hasn't gone anywhere
There is nothing that can be done to stop abortion without an amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal and it is set in stone.
Another person in this thread, I can't remember who, pointed out that the reason abortion is still a major issue is that, unlike in other countries, the issue of abortion was never put to a vote, not even in Congress. It was arbitrarily decided by unelected judges (the Supreme Court), and so the people never had a real national discussion on it.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
shareholders, not employees.
shareholders are the speakers there, not the employees.
Incorrect.
Way incorrect.
The majority of shares has the say, even if that majority of shares is held by aminority of shareholders as is often the case. And you're missing the point that the money, or "speech", being spent here was earned by, yes, the workers.
Corporations are not formed for political influence. The controller(s) of these corporations should not be given some massive political influence, spending money in terms of "speech" even though that money was earned collectively, because you think it equates to "freedom" out of some backwards interpretation of the constitution.
Can't believe people really think it's a good thing for our Republic to have Citizens United. It so plainly is not.
weren't you the one incorrectly lecturing to me earlier about legal stuff.
just stop.
You obviously interpret things differently, and see it as somehow being definitively correct. That is what should stop.
If you disagree with me about something, than say what it is or why. If you can't, then don't. This dismissive post borders on trolling, and basically is just an admission that you were wrong.
You said something wrong, deal with it. Shareholders are not the speakers of a company, shares are, and that's a very crucial difference that you conveniently missed. And the "speech" we are referring to in this discussion is the monetary sum of the corporation's assets, which was earned by the workers.
All workers have a vested interest in their company, and its assets.
On October 24 2012 11:05 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote: Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work.
then tell us
by not taxing rich people and not building roads is a good idea?
Rich people don't get taxed? We don't build roads?
What?
if your guy romney gets his way. like he paid 13% of his taxes but he could have given more millions to charity and had that rate in single digits. and if he lets the auto makers go bankrupt we won't need paved roads but it is great for our army on horses!
That 13% tax rate doesn't include double taxation.
The auto makers already went bankrupt.
Sucks that he gives so much to charity. What a woeful example he's setting for the wealthy.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity.
I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity.
There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state.
On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote: Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work.
Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed?
And please tell me you are not an economics student.
Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost."
Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble.
If it's all about socialism, by isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart?
What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis?
Again the welfare state is only part of the problem. You said it yourself that having a single-currency that spans various culturally diverse regions is another part of it. I wasn't just referring to Europe's economic failure though, in general they are falling part at the seems. You're right that we have seen economic crisis after economic crisis in Europe, but we've also seen the rise of Islamic extremism, the rise of extreme nationalism, the loss of civil liberties, and the undemocratic EU growing stronger and stronger.
What civil liberties are we losing over in Europe?
Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy for starters.
Specifics please? Not disputing that there may be instance of this across a continent that encompasses some 350 million people, but don't just throw those terms out there without anything to back it up.
The right to bear arms isn't considered one of our core civil liberties across the continent anyway, so it isn't there 'to lose' in the first place.
The right to bear arms is a nature right, whether the British/French/Polish government recognizes it or not. Though actually, the first recorded legal reference to a "right to bear arms" was actually in the English Bill of Rights.
Forgive me for not providing examples, but most European countries have laws against "unpopular" speech, especially so-called "hate speech;" both on the "far-right" and the "far-left." Additionally, most European countries have draconian gun laws and in some countries guns are (for all intents and purposes) flat-out banned (such as in the United Kingdom).
I didn't like the French move on headscarves, felt it was politically expedient move of Sarkozy to cosy up to the far-right vote. Agreed on that, but it's not indicative of a wider European trend.
Unpopular speech is largely pretty protected, otherwise Danish newspapers wouldn't be free to publish those Muhammed cartoons. Other states have laws explicitly denying Holocaust denial, but again those laws are relatively old now. I don't personally agree with them myself, free speech should be free, with the exception of libelling people.
I'm personally for some degree of piracy law as well, and that's not really an incursion on any kind of Civil Liberty as I see it. The actual way these laws were proposed, I do disagree with but the core idea of stopping people obtaining products that cost money to produce, for free isn't necessarily anti-civil liberty.
There are no 'natural' rights, so I don't agree with your assertion on arms. The arms debate isn't worth having though, Americans and European society have developed different norms, and this issue is one where the two sides can't really see the other sides viewpoint. Just starts a shitstorm.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative.
yes, the 17th century is quite recent, and no, it's not relative
The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity.
this is just absurd. What are you possibly talking about? What is the "dawn of humanity" and what philosophical tradition are you talking about?
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity.
I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity.
There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state.
Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
edit: the dirty laundry bit is as much of a bad thing as a good thing. All attention on dirty laundry (sells eyeballs), no attention on actual politics (doesn't sell eyeballs)
Yeah stopping the Rodney King style beatings..not a BETTER thing.
seriously? how can you interpret me to mean this? srsly
I agree that there is an absolute over saturation of information out there to anyone who gets CNN, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. However, to argue that its not better now than before is ludicrous. Literally just now I watched Romney going back and flip flopping on the issues or Iraq and Syria. This further confirms for me that he is someone that absolutely does not deserve my vote. Whereas before modern technology, he could have gotten away with telling people what they wanted to hear to gain more votes, now its clear that is doing this, and thus turns many voters against him.
I'm skeptical that anybody is being turned away from Romney for this reason. I think the amount of oversaturation of information has actually just made people stop caring about facts entirely. Everybody's got facts. Facts are cheap. Facts mean everything. Facts mean nothing.
Because it is just one example of how wrong you are...that I mentioned in the post you quoted...
Yes, that is a way in which it is good. I'm talking about the aggregate effects of information technology on democracy, which I hold are a net negative.
Actually facts do mean everything, youre half right. How you can think that people are not turned off by Romney's constant double talk absolutely confounds me. Never in any other election has the left wing media went after a candidate so harshly for doing just that than this one. To think that this was not the reason for Obama's massive lead in the polls is a bit naive. It was not until the first debate, which was filled with information and facts, that Romney surged back to be only down by a few points to Obama. But as he gets caught in more and more lies, that resurgence is slowly eroding.
getting caught lying means nothing, I don't think. I don't think anybody actually cares about lies. They are expected to lie.
The fact that people aren't turned off by double talk is important, please meditate on this phenomenon
On October 24 2012 11:18 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:08 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:05 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote: Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work.
then tell us
by not taxing rich people and not building roads is a good idea?
Rich people don't get taxed? We don't build roads?
What?
if your guy romney gets his way. like he paid 13% of his taxes but he could have given more millions to charity and had that rate in single digits. and if he lets the auto makers go bankrupt we won't need paved roads but it is great for our army on horses!
That 13% tax rate doesn't include double taxation.
The auto makers already went bankrupt.
Sucks that he gives so much to charity. What a woeful example he's setting for the wealthy.
giving to the mormon church is a funny version of charity.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity.
I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity.
There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state.
Assuming this were true (and it really isn't proven or agreed upon by scholars) In those "states" the alpha caveman certainly was superior to the individuals comprising the state, so I'm not sure how you can say they embodied Locke's ideas.
All state of nature theory is idiotic from the outset.
tribal leaders aren't states, unless you mean "state" as "social organization of any type."
EPT
