use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
This year, give the gift of reddit gold. (and you should probably also give some other, better gifts)
This is bullshit. It's time to realize that Obama is the enemy just as much as the usual suspects. (self.occupywallstreet)
submitted 1 year ago by aristotle2600
Cutting corporate tax rate. Increasing the prison budget.
Then throwing out an "Internet Bill of Rights" to keep the nerds in line.
Bull.
[–]ithinkimightbegay 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
The corporate tax rate cut is a good idea in theory. It calls for closing tax loopholes that are exploited by major corporations. End result is larger corporations pay more while smaller businesses pay less. Of course, I'm holding my breath to see if it actually pans out that way.
[–]fellowhuman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
cutting corporate taxes is not the same as closing tax loopholes, they are antithetical.
[–]videogameexpert 20 points21 points22 points 1 year ago
We knew already. It's just he's so damn charismatic. Even I have to keep reminding myself that he's full of shit, the rest of America can't help themselves.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
He really pulled the wool over my eyes, when ever he makes a speech a part of me wants to instantly be his strongest supporter. I have to forcibly remind myself that his biggest donors are bankers.
[–]videogameexpert 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago*
The 2012 Presidential Debate, brought to you by Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, we own your president. Also brought to you by The University of California. UC, we make faces glow (orange). And finally, JP Morgan Chase. JP Morgan: We buy your local bank. So you don't have to choose. 1 2
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
That's how marketing works. They make you desire something that you do not necessarily need, or may even be against your own interests.
[–]fellowhuman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
remind yourself who campaigned against the patriot act in 2002.
then signed it in 2003.
spoke out against it in 2005.
then voted to extend its powers again in 2006.
spoke about human rights and standing up for democracy.
then signed the NDAA into law while ignoring the OWS movement, mubarak using rape squads on his own citizens and killing people with tanks and cluster bombs.
but hey, obama isnt going to complain if the billions of dollars in aid the usa sent to mubarak is getting him exactly what the usa paid for.
its not hard to see through the lies, just look at the voting record and compare it to what he SAYS he wants to do.
when they dont match, you know he is a lair and cannot be trusted.
i cannot believe the "signing statement" and how people are reacting to it as though some guilt is absolved by saying "i really dont want to create a world wide state of martial law and precrime oppression" yet the ink is still wet from his signature.
I hear hitler was very nice and well liked when he was elected to power as well.
[–]dblaisde 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
He's even worse: he fractures the opposition. If he were Republican, you'd know where you stood, but many people feel "well, he's black, cool, and Democrat, what could go wrong". The Enemy you know is less a threat than the Enemy you don't know.
[–]JoeyBagadonuts 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Just the usual Chicago fixer, as honest as hens teeth.
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 15 points16 points17 points 1 year ago
Yep. Need a third party in this country. Badly.
[–]lordairivis 31 points32 points33 points 1 year ago
it's more like "we need a second party" at this point tbh :/
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
Excellent point.
[–]rspix000 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
The illusion of choice.
[–]JarJizzles 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
To the same effect
http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-09-19/1253350973912.png
http://i.imgur.com/EpR1f.png
[–]xstaticxgpx -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
so is this version the real one or the one with the jew instead of the pyramid?
[–]magister0 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
We have third parties. They can't get any traction because of the absurdity of the First Past the Post system. What we need to do is change our system of voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
[–]batnastard 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
[–]magister0 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
http://rangevoting.org/ArrowThm.html
Must read more tomorrow. Brain tired from doing math all day. Still, is there anything from a source other than "rangevoting.org" that claims this is a counter example to Arrow?
http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~amathew/arrow.pdf
http://www.socialchoiceandbeyond.com/scabpage68.htm
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4281
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/049ns_001.htm
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2009/08/deconstructing-range-voting.html
Thanks. Will read and get back.
First link is dead.
The issue with range voting, from a mathematical standpoint, is that it does not satisfy IIA, but rather a weakened version, due to being a cardinal rather than ordinal system. From a social standpoint, it's very prone to manipulation or insincere (strategic) voting.
It may still be the best available option, and it certainly sounds interesting despite high manipulability, but it is not a counterexample to Arrow's theorem. And the way it's being reported in the lay press is typical of most science reporting, i.e. incorrect.
My point in posting the link to Arrow was that a lot of people want a "third party" without realizing that such a system has deep imperfections. Technically we have a multi-party system with huge flaws, but most of the time it behaves like a two-party system, which is why we keep it. An interesting consequence of Arrow's theorem is that a true two-party system with majority is mathematically more ideal than any multi-party system. It's not to say it's truly the best, for instance if the majority of people dislike both candidates, but it's the only thing that satisfies certain reasonable criteria.
The first link isn't dead
I got a blank page.
[–]terrorismofthemind 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Unfortunately at this point, the problems in our country are so deeply rooted that a viable second or third choice would be unable to really do anything.
There would need to be a massive shift in the public's involvement, a serious commitment to education, reforms on pretty much everything and most likely a constitutional convention.
Even if tomorrow. everyone woke up and stopped being in denial about how wrong almost everything is in our government, it would still take generations to improve our country.
I mean, the most important issue clearly is our failed education system that breeds contempt, stupidity, and leaves our children with limited options and a lack of training and direction.
To fix this would be a MASSIVE undertaking. We're talking about the re-education of hundreds of millions of people. Gen Y and Gen Z would need to grow old and die before anything could really change. We've already been bred for stupidity.
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Well, aren't you grim! I think it boils down to giving up the idea that the US is the global police. That massive undertaking is already underway with the collapse of the economy.
Maybe a little grim, but I like to think I'm a realist. Americans (myself included) are too dumb and lazy - and it's meant to be that way.
Shit is so bad right now and people are in complete denial about it. Sure, we're not starving or being killed by our government - but we're allowing very rich and powerful people use the government that we fund and that's supposed to represent us to serve their own interests and wreak havoc around the world. Meanwhile, our youth is increasingly ill-prepared for the 21st century work force and our culture demonizes criticism and intelligent discussion - deeming it innapropriate.
I see your point, but to some extent it's ALWAYS been like this. Powerful people always shape the world for good or ill. Older people always fret the young are ill-prepared.
I read an interesting book about Cicero which was comprised of a lot of his personal correspondence. It was funny to hear him complain about the same things. I mean, the SAME things. The culture has become crude, the rich are corrupt, etc. etc. Of course, Cicero was there when the Republic feel to the Empire.
I don't think the culture demonizes criticism and intelligent discussion, I think it's the media, which is mostly controlled by those very people you reference. That's the problem. Here, on the wild, wild world web, intelligence (and stupidity) is everywhere. And it's mostly because the Internet is free and unregulated. It's the closest thing to a true capitalist/Libertarian kind of free market.
[–]evilrobonixon2012 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
We could always vote Socialist again. Debs got almost a million votes at his highest popularity. Even though it would be nowhere near victory, imagine how conservative heads would asplode if about a million people voted for the SPUSA candidate. A lot of the old progressive reforms that happened were because groups like the Socialist Party had so much potential power. They picked out the most palatable pieces to calm things down.
Oh, dear Lord, no. Socialism is not the answer. You're giving more power to the state to fuck you.
Socialism doesnt mean state power, it means worker ownership. And no, the USSR was not socialist.
Ownership doesn't matter. What matters is control. The question that needs to be asked is: who will control and decide how scarce resources are used.
I was born in a communist country. The communists used to to claim that we, the public, owned everything, and yet they placed severe restrictions on how we could use our so-called property. What good is owning something if you can't use it?
I am all for a decentralized worker controlled economy, but I highly doubt that the shadow government that presently controls the economy through the money system will allow that to happen. I think they are far more likely to push for a centralized system that is socialist in name only so the gullible people on the street tired of the current crony capitalism can jump on board, but behind the scenes they will retain full control.
[–]JarJizzles 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Yes, ownership implies control.
The communists used to to claim that we, the public, owned everything
Key word: claim
I agree with the rest of your statement. The US and the USSR both prefer to call the USSR socialist, despite it being nothing like socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ
[–]TonyDiGerolamo -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago
You ever try and run anything with a group of say, five or more people? Yeah, good luck with running a business like that.
[–]CJLocke 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Mondragon corporation is a successful workers cooperative with 83,000 workers.
Why is it that you think Tyranny is just terrible in a government but just A-Ok and the only option if in a business?
I think any large organization is prone to tyranny, whether it be a corporation or a government. If a business becomes too large and centralized, it becomes just as wasteful as a large, centralized government. Because just like that government, the dictates of the higher-ups apply less and less to the fringes of that large organization.
But apply your same workers coop to the federal government. The federal government cannot make a move without the agreement of the states. This was the founders' intent for things like a Declaration of War and Posse Comitatus. Both rendered null and void these days.
But while a group like Mondragon might work on some level, the customers would be better off with 83 separate companies of 1000 workers competing for their business. This would drive down the prices. The problem with capitalism happens when one or two of those successful businesses starts gobbling up the competition unfairly, either by regulating the market through their government cronies or by outright fraud.
[–]jimmyrunsdeep 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
One of those 83 small companies won't have the resources to get certain things done that one Mondragon does. You want some legal limit on the size of worker co-ops or something?
No, I'm saying that if there were 83 completing companies, that each would strive to give their customers better service at a lower price.
A few of those companies would probably succeed at giving better service at a lower price and the rest would go out of business. Then the few that remained would grow larger.
I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing here. A legal limit on company size?
[–]CJLocke 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Well Mondragon does actually run itself as seperate companies running under the same banner. But my point was that workers coops can easily be large and successful. You said:
Which is demonstrably false as Mondragon shows.
Also, you mentioned capitalism but an economy made entirely of workers coops would be socialism.
It's more complicated than that, I was being glib. Mondragon came out of the Spanish Civil War, so I would argue that it's origins are hardly voluntary. Additionally, Mondragon competes in the marketplace and participates in capitalism, it does not exist in a purely socialist system.
Mondragon exists in a wider capitalist system, yes, but that doesn't make it capitalism. Socialism is, by definition, worker ownership/control of the means of production. Mondragon is owned by the workers therefor making it a socialist workplace (albeit in a capitalist system). If all businesses were run this way then yes it would be a completely socialist system.
Yeah, worker run co-operatives never work! ಠ_ಠ
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Let's force all businesses to be worker run co-operatives! ಠ_ಠ
Better than forcing all workers to submit to wage slavery.
How about not forcing anyone to do anything?
[–]thenoorys -5 points-4 points-3 points 1 year ago
Dumb.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
You don't seem to understand what socialism means. You could also try actually reading the SPUSA's platform.
"THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies"
Public agencies are government agencies. Anything they control would ultimately be politicized by the elections that you would need to appoint the bureaucrats to run them. Therefore, the power would be concentrated in these bureaucrat posts.
You don't understand how business works. Entrepreneurs cannot emerge when bureaucrats decide who is and who is not in business. This encourages the exact kind of crony capitalism that has developed under the current system.
Anything they control would ultimately be politicized by the elections that you would need to appoint the bureaucrats to run them. Therefore, the power would be concentrated in these bureaucrat posts.
Read up on things like syndicalism before you make claims like that.
This encourages the exact kind of crony capitalism that has developed under the current system.
You don't understand how socialism works.
Relevant
[–]yrugay 18 points19 points20 points 1 year ago*
would you like to know more?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/06/obama-chooses-jpmorgan-exec-william-daley-chief-staff/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3lA016FzmYg
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-27-lobbyist_N.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/us-usa-holder-mortgage-idUSTRE80J0PH20120120
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alliance-monsa_b_642385.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/10/former-keystone-pipeline-lobbyist-hired-by-obama-campaign.html
http://www.allgov.com/Where_is_the_Money_Going/ViewNews/Obama_Administration_Invested_Billions_in_Companies_Supported_by_Energy_Dept_Insiders_120216
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20047212-503544.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/31/134848207/report-general-electric-paid-no-federal-taxes-last-year
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802955.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/obamas-new-chief-of-staff-jack-lew-a-union-buster/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/05/us-adviser-linked-illegal-drc-gold
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22957.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2569898/posts
http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/05/cameras-banned-in-white-house-daily.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/fz4ed/wikileaks_cables_leaked_information_regarding/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577189520334363222.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pypn7/obama_fights_to_retain_warrantless_wiretapping/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nxu96/obama_signs_ndaa_with_signing_statement/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-assassination-program-092910?src=rss
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/lt8zl/obama_assassinates_16_yearold_coloradoborn_united/
www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/flw6z/obamas_37_trillion_budget_calls_for_military/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166344/obamas-plan-save-military-cuts-expense-domestic-programs
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-27-Patriot-Act_N.htm
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/imjiy/obamas_doj_we_can_force_you_to_give_us_the/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jqntl/obama_administration_once_again_siding_with_the/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/k1oix/top_cia_official_obama_changed_virtually_none_of/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218970652119898.html?KEYWORDS=rights+are+curtailed
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/29/opinion/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ln4gz/president_obama_is_going_to_begin_a_series_of/
www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/l2yy6/us_can_put_american_citizens_on_terrorist_kill/
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/14/source-white-house-will-not-turn-over-all-solyndra-documents/?hpt=hp_t2
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/02/judge-approves-solyndra-bonuses/1?csp=34news#.T0WXbHlofn6
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/60-minutes-to-look-at-lawmakers-and-stocks/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/us-usa-housing-fanniemae-idUSTRE7A77F420111109?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true
www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/kwo4b/government_orders_youtube_to_censor_protest_videos/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/lv3iw/google_refuses_to_remove_policebrutality_videos/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62999.html
http://www.aclu.org/mapping-fbi-uncovering-abusive-surveillance-and-racial-profiling
www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ksu6d/iraq_to_buy_us_warplanes_worth_3_billion/
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d1ll4/obama_return_your_nobel_peace_prize_the_new_york/
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/fxgb9/atf_agent_admits_to_reporter_that_he_was_ordered/
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f84s8/barack_obama_out_of_the_closet_wall_streets/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ecgup/us_government_censors_70_websites_for_whole_world/
http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/10/12/why_are_bailed_out_banks_breaking
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/djeai/the_obama_administration_is_pushing_for_new/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/us-military-banned-from-v_n_671967.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/bdchm/obama_sides_with_riaa_mpaa_backs_acta/
[–]camdemonium 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
You're doing Cthulhu's work son.
[–]transmutationnation 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
sonuvabitch
[–]krugmanisapuppet 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
[–]krugmanisapuppet 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
http://i.imgur.com/L1wrA.jpg
[–]namegoeshere 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago
Obama will be the next President.. you don't throw out a good little corporatist when he is following orders.
The rest of this sideshow is exactly that, a sideshow to distract the gullible from issues that actually matter.
[–]SpockSays 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
This system is obviously obsolete and we need an upgrade. How do you feel about a resourced based economy?
[–]mungojelly 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
A resource based economy would be good as long as it's a flexible dynamic system we create together that has nothing to do with that particular dogma and its big egos.
I agree, and that is essentially what an RBE is all about. There needs to be a true, objective economy established, we have to get rid of this ridiculous system we have been stuck on. Check out this explanation of RBE if you are not familiar Link
[–]mungojelly -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
I'm too familiar. It's becoming a dogmatic ideology. Y'all should try to be less repetitive, each develop your own perspective, and stop stroking those particular egos.
Just wanted to make sure you were familiar, it is the ideas they represent that are important, not the ego themselves.
The ideas themselves are just anarchism with a newage sheen.
[–]SpockSays 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Application of scientific method to resource management and allocation is not anarchism.
[–]mungojelly 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Hmm? No, it is. What do you think anarchism is then?! That's odd. I guess they've lied about anarchism so much that someone can come in and sell you anarchism with some bells and whistles and sparkles and you don't recognize it. That's the whole idea of anarchism, always has been: Collectively own resources, manage them intelligently.
I understood anarchism to be a voluntary, stateless association. I have never read any literature that discusses intelligent resource management under the label of anarchism, nor utilization of the scientific method. Kindly send me some sources to read, I would like to look into it.
[–]hs0o -6 points-5 points-4 points 1 year ago*
Especially when nobody here can consider Ron Paul a legitimate candidate just because he is pro-life despite having many valid stances on a variety of issues.
[–]evilrobonixon2012 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
Some of us also actually dislike the idea of further privatization and deregulation. Those bother me more than any personal position he could take on abortion.
[–]aristotle2600[S] 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
You really think that Ron Paul's only failing is abortion? Has the cult taken over your mind that much? His being Anti-Federalist, against Constitutional Incorporation, the Civil Rights Act......nothing? His worship of big business and vilification of any government....not a peep?
It absolutely infuriates me, please believe me, that he is saying so many right things....because he is saying wrong things too. It's made me ask myself what I'm willing to sacrifice. Would I be OK with drugs being legalized in exchange for the return of Jim Crow? Would you? These are not comfortable questions.
Except he wouldn't legalize drugs, only let states make the decision instead of the US. Because he lives in a fantasy world where State governments are good and just, and only the evil Federal Government must be resisted. It's like he's half-libertarian....the half that is pro-business and wants government too weak to protect the rights of its citizens.
Here's an idea.....instead of arguing which government is best, or if corporations are better, we put people first? I mean REALLY first. Governments exist to protect people, protect their rights. They should be allowed to do so. If they fuck up, fix the government. If they're not the right government for the job, find a better one. IF, in all cases.
[–]mchristo 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
let's not forget he wants to abolish every regulatory agency that protects the consumer, our air and water, etc.. At least Ron Paul will never be president, thank the good lord.
[–]herpherpderp 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
But...But....But....
RONPAUL!!!RONPAUL!!!RONPAUL!!!
Try chanting it a few times, and you might realize that you do support him after all!
[–]aristotle2600[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
ಠ_ಠ
[–]krugmanisapuppet 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
hey, herpherpderp, remember when you tried to convince me that South Korea was an example of the wild success of government intervention, and then changed the subject whenever i brought up North Korea?
what was that, yesterday? two days ago?
[–]herpherpderp -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago
Hey, krugmanisapuppet, remember when you took your paranoid schizophrenic medicine? When was that? At least a week ago!
[–]krugmanisapuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
that's very cute. you never addressed the point, though.
[–]herpherpderp -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
What point?
I explained exactly why South Korea was successful due to government intervention, and provided numerous sources. You just babbled incoherently about a completely different country, North Korea.
It's OK though. I have reported these posts to my Zionist handlers. I'm sure they will have no problems taking care of your issues for you.
[–]krugmanisapuppet -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
the point that North Korea, despite starting from remarkably similar social conditions pre-Korean war, now has a dramatically lower level of economic freedom, and has rampant starvation, disease, and general lack of economic development as a result.
you know, the point that contradicted your entire argument.
also, you only provided one source, which was just a claim by some guy that a specific example of government intervention in South Korea was good.
[–]herpherpderp 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I never made the argument that a totalitarian government operating for the benefit of the few at the top would have the same results as a government intervening in the market to improve the standard of living of all citizens.
Also, the 'claim by some guy' was actually the economic analysis of an Oxford economics professor who grew up in South Korea. Of course that's not significant to someone like you, who uses evidence such as a huge calculus equation being balanced dynamically in my head.
My handlers have informed me that they are one step closer to solving the problem of you disseminating this misinformation.
[–]hs0o -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago*
Not the federal government though. The Fed can go fuck itself. I think states should have the right to policies do as they please. So Texas can have policies that would make it, inevitably, a third world country and Vermont could have policies to make it a Socialist paradise. With Ron Paul as president he would at least stop the crazy drug war, stop the wars in the middle east, and respect civil liberties (no NDAA). Moreover, he will end the Federal Reserve. I have no idea why OWS isn't aware of how fucked up the federal reserve is. Sure, he's not perfect, but in my mind he is like chemotherapy. It's not perfect, but it can pretty much do the job. Sure, I would rather vote for Stuart Alexander, but Ron Paul is much more pragmatic of a choice since libertarians would surely vote for him.
[–]lovelyallen -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
That shit pisses me off to no end. Here we have a candidate who is very much opposed to and educated on the corporate ownership of this country, dedicated to cleaning up our foreign policy (i.e. Iran), and also understanding that the war on drugs is a pointless waste of resources but all they look at is "Oh no way, RP is against abortion. Fuck that. We have our rights! Vote Obama! " While I am completely pro-life I believe that in our current state we have much bigger fish to fry. For fucks sake we are headed towards a totalitarian regime and all people give a shit about are his religious beliefs.
[–]videogameexpert -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
Then in 2016 no one will want to vote for Biden, so Head Guido Chris Christie can bring all his douchebag friends straight to the white house.
[–]emperornibble -4 points-3 points-2 points 1 year ago
I doubt there will be a need for an election in 2016. By then Obama will have finished the transition into a corporate dictatorship.
[–]magister0 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Oh Christ this hyperbole is excruciating
[–]haidaguy -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
hyperbole?
We're going to live this!
[–]alllie 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
But Santorum!!
Freaks me out!
[–]SuperBicycleTony 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
Obama said that those cuts would be offset by eliminating loopholes, and making the stated corporate tax rate closer to the effective one.
So my question is that since this has been up for three hours and no one's mentioned the other parts of the story... is this just a circlejerk?
[–]aristotle2600[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 1 year ago
So your point is that because he's not hurting, he's merely not helping, we should be grateful for what we get? That's exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about.
[–]jimmyrunsdeep 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
The loopholes tend to be only taken advantage of by the large corps so this would probably help small business. He's also doing things to keep jobs in the US.
[–]SuperBicycleTony 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
So circlejerk.
[–]herpherpderp -4 points-3 points-2 points 1 year ago
So Obama claims that lowering the corporate tax rate actually wont change the amount corporations pay.
Then what's the point of passing this law in the first place if nothing changes?
Apparently no one else was stupid enough to fall for the ridiculous claim that this law wouldnt change anything.
Look, if you Obamatards want to let your messiah piss down your back and tell you its raining, that's fine, but not all of us are into the golden showers.
[–]SuperBicycleTony 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
Wow, this place is a shithole. I get a -tard suffix for introducing an element to the discussion that hadn't been mentioned.
Maybe, and I don't know why I'm wasting my time dealing with you in the first place, closing loopholes and lowering the rate at the same time would have the effect of making that tax system more progressive. Maybe smaller firms that can't take advantage of those loopholes will benefit over larger firms that don't even pay taxes because of them. There's a whole discussion that could be had there!
But it won't happen. Because by virtue of your presence and actions, this place is a shithole.
[–]nickelforapickle 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Man people are assholes. Thank you for letting me not be the only person in this thread who is just as bad at jumping to conclusions as those they are criticizing.
[–]herpherpderp -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
I get a -tard suffix for introducing an element to the discussion that hadn't been mentioned.
No, you get the tard suffix for being a tard.
Not that I expect a tard like you to understand that.
[–]keypuncher 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Well, he did promise change.
I don't think most people realized he that when he said that, he meant you were going to be left with less than a dollar.
Obama's the bad guy? No shit?
I think everyone's known about Obama's enduring relationship with the Oligarchy that we're headed towards- him making more corporate/republican policies now that the web is being lit up by Santorum/Romney/Gingrich is no surprise whatsoever to me.
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Yeah, I guess. The juxtaposition of those 3 articles just hit me, especially the Internet Bill of Rights thing. We need to take it to the next level and start attacking him openly, at least as vigorously as anyone else.
He was mic-checked before, but OWS sort of backed off when he offered to engage in some vague form of dialog.
By now, we should recognize that ALL politicians that do not actively support bills supporting internet freedom and corporate regulation of both political lobbying and excessive funds are politicians we should actively fight against.
Was he now? Awesome; we need to be ready for that, then. One of his greatest weapons is appearing to be reasonable and transparent, i.e. someone we can rely on, someone that isn't that bad. By backing down, OWS awarded him a point on that front, and worse, they sent a message that either they can't engage in that dialog, or they are unwilling to engage Obama specifically. I leave determination of which is worse to you.
So the next time OWS decides to mic-check him, it needs to not back down, but engage aggressively and use solid facts. DO NOT go off half-cocked. But don't let him make a fool of us, either.
[–]petedacook 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Originally when I would bash Obama a few years ago, I would get down-votes and Obama apologists coming out in droves to explain why everything he has done is not his doing, or not his fault.
As time has passed and we find ourselves looking back at nearly 4 yeas of Obama bullshit rhetoric, I find Reddit follows my opinion of Obama. I get more up-votes and I find less apologists showing up.
I noticed the same thing, but over the last month or so it seems there are a lot more of his apologists around again. I guess the election has them crawling out of their lairs.
[–]petedacook 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I have also noticed a different tone in the Government. Our Politicians know the General American Public has a memory span of about 6 months, so they figure if they behave for 6+ months they will get re-elected.
They signed the Payroll Tax Cut extension into action a month before it expired, and it included jobless benefits.
[–]cooljeanius -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
We Obama apologists still exist. We're just tired of arguing with people who already have their minds made up.
Yes, the people who used to support Obama because of his promises but now do not support him because of his failure to keep so many of his promises are the ones who 'already have their minds made up'...
[–]petedacook -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
Down voting should still be on par, but it is not. Call me gullible but I believe the general public is waking up and realizing Obama is Wall Street's puppet.
[–]sheepshizzle 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago*
I understand your point and mostly agree with it too. So what's your suggestion for the next election? At this point, there will be two viable options. Either Obama or the republican nominee. In my mind, staying home because I don't want to vote for Obama is as good as voting for the republican nominee. What are your thoughts?
*spelling
[–]aristotle2600[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Short term? Vote Green. Medium term? Create solidarity for putting together our own party, probably partially absorbing other 3rd parties like the Greens. Long term, start poaching people from the Democrats and yes, Republicans to join the new party.
[–]rspix000 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
This and organize for 2016.
[–]sheepshizzle 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Your medium and long term goals are goals that I agree with and would definitely support. But I feel like if enough progressives and jaded democrats and others showed up at the polls and voted Green instead of Obama, we would encounter a situation like the republicans encountered with Ross Perot when he ran against Bush and Clinton. I'm concerned that splitting our votes would lead to a republican victory that would most certainly be disastrous for our nation.
[–]aristotle2600[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago*
And the last time Green was an issue, yes I remember. In fact, my dad and I were so incensed we tried to file a Writ of Mandamus with the Supreme Court to get them to order Florida to conduct a full recount. He's kind of a crank, though, so don't get too excited; I was half just going along.
The Democrats are utterly hopeless. They must be destroyed and made to understand that they cannot just assume that anyone to their left will vote for them. Losing is the only way to do that. I mean, the Republicans have already been through this; they had a massive movement that was ready to crucify anyone who wasn't crazy enough.
And before you remind me that the Tea Party was ultimately just a front for corporate interests, let me remind you that reality doesn't matter, only how politicians react to stimuli. The Rs thought they were going to lose their extremest base, so they pandered to them. The Ds have had no such fear, so they see no need to pander to their extremists (I cried a little as I wrote that). Rather, they can chase the moderates that the Rs are leaving behind. This keeps up, eventually there will be so many Progressives left out in the cold on the left that they can form a 3rd party. But that'll only happen if they also realize that the Democrats are not coming back, and that they do not have to settle for scraps from Obama's "compromise" table.
Great comment. You're the first person who's convinced me to even consider not voting for Obama as the lesser of two evils in the upcoming race. I'm not sold yet, but I'll spend some more time thinking about what you said. Thanks.
Well then welcome aboard :)
Or Socialist Party USA :)
Right. That's a great idea. Seriously though, we need to really think about what will be effective. What is our goal? If it's to attract more people outside our normal demographics (hint: it is), we need to not do things that will give us a disadvantage out of the gate for no reason. I'm sorry your party's name has been poisoned, but it is what it is, and ignoring it helps no one.
Now, once we get someone talking, and seeing our way of things, then it's absolutely a good thing to branch out, discuss more things, mention, "Oh by the way, you know socialism does not mean evil commie, right?" and so on.
Except the people who embrace the assumption of socialism as an evil would typically lump you Greens in with us as being socialists under another name, the same way they do with Democrats, even though it is much more of an absurd statement regarding the Dems.
The GP and SPUSA platforms are actually very similar and I do wish Stewart Alexander had continued to seek the nomination from both parties like he had early on. I ultimately would rather stand with socialism though, and believe that the title will only continue to be demonized as long as people who are sympathetic toward it are themselves timid about the word. This is why I am happy to be part of a group that is trying to start SPUSA locals and a state chapter here in Alabama.
Eh, I don't think that's necessarily true. Certainly, some will lump everyone together, but those people are indeed beyond reason. I'm talking about the moderate masses, who hear "Green" and think "oh, so they are trying to prioritise the environment, which is fine (even if I think they are making a big deal about nothing)," but they hear "Socialist" and think "WTF? Like the goddamn Russians and stupid hippie kids that won't grow up?"
I think most moderates are at least rational though, even if they hàve not expanded their rational criticisms beyond a certain comfort zone. I would just rather directly show them that socialism is not what they have been taught in preconceptions. That is part of why the group here is wanting to really emphasize outreach and volunteer programs. More than any sort of immediate political message in terms of electoral gains.
Yeah, but people have limits. I would rather show them stuff too, we just have to be delicate because of the knee-jerk reaction to the name, that's all.
I guess I would just rather do more to challenge those limits. They will never change as long as they remain untested. Either way, I would really like to see multiparty candidates in the future. Alexander is still going with the PFP in California too, but it would have been great to see an even more broad coalition with the GP like he had originally planned for.
[–]sarcasmandsocialism 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
If lots of people vote Green, the GOP will dominate the elections, and the corporate tax rate will get cut even more, but they won't close any loopholes. If you think that is worth it, to teach the Democrats a lesson, go for it.
It's fine if you vote for whomever. What, you think your vote will change the election? It won't. The danger isn't that you'll vote for the wrong person and it'll make any difference at all, the danger is that you'll spend another precious moment of your life thinking about it. Your local Occupy needs those brain cells to process something that's not an intentional distraction, so look up.
[–]htnsaoeu 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
But the Republicans are scarey! Let's just keep electing Democrats who don't represent us until it's "safe".
[–]TroutM4n 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
"Internet Bill of Rights"
Yeah, the idea sounded nice, so I went to read what the release actually said. I made it through two paragraphs before I was so mad I closed the tab.
Paragraph II:
Justice Brandeis taught us that privacy is the “right to be let alone,” but we also know that privacy is about much more than just solitude or secrecy. Citizens who feel protected from misuse of their personal information feel free to engage in commerce, to participate in the political process, or to seek needed health care. This is why we have laws that protect financial privacy and health privacy, and that protect consumers against unfair and deceptive uses of their information. This why the Supreme Court has protected anonymous political speech, the same right exercised by the pamphleteers of the early Republic and today’s bloggers.
That's right. Obama just used personal privacy as an argument to support citizen's united and the "rights" of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections anonymously.
That is some feat verbal chicanery.
Well now, let's be fair.....just because it mentioned "financial" and "anonymous" in the same paragraph does not mean that it is talking about CU. When we're talking about actual speech, the press release is right; anonymous speech IS important. Financial privacy IS important. When you abuse these things to commit crimes, lie, steal, etc., you should be punished.....but not at the expense of those who just want their right to privacy.
Of course financial privacy and anonymous speech are important.
The problem here is specifically in relation to corporate campaign finance rather than personal finance. He is intentionally conflating two vaguely related issues by starting the discussion on personal rights and then shifting it to corporate rights in an attempt to justify allowing corporations to influence elections without disclosing their efforts.
Oh sure, I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's what was being implied by the paragraph you quoted.
This is why the Supreme Court has protected anonymous political speech.
What would you take that line to mean?
Well, the first things that occurred were online posts and marching in a mask, that sort of things. Doesn't CU still require that Super-PACs publicly disclose every quarter who their donors are? That's what the Colbert Super-PAC had to do.
[–]simiotic24 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
He cut the corporate tax rate by what, 7-9%? Ok. How many tax loopholes did he close at the same time? Enough to keep from increasing taxes. I'd say that's a pretty impressive feat. Read up on your Mills, Domhoff, and Weinstein before you go jumping to conclusions about the elite or "sophisticated conservatives". Is Obama protecting capitalism? Yes. Is he making it more palatable for everyone? Probably, but we'll have to wait a minute before we can find out.
[–]aaalexxx 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
He re authorized the patriot act, signed NDAA. He signed off on the assassination of a US citizen, no trial. Puppet to the bankers.... The fucked up part is, who else can you vote for? Whoever the GOP nominates will be just as bad if not worse and Paul just doesn't have the support for people to make that leap of faith
Our election cycle is rigged, everyone knows that its always the lesser of two evils.
IMHO OWS or anyone looking for ways to fix this nation would be a fool to believe that the election cycle as is will get them any closer to their goal. But if things went political, formed a party, well.... I won't go there....
[–]yamfood 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Obama is centre-right and the Republicans call him a Marxist.
[–]no1113 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Na. Obama's not the enemy. It's the people who run him that are the enemy.
Don't go after him. Go after his bosses owners.
[–]ObamasFather 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
He's attempting to cut the corporate tax rate which is big business tax rate yes...but he's raising the top income tax bracket tax to like 30% avoiding the argument that it will harm business creation while still sticking it to those evil bastards on top? He's got to play ball right?
Yeah, I'm at the end of my rope with anyone who still supports him. They either are uninformed or are completely ignoring the facts, the latter of which seems to becoming an increasingly serious problem in our political system.
[–]sgcsorgo16 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
He makes himself look a lot better; more intellectual, down to earth and liberal, than a lot of the Republican candidates, and in reality he may just be that, but he is basically owned by corporations, and a second term of that really isn't what America needs right now.
Not sure if actually being helpfull...
Or being charismatic...
[–]SgtOddball 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
He is the far lesser evil, though. Kicking him out just leaves us with an even worse option (IMHO looking at the Republican candidates).
[–]aristotle2600[S] 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
You're not seeing the big picture. I've been trying to tell people about this for a long time now. If we continue to elect the lesser of 2 evils, as you say, the other side will just become more evil. And our precious "lesser evil" is only too happy to go more evil to lap up the less evil voters left behind, confident in his assertion that we will all vote for him because he is the lesser of 2 evils.
Of course, he won't say it like that. He will talk about compromise, and unity, and maturity, and taking the high road, and my personal favorite "Now that we have taken the gun out of their hands, we can get some work done" re: the debt ceiling. Words calculated to make progressives feel all warm and fuzzy.
[–]SgtOddball -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago
Yeah, but until we get the corporations out of politics and give the people more control (and more factual knowledge about those they're voting for) this is what we're stuck with. Maybe things will be better in 2016, but for now all we have is this.
First of all, we really need to stop putting things off; we're just kicking the can down the road.
Second of all, and this is going to be....unpopular....maybe start rethinking our approach to the money-in-politics problem. Fundamentally, money is worthless in politics, except as a means to buy votes. Now there are two possible ways to address the problems endemic in that situation: Decrease the money in politics or decrease the effectiveness of that money. I humbly submit that the second option is better for everyone, not least freedom of speech (that's the unpopular part). Ultimately, the money in politics and money as speech set of problems can be one of line-drawing: how much money is ok? Am I allowed to buy some flyers and distribute them? What if I ask some friends to chip in? What if we happen to come from affluence? What if I use my FB account to solicit? Are late-night TV infomercial slots to be treated differently from prime-time if I get that far? And so on and so forth.
Denying that these questions are important is just ridiculous. It's the kernel of truth to the money= speech argument. We can all agree that it's a little ridiculous when the biggest corporation gets the biggest bullhorn, absolutely. But where do you draw the line? Even if you limit everyone to $100, no corporate contributions allowed, you will still have people that can't afford that. Well, what if they have some buddies that agree with them politically and can afford it, so they loan them the money? Well, that sounds awfully like corruption to me....but is it? Or is it just a friend helping a friend out? And if that loan goes unpaid, well....
My point is this. Leave the money. Let people scream and advertise as much as they want......but equip people to deal with it. I have NEVER voted based solely on a political advertisement. No one should. Maybe we should work to a world where no one does. Maybe we should focus on the media doing its job, and parsing ads for truth, and being objective. If that means building and promoting new forms of media, so be it. Just my 2 cents.
[–]SgtOddball 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
First of all, we really need to stop putting things off
You suggest we introduce an Occupy candidate for the 2012 election?
That might not be doable practically, but we absolutely need to start the groundwork, and supporting a party that is fundamentally anathema to us "until we feel safe" is not an auspicious start.
[–]JarJizzles 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I think it's time to stop thinking that electoral politics is the solution to our problems. Yes Obama is a hack but you're never not going to get a candidate who isnt because the system is rigged to elect hacks. Instead we need to apply public pressure so that these assholes fear us. Chris Hedges likes to make the point that Nixon was the last liberal president in this country - because he actually feared the public. All kinds of progressive legislation got passed during his term like the clean water act, ending vietnam etc, not because he wanted to but because public pressure forced him to.
Also the FCC is a good place to start applying pressure as well.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_the_fcc_can_take_the_money_out_of_politics_20120222/
[–]aristotle2600[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but this is just a massive facepalm for me. What exactly do you think it means for them to "be afraid"? They have to believe that they may lose. They have no reason to listen to anyone if they believe that they will vote for them whatever they do. This nebulous "put pressure" rhetoric is really tiring.
As for the system....yeah. It's a problem. But we have to work with it, because working with it is what must happen if we want to change it. Next you're going to tell me none of us should vote at all because that supports "the system," man!
I'm not saying dont vote. I'm saying dont put all your efforts into thinking that voting is the solution. Voting is such a minor part of democracy.
"Sure, one of the presidential candidates is better than the other. But we will go a long way from spectator democracy to real democracy when we understand that the future of this country doesn't depend, mainly, on who is our next president. It depends on whether the American citizen, fed up with the buying off of our Congress and president by the billionaires; fed up with the murderous greed of our health care system and the pharmaceutical companies; fed up with the planetary self-destructive path of our energy, auto, lumber, agribusiness and chemical companies; will organize all over the country a clamor for change even greater than the labor uprisings of the '30s or the black rebellion of the '60s and shake this country out of old paths and falsehood into new paths and the truth."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Real_democracy_waking_up.html
Voting is such a minor part of democracy.
What horseshit. Voting is what makes democracy a democracy. Without the vote, you can have as much discussion as you want, but none of it fucking matters because rulers can do whatever they want, and have no reason to listen to the people. If we refuse to use our vote, including by marginalising it and pretending marching and making a few phone calls will make any difference, we don't have democracy either. We have a circle-jerk.
And that's a great quote. Organising and speaking with one voice is important; everyone should do it, even though that can lead to lobbyists, which we're supposed to be against, but that's a different topic. But you can NOT tell me that 1 million people complaining is more effective than a million people voting against a politician when they fuck up.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. If a man offers you a chance to be his slave or to be his indentured servant, wouldn't you be more likely to say "Fuck this 'choice'!"
Yeah, but I'd still end up either his slave or his indentured servant.
But wouldn't you rather resist than consent?
[–]grkirchhoff 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
As much as I don't like Obama (which is a lot), if Santorum gets the nomination, you bet your ass I'll be voting for Obama just to keep Santorum out.
If a Santorum win is what it takes to wake people up, I'm not sure if, in the long run, that's a bad thing. If anything, it will accelerate the process I've outlined elsewhere in this thread: the Democrats, ignoring their left-wing base, will start to pursue the center-right more aggressively, believing that attacking the enemy on their home turf is a swell idea, leaving even more left-wingers out in the cold, making them split that much faster.
[–]leftyscissors 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I could vote Santorum and hand the government over to extremists. I think 4 years of hell (if our country could survive it) would be good chemotherapy for the system as a whole.
No, don't do that, because it sends a signal that Santorum is actually liked, which is certainly not what we want, especially if the idea is to convince Ds to stop charging to the right.
[–]sven_ftw 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Cutting the corporate tax rate and also eliminating all the bullshit loopholes that allow the 'effective' corporate tax rate to be less than 20% actually INCREASES the taxes paid by corporations.
Sorry, I don't agree with this one and you need to read the goddamn proposal first in this case.
[–]JarJizzles -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
For the doubters:
http://vimeo.com/20355767
[–]corne_de_brume -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
That's a pretty great documentary, thanks.
i mean gahhhhhhhhh you guys!
http://www.donttrustthisman.com/
[–]JerkJenkins -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago*
You know what? Rather than blaming presidents and presidential candidates, we really, really need to start blaming the system and searching for solutions appropriately.
When is the last time you've seen a politician address the public or perform in a debate and felt confident that he or she was giving an accurate prediction of their promised policy? We are simply misinformed and lied to on a regular basis. There are partisan funded and supported institutions which exist to skew research and findings to one side or another. Attack ads, anyone?
It's become a culture of spin and "damage control." And this comes from both sides of the aisle from all levels of government. These people are not accountable. The government is not accountable. What happens to government whistleblowers? They get their 5 minutes of fame and then they're ignored or jailed. Or how about the calls for greater accountability and transparency which have been echoing in Washington for the last 11 years? Those calls are met by crickets.
How can you possibly imagine that a government which isn't entirely beholden to the people will operate in a manner which best serves the people?
The two biggest problems I can see? Politics driven by money rather than public service, and a lack of accountability and transparency.
When your government, from east coast to west and from corner to corner simply isn't trustworthy, can you really expect to get great politicians who will uphold their word and indeed FIGHT for it?
EDIT: and if searching for an appropriate solution means refusing to elect a certain candidate? Fantastic! But it does not stop there. Gun for Congresspeople who are lax on the issues you care about, vote out your local officials, contact news outlets, etc. Politics is, contrary to popular belief, not a spectator sport. It's too easy to say "The president? Fuck that guy," and call it quits right there. When a bank is robbed, you don't just blame the dude who aimed the gun at the teller; you also blame the thugs he accompanied him there, the getaway driver, whoever scouted the target, and the entire criminal organization.
Um, I agree with everything you just said...I think? Fundamentally, what you are talking about is a fundamental problem with any kind of representative government. If you want to go down that route and say we need a......well, the only form of government that doesn't share these problems in equal or greater measure is pure direct democracy. That may be a swell idea; it is a swell idea, IMO, if we can solve a few silly problems, like security, and oh yeah, the fact that the average citizen doesn't know how to run a fucking country. Do you? I don't. Now maybe we can find some middle ground, limit how much control politicians have, put broad policy decisions in the hands of direct democracy, and letting representatives carry out those policies only. That might work, except for the fact that, again, most people can't even be relied on to do THAT.
Actually, I'm of the serious opinion that we need to DRAMATICALLY slash all term lengths. I'm talking like 3/6/9 months for House/President/Senate. The idea behind that is to overload the campaign ads paradigm, so that the only reasonable way for citizens to evaluate a candidate is on their record. Any candidate that really wants to burn a bunch of money on ads every single term is of course free to do so.....if they want to royally piss off their electorate for NOT. SHUTTING. UP. We educate people to ignore the content of ads, and problem solved. Another alternative is an official approval rating, and an immediate new election if it ever falls below, say, 35% fo more than 2 weeks in a row. But none of that is relevant.
Right now, whatever "culture" there is can be wiped out in 6 years, theoretically. If tomorrow, Americans en masse said "if you are now or have ever been officially involved with either party, we will NEVER vote for you. ANY person which wants my vote will publicly disavow and scorn both parties, otherwise they Will. Not. Be. Elected." we would change the culture pretty quick.
Then we could do whatever we wanted. System is antiquated? On it. Too much money in politics? Let's make a plan. Culture of corruption? Find the corrupt staffers and fucking fire them. Christ people, it's not terribly difficult. The problem is people are thinking too small, and are trying to hedge their bets (Oh, I'd love for all of my hopes for this country to come true, but I'm afraid if I step out of line, the slightly more evil party WON'T use lube, and while I don't like being anally raped, I REALLY don't like being anally raped without lube.")
[–]mchristo 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
as you point out, governing is difficult. short term lengths would result in less effective governance, not more. It takes time to learn how things work and like anything, governing requires on the job training.
[–]dsclouse -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
For those of you that agree with the OP, here is a little place to speak your mind about Obama.
[–]mchristo -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
all it takes is a username and password
for more information, see our privacy policy.
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
π Rendered by PID 13808 on app-83 at 2013-05-22 06:31:58.002006+00:00 running f2a749c.
[–]ithinkimightbegay 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]fellowhuman 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]videogameexpert 20 points21 points22 points ago
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]videogameexpert 7 points8 points9 points ago*
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]fellowhuman 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dblaisde 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]JoeyBagadonuts 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]lordairivis 31 points32 points33 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]rspix000 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]JarJizzles 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]xstaticxgpx -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]magister0 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]batnastard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]magister0 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]batnastard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]magister0 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]batnastard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]batnastard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]magister0 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]batnastard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]terrorismofthemind 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]terrorismofthemind 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]evilrobonixon2012 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JarJizzles 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]JarJizzles 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]CJLocke 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]jimmyrunsdeep 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]jimmyrunsdeep 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]CJLocke 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]CJLocke 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thenoorys -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]TonyDiGerolamo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]yrugay 18 points19 points20 points ago*
[–]camdemonium 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]transmutationnation 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]krugmanisapuppet 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]krugmanisapuppet 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]namegoeshere 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]SpockSays 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mungojelly 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]SpockSays 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mungojelly -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]SpockSays 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mungojelly -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]SpockSays 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]mungojelly 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SpockSays 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]videogameexpert -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]emperornibble -4 points-3 points-2 points ago
[–]magister0 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]haidaguy -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]alllie 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]SuperBicycleTony 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–]jimmyrunsdeep 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SuperBicycleTony 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]herpherpderp -4 points-3 points-2 points ago
[–]SuperBicycleTony 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]nickelforapickle 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]herpherpderp -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]keypuncher 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]petedacook 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]herpherpderp 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]petedacook 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]cooljeanius -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]herpherpderp 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]petedacook -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]sheepshizzle 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]aristotle2600[S] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]rspix000 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sheepshizzle 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]sheepshizzle 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]evilrobonixon2012 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]evilrobonixon2012 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]evilrobonixon2012 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]evilrobonixon2012 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sarcasmandsocialism 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mungojelly 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]htnsaoeu 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TroutM4n 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TroutM4n 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TroutM4n 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]simiotic24 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aaalexxx 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]yamfood 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]no1113 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ObamasFather 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]terrorismofthemind 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sgcsorgo16 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SgtOddball 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]SgtOddball -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]SgtOddball 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]JarJizzles 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]JarJizzles 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SgtOddball 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]grkirchhoff 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]leftyscissors 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sven_ftw 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JarJizzles -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]corne_de_brume -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]haidaguy -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]JerkJenkins -1 points0 points1 point ago*
[–]aristotle2600[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mchristo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dsclouse -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]mchristo -3 points-2 points-1 points ago