Scheer writes: "Let's just dip our fingers in purple ink and pose for photos now that voting has the same significance for us as it had for those Iraqis who got conned into thinking they were participating in some grand democratic experiment. Our own elections, the ones our government has modeled for the world, are a hoax."
The upcoming presidential election has raised questions of fairness and equality. (photo: Bob Gathany/The Huntsville Times)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Not unheard of, and now appears to be standard tactics.
Arrive in flashy car in poor muslim neighborhoods. Throw money around and work on poor, impressionable young muslims citing the Quran's more inflammatory passages; promote incendiary ideas, and offer up hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus technical training and planning assistance to incite terrorist actions, ... then foil the plot just in time.
Standard modern-day FBI law enforcement... lazy-man's justice, if you please.
Much, much easier than finding people already disposed to and engaging in criminal activity; real criminals are cagey and sly. Plus, this way they can practically choose the bad guys.
How great is that?
The only thing that keeps us from going this route is apathy. You, John Locke, strike me as a born rabble rouser for a cause like this.
But most just don't want to see the truth...or do more than complain, and To be honest I no longer care...but "your" vision is a good one!
When Citizens United "person hood" is overturned you bums will be "outed from the Supreme Court and like "W" you'd better hide under a log bc there will be millions of groups for Justice (etc) wanting to make sure you "hurt"
http://discussions.latimes.com/20/la-pn-pelosi-goes-after-colbert-in-spoof-ad-20120209/10?sort=asc
For the best exposure of the Super-Pacs and a good laugh!
NEVER EVER VOTE REPUBLICAN/TP but do vote in 2012
However, there will be no ousting.
It's a beautiful thought! I have the impression that most of the tribal people we have run roughshod over would have been amazed that we have poor people amid our plenty. Where we see "free enterprise" and "upward mobility,"
I think they would accurately have seen a sundering of the the bonds that make society wholesome. I lived among pacific islanders for five years in Micronesia. While they did not seem to me--or to themselves--as "perfect people," the idea of a "poor class" was to most of the 13 cultures with which I became acquainted simply unintelligible. For some of the tribe to be "poor" would, they thought, have been an an absolutely intolerable disgrace to the whole tribe. For the most part, their "incentive principles" were based on respect and shame. The idea of enforcing incentive through the threat of deprivation was one they regarded as barbaric.
The election and campaigning season should also be limited in time and money made available for propaganda. I propose that the states agree to a system of 4 regional primaries, one per month starting in April, rotated at each national election. Think of the money and fuel saved by candidates who wouldn't have to criss-cross the country for weeks on end! Also, each state would get its fair time in the political limelight instead of having micro states like New Hampshire or military-industrial complex enclaves like South Carolina winnow the candidates.
The current system is fraudulent, unfair, and boring, to boot!
If there must be electronic balloting:
It is simple:
Mandate paper ballots as the official determiner in elections: use electronic machines for voting, which produce paper ballots for submission. Let the electronic machines do the non-official initial tabulating, soon after the ballot-box closes, count paper ballots on separate machines, and, if contested, count paper by hand, etc.
BTW, the voters have been suckers long before Citizens United...now they're just irrelevant suckers.
But what is implied is that Obama has such character that, unless pinned down by circumstance, that he is beyond corrupt politics and would not otherwise advantage himself through craven political maneuvers.
However, it this regard, Obama is a one-trick pony who lowers himself on virtually every issue; his failure by design with excuses in waiting, and his they-made-me-do-it, there-was-no-other-way style fools nobody but the true believers.
So the only justification for this decision is the cynical belief that money equals election success, absolutely.
To suggest that Obama will lose this election because of money is to entirely disregard the ill will that he has fostered with progressives, liberals, and Independents, as well as the never-to-be-satiated or appeased (for any reason) Republican faithful.
In the end, if (and I predict, when) he loses anyway, the question becomes -- as it should be now: How do you go down?
As history is, he has done it through inept, craven (lack of) leadership, political maneuvering, broken promises (on issues that matter most), and betrayal.
It is completely consistent with his political history that he begrudgingly(?) acquiesces to all things financial.
"In the end, if (and I predict, when) he loses anyway, the question becomes--as it should be now: How do you go down?"
Not well in history text books, because he will not only have lost the election, he will have forfeited his principles, again, which is why the end does not justify a "corrupt" means to seek or achieve a goal. What will be said about Obama is, "It is completely consistent with his political history that he begrudgingly (?) acquiesce{d} to all things financial".
But I made quite a few distinctions and characterizatio ns, a simple thumb down doesn't say a whole lot, except which team you are on. Could you possible express a wonderful defense for your chosen one, one that addresses something articulated? Something not so absurd as a comparative to the big, bad alternative?
Am I mistaken? Is it not just like Obama to cave or act against expressed principle?
When he loses, will you wish that you'd not been so obstinate? When actual progressives -- ones who base opinion on actual representation, character, and upon leadership qualities, actions and deeds, rather than lofty speeches of want and hollow rhetoric, manipulative political ploys, and then capitulation cast as concession and excuses paraded as stern, difficult choices by an otherwise great man, whose integrity is beyond question and above petty partisan squabbles; it is simplistic sophistry as rational argument ... when actual progressives tried to wake intellectually dishonest, willfully blind, and/or delusional Obamabots, before too late, to reconsider their unquestioning, dutiful loyalty, and pursue a Democratic Primary challenger, rather than suffering the unfortunate, alternative consequences -- because as a matter of conscience and political strategy, re-electing Obama is out of the question -- what did you do?
There are no legitimate candidates for "president". We are ruled by entities far beyond the individual representative of those entities.
There is a new Party, the Justice Party. Its candidate, Rocky Anderson, expresses common-sense views without the hedging and hypocrisy that define the two present parties.
If enough people hear his platform and stated intent, and learn of his past accomplishments as Salt Lake City's Mayor, this election could be amazing.
It does matter who is President. From the minute one is sworn in, he/she has the capacity to make wise appointments to positions with far-reaching authority. He/she sets (and enforces) policy, commissions studies, and directs investigative bodies. He/she can push Congress to address issues, and can exercise the power of veto. He/she controls the military and executes the laws of the land. While it is not everything, it is a lot, and it certainly matters.
Thinking along the lines of years ago, will not make it come back around. This government and our country are nothing close to what they once were.
What's the rationale explaining why Presidents cannot do what they say they will do seem obligated to do by Constitutional authority?
Like, for example, why do Republicans always make far-right appointments, recess appointments, if necessary; or use procedural tactics and stunts, threats (that they back up through action, as opposed to idle threats) and political leverage; veto authority (both the threat of, and those backed up by actual vetoes) and the bully pulpit to impose their will, etc.?
And Democrats do the same -- minus the backing up of threats; or using political leverage; nor using procedural maneuvers (when they'd be most effective. D's facilitate, and play patsies for, the neo-con agenda.
Obama didn't have to appoint Geithner, Summers, etc. ... ad nauseam... to Treasury, to the SEC, FDA, MMS, ... ad nauseam. He didn't "have" to act as a tool for bankers and industry, etc. ... ad nauseam.
...
By chance are you meaning, that a President that has any intention of gaining re-election -- or for fear of assassination -- hasn't the freedom to act against the powerful interests?
Because, if that's what you mean, that's what you should be saying. Because those are very different discussions, altogether.
"One of the main problems in modern politics is that people abandon their consciences & vote for a horrible candidate they are convinced is "viable".
You should write an editorial on this & send it to RSN: "Writing For Godot".
Vote Democratic and make some changes rather than whinny discourse.
I hope for a far different Obama in the second term for that very reason.
It is also of interest that because of PAC money some of the GOP contestants are till alive at this late date (NEWT for one)instead of having gone the way of the dodo.
RSS feed for comments to this post.