5 ms·

I completely agree. This is a conspiracy by definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." The unlawful thing being the laws they a

by cchip 11y ago

I completely agree. This is a conspiracy by definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." The unlawful thing being the laws they are trying to pass (as they are not yet laws, and not determined by lawful structures: judicial system). Its all going from executive to legislative, and we are fucked. The administration is attempting to weaken our sovereignty and globalize [overthrow] our government. They should be charged for treason. If you voted Obama last time, please don't vote this time. Your bad judgement isn't necessary.

jjoonathan 11y ago
Your party could block this if they wanted to. Evidently, they don't. The only solution here is campaign finance reform. Suggesting that it's a my party vs your party issue is laughable.
- cchip 11y ago
  Did i mention party? Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself.
  - jjoonathan 11y ago
    > Did i mention party? Blaming the standing president for systematic problems is a fairly reliable sign that someone is a member of the opposite party (or an independent that always votes one way, natch). Even if that somehow happens to not be the case for you, there's the little problem that we have a FPTP voting system which effectively means that elections always boil down to two options (assuming that you're a rational actor who understands vote splitting). Claiming that voting for one option shows "bad judgement" implies that the alternative (remember, FPTP => only one rational alternative) is better, so it really is a partisan statement. Sanity check: would a statement of the form "Obama is bad because x,y,z" be necessarily partisan by this logic? No. > Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself. Sure you can, but for now that's a largely speculative failure mode. First let's solve the problem that our system effectively imposes a mandatory bribe quota on the candidates and see if that doesn't improve matters. If the problem you propose becomes an issue afterwards then we can fight over the whole "money is speech" argument.
bdg 11y ago
Plutocrats doing their policy making has nothing to do with who the proles voted for.
- dexterdog 11y ago
  His point (although a little too blunt for me) was that Obama was this "hope and change" guy that was going to be transparent and all of that nonsense. Even though he's ultimately powerless in matters like this, if he were truly a man of character he would at least speak against it. The problem is the systems we have will not allow men of character to get within sniffing distance of that position. There are the Cheneys of the world who seem to emit darkness and there are the Obamas of the world who offer an alternative but then do the same thing. Which one is worse?
  - cchip 11y ago
    Thanks for it breaking down. They are both worse. Also, given the amount of candidates, it's amusing how we become bipolar with notions of good/evil. I prefer objectivity: Vote for the cleaner voting record; that means some voting record and no PATRIOT Act, FREEDOM Act, etc.
- cchip 11y ago
  It is the un[self]educated proletariat who gave the plutocrats their power.

by cchip 11y ago

jjoonathan 11y ago

Your party could block this if they wanted to. Evidently, they don't. The only solution here is campaign finance reform. Suggesting that it's a my party vs your party issue is laughable.

cchip 11y ago
Did i mention party? Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  > Did i mention party? Blaming the standing president for systematic problems is a fairly reliable sign that someone is a member of the opposite party (or an independent that always votes one way, natch). Even if that somehow happens to not be the case for you, there's the little problem that we have a FPTP voting system which effectively means that elections always boil down to two options (assuming that you're a rational actor who understands vote splitting). Claiming that voting for one option shows "bad judgement" implies that the alternative (remember, FPTP => only one rational alternative) is better, so it really is a partisan statement. Sanity check: would a statement of the form "Obama is bad because x,y,z" be necessarily partisan by this logic? No. > Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself. Sure you can, but for now that's a largely speculative failure mode. First let's solve the problem that our system effectively imposes a mandatory bribe quota on the candidates and see if that doesn't improve matters. If the problem you propose becomes an issue afterwards then we can fight over the whole "money is speech" argument.

bdg 11y ago

Plutocrats doing their policy making has nothing to do with who the proles voted for.

dexterdog 11y ago
His point (although a little too blunt for me) was that Obama was this "hope and change" guy that was going to be transparent and all of that nonsense. Even though he's ultimately powerless in matters like this, if he were truly a man of character he would at least speak against it. The problem is the systems we have will not allow men of character to get within sniffing distance of that position. There are the Cheneys of the world who seem to emit darkness and there are the Obamas of the world who offer an alternative but then do the same thing. Which one is worse?
- cchip 11y ago
  Thanks for it breaking down. They are both worse. Also, given the amount of candidates, it's amusing how we become bipolar with notions of good/evil. I prefer objectivity: Vote for the cleaner voting record; that means some voting record and no PATRIOT Act, FREEDOM Act, etc.
cchip 11y ago
It is the un[self]educated proletariat who gave the plutocrats their power.