4 ms·

Simply more proof that the laws have become illegitimate tools of power for the elite and corrupt. American is no longer a democracy in any meaningful sense of

Simply more proof that the laws have become illegitimate tools of power for the elite and corrupt. American is no longer a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word, but a tiered society of those inside the halls of power, given extraordinary and unaccountable powers to detain, torture, murder others and the meek who suffer such atrocities. It's laughable and sad anyone appeals to the court system for a remedy when they simply are a rubber stamp, but what do people expect when secret courts and NSLs abound? Voting won't help, legal redress won't help, what then can you do?

Balgair 11y ago
I know to what you allude, massed rebellion, but I really think that is not the answer. Look at the Tea Party for an example of how voting still works and really well. Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, was 'sniped' in a primary vote: To quote from wikipedia: "In the June 10, 2014, Republican primary, despite internal campaign polls placing him 30 points ahead of his opponent[59] and his spending advantage (Cantor outspent his opponent 40 to 1),[60] Cantor lost to Tea Party candidate Dave Brat in a major upset, 44.5%–55.5%. This made him the first sitting House majority leader to lose a primary since the position was created in 1899.[61][62][63][64] His loss in the primary was described by the Los Angeles Times as "one of the greatest political upsets of modern times." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#2014_Republican_primary_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#2014_Republican_pr...). What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS! EDIT: Sorry to derail the comment thread on the article.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Look at the Tea Party for an example of how voting still works and really well. Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, was 'sniped' in a primary vote > What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS! Except... the Tea Party has failed rather miserably on most of their core objectives, particularly their single biggest one: repealing Obamacare. Over the last five years, we've had some legislation passed that the Tea Party was happy about, but most of it is right in line with the preexisting core Republican platform. The Tea Party candidates haven't done a great job of preserving their own careers - Sarah Palin is a no-name outside Republican circles at this point, Michelle Bachmann left Congress, and Rand Paul's best successes have been when he strays from the Tea Party line. They've done a good job of making noise so that people know their existence, and they've done a good job of making themselves a force within the Republican party, but arguably, they've worked against their own interests more than they've advanced their agenda by helping to decrease the relevance and/or power of the Republican party[0]. Much as I don't like Boehner, the fact that he had to step down is a symptom of the deepening problems that the Republican party has, not a symbol of the success of the Tea Party. The Tea Party makes for a great foil to the Democrats, which makes it easy for the Democrats to capitalize on a fear of the tea party in their own campaigns. The Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate in 2010, and while they didn't cost the Republicans the House, I maintain that the Republicans succeeded despite the efforts of the Tea Party, not because of it[1]. [0] Look at how they cost the Republicans the senate race in Delaware and nearly lost Alaska as well, both of which were previously sure wins for the GOP. [1] Oh, let's not forget about Olympia Snowe, whose decision not to run for re-election was influenced by the threats of a primary challenge from the right. Snowe ended up being replaced by King, who caucuses with the Democrats.
  - burkaman 11y ago
    It doesn't matter what the Tea Party has done, the point is that they won a bunch of elections against way more established politicians. The candidate with the most votes wins, not the most powerful one or the one with the best ideas.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > It doesn't matter what the Tea Party has done, the point is that they won a bunch of elections against way more established politicians. Actually, it does matter, because accomplishing policy goals is the point, not electing candidates that (claim to) support the name of an ad-hoc 'party'. If the Tea Party is succeeding only in electing candidates who claim to belong to the Tea Party but don't actually advance the Tea Party agenda (either because they don't actually care to or because they're unable to), that's a failure.
  - jquery 11y ago
    Only a Democrat could misunderstand the huge sea change in the Republican party so thoroughly. Republicans are still practicing democracy in all its ugliness, even if it costs them elections, and even if it makes them easy to make fun of by smug Democrats secure in their superiority. What's the point of a Democrat like Hillary winning if she's more militaristic and more friendly to Wall Street than half the Republican candidates? With friends like those...
- praptak 11y ago
  Tea Party was funded by Koch Brothers and big tobacco so I'm not sure which side of the argument this supports:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2663125 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2663125
  - Balgair 11y ago
    As wikipedia cites, Cantor outspent his opponent 40-1. Maybe the rest of the Tea Party is astroturfed, but in this particular case, money did not matter, votes did. Good point though.
- yourepowerless 11y ago
  Again, how many times must the lie that voting counts be repeated, repeating it does not make it true. Did voting matter in the 2000 presidential election, I recall the supreme Court decided who became president. If voting matters so much why do politicians spend the vast majority of time fund raising instead of interacting with their voters? Have you even looked at gerrymandering? You believe voting in those districts matters? Oh we should spend our time in long and arcane primary votes? Who has the time besides the retired? The government hands out social welfare(especially to the old) like Caesar gave out grain to appease the majority and ensure they will retain power. Meanwhile our country jails about 1% of the population and denies felons from voting. But please keep repeating that voting counts (SHOUT IT IN ALL CAPS EVEN!), if only you could actually explain how or give any argument for it beyond your insistence that it is true. Obama taught constitutional law, the guy who signs off on killing Americans and is a torture apologist. Voting does not work and is a waste of time, if anything voting continues to provide a false legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
  - elipsey 11y ago
    I totally agree in general, but I'm not sure anymore whether gerrymandering is unequivically evil. There are lots of apparently "unfair" ways to do apportionment, but finding a perfect one is sort of harder than it looks at first glance. For anyone who missed this, here is a post by the instructor of an MIT class that teaches gerrymandering (how, not what!): http://mitesp.tumblr.com/post/130793404248/how-i-teach-gerrymandering http://mitesp.tumblr.com/post/130793404248/how-i-teach-gerry...
  - Balgair 11y ago
    Woah, I mean I gave you an example of when voting really did count over everything else. And if you don't have the time to go out and stump for a candidate or run yourself, then you get the government you deserve.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > And if you don't have the time to go out and stump for a candidate or run yourself This is one model of government. But think about the people for whom this model works and the people for whom this model means that government is all but completely inaccessible. Saying 'it's up to you to fix it' is one thing when you're talking to a person who already has time, money, and influence. It's quite another when you're talking to people who don't have any of those three things - quite honestly, the people whom government is currently failing the most.
elipsey 11y ago
There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there? Obama didn't close Gitmo, we still summarily execute american citizens (overseas drone strikes by exectutive order), summarrily confiscate property at home (civil asset forfieture), settle %97 of criminal cases without a trial (plea bargaining), and spy on every citizen without individual warrants (stingray, xkeyscore, etc, etc). Erosion of due process seems to be one thing both parties vigorously agree on. At least we got lots of revenge for 911 though (anyone will do). Sorry to be a hater, but I'm just as depressed about this as you are. :p "...then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew... When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984)
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there? Nope. If you're looking to end drone strikes before the 2020 race, you're SOL. There was only one candidate who opposed warrant-less drone assassinations, and he just withdrew from the race (Chafee). Rand Paul did filibuster Brennan's nomination on this exact issue, but he has since watered down his stance to the point where it's basically unrecognizable. The other candidates range from lukewarm support ("we should do this, but only rarely") to enthusiastic support, to the ones who actually carried out and executed the drone strike program (Clinton).
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but I place the blame for Guantanamo not being closed more at the feet of Congress than I do him. He can't close the camp if they deny him the funds to do it, which they did. (Not that this changes your overall outlook much - it just means there are a great many bastards rather than just one)
  - elipsey 11y ago
    Interesting, thanks. I didn't know about the details. Here's a story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html Apparently, it would cost 80MM.

Balgair 11y ago

I know to what you allude, massed rebellion, but I really think that is not the answer. Look at the Tea Party for an example of how voting still works and really well. Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, was 'sniped' in a primary vote: To quote from wikipedia: "In the June 10, 2014, Republican primary, despite internal campaign polls placing him 30 points ahead of his opponent[59] and his spending advantage (Cantor outspent his opponent 40 to 1),[60] Cantor lost to Tea Party candidate Dave Brat in a major upset, 44.5%–55.5%. This made him the first sitting House majority leader to lose a primary since the position was created in 1899.[61][62][63][64] His loss in the primary was described by the Los Angeles Times as "one of the greatest political upsets of modern times." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#2014_Republican_primary_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#2014_Republican_pr...). What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS! EDIT: Sorry to derail the comment thread on the article.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Look at the Tea Party for an example of how voting still works and really well. Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, was 'sniped' in a primary vote > What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS! Except... the Tea Party has failed rather miserably on most of their core objectives, particularly their single biggest one: repealing Obamacare. Over the last five years, we've had some legislation passed that the Tea Party was happy about, but most of it is right in line with the preexisting core Republican platform. The Tea Party candidates haven't done a great job of preserving their own careers - Sarah Palin is a no-name outside Republican circles at this point, Michelle Bachmann left Congress, and Rand Paul's best successes have been when he strays from the Tea Party line. They've done a good job of making noise so that people know their existence, and they've done a good job of making themselves a force within the Republican party, but arguably, they've worked against their own interests more than they've advanced their agenda by helping to decrease the relevance and/or power of the Republican party[0]. Much as I don't like Boehner, the fact that he had to step down is a symptom of the deepening problems that the Republican party has, not a symbol of the success of the Tea Party. The Tea Party makes for a great foil to the Democrats, which makes it easy for the Democrats to capitalize on a fear of the tea party in their own campaigns. The Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate in 2010, and while they didn't cost the Republicans the House, I maintain that the Republicans succeeded despite the efforts of the Tea Party, not because of it[1]. [0] Look at how they cost the Republicans the senate race in Delaware and nearly lost Alaska as well, both of which were previously sure wins for the GOP. [1] Oh, let's not forget about Olympia Snowe, whose decision not to run for re-election was influenced by the threats of a primary challenge from the right. Snowe ended up being replaced by King, who caucuses with the Democrats.
- burkaman 11y ago
  It doesn't matter what the Tea Party has done, the point is that they won a bunch of elections against way more established politicians. The candidate with the most votes wins, not the most powerful one or the one with the best ideas.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > It doesn't matter what the Tea Party has done, the point is that they won a bunch of elections against way more established politicians. Actually, it does matter, because accomplishing policy goals is the point, not electing candidates that (claim to) support the name of an ad-hoc 'party'. If the Tea Party is succeeding only in electing candidates who claim to belong to the Tea Party but don't actually advance the Tea Party agenda (either because they don't actually care to or because they're unable to), that's a failure.
- jquery 11y ago
  Only a Democrat could misunderstand the huge sea change in the Republican party so thoroughly. Republicans are still practicing democracy in all its ugliness, even if it costs them elections, and even if it makes them easy to make fun of by smug Democrats secure in their superiority. What's the point of a Democrat like Hillary winning if she's more militaristic and more friendly to Wall Street than half the Republican candidates? With friends like those...
praptak 11y ago
Tea Party was funded by Koch Brothers and big tobacco so I'm not sure which side of the argument this supports:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2663125 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2663125
- Balgair 11y ago
  As wikipedia cites, Cantor outspent his opponent 40-1. Maybe the rest of the Tea Party is astroturfed, but in this particular case, money did not matter, votes did. Good point though.
yourepowerless 11y ago
Again, how many times must the lie that voting counts be repeated, repeating it does not make it true. Did voting matter in the 2000 presidential election, I recall the supreme Court decided who became president. If voting matters so much why do politicians spend the vast majority of time fund raising instead of interacting with their voters? Have you even looked at gerrymandering? You believe voting in those districts matters? Oh we should spend our time in long and arcane primary votes? Who has the time besides the retired? The government hands out social welfare(especially to the old) like Caesar gave out grain to appease the majority and ensure they will retain power. Meanwhile our country jails about 1% of the population and denies felons from voting. But please keep repeating that voting counts (SHOUT IT IN ALL CAPS EVEN!), if only you could actually explain how or give any argument for it beyond your insistence that it is true. Obama taught constitutional law, the guy who signs off on killing Americans and is a torture apologist. Voting does not work and is a waste of time, if anything voting continues to provide a false legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
- elipsey 11y ago
  I totally agree in general, but I'm not sure anymore whether gerrymandering is unequivically evil. There are lots of apparently "unfair" ways to do apportionment, but finding a perfect one is sort of harder than it looks at first glance. For anyone who missed this, here is a post by the instructor of an MIT class that teaches gerrymandering (how, not what!): http://mitesp.tumblr.com/post/130793404248/how-i-teach-gerrymandering http://mitesp.tumblr.com/post/130793404248/how-i-teach-gerry...
- Balgair 11y ago
  Woah, I mean I gave you an example of when voting really did count over everything else. And if you don't have the time to go out and stump for a candidate or run yourself, then you get the government you deserve.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > And if you don't have the time to go out and stump for a candidate or run yourself This is one model of government. But think about the people for whom this model works and the people for whom this model means that government is all but completely inaccessible. Saying 'it's up to you to fix it' is one thing when you're talking to a person who already has time, money, and influence. It's quite another when you're talking to people who don't have any of those three things - quite honestly, the people whom government is currently failing the most.

elipsey 11y ago

There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there? Obama didn't close Gitmo, we still summarily execute american citizens (overseas drone strikes by exectutive order), summarrily confiscate property at home (civil asset forfieture), settle %97 of criminal cases without a trial (plea bargaining), and spy on every citizen without individual warrants (stingray, xkeyscore, etc, etc). Erosion of due process seems to be one thing both parties vigorously agree on. At least we got lots of revenge for 911 though (anyone will do). Sorry to be a hater, but I'm just as depressed about this as you are. :p "...then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew... When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984)

chimeracoder 11y ago
> There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there? Nope. If you're looking to end drone strikes before the 2020 race, you're SOL. There was only one candidate who opposed warrant-less drone assassinations, and he just withdrew from the race (Chafee). Rand Paul did filibuster Brennan's nomination on this exact issue, but he has since watered down his stance to the point where it's basically unrecognizable. The other candidates range from lukewarm support ("we should do this, but only rarely") to enthusiastic support, to the ones who actually carried out and executed the drone strike program (Clinton).
Karunamon 11y ago
Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but I place the blame for Guantanamo not being closed more at the feet of Congress than I do him. He can't close the camp if they deny him the funds to do it, which they did. (Not that this changes your overall outlook much - it just means there are a great many bastards rather than just one)
- elipsey 11y ago
  Interesting, thanks. I didn't know about the details. Here's a story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html Apparently, it would cost 80MM.