Democracy in America…

Topic: Democracy in America… (Read 69252 times)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #225 – 2014-11-14, 22:39:29

I think we should vote now.
Sanguinemoon and Oakdale had all the time of this world to present their arguments.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the decision of the Portuguese Jury:
Sanguinemoon - 0,75
Oakdale - 0,50

The voting scale goes from 0 to 20.
Finally America has Democracy.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #226 – 2014-11-15, 01:18:09

Since the Citizens United decision is both assumed to be the cause of the current "travesty of democracy" and the creator of the especial target of "corporate persons" deemed to be the bane of fair elections and true democracy — Well, one would think those who say such would have some familiarity with it.
But that, it seems, is too much to ask.

We can forgive our Portuguese correspondents for their various confusions. But we find little to recommend leniency towards our Nevadans.

——————————————————————————
Would anyone here really want me to post the pertinent sections of that Supreme Court decision? (At least twice, I've posted the link to it — in pdf and html formats because Sang doesn't like pdfs….)
I'll do it, if asked. Still, anyone who is actually interested but hasn't read the actual decision is fooling themselves: They're like the folks to whom the "horse race" aspect of elections is what matters…

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #227 – 2014-11-15, 03:54:32

If anyone wishes to alter the Constitution to change the meaning of the Freedom of Speech, or limit campaign contributions to suit, then why not submit Constitutional Amendments to do just that, pass them, get the States to agree, & then it's history.

A walk in the park, that is if their actions can ever surpass their words......the empty words of the whingers, who haven't the intestinal fortitude of subjecting themselves to the process of actually acting upon which they continuously whinge about.

PS ...... Our European & World participants must be dying in the ass that we can't just hold a referendum & make a law depending solely upon the vote/will of the majority. That's their type of democracy, which the United States does not now, nor probably ever will, subscribe to. For over 225 years as a [glow=blue,2,300]Constitutional Republic [/glow] we have been subject to adhering to our type of democracy which is subject to the United States Constitution ........ something they (the foreigners) can never change, & we seldom ever do (even though it's within our power to Constitutionally do so).

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #228 – 2014-11-15, 05:53:22

i think democracy is just an ideal concept , or something like Principle .

IMHO , there is no democracy at all in this world .. there is only Democratic Principles .
also , there is no Such Freedom of Speech .
there is only freedom of speech Principles .

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #229 – 2014-11-15, 06:08:41

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-11-15, 17:53:22

........IMHO,........there is no Such Freedom of Speech . there is only freedom of speech Principles .

I respect your opinion, & I also respectfully disagree.

Can you give some examples that form your honest opinion, or why you feel that way?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #230 – 2014-11-16, 15:58:46

trolling , cyberbullying , hate speechs, etc .. can make someone banned from some sites .

if in real world , the worst case is jailed .

freedom of speech that do not follow Freedom of speech principles = criminalities .

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #231 – 2014-11-16, 17:06:44

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-11-15, 01:18:09

Since the Citizens United decision is both assumed to be the cause of the current "travesty of democracy"

It's a symptom, but not the disease itself. The task now is to demonstrate that dark money schemes, corporate entities, are not "we the people." Oakdale, you're thinking narrowly and I'm thinking broadly again.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #232 – 2014-11-16, 18:37:19

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-16, 09:06:44

Oakdale, you're thinking narrowly and I'm thinking broadly again.

I'm thinking that "the people" refers to all individuals and their various assemblages... And the Supreme Court has consistently agreed.

To date, all various campaign finance reforms -including the 17th Amendment, open primary schemes and term limits- have amounted to little more than incumbency protection, the promulgation of an entrenched political class. Yet you insist that giving such the power to constrain political speech will -somehow, this time- result in an appreciable lessening of corruption?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #233 – 2014-11-16, 22:06:58

I would think that giving incumbents more power to remain incumbents would increase corruption rather than decrease it. Less to fear because opposition candidates wouldn't have the power to unseat them, therefore guaranteeing the incumbent keeps his/her seat warm for the next term. But, that's only my observation from watching office-holders who have been in ever since the Dawn of Man, building up ever more power, and becoming more corrupt in the process.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #234 – 2014-11-17, 01:51:02

Even if that's true, in time the incumbents will be gone. Let the same jackass be re-elected, if it means less corruption in the system long term. Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the sweet. But the reform would mean the incumbent would be able to take less money as well, so there is the potential of leveling the financial playing field between the incumbent and the challenger and neither would have as much incentive to disregard the concerns they represent to the benefit of their corporate benefactors. You guys see, it's not about who wins as much the victor being accountable to the people instead of "social welfare" organizations.

If I'm wrong, we might be watching how a republic/democracy dies. The elections become shams, sold the highest bidder.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #235 – 2014-11-17, 02:19:07

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-17, 01:51:02

The elections become shams, sold the highest bidder.

We're well past that point, now that those who have it can throw as much money as they want at elections, with candidates still depending on large donations. Elections in the US are little more than ritualized bribery.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #236 – 2014-11-17, 05:05:42

Quote from: Macallan on 2014-11-16, 18:19:07

Elections in the US are little more than ritualized bribery.

Where do you come from, Mac, where things are better?

(And why -I'd ask- aren't you still there?)

mjm, you made the crucial point: "I would think that giving incumbents more power to remain incumbents would increase corruption rather than decrease it."
Sang's counter-point, "Even if that's true, in time the incumbents will be gone. Let the same jackass be re-elected, if it means less corruption in the system long term. Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the sweet."

How does letting "the same jackass be re-elected" result in less corruption in the long term? Sang, both your bitter and your sweet appall me… (Unless, of course, I've misunderstood what you've written; or you've written other than what you've meant. Or you're just a gay-activist, who knows nor cares nothing about anything else; but you like the liberal -"progressive"- line about "human rights"…and are willing to jettison ancient rights to get what little silliness you want, in return.)

Free speech leaves to the people the power to determine what is true, what is appropriate, and what is deserving of their attention.
Some people don't like that! (They'd rather their cohorts and benefactors be the ones to decide who can say what when…) They keep trying to get control over such. I'd say: Note well who those people are, and what they want that they can't get, otherwise.
And ask yourself why…

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #237 – 2014-11-17, 07:18:36

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-11-17, 05:05:42

How does letting "the same jackass be re-elected" result in less corruption in the long term?

Next time don't, script like, read for a few keywords. Read for understanding. Both candidates can receive less money from corporate interests. If the corrupt incumbent still wins next time that's fine because eventually he/she will retire or die in office. Then we'll have fresh candidates, neither of which will receive insane amounts of money to, say oppose Net Neutrality.

This brings us to a real free speech issue. Ted Cruz seems to think it's a new Obama program and called it "Obamacare for the internet", despite it being the default and how the internet has always been. Republicans tend to agree with him. A person with a small ISP has just as much right to receive content as someone whose ISP could afford extra bandwidth. How much did our congresspeople who oppose Net Neutrality get from the telecoms? Get it? These folks don't give a flying fuck about free speech. They only care about their where their next campaign dollar is coming from.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #238 – 2014-11-17, 19:27:04

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-16, 23:18:36

Both candidates can receive less money from corporate interests. If the corrupt incumbent still wins next time that's fine because eventually he/she will retire or die in office.

The contributions to candidates are still, by law, limited… So that's not the "problem" you want solved.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-16, 23:18:36

Then we'll have fresh candidates, neither of which will receive insane amounts of money to, say oppose Net Neutrality.

What you must mean is that interests that conflict with those you have must be curtailed or silenced — because, of course, you're view is right; so, others must be wrong!
I especially like the way you deem anyone holding opposing views as venal and corrupt. But that's the lowest form of political debate. Get it?

But, not to worry, Sang: Most people don't pay much attention to over-the-top rhetoric…

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #239 – 2014-11-17, 21:22:44

Having met several ex-colonists over the years I try to remain hopeful that one day a democracy will come into place but according to the recent voting percentage so may have either got tired waiting or see it as pointless. Shame. Doesn't really make much difference if a Head of State is from either party they are much of the same just one a little less of a mess than the other. Both are imperialistic and military daft.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #240 – 2014-11-17, 23:41:34

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-11-17, 13:22:44

I try to remain hopeful that one day a democracy will come into place [in the U.S.]

That seems to me a typical illustration of "misery loves company"…to be followed, of course, by Schadenfreude!

May your devolution continue apace.
—————————————————————————
@Sang: Two links on Net Neutrality you should already have seen are this and this…

What worries me about your approach —to almost any "problem"— seems to be enlightened federal regulation! By your own admission, we're always going to be a generation or so behind the curve, no? And your enlightenment may be another's "dark age"…

But, no worries: The bad legislators, elected executives and their bureaucrats will "soon die and be replaced"! You're not just naive, are you!?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #241 – 2014-11-18, 09:47:41

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-11-17, 19:27:04

I especially like the way you deem anyone holding opposing views as venal and corrupt. But that's the lowest form of political debate. Get it?

Why is that all the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet got contributions from the telecoms?

Also the members the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
[img] http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--p6bUGN-s--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/e79kty1b6ngwxikf92tu.png [/url]

That doesn't even count the money given through PACs and SuperPACs

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-11-17, 19:27:04

What you must mean is that interests that conflict with those you have must be curtailed or silenced — because, of course, you're view is right; so, others must be wrong!

What you must mean is that you're drunk or drugs.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #242 – 2014-11-18, 15:44:47

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-18, 01:47:41

What you must mean is that you're drunk or drugs.

Your go-to explanation…

Try this:

And…what conclusion(s) do you draw from these figures? Perhaps that these companies listed are quite interested in the issue?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #243 – 2014-11-18, 16:35:52

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-11-18, 15:44:47

And…what conclusion(s) do you draw from these figures? Perhaps that these companies listed are quite interested in the issue?

Those senators and representatives got their money, and now net neutrality is on its way to being history. I'm so glad you want everybody's bills to increase just to maintain the same level of service. It's even better that you claim to believe in freespeech, but are in favor of allowing the telecoms to throttle traffic of people who didn't violate some TOS. It's so awesome this can even turn political "X is against me on this issue, so they get less bandwidth than Y." How is even possible to be against net neutrality and still claim to be a free speech advocates? What's really at stake is freedom of information on the internet. Again, "I oppose so and so's point of view, so I'll give my side much more bandwidth so the other side can barely get access." People like Ted Cruz like to talk about "internet fast lanes." I guarantee that will also mean internet bicycle paths. Somebody like you will say "Where did Cruz say that?" He doesn't have to. Stop typing that primitive attack about how I can read his mind, or liberals make up what people say or whatever else idiocy you had in mind - the answer is technical. The content providers have a finite amount of bandwidth, so they give X telecom extra. That means Y gets throttled, especially during high load periods. That's even baring any political motivates mentioned above. Or Concast, the owner of NBC could slow down traffic to CBS, ABC, and Fox. Won't that be a lovely situation? ISP's all but forcing customers to only visit approved websites? In that case, we might as well go back to AOL and other walled gardens.

Oh regarding the articles, the Review Journal one forgot to mention that content providers such as Netflix are in favor of net neutrality - even though they're the ones that will get to charge ISPs for extra bandwidth. Why? Because loss of neutrality will mean poorer service. Hence them joining the "Internet Slowdown" protesy

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #244 – 2014-11-18, 18:21:12

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-18, 08:35:52

Those senators and representatives got their money, and now net neutrality is on its way to being history.

Oh? It's that simple?!
As always, your economic model is "command and control" -- Do we really want something like the old AT&T monopoly? Or will it suffice to have the FCC treat ISPs like common carriers? (Yes, Congress would have to do that... And the courts will weigh in.) Your list of "horribles" is even less likely.

Can I join the "protesy"? Or is it only open like-minded people? Keep in mind what we know about regulatory capture! Not to mention unintended consequences.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #245 – 2014-11-19, 01:46:32

My dear Oakdale old chap your country is not a proper democracy as you have previously hinted at. Being a Republic does not automatically mean democracy and you well prove that one!

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #246 – 2014-11-19, 03:11:56

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-11-18, 18:21:12

Can I join the "protesy"? Or is it only open like-minded people?

You have no answer to the arguments, so you resort to attacking along the typo. Pathetic. I told you that script-like, you'd scan for weak point with out actually reading for understanding. Damn, I'm a freakin' psychic.

This has nothing to do with the breakup of AT&T. This is restoring the internet to its default state, which is neutrality. You're also missing the point completely. This isn't an argument about net neutrality at all, but one about free speech. What an age we live in. Bribery is free speech, throttling the bandwidth of dissenting voices isn't an affront to it.

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-11-19, 01:46:32

Being a Republic does not automatically mean democracy and you well prove that one!

Republicans don't even know what democracy is, Howie. They seem to think it's mob rule, ignoring that we learned there's also rule of law and constitutional rights in the intervening couple centuries.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #247 – 2014-11-19, 04:17:39

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-18, 19:11:56

You have no answer to the arguments

Er, what arguments…?
I'm sure you think some sort of government regulation would get you a better deal; but I think you're wrong. (Unless you secure some "privileged class" special deal…) This is fairly new technology that -at present- requires enormous expense up-front. There are a few radically different proposals to deal with that…
(Municipal broadband, either in partnership or solo, is one. There's no reason I can think of against it. Can you think of any?
Hint: I think you should notice the necessary tax burden — something you've consistently avoided, in other contexts.
I think I understand why: You like "free" stuff, and you want what you want!)

You could read Epstein's Hoover Institute piece "Hands Off The Web"… But you won't like it. You seem to want political hands on the Web; which is odd, considering how much you think they're all crooks, liars and Republicans!

Please tell me again (…because I must have missed it): What exactly is the problem you think needs fixing?

—————————————————————————————————

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-18, 19:11:56

Republicans don't even know what democracy is, Howie. They seem to think it's mob rule, ignoring that we learned there's also rule of law and constitutional rights in the intervening couple centuries.

I'll certainly let you and Howie hash this out, peer to peer: Intellectually, you two are brothers!

But you, Sang, might want to review your understanding of Western History: The rule of law and primacy of individual rights pre-ceded democracy.

BTW: You might want to ask RJ what he'd have done, had the recent vote on "independence" gone the other way! Migrate south? Register as a resident alien? Or join the underground resistance?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #248 – 2014-11-19, 08:00:48

not sure if my psyche is getting really tired saw Oak Vs Sang arguments in many threads .

or i just cant stop my Pscyhe to not think , the whole of their Arguments are just false analogy and appeal to emotion .

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #249 – 2014-11-19, 10:39:06

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-11-18, 09:47:41

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-11-17, 19:27:04
What you must mean is that interests that conflict with those you have must be curtailed or silenced — because, of course, you're view is right; so, others must be wrong!

What you must mean is that you're drunk or drugs.

Possibly, but mostly weapon grade projection.