Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:48 pm

Klaudandus wrote:a student could merely write ‘God’ on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking where water comes from

"Where does water come from?" is a pretty stupid question for a chemistry test, and for each student answering it with 'God', there would be more writing things like "bottles", "tap", "clouds", "river" or "my penis".
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3374
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:53 pm

Passionario wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:a student could merely write ‘God’ on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking where water comes from

"Where does water come from?" is a pretty stupid question for a chemistry test, and for each student answering it with 'God', there would be more writing things like "bottles", "tap", "clouds", "river" or "my penis".


The latter is only 95 - 99% correct, but, let's not count points ;-)
Without going as far as Jihadists or Satanists exploiting the rules, what I'm completely looking forward to are the "joke" religions starting to pop up, just for its worth in troll - pastafarian, jedis...

- Where does water come from?
- Midichlorians!
- PREQUEL HEATHEN!
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3453
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:18 am

Semi-related, I've seen people saying how if this Hobby Lobby thing goes through, we might suddenly see some CEOs converting to Christian Science.

The people trying to push through these rules to protect their (protestant, christian) faith rarely seem to think about the wider implications.
Temporarily playing WoW again.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6988
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:56 pm

KysenMurrin wrote:Semi-related, I've seen people saying how if this Hobby Lobby thing goes through, we might suddenly see some CEOs converting to Christian Science.

The people trying to push through these rules to protect their (protestant, christian) faith rarely seem to think about the wider implications.

I don't get it. People can believe in religions, but companies can't. Doesn't matter what religion the CEO has - the company itself is not able to have beliefs.

I reckon the only law that needs passing is one that declares all business in the US to be agnostic with respect to religious freedom issues.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:44 pm

I think this is an unintended consequence of Citizens United ruling where they affirm corporate personhood.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11224
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Kal » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:36 pm

Corporate personhood is a useful legal fiction, and it is protecting 1st amendment rights, but this is getting ridiculous. The law I'd like to see passed is a 28th amendment getting money out of politics, defining corporate personhood clearly and in a limited way, and defining money as property, not speech.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:52 pm

With our economic and government system, a law that removes money from politics is simply not possible. It can't be accomplished by a law when you have a group of less than 600 people that can control everything in an entire country of our size, population, and GDP. That's an amazing amount of power in the hands of an amazingly small number of people, and there is simply no way that that much power among so few people will not attract massive resources from people who want to influence it, whether it's legal or not. Ultimately, the money isn't the problem, but merely a symptom.

Also, I'm not sure defining money as property as opposed to speech would change anything, or that it even "defined" that way today. Paper isn't speech either, it's just a raw material (property), but when I right on it it's used to convey speech. That's essentially how money works. You can't really suggest that groups are allowed to speak about a candidate because that's "speech", but they aren't allowed to pay any money to create their speech (eg. a political ad) because money isn't "speech". That doesn't make any sense.

That would mean that only media outlets can "speak" on any reasonable scale (although even they still have use money to do it, so maybe not). Ironically, since they were already exempt from McCain-Feingold I guess by the "logic" in this thread, they were "Corporate Persons" even before Citizen's United. Of course, there wasn't a whole lot of gnashing of teeth about that...I wonder why.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9669
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Kal » Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:38 am

If 34 of the state legislatures propose an amendment to the Constitution and 38 states ratify it, the federal governemnt cannot overrule it in any way. Check out Wolf-PAC.

Money is essentially an IOU being passed around, so that's the "logic" being used to define it as speech as I understand it, but I think that's very wrong. Money represents labor, a physical act. Money replaced the trading of goods, so we use money as we used to use physical goods, i.e. property. Under our current system, people with more money-as-speech have ridiculously more political power, and are able to use that power secretly, from anyone, to anyone, and in any amount. That is not democracy in the sense of 1 person, 1 vote. If we treat money as property, however, it becomes immediately offensive to the senses to give it 1st amendment rights.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:00 am

Kal wrote:If 34 of the state legislatures propose an amendment to the Constitution and 38 states ratify it, the federal governemnt cannot overrule it in any way. Check out Wolf-PAC.
I understand how to pass an amendment, but what would it say? How on earth could it work? It's simply not possible to create a law that removes money from politics, especially under our current systems.

Inasmuch as Wolf-PAC makes absolutely no attempt to remove money from politics, I'm not sure of its relevance. All it is trying to do is define which people under which context can spend their money on politics. Picking and choosing winners and losers, under a rather flawed algorithm.

Corporations may not be a person, but a corporation is merely a group of people. Would Wolf-PAC then outlaw political spending for all groups? Would Labor Unions have a voice, while corporations would not? What about religious groups and other non profit groups? What about their close ties to media, would media be exempted again? How does all that mash up against the freedom to associate?

Further, I would assume folks like the Greene family (Hobby Lobby), the Koch brother, George Soros, Warren Buffet, etc would still be allowed to use their massive wealth to spend on politics since they are individual people. So then the whole "corporate" limitation is merely a nuisance for all privately held companies, which can easily funnel the money through individuals. Further, it's hypocritical because Wolf-PAC still wants to exempt media organizations like The Young Turks with whom this is tightly associated, from spending all their money on politics like they do now. I guess they didn't like it when their exemption was rendered moot and the playing field was leveled. Go figure...

I it is interesting to me that the Wolf-PAC acknowledges that the Federal Gov't can't be trusted. I always have found it weird that some people who complain about corruption in gov't want it solved by having more gov't. Lets end the corruption by creating more laws to stop the corruption...It always seemed oxymoronic to me, but I digress.

Kal wrote:Money is essentially an IOU being passed around, so that's the "logic" being used to define it as speech as I understand it, but I think that's very wrong. Money represents labor, a physical act. Money replaced the trading of goods, so we use money as we used to use physical goods, i.e. property. Under our current system, people with more money-as-speech have ridiculously more political power, and are able to use that power secretly, from anyone, to anyone, and in any amount. That is not democracy in the sense of 1 person, 1 vote. If we treat money as property, however, it becomes immediately offensive to the senses to give it 1st amendment rights.
I think you are getting lost in the weeds over something that doesn't matter. Money is merely a resource. It's a difficult line to tell people that they can produce speech or expression, but can't use any resources to do it. It doesn't matter what label you want to put on it, it won't change anything culturally and certainly not legally.

As an aside, campaigns and PACs actually must disclose their contributors, it's not done in secret. That doesn't stop all of it, but quite a lot of it is fully disclosed. Of course campaigns are merely just a small part of "politics".
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9669
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Kal » Sat Mar 29, 2014 5:31 pm

Fridmarr wrote:
Kal wrote:If 34 of the state legislatures propose an amendment to the Constitution and 38 states ratify it, the federal governemnt cannot overrule it in any way. Check out Wolf-PAC.
I understand how to pass an amendment, but what would it say? How on earth could it work? It's simply not possible to create a law that removes money from politics, especially under our current systems.

Inasmuch as Wolf-PAC makes absolutely no attempt to remove money from politics, I'm not sure of its relevance. All it is trying to do is define which people under which context can spend their money on politics. Picking and choosing winners and losers, under a rather flawed algorithm.

Corporations may not be a person, but a corporation is merely a group of people. Would Wolf-PAC then outlaw political spending for all groups? Would Labor Unions have a voice, while corporations would not? What about religious groups and other non profit groups? What about their close ties to media, would media be exempted again? How does all that mash up against the freedom to associate?

Further, I would assume folks like the Greene family (Hobby Lobby), the Koch brother, George Soros, Warren Buffet, etc would still be allowed to use their massive wealth to spend on politics since they are individual people. So then the whole "corporate" limitation is merely a nuisance for all privately held companies, which can easily funnel the money through individuals. Further, it's hypocritical because Wolf-PAC still wants to exempt media organizations like The Young Turks with whom this is tightly associated, from spending all their money on politics like they do now. I guess they didn't like it when their exemption was rendered moot and the playing field was leveled. Go figure...

I it is interesting to me that the Wolf-PAC acknowledges that the Federal Gov't can't be trusted. I always have found it weird that some people who complain about corruption in gov't want it solved by having more gov't. Lets end the corruption by creating more laws to stop the corruption...It always seemed oxymoronic to me, but I digress.

Kal wrote:Money is essentially an IOU being passed around, so that's the "logic" being used to define it as speech as I understand it, but I think that's very wrong. Money represents labor, a physical act. Money replaced the trading of goods, so we use money as we used to use physical goods, i.e. property. Under our current system, people with more money-as-speech have ridiculously more political power, and are able to use that power secretly, from anyone, to anyone, and in any amount. That is not democracy in the sense of 1 person, 1 vote. If we treat money as property, however, it becomes immediately offensive to the senses to give it 1st amendment rights.
I think you are getting lost in the weeds over something that doesn't matter. Money is merely a resource. It's a difficult line to tell people that they can produce speech or expression, but can't use any resources to do it. It doesn't matter what label you want to put on it, it won't change anything culturally and certainly not legally.

As an aside, campaigns and PACs actually must disclose their contributors, it's not done in secret. That doesn't stop all of it, but quite a lot of it is fully disclosed. Of course campaigns are merely just a small part of "politics".


And this is the post that let's me know I'm in the wrong place. I don't argue with stupid.

Fun fact: "You cannot add administrators and moderators to your foes list."
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:06 pm

Kal wrote:getting money out of politics


What does this even mean?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Aubade » Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:35 am

fuzzygeek wrote:
Kal wrote:getting money out of politics


What does this even mean?



1. Enforce spending laws on campaigns. No more billion dollar campaign races against 2 presidential candidates.

2. Stop campaign spending from companies to politicians.

3. Higher inspection level of politician's finances and family's finances to ensure no corruption.

4. Actually enforce your laws.

5. Enact a tax-payer funded campaign system. weed out candidates with local elections etc, until you get to 5-6 candidates. Allow all candidates time on public television to debate their side. Stop attack advertisements.


These are just a few ideas and pretty well known ones. I'm sure that someone out there has a few more creative Ideas.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:12 pm

Aubade wrote:1. Enforce spending laws on campaigns. No more billion dollar campaign races against 2 presidential candidates.

2. Stop campaign spending from companies to politicians.

3. Higher inspection level of politician's finances and family's finances to ensure no corruption.

4. Actually enforce your laws.

5. Enact a tax-payer funded campaign system. weed out candidates with local elections etc, until you get to 5-6 candidates. Allow all candidates time on public television to debate their side. Stop attack advertisements.


These are just a few ideas and pretty well known ones. I'm sure that someone out there has a few more creative Ideas.

Those are some lofty but probably unattainable goals.

Stopping attack advertisements, for example - if your opponent blatantly lies to make himself look better in his ads, is it an attack to present the truth or do you simply have to let him get away with lying? If a news source points out those lies, can you tell if it is biased against him, or merely being accurate? What if it's Fox news?

Of those 5-6 candidates, what if 2-3 suddenly pull out of the race at the last minute and urge their supporters to vote for one guy? Seems like a good way to double or triple the campaign spending for that one guy. No real way to tell if it's legitimate or not.

Even if there were 5-6 candidates running, how many voters would give enough of a crap to bother seeing the differences between them? A choice between only two candidates is apparently so hard for people that they let their party affiliation decide - what are they going to do with even more? We're talking about a country that elected George W Bush - twice. As long as the devil hides his forked tongue, hooves, tail, and horns, he's a shoe-in on party votes.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:41 pm

1. How would this work? Candidates can only spend, say $5M. Once they've spent that much, they can no longer purchase air time or pay staffers? What kind of spending laws would you implement? What kind of spending laws *could* you implement? When the candidate hits their limit, what's to keep "private interest groups" from just paying for stuff? How could you stop it?

2. This looks tricky. It seems to be a big bugaboo, but if such things were made illegal another mechanism would be put into place that would do the same thing. If you make it so ABC Corp can't, say, help fund a commercial, what's to stop ABC Corp from just using a proxy to do so?

3. The odds of a politician actually proposing this law are ... I can't come up with an analogy miniscule enough. But I'd argue an "oversight" law like this would be good. But there's always going to be ways around this.

4. Which laws aren't being enforced now that would make an appreciable difference, you think?

5. This is tricky, and I'd argue it would just end up funneling more taxes into the pockets of politicians and the political machinery. Which means they'd probably looooove it.

Agree w/Kotanga re: attack ads. Some politician says something dumb. Opponent makes an ad out of it. Is it an attack ad, or just informative? What if it's not even something dumb, but Dude is on record voting for some piece of legislation. Is talking about Dude's vote an attack ad?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:24 pm

Since news used to be non-profit and is now profit-driven, why not require all networks to run 60 minutes per day of advertising, for free? They would have to split it up between all of the running candidates instead of allowing a network to endorse one over the other.

Asynchronous debates via youtube and social media would be a viable replacement for the current media debates, and with the benefit of allowing it to last for the entire campaign cycle. Benefit: it's absolutely free, so no campaign funding needed. It's also a way for ALL of the candidates in an election to get equal "talking time" as it were, and it would take away the gotcha aspect of debates, where candidates try to trick each other or trip each other up in some way.

Those two changes would take money out of the political campaign and be far more viable than the currently antiquated system that we've used pretty much forever. The best thing is, the changes (other than the nonprofit network unbiased advertisement thing) could be presented to politicians in a way that would make them salivate at the chance to do it that way.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3110
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest