Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Election 2012

Postby KysenMurrin » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:59 am

Yeah, but they get screwed by the record contract they're locked into when they win. There are often successful runners-up because they get a chance to actually have some control of their career. You wouldn't have that aspect with a presidential candidate thing.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4773
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Election 2012

Postby Skye1013 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:08 pm

You'd have to have something in the show to make people actually want to watch it though... presidential debates isn't really my idea of a good time. And a lot of the stuff people do on reality tv to make it "interesting" would make the candidate questionable as a good potential president...
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Election 2012

Postby Hokahey » Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:30 am

Amirya wrote:
Skye1013 wrote:The more people that "waste" their vote on someone else, the more likely it is that others will see the system is broken, or heck, might even take a chance the next election because the number is growing, and "this year just might be the year..."

For anyone that doesn't even take the time for a write in vote (even if it's a made up person/creature/place/whatever), I don't think they really have much room to complain about the system.

If it helps, while I refuse to vote, I don't complain about it, I just have no faith that it even works.


This.
Hokahey
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:42 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:41 am

Hokahey wrote:
Amirya wrote:
Skye1013 wrote:The more people that "waste" their vote on someone else, the more likely it is that others will see the system is broken, or heck, might even take a chance the next election because the number is growing, and "this year just might be the year..."

For anyone that doesn't even take the time for a write in vote (even if it's a made up person/creature/place/whatever), I don't think they really have much room to complain about the system.

If it helps, while I refuse to vote, I don't complain about it, I just have no faith that it even works.


This.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA

George Carlin wrote:I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing.

Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain.

I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.
- 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: 2797
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:18 am

As much as I love George Carlin's comedy, the logic in that particular quip is pretty poor. It's a comedy routine after all.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby KysenMurrin » Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:43 am

Yeah, you could argue not voting means you can criticise the people who did vote, but it doesn't hold water for criticising the person who wins.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4773
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:27 am

If you think about it, you really don't have a right to complain if you vote. Either

A) you voted in an incompetent boob and thus have no right to complain as it's your fault,

or

B) you voted for "the other guy" - in which case you also have no right to complain, as you played the game and lost fair and square.

But since when has "having a right" mattered when people want to complain, anyway?

George Carlin's logic isn't often at fault. Sure, he relied a lot on hyperbole - as almost all comedians do - but that doesn't mean he wasn't right more often than not.
- 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: 2797
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby theckhd » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:53 pm

Fivelives wrote:If you think about it, you really don't have a right to complain if you vote. Either

A) you voted in an incompetent boob and thus have no right to complain as it's your fault,

or

B) you voted for "the other guy" - in which case you also have no right to complain, as you played the game and lost fair and square.

But since when has "having a right" mattered when people want to complain, anyway?

George Carlin's logic isn't often at fault. Sure, he relied a lot on hyperbole - as almost all comedians do - but that doesn't mean he wasn't right more often than not.


I hate this argument, because it's about the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. One can vote for someone without agreeing with all of their stances, or vote against someone despite agreeing with them on certain points. You can still be pissed off when they do something stupid. They're not mutually exclusive positions. Trying to paint it as such is more of the stupid fatalistic posturing that people use to justify it as "not their problem" when they want to feel smug, smart, and holier-than-thou, while at the same time not being smart enough to see that they're part of the problem.

You want to demonstrate your disillusionment with politics? Take the 15 minutes it takes to go and vote for a third-party candidate, even if they have no chance of winning. If even half of the 40% of voters that decide not to vote showed up and voted for a third party candidate - any third party candidate - it would send a distinct message to the "only" two options. Hell, 40% of all voters is enough to elect a third party candidate.

Sitting on your ass and not voting is the equivalent of re-posting shit on facebook to "show your support." It's the juvenile, idiotic, lazy way to pretend you're involved without having to actually do anything useful or meaningful.

/rant off
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Melathys » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:27 pm

its the people who "protest" by not voting that have put this nation in the mess that its in.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:31 pm

theckhd wrote:I hate this argument, because it's about the dumbest thing that I've ever heard.
That about sums it up.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Arjuna » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:27 am

Well, whoever wins it's very likely that he'll influence my life greatly in one way or another, but I'm in Europe so I don't have any say in it...
HUZZAH! How many points do I receive? :D
User avatar
Arjuna
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:26 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:40 am

What Theck said. Please vote guys. At least your votes actually get counted at all, unlike my overseas military absentee ballot.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Amirya » Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:52 pm

So to make sure I'm understanding this.

I don't vote because I don't have faith in the system. I can't even believe what Brekkie says about my vote being counted (not because he's dishonest, but because that is the amount of faith I have in the system - it's NOT counted). But you're telling me it's better to vote dishonestly, just because everyone else thinks I should - instead of not voting because that's my honest opinion.

If that's what you're saying, then no one will bitch and moan if I ask my resident alien mother to tell me who to vote for, right? Or hell, you guys can tell me who to vote for. It'll amount to the same thing.

Money rules politics these days. I don't have the money to buy any votes or laws. Therefore, my vote is meaningless, because I don't have the wealth to back it up.

Or at least, that's how it's certainly presented these days.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby bldavis » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:31 pm

Image
thought it was fitting

this is in no way promoting the site i got this from, just a pic i saw on fb and liked
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:38 pm

Amirya wrote:So to make sure I'm understanding this.

I don't vote because I don't have faith in the system. I can't even believe what Brekkie says about my vote being counted (not because he's dishonest, but because that is the amount of faith I have in the system - it's NOT counted). But you're telling me it's better to vote dishonestly, just because everyone else thinks I should - instead of not voting because that's my honest opinion.

If that's what you're saying, then no one will bitch and moan if I ask my resident alien mother to tell me who to vote for, right? Or hell, you guys can tell me who to vote for. It'll amount to the same thing.

Money rules politics these days. I don't have the money to buy any votes or laws. Therefore, my vote is meaningless, because I don't have the wealth to back it up.

Or at least, that's how it's certainly presented these days.


With regard to who is elected as your representative to government, be it at local, state, or federal level, your vote does count (unless otherwise proven - I am applying "innocent until proven guilty" here).

What that elected representative does once he takes office is completely out of your hands. He (as in the grammatically correct generic form for "person", not distinguishing a gender) may or may not promote the platform that got him elected, and in fact will most likely respond to pressure from his contributors, lobbyists, and political party.

Furthermore, the US political spectrum from "OMG Communist" to "Ultra-Conservative" fits roughly within the center-right spectrum globally, so it really doesn't matter who you vote for in that regard. Regardless of the side of the aisle, there really isn't all that much difference among the mainstream of the parties, and the outliers are never going to get anything done anyway so aren't worth considering.

The people who do control things and pull all the strings are definitely going to vote, because in doing so they assure their hold on things. Republican or Democrat doesn't really matter as long as the guys who sing their tune make it back into office. So if you like that, you can vote or not vote and it makes next to no difference.

But if you don't like it, then you should vote against it by supporting pretty much anyone who isn't part of the existing machine. It may be futile at this point, but perhaps at some future date enough people will actually speak loudly enough to get something done. As was mentioned previously, 40% or so of eligible voters simply don't vote. If they voted as a block, they would have complete control of the government.

My mother is part of the machine - she's a devout Christian who would vote for Charles Manson if he ran on the Republican ticket, and she would do it for religious reaons because the Democrats support homosexual marriage and freedom of choice. And since Sharon Tate was pregnant at the time she was murdered by Manson's people, the irony there is rather thick.

But that's the sort of person out there voting. If for no other reason, get out and vote so you don't let my mother decide who runs the country.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby theckhd » Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:45 pm

Amirya wrote:I don't vote because I don't have faith in the system. I can't even believe what Brekkie says about my vote being counted (not because he's dishonest, but because that is the amount of faith I have in the system - it's NOT counted).

So, you don't vote, because you think that the votes aren't actually counted at all. That someone behind the scenes just makes up numbers and that's how the election is decided?

You do realize how utterly and incredibly stupid that sounds right? Our government has trouble covering up trivial things, like representatives banging interns. Covering up a massive electoral hoax would be basically impossible. Not to mention that there's third-party oversight in the form of exit polling. If the exit polls drastically differed from the way the votes actually fell, that would be a pretty strong indicator of tomfoolery (and I wouldn't doubt this has been used to catch smaller, isolated incidents of fraud in the past).

If you really believe that the whole thing is rigged on the vote-by-vote level, then you may as well believe that we're secretly run by communist aliens from Neptune, because as far as conspiracy theories go, that's about as likely.

Amirya wrote:But you're telling me it's better to vote dishonestly, just because everyone else thinks I should - instead of not voting because that's my honest opinion.

If that's what you're saying, then no one will bitch and moan if I ask my resident alien mother to tell me who to vote for, right? Or hell, you guys can tell me who to vote for. It'll amount to the same thing.

Money rules politics these days. I don't have the money to buy any votes or laws. Therefore, my vote is meaningless, because I don't have the wealth to back it up.

Or at least, that's how it's certainly presented these days.

Who said anything about being dishonest? If you really think the system is "broken," then prove it. Go start a grassroots movement for a write-in candidate. When Sideshow Bob shows up with 0.01% of the vote in your district, you'll know your vote was counted.

More importantly, there's nothing dishonest about doing that. If you truly believe the available candidates are shit, vote for someone who isn't, even if they're not running. Your vote is your voice - it's the way you can express support, discontent, or even disgust with the system.

All not voting does is ensure that you're silenced. The only way to make your vote truly meaningless is to not cast it.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Amirya » Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:59 pm

theckhd wrote:
Amirya wrote:I don't vote because I don't have faith in the system. I can't even believe what Brekkie says about my vote being counted (not because he's dishonest, but because that is the amount of faith I have in the system - it's NOT counted).

So, you don't vote, because you think that the votes aren't actually counted at all.

No, and it may be my perception of the electoral college is skewed, but from my understanding of it, people vote and the electoral college *should* vote the same way, but they are not required to do so.

So then it isn't my vote, it's the electoral college vote that really matters. Isn't that why there are swing states and the states that every candidate has to fight in/for, and why there are other states that aren't such a big deal?
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby theckhd » Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:11 pm

Amirya wrote:
theckhd wrote:
Amirya wrote:I don't vote because I don't have faith in the system. I can't even believe what Brekkie says about my vote being counted (not because he's dishonest, but because that is the amount of faith I have in the system - it's NOT counted).

So, you don't vote, because you think that the votes aren't actually counted at all.

No, and it may be my perception of the electoral college is skewed, but from my understanding of it, people vote and the electoral college *should* vote the same way, but they are not required to do so.

So then it isn't my vote, it's the electoral college vote that really matters. Isn't that why there are swing states and the states that every candidate has to fight in/for, and why there are other states that aren't such a big deal?

Your perception of the electoral college is skewed. In many states (though I admit, not all), those electoral college members are required to vote according to the popular vote. Under penalty of law, even - they can be prosecuted and jailed if they fail to do so.

Part of the reason that certain states are more valuable is that each state has different rules for how to divvy up those electoral college votes. Some states divide them up evenly according to popular vote - i.e. if candidate A gets 50% of the popular vote, they get 50% of the electoral college votes, and so on for each candidate (rounded, presumably, so someone with 0.01% of the vote really would get no electoral college votes, but they would still show up on the popular voting record).

Other states give all of their electoral college votes to the winning candidate, even if it was a 51%-49% victory.

And of course, some states traditionally vote for one party, while other states are a more even split. This creates "battleground" states that get a lot of attention from candidates. It doesn't make sense for the republican candidate to campaign heavily in a state that always votes democrat by a large margin. They have more to gain per hour of campaign time by spending it in a battleground state where they might be able to turn a loss into a victory.

I'm certainly not saying the system is perfect - I'd rather see all states go with the proportional split method, for example, such that a democrat had more reason to campaign in traditionally "red" states. But it's certainly a far cry from the dystopia that many paint it as. Is money important? Of course, and it's a big factor in how effective a campaign is. But it's also, in my opinion, going to become less important over time.

Why? Right now, media matters. Getting your face and your message out there matters. Getting the baby boomers who watch American Idol in your camp matters. But what happens 20, 30, or 40 years from now, when every voter is as familiar with YouTube and Twitter as they are with ABC, NBC, Fox, and CNN? I'm sure you've seen a viral video before. I feel pretty confident saying that eventually, we are going to see a viral campaign. Some day, the proverbial David candidate will defeat the Republican and Democrat Goliaths. And it'll happen through grassroots methods, all enabled by social media and the internet. I may not live to see it, but I believe it'll happen someday.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:57 pm

Amirya wrote:No, and it may be my perception of the electoral college is skewed, but from my understanding of it, people vote and the electoral college *should* vote the same way, but they are not required to do so.

So then it isn't my vote, it's the electoral college vote that really matters. Isn't that why there are swing states and the states that every candidate has to fight in/for, and why there are other states that aren't such a big deal?

The electoral college only elects the President, whereas Congress has the real power regarding what gets done. While the President can veto, he can't initiate legislation. Congress initiates laws and creates the budget, which largely defines what is going to get done and what isn't going to get done.

Whether you vote or not for the President, by all means have your say who represents you in Congress where the real work is done, and where your vote is not filtered through an electoral college member.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:47 am

The only problem with that, Koatanga, is that for damn near everyone, the congressional race is just a checkbox on the ballot that you tick for the incumbent (or, occasionally along rigid party lines). None of the candidates are anyone we've ever heard of before, and even if we HAVE heard of them before, they're pretty good at avoiding scandals in an election year.

This is compounded by the typical attention span of American Q Public, who would lose a staring contest with a gnat. So we're reduced to names that sound vaguely familiar, somehow, unless we get interested in the congressional elections and vote the issues. Again, the campaigning at the congressional level is just as close to non-existent as it's possible to get, being relegated mainly to public access television (shit, more people read the nutritional labels on their food than watch public access) and the internet, which is still only available in major areas and roughly about 40% of people have no access to broadband internet and 30% of people have no internet at all.

This doesn't set up a very promising scenario for becoming an informed voter at non-presidential levels, especially considering that the more urbanized your area is, the less likely you are to be interested in Big Issues™.

Then you have to account for the fact that the corruption rarely ever lies in the president, for exactly the reason you state - congress is the body that holds the "real" power, so that's where corporations buy their laws. That's where money counts more than votes, Amirya. Not in elections*.

Forbes recently (at least as recently as 2011 - going off of memory here) published the dollar amounts it would take to get your issues heard at each level of government, compared to the dollar amounts it would take to get your issues heard by "famous" private citizens. As an example:

Donating $71,600 to the Obama "victory campaign" this year will get you dinner with Barack Obama at a private house. However, just to get Kim Kardashian to make a brief nightclub appearance, some Vegas clubs pay her around $100,000. And I'd just like to think, THINK, mind you, that Kim Kardashian is far less important to the running of our country than anyone in any position of power in D.C.

Now extrapolate that to the "less important" or rather more accurately, "less visible" people in power, and you can see where I'm going with this.

Also, the re-election rates in congress is typically a staggering 90%+. This is another reason why corporations spread money around congress like we spread butter on toast - liberally. Once a congressman is bought, he or she stays bought and stays in power. Unfortunately, the Presidential office is term-limited, so they can't stay in power, and it's far more visible so there's less chance of them staying bought. Ironically, the one office that everyone seems to blame is the one office that has the least power to do anything of any note other than set broad policy goals that shoot through the US like a game of telephone where at least half the people are intentionally trying to sabotage the message being whispered from ear to ear. But maybe - just maybe - that's one of the primary functions of the office. People need a target for their outrage, or else we end up with aimless protesting like the Occupy Movement or anarchist "groups" like Anonymous.

Anyway, I'm rambling, so I'll end this here and STFU.

* Money does count in some ways during an election, and probably more than you might think. Sure, there's the obvious "more money means more marketing" thing, but also, the more people that donate to a campaign, the more people are going to be dead set on voting for that candidate. There are others, I'm sure, but those are the main two that I can think of.
- 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: 2797
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:21 am

Fivelives wrote:Donating $71,600 to the Obama "victory campaign" this year will get you dinner with Barack Obama at a private house. However, just to get Kim Kardashian to make a brief nightclub appearance, some Vegas clubs pay her around $100,000. And I'd just like to think, THINK, mind you, that Kim Kardashian is far less important to the running of our country than anyone in any position of power in D.C.
That seems like an apples and oranges comparison, it's like suggesting that hockey is much more popular than baseball because their tickets cost a lot more. Not only that, but even the math is a bit wonky. Those dinners are 71k per person/family. The dudes going to the club to see Kim are not dropping 100k, and the club is going to get at least some of that money back from the people who come to see her.

Anyhow, I don't really see any problem Koatanga's point. It's not particularly onerous to understand the positions of the representative(s) from your district, especially those at the federal level. Campaigning at that level is MUCH more prolific than you suggest. Relegated to public access? That's simply not even close to accurate. The fact that there is a lot of power in congressional seats, means any seat in contention does get a fair (much more than necessary) amount of attention.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:33 am

I read my local newspapers, watch my local news shows, and most of my television watching is on "local" network stations. I don't see shit about congressman A vs congressman B, and the extent of the campaigning?

I've gotten a cold call from the campaign and a form letter. The form letter talked about everything he'd done for my district and the cold call only lasted long enough for me to request to be removed from their calling lists.

The amusing thing is? I live in district 2, and am currently registered to vote in district 1. The congressman who mailed me the letter? Is from district 7, and the one that cold called me is from district 8. Go figure.

And as far as comparing apples and oranges, it's not that far a stretch. It almost seems like you're just being argumentative here - the idea is that it costs far more for a celebrity's time and attention than it does for time and attention from our government representatives. Go ahead - it's an election year. Call your campaign of choice and ask how much you'd have to "donate" in order to get some time with your candidate. Then compare that to how much you'd have to pay (at least they're honest) for the same amount of time with a celebrity of your choice. I thought I'd made that clear by saying that 15 minutes of Kim Kardashian's time was worth more than an entire evening of the President of the United States' time*.

If you're interested, here's a legit service that provides celebrities for events: http://millionairesconcierge.com/celebrity-meet.htm

Call them up and ask them how much it would cost to have dinner with DiCaprio. Then compare that number with the $71,600 it'll cost you to have dinner with the President of the United States of America.

* Unfortunately, my google-fu fails me completely today and I don't remember the name of the Forbes article that listed the average cost of buying a congressman. I picked it up and read it in a doctor's office some time late last year or early this year - if you can find it, I expect it would probably leave you as dumbfounded as it left me there.
- 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: 2797
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Jabari » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:08 am

Fridmarr wrote:It's not particularly onerous to understand the positions of the representative(s) from your district, especially those at the federal level.

Because politicians always do what they say they're going to, right? :lol:

We tried to get some of "our own" into Congress in the last election. Turns out that they're just as easily bought off and/or corrupted as the rest of them.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Tea-Party-donations.png

Cheap who..., er, dates, that lot.

(Not the link that Fivelives was talking about - I'd be curious to see that one too...)

I'm particularly disappointed in Allen West. Had high hopes for him, he certainly "talked the talk" and seemed to have a good background and character. Then he voted to extend the Patriot Act (among other problematic votes, mostly financial stuff). Ugh.
Most people want the wealth produced by a society with limited government distributed to them more generously by bigger government.
Jabari
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:09 pm

Fivelives wrote:And as far as comparing apples and oranges, it's not that far a stretch. It almost seems like you're just being argumentative here



Yes, I am being argumentative because what you are saying deserves some common sense thrown at it.

It's totally apples and oranges.  First, just on the simple math, you aren't seperating the difference between an appearance fee and a seat fee.  The president's fee is 71k per 2 people max.  Celebrities attend events which many people show up at...so the cost per person is actually often much less. The host is using that appearance to turn a profit off of small fees from many people over time. The net results are vastly different.

That's all irrelevent though, because what the heck does it matter?  Abosultely nothing at all.  The reasons people are interested aren't the same, the motivations of the honored guests aren't the same.  Trying to parlay that into some sort of commentary about our society is just stupid.  I could probably come up with thousands of similarly meaningless comparisons about just about any topic to spin things in any particular direction.

For our last federal congressional election, we had a televised debate, countless radio and newspaper commentaries and interviews with the candidates, millions of commercials, the voter's summary guide, public records of previous votes, and finally the position summaries in the local papers, and that's all before you even begin to touch that big fancy thing called the internet....and that was just for the Republican primary (the incumbent was the dem so that was all unecessary), the general election was like that again...just on steroids.  Good grief, you can't on one hand suggest that all the power is with congress, point out all the costs involved in getting time with these people and then honsetly suggest that all their positions are a relative unknown...

If you can't find out the positions of your federal representatives, you're being purposely obtuse.
 
Jabari, honesty is a completely different topic.  You will never know that about anyone until the situation arises, but at least with incubments that information is easy to come by.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:39 am

Fridmarr wrote:Yes, I am being argumentative because what you are saying deserves some common sense thrown at it.

It's totally apples and oranges. First, just on the simple math, you aren't seperating the difference between an appearance fee and a seat fee. The president's fee is 71k per 2 people max. Celebrities attend events which many people show up at...so the cost per person is actually often much less. The host is using that appearance to turn a profit off of small fees from many people over time. The net results are vastly different.


So go check out Millionaire's Concierge. Ask them how much it would cost to get an A-list celebrity to have dinner at your place. The reason I used that particular example is because it was easy enough to find, but the main point is "celebrities are more expensive than politicians". Whether you go by appearance fee per person, or personal interaction fee, or any other metric, the fact is one person is paying that money and getting something out of it. In the case of say, Tao nightclub paying a Kardashian $100k for a brief appearance vs you paying $72k for a dinner with the president, one "person" is still paying that fee. In Tao's case, they'll quite possibly make that back because of all the people that hound celebrities. In the case of dinner with the president, you get to discuss policy and have your own personal ideas heard.

So again, what's the difference between a celebrity appearance fee and a presidential appearance fee? Because that's exactly what that 72k "donation" gets you - a POTUS appearance. Just like the 100k gets you a Kardashian appearance. Now it just seems like you're being purposefully obtuse about this.

Oh, and as far as "cost per person" goes - only one person assumes the cost of a celebrity appearance.

Fridmarr wrote:The reasons people are interested aren't the same, the motivations of the honored guests aren't the same. Trying to parlay that into some sort of commentary about our society is just stupid.


How so? People are more interested in celebrities than politicians. That's not a social commentary, it's stating a fact. The sky is blue. Politicians get less attention than celebrities. These are both facts, and I challenge you to disprove them.

Fridmarr wrote:For our last federal congressional election, we had a televised debate, countless radio and newspaper commentaries and interviews with the candidates, millions of commercials, the voter's summary guide, public records of previous votes, and finally the position summaries in the local papers, and that's all before you even begin to touch that big fancy thing called the internet....and that was just for the Republican primary (the incumbent was the dem so that was all unecessary), the general election was like that again...just on steroids. Good grief, you can't on one hand suggest that all the power is with congress, point out all the costs involved in getting time with these people and then honsetly suggest that all their positions are a relative unknown...


None of my local stations showed anything about it - whether debates or commercials. None of my local papers had anything about it. I admit, I don't listen to the radio, so maybe there was something there. I did get a letter from each candidate talking about their platforms and what they've "accomplished" so far.

Also, for fucks sake. I'm not talking about myself. I may be a PART of Joe Q Public, but I'm definitely not Joe Q Public. You say it's easy to find out things on the internet, which is true - but what if you're part of that 30% of the US that doesn't have internet? How about if you're a part of the 40% of US internet users that don't have broadband internet? Go on - throttle your connection to 56k then try and load a webpage. What if you don't have a television, or live in a rural area as I do? I didn't see jack diddly shit about anything other than presidential races unless I tuned in to CSpan.

And get this through your skull: MOST PEOPLE DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS OR IN THE SENATE - that's why they get away with all of the shit they get away with and STILL have a 90%+ reelection rate. Show me how this is possible without voter apathy. Show me where I'm wrong, here. Give me numbers that disagree with mine. Here:

http://www.fairvote.org/voter-turnout#.T-XfLEWm-So

Relevant bit:
Low turnout is most pronounced in off-year elections for state legislators and local officials as well as primaries. In many cities, for example, mayors of major cities often are elected with single-digit turnout ; for example, turnout was only 5 percent of registered voters in a recent Dallas mayoral election, 6 percent in Charlotte, and 7 percent in Austin. Congressional primaries have similarly low turnout; for example, turnout was only 7 percent in a recent Tennessee primary, and was only 3 percent for a U.S. Senate primary in Texas. A statewide gubernatorial election in Kentucky has a turnout of only 6 percent since Kentucky gubernatorial elections are held in the off-off-year between mid-term congressional election and presidential elections was scheduled at a time when there were no elections for federal office. North Carolina’s runoff elections have seen turnout as low as 3 percent in statewide elections.


In the 2010 congressional midterms you're talking about, my state (Arizona) had a 36% voter turnout. If the media blitz was as pronounced here as you say it was (despite me being fairly certain in my assumption that you don't fucking live in my state), why wasn't it higher? Why was it lower, in fact, than the voter turnout rate nationwide (41.0%)?

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

And this is despite the big huge fucking debacle that is SB 1070 coming to a vote in 2010. I rather imagine that would have something to do with voter turnout in 2010.

Oh look, someone agrees: http://ncoc.net/Actions-That-Influence- ... nout-AZCHI

And here you go - turnout % and raw numbers by county in Arizona: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/gene ... rting.aspx

If you'd like to compare that to a population map, go right ahead. Rural areas don't get the same media as urban areas do. In other news: water is wet. Fire's status as "hot" is still being debated.

Go ahead and do the same types of searches on your own state, Fridmarr. Compare turnout rates in low population counties to high population counties and across income lines. Go drive out to East Westbumsfuckville in your state and compare their local newspapers to your local newspapers. Sit around for a couple of hours and compare TV programming (here's a hint: the only thing that's the same are newscasts and regularly scheduled programming, or "big ticket events" like presidential races).

Come back to me with an argument consisting of more than just "lol ur dumb" and then we'll talk.
- 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: 2797
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 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: Google [Bot] and 1 guest