gendoikari87 wrote:

Fukshot wrote: You're answering the question "Why would it be better if Rocky were president?" not the one I'm asking which is "How does voting for Rocky make the problem of bombing people off the face of the earth any better?"

How is that not obvious. Rocky wouldn't do something like that. Or rather he's not beholden to business interests and so is less likely to do something like that, and also with the american people having THEIR voting power back, their will will be done more and THEY as a majority don't support the slaughter of innocent civillians. FURTHERMORE, with the power back in the hands of the people we can educate our children better so the number that DO support endless wars and the killiing of innocent civilians goes way down. and as a side effect bigotry will go down further and support homophobia and racism will begin to dry up as those biggots get confined to a smaller and smaller segment of the population simply due to better education.

Is that what you were looking for

No, I'm still wondering about the part where voting for Rocky gets Rocky elected. I'm wondering about the part of your plan that erases the differences between O and Mittens because Rocky will be so much better, but ignores the real harm done by ignoring the very real dangers Mittens poses in a non-fantasy right-now kind of way that voting for Rocky ain't a practical solution to.

I'd rather have Rocky for president too, but that's not the same as voting for him.

No, I'm still wondering about the part where voting for Rocky gets Rocky elected.

It won't, because of people like you. Who refuse out of fear.

but ignores the real harm done by ignoring the very real dangers Mittens poses in a non-fantasy right-now kind of way that voting for Rocky ain't a practical solution to.

what dangers? you mean like mitt threatening to gut the department of education. It'd be too damn risky, if you mean your worried about gay people being hurt because of something he said, he's taking the same position now that Obama did before he was in office. So what dangers are you talking about?

Come on fukshot, this is voting against your class interests out of fear, they teach that in marxism 101, you KNOW better than this. YOU'RE better than this. You KNOW this is how they divide and conquer, you know this is how they win.

gendoikari87 wrote:

No, I'm still wondering about the part where voting for Rocky gets Rocky elected.

It won't, because of people like you.

So plan around me. I thought you had this figured out. I thought you were voting for Rocky to do something. Are you martyring your vote so that you can say that you were right while things keep getting worse?

Fukshot wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

No, I'm still wondering about the part where voting for Rocky gets Rocky elected.

It won't, because of people like you.

So plan around me. I thought you had this figured out. I thought you were voting for Rocky to do something. Are you martyring your vote so that you can say that you were right while things keep getting worse?

I do have this figured out. Completely. We're fucked. Fear is too strong a motivator. But i'll keep trying for the miracle shot because it's all we have left and if enough people try it, we win. But at least I tried.

gendoikari87 wrote:It won't, because of people like you.

Not really. The "best" case scenario is that you split the liberal vote and Romney gets elected.

wfaulk wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:It won't, because of people like you.

Not really. The "best" case scenario is that you split the liberal vote and Romney gets elected.

Actually that still works to some degree, it sends one fuck of a powerful message. and not just to the democrats. Maybe enough to get campaign finance reform through. and through that, everything.

gendoikari87 wrote:I do have this figured out. Completely. We're fucked. Fear is too strong a motivator. But i'll keep trying for the miracle shot because it's all we have left and if enough people try it, we win. But at least I tried.

A more productive line of pursuit might be changing election law to get rid of first-past-the-post voting and its mathematical consequence of a two-party system.

wfaulk wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:I do have this figured out. Completely. We're fucked. Fear is too strong a motivator. But i'll keep trying for the miracle shot because it's all we have left and if enough people try it, we win. But at least I tried.

A more productive line of pursuit might be changing election law to get rid of first-past-the-post voting and its mathematical consequence of a two-party system.

Problem with that is, to get any electoral, or campaign reform you need people in power willing to do it. It's a catch 22 that is nearly impossible to break

gendoikari87 wrote:Maybe enough to get campaign finance reform through. and through that, everything.

Since the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, the only way to get meaningful campaign finance reform is a constitutional amendment. And that's going to take a long time.

gendoikari87 wrote:Problem with that is, to get any electoral, or campaign reform you need people in power willing to do it. It's a catch 22 that is nearly impossible to break

It's certainly hard to do if people like you refuse, out of fear.

wfaulk wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Problem with that is, to get any electoral, or campaign reform you need people in power willing to do it. It's a catch 22 that is nearly impossible to break

It's certainly hard to do if people like you refuse, out of fear.

People like me? refuse? certainly you aren't talking about Obama doing campaign finance reform? That's funny. That alone would get me to vote for him if it was real, but he'd have to finish it BEFORE november.

The only way to get Citizens United overturned is to work to get a cognizant Amendment written and passed by 34 States. No POTUS can do it, We the People need to.

ErikO wrote:The only way to get Citizens United overturned is to work to get a cognizant Amendment written and passed by 34 States. No POTUS can do it, We the People need to.

How do you even convene a constitutional convention do I get a petition for my state or what? I know they're trying. I've been helping wolf pac out as much as I can, haven't had much time lately.

Gendo, you've seen a Civics book more recently than I have.

ErikO wrote:Gendo, you've seen a Civics book more recently than I have.

In both of my government classes we never went over anything to do with a constitutional convention. Other than the fact that it's never been successful nothing more was ever taught. and so far wikipedia only shows info on the first one, which I'm not sure was an article V convention. I know the states have to do it, but how you start that process IDK.

Edit: oh well duh. State legislatures. For some unknown reason (possibly naive hope) I was thinking when article V said state legislatures, that there's a way the people can forcibly bring this before their state legislatures.... that might prove to be false.... That's just wonderful. did the founding fathers really not leave in any method of change should our elected officals stop actually representing us and have no need to do so?

gendoikari87 wrote:

ErikO wrote:Gendo, you've seen a Civics book more recently than I have.

In both of my government classes we never went over anything to do with a constitutional convention. Other than the fact that it's never been successful nothing more was ever taught. and so far wikipedia only shows info on the first one, which I'm not sure was an article V convention. I know the states have to do it, but how you start that process IDK.

Edit: oh well duh. State legislatures. For some unknown reason (possibly naive hope) I was thinking when article V said state legislatures, that there's a way the people can forcibly bring this before their state legislatures.... that might prove to be false.... That's just wonderful. did the founding fathers really not leave in any method of change should our elected officals stop actually representing us and have no need to do so?

Just one and I hope we are nowhere
Close to that yet.

well we do still have the constitutional convention, it might be only the state government but the states aren't a completely lost cause, they're often less corrupt than the federal politicians, so while it might be a long shot we do still have it. But I'd suggest adding in an additional amendment, something that would let the people, DIRECTLY add an amendment in some way.

DCG wrote:1st, it is my firm belief .......................... No politician can help us. "We the People" have to do this. I lost my job 6 months ago. I learned very fast that I can live on damn little money. We can all live on damn little money. Such low spending would tank the system in no time.

my .02

Probably most people would think this is a psycho outlook on life. I am more and more believing that we should look to other alternatives than politics to fix life's problems.

Thanks for typing what I think. I hope you get another job if you want it.

The head of most agency's are politicians. Homeland Security is one example. That's because she went against the voters in our state that voted for Hillary. Hillary got the votes, Obama got the delegates.

I can see very few politicians that I would hire in any capacity other than a lawyer.

That we actually hire them to rule us is strange at best , since congress ceded their power do decide shit to 5 on the supreme court

That we actually hire them to rule us is strange at best

Money controls all, so how is it strange.