Reclaim our Republic

http://www.ted.com...

At 4/4/2013 9:49:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It was never our Republic. It was a Republic for slaveowning aristocrats who imposed the government on the rest of society through violence. We should be reclaiming our freedom by abolishing the Republic, not putting ourselves in shackles.

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

At 4/4/2013 9:59:09 PM, Apeiron wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I agree with this too... there seems to be a problem with majority vote (evidenced by DDO votes ;-)

At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

At 4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM, Apeiron wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?

At 4/4/2013 9:50:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I recall there was this whole thing were large majority kinda went all out for the idea, and fought for it, but maybe thats just me.

At 4/4/2013 10:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM, Apeiron wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?

At 4/4/2013 10:32:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:50:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I recall there was this whole thing were large majority kinda went all out for the idea, and fought for it, but maybe thats just me.

Mainly because the American Revolution was backed by the French government who was at war with Great Britain at the time.

And then the people tried to rebel against the new Republic, known as the whiskey rebellion, but then George Washington sent 17,000 men to end it.

So basically some people were fought a government that raised taxes, and won. Then a new government formed, imposed a tax on the people, then people tried to resist it and failed.

At 4/4/2013 10:34:13 PM, Apeiron wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM, Apeiron wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?

Thanks but I just couldn't take that video- too pop.. I meant if there were any articles or journals on the matter.

At 4/4/2013 9:48:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:

http://www.ted.com...

... I'm not very educated on politics, but this makes sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?

At 4/4/2013 10:47:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:48:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:

http://www.ted.com...

... I'm not very educated on politics, but this makes sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?

It really does make u question some of the conspiracy narrative really is true when such a small fraction of the population can have such a large influence.

At 4/4/2013 10:40:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:34:13 PM, Apeiron wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM, Apeiron wrote:

At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?

Thanks but I just couldn't take that video- too pop.. I meant if there were any articles or journals on the matter.

This sums it up nicely: http://aceproject.org...

At 4/4/2013 9:57:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Did you guys (mostly gals) even watch the video? Or are you responding just to the title?

In the vid the professor clarifies that it's a republic of representative democracy.

At 4/4/2013 9:48:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:

http://www.ted.com...

... I'm not very educated on politics, but this makes sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?

At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

At 4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.

At 4/4/2013 11:38:09 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.

Thus, Lessig's presentation about how just a few people fund 60% of the SuperPacs. And those people aren't blowing their life savings.

Do you believe there should be any limit on campaign contributions from individuals and companies?

Do you believe a corporation has the same first amendment rights as an individual when it pertains to Superpac spending?

Just curious which of the dissents you're leaning for. This'll answer it.

At 4/4/2013 11:42:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:38:09 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.

Thus, Lessig's presentation about how just a few people fund 60% of the SuperPacs. And those people aren't blowing their life savings.

Do you believe there should be any limit on campaign contributions from individuals and companies?

Do you believe a corporation has the same first amendment rights as an individual when it pertains to Superpac spending?

Just curious which of the dissents you're leaning for. This'll answer it.

I believe that companies and organizations (PACs included) should have a limit but individuals should not.

At 4/4/2013 11:50:06 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:42:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:38:09 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.

Thus, Lessig's presentation about how just a few people fund 60% of the SuperPacs. And those people aren't blowing their life savings.

Do you believe there should be any limit on campaign contributions from individuals and companies?

Do you believe a corporation has the same first amendment rights as an individual when it pertains to Superpac spending?

Just curious which of the dissents you're leaning for. This'll answer it.

I believe that companies and organizations (PACs included) should have a limit but individuals should not.

Why limit restrict direct funding for company/organizations but not individuals? Justice Thomas argued all forms of restrictions on campaign contributions is as unconstitutional as third party expenditures.

Again, this is more me trying to gauge where you're coming from than an interrogation or argument.

At 4/4/2013 9:49:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It was never our Republic. It was a Republic for slaveowning aristocrats who imposed the government on the rest of society through violence. We should be reclaiming our freedom by abolishing the Republic, not putting ourselves in shackles.