eldavojohn writes "Some of you may know about Steven Colbert's fake presidential campaign... although are you sure it's fake? Well, it had better be because if it is taken too far — such as if he actually gets on the Republican and/or Democratic ballot in South Carolina — his use of corporations & advertising to back his campaign could get the attention of the Federal Election Commission. Doritos & Comedy Central could be facing some problems as well, funding a man running for president." A million Facebook users have signed up for the "1,000,000 Strong for Stephen T Colbert" group in the last week — though the group could be read as a satire of Barack Obama's similarly-named group, which has fewer than 400,000 members after 9 months.
Say Gulliani has been paid by the Mexican government (for consulting on crime) and he is using his wealth to fund his campaign - is that Illegal because it amounts to foreign support for political candidates?
Apparently Stephen earns the money he makes by appearing as "Talent" on a show which sells advertising. The shows sponsors are paying him for attracting viewer - rather than advancing a political agenda. I don't know that Stephen's "Campaign" is directly funded by the people who pay him to do his job. Aik
He pretty much said so on the show. He joked that Doritos couldn't fund the campaign directly, so he would have to find some other excuse to accept their money. He has said in an interview (off his show) that he doesn't want to be President, he just wants to run for it. He is a smart guy, and he is backed by smart lawyers. I'm sure he'll stop before he crosses the line from legal to illegal.
I may well vote for him. Unless Ron Paul wins the Republican primary, which I consider doubtful, I will likely vote for Stephen Colbert. People who actually want to be president generally shouldn't be allowed to be.
It's really bizarre. I keep hearing from all these people that they want Ron Paul to win, but they think nobody is going to vote for him. Well, damnit, if you're a Republican, vote for him! And if he gets the nomination, vote for him!
More like people dying in the streets because they can't afford healthcare or other social services. I heard Ron Paul interviewed, and his views seem to be based on total naivete. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he hasn't thought his position through. His argument for opposing government healthcare was basically "Back in my day, doctors would treat people for free if they couldn't afford to pay. Things were much better then." That's just not going to happen in a corporate-run system - there's no way a few kind-hearted doctors are going to cope with the sheer number of people needing free treatment. We don't live in the nostalgic small-town world of his memories anymore, and we probably didn't back then - at least not in the way he remembers it.
Colbert is just doing openly what every other candidate does behind the curtain.
You don't even become a viable candidate in this country unless you have been vetted and supported by prominent corporations and aristocrats. There's a reason all of the candidates are essentially the same on both sides of the aisle and why the new boss is almost always the same as the old boss. It's because they're only made viable by the same real "bosses" every time.
The other night Colbert talked specifically about this. He said that under election law he can use the corporate sponsorship money to produce the Colbert Report but he can't use it for his campaign. So he took the opportunity to satirize the law and point out that as Colbert the show host he is saying "eat the chips!" but as Colbert the presidential hopeful he is simply saying that he enjoys a nice doritos chip.
In any case he and his show lawyers aren't as stupid as they pretend to be and they will make sure they stay on the right side of the law in case this does get taken seriously.
We are lucky we live in the United States of America. We have a Constitution that guarantees that congress can make no law "abridging the freedom of speech". Errr....wait.....ummmmm. Well, I mean... except POLITICAL speech. I'm sure when they wrote the 1st amendment they didn't really mean political speech. I wonder why the supreme court just ignores this ?
Did you watch the episode where he clearly differentiated between himself as the host and the candidate. He even drew a line in the middle of the screen:).
He will not cross said line.
I honestly hope Colbert wins in SC. The only better guy for president would be Jon Stewart!. Either of them would spank those Dem/Rep around in a debate until they cried.
Politics in the US is outright pathetic. That may sound crass - but really, where is the candidate that doesn't have a stick up his ass and his hand in the cookie jar.
I honestly hope Colbert wins in SC. The only better guy for president would be Jon Stewart!. Either of them would spank those Dem/Rep around in a debate until they cried.
Heh, I'd love to watch this as well. I was curious about what the requirements were to get into the debates, so I did a little googling. I can't find the criteria for the 2008 Presidential election (which are presumably pretty different, considering a number of the candidates in the debate don't meet the criteria below), but for curiosity's sake here's the criteria used in the the 2004 election debates:
* Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility: yup, Colbert's >35 years old and is a natural born citizen (born in DC, actually)
* Evidence of Ballot Access: he needs to get on enough state ballots to be able to theoretically win the election (270 electoral votes). I'm not familiar with the requirements for each state, but I imagine this could be tricky.
Maybe his first act as president will be to ask Congress to make Dorritos the national chip?
It would be more productive than what Congress is doing at the moment...
I'm in Kaffiristan so I don't know how things work in the USA. But is possible that he might be sent to Guantanamo Bay for this?
In my country someone made a joke about running against our President and he was sent the toxic waste mines. We love our President and do not want his good name to be besmirched by hoodlums. From what I can tell Mr Colbert has made many jokes about your President yet he has evaded the Secret Police.
Do such things happen in America now too? I don't know much about your country. I do know from watching American TV that crime is very bad there and people hire vigilantes like Robert McCall to scare off drug dealers who are menacing them. Here in our country we have no crime, since undesirables are worked to death in the mines. Why doesn't your President hire more policemen using aid money from the decadent imperialist west?
Pat Paulsen ran many times for President and even got some write-in votes. It's conceivable that Colbert could get a lot of protest votes.
I don't know the law well but there are some places where write in votes count. If that were the case here, Colbert could win without being on the ballot. That would be really funny. If you're not on the ballot, how can you be charged with campaign violations?
(Yes, I know about the Electoral College etc. etc.)
How can it be criminal to run for a position for which every previous holder has to some degree or another, with cognizance, committed violence against the US Constitution?
What I really want to see him do is show up for a debate in South Carolina with so many sponsor patches on his dress suit that he looks like he races in NASCAR. He should invite the other candidates to do the same.
The crazy thing is, I'd actually vote for Colbert, no qualms at all.. and I'm fairly serious about politics. (Watch his speech at the Bush dinner if you at all doubt his intelligence and capability). Even if some of the 'real' candidates look alright (Barack, say).. The last eight years have left me so disillusioned with politicians that I don't really trust any of them. Although I personally didn't support Bush in the least back in '00.. I could have in no way predicted that he'd be the power-hungry, numbskull, overarching leader he turned out to be. Sure his past was spotty (drugs, alcohol, some dumb decisions).. but not a whole lot worse than, say, your average college kid.
I'm reminded of a quote (can't find exact quote atm..) Anyone capable of being elected president doesn't deserve the title. Such is the state of money-dominated politics. I'd actually we randomly select a 'president' from a hat of all eligible citizens every six months or so — give 'em a short reign so they can't screw it up too badly.
Interestingly, I know some very bright guys doing research into randomized elections — basically you randomize the outcome somewhat to bypass the restrictions of Arrow's impossiblity theorem.
For all their crimes, that's one thing Enron and Halliburton haven't done. They didn't offer a pension, just a retirement account match. In Enron's case, workers lost whatever they put into Enron stock, plus their match (which was given in stock).
If you want to complain about pension funds getting raided to pay for yachts, I'd like to direct your attention to:
-American car makers -American steel makers -American air carriers -every state and local government pension fund -the US Social Security system (I know, getting way off topic here)
All private companies listed above offered long-deferred compensation that they never bothered to fund in advance to actuarially-accurate levels, making them vulnerable to those expenses in the future. Because they got cheaper labor (by deferring part of workers' compensation) they were supposed to set aside a fund, but instead it was spent on dividends and bonuses. It is exactly as if I took out a giant business loan, paid it out as a dividend, and then complained about "legacy interest costs". Until recently, that was all with the blessing of the SEC.
In the case of the government agencies above, they take money that should be used to fully fund the obligations and instead spend it on present fads.
They didn't offer a pension, just a retirement account match. In Enron's case, workers lost whatever they put into Enron stock, plus their match (which was given in stock).
Even if Enron didn't offer a pension, they did cheat their employees out of their retirement. I say this because the big wigs at Enron knew about their impending collapse, and did not warn the employees. The executives knew that the company was horribly overvalued and heading for ruin, and let the employees take the fall.
So while in the most strict interpretation of the term "pension", you may be correct, the power players at Enron were certainly aware that they were screwing their underlings, and seemed to have no qualms about it.
Frankly, I'm just disappointed that the biggest of the big wigs died mysteriously (and quite conveniently) not long after being found guilty by a jury of his peers. Amazing how of course that meant his money was distributed to his family rather than to those from whom he cheated it out of.
Even if Enron didn't offer a pension, they did cheat their employees out of their retirement. I say this because the big wigs at Enron knew about their impending collapse, and did not warn the employees.
Wait, Enron screwed over its employees because it didn't assist them them in illegal insider trading by dumping their stock onto some sucker before the financial weakness was public information?
No, Enron's employees fared much better than if their employer had offered a conventional pension. For one thing, if they chose to divert their 401(k) funds to any investment other than Enron stock (i.e. followed rudimentary diversification advice), they would have kept everthing short the company match (i.e. most of it). In a convetional pension, they either would have gotten nothing, or what the PBGC chose to award them from *other* workers' premiums.
The point is not that Enron's management was blameless, but that raiding a pension fund (i.e. withdrawing dedicated investment funds) is one crime they did not commit. And while I do feel for the the employees, we need to quit pretending they were passive bystanders in all of this. They thought they could make fast money and so ignored the boring diversification advice. Claiming that executives should say their own stock is overvalued, even if true, is unrealistic.
"They were told that their company was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sure, they could have sought advice from outside, but why should they expect their employers to be giving them a load of BS?"
--
I don't mean to speak out of turn, but have you ever worked in any sort of industry that has any sort of sales, marketing, or human resources department? I'd guess not, if you'd ask such a question...
The entire world these days is spin management. Optics internally and externally are key focus items. BS is just an unappealing characterization of the typical activity performed by many parts of corporate infrastructure - marketing, legal, communications, HR, etc.
Caveat Emptor applies to any corporate pronouncements. Only the terminally naive expect anything different and they habitually end up on the short end of the stick.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday October 27 2007, @01:36PM (#21141527)
How many non-rich people have been elected President in the last 250 years? The same people that succeed in their private endevours are the same people that succeed in politics because they have the connections and the ability to make them.
In a Republic, it is the business of every free citizen to participate. Most, however, do not. If you don't like it, participate. But that means more than just voting, and that means starting early. If you don't have a record of success, if you don't have the connections, you'll never make it. You can't blame people for succeeding when you don't.
Its tempting to think that some "normal" person can become President, but I'm not going to vote for a random IT worker or the town druggist for anything more than town council or congressman. Why? Because if they had the chops that it takes to be President, then they would have done more with their life than that. Everyone has to start somewhere, but you can't jump straight into the big game.
Here's my rebuttal: George W. Bush. Having a rich and powerful family is the only reason he is where is.
I'm kinda with the parent on this one. I have zero respect for GWB but being rich and/or powerful does not automatically make one evil. Is Warren Buffett evil?
I'll grant you that GWB wouldn't have made it past college without his family connections. To me that's somewhat anti-American. Americans aren't supposed to condone or support the concept of a permanent nobility. We fought a revolution to free ourselves from it. That's one of the reasons why I'm always amused when people whine about the estate tax.
People like Paris Hilton are rightfully despised because they've never accomplished anything on their own and the only reason they are famous is because of their parents. I doubt I'll ever be rich but should I happen to make the right choices in life and wind up rich and/or powerful I won't be leaving millions of dollars to my kids. They should find success on their own.
I doubt I'll ever be rich but should I happen to make the right choices in life and wind up rich and/or powerful I won't be leaving millions of dollars to my kids. They should find success on their own.
Bill Gates is "only" giving his kids 10 million when they become adults, for those very reasons. Although I could have sworn that he once said $640,000 ought to be enough for anybody...
Could anyone enlighten me as to a detail in the US law? Do you HAVE to be nominated to run, or would a simple majority of voters writing your name on the paper be considered a legal vote?
I'm not an election-law lawyer or expert, but: You do not have to be nominated to run, but it can be difficult getting your name on the ballot in states without a party backing you. It doesn't have to be Republican or Democrat; Libertarians regularly get their candidates on most state ballots as far as I am aware. I don't think Perot had a party backing him the second time.
As to the second part: If, in 2008, 51% of people in states making up at least 270 electoral votes voted for, say, Bill Gates, then he would be the legal winner, on a ballot or not. A vote is legal regardless of if the person has a party backing them. The person may not be legally eligible to be president however; you have to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen (plus a few other requirements, like spending the last five or ten years with the US as your primary residence, or something).
Anyone can run, and anyone over 35/natural citizen can actually be put in office. And I can legally vote for anyone I want, and the vote counts.
If the laws written by those with money and power are meant to benefit that same class then they must also, by necessity, benefit those who are making them wealthy and powerful. I was poor and non-powerful once, and still spent some of my Earned Income Credit on Doritos. Food Stamps too.
I'm actually warming up to the idea of corporate sponsorship of political candidates. "The Stephen Colbert Presidential Candidacy, brought to you by Doritos". Yeah, that has a nice ring. Political candidates have to seek approval, at most, once every couple of years. But Americans are voting with their dollars several times every day. They vote for who will be rich and powerful several times a day based not on what's philosphically agreeable to them, but on what they actually want - with a direct negative impact to their bank account. Political votes are free and voluntary. Capitalist votes (with dollars) are also voluntary, but not free. That's the beauty of capitalism - when a transaction is finalized, both parties say "Thank You" - because I wanted the Doritos more than I wanted the dollar, and they wanted the dollar more than they wanted the Doritos.
Mutually agreeable is a good thing, no?
So why not let those whom we've already voted into power have a large impact on elections?
Well then, Mr Coward, how is it any different from all the other self-serving bills put forth by various government officials "on behalf of" the deep pocketed corporations that lobby them ?
I mean, Halliburton is a nice, community-focused, law-abiding facilitator of world peace... rrright ?
What I like about Canada is up here, we have sponsorship scandals. In the states, it's just business as usual. I'm not saying the Canadian government is devoid of corruption, geez, we've got a bunch of asshats too! The thing is, when any law prohibits some activity, people find ways around that law. People with money are typically better equipped to find, establish and employ those workarounds. Me, law or no law, I couldn't get any TV show to promote my campaign because I'm a broke ass geek.
Most everything follows the same pattern... copy-protection: no-cd patches, DVD CSS: decrypters, Laws: loopholes. The reason they all fail is because of the human factor. People make them, and people will break them.
Yeah, I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation, and exactly what the Founders intended.
Nothing in the current laws prevent rich people from using their own money... just look at Romney's campaign contributions to himself. So, really the laws in place ensure that only rich people (or those that got their campaign contributions before they started their campaign, in the form of salary or "speaking fees") can afford to run successfully.
Campaign finance reform is a barrier to entry to keep the parties in control of government.
I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation,
Actually the laws have the inverse effect. Instead of a potentially good leader being backed by (and owe favors to...) one or two super rich people, we have been left with poor leaders who are excellent fund raisers and who owe favors to many many people.
One of the most appealing things about politicians like Bloomberg or Perot is their freedom to do the job without oweing any special favors. The same or better could be said about a candidate that was sponsored solely by a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Everyone would know that the was a connection between the two and special favors would be glaring obvious and embarrassing.
The way campaign funding works now, I have almost no idea who the candidates really owe. Sure I could track down the long lists of info if I so desired, but it's a very long list for each and every candidate. I also have very how to direct my daily purchasing in regards to political spending, ie. If I buy a pint of Ben and Jerry's is the profit fro that going to go into a Democratic election coffer? What about Snapple, I heard somewhere that they donate Republican. Regardless the politicians owe more favors because the must collect from more sources.
The rich people still give lots of money, and still have disproportionate political influence, but now it is filtered through a dozen different "Friends of..." and "Citizens for..." groups. If campaign reforms worked at all the way they were intended, why have the candidates become ever less trustworthy and inspiring?
Hillary was on the board of directors for Wal-mart.
Romney was the CEO of Bain & Company.
Giuliani founded Giuliani Partners, a security consulting business and is a partner of Bracewell & Giuliani, a law firm.
With regard to the entry you linked to - ever notice how almost no candidate actually acts on the platform that they speak so much about during an election?
Now, with that in mind, why do you actually buy into what a candidate says their platform is? Looking at their past actions is much *much* more indicative of their actions if they actually get the office they are running for,
For quite awhile they did... MSNBC still does... CNN has wised up (in my opinion) and is beginning to support it...
So you are saying that CNN, after everything that's happened now is supporting the whole debacle? Are they believing now in the existence of the famous mass destruction weapons, too?
The US would be quite entertaining, had it not such an influence on everyone else...
It's about instability and anarchy in Iraq, and a heavy terrorist presence funded by the Iranian government.
This is a self-enforcing prophecy. You claim that we need to help with the instability by leaving troops there, which further increases the instability... We could be there 50 years, and that will not change.
Courage would involve doing something different, not following the same old methodology that has been proven a failure.
Iraq's infrastructure was completely in the dumps long before 2003.
So? It still worked better than what they have now.
The UN... and plumbing.
So? It still worked better than what they have now.
You really think that the previous military and law enforcement regimes were bastions of just, and even-handed peacekeeping?
Who said that? Post a link.
If you cannot, then you're beating a strawman. Which means you've already lost the discussion.
You mean, like, in between burying non-Sunnis in mass graves, shooting at NATO aircraft ever week for years after signing a cease-fire that said they wouldn't, after invading a neighboring country?
So? Saddam couldn't even travel his own country without a body-double. He was constantly in danger of assassination.
So why are you defending the plight of the average Iraqi now... because of something that Saddam did... years ago... that they probably did not support?
Saddam was executed. He's dead. Isn't it time you moved on instead of trying to blame him for the anarchy and warlordism that is Iraq today?
It wasn't Iran that did that, it was Saddam.
He's dead. He was executed. Yet the situation did not improve. Are you going to keep blaming Saddam for the current situation?
And now it's Iran's mullahs that don't want anything healthy, peaceful, and democratic thriving next door, since they know that that's exactly what most of their younger populat desparately want right there in their own country.
Then we should just wait until the "their younger populat" becomes the government in 20 or so years.
And so we have Iran shipping troops, explosives, cash, and more aross the border in an attempt, via badly painted proxies, to prevent things from productively moving ahead.
They can ship all they want. Without Iraqi support, it would go no where.
The problem you don't want to face is that the Iraqi people do not seem to want our troops there. They're happy to attack them.
Are you actually under the impression that Iran is just a warm and fuzzy neighbor that only wants to help out, now that their poor Sunni tyrant next door is out of power, and, alas, as dead as the millions of people that died when he started a war with Iran, too? Yeesh.
Again with the strawman. Is that all you have?
No matter how bad Iraq was, our invasion fucked it up even worse.
No matter how much the Iraqis hated Saddam and/or Iran, they prefer them to us.
No matter how much we spend (lives and money) in Iraq, when we leave it will be a civil war.
No matter how we re-define "victory", Iraq will end up with a Sharia-based legal system and strong ties to Iran.
You can blame anyone you want to. But all you're doing is trying to hide from the fact that you supported a fucked up invasion and the result is a lot more death and misery than Saddam inflicted. Yes, it is possible to say Saddam was a vicious 3rd world tin-pot dictator... and that our invasion was WORSE for the average Iraqi than that.
Didn't you watch the show? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Didn't you watch the show? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently Stephen earns the money he makes by appearing as "Talent" on a show which sells advertising. The shows sponsors are paying him for attracting viewer - rather than advancing a political agenda. I don't know that Stephen's "Campaign" is directly funded by the people who pay him to do his job.
Aik
Parent
COLBERT NATION!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:COLBERT NATION!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
He Knows This (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He Knows This (Score:5, Insightful)
I may well vote for him. Unless Ron Paul wins the Republican primary, which I consider doubtful, I will likely vote for Stephen Colbert. People who actually want to be president generally shouldn't be allowed to be.
Parent
Re:He Knows This (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:He Knows This (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:He Knows This (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't even become a viable candidate in this country unless you have been vetted and supported by prominent corporations and aristocrats. There's a reason all of the candidates are essentially the same on both sides of the aisle and why the new boss is almost always the same as the old boss. It's because they're only made viable by the same real "bosses" every time.
Parent
This has been addressed on the report (Score:5, Informative)
In any case he and his show lawyers aren't as stupid as they pretend to be and they will make sure they stay on the right side of the law in case this does get taken seriously.
We are lucky...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We are lucky...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would we want to reduce the rights of corporations to
merely those of "citizens"?
Parent
Re:We are lucky...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Oh come on.. (Score:4, Funny)
Steven Colbert's for the win (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics in the US is outright pathetic. That may sound crass - but really, where is the candidate that doesn't have a stick up his ass and his hand in the cookie jar.
Re:Steven Colbert's for the win (Score:5, Funny)
Your fetishes interest me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Parent
Getting into debates (Score:5, Informative)
Heh, I'd love to watch this as well. I was curious about what the requirements were to get into the debates, so I did a little googling. I can't find the criteria for the 2008 Presidential election (which are presumably pretty different, considering a number of the candidates in the debate don't meet the criteria below), but for curiosity's sake here's the criteria used in the the 2004 election debates:
http://debates.org/pages/candsel2004.html [debates.org]
* Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility: yup, Colbert's >35 years old and is a natural born citizen (born in DC, actually)
* Evidence of Ballot Access: he needs to get on enough state ballots to be able to theoretically win the election (270 electoral votes). I'm not familiar with the requirements for each state, but I imagine this could be tricky.
* Indicators of Electoral Support: He needs to poll at least 15% nationally. He's already polling ahead of Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. He also got 13% in polls which pitted him against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani [rasmussenreports.com].
Parent
yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)
But what if they are not actually doing anything except "playing along" and agreeing to let him "pretend" to have a corporate sponsor?
And if they are indeed paying "something", what if they are paying it to THE COLBERT REPORT?
Why can't the media be this interested in real shenanigans going on in politics?
is it because "real" politics does not have TASTY DORITOS? They are delicious.
Re:yeah but... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Guantanamo? (Score:5, Funny)
In my country someone made a joke about running against our President and he was sent the toxic waste mines. We love our President and do not want his good name to be besmirched by hoodlums. From what I can tell Mr Colbert has made many jokes about your President yet he has evaded the Secret Police.
Do such things happen in America now too? I don't know much about your country. I do know from watching American TV that crime is very bad there and people hire vigilantes like Robert McCall to scare off drug dealers who are menacing them. Here in our country we have no crime, since undesirables are worked to death in the mines. Why doesn't your President hire more policemen using aid money from the decadent imperialist west?
There is a great history of comedic candidates (Score:5, Interesting)
Pat Paulsen ran many times for President and even got some write-in votes. It's conceivable that Colbert could get a lot of protest votes.
I don't know the law well but there are some places where write in votes count. If that were the case here, Colbert could win without being on the ballot. That would be really funny. If you're not on the ballot, how can you be charged with campaign violations?
(Yes, I know about the Electoral College etc. etc.)
Might as well make medical school criminal for MDs (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is some great comedy (Score:5, Funny)
1.000.000? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:1.000.000? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Truthiness (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
The crazy thing is, I'd actually vote for Colbert, no qualms at all.. and I'm fairly serious about politics. (Watch his speech at the Bush dinner if you at all doubt his intelligence and capability). Even if some of the 'real' candidates look alright (Barack, say).. The last eight years have left me so disillusioned with politicians that I don't really trust any of them. Although I personally didn't support Bush in the least back in '00.. I could have in no way predicted that he'd be the power-hungry, numbskull, overarching leader he turned out to be. Sure his past was spotty (drugs, alcohol, some dumb decisions).. but not a whole lot worse than, say, your average college kid.
I'm reminded of a quote (can't find exact quote atm..) Anyone capable of being elected president doesn't deserve the title. Such is the state of money-dominated politics. I'd actually we randomly select a 'president' from a hat of all eligible citizens every six months or so — give 'em a short reign so they can't screw it up too badly.
Interestingly, I know some very bright guys doing research into randomized elections — basically you randomize the outcome somewhat to bypass the restrictions of Arrow's impossiblity theorem.
Parent
Douglas Adams (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why Colbert? (Score:5, Informative)
Clowns? Perhaps you should take a look at the real presidential candidates before you call Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, "clowns".
I dare you to NOT find a clown running for president.
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because we didn't get Halliburton/Enron in 2000? Hell at least Doritos isn't stealing peoples pensions to buy enormous yachts (that we know of).
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to complain about pension funds getting raided to pay for yachts, I'd like to direct your attention to:
-American car makers
-American steel makers
-American air carriers
-every state and local government pension fund
-the US Social Security system (I know, getting way off topic here)
All private companies listed above offered long-deferred compensation that they never bothered to fund in advance to actuarially-accurate levels, making them vulnerable to those expenses in the future. Because they got cheaper labor (by deferring part of workers' compensation) they were supposed to set aside a fund, but instead it was spent on dividends and bonuses. It is exactly as if I took out a giant business loan, paid it out as a dividend, and then complained about "legacy interest costs". Until recently, that was all with the blessing of the SEC.
In the case of the government agencies above, they take money that should be used to fully fund the obligations and instead spend it on present fads.
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:4, Informative)
Even if Enron didn't offer a pension, they did cheat their employees out of their retirement. I say this because the big wigs at Enron knew about their impending collapse, and did not warn the employees. The executives knew that the company was horribly overvalued and heading for ruin, and let the employees take the fall.
So while in the most strict interpretation of the term "pension", you may be correct, the power players at Enron were certainly aware that they were screwing their underlings, and seemed to have no qualms about it.
Frankly, I'm just disappointed that the biggest of the big wigs died mysteriously (and quite conveniently) not long after being found guilty by a jury of his peers. Amazing how of course that meant his money was distributed to his family rather than to those from whom he cheated it out of.
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, Enron screwed over its employees because it didn't assist them them in illegal insider trading by dumping their stock onto some sucker before the financial weakness was public information?
No, Enron's employees fared much better than if their employer had offered a conventional pension. For one thing, if they chose to divert their 401(k) funds to any investment other than Enron stock (i.e. followed rudimentary diversification advice), they would have kept everthing short the company match (i.e. most of it). In a convetional pension, they either would have gotten nothing, or what the PBGC chose to award them from *other* workers' premiums.
The point is not that Enron's management was blameless, but that raiding a pension fund (i.e. withdrawing dedicated investment funds) is one crime they did not commit. And while I do feel for the the employees, we need to quit pretending they were passive bystanders in all of this. They thought they could make fast money and so ignored the boring diversification advice. Claiming that executives should say their own stock is overvalued, even if true, is unrealistic.
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:5, Interesting)
In a Republic, it is the business of every free citizen to participate. Most, however, do not. If you don't like it, participate. But that means more than just voting, and that means starting early. If you don't have a record of success, if you don't have the connections, you'll never make it. You can't blame people for succeeding when you don't.
Its tempting to think that some "normal" person can become President, but I'm not going to vote for a random IT worker or the town druggist for anything more than town council or congressman. Why? Because if they had the chops that it takes to be President, then they would have done more with their life than that. Everyone has to start somewhere, but you can't jump straight into the big game.
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm kinda with the parent on this one. I have zero respect for GWB but being rich and/or powerful does not automatically make one evil. Is Warren Buffett evil?
I'll grant you that GWB wouldn't have made it past college without his family connections. To me that's somewhat anti-American. Americans aren't supposed to condone or support the concept of a permanent nobility. We fought a revolution to free ourselves from it. That's one of the reasons why I'm always amused when people whine about the estate tax.
People like Paris Hilton are rightfully despised because they've never accomplished anything on their own and the only reason they are famous is because of their parents. I doubt I'll ever be rich but should I happen to make the right choices in life and wind up rich and/or powerful I won't be leaving millions of dollars to my kids. They should find success on their own.
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:5, Funny)
Although I could have sworn that he once said $640,000 ought to be enough for anybody...
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not an election-law lawyer or expert, but: You do not have to be nominated to run, but it can be difficult getting your name on the ballot in states without a party backing you. It doesn't have to be Republican or Democrat; Libertarians regularly get their candidates on most state ballots as far as I am aware. I don't think Perot had a party backing him the second time.
As to the second part: If, in 2008, 51% of people in states making up at least 270 electoral votes voted for, say, Bill Gates, then he would be the legal winner, on a ballot or not. A vote is legal regardless of if the person has a party backing them. The person may not be legally eligible to be president however; you have to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen (plus a few other requirements, like spending the last five or ten years with the US as your primary residence, or something).
Anyone can run, and anyone over 35/natural citizen can actually be put in office. And I can legally vote for anyone I want, and the vote counts.
Parent
Bourgeoisie? Mai non..... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm actually warming up to the idea of corporate sponsorship of political candidates. "The Stephen Colbert Presidential Candidacy, brought to you by Doritos". Yeah, that has a nice ring. Political candidates have to seek approval, at most, once every couple of years. But Americans are voting with their dollars several times every day. They vote for who will be rich and powerful several times a day based not on what's philosphically agreeable to them, but on what they actually want - with a direct negative impact to their bank account. Political votes are free and voluntary. Capitalist votes (with dollars) are also voluntary, but not free. That's the beauty of capitalism - when a transaction is finalized, both parties say "Thank You" - because I wanted the Doritos more than I wanted the dollar, and they wanted the dollar more than they wanted the Doritos.
Mutually agreeable is a good thing, no?
So why not let those whom we've already voted into power have a large impact on elections?
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, Halliburton is a nice, community-focused, law-abiding facilitator of world peace... rrright ?
What I like about Canada is up here, we have sponsorship scandals. In the states, it's just business as usual. I'm not saying the Canadian government is devoid of corruption, geez, we've got a bunch of asshats too! The thing is, when any law prohibits some activity, people find ways around that law. People with money are typically better equipped to find, establish and employ those workarounds. Me, law or no law, I couldn't get any TV show to promote my campaign because I'm a broke ass geek.
Most everything follows the same pattern... copy-protection: no-cd patches, DVD CSS: decrypters, Laws: loopholes. The reason they all fail is because of the human factor. People make them, and people will break them.
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Campaign finance reform is a barrier to entry to keep the parties in control of government.
Parent
Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the laws have the inverse effect. Instead of a potentially good leader being backed by (and owe favors to...) one or two super rich people, we have been left with poor leaders who are excellent fund raisers and who owe favors to many many people.
One of the most appealing things about politicians like Bloomberg or Perot is their freedom to do the job without oweing any special favors. The same or better could be said about a candidate that was sponsored solely by a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Everyone would know that the was a connection between the two and special favors would be glaring obvious and embarrassing.
The way campaign funding works now, I have almost no idea who the candidates really owe. Sure I could track down the long lists of info if I so desired, but it's a very long list for each and every candidate. I also have very how to direct my daily purchasing in regards to political spending, ie. If I buy a pint of Ben and Jerry's is the profit fro that going to go into a Democratic election coffer? What about Snapple, I heard somewhere that they donate Republican. Regardless the politicians owe more favors because the must collect from more sources.
The rich people still give lots of money, and still have disproportionate political influence, but now it is filtered through a dozen different "Friends of..." and "Citizens for
Parent
Re:at least we know where colbert's money came fro (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I hope he doesn't run serously. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, with that in mind, why do you actually buy into what a candidate says their platform is? Looking at their past actions is much *much* more indicative of their actions if they actually get the office they are running for,
Parent
Re:Fox News illegal then? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are saying that CNN, after everything that's happened now is supporting the whole debacle? Are they believing now in the existence of the famous mass destruction weapons, too?
The US would be quite entertaining, had it not such an influence on everyone else...
Parent
Re:Fox News illegal then? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a self-enforcing prophecy. You claim that we need to help with the instability by leaving troops there, which further increases the instability... We could be there 50 years, and that will not change.
Courage would involve doing something different, not following the same old methodology that has been proven a failure.
Parent
Beat that strawman! (Score:4, Insightful)
So? It still worked better than what they have now.
So? It still worked better than what they have now.
Who said that? Post a link.
If you cannot, then you're beating a strawman. Which means you've already lost the discussion.
So? Saddam couldn't even travel his own country without a body-double. He was constantly in danger of assassination.
So why are you defending the plight of the average Iraqi now
Saddam was executed. He's dead. Isn't it time you moved on instead of trying to blame him for the anarchy and warlordism that is Iraq today?
He's dead. He was executed. Yet the situation did not improve. Are you going to keep blaming Saddam for the current situation?
Then we should just wait until the "their younger populat" becomes the government in 20 or so years.
They can ship all they want. Without Iraqi support, it would go no where.
The problem you don't want to face is that the Iraqi people do not seem to want our troops there. They're happy to attack them.
Again with the strawman. Is that all you have?
No matter how bad Iraq was, our invasion fucked it up even worse.
No matter how much the Iraqis hated Saddam and/or Iran, they prefer them to us.
No matter how much we spend (lives and money) in Iraq, when we leave it will be a civil war.
No matter how we re-define "victory", Iraq will end up with a Sharia-based legal system and strong ties to Iran.
You can blame anyone you want to. But all you're doing is trying to hide from the fact that you supported a fucked up invasion and the result is a lot more death and misery than Saddam inflicted. Yes, it is possible to say Saddam was a vicious 3rd world tin-pot dictator
Parent