Obama's Privacy Reform Panel Will Report To ... the NSA
569
FuzzNugget writes "No, you didn't just stumble upon The Onion by mistake. Ars Technica reports that Obama's 'reform' panel will report directly to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who arguably lied to Congress about whether the NSA conducted dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications. But is anyone really surprised?"
Arguably lied? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either he did or he didn't, there's no in-between. In actuality he lied, and did it intentionally.
Technically, I don't think one can lie unintentionally.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course there is inbetween.
There is the truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth.
IMHO, he gave us the truth, but not the whole truth.
Like if I were to ask you if LInux was open source, what would you say? Yes or no?
If you say yes, you have lied, as it contains binary blob firmware. or because most people think of Linux as an operating system, and Ubuntu has many components ( Binary drivers and what not) that are not open source.
If you say no, you have lied, as its released under an open source li
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Informative)
No.
He was asked if they collected the data on Americans. He said no. That was a lie. It was in no part true. Anyone who knew about Bill Binney [wikipedia.org] or the Quantico Circuit [wikipedia.org] knew it was a lie even before the echo of his words died down in the room.
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
James Clapper: "No, sir"
Wyden: "It does not?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertantly perhaps collect, but not wittingly."
That is not the truth, but not the whole truth. That is a flat-out lie, told under oath before a Senatorial committee.
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm tired of this 'arguably' and 'allegedly' garbage. James Clapper has already apologized for lying to Congress. HE LIED TO CONGRESS AND HE ADMITTED IT. There is no more 'arguable' or 'allegedly' any more. It is misinformation to keep taking black and white concrete facts and use gray words in their place. It's like there's a hidden agenda somewhere to try to keep people confused on the simplest of facts.
Therefore, Obama appointed the man in charge of the NSA, who already lied to Congress, to investigate possible reforms for the NSA. But then again, Obama also lied about the extent of the NSA's surveillance. The day after Snowden's original revelations, Obama stated that they only collect 'meta' data - but not actual phone calls. Then, recently, he states that they make copies of everything but do not look at it. Therefore, Obama's original statement was a lie.
But that's how our country works.. Obama can lie directly to our faces. James Clapper can lie directly to Congress. And the media will say 'they may have lied.'
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Interesting)
He himself later apologized for lying to congress:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/02/james-clapper-apologizes-for-lying-to-congress-about-nsa-surveillance-clearly-erroneous/ [theblaze.com]
So he definitely lied.
Yet he was never charged with a crime.
I suppose this sets the precedent that all you have to do after committing a capital felony is give a half-assed apology, and you're off scot-free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much more important to prosecute for lying about taking steroids to play baseball than it is to prosecute for lying about fucking your country.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that he only apologized after being proven a liar, implies that trust is nowhere to be had when they speak to use petty citizens. Trust us is a bridge that has been burned from the start. You do not lie when the truth will do.
Re: Arguably lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, I wonder is Clapper will do the same?
Actually, no, I don't wonder, I know he will.
With this administration its always
1). We're shocked this happened, we will investigate!
2). Assign investigation to the person/group accused of wrongdoing.
3). Profit????? Well at least pay no price......
They aren't taking the issue seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
It's up to us to contact our representatives and let them know that they can't just sweep this under the rug like usual. There has to be consequences.
Re:They aren't taking the issue seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
What consequences exactly?
The same consequences Congress faced when they were found to be engaged in RAMPANT insider-trading?
The same consequences the Bankers faced when they purposefully bankrupted Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac?
The same consequences we see any member of government facing for the NSA spying debacle?
Look guy, I hate to break it to you but the "America" you believed in never really existed and it's never going to exist.
In generations past, we had the facade of that America and everyone tried their best to preserve that ideal.
But the cat's been out of the bag for quite awhile now.
Fact is, Congress and the President are jointly focused on obtaining as much power and control over you as possible.
It's no longer about liberty, it's about Federal might and majesty.
It's just a matter of time before the entirely of the Constitution is circumvented by Congress.
Democracy has failed (Score:5, Interesting)
I've slowly started to come to the view that representative democracy has basically failed. It's time to try a new system.
What that system should be up for discussion but the idea of voting for representatives who then decide the policy has been tried and failed. It's too easy for corruption to take root and it's too easy for those people to grab power for power's sake.
I refuse to accept that there is no better solution than the status-quo. There must be a way to capture the will of the people, protect minorities, and protect the people from government overreach. There must be a way to have our cake and eat it.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is two corrupt parties. I don't see how guaranteeing only those parties public finance will change things. It will make it worse.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
No it won't. It will do nothing. The voter has to learn to resist propaganda, and think critically. Check the records, not the campaign speeches. Campaign 'reform' is a bullshit shell game, just like term limits. They will find another way to launder the money.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Interesting)
After citizen's united there is no real chance of campaign finance reform.
Do you know how many decades people worked for in various states to get campaign finance reform at the state level and to have it wiped out in a single instant by the supreme court.
Do you have any idea how difficult it will be to get this fixed at the federal level since it would require a constitutional amendment. Corporations will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to defeat it and that much money will win. They will have studies that play everywhere constantly about how great it is that money is the same as speech etc.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as the Fed. government can raise taxes with no upper limit, the country will inexorably become a feudal state with the serf-citizens who literally work their entire lives to feed the Fed.
And then the Feds, debase the value of any savings you manage to hide away from them.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Representative democracy is subverted from the very beginning and its so easy to subvert. Most of the voting population make their voting decisions in the same way they make purchasing decisions. By the way, the majority of people don't evaluate the relative benefits etc of the various products they get to choose from. They make their decisions based on advertising. Advertising works, its worth big money, theres no argument there.. It works for products and services and it 'works' for democracy too.
The people who control the advertising control the democracy and so democracy almost automatically transforms into mediacracy.
Re: (Score:3)
There must be a way to have our cake and eat it.
Probably not the best metaphor. Once you eat your cake, you don't have it anymore.
I agree, though, that the situation has room for improvement. Term limits, direct voting, jury duty-like selection for public office? There's got to be something in there that will fix issues like this.
It works, ours is just broken. (Score:4, Interesting)
More than anything else, I've been arguing for years that the biggest problem we have in our representative republic is our single-vote system. What we need is an instant runoff voting system to replace our single-vote ballot. I'm tired of the debates over Perot's role in 1992 every time a party needs to drum up support for an unpopular candidate, the debates over how to dethrone current party establishments without splitting the vote and thus forefitting to the other major party among Democrats and Republicans (well, mostly spoken of by Republicans actually), Libertarians and Greens voting for R and D candidates because their own party "can't win", and so on.
The only two ways to dethrone our two same-result-different-rhetoric parties are either to challenge the establishment in primaries (which occasionally works, but more often seems not to work) or to effectively end the monopoly they have on the ballot box by eliminating this idiotic idea that a third-party vote is thrown away. Instant runoff means no vote is wasted, no matter how unlikely a voter's highest-ranked candidate's victory seems.
Example: I know a lot of people who hated Romney and Obama as candidates, and would have liked to have selected someone else, but were so terrified of one or the other that they voted for the one who was most likely to defeat the one who scared them most. That's no way to elect a leader. Similarly, we could have used this process during the primaries to avoid similar problems in candidate selection. Especially states with early primaries, where it could be used to correct for candidates dropping out before the conventions. Though to be fair, most people are unaware that they elect delegates, not candidates.
The whole issue of picking candidates based not on merit but on "electability" is poison to a healthy democratic election.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always been partial to the idea of having government officials selected from a lottery drawing of any citizen, similar to a draft.
At the minimum, I wouldn't mind seeing term limits in Congress.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather than having professional career politicians drafting bills for consideration by house representatives, have a committee drawn from the General Population in a similar way to jury selection.
A single professional lawmaker is used in a similar way to a judge to oversee the committee, they ensure the process is legal, give instructions but can't make a decision about the outcome.
A committee is formed to consider a specific issue put forwards from 'somewhere' which would be phrased in a high level term which the committee can agree to or ammend,e.g. Committe recommends that National Speed Limits should be increased in light of improvements in vehicle handling but maximum Blood Alcohol of drivers level should be reduced.
Professional lawmakers then turn those high level recommendations into a proper draft bill but must meet all the high level recommendations and only the high level recommendations (no tacking on a Internet monitoing clause into the bill for transport) before the bill is passed on to the House and Senate in the normal way.
The randomess of the committee should (if the sample is large enough) represent some sort of democratic consensus and the short period and limited powers of the committee members makes bribery and corporate influence harder / less effective.
In essence, it's a 3rd layer of the Legislature acting as a filter to the ideas which are allowed to be discussed by the other 2 legislative entities.
Re: (Score:3)
A republic is a democracy; what you said is nonsense.
Also, republics are the most sensible forms of democracy.
American version of Hanlon's Razor (Score:5, Informative)
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day (Score:3, Interesting)
Sarah Palin is an anti-intellectual spawn of Satan, but it is rather funny how that obnoxious line from one of her red meat rallies - "How's that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?" turned out to be oddly prophetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Who else would they report to? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a panel to determine if the US "employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust."
This isn't supposed to be oversignt. It's entirely for the NSA's benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a panel to determine if the US "employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust."
This isn't supposed to be oversignt. It's entirely for the NSA's benefit.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Whoever determined the purpose of this panel (ostensibly, Mr. Obama) missed the point of why Americans are upset. Furthermore, it indicates that the Administration has no intention of changing the status quo. This is why it is newsworthy and why it's to our benefit to know and understand what a "privacy reform panel" looks like. There are other threads discussing how to go about realizing real change (in the broken American political system), so I will refer you to those
Getting screwed (Score:5, Funny)
You know, at least politicians of yesteryear would *convincingly* lie to us. I really appreciated the time and effort they went to to construct these elaborate castles of "inaccuracies", all in an effort to appease the masses.
These new politicians...I dunno...they don't even *try* anymore. It's like they're too busy screwing us and just phone in the excuses.
Re: (Score:3)
And this surprises you?
Last time I was surprised was in 2003, after it became evident there were no WMDs in Iraq. I expected public outcry, heads to roll. Nothing happened.
Panel Will Also Operate in Secret (Score:5, Informative)
The article doesn't state it, but I heard on CBS News Radio this morning that the panel will also operate in secret, and all records will be classified.
Nothing to see here, move along, citizen. Thank you for your cooperation.
The worrisome thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that they live in a world so far removed from our own - in which civil rights, due process and conflicts of interest are active concerns - to such an extent that doing something like this "ain't no thang". Disturbing.
Frankly, they could have at least pretended to give a shit.
Putting the fox in charge of the henhouse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yay (Score:3)
The people investigating wrong-doing will be supervised by the wrong-doers.
"arguably"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
...the Director of National Intelligence who arguably lied to congress about whether the NSA conducted dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications.
Damn /. editors, you misspelled "arguably". The proper spelling is D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y.
hilarious! (Score:3)
WTF? Clapper is NOT the NSA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
how to get by (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:how to get by (Score:5, Insightful)
You can cower and boot-lick your way through life if you want. Me, I want to live free.
Hence the Anonymous Cowardice.
Try reading the Federalist Papers some time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or Common Sense by Tom Paine. Then remember that both sets of documents were originally published anonymously in order to protect the authors.
Still think being Anonymous (especially in this political climate) is a bad idea?
Re:Try reading the Federalist Papers some time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Still think that AC is actually anonymous to those we're talking about here?
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many puppets. Do you still think you have options?
Yes, the ones the corporate media fails to acknowledge. If they were puppets they'd be covered by the press.
Last election I voted Green Party, although since my daughter lives in Ohio I encouraged her to vote Obama. Ohio is a swing state, I support the Occupy movement, and the Republicans ran a corporate raiding, job killing 1%er from Wall Street who made millions on the suffering of others.
I won't vote Libertarian because they're only for giving the corporations and the rich assholes who run them the liberty to trample my rights, put me in an unsafe work environment, and make the air as filthy as it was before the EPA (as well as dismantling our already almost nonexistent safety nets).
I won't vote Constitution party because they want the US to be a Christian theocracy. Sorry but as a Christian I'm prohibited from forcing my morals on others ("do unto others). This is a secular nation with the right to worship anything you want, including Wicca, Satan, FSM, money (our country's primary religion) or nothing at all.
But I'd be stupid (except in the rare occasion that you're in a swing state and one of the two main candidates is a monster like Romney) to vote R or D because they want to put me in jail for smoking pot (I have arthritis and yeah, I like to get high). You have loved ones who smoke pot, why are you voting for people who want them in prison? That's just brain dead stupid.
Don't stay home on election day, vote for a loser and show your discontent with the status quo (that is, unless you like the NSA trolling through your email and phone records and want your children or parents or friends in jail).
NO VOTE IS WASTED.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. But his monsterdom wasn't apparent until after his election, when he took a royal steaming shit on the good will of hope and change he had campaigned on. And he is still less of a monster compared to Romney.
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Interesting)
His reelection is explained by his opponent being Mitt Romney.
Re: (Score:3)
Every person capable of climbing up the political ladder in current political climate in a decently large country is a monster. Calling them monsters will do absolutely nothing to defeat them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, any religious people SHOULD do that but spreading the word is not the same thing as forcing your rules on others.
People like The Constitution Party want to push their interpretation of their religion's rules on people, not introduce them to their god.
If you think you know God and that he is everyone's creator, ticket to eternal life, etc... especially if your religion says the alternative is eternal damnation then you certainly should want to help others know him too. You would be kind of a monster no
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. In the past 4 presidential elections, the only time a 3rd party candidate managed to get more than 1% of the popular vote (yet still 0% of the electoral votes) was in 2000 when Nader had 2.78% of the popular vote and if a fraction of his votes had gone to Gore, George W Bush wouldn't have made it to the white house.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Interesting)
"One vote" is a pretty ridiculous system. The will of the people is much better represented when one person can simultaneously vote for both his favorites. Or all three. One vote per person per candidate, not one vote per person, makes much more sense. It would also get more people voting, since they can actually pick the one they want to win, AND the lesser evil.
Of course, such a system would give independent candidates a chance. That will not be tolerated.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that brilliant, it's been well known for ages. How to make a good, fair voting system is a solved problem. Getting governments to implement it is the difficult bit.
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
So it's better to never vote at all?
I have never seen a candidate with whom I agree with 100%, so every candidate is somewhat "evil" in that he's not completely in agreement with my principles.
If I feel that one candidate is 10% in line with my ideals, another one is 50% in line with my ideals, and a distant third candidate with no realistic hope of winning is 75% in line with my ideals, I'd rather use my vote to bring in the 50% candidate rather than vote for the 75% candidate knowing that makes the 10% candidate more likely to win.
Or I could just write-in myself since no running candidate is completely "non-evil".
Which is more of a waste of my vote?
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're satisfied with choosing between two sides of the same coin.
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
With polls, for instance [wikipedia.org], the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". There's no reason to suspect that this increased support stems from actually hearing the words "leading candidate" spoken orally. It wouldn't be much of a leap of logic to suspect that, in general, people are more likely to support a person who is believed to be a leading candidate. This seems to support my position more than it supports yours, in that it would explain why people are reluctant to support (either in polls or in actual elections) a candidate that is not perceived to be "leading". This is consistent with your own position, even.
If people voted for their own preferences instead of concerning themselves with how other people will vote (which is all you're doing when you bring up whether or not someone has any realistic hope of winning), the world would be a better place. But, from what I understand, that might let the wrong lizard win.
Re: (Score:3)
You're oversimplifying things...
Says the man completely ignoring the realities of our voting system to convince himself that 3rd party candidates can be viable in practice.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
So it's better to never vote at all?
I have never seen a candidate with whom I agree with 100%, so every candidate is somewhat "evil" in that he's not completely in agreement with my principles.
That's an extremely broad concept of "evil." As in, invalid.
As we have most recently seen with Obama, the positions he takes when he's in power are not the positions he takes when he's campaigning. I didn't vote for him in 2008 because as soon as he was nominated, he selected Joe Biden as his running mate. That was a strong signal that he was going to preserve the status quo on structural issues. I think Obama-care was the most significant difference with the Republican candidate, so we'll see how that goes.
You should vote for a person based on non-evil decision-making. Realistically, no one president is going to be able to repeal Roe v Wade. No one president is going to dismantle the military. NASA is not building a base on the moon. So vote for the candidate that, when faced with decisions that he can make, will probably make good decisions. I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary because of a quirk of California voting law and because he was campaigning on Change, and I really think the country needs to change. (Then he revealed Biden, and I realized: Nope, no major change.) I trust the third-party candidates more because they're upfront about the ideological basis of their decision-making.
I don't think there's a good way to quantify alignment with ideals. That leads to all sorts of problems with statistical weighting and evaluating how true the candidate is to the ideal. In my short adult life, I've thought that all the major candidates were less than 50% aligned with my interests. Also, writing yourself in is a silly protest. You need to vote for a team of delegates to the Electoral College.
Re: (Score:3)
If I feel that one candidate is 10% in line with my ideals, another one is 50% in line with my ideals, and a distant third candidate with no realistic hope of winning is 75% in line with my ideals, I'd rather use my vote to bring in the 50% candidate rather than vote for the 75% candidate knowing that makes the 10% candidate more likely to win.
The percentages in reality are more like this:
R: 99% evil.
D: 98% evil
Third party:50% evil
In this case, voting for either D or R is a complete waste of a vote. Vote f
Re: (Score:3)
Instant Runoff Elections solve this dilemma.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Interesting)
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
Absolutely true, in a mathematical sense even:
There are roughly 300 million people in the United States, of whom only one can be President at any given time.
With 300 million available candidates, many of whom are not nincompoops, why does America keep electing nincompoops to political office?
Sending a message to select 1 out of 300 million possibilities requires 29 bits. So if you vote in only the general election for the Presidency, then some mysterious force narrows the election down to 2 out of 300 million possibilities - exerting 28 bits of decision power - and then you, or rather the entire voting population, exert 1 more bit of decision power. If you vote in a primary election, you may send another 2 or 3 bits worth of message.
Where do the other 25 bits of decision power come from?
(...) Since around half the population is under the age of 35, at least one bit of the missing decision power is exerted by 55 delegates in Philadelphia in 1787. Though the "natural-born citizen" clause comes from a letter sent by John Jay to George Washington, a suggestion that was adopted without debate by the Philadelphia Convention.
(...) Likewise, not everyone would want to be President. (But see the hidden box: In principle the option exists of enforcing Presidential service, like jury duty.) How many people would run for President if they had a serious chance at winning? Let's pretend the number is only 150,000. That accounts for another 10 bits.
Then some combination of the party structure, and the media telling complicit voters who voters are likely to vote for, is exerting on the order of 14-15 bits of power over the Presidency; while the voters only exert 3-4 bits. And actually the situation is worse than this, because the media and party structure get to move first. They can eliminate nearly all the variance along any particular dimension. So that by the time you get to choose one of four "serious" "front-running" candidates, that is, the ones approved by both the party structure and the media, you're choosing between 90.8% nincompoop and 90.6% nincompoop.
I seriously think the best thing you can do about the situation, as a voter, is stop trying to be clever. Don't try to vote for someone you don't really like, because you think your vote is more likely to make a difference that way. Don't fret about "electability". Don't try to predict and outwit other voters. Don't treat it as a horse race. Don't worry about "wasting your vote" - it always sends a message, you may as well make it a true message.
(...) Oh - and if you're going to vote at all, vote in the primary. That's where most of your remaining bits and remaining variance have a chance to be exerted."
Source: Stop Voting For Nincompoops. [lesswrong.com]
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't change the fact that the corporate owned media gets to screen who gets the airtime they need to reach the public.
If you don't sell your soul to the corporate sector you will never make it past the primaries.
And unlike other elections, you do not get to write-in for the president.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't change the fact that the corporate owned media gets to screen who gets the airtime they need to reach the public.
The media are not in control, they are held hostage by the Commission on Presidential Debates to figure out who gets the juicy prime time debates that everyone will watch. The commission, in turn, in controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, so guess who gets to debate on TV? It used to be different, debates used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters, but they refused to participate in the 1988 election and released this statement:
"the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."
So the Democrats and Republicans took over the debates,
Re: (Score:3)
Elections currently take the form of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The dominant strategy is to vote for the "lesser of two evils" because the risks involved voting third party are far more severe, as demonstrated in the 2000 election.
America could benefit from Approval voting [wikipedia.org] and perhaps that would be a system that the public of both the left and right wing parties could agree upon? The big question would be how to get the idea to catch on and eventually voted in.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Funny)
Screw that, I'm voting for the GOOP
Why settle for a lesser evil when you can have can vote for the Great Old One Party?
Cthulhu/Nyarlathotep 2016!
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Your politics are rather black-and-white and naive. Are you a libertarian?
Who taught you to cast "black and white" aspersions as your "excuse" for the bad excuse?
(a) willingly vote for someone that you know is bad
(b) willingly vote for someone that you think might be good
Yes it really is black and white, but no it is not wrong or bad to see it for what it really is.
Do you know why?
Because the argument doesnt present an opinion. Instead, the argument examines an excuse that relates to your own opinion. The argument deals with your opinion of a man and your actions given that opinion of that man. Specifically the argument destroys the excuse of willingly voting for the lesser of two (in your opinion) evils, because it shows quite succinctly that you still voted for what you believed to be evil.
Its black and white because it doesnt present an opinion. I know its uncomfortable when someone tells you that you willingly voted for fucking evil. Doesnt change the fact that you willingly voted for fucking evil.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
Having more candidates is only the solution if we have approval voting. If we have plurality voting, then a two-party system is best. ...but a two-party system is terrible, which is why we need approval voting.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Funny)
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Re: (Score:3)
And sadly, all lizards are prescreened by the velociraptors that own the soapboxes the lizards use to campaign.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
In today's terms, they had 'skin in the game'.
The poor - who are, for the most part, the working poor, not the slovenly slothful parasites of Ayn Rand's potboiler daydreams - have the most 'skin the game' of anyone. Bad policy is more likely to result the literal loss of their skins--everything from limited access to costly healthcare to dangerous working conditions to weakening of environmental regulations disproportionately affects, and shortens the lives of, the poor.
Which means those who do have something spend all their time and money defending themselves against the mob (via buying the representatives outright) instead of making the whole society better.
I give up. Your argument appears to be that the system is broken because the wealthy landowners have to spend too much time and money to control the system, when they ought to have it for free; if we just put them in charge, then they would magically put that money and effort into vague and nonspecific improvement of society (to everyone's benefit!) --and not bickering amongst themselves. Sorry, not buying it.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Funny)
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Vote Libertarian, and get the best of no world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I won't vote for a "good politician". In fact, it's the willingness to compromise that's gotten us in this mess. Any time you compromise between what's good and what's evil, you move further from good towards evil. For example, it's always wrong to make legislation based on lobbying from large organizations (now, if they happen to be lobbying for something that is fundamentally right/good [needs definition], that is different because it's still the right thing to do and their lobbying is not what makes it s
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Informative)
Until there is a Libertarian candidate, who is remotely viable, picking Republicans is what Libertarians ought to be doing. Because Republicans are far less wrong on economy. And economic freedom is required for prosperity...
The [forbes.com] opposite [bloomberg.com] is [foxbusiness.com] literally [usnews.com] true [bostonglobe.com]. I don't personally vote economic issues (there's nothing wrong with doing so), but if I were to, voting Republican would not be an optimal choice.
On contrast, if an ultra-Conservative "RethugliKKKan" wins elections and, horrors, manages to outlaw abortions... Guess what? I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure.
You seem to primarily vote your wallet, and you also have a liberal position on at least one social issue, or, at least, you're not crazy about the Republican platform position on that issue (please correct me if I read you wrong). Again, nothing wrong with that, but holding a Republican preference with what you've shared of your political views seems... decidedly strange. I'd honestly be interested in how you arrived at the preference you have.
...the deterioration of our economy...
What [washingtonpost.com] deterioration [tradingeconomics.com]? Now, I'll be the first to admit that we're not exactly seeing Clinton-era growth, but we are seeing steady, albeit slow, improvement. Again, literally the opposite of deterioration.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, it must be a big surprise that such a lying politician came from Chicago. No one saw that coming, nosirree.
Excuse me, but he's from Kenya, not Chicago!
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
There had been enough hints in his previous mandate to know that the trend was just growing. And while voting for the other was been no change of direction, expressely voting no option, or choosing a third party, just to show that you don't approve what the main 2 are, would be a way. If a big enough percent of people didn't like (and expressed to be that way) any of the options, they would had at least a hint.
If you think this is already bad, there are still a few years for things getting even worse, and enough people that think just like you (that if is not one is the other), so the next election won't change trends at all, no matter if is elected the other party. Things will get so bad that 1984 will look like utopia, not distopia.
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Informative)
Things will get so bad that 1984 will look like utopia, not distopia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(book) [wikipedia.org]
Utopia isn't really what people think it is. Of course, the irony is that in modern usage, it does mean "perfect society" despite the satirical bent of More's original work.
And I believe 1984 was actually intended to look like Utopia in the first place, IIRC.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda like Bush. His ads, competence. (Score:5, Interesting)
> How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap
For me, Obama's own radio ads were what convinced me he'd be very bad for the country. Until he started running ads were I lived, I was hopeful he'd be inspiring ala JFK.
I pay attention to people who have managed to get something I want, who have succeeded in something I want to do. I ask them "how did you do that"?
So for me, Obama's message of attacking success was alarming. I see that people who show up ten minutes early, so I TRY to follow their example. Obama's message indicated if he punctual people who dress nice get ahead, he'd put an 80% tax on watches to knock down those selfish punctual people. He SHOULD look at the presidential portraits and ask "what would Kennedy do?". In the campaign, he seemed more likely to look at the Kennedy portrait and flip Kennedy off for doing better than him. So that's how I knew he'd pull a bunch of crap.
Combined with that, about a year before he started his campaign he said it would be "irresponsible" for him to run for president because "I believe in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job." He was correct in stating that he wouldn't know what to do as president, but that might have been okay IF he'd recognized that and followed the examples of successful presidents.Unfortunately, that's his number one flaw - he doesn't learn from successful people, he envies them and attacks whatever is successful.
> and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
It couldn't have been much worse. You might say 2008 was worse, but even awful Bush, in his first six years, looks better than Obama's first six years by most objective measures. That's comparing Obama to one of the worst presidents in history.
Romney at least appeared COMPETENT, though kind of slimy. He really reminds me of Bill Clinton in that way. On the economy, for example, everybody wants
for there to be more jobs. Romney, having something of a clue, would probably create more jobs. He wouldn't be focused on union jobs, if that matters to you, but non-union jobs are better than no jobs.
Re:Kinda like Bush. His ads, competence. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's "gutting" companies that are already failing. He extended the life of most of the companies further than would have been possible without his company's intervention.
WTF?? (Score:3)
"Oh, screw you. How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap..."
Are you F***ing serious? He had just been pulling the same bullshit for 4 years. You had 4 years (now 5) to figure out that he was doing all this. We knew. Why didn't you? It isn't like we weren't screaming about it to the heavens for years, eh? Oh, wait... yes, we were. We know more about the specifics now. But big deal. We did see it coming and we did warn you, loudly, for a long time.
"... and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?"
And as someone else already pointed out, there have always been more than 2 choices. And some of them were actually prett
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
Eyes pinched closed, fingers in their ears, going 'nah nah nah nah'.
They could have found a libertarian/green buddy (whichever they don't choose) and both vote for 3rd parties, feeling safe they wouldn't change the outcome of the 'lessor of two evils' election while still boosting the party they actually support.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
And most of you voted for him. I hope you are proud of yourselves.
Puhleeze.. don't be dense
Dude, when you are asked to eat a shit sandwich consisting of a bite on the left, or a bite on the right, the only choice you have is to look for an area where the shit is thinnest.
Re: Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
"...but, but, but, *BUSH*!"
Seriously, in your mind, at which point does Obama become responsible for his own actions?
It's not like the 2012 election was GWB vs. Obama.
Re: Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps Americans don't yet believe you have a One Party system. You know the one. It's called the Business Party (run by the rich and powerful for their own benefit) with two factions: Democrat and Republican.
Looking back, it seems like the USA was sold a raw deal. First, soften you up with Baby Bush (and his occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq after the event of 911 and the institution of the NSA spying program before the attacks), then turn around and hit you between the eyes with "Hope". Obama strengthened Baby Bush policies (including several additional rounds of giving money to the already rich bankers thru QE2 and QE3, as well as the currently discussed spying on American soil on Americans), and expanded Presidential power to "legally" execute whomever he chooses without the executed ever standing trial for their deeds.
Apparently habeas corpus and rights granted by the 4th amendment are too difficult and "heavy" concepts for simpleton-Americans to realize their value. Perhaps liberty and freedom are concepts just too remotely difficult to grasp and apply in any meaningful way to your daily lives.
Re: Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the conversation oh_my_080980980 is having right now is:
Mom: Barry-proxy-oh_my_080980980, did you take a cookie after you were told not to?
Barry-proxy-oh_my_080980980: But Georgie took one too!
Any adult knows the problem with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be accurate FDR started wire tapping BEFORE 9/11. They've gotten better at it, but the moral line was crossed long ago.
To be fair FDR had us wire tapping the English and Australians. The English and Australian spooks were wiretapping our parents and grandparents.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, no.
100 Senators, 435 Representatives.