Fuck the Police State

[TempestTS]

The flaws in this argument are many. One is the substitution of a transitive relation (namely "equality") for two other binary relations (namely "buys" and "results") neither of which is "equality" one of which is not even transitive. This isn't logic, it's sophistry. It also confuses the notion of influencing an action and purchasing an action. It make a fine metaphor, but one that turns ugly when used to depress the vote. Then it just plays into the hands of the influential. Don't be played. It turns even uglier when used to foment violent overthrow of our elected government.

I dont advocate violence - revolution does not need to be a violent act although it often is of necessity due to those who wish to continue to hold on to control and power against what the populous wishes - once again research Iceland's recent change in their governing structure.

Icleland's revolution was peaceful - we just didnt hear about it in the media

now ask yourself "Why not" and then ask yourself who controls the media... and then you have your answer to where power lies.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/...olution-quiet/

You seem to think the vote has power - I agree that It did and it should - I simply face the truth that its gone except of a slim shadow made of smoke and mirrors and think something must be done to get it back. Something our founding fathers also believed just in a different era but things were all to much the same - the issue then was taxation (and being governed) without any real representation. I argue that its become the same and to change that some form of revolution is required.

The system is broken and must be reinvented and refreshed, the police state (which you dont seem to even mention) exists to protect that broken system so they too must be removed from positions of unjust power and replaced with a system for which the position was originally intended.

When peaceful protests of banks and corporations are met with violent paramilitary opposition who do you think is being Protected and Served? Its not the people, its not the voters...

[broncofan]

In an election with millions of people voting, the percentage chance that your vote is the decisive one is infinitesimally small. But that doesn't mean that money alone buys elections. It buys exposure. But I have seen a tremendous number of local elections where a candidate loses despite outspending his rival four or five to one. And the potential still exists for financially powerful candidates to lose to those with a good grassroots operation in national elections as well.

Do we have a two party system? That's how the interests have aggregated. But if there were a third option that had enough support that third party could presumably win elections. One problem is that the major parties do not want to bifurcate and lose support in the process...but that is just a strategic choice to hug the median view for the greatest chance of success in elections.

I also think that political parties have to respond to changes in the social environment. Republicans have lost ground when it comes to dictating to the public their homophobic agenda and as a result they tread more lightly on the issue. They have certainly reacted to public disapproval to moderate their views. They no longer seek to outlaw consensual homosexual intercourse (part of that has to do with Supreme Court precedent). But do you think their evangelical supporters are okay with them giving up that fight? Probably not. And their most extreme members could form a third party based on the strictest interpretation of traditional values, but they would guarantee a win for the Democratic party by dividing up the big tent.

So a major reason third parties do not have a reasonable chance of success in national elections is that people are too afraid of cannibalizing the vote of their closest major party. And there are many ways to raise money and awareness at the grassroots level. Social change takes place incrementally, but just as monied interests can influence people, the collective public can influence the message of our political candidates by participating in the political process.

[broncofan]

Summary: activism works not by directly influencing the outcome of an upcoming election but by educating people about social issues. This information flows upwards to political candidates who ultimately have to appeal to the public. Is some information dictated from the top down? Of course, but there are also many organizations that work within communities across the country, helping to bring various social and economic issues into the public consciousness. A political party cannot campaign on a message people find morally repugnant no matter how much money they have.

What a lot of people who claim our system is undemocratic are really objecting to is the process of norming. People often do not vote on single issues and with major parties taking a strategic tack, they will have to find the closest approximation of their views. Just because you don't see a political candidate who embodies every single one of your preferred views does not mean the political process has failed.

[TempestTS]

Summary: activism works not by directly influencing the outcome of an upcoming election but by educating people about social issues. This information flows upwards to political candidates who ultimately have to appeal to the public. Is some information dictated from the top down? Of course, but there are also many organizations that work within communities across the country, helping to bring various social and economic issues into the public consciousness. A political party cannot campaign on a message people find morally repugnant no matter how much money they have.

What a lot of people who claim our system is undemocratic are really objecting to is the process of norming. People often do not vote on single issues and with major parties taking a strategic tack, they will have to find the closest approximation of their views. Just because you don't see a political candidate who embodies every single one of your preferred views does not mean the political process has failed.

You do realize that our elected officials lie to the public on a ongoing and regular basis and that faith in the governing body is at an all time low for the history of our country... and it continues to plummet.

I dont think the political system has failed because I disagree with it - I think it has failed because the population in general disagrees with it regardless of party.

Both of these are immutable facts confirmed by countless surveys and polls - no need to make anything up here. Its Simple.

[broncofan]

You do realize that our elected officials lie to the public on a ongoing and regular basis and that faith in the governing body is at an all time low for the history of our country... and it continues to plummet.

I dont think the political system has failed because I disagree with it - I think it has failed because the population in general disagrees with it regardless of party.

Both of these are immutable facts confirmed by countless surveys and polls - no need to make anything up here. Its Simple.

When someone resorts to making a statement and saying "it's simple" they break faith with any attempt to reason logically.

An election is won by the person who receives the most votes. That doesn't guarantee people are going to be satisfied with the candidate's performance by the end of their term.

A critical mass of people control who is elected by voting for indirect representatives. That's the way our system was set up. A lot of people are unhappy with the outcome of hundreds of decisions made by hundreds of representatives at the legislative level. That's not surprising.

I can't imagine the polling results you speak of have been rigorously designed and adhered to for the full 225 years since the Constitution was adopted in 1789 and thereby give any sense of people's satisfaction over that period. I am fairly sure that President Lincoln had a low approval rating in the South during the Civil War but I could be wrong there.

[trish]

Yes. I see the dream now. Three hundred million people in a nation as large as a continent will stage a bloodless coup disbanding the three branches of government. It will be Iceland writ large. Together we will rewrite our Constitution using tweets and facebook. Looking over the deep and ponderous comments one typically finds on twitter and facebook, I gotta wonder what that final document will look like.
(BTW:Iceland maintains a Coast Guard and few special forces, but it has no standing military. Unfortunately we have the largest standing military in the world. I wonder if we can count on it remaining on the sidelines while through tweets and whistles we reconstruct our legal framework?)

I dont think the political system has failed because I disagree with it - I think it has failed because the population in general disagrees with it regardless of party.

Really? I don't see that at all. I think this is a clear case of projection.
Here's an immutable fact: The majority of Americans at one time disfavored Obamacare and favored the Affordable Care Act. Careful how you interpret polls. The only polls that count are the ones that determine governmental offices.

To the point of our two party system: Those parties are not immutable. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights act, the Democratic Party lost a majority of its southern membership to the Republican Party. Both underwent gigantic ideological shifts as a result. The Tea Baggers are doing an effective job today of changing the face of the GOP from within. (Cantor recently lost his seat in a primary to a Tea Bagger) That's what the Greens should've done rather than running Ralph Nader; i.e. take over the party structure from within.

In the end, it's your vote politicans pander for. It your vote that grants them office. It's your vote they're spending millions of dollars to try to win. Yes, they would love it if the electorate were smaller and more demographically predictable. Too many of us don't recognize that we're holding the very thing everybody is going apeshit trying to acquire: votes.

[the_unnatural]

Police won't even let us carry cash now, evidently.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-l...y-tenaha-texas

[trish]

Police won't even let us carry cash now, evidently.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-l...y-tenaha-texas

Please, feel free to shut down and take over the government of the State of Texas. Rewrite the state constitution on twitter. A hundred and forty characters is about all Rick Perry's brain can parse.

[TempestTS]

When someone resorts to making a statement and saying "it's simple" they break faith with any attempt to reason logically.

An election is won by the person who receives the most votes. That doesn't guarantee people are going to be satisfied with the candidate's performance by the end of their term.

A critical mass of people control who is elected by voting for indirect representatives. That's the way our system was set up. A lot of people are unhappy with the outcome of hundreds of decisions made by hundreds of representatives at the legislative level. That's not surprising.

I can't imagine the polling results you speak of have been rigorously designed and adhered to for the full 225 years since the Constitution was adopted in 1789 and thereby give any sense of people's satisfaction over that period. I am fairly sure that President Lincoln had a low approval rating in the South during the Civil War but I could be wrong there.

Hey whats that over there... oh its the point you seemed to have missed.

You seem to think Im speaking about a singular elected official - Im referring to peoples faith in the governing body as a whole.

If I confined polling results to "data available from recorded history" would that make you happy? - the results are still just the same and cover nearly as much time, so its fine by me.

In addition "its simple" is an attempt to distill nearly 8 pages of logical lengthy reason to a central point. If I haven't reached you by now I wont be able to.

Dont worry - IF I am wrong everything is fine and bound to improve - there are no risks to your personal freedoms and Im sure an elected official who truly has the peoples best interest at heart will be along any day now... mimimum wage will start to go up in proportion to CEO pay, the homeless will be taken care of, we will cease to spend thousands of times more on needless military spending than we do on care for our citizens and the national debt will be wiped out nearly over night. Rainbows and puppies for everyone type of stuff.

Trust me if Im wrong I will be quite grateful and I dont lose a bit of sleep worrying about what would happen if my conclusions are incorrect - my best wish is that they are.

I worry about what if Im right?

[buttslinger]

This Politics and Religion section isn't very good when there aren't any elections coming up, if you're on a TS site and you're Republican, I can only marvel at what is going on inside your head. In the upcoming US elections, I'm almost hoping the Republicans take the Senate, Obama's a lame duck, maybe republicans trying to destroy the economy for two years will give Hillary all three branches in twenty -o-sixteen.

People have it just good enough.......they're not going to get out of their LaZboys to change things. If they do get amped up they'll just try and make more money. This has been the story of Western Civilization for thousands of years.

Number One Street Survival Law- never put your hands on a cop.
Wait for the elections. Vote Democratic. Choose a city, state, or country that best suits you and move there.