I sent you the link, and then went to my blog hosted by your blog to see if I could embed it, and before I could ask you for help you’d posted it. Get. Out. Of. My. Brain.
If you live in a free part of the world – as in somewhere where you may state your opinion without getting arrested or shot – and don’t vote, you pretty much invite everybody else to step on you.
Voting is a pyramid, my vote for president means f*ck all, my vote for county commissioner and school board is huge which is probably as it should be since the county commissioners have more impact on my day to day life than the president does. So I cast my vote for president because I’m there anyway voting on the stuff that really matters.
Voting is meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for years ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fucking thing.
Well that’s a different tack than the normal “If you didn’t vote, then you have no right to complain.”
But now that I’ve seen that, I am going to go figure out how to register (How can google host my states registration?) And then I will promptly not vote.
Wow. . . I remember when it first became fashionable to assert that there’s no difference between the political parties and that therefore our elections are meaningless.
Which, of course, is just an empty platitude intended to make the person saying it appear oh-so-enlightened. In fact, they’re demonstrating that *they* have it all figured out whereas the rest of us are just toiling away in ignorance, believing that our political views and/or votes might have some effect.
This is the type of pseudo-deep-thinking that’s rampant now. . . and could only be so wide-spread in a society that has essentially solved all the “big problems” (yes, through political action. . . voting!) and now finds itself being torn apart by what are essentially trifling issues. We are the most fortunate generation ever to set foot on this planet because we live in the United States in the early 21st century. Even those designated as “poor” or “impoverished” have cable TV, a car, air conditioning, shelter, more food than they need (food stamp program now *advertises*). . . so if both political parties seem the same to you, and voting seems pointless, I have to assume that’s because you don’t recognize these fundamental facts and would rather see it all torn down so that some socialist/Communist utopian society can take its place.
Wow. . . I sorta swerved there at the end. =)
Oh, and I’d prefer if *fewer* people voted. Especially the people who don’t appreciate that even the lowest among us live better than did Roman Emperors in their day. =)
im not voting until i can see a tangible benefit from taking the effort to vote. im not against voting, im just against voting when it means i get to choose whose lies i want to believe more. if i vote for a candidate under the false pretense that they will bring about a change i feel would be for the better, when they fail to deliver on that promise, i feel i should get restitution, because it essentially means i have voting for someone to help someone else get what they wanted.
but honestly, all of that is irrelevant, because they way our “democracy” works, is so convoluted that we have no idea what is happening when. we vote for a president because we feel that will represent our values, morals, laadeedaa, but at the end of the day that means nothing because the president is only there to server as a media puppet. all these laws and such that we want to see be brought up of changed go to congress, the house, the senate, and we are none the wiser to what is going on. the president has no say in what goes on or is elected in those bodies. people say the president has to sign all of these into law to enact them, but once it gets to that point, our opinion of him means nothing. by the time it gets around to him he is making a change under a false pretense that sense a few lobbyists decided they would talk to their representatives and lavish them with gifts, that the other 300 million people in the country all want the same thing, because why else would the bill pass through the legislative system?
voting is a sham. bribery is the only thing that makes a difference.
It’s convoluted because the constitution makes it that way. And it makes it that way because otherwise we’d just have 60% of the population constantly crapping on the other 40% whenever they get the urge. Our gonverment is intended to be low and unwieldy so that it doesn’t get much done unless absolutely necessary. It’s also designed so that those in power can’t run roughshod over those momentarily out of power.
Or, just to be blunt, our system of government is intended primarily (among other lesser things) to allow for democracy without mob rule and a descent into the masses constantly taking the wealth of those who have generated it.
So I wrote a long post, then I deleted it. Why should you vote? Because you’re a statistic if you vote or don’t. But if you don’t, that statistic is “fuck this interest group, because they don’t MATTER”.
Want to know why shit you like doesn’t go your way? Because nobody’s going to get elected to fight for you if you don’t fucking vote.
“Or, just to be blunt, our system of government is intended primarily (among other lesser things) to allow for democracy without mob rule and a descent into the masses constantly taking the wealth of those who have generated it.”
*sigh*
why does everyone ALWAYS come back to this singular hypothetical point when people argue that the “democracy” is a sham.
right there you are saying that the only reason that people are scared to admit that the system is shit because they know if they do, people will go apeshit and steal their power. not even steal their power really, just call them out for the hacks that they are, and remove their ever coveted sway.
“Want to know why shit you like doesn’t go your way? Because nobody’s going to get elected to fight for you if you don’t fucking vote.”
and, no. “shit” will never “go my way” because i refuse to take part in the payoffs that have to be done to make anything move in this country.
how come “I” didnt get to vote on whether or not the bailout would have happened? why didnt “I” get to vote on whether or not the government buyouts should have happened? why dont “I” get to vote on an increase or decrease in taxes? why dont “I” get to vote on abortion rights?
everything that the citizenship SHOULD vote on is handled by old men with more money than they know what to do with who are fucking 21 year olds in public bathrooms high on cocaine telling me the whole time it is wrong.
maybe after you have seen that, and done a little digging yourself, you will at least appreciate why alot of people think voting is a waste of their time.
“It’s also designed so that those in power can’t run roughshod over those momentarily out of power.”
I think alot of people feel they are on the same side,there is no roughshoding to be done.
let me know what you think of that crashcourse, I would be interested in your views.
I’m Canadian, but we’re having a concurrent federal election right now (the vote is October 14), and we’re facing the same issues regarding the question of whether we should bother to vote.
The top revelation of our election campaign at this time: our Prime Minister delivered a speech in 2003 (when he was leader of the Opposition) making the case for going in Iraq that was plagiarized verbatim from a speech delivered two days before by the Australian Prime Minister. That bombshell came out a few days ago, but seems to be forgotten already.
That’s the impression we get around here: No matter what is being said or its magnitude, the Conservatives will remain in power unless they give a glimpse of the “hidden agenda” they are often suspected of harbouring. Even the affair of the plagiarized speech should have gotten the conspiracy theorists started on how Washington delivered identical talking points on Iraq to the two countries. That it for the most part didn’t should be enough of an indication that even that probably isn’t working anymore.
A combination of several points is to blame for this very anticlimactic campaign of ours: a bookish Liberal leader leading a motley collection of political has-beens and the remnants of an unsavoury machine so used to being to being the natural governing party that it was, not three years ago, tarred and feathered out of power amid a string of scandals; a left-vote-dividing New Democratic Party that picks up the pieces of the debacle the Liberals are going through, but never enough to unambiguously replace them; and a Bloc Quebecois holding a number of seats in Quebec making a minority government by any main party far more likely than a majority as long as the Bloc remains strong.
At least you Americans have a campaign where the result promises to be tight, or, at best, where the reigning administration is going to be kicked out of office. Here the only thing left to uncertainty is not whether the Conservatives will get re-elected but whether they will have a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Which means that in the end, maybe 40 and 50 seats out of 308 actually matter in changing the outcome; and in a general situation with the two main parties almost equal in the polls, maybe 100 seats, tops, would have an impact. The rest of the country could take a break from voting and nobody would see a difference. As I live in a stronghold myself, I have very little reason to go out and vote, since there’s nothing I can do to change the outcome.
I suspect your Republican in Massachusetts thinks exactly the same.
It’s not a “hypothetical point”. . . it’s the *reason* we live in a constitutional republic rather than a flat-out democracy. The rights/property of the minority aren’t left bare to the whims of the majority.
As for you points directed at another about how you should have personally been able to vote regarding every major and minor decision our government has made recently. . . I don’t think you are living in the real world. Our society can’t grind to a halt every time there’s a decision to be made while we wait for 250 million adults to vote. Hence, representatives and representative democracy. I’m not really sure how serious one can take a criticizm of a system of government based on the idea that it’s a shame if you aren’t personally consulted regarding every decision. Or perhaps you are subtly promoting some other form of government and stating simply that Democracy doesn’t work. In which case. . . I’ll look forward to seeing you at the Politburo.
omgdidisaythat,
Thanks for the homework. I wish those were in text so I could skim it. Got through ch9, but shouldn’t really watch that much video at work. While it’s alarming, it’s nothing new. Human society and governments put in place systems that allow for trade, commerce, and prosperity. But those systems inevitably break down. We’re probably going to see this one break-down. Though probably not as catastrophically as we’ve been told it is “just about to do” for the last thirty years with nary a hiccup.
I will say this though, this gentleman has many “tells” regarding his idealogical biases that are pretty blatant when you watch those with a skeptical eye. That does not invalidate what he’s saying. Facts are facts, but I do question the conjecture about the eventual results and the need for the “solutions” that those who peddle such “gloom and doom” scenarios usually champion.
“Even those designated as “poor” or “impoverished” have cable TV, a car, air conditioning, shelter, more food than they need (food stamp program now *advertises*). ..”
Now that is a statement bathed in ignorance… You really think poor people have cable TV, air conditioning and more food than they need? BWAHAHAHAHA!
In this country? Yes. Yes they do. Feel free to look it up. Don’t confuse the random street person you see who really is all f-ed up with what the government and the media refer to as “the poor” or people “below the poverty line.”
Our people “below the poverty line” live like kings compared to just about any standard set by any culture during any era of human history.
So, forgive me my friend, but I’m not the one who’s ignorant. I’ve seen what passes for “poverty” in this country. I see it every day.
We aren’t truly concerned with “poverty” in this country. We’re concerned about inequality of wealth distribution. Rather than focus on the fact that even our “poor” live pretty darn well, we focus on the fact that the system that allows for such a marvel doesn’t distribute wealth as equally as the conscience of some would dictate is necessary.
Wanna see real poverty? Go visit the rest of the world outside of western europe and parts of Asia. Basically, anywhere there’s not free markets and western-style government.
“Two words: “electoral college”
One Sentence: Please get rid of the electoral college.”
That would be a good way to encourage this country balkanizes even further. Presidential candidates would not need to campaign in any cities but Los Angeles, New York, and a few other coastal regions. “Fly-Over Country” would have no hope of ever seeing their culture and values represented in any nationally elected office and would feel even more ostracized by the political class and the media.
There’s a reason for all these apparati and seemingly foolish limitations. . . they work. And they were put there for a reason. The Electoral College makes sure that Colorado and New Mexico have a voice that can’t just simply be ignored as everyone caters to the urban centers on the coasts. And it originally served this purpose for the smaller states at the Constitution’s signing.
I lived below the poverty line for about a year, back in the days of high unemployment during the Carter presidency. Things were tough, man. I had to watch how much gas I used in my corvette.
I’ve always had the highest respect for the “None of the Above” philosophy in “Brewster’s Millions”.
Better than stay at home, just go and vote and get your ballot invalidated. That way, you don’t enter the non-voter statistics, which would open the door to claims that you are too idiotic to realize that the issues affect you. Instead, you make a claim that you will have nothing to do with this electioneering sleaze.
About the 2000 election: True, but then how many states were so close that your vote could really have made a difference between Bush and Gore?
According to Wikipedia, there were just 5 states with a difference of less than 1 percent between Democrats and Republicans, and 12 overall with less than 5 percent.
If you live in any of those five states, go and vote. If you live anywhere else, it’s basically “you can’t change anything anyway, stay at home.”
I have always lived in places where the local election result can be called months in advance, which might explain why I’m a bid jaded when it comes to politics.
But in the case of the US system, getting rid of the Electoral College would certainly be a step in the right direction. If the distribution of electors is representative of state populations, it’s just an unnecessary step anyway, and in addition just turns a hotly contested state (like Florida in 2000) into a unanimous cheerleader for the party that came out on top. This makes a mockery of every losing voter in the state. However, if this hasn’t been solved since the Hayes-Tilden controversy, nothing will ever solve this.
Not being American, I am given the possibility (I won’t say it’s an advantage, though) of assessing the shortcomings of the US political system from the outside. Your well-meaning system of checks and balances has deteriorated into a swing between an omnipotent president not giving a hoot about Congress (Nixon, Dubya) and a complete inability to achieve anything in an emergency (see the recent case of the $700-billion bailout), as each one is concerned about scoring cheap points at the expense of the other.
Your political system also offers the worst of two worlds: An unimaginative two-party system in which candidates from third parties have no chance at all of being elected, but where everything turns into catering to local interest groups, with little to no attention paid to either the party’s tenets or the country’s needs.
Add, on top of this, an unhealthy dose of patriotism about said political institutions, and you get an impression that your system is calcified and incapable of change. Only in America could you find a film like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, where the message is that the system can take care of itself despite finding that a good many of the people running it thrive on corruption, now being considered patriotic (upon release, the film was attacked as anti-American in some quarters despite being predictably banned by the authoritarian regimes of the day, but I’d be surprised to find such a charge today).
That worthless vote attitude leads to crappy turnout at the non-federal level though. Historically I’m as guilty of that as the next guy, unless smashing another sales-tax proposal was on the ballot. Now that I’ve left permanently-blue Oregon for swing-state WV, I feel my presidential vote means more, but the local races are often unopposed, so my potential vote there means very little.
I feel fixing the all-or-nothing electoral college is the right solution, but how do we get it done short of a constitutional amendment?
This is a production of Leonardo DiCaprio’s company, who also got http://www.declareyourself.com started. Slightly NSFW splash page of Jessica Biel in bondage.
Guys, you know what Hurin is saying is actually the truth. Apart from the part about voting making a difference ofc. People of America have never it had it so good, I do think that is going to change pretty soon though, and its to hell in a handcart we go!!
It’s going to bloody great!
Hurin – of the crash course, thanks for the feedback, it is a bit doom and gloom, facts are facts as you said though, and I think we will do a bit better than he hopes. Still, doubt he is a commie, probably a libertarian, they all look the bloody same to me these days. :/
If you don’t vote with the majority in your state your vote is completely meaningless. Oh and with the way the electoral college works, your states electoral vote may be entirely meaningless…
Oh and it’s fun to hear what rich white kids think poverty is in America… It’s called detachment.
D-One, you just need to take a look at africa, most of central asia and a fair old bit of the indian sub-continent to get a an idea of what poverty is.
Now while I do not doubt there is poverty in America, it is poverty with a chance to get out of it. I bet you a whole bunch of Africans would be really happy to have American poverty, white or black. Swap with you in a heart beat my friend.
A short essay mathematically explaining that your vote is MORE likely to count in a district-based voting scheme such as the EC, not less.
There are, incidentally, twelve states where the difference between the two politicians is less than 5%. Those 12 states will determine the election.
As for the whole ‘it’s cool to not vote because I’m, like all emo and shit’, seriously, grow up. Popular vote percentages will determine if the next president has a mandate or not. Downticket elections will determine if he will be able to actually be able to get any of his agenda moving forward. Votes for third party candidates increase the relevancy of those candidates arguments over the next four years.
“If you’re using this thread to debate the Electoral College, I have one request.” — No we are not. A couple of crazies are trying to swing it that way, but it’s not going to happen, see.
I should probably vote, the map doesn’t seem to detail any relevant information though. Maybe I should just ask the U.S. Customs officer after I show him my passport.
There is always a third party voting option. Not a bad idea to give the best of them a bit of a leg up next time by casting your vote in their direction this time.
————————-
Hurin,
You’re ignorant.
There’s nothing to look up. Go get in mommies car and take a long drive over to where those poor people live.
————————–
It occurs to me that the most you ever say is: “Nuh-uh!”. . . so good luck with that. Trying looking up census figures and/or live in a (very) low-income area like I did for four years where most of the people are migrant workers and illegal aliens. You’ll quickly see that while they have *less* than average, they also have all their necessities (food, shelter), and even an ample supply of what could only be considered “luxuries” in economic terms in any other era of human history (AC where climate dicatates, cable TV, cars, video game systems, etc.).
You’re buying into the myth that in America, millions are going “hungry”. . . it’s just not the case. Even our poorest are rather wealthy by world and historical standards.
Let me guess. . . you’re going to say “nuh-uh! Ignorant!” again. Good for you. It apparently makes you feel good.
Woops, I should clarify that most of the poor I lived alongside for a few years there were illegals and/or low-income but most were not “migrant workers.” But it was always astonishing to see the cars, the video game systems, and everyone rather plump and healthy in an area where we’re told day-in-and-day-out that the “poor” are one bad break away from devastation and have *nothing*.
^
People do not have air conditioning or even heating, they freeze to death in the winter, they go hungry…
Again, your perspective on the poor in America is so out of touch with reality I’d have to take you by the hand and walk you through a homeless shelter (It’s no surprise to me, but it will be to you that the majority of people in homeless shelters are CHILDREN) and government housing (Again, you’ll see the majority of the occupants are CHILDREN.)…
Oh, and in reply to Vetarnias regarding the Canadian election.
The past Liberal government stole 40 Million dollars and gave the money to all of their advertising buddies who returned 40% of it back to the Liberals in brown paper bags, and the Liberals used the money as a slush fund to get re-elected (Google Adscam), while billing taxpayers $200 for pizza lunches and forcing strippers to work for their election campaigns for free, under threat of deportation (Google Sgro Strippers, or Volpe Pizza), if you don’t believe me.
They built a gun registry that was only supposed to cost 2 Million dollars and it has ended up costing us some stupid amount (upwards of a billion) and been bilked by their consultant friends for 100′s of millions of dollars in national defense computer contracts. Multi billion dollar corporations were allowed to flee Canada without paying a cent in taxes, and they allowed loopholes for companies to transfer all their assets to the Bermuda’s to escape paying taxes (including the Liberal Prime Ministers own shipping company)
And funny enough, not one single Liberal member went to jail over it, and even more funny is that fact that dumbass Canadians re-elected about 100 of them in a 317 seat house, because the felt that they identified more closely with them as compared to those redneck conservatives…
I could go on for hours about how much money the Liberals mismanaged/stole, but the saddest part is…
Twinkies who defend their record by examining the Conservatives 5-20 year old speeches looking for 6 lines that were copied out of 100, and using that as “evidence” that the criminals should be returned to power….
The problem with politics is that the entire process is designed from the ground up to allow only the fiercest, most power hungry, most often greedy, heartless folks to survive the process. And these are the last folks who should ever be in charge of things.
And I am saying that apolitically, the party doesn’t matter, it’s the process that is broken.
We’d be better off with a computer program that just randomly selected a voter every 4 years, sure we’d get a few duds but it would average out much better in my opinion.
This sort of apathy is why I’m in favour of mixing “special interest” votes with “geographical” votes. So, on an election, you’d cast two votes. One for your local representative and the other for the party you like best. A certain portion of the seats are then reserved to balance the difference between party votes and who wins the geographical first-past-the-post races.
The advantage of this system is that you can’t think that just because your vote wasn’t the tie vote it was meaningless. Instead, your realize the +1 votes was needed for your favorite party to gain the proportion it needed to get those bonus seats.
Speaking of Canada, if I understand properly, ties election funding to percentage performance rather than just seats won. This is how the Green party can claim funding despite no seats – the 10% of Canadians that voted for them didn’t waste their votes, but by directing votes their way directed funding and recognition their way.
The same issue, I think, lies with the electoral college in the US. The real problem isn’t politicians cherry picking the “cities”. It is that the “cities” aren’t as divided against themselves as they should be. The two party system is a very broken one – the proper way for a democracy to work is to a have sufficiently fractured party system that coalitions are required. This keeps the politicians hungry and unable to rely on the “safe” new york vote – a new New York First party might step forward, annex that vote, and then play the larger parties off each other. Much like you see in Canada with the aforementioned Bloc.
At some level, voter apathy is acceptable, however. I do think people who don’t want the franchise should not be forced to exercise it. It is not a good thing to make people vote based on what name they like best on the ballot box. This leads to reflexive sports-team voting (“I always vote republican” is not the sort of virtue “I always support the Cardinals” is) So, I can’t say I’m a fan of this sort of campaign. I think the voter apathy is structural. People have come to see the election as another SuperBowl because, to a large extent, it is one.
If you’re not voting, you don’t deserve your democracy. Please move to one of the numerous dictatorship around the globe, where your lack of commitment and apathy will be well rewarded.
Still, let us not forget the blatant hypocrisy of the Conservatives themselves regarding their past.
For the benefit of American readers going through this without somehow falling asleep, the current “Conservative” leadership in fact got its start in politics by leaving the Progressive-Conservative Party when it was in power in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s and forming the Reform Party, based on a series of factors going from dissatisfaction over the constitutional position to the string of scandals (Airbus, anyone?) coming to light.
The PC Party under Brian Mulroney had taken power in 1984 with the largest majority of seats in Canadian history, then was re-elected in 1988 through an uneasy alliance of Quebec and Western Canada in an issue where the Free Trade Agreement dwarfed every other issue. However, a series of constitutional crises led to the departure of both bases of support, the West went with Reform and Quebec members splintered off to form the Bloc. Hence in 1993, a party that had formed two back-to-back majority government was only able to retain a measly two seats in the House. That same year, our beloved PM was elected as a Reform MP.
Fast-forward ten years. The Progressive-Conservative Party, with roots going back to 1867, is still around but struggling. Then the Canadian Alliance, formerly the Reform Party, makes the bold offer to annex the old PC Party, assume its pedigree, and drop the “progressive” part of the name. Despite some disagreement by some PC members, the merger goes through.
So now you’re getting a weird state of affairs with a Conservative leader who got his start by leaving the Conservatives; Western Canadian members who now find themselves wearing the tag of a party they once ended up hating with a passion; and since you can’t pick-and-choose which elements of your assumed heritage you want to retain, a leadership which once publicly damned Mulroney for everything he did (from pandering to Quebec to questionable use of public funds) now trying to name-drop him in a positive light when convenient, and either excuse his actions or remain silent.
And just by looking at them, you know there’s something sinister about themselves that they’re trying to keep under wraps. I voted Progressive-Conservative in 1997 and 2000, but after the merger there is no way I am going to vote for these new “Conservatives”.
The Liberals have their crimes, and they are plentiful. I too am tired of seeing them rely on their usual poles of support of Southern Ontario and Western Quebec, as though that were morally superior to the Tories taking Alberta for granted. I am sick of their regarding themselves as the natural governing party, and I for one wouldn’t weep if the NDP formed the Official Opposition this time around. Otherwise it’s going to be the usual Liberal strategy: Let the Conservatives enjoy their majority because it will be short-lived, then we’ll be back in power again. Just consider Diefenbaker.
And one of the peculiarities of this country is that, unlike in the US, there is always a constitutional crisis around the corner. Conservatives rarely survive them, and Ontario’s equalization whining is gearing up to be such a thing — and this of course under a Liberal premier who would just love to play kingmaker.
And that’s why I hate Liberals. They take things for granted, which after a while accrues to the point where they are seen as arrogant and kicked out of office. But when they get booted out, they just bide their time, knowing that their traditional zones of support will deliver as expected and that others will return to them.
I will just add that for all the bad taste in Conservative electioneering, who could ever forget those Liberal ads in the campaign of 2006, gems of fear-mongering seeking to expose Harper as a Bush worshiper with a hidden agenda, concluding with those portentous words: “We’re not allowed to make this up”? When those guys even forget something as basic as how to run a campaign, you know it’s time to show them the door.
Yes, the system is broken. But there is no way to fix it. I don’t see voter apathy as the cause, but rather as the natural conclusion, of such a democratic deficit. But stuck between self-serving politicians and a certain branch of exalted philosophy (from Socrates/Plato down) that has nothing but contempt for democracy, for the philosopher is seen as the only person apt enough to occupy a position of leadership (and hence can disguise his interest as a moral obligation — no need to be ambitious when it’s the people’s duty to come to you), I can’t say I’m surprised by the state of democracy.
^
People do not have air conditioning or even heating, they freeze to death in the winter, they go hungry…
Again, your perspective on the poor in America is so out of touch with reality I’d have to take you by the hand and walk you through a homeless shelter (It’s no surprise to me, but it will be to you that the majority of people in homeless shelters are CHILDREN) and government housing (Again, you’ll see the majority of the occupants are CHILDREN.)…
You are shamelessly ignorant.
—————————————–
Uh. . . it’s like you just read one or two words of every sentence, then say: “Nuh uh! IGNORANT!”. . . and then feel good about yourself.
You just sent me two links just giving numbers. Nobody ever questioned that the government designates a whole lot of people as “impoverished” or “below the poverty line.” We all know that. The question is what constitutes “poverty” in this country.
You seem to (again) be (willfully?) confusing “poverty” with homelessness. The truly homeless constitute only a tiny, tiny fraction of those huge numbers that the government designates as “impoverished.” The vast, vast majority of those “impoverished” aren’t living on the streets or in shelters. So you can take me to all the shelters you want. . . that’s not poverty. That’s homelessness. And that’s not what the government figures you sent me are covering. You conflate the two and then hysterically point to the huge numbers to try to convince us that each of those numbers are not only on the street starving to death and dying of cold, but that they are CHILDREN! CHILDREN! Geez, demagogue much?
Nice attempt at redirection though. You can go on talking about the homeless. But I’m not. Since nobody has any issue with helping them.
You don’t seem to realize this basic fact: Homeless are impoverished. But not all impoverished are homeless.
The government has been redefining poverty upwards ever since LBJ and the Great Society. We keep dumping huge sums of money into the “war on poverty”. . . yet the poverty rate has *never* improved substantially. Why is that? Because we keep redefining what poverty is relative to the wealth of others, rather than absolute standards. It has become a means of exacerbating class warfare and income redistribution rather than providing the truly “impoverished” (by reasonable standards) with necessities.
And, one more time, as I said from the very beginning. . . we’re talking about those the government consider to be “impoverished”. . . and that is not synonymous with “homeless.”
I’ve given you ample opportunity to stop yelling “IGNORANT!” and “nuh-uh!” and actually make a cogent argument. But since that’s the best you seem to be able to do without being intellectually dishonest and willfully ignore distinctions of which I have to believe you are fully aware. It’s too bad you can’t make your points honestly and politely. Oh, but you don’t feel you need to be polite or even honest. Because everyone you disagree with is “ignorant” and probably dangerously so! You’re fighting for all that’s good and pure in the world. Even if you have to be disingenuous and demagogic as you do so.
So. . . I come here to read about MMORPGs. And I’m tired of hearing the same condescending, false crap from ya. You’ve got nothing, and your one attempt at substance above is demonstrably disingenous. So feel free to continue to call names and yell “nuh-uh! You’re so ignorant” and refer to people in their mid-30s who’ve been around a seen quite a bit as “white kids.” You’re only embarrassing yourself. After three or four posts, I think I’ve given you enough of a chance to say something of substance. And you haven’t. So I’m done. Take care.
Well, my much longer reply got stuck in the moderation queue. Probably because I quoted back those two links.
So, to sum up in case it never appears:
Providing two links to demonstrate that the government thinks there are a whole lot of people in “poverty” does nothing to further our discussion because the discussion has always been about what *constitutes* poverty in this country.
You then go on to (again) conflate homelessness and those living in shelters with the government’s definition of poverty. Yet, again, the homeless make up only a tiny, tiny fraction of those considered to be “impoverished.”
Nobody here doubts that the homeless have it very rough indeed and deserve our help. But while all those who are homeless are “impoverished”. . . not all “impoverished (according to our government’s definition) are homeless. Your need to conflate the two speaks volumes.
So, as I said in the yet-to-appear post. . . your need to avoid the actual topic and instead talk about the homeless and take us aside into irrelevant tangents when you’re not just asserting that those who disagree with you are “white kids” or (of course) merely ignorant. . . it all demonstrates that you don’t seem to really have that much to base your position upon. And as fun as it is to win an argument against someone who blusters and can’t help but call those they disagree with “ignorant” at every opportunity. . . it has stopped being fun because you aren’t even addressing the merits of the counter position. We’re talking about the definition of poverty and what it is constituted by in the real world for the vast majority of those so classified. You want to scream: “Think of the children you ignorant bastard! They’re all starving to death! See! Look at these numbers!” Yet, as anyone can see, those numbers say no such thing.
How do you argue with someone willing to go to those lenghts of intellectual dishonesty? Well, in my case, I choose not to.
Damn you J. I’ve been reading this blog for years and you’ve finally forced me into creating an account, just to reply to your post…
“This is a production of Leonardo DiCaprio’s company, who also got http://www.declareyourself.com started. Slightly NSFW splash page of Jessica Biel in bondage.
J.
3 Oct 08 at 10:23 pm”
It’s Jessica ALBA damn you, not Biel. Get your Jessica’s correct!
Living in Chicago I am tempted not to vote, Obama will take Illinois no matter if I vote for him or against him, since Chicago basically takes over the whole state when it comes to anything federal. There are a few local elections that are important, but usually they aren’t because the 2 parties run anyone out of town that even thinks about reform. The Machine here was originally against Obama too, until they figured out his idea of change was helping the poor, not fighting corruption, which made both parties happy.
But I guess I will vote anyway, mostly because I’ve known too many people from places like the former Iraq under Saddam, and some African countries, to be able to look them in the eye and say I squander everything I have but they didn’t have back there. I am thinking of voting for Barr, just to send a message. Whether that message is “I’m fed up with corrupt crap from both of you” or “I’m a nut” I am not sure.
Get rid of the electoral college? So only cities will count and rural and surburban voters won’t mean crap? It’s bad for the same reason removing the republic and deciding everything by referendum is bad: the majority will rule and the minority gets trampled. Or so that any small town could suddenly be the victim of lawsuits with tons of cash from the national parties, instead of lawsuits in just select cities right now during close elections, and our whole system grinds to a halt? We can’t even count votes with better than 2% accuracy yet.
Hurin,
You provided nothing but opinion. Your opinion can be summarized, “There are no truly poor people and even if there are, there aren’t very many.”.
I assume you stand by your opinion and any attempt to get you to look at any real substance is wasted.
The above right wing site agrees with you completely. They even source themselves for all of their “facts”.
The right wing in America has had as a fundamental and basic idea “there are no poor people and the poor people that can be proven to exist deserve it.” this class warfare has been going on since the mid 1800′s…
My favorite part is where you think an opinion is automatically rendered invalid because a conservative think-tank adopts some aspects of it or researches the issue. Because a Conservative can’t ever be right. They’re always and altogether *evil* and intent on brutalizing the old, starving children, and taking away your health care because. . . well, that’s just what they do!
I assume that it’s also fun to paraphrase someone’s argument as you do. . . removing all nuance and stating everything in ridiculous absolutes while (as always) refusing to acknowledge what the person is *actually* saying. You argue against what you *wish* people were saying because that’s convenient for you. But note that you never actually either understand or address the merits of the position you make vague, disingenuous attempts at addressing. And, finally, it’s entertaining to see how you totally ignore the way your prior post(s) have been dismantled and exposed as an attempt to change the subject (from “poverty” to “homelessness.”).
You’re like a caricature of a Left-wing nut-job. You actually seem to think that saying: “That’s something conservatives say” will actually cause the average person to think: “Oh! Then it must be wrong! What was I thinking!?!” Tell me, do all your friends think like you? Or, better yet, do you consider yourself to be immersed in intellectual diversity because some of your friends are Marxists while your other friends are merely Socialists?
But, of course. . . nobody has ever said here that “There are no poor” as you lamely and disingenuously allege.
It’s very simple (which is why you seem to intent on obfuscating): Poverty is a word. Words have definitions. The definition of poverty has changed over the last several decades and been constantly redefined upwards by our government so that people who would never have been considered “impoverished” forty years ago *are* now considered to be “impoverished” by our government. You play along not only with this gradual redefinition of the term “poverty”, but even attempt to perpetuate the myth that everyone (or the vast, vast majority) so-designated is actually in the dire straights (starving, freezing, homeless, helpless, hopless) that the programs were originally created to remedy.
But that’s simply not the case. “Poverty” doesn’t mean what it once did in this country. As others have said, go take a look elsewhere in the world for “real” poverty. “Poverty” in this country is no longer anything like that. That’s called “progress.” But of course, you can’t recognize such progress because it puts your agenda at risk and threatens to undermine an entire political constituency.
Is there economic inequality in this country? There sure is! Nobody would dispute that.
Is there the type of “poverty” in this country that there used to be and that still permeates most of the rest of the world. Hell no. And it’s sad that you can’t see that.
You and those perpetuating the class warfare you claim to despise intentionally confuse/conflate inequality with “poverty” and rail against them as though they are synonymous. They are not. And anybody with an ounce of common sense, a degree of historical context, and isn’t completely addled by revolutionary zeal can readily recognize the difference.
You cling to a 1950/60s definition of poverty and put scare quotes around the word “facts” when they come from the census or other dispassionate sources because, for your worldview to make sense, you *need* to do so. For your politics, your agenda, and your *anger* to make sense, the “poor” must be in the dire, “3rd world”-esque, destitute straits that you and those so angered by the West’s wealth regularly assert (without any basis in fact). That entire vast number of people designated as “poor” by our goverment *must* be all (or nearly all) starving, homeless, and utterly destitute. And any facts to the contrary *must* be damn lies. Even when they come from bi/non-partisan census figures or otherwise dispassionate sources. They *must* be lies, and despite no evidence to the contrary, the poor in this country must be starving and destitute because otherwise, your cause and your self-esteem might suffer. And we can’t have that!
The Left plays games with the word “poor” and “poverty” in order to pretend that the free markets and Western-style capitalism are just as prone to impoverishing its people as those craptacular places all across the globe where such systems are not in place. Yet any non-revolutionary fool knows that there is a *vast* difference between “poverty” there and the pseudo-”poverty” we have over here. Which the rest of the world and any prior generation would have a hard time calling “poverty” at all.
Did I mention I was done? You say that I’m obstinate. Yet you yourself demonstrate that you’re impervious to facts and objective statistics and merely dismiss those that don’t fit your world-view. Meanwhile, I’m supposed to find agenda-driven socialist propaganda objectively enlightening and convincing. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so disheartening. And it’s disheartening because so many of our ignorant, brain-washed kids think like you in this day and age, take what they have for granted, and are going to piss away the most prosperous system and era ever known to mankind because people like you fill their heads with this naked propaganda. And, of course, everyone just wants to be a “good person” and help the “poor”. . . you just need to make sure they don’t actually learn what is actually meant by “poor” in this country.
about 1 year ago
Never do.
about 1 year ago
I think they are trying to trick us into voting.
about 1 year ago
I sent you the link, and then went to my blog hosted by your blog to see if I could embed it, and before I could ask you for help you’d posted it. Get. Out. Of. My. Brain.
about 1 year ago
Self righteous pigs.
about 1 year ago
If you live in a free part of the world – as in somewhere where you may state your opinion without getting arrested or shot – and don’t vote, you pretty much invite everybody else to step on you.
Or to be short and blunt, you fail at democracy.
about 1 year ago
NotAmerican, I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
It does not matter who you vote for, you get the same thing, different faces, but the same content. We do not fail democracy, democracy fails us.
It’s a bit like voting is saddam’s iraq . Everyone voted there. :/
about 1 year ago
Voting is a pyramid, my vote for president means f*ck all, my vote for county commissioner and school board is huge which is probably as it should be since the county commissioners have more impact on my day to day life than the president does. So I cast my vote for president because I’m there anyway voting on the stuff that really matters.
about 1 year ago
“It does not matter who you vote for, you get the same thing, different faces, but the same content.”
Please, God, let the irony be intentional. Please, I beg you…
about 1 year ago
I make it a point to do whatever celebrities tell me to do.
about 1 year ago
Okay I got the “must vote” thing down just fine, how about they cough up someone worth voting for? Seems like a fair trade!
about 1 year ago
@ Todd , you know it buddy
@ Klaitu, dude that is the kind of philosophy that I rocks !!
about 1 year ago
Voting is meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for years ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fucking thing.
If you vote, you have no right to complain.
about 1 year ago
No, if you do NOT vote, you have no right to complain, because by not voting, you have given up your right to hold an opinion that is meaningful.
Yes, the system has issues, to put it mildly. Not voting would simply make it worse, however.
about 1 year ago
“If you vote, you have no right to complain.”
Well that’s a different tack than the normal “If you didn’t vote, then you have no right to complain.”
But now that I’ve seen that, I am going to go figure out how to register (How can google host my states registration?) And then I will promptly not vote.
about 1 year ago
Wow. . . I remember when it first became fashionable to assert that there’s no difference between the political parties and that therefore our elections are meaningless.
Which, of course, is just an empty platitude intended to make the person saying it appear oh-so-enlightened. In fact, they’re demonstrating that *they* have it all figured out whereas the rest of us are just toiling away in ignorance, believing that our political views and/or votes might have some effect.
This is the type of pseudo-deep-thinking that’s rampant now. . . and could only be so wide-spread in a society that has essentially solved all the “big problems” (yes, through political action. . . voting!) and now finds itself being torn apart by what are essentially trifling issues. We are the most fortunate generation ever to set foot on this planet because we live in the United States in the early 21st century. Even those designated as “poor” or “impoverished” have cable TV, a car, air conditioning, shelter, more food than they need (food stamp program now *advertises*). . . so if both political parties seem the same to you, and voting seems pointless, I have to assume that’s because you don’t recognize these fundamental facts and would rather see it all torn down so that some socialist/Communist utopian society can take its place.
Wow. . . I sorta swerved there at the end. =)
Oh, and I’d prefer if *fewer* people voted. Especially the people who don’t appreciate that even the lowest among us live better than did Roman Emperors in their day. =)
Lucky to be alive in the U.S. on October 3, 2008.
about 1 year ago
im not voting until i can see a tangible benefit from taking the effort to vote. im not against voting, im just against voting when it means i get to choose whose lies i want to believe more. if i vote for a candidate under the false pretense that they will bring about a change i feel would be for the better, when they fail to deliver on that promise, i feel i should get restitution, because it essentially means i have voting for someone to help someone else get what they wanted.
but honestly, all of that is irrelevant, because they way our “democracy” works, is so convoluted that we have no idea what is happening when. we vote for a president because we feel that will represent our values, morals, laadeedaa, but at the end of the day that means nothing because the president is only there to server as a media puppet. all these laws and such that we want to see be brought up of changed go to congress, the house, the senate, and we are none the wiser to what is going on. the president has no say in what goes on or is elected in those bodies. people say the president has to sign all of these into law to enact them, but once it gets to that point, our opinion of him means nothing. by the time it gets around to him he is making a change under a false pretense that sense a few lobbyists decided they would talk to their representatives and lavish them with gifts, that the other 300 million people in the country all want the same thing, because why else would the bill pass through the legislative system?
voting is a sham. bribery is the only thing that makes a difference.
about 1 year ago
It’s convoluted because the constitution makes it that way. And it makes it that way because otherwise we’d just have 60% of the population constantly crapping on the other 40% whenever they get the urge. Our gonverment is intended to be low and unwieldy so that it doesn’t get much done unless absolutely necessary. It’s also designed so that those in power can’t run roughshod over those momentarily out of power.
Or, just to be blunt, our system of government is intended primarily (among other lesser things) to allow for democracy without mob rule and a descent into the masses constantly taking the wealth of those who have generated it.
about 1 year ago
So I wrote a long post, then I deleted it. Why should you vote? Because you’re a statistic if you vote or don’t. But if you don’t, that statistic is “fuck this interest group, because they don’t MATTER”.
Want to know why shit you like doesn’t go your way? Because nobody’s going to get elected to fight for you if you don’t fucking vote.
about 1 year ago
“Or, just to be blunt, our system of government is intended primarily (among other lesser things) to allow for democracy without mob rule and a descent into the masses constantly taking the wealth of those who have generated it.”
*sigh*
why does everyone ALWAYS come back to this singular hypothetical point when people argue that the “democracy” is a sham.
right there you are saying that the only reason that people are scared to admit that the system is shit because they know if they do, people will go apeshit and steal their power. not even steal their power really, just call them out for the hacks that they are, and remove their ever coveted sway.
“Want to know why shit you like doesn’t go your way? Because nobody’s going to get elected to fight for you if you don’t fucking vote.”
and, no. “shit” will never “go my way” because i refuse to take part in the payoffs that have to be done to make anything move in this country.
how come “I” didnt get to vote on whether or not the bailout would have happened? why didnt “I” get to vote on whether or not the government buyouts should have happened? why dont “I” get to vote on an increase or decrease in taxes? why dont “I” get to vote on abortion rights?
everything that the citizenship SHOULD vote on is handled by old men with more money than they know what to do with who are fucking 21 year olds in public bathrooms high on cocaine telling me the whole time it is wrong.
fuck the “democracy” in america.
about 1 year ago
Hurin, you are right we do live better than Roman Emperors did.
But I would like to mess with your world a little if thats ok, check this guy out http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
maybe after you have seen that, and done a little digging yourself, you will at least appreciate why alot of people think voting is a waste of their time.
“It’s also designed so that those in power can’t run roughshod over those momentarily out of power.”
I think alot of people feel they are on the same side,there is no roughshoding to be done.
let me know what you think of that crashcourse, I would be interested in your views.
about 1 year ago
I’m Canadian, but we’re having a concurrent federal election right now (the vote is October 14), and we’re facing the same issues regarding the question of whether we should bother to vote.
The top revelation of our election campaign at this time: our Prime Minister delivered a speech in 2003 (when he was leader of the Opposition) making the case for going in Iraq that was plagiarized verbatim from a speech delivered two days before by the Australian Prime Minister. That bombshell came out a few days ago, but seems to be forgotten already.
That’s the impression we get around here: No matter what is being said or its magnitude, the Conservatives will remain in power unless they give a glimpse of the “hidden agenda” they are often suspected of harbouring. Even the affair of the plagiarized speech should have gotten the conspiracy theorists started on how Washington delivered identical talking points on Iraq to the two countries. That it for the most part didn’t should be enough of an indication that even that probably isn’t working anymore.
A combination of several points is to blame for this very anticlimactic campaign of ours: a bookish Liberal leader leading a motley collection of political has-beens and the remnants of an unsavoury machine so used to being to being the natural governing party that it was, not three years ago, tarred and feathered out of power amid a string of scandals; a left-vote-dividing New Democratic Party that picks up the pieces of the debacle the Liberals are going through, but never enough to unambiguously replace them; and a Bloc Quebecois holding a number of seats in Quebec making a minority government by any main party far more likely than a majority as long as the Bloc remains strong.
At least you Americans have a campaign where the result promises to be tight, or, at best, where the reigning administration is going to be kicked out of office. Here the only thing left to uncertainty is not whether the Conservatives will get re-elected but whether they will have a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Which means that in the end, maybe 40 and 50 seats out of 308 actually matter in changing the outcome; and in a general situation with the two main parties almost equal in the polls, maybe 100 seats, tops, would have an impact. The rest of the country could take a break from voting and nobody would see a difference. As I live in a stronghold myself, I have very little reason to go out and vote, since there’s nothing I can do to change the outcome.
I suspect your Republican in Massachusetts thinks exactly the same.
about 1 year ago
elijah,
It’s not a “hypothetical point”. . . it’s the *reason* we live in a constitutional republic rather than a flat-out democracy. The rights/property of the minority aren’t left bare to the whims of the majority.
As for you points directed at another about how you should have personally been able to vote regarding every major and minor decision our government has made recently. . . I don’t think you are living in the real world. Our society can’t grind to a halt every time there’s a decision to be made while we wait for 250 million adults to vote. Hence, representatives and representative democracy. I’m not really sure how serious one can take a criticizm of a system of government based on the idea that it’s a shame if you aren’t personally consulted regarding every decision. Or perhaps you are subtly promoting some other form of government and stating simply that Democracy doesn’t work. In which case. . . I’ll look forward to seeing you at the Politburo.
omgdidisaythat,
Thanks for the homework. I wish those were in text so I could skim it. Got through ch9, but shouldn’t really watch that much video at work. While it’s alarming, it’s nothing new. Human society and governments put in place systems that allow for trade, commerce, and prosperity. But those systems inevitably break down. We’re probably going to see this one break-down. Though probably not as catastrophically as we’ve been told it is “just about to do” for the last thirty years with nary a hiccup.
I will say this though, this gentleman has many “tells” regarding his idealogical biases that are pretty blatant when you watch those with a skeptical eye. That does not invalidate what he’s saying. Facts are facts, but I do question the conjecture about the eventual results and the need for the “solutions” that those who peddle such “gloom and doom” scenarios usually champion.
Or, to put it another way: The guy’s a Commie. =P
about 1 year ago
Two words: “electoral college”
One Sentence: Please get rid of the electoral college.
about 1 year ago
“Even those designated as “poor” or “impoverished” have cable TV, a car, air conditioning, shelter, more food than they need (food stamp program now *advertises*). ..”
Now that is a statement bathed in ignorance… You really think poor people have cable TV, air conditioning and more food than they need? BWAHAHAHAHA!
Talk about out of touch!
about 1 year ago
In this country? Yes. Yes they do. Feel free to look it up. Don’t confuse the random street person you see who really is all f-ed up with what the government and the media refer to as “the poor” or people “below the poverty line.”
Our people “below the poverty line” live like kings compared to just about any standard set by any culture during any era of human history.
So, forgive me my friend, but I’m not the one who’s ignorant. I’ve seen what passes for “poverty” in this country. I see it every day.
We aren’t truly concerned with “poverty” in this country. We’re concerned about inequality of wealth distribution. Rather than focus on the fact that even our “poor” live pretty darn well, we focus on the fact that the system that allows for such a marvel doesn’t distribute wealth as equally as the conscience of some would dictate is necessary.
Wanna see real poverty? Go visit the rest of the world outside of western europe and parts of Asia. Basically, anywhere there’s not free markets and western-style government.
about 1 year ago
Of course, in the US, you could always WAIT & then vote for one of these fools who will no doubt run for office.
about 1 year ago
“Two words: “electoral college”
One Sentence: Please get rid of the electoral college.”
That would be a good way to encourage this country balkanizes even further. Presidential candidates would not need to campaign in any cities but Los Angeles, New York, and a few other coastal regions. “Fly-Over Country” would have no hope of ever seeing their culture and values represented in any nationally elected office and would feel even more ostracized by the political class and the media.
There’s a reason for all these apparati and seemingly foolish limitations. . . they work. And they were put there for a reason. The Electoral College makes sure that Colorado and New Mexico have a voice that can’t just simply be ignored as everyone caters to the urban centers on the coasts. And it originally served this purpose for the smaller states at the Constitution’s signing.
about 1 year ago
I lived below the poverty line for about a year, back in the days of high unemployment during the Carter presidency. Things were tough, man. I had to watch how much gas I used in my corvette.
about 1 year ago
Hurin,
You’re ignorant.
There’s nothing to look up. Go get in mommies car and take a long drive over to where those poor people live.
about 1 year ago
Voting takes so little effort, why the resistance? But you know what, you’re right, don’t vote. Odds are you opinions differ from mine anyway.
about 1 year ago
Anyone dumb enough
about 1 year ago
*sigh* I hate this laptop.
Anyone dumb enough to think their vote means nothing after the 2000 election probably isn’t someone I want voting anyway.
about 1 year ago
I’ve always had the highest respect for the “None of the Above” philosophy in “Brewster’s Millions”.
Better than stay at home, just go and vote and get your ballot invalidated. That way, you don’t enter the non-voter statistics, which would open the door to claims that you are too idiotic to realize that the issues affect you. Instead, you make a claim that you will have nothing to do with this electioneering sleaze.
about 1 year ago
@Aufero
About the 2000 election: True, but then how many states were so close that your vote could really have made a difference between Bush and Gore?
According to Wikipedia, there were just 5 states with a difference of less than 1 percent between Democrats and Republicans, and 12 overall with less than 5 percent.
If you live in any of those five states, go and vote. If you live anywhere else, it’s basically “you can’t change anything anyway, stay at home.”
I have always lived in places where the local election result can be called months in advance, which might explain why I’m a bid jaded when it comes to politics.
But in the case of the US system, getting rid of the Electoral College would certainly be a step in the right direction. If the distribution of electors is representative of state populations, it’s just an unnecessary step anyway, and in addition just turns a hotly contested state (like Florida in 2000) into a unanimous cheerleader for the party that came out on top. This makes a mockery of every losing voter in the state. However, if this hasn’t been solved since the Hayes-Tilden controversy, nothing will ever solve this.
Not being American, I am given the possibility (I won’t say it’s an advantage, though) of assessing the shortcomings of the US political system from the outside. Your well-meaning system of checks and balances has deteriorated into a swing between an omnipotent president not giving a hoot about Congress (Nixon, Dubya) and a complete inability to achieve anything in an emergency (see the recent case of the $700-billion bailout), as each one is concerned about scoring cheap points at the expense of the other.
Your political system also offers the worst of two worlds: An unimaginative two-party system in which candidates from third parties have no chance at all of being elected, but where everything turns into catering to local interest groups, with little to no attention paid to either the party’s tenets or the country’s needs.
Add, on top of this, an unhealthy dose of patriotism about said political institutions, and you get an impression that your system is calcified and incapable of change. Only in America could you find a film like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, where the message is that the system can take care of itself despite finding that a good many of the people running it thrive on corruption, now being considered patriotic (upon release, the film was attacked as anti-American in some quarters despite being predictably banned by the authoritarian regimes of the day, but I’d be surprised to find such a charge today).
about 1 year ago
That worthless vote attitude leads to crappy turnout at the non-federal level though. Historically I’m as guilty of that as the next guy, unless smashing another sales-tax proposal was on the ballot. Now that I’ve left permanently-blue Oregon for swing-state WV, I feel my presidential vote means more, but the local races are often unopposed, so my potential vote there means very little.
I feel fixing the all-or-nothing electoral college is the right solution, but how do we get it done short of a constitutional amendment?
about 1 year ago
This is a production of Leonardo DiCaprio’s company, who also got http://www.declareyourself.com started. Slightly NSFW splash page of Jessica Biel in bondage.
about 1 year ago
Guys, you know what Hurin is saying is actually the truth. Apart from the part about voting making a difference ofc. People of America have never it had it so good, I do think that is going to change pretty soon though, and its to hell in a handcart we go!!
It’s going to bloody great!
Hurin – of the crash course, thanks for the feedback, it is a bit doom and gloom, facts are facts as you said though, and I think we will do a bit better than he hopes. Still, doubt he is a commie, probably a libertarian, they all look the bloody same to me these days. :/
about 1 year ago
If you don’t vote with the majority in your state your vote is completely meaningless. Oh and with the way the electoral college works, your states electoral vote may be entirely meaningless…
Oh and it’s fun to hear what rich white kids think poverty is in America… It’s called detachment.
about 1 year ago
D-One, you just need to take a look at africa, most of central asia and a fair old bit of the indian sub-continent to get a an idea of what poverty is.
Now while I do not doubt there is poverty in America, it is poverty with a chance to get out of it. I bet you a whole bunch of Africans would be really happy to have American poverty, white or black. Swap with you in a heart beat my friend.
about 1 year ago
If you’re using this thread to debate the Electoral College, I have one request.
Look at how dumb you are.
about 1 year ago
“Why the Electoral College Works”
http://mikemiller.net/electoral_college.html
A short essay mathematically explaining that your vote is MORE likely to count in a district-based voting scheme such as the EC, not less.
There are, incidentally, twelve states where the difference between the two politicians is less than 5%. Those 12 states will determine the election.
As for the whole ‘it’s cool to not vote because I’m, like all emo and shit’, seriously, grow up. Popular vote percentages will determine if the next president has a mandate or not. Downticket elections will determine if he will be able to actually be able to get any of his agenda moving forward. Votes for third party candidates increase the relevancy of those candidates arguments over the next four years.
about 1 year ago
“If you’re using this thread to debate the Electoral College, I have one request.” — No we are not. A couple of crazies are trying to swing it that way, but it’s not going to happen, see.
about 1 year ago
I should probably vote, the map doesn’t seem to detail any relevant information though. Maybe I should just ask the U.S. Customs officer after I show him my passport.
about 1 year ago
Don’t bother voting. Your vote counts only in a tie.
about 1 year ago
There is always a third party voting option. Not a bad idea to give the best of them a bit of a leg up next time by casting your vote in their direction this time.
about 1 year ago
————————-
Hurin,
You’re ignorant.
There’s nothing to look up. Go get in mommies car and take a long drive over to where those poor people live.
————————–
It occurs to me that the most you ever say is: “Nuh-uh!”. . . so good luck with that. Trying looking up census figures and/or live in a (very) low-income area like I did for four years where most of the people are migrant workers and illegal aliens. You’ll quickly see that while they have *less* than average, they also have all their necessities (food, shelter), and even an ample supply of what could only be considered “luxuries” in economic terms in any other era of human history (AC where climate dicatates, cable TV, cars, video game systems, etc.).
You’re buying into the myth that in America, millions are going “hungry”. . . it’s just not the case. Even our poorest are rather wealthy by world and historical standards.
Let me guess. . . you’re going to say “nuh-uh! Ignorant!” again. Good for you. It apparently makes you feel good.
about 1 year ago
Woops, I should clarify that most of the poor I lived alongside for a few years there were illegals and/or low-income but most were not “migrant workers.” But it was always astonishing to see the cars, the video game systems, and everyone rather plump and healthy in an area where we’re told day-in-and-day-out that the “poor” are one bad break away from devastation and have *nothing*.
about 1 year ago
Hurin,
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4gmmwp
^
Raw numbers.
http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/
^
People do not have air conditioning or even heating, they freeze to death in the winter, they go hungry…
Again, your perspective on the poor in America is so out of touch with reality I’d have to take you by the hand and walk you through a homeless shelter (It’s no surprise to me, but it will be to you that the majority of people in homeless shelters are CHILDREN) and government housing (Again, you’ll see the majority of the occupants are CHILDREN.)…
You are shamelessly ignorant.
about 1 year ago
I’m happy that a lot of you aren’t voting.
about 1 year ago
Voting would be alot more interesting if I didn’t have to choose between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
about 1 year ago
I CAN’T vote, I’m a permanent resident. This video is mocking me!
about 1 year ago
Oh, and in reply to Vetarnias regarding the Canadian election.
The past Liberal government stole 40 Million dollars and gave the money to all of their advertising buddies who returned 40% of it back to the Liberals in brown paper bags, and the Liberals used the money as a slush fund to get re-elected (Google Adscam), while billing taxpayers $200 for pizza lunches and forcing strippers to work for their election campaigns for free, under threat of deportation (Google Sgro Strippers, or Volpe Pizza), if you don’t believe me.
They built a gun registry that was only supposed to cost 2 Million dollars and it has ended up costing us some stupid amount (upwards of a billion) and been bilked by their consultant friends for 100′s of millions of dollars in national defense computer contracts. Multi billion dollar corporations were allowed to flee Canada without paying a cent in taxes, and they allowed loopholes for companies to transfer all their assets to the Bermuda’s to escape paying taxes (including the Liberal Prime Ministers own shipping company)
And funny enough, not one single Liberal member went to jail over it, and even more funny is that fact that dumbass Canadians re-elected about 100 of them in a 317 seat house, because the felt that they identified more closely with them as compared to those redneck conservatives…
I could go on for hours about how much money the Liberals mismanaged/stole, but the saddest part is…
Twinkies who defend their record by examining the Conservatives 5-20 year old speeches looking for 6 lines that were copied out of 100, and using that as “evidence” that the criminals should be returned to power….
The problem with politics is that the entire process is designed from the ground up to allow only the fiercest, most power hungry, most often greedy, heartless folks to survive the process. And these are the last folks who should ever be in charge of things.
And I am saying that apolitically, the party doesn’t matter, it’s the process that is broken.
We’d be better off with a computer program that just randomly selected a voter every 4 years, sure we’d get a few duds but it would average out much better in my opinion.
about 1 year ago
This sort of apathy is why I’m in favour of mixing “special interest” votes with “geographical” votes. So, on an election, you’d cast two votes. One for your local representative and the other for the party you like best. A certain portion of the seats are then reserved to balance the difference between party votes and who wins the geographical first-past-the-post races.
The advantage of this system is that you can’t think that just because your vote wasn’t the tie vote it was meaningless. Instead, your realize the +1 votes was needed for your favorite party to gain the proportion it needed to get those bonus seats.
Speaking of Canada, if I understand properly, ties election funding to percentage performance rather than just seats won. This is how the Green party can claim funding despite no seats – the 10% of Canadians that voted for them didn’t waste their votes, but by directing votes their way directed funding and recognition their way.
The same issue, I think, lies with the electoral college in the US. The real problem isn’t politicians cherry picking the “cities”. It is that the “cities” aren’t as divided against themselves as they should be. The two party system is a very broken one – the proper way for a democracy to work is to a have sufficiently fractured party system that coalitions are required. This keeps the politicians hungry and unable to rely on the “safe” new york vote – a new New York First party might step forward, annex that vote, and then play the larger parties off each other. Much like you see in Canada with the aforementioned Bloc.
At some level, voter apathy is acceptable, however. I do think people who don’t want the franchise should not be forced to exercise it. It is not a good thing to make people vote based on what name they like best on the ballot box. This leads to reflexive sports-team voting (“I always vote republican” is not the sort of virtue “I always support the Cardinals” is) So, I can’t say I’m a fan of this sort of campaign. I think the voter apathy is structural. People have come to see the election as another SuperBowl because, to a large extent, it is one.
about 1 year ago
If you’re not voting, you don’t deserve your democracy. Please move to one of the numerous dictatorship around the globe, where your lack of commitment and apathy will be well rewarded.
about 1 year ago
@David E.
Still, let us not forget the blatant hypocrisy of the Conservatives themselves regarding their past.
For the benefit of American readers going through this without somehow falling asleep, the current “Conservative” leadership in fact got its start in politics by leaving the Progressive-Conservative Party when it was in power in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s and forming the Reform Party, based on a series of factors going from dissatisfaction over the constitutional position to the string of scandals (Airbus, anyone?) coming to light.
The PC Party under Brian Mulroney had taken power in 1984 with the largest majority of seats in Canadian history, then was re-elected in 1988 through an uneasy alliance of Quebec and Western Canada in an issue where the Free Trade Agreement dwarfed every other issue. However, a series of constitutional crises led to the departure of both bases of support, the West went with Reform and Quebec members splintered off to form the Bloc. Hence in 1993, a party that had formed two back-to-back majority government was only able to retain a measly two seats in the House. That same year, our beloved PM was elected as a Reform MP.
Fast-forward ten years. The Progressive-Conservative Party, with roots going back to 1867, is still around but struggling. Then the Canadian Alliance, formerly the Reform Party, makes the bold offer to annex the old PC Party, assume its pedigree, and drop the “progressive” part of the name. Despite some disagreement by some PC members, the merger goes through.
So now you’re getting a weird state of affairs with a Conservative leader who got his start by leaving the Conservatives; Western Canadian members who now find themselves wearing the tag of a party they once ended up hating with a passion; and since you can’t pick-and-choose which elements of your assumed heritage you want to retain, a leadership which once publicly damned Mulroney for everything he did (from pandering to Quebec to questionable use of public funds) now trying to name-drop him in a positive light when convenient, and either excuse his actions or remain silent.
And just by looking at them, you know there’s something sinister about themselves that they’re trying to keep under wraps. I voted Progressive-Conservative in 1997 and 2000, but after the merger there is no way I am going to vote for these new “Conservatives”.
The Liberals have their crimes, and they are plentiful. I too am tired of seeing them rely on their usual poles of support of Southern Ontario and Western Quebec, as though that were morally superior to the Tories taking Alberta for granted. I am sick of their regarding themselves as the natural governing party, and I for one wouldn’t weep if the NDP formed the Official Opposition this time around. Otherwise it’s going to be the usual Liberal strategy: Let the Conservatives enjoy their majority because it will be short-lived, then we’ll be back in power again. Just consider Diefenbaker.
And one of the peculiarities of this country is that, unlike in the US, there is always a constitutional crisis around the corner. Conservatives rarely survive them, and Ontario’s equalization whining is gearing up to be such a thing — and this of course under a Liberal premier who would just love to play kingmaker.
And that’s why I hate Liberals. They take things for granted, which after a while accrues to the point where they are seen as arrogant and kicked out of office. But when they get booted out, they just bide their time, knowing that their traditional zones of support will deliver as expected and that others will return to them.
I will just add that for all the bad taste in Conservative electioneering, who could ever forget those Liberal ads in the campaign of 2006, gems of fear-mongering seeking to expose Harper as a Bush worshiper with a hidden agenda, concluding with those portentous words: “We’re not allowed to make this up”? When those guys even forget something as basic as how to run a campaign, you know it’s time to show them the door.
Yes, the system is broken. But there is no way to fix it. I don’t see voter apathy as the cause, but rather as the natural conclusion, of such a democratic deficit. But stuck between self-serving politicians and a certain branch of exalted philosophy (from Socrates/Plato down) that has nothing but contempt for democracy, for the philosopher is seen as the only person apt enough to occupy a position of leadership (and hence can disguise his interest as a moral obligation — no need to be ambitious when it’s the people’s duty to come to you), I can’t say I’m surprised by the state of democracy.
about 1 year ago
Regarding reimbursement of expenses for candidates in Canada, you can check out this link:
http://www.elections.ca/loi/com/Election/ele04_e.html
Surprisingly enough, it’s outdated, as the minimum share of votes for a candidate to qualify for reimbursement has been lowered to 10% from 15$.
Also there is the notion of official party status. To be recognized in the House of Commons, you need a minimum of 12 seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_party_status
about 1 year ago
——————–
#
Hurin,
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4gmmwp
^
Raw numbers.
http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/
^
People do not have air conditioning or even heating, they freeze to death in the winter, they go hungry…
Again, your perspective on the poor in America is so out of touch with reality I’d have to take you by the hand and walk you through a homeless shelter (It’s no surprise to me, but it will be to you that the majority of people in homeless shelters are CHILDREN) and government housing (Again, you’ll see the majority of the occupants are CHILDREN.)…
You are shamelessly ignorant.
—————————————–
Uh. . . it’s like you just read one or two words of every sentence, then say: “Nuh uh! IGNORANT!”. . . and then feel good about yourself.
You just sent me two links just giving numbers. Nobody ever questioned that the government designates a whole lot of people as “impoverished” or “below the poverty line.” We all know that. The question is what constitutes “poverty” in this country.
You seem to (again) be (willfully?) confusing “poverty” with homelessness. The truly homeless constitute only a tiny, tiny fraction of those huge numbers that the government designates as “impoverished.” The vast, vast majority of those “impoverished” aren’t living on the streets or in shelters. So you can take me to all the shelters you want. . . that’s not poverty. That’s homelessness. And that’s not what the government figures you sent me are covering. You conflate the two and then hysterically point to the huge numbers to try to convince us that each of those numbers are not only on the street starving to death and dying of cold, but that they are CHILDREN! CHILDREN! Geez, demagogue much?
Nice attempt at redirection though. You can go on talking about the homeless. But I’m not. Since nobody has any issue with helping them.
You don’t seem to realize this basic fact: Homeless are impoverished. But not all impoverished are homeless.
The government has been redefining poverty upwards ever since LBJ and the Great Society. We keep dumping huge sums of money into the “war on poverty”. . . yet the poverty rate has *never* improved substantially. Why is that? Because we keep redefining what poverty is relative to the wealth of others, rather than absolute standards. It has become a means of exacerbating class warfare and income redistribution rather than providing the truly “impoverished” (by reasonable standards) with necessities.
And, one more time, as I said from the very beginning. . . we’re talking about those the government consider to be “impoverished”. . . and that is not synonymous with “homeless.”
I’ve given you ample opportunity to stop yelling “IGNORANT!” and “nuh-uh!” and actually make a cogent argument. But since that’s the best you seem to be able to do without being intellectually dishonest and willfully ignore distinctions of which I have to believe you are fully aware. It’s too bad you can’t make your points honestly and politely. Oh, but you don’t feel you need to be polite or even honest. Because everyone you disagree with is “ignorant” and probably dangerously so! You’re fighting for all that’s good and pure in the world. Even if you have to be disingenuous and demagogic as you do so.
So. . . I come here to read about MMORPGs. And I’m tired of hearing the same condescending, false crap from ya. You’ve got nothing, and your one attempt at substance above is demonstrably disingenous. So feel free to continue to call names and yell “nuh-uh! You’re so ignorant” and refer to people in their mid-30s who’ve been around a seen quite a bit as “white kids.” You’re only embarrassing yourself. After three or four posts, I think I’ve given you enough of a chance to say something of substance. And you haven’t. So I’m done. Take care.
about 1 year ago
Well, my much longer reply got stuck in the moderation queue. Probably because I quoted back those two links.
So, to sum up in case it never appears:
Providing two links to demonstrate that the government thinks there are a whole lot of people in “poverty” does nothing to further our discussion because the discussion has always been about what *constitutes* poverty in this country.
You then go on to (again) conflate homelessness and those living in shelters with the government’s definition of poverty. Yet, again, the homeless make up only a tiny, tiny fraction of those considered to be “impoverished.”
Nobody here doubts that the homeless have it very rough indeed and deserve our help. But while all those who are homeless are “impoverished”. . . not all “impoverished (according to our government’s definition) are homeless. Your need to conflate the two speaks volumes.
So, as I said in the yet-to-appear post. . . your need to avoid the actual topic and instead talk about the homeless and take us aside into irrelevant tangents when you’re not just asserting that those who disagree with you are “white kids” or (of course) merely ignorant. . . it all demonstrates that you don’t seem to really have that much to base your position upon. And as fun as it is to win an argument against someone who blusters and can’t help but call those they disagree with “ignorant” at every opportunity. . . it has stopped being fun because you aren’t even addressing the merits of the counter position. We’re talking about the definition of poverty and what it is constituted by in the real world for the vast majority of those so classified. You want to scream: “Think of the children you ignorant bastard! They’re all starving to death! See! Look at these numbers!” Yet, as anyone can see, those numbers say no such thing.
How do you argue with someone willing to go to those lenghts of intellectual dishonesty? Well, in my case, I choose not to.
about 1 year ago
Damn you J. I’ve been reading this blog for years and you’ve finally forced me into creating an account, just to reply to your post…
“This is a production of Leonardo DiCaprio’s company, who also got http://www.declareyourself.com started. Slightly NSFW splash page of Jessica Biel in bondage.
J.
3 Oct 08 at 10:23 pm”
It’s Jessica ALBA damn you, not Biel. Get your Jessica’s correct!
about 1 year ago
Living in Chicago I am tempted not to vote, Obama will take Illinois no matter if I vote for him or against him, since Chicago basically takes over the whole state when it comes to anything federal. There are a few local elections that are important, but usually they aren’t because the 2 parties run anyone out of town that even thinks about reform. The Machine here was originally against Obama too, until they figured out his idea of change was helping the poor, not fighting corruption, which made both parties happy.
But I guess I will vote anyway, mostly because I’ve known too many people from places like the former Iraq under Saddam, and some African countries, to be able to look them in the eye and say I squander everything I have but they didn’t have back there. I am thinking of voting for Barr, just to send a message. Whether that message is “I’m fed up with corrupt crap from both of you” or “I’m a nut” I am not sure.
Get rid of the electoral college? So only cities will count and rural and surburban voters won’t mean crap? It’s bad for the same reason removing the republic and deciding everything by referendum is bad: the majority will rule and the minority gets trampled. Or so that any small town could suddenly be the victim of lawsuits with tons of cash from the national parties, instead of lawsuits in just select cities right now during close elections, and our whole system grinds to a halt? We can’t even count votes with better than 2% accuracy yet.
about 1 year ago
Hurin,
You provided nothing but opinion. Your opinion can be summarized, “There are no truly poor people and even if there are, there aren’t very many.”.
I assume you stand by your opinion and any attempt to get you to look at any real substance is wasted.
Here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
The above right wing site agrees with you completely. They even source themselves for all of their “facts”.
The right wing in America has had as a fundamental and basic idea “there are no poor people and the poor people that can be proven to exist deserve it.” this class warfare has been going on since the mid 1800′s…
Here’s a book: http://tinyurl.com/3n6kw5
about 1 year ago
There is no hopeless situation. There are situations out of which you are not happy.
about 1 year ago
My favorite part is where you think an opinion is automatically rendered invalid because a conservative think-tank adopts some aspects of it or researches the issue. Because a Conservative can’t ever be right. They’re always and altogether *evil* and intent on brutalizing the old, starving children, and taking away your health care because. . . well, that’s just what they do!
I assume that it’s also fun to paraphrase someone’s argument as you do. . . removing all nuance and stating everything in ridiculous absolutes while (as always) refusing to acknowledge what the person is *actually* saying. You argue against what you *wish* people were saying because that’s convenient for you. But note that you never actually either understand or address the merits of the position you make vague, disingenuous attempts at addressing. And, finally, it’s entertaining to see how you totally ignore the way your prior post(s) have been dismantled and exposed as an attempt to change the subject (from “poverty” to “homelessness.”).
You’re like a caricature of a Left-wing nut-job. You actually seem to think that saying: “That’s something conservatives say” will actually cause the average person to think: “Oh! Then it must be wrong! What was I thinking!?!” Tell me, do all your friends think like you? Or, better yet, do you consider yourself to be immersed in intellectual diversity because some of your friends are Marxists while your other friends are merely Socialists?
But, of course. . . nobody has ever said here that “There are no poor” as you lamely and disingenuously allege.
It’s very simple (which is why you seem to intent on obfuscating): Poverty is a word. Words have definitions. The definition of poverty has changed over the last several decades and been constantly redefined upwards by our government so that people who would never have been considered “impoverished” forty years ago *are* now considered to be “impoverished” by our government. You play along not only with this gradual redefinition of the term “poverty”, but even attempt to perpetuate the myth that everyone (or the vast, vast majority) so-designated is actually in the dire straights (starving, freezing, homeless, helpless, hopless) that the programs were originally created to remedy.
But that’s simply not the case. “Poverty” doesn’t mean what it once did in this country. As others have said, go take a look elsewhere in the world for “real” poverty. “Poverty” in this country is no longer anything like that. That’s called “progress.” But of course, you can’t recognize such progress because it puts your agenda at risk and threatens to undermine an entire political constituency.
Is there economic inequality in this country? There sure is! Nobody would dispute that.
Is there the type of “poverty” in this country that there used to be and that still permeates most of the rest of the world. Hell no. And it’s sad that you can’t see that.
You and those perpetuating the class warfare you claim to despise intentionally confuse/conflate inequality with “poverty” and rail against them as though they are synonymous. They are not. And anybody with an ounce of common sense, a degree of historical context, and isn’t completely addled by revolutionary zeal can readily recognize the difference.
H
about 1 year ago
Wait, I can say that more succinctly:
You cling to a 1950/60s definition of poverty and put scare quotes around the word “facts” when they come from the census or other dispassionate sources because, for your worldview to make sense, you *need* to do so. For your politics, your agenda, and your *anger* to make sense, the “poor” must be in the dire, “3rd world”-esque, destitute straits that you and those so angered by the West’s wealth regularly assert (without any basis in fact). That entire vast number of people designated as “poor” by our goverment *must* be all (or nearly all) starving, homeless, and utterly destitute. And any facts to the contrary *must* be damn lies. Even when they come from bi/non-partisan census figures or otherwise dispassionate sources. They *must* be lies, and despite no evidence to the contrary, the poor in this country must be starving and destitute because otherwise, your cause and your self-esteem might suffer. And we can’t have that!
The Left plays games with the word “poor” and “poverty” in order to pretend that the free markets and Western-style capitalism are just as prone to impoverishing its people as those craptacular places all across the globe where such systems are not in place. Yet any non-revolutionary fool knows that there is a *vast* difference between “poverty” there and the pseudo-”poverty” we have over here. Which the rest of the world and any prior generation would have a hard time calling “poverty” at all.
Did I mention I was done? You say that I’m obstinate. Yet you yourself demonstrate that you’re impervious to facts and objective statistics and merely dismiss those that don’t fit your world-view. Meanwhile, I’m supposed to find agenda-driven socialist propaganda objectively enlightening and convincing. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so disheartening. And it’s disheartening because so many of our ignorant, brain-washed kids think like you in this day and age, take what they have for granted, and are going to piss away the most prosperous system and era ever known to mankind because people like you fill their heads with this naked propaganda. And, of course, everyone just wants to be a “good person” and help the “poor”. . . you just need to make sure they don’t actually learn what is actually meant by “poor” in this country.
about 1 year ago
Woops, I guess that wasn’t succinct either.
Oh well. I give up. Seeya.
H
about 1 year ago
I bookmarked your blog, thanks for sharing this very interesting article