Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[Charla]

Or enough volume to make it as high as Jesse Ventura did, for that matter.

[Keno]

Fuck throwing your votes away to the same warmongers, why don't you vote on something that will make a diff http://www.nationalinitiative.us/

Really not much to discuss about nowadays if all the candidates, that have a chance to win, all share the same mindsets for war. What's this about people using the same bullshit story that Nader helped Bush win the election? ROFL How simple can you be to think that? I think you may have missed the whole bit where Bush managed to get the Supreme Court to stop the election/recount, therefor rendering the whole election meaningless

There's more important issues to be campaigning for, rather than Nader's presidency, if you want to get involved that is. It takes alot of time and research to fight the real problems; I can attest to this. Its time to stop wasting our time focusing on the circus every 4 years and going back to basics of democracy. Research our founding fathers, the history of our wars, and go back to fighting for what our country's principles used to stand for.

Here's some good sites with a ton of documentaries to watch, the best being the ones focusing on American History, War, and business topics. Yes, they contain 9/11 docus, but there's a wealth of unrelated videos that shouldn't be disregarded.

http://www.teachpeace.com/movies2all.htm
http://freedocumentaries.org/

Long ass post, but actually just posted something similar today lol Just doing my part to try and spark an interest in someone to look away from the shell game for a second and start hammering the books

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

I just read up on http://www.nationalinitiative.us and I have to say I'm thoroughly interested. But it says the voting started in 2002, does this thing really still have any chance of getting off the ground? And how can I help?

[Kailee]

Don't be a hater, vote for Nader!

[archibaldcrane]

I just read up on http://www.nationalinitiative.us and I have to say I'm thoroughly interested. But it says the voting started in 2002, does this thing really still have any chance of getting off the ground? And how can I help?

It proposes implementing a constitutional amendment that doesn't go through congress.

It's say it has exactly 0% chance.

[sunb1ind]

I just read up on http://www.nationalinitiative.us and I have to say I'm thoroughly interested. But it says the voting started in 2002, does this thing really still have any chance of getting off the ground? And how can I help?

Yeah, its completely in the dark in-terms of political coverage. The best thing you can do really is get the word out to other people in your community about it. It needs 17% national vote to become law, that's really miniscule. The only problem is hardly anyone has heard about it, the government fears it. You can also make a tax-deductable donation to the program also to help them get it advertised. I've done some discussion groups in the past at local colleges about it. Those are the best places to start at.

[aurik]

Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like you're advocating we all become more involved in democracy whilst shifting our attention away from our...democracy?

No, how would my post indicate that? Do you sincerely believe our current electoral process is democratic?

Representative democracy, yes.

Why do you think direct democracy would work any better than representative democracy?

[Keno]

I just read up on http://www.nationalinitiative.us and I have to say I'm thoroughly interested. But it says the voting started in 2002, does this thing really still have any chance of getting off the ground? And how can I help?

It proposes implementing a constitutional amendment that doesn't go through congress.

It's say it has exactly 0% chance.

According to their FAQ:

The government, with federal and state participation, amends the Constitution under Article V. The People created the government by ratifying the Constitution under the procedures of Article VII. This Article lacks procedures for the People to amend what they created. However, it is implicit in Article VII that the creator has the power to alter its creation so long as the procedures for so doing are reasonable and comport to historic practices. The creative power of the People is acknowledged in the Preamble of the Constitution, and reinforced in the Bill of Rights.

[sunb1ind]

I just read up on http://www.nationalinitiative.us and I have to say I'm thoroughly interested. But it says the voting started in 2002, does this thing really still have any chance of getting off the ground? And how can I help?

It proposes implementing a constitutional amendment that doesn't go through congress.

It's say it has exactly 0% chance.

Nothing is impossible. Other states, California for example, already have a similar system implemented. Other countries as well have it and it works incredibly well. The states that already have a system like this have shown huge support over the internet.

Is supporting something like the Nation Initiative really a waste of time, in comparison to voting in todays election?

[archibaldcrane]

Would you feel better if I said "a 0.000001%" chance?

[Beckwin]

Umm, considering that the Supreme Court would make the decision on whether the popular vote to make it part of the Constitution was valid or not and I'm kinda leaning toward they wouldn't approve (if only for their own sake so they didn't have to have tons of hearings on really poorly made initiative laws), then yes, it's kinda pointless.

This, like Nader, is just the wrong way to go about instituting change. The fact that multiple states already have some form of initiative system seems like a standard amendment process might be the best bet.

Although the whole idea of national initiative sounds like a lobbyist's wet dream.

[Keno]

Umm, considering that the Supreme Court would make the decision on whether the popular vote to make it part of the Constitution was valid or not and I'm kinda leaning toward they wouldn't approve (if only for their own sake so they didn't have to have tons of hearings on really poorly made initiative laws), then yes, it's kinda pointless.

This, like Nader, is just the wrong way to go about instituting change. The fact that multiple states already have some form of initiative system seems like a standard amendment process might be the best bet.

Although the whole idea of national initiative sounds like a lobbyist's wet dream.

If you would read their site you'd see that it would place little to no burden on congress, the house, or the executive branch. Go read their page, it's pretty interesting how they said they'd do everything (including using a jury type system that selects which laws will go to a vote). I can't do justice in explaining how the whole process works, so if you want to know more just go read their site.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I just read up on http://www.nationalinitiative.us and I have to say I'm thoroughly interested. But it says the voting started in 2002, does this thing really still have any chance of getting off the ground? And how can I help?

It proposes implementing a constitutional amendment that doesn't go through congress.

It's say it has exactly 0% chance.

Nothing is impossible. Other states, California for example, already have a similar system implemented. Other countries as well have it and it works incredibly well. The states that already have a system like this have shown huge support over the internet.

Is supporting something like the Nation Initiative really a waste of time, in comparison to voting in todays election?

DAMNIT!! i was hoping you got banned, i was enjoying this thread

[Kuya]

Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like you're advocating we all become more involved in democracy whilst shifting our attention away from our...democracy?

No, how would my post indicate that? Do you sincerely believe our current electoral process is democratic?

Representative democracy, yes.

Why do you think direct democracy would work any better than representative democracy?

Well barring the fact that applying a direct democracy would be difficult due to the US's size, a direct democracy would provide more transparency to politics, decreases corruption, no compromise of ideals to a political party, and the decrease of patronage and nepotism, to name a few positives. I think that overall, a direct democracy is better, just that sucesfully implementing it is the problem.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

IMaybe all it would really take to change the system is a bajillionaire with a coherent platform that can't be pulled out from under him by a major party, and of course a lot of luck.

Or if somehow Hillary gets the nomination over Obama, even though he will probably win the popular vote, my crazy theory is that Bloomberg will donate a billion dollars to Obama so he can run as a 3rd party candidate. Of course Bloomberg would be the VP, and if Obama wins, being VP for however long will make him a more viable 3rd party candidate.

[sunb1ind]

DAMNIT!! i was hoping you got banned, i was enjoying this thread

Thanks for your input, but I'd advise staying away from threads that contain big words. You might be able to contribute that way, my friend :D

Representative democracy, yes.

Why do you think direct democracy would work any better than representative democracy?

Well barring the fact that applying a direct democracy would be difficult due to the US's size, a direct democracy would provide more transparency to politics, decreases corruption, no compromise of ideals to a political party, and the decrease of patronage and nepotism, to name a few positives. I think that overall, a direct democracy is better, just that sucesfully implementing it is the problem.

Bingo, that's basically what it comes down to. There is just no push to implement these things, why would they mess with something that has worked so well for them? Again, this is why the National Initiative is literally unheard of to people, the government and those who control it are scared shitless of it.

I'm going to try to find a docu I remember seeing on Switzerland's Direct Democracy government. The system works beautifully and its something we need to go back to using, there's not a good reason why we shouldn't. If I can't find the video, I believe wikipedia gives a decent description at least on how their's works.

[Olo401]

Do people not realize that they ultimately harm their self-interests when their vote effectively counteracts their own beliefs?

Fixed, and I've been asking this question for years.

[Tristam]

Nader...seriously didn't we learn our lesson?

2000: Nader compared Bush and Gore to "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" implying of course that they were essentially identical. The reality? We passed over the greenest candidate the country has ever seen for a war hawk oil tycoon. Nader totally misrepresented candidate platforms to try and get his social progressive issues brought to the forefront.

Social progressivism is a-ok, but Nader's lost all credibility as a serious candidate, in this case imo the ends did not justify his means and only make him look ignorant of competitor viewpoints. If any third party was actually serious they had damn well better find someone other than Nader.

This is seriously our best bet for a third party??? comeon.

edit: wrong date oops

[Charla]

Ross Perot was our best bet for a third-party president. He actually broke double-digit percentages, and came in second in a couple states.

[Correction]

Every day I thank God that Perot didn't win.

[Khamsin]

Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like you're advocating we all become more involved in democracy whilst shifting our attention away from our...democracy?

No, how would my post indicate that? Do you sincerely believe our current electoral process is democratic?

Representative democracy, yes.

Why do you think direct democracy would work any better than representative democracy?

Well barring the fact that applying a direct democracy would be difficult due to the US's size, a direct democracy would provide more transparency to politics, decreases corruption, no compromise of ideals to a political party, and the decrease of patronage and nepotism, to name a few positives. I think that overall, a direct democracy is better, just that sucesfully implementing it is the problem.

The point of a representative democracy is to filter the will of the masses through people who know better what's going on and the impacts of such decisions. Sure, this isn't the day of the Pony Express anymore. People are much better connected and informed nowadays. However, I'm pretty sure most of us are far from experts in the political arena. Some people really are well informed and keep up on all the political issues. But even then, do they have the hands-on experience the politicians do in such matters? And assuming that a percentage of voters are politically savvy and are able to properly evaluate the impacts of each issue, how many more voters are just plain dumbasses?

While there is always the potential for corruption, that's why we vote politicians into office. If they fuck up, or don't represent us adequately, they don't get another term. There's advantages to a republic form of government, and advantages to a democratic form of government. We just took the best of both worlds and came up with a happy medium. The people vote on who to represent them, and then the representatives weigh the issues and make more experienced and informed decisions based on the will of the voters who keep them in office.

Besides, if this nation were completely democratic, the country would be entirely lobbyist driven. Do you want lobbyists to decide our laws?

Every day I thank God that Perot didn't win.

Well, he had to drop out of the race because the Republicans kidnapped his daughter. Otherwise, he might have!