Nothing to add, however thank you for the inclusion.
Some member's odd habit of posting right wing propaganda and his nonstop cultivation of it.
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
Nothing to add, however thank you for the inclusion.
Pin
"Magnificent Bastard" / Ren's Counterpart
- Jun 26, 2017
- 12,749
- 50,519
- 3,276
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 3w4, 3-8-7
I'm not big on being removed. Although, I am fascinated with her ideal hero: a gifted man who overcomes the limitations of others.
My hot take on politics..
Change who gets the vote. 1 vote PER family. If you live with your parents you don't get a vote. If you live on your own with a wife or husband. You get one vote between the both of you.
The the goal being. A family with children will think more about the longevity of the country and policies that will help the country. They will also avoid unneeded war because the family's child could be dragged into that fight due to Draft or just regular military service.
Change who gets the vote. 1 vote PER family. If you live with your parents you don't get a vote. If you live on your own with a wife or husband. You get one vote between the both of you.
The the goal being. A family with children will think more about the longevity of the country and policies that will help the country. They will also avoid unneeded war because the family's child could be dragged into that fight due to Draft or just regular military service.
They will just change the vote numbers electronically. You are under the mistaken impression that votes actually count.
“Presidents are selected, not elected.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
― Winston S. Churchill
Did anyone listen to this speech?
This is a portion of the speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961.
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
"No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers-- I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news-- for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...
"And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."
This is a portion of the speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961.
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
"No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers-- I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news-- for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...
"And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,262
- 246,773
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Untenable, if for no other reason that it presumes any given couple (family unit, whatever) would necessarily share political affiliation and candidate preference up-and-down the ticket. It's anathema to the concept of individual liberty. Why even bother with representative democracy if you strip away voting sovereignty from that many people?
There is zero evidence to assume that either of these concepts would hold up over time. Plenty of folks with children would view military conscription as their child's "patriotic duty" or somesuch nonsense.
Also individual voters have nothing to do with decisions involving military action (declared or otherwise), so I'm not sure how that's even relevant.
It is not so much they effect the decisions but they elect the people who sit on the US senate committee on Armed Services. People who directly influence the military and the polices they enact.
Yes and those are good people at heart and it is a patriotic duty. The whole point of being a country is you are willing to defend it against others. However, Parents who vote would have more reason to think of the welfare of their children over their own. That mentality is what I would like to see push political policy. What is going to benefit our children more? X or Y?
I would go on a ledge and say individual liberty is also just a meme.
- Dec 29, 2009
- 5,536
- 22,536
- 3,498
- MBTI
- INFJ
No one is. But we are an interconnected web, and if we try to push "the people" at some point, they react. My feeling about her is she was clever, but with a very creepy vibe. Any closer examination of her ideas, show how damaged she and her views were.
Eventually "time" removes all of us. Have you ever seen I Claudius ? It's very dated, but well worth a watch.
Sigh. Do you honestly believe the average voter (er, excuse me, single-household proxy voter or whatever the fuck) gives a damn about things like who serves on senate committees? Short answer - no, they do not. The very well-informed voters in your hypothetical scenario would be so few as to not move the needle.
What's much more concerning is that your idea would disenfranchise the votes of so many people with direct stakes in policy matters where "smaller" voices need to be heard. Frankly, it reeks of voting privilege as originally designed in this country, i.e. that only landowners of a certain race and sex be given a voice. In fact, in the times we live in today (where popular opinion seems to be largely ignored even at the best of times) I cannot imagine a worse idea.
I have yet to see any evidence of a majority of people behaving in this manner. I believe what would actually happen is that political parties would use this as an opportunity to further consolidate base and drill down on the same emotional rhetoric they use today to sway votes and distract from real, material human concerns. Opportunities for positive change would be drastically limited.
Also, by proxy you'd be giving more power to those who choose to raise children over those who don't, which personally I find to be patently immoral.
:wyotethumb: okay pal.
Even if they succeed in “firing” or getting rid of Mueller - it’s not going to stop the investigation...you know, the one with four guilty pleas so far and Trump’s taxes being subpoenaed.
Firing Mueller does jack shit...someone else will just take over.
And firing him just makes Trump look even more like he’s covering shit up...his totally blatantly guilty actions and statements.
Derp.
Rosenstein would have to fire Mueller with cause. He maintains there is no cause to fire Mueller. At this point, not even Trump is dumb enough to say he is going to fire him, though there is a work around that would allow for that... It would really make it obvious he is guilty of something, though. And he is denying that he is considering doing it. If Trump has not done anything illegal and has nothing to hide, he should just let this play out. There must be a lot more indictments coming. (I'm thinking of all these GOP law makers calling for him to be fired/resign.) This investigation allows Mueller to look into ANY illegal activity he may come across. It's not just limited to collusion. If Mueller is fired, he can still challenge his termination in court. So that what remains hidden can still be exposed.
- Dec 29, 2009
- 5,536
- 22,536
- 3,498
- MBTI
- INFJ
It was the firing of the special counsel investigating Watergate, that led to Nixon's resignation.