...you go to a local public building, and press a button. Only old people in Florida found it convoluted. The only effort involved is actually going to where the polls are. Presumably they're "informed" by the time they vote. There's no point to show up to vote if you have no idea why you're voting for someone. You say it with such definites. Yes, money should be out of politics. That doesn't mean that people with more money have more free speech. There are some large non-profit organizations that have more lobbyists then large corporations do. Instead of being disillusioned by a few exceptional cases you have to stay grounded in reality.
sometimes i wonder if you are more interested in the argument than the solutions Proven voting fraud! Gov't programmer testifies voting machines are rigging elections - YouTube we need a redesign of the voting system, desperately!
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one that researches both sides for and against my own personal position thus eliminating bias If I can't come up with something specific then there is no point in saying ambiguous "solutions". Saying what we need to do in generalities like, FIX teh GOVrNMENT or END CoRUPTIONS, won't do anything. What I can do is research bills that do plan on fixing things or are progressive in nature and email congressmen in support of that bill or find petitions online to back them. Things that I can actually do that can make a difference.
Now you're just being stubborn. I'm generally conservative on a lot of things because I despise liberal rhetoric. It's often too idealistic to be practical. However, whether you like it or not, talking about the issues is doing something. Voting can be improved by eliminating registration and relying on a valid ID like a Driver's License. There are some who have suggested some form of online voting, too. Hell, I won't even touch on the whole gerrymandering problem, but districts could use some consideration as well. If you don't want us to generalize, don't turn around and say something foolish like all we have to do is walk in and hit a button. People are rarely informed. You say you don't like this hippy-speak people are using, but then you claim to have a tremendous amount of faith in the average voter. Be real, most people vote for some stupid reason like appearance or relatability. I don't even see why you would argue this point at all. Lastly, you're right, people don't actually have more free speech than other people. The precedent set would indicate otherwise, though. It must be changed to reflect reality.
Was talking in relation to what titmar said but thanks for chiming in. Also now who's getting caught up in the "semantics". I've said numerous times that if getting attention is all the occupy movement wanted then they've done that. But, as you pointed out, "liberal rhetoric" often sounds like generic statements that are "too idealistic to be practical". I personally wouldn't call it liberal rhetoric myself but fair enough. Almost anything and everything can be "improved". That doesn't make voting hard like you made it seem. As I said, the only effort is in going to a polling location. Have you ever seen the movie Man of the Year. It's a Robin Williams movie where he basically plays himself but running as president. The point was they introduced a digital voting machine that had a bug in it. That bug was caught by an employee and she pointed out that the bug could affect the result of the presidency (which it did). Now, I'm not saying this is a likely thing to happen and there are digital polling devices in some locations, the point is to put the entire presidency in the hands of a computer is a scary concept for a lot of people. But the statement, "all we have to do is walk in and hit a button" is true, I don't know where you vote where its a more complex process. Voter registration happens once not every time you vote. If you want to get technical about it, you walk in, sign a ledger while an old person stares at you, wait in line for the booth to open up, then press the button/pull a lever/punch a card/whatever and then leave. I don't know where you keep getting these grand statements like people are rarely informed. What research backs that up other than general observation. I'll use my dad as an example here. Whenever we go to a mall my dad likes to point out how crowded the mall is and then will poke fun at the fact that we are in a recession or down economy. Like he assumes that because the mall that we go to, (which is in an upper middle class neighborhood) is full that the claims of a down economy aren't true. Mind you there is no way to know whether the couple thousand of people in the mall is actually far less then it was 5 years ago as the average person will only notice things on a very grand scale. Like if the parking lot was empty and almost no one was walking around. Most people vote along party lines, evidence here, so at the bare minimum they are informed of their party. But let's assume by informed you mean that every voter knows every single issue that is on a candidate's platform, in that case you got me, I can't be sure as there is no statistic to back it up but it is probably true most Americans do not know every single issue that the candidate they want to vote for supports or does not support. Also, I never said I had a lot of faith in the average voter, (48% voted for Bush...twice), my point was when only 60% of the nation votes, and most of that percentage goes from people above the age of 50, we're missing a lot of opportunity to change things by not voting. That's 40% of eligible voters, (mostly young people), who refuse to vote because they think it won't matter. By precedent I assume you mean the supreme court ruling about corporations having the same rights as citizens of the US, (you really have to be more clear when you type). In that case yes, that should be overturned. I don't get the need to argue with me over (like your whole beef in the other thread, "semantics"). My opinion is the occupy movement just doesn't have the message yet. I'm not saying I don't support their cause (I went to a rally) or that they wouldn't eventually have that clear message, but until they do they won't be taken seriously and that "hippie" stuff will fall of death ears as the actual people trying to enact progressive change get overlooked because no one knew about them.
There is nothing about semantics in my posts. I only addressed a few recurring talking points you were bringing up. In fact, I wasn't even arguing, just bringing up some additional ways of viewing the movement and the motivations of the people involved. I pointed out how I share your disdain for liberal rhetoric in the first paragraph. I'm aware you were talking to Titmar, but you kept bringing up that same point as grounds to dismiss what was being said, even if it was general. I didn't make anything seem hard. I said the voting system is convoluted. That's it. This involves nearly everything to do with voting, not just how easy or hard it is for a voter to actually go vote. That would only be one aspect of how the entire system functions. We obviously agree that it can all be improved, so leave it at that instead of arguing for the sake of arguing. Your point about fear of electronics is valid. I would propose, however, that we have been scared of all sorts of "new" things throughout history, even something as ridiculous as the swinging hips of Elvis and his loud rock music. It's true that there is potential for fraud, but that is an unfortunate reality no matter what media voting occurs on. Electronic could potentially be even more secure, but at this time there is no reason to assume electronic would be better or worse. Voting along party lines is not an informed vote. Indeed, it is actually one of the most common uninformed votes. People typically inherit their political leanings from either their parents, friends, or school. If they vote, they then do so along those inherited lines. You seem to take issue with qualitative data because it often involves anecdotal evidence, and that's fine. I can assure you, though, that I'm not basing my statements about the subject on personal experience. As for the precedent, I was referring to Citizens United in the previous post, I had no way of knowing you'd lose track so quickly. However, corporate personhood will have to be addressed at some point, too. It's not terrible if the limitations are clearly defined. After all, personhood is very helpful for things like managing the taxes of a corporation. The problem is that a can of worms was opened because corporations have tried to claim all kinds of rights that regular people have, but without the drawbacks of being punished and going to jail the way regular people do. It's one of those potentially disastrous subjects that we ought to pay more attention to. Your overall point about the cause of OWS is understandable, I only submit that the problem itself is not as cut and dry as it was in the movements you mentioned previously. Our troubles span across government and the financial sector, and we need solutions in a wide variety of areas. All I'm saying is that the current ambiguity of OWS isn't really the fault of the movement itself, just the nature of the problems we are facing. Other than that specific point, we are in agreement, so there's no need to get riled up, eh?
I'm going to stop you right there...are you serious with this? Do I have to start quoting things? I'm going to let this one sit by itself without going into it. I never called it liberal rhetoric, you can't act like words you said are what I said. "hippie talk" and liberal rhetoric are not the same nor close in my opinion. As far as the second thing I said, I keep saying "what I think". It's my opinion on the matter. Titmar asked why am I not coming up with solutions. I said why. I'm not dismissing anything other than this vague belief that our entire nation's way of life is horrible and can't be fixed without some sort of major revolution. You say its not about semantics and yet you make a statement like this...Again, not touching that with a 10 foot pole. For the record, not arguing for the sake of arguing would have involved you not replying. Unless you think you're not arguing right now but merely explaining your thoughts in my general direction I could run through the entirety of the 3 step voting process (fill out a registration form, go to a polling location, vote) but I'll just assume the system is more convoluted in other states. Now you're just getting silly. At least when I did an aside to a similar story that story was directly related to the argument, not how WWII vets thought about their kids listening to Elvis. (And WWI vets thought their kids were crazy for listening to Jazz but it has almost nothing to do with what I was talking about except for the smallest of factors). But there would be plenty of reason to assume. You are the ones saying the government is completely corrupt. Who do you think would run such voting systems. Possibly a wealthy corporation would be given control of the system or make the system. But, discussion on voting is a digression and the only reason I mentioned it is because most of the people that complain they have no voice don't even vote. While one could blame that on disillusionment with the system by not voting they really are putting their faith in all the people that do go to vote that probably don't support any of their ideals. Somehow I knew you'd argue that as well. A simple google search of uninformed voter will show you numerous pdfs and scholarly work explaining that the most common uniformed voter votes for a candidate based on essentially no real information. They vote based on how they like the name, or if they saw one of the candidates on television and one seemed better looking, or had a better personality. They couldn't care less what party the politician was on. If they didn't sound right, look right, or act right they weren't getting a vote. The other most common case is the uninformed voter simply didn't vote but obviously we're not counting them. Like I said, voting along party lines is the minimum requirement for an informed vote. It means you at least acknowledge who's the democrat and who's the republican. You're also assuming the worst out of someone who votes by party lines, meaning the people that vote for someone just because their dad did, or mom, etc. (That can qualify as not knowing what party the person is actually in by the way, thus my definition of uninformed). Voting by party lines means you could also know the basic gist of the party platforms. Democrats more for social reform and the environment, etc. Republican more for small government, strong capitalist system, etc. Again a digression of the overall discussion but I'd be damned if I was going to let that one slide. Qualitative evidence is fine if the proper explanation and credence is given to it. No one should treat hearsay as if it is actual fact. The problem with observations is that people tend to take what they observe and start forming facts based around those observations. As soon as that happens their personality then starts to defend those facts as if they were written down in the book of absolute knowledge. And you say that but so far only Titmar has provided links backing up his points of view. Again chrono, you gotta work on this consistency thing. Your post was 13 hours prior and between a post where I was responding to a post made by titmar and your response before the latest one. I'm not studying each post with a fine tooth comb to make sure every bread crumb is accounted for. If you were referring to Citizens United say, "the precedent Citizens United set" or something like that. Should I use indefinite verbs and subject less sentences when referring to the first thing I said in this discussion, "those were some nice paintball guns" and assume you should know what I'm talking about? It really, really, isn't that hard to be clear when you type. But, knowing how these discussions are going, this to will get a response back along the lines of, "don't blame me for you not paying attention well enough". To which my response is, fair enough but a little clarity never hurt and would decrease the chances of these long discussions. Personally I feel this one's more agredious then the citizens united thing. It's the reason why some very large corporations CEO's never went to jail for the things they did. (AIG, Goldman-Sachs, etc) Let's put it this way. You can't put out 20 fires with a limited amount of water all at once. You put out the largest fire first and move on one-by-one until you run out of fires. When you dilute the message you're trying to get across the overall effect is nothing gets done. If a strong resolute message is sent with the focus on one major problem (pick the largest issue people have a problem with, Citizens United, fine let's decide that one first) then the movement can be all about that problem. That problem gets delt with the movement moves on to a new problem. Then the movement takes on the role of a party with a set platform. A platform people can take seriously.
"I never called it liberal rhetoric, you can't act like words you said are what I said. "hippie talk" and liberal rhetoric are not the same nor close in my opinion." Semantics. I used a different term to refer to the same thing. You're splitting hairs. "You say its not about semantics and yet you make a statement like this...Again, not touching that with a 10 foot pole." Let me repeat this for you: You claimed I made voting seem hard when I said nothing of the sort. I then repeated what I actually said about the voting system so that you could not put words in my mouth and proceed to argue against those words. You are arguing against your own assumptions. "For the record, not arguing for the sake of arguing would have involved you not replying. Unless you think you're not arguing right now but merely explaining your thoughts in my general direction " You are no longer making sense. My initial posts were offering alternative views before devolving into the argument. More splitting hairs. "I could run through the entirety of the 3 step voting process (fill out a registration form, go to a polling location, vote) but I'll just assume the system is more convoluted in other states." Once again, the voting system involves more than what happens on the voter's end. You are oversimplifying and missing the point. "Now you're just getting silly. At least when I did an aside to a similar story that story was directly related to the argument, not how WWII vets thought about their kids listening to Elvis. (And WWI vets thought their kids were crazy for listening to Jazz but it has almost nothing to do with what I was talking about except for the smallest of factors)." Completely missed the point. You claimed electronic voting would be scary for a lot of people as if that is reason enough not to use electronic voting. I only pointed out that people are often scared of ridiculous things, but that doesn't mean those things that they fear are bad. We can't rule out electronic voting just because it might make people worry; we have to give it serious consideration first. "Somehow I knew you'd argue that as well. A simple google search of uninformed voter will show you numerous pdfs and scholarly work explaining that the most common uniformed voter votes for a candidate based on essentially no real information. They vote based on how they like the name, or if they saw one of the candidates on television and one seemed better looking, or had a better personality." I raised this point in a previous post. You are making the very same point as if it is an argument against me. Stop it. We are both aware of this fact and in agreement. "Like I said, voting along party lines is the minimum requirement for an informed vote" You make this statement, but then say: "That can qualify as not knowing what party the person is actually in by the way, thus my definition of uninformed" This is your fundamental problem in our conversations thus far; You have your own personal definitions and views of various words and subjects. Some of them are harmless, others are detached from reality. It's as if you have your own language that you expect everyone else to adhere to on a strict, technical level. This is what makes simple, concise discussions with you a near impossibility. "Qualitative evidence is fine if the proper explanation and credence is given to it. No one should treat hearsay as if it is actual fact. The problem with observations is that people tend to take what they observe and start forming facts based around those observations. As soon as that happens their personality then starts to defend those facts as if they were written down in the book of absolute knowledge. And you say that but so far only Titmar has provided links backing up his points of view." You're right, I have not been posting specific sources. While I normally give people the benefit of the doubt by assuming they aren't pulling facts out of mid-air in these kinds of discussions, it's fair if you choose not to. You have no way of knowing my credibility, after all. That said, I've done extensive work in communication, news media, and politics to a lesser degree. My knowledge base does not stem from skimmed websites or sweeping generalizations, but from books, databases, the work of my peers, and even basic communication theory. I understand your skepticism, but you don't have to doubt me. "Again chrono, you gotta work on this consistency thing. Your post was 13 hours prior and between a post where I was responding to a post made by titmar and your response before the latest one. I'm not studying each post with a fine tooth comb to make sure every bread crumb is accounted for. If you were referring to Citizens United say, "the precedent Citizens United set" or something like that. Should I use indefinite verbs and subject less sentences when referring to the first thing I said in this discussion, "those were some nice paintball guns" and assume you should know what I'm talking about? It really, really, isn't that hard to be clear when you type. But, knowing how these discussions are going, this to will get a response back along the lines of, "don't blame me for you not paying attention well enough". To which my response is, fair enough but a little clarity never hurt and would decrease the chances of these long discussions." It's true, I could just say "lol scroll up" and be done with it, but I can always try to specify more if it will help, too. I will say this, though: when you haven't been clear on something, you have a tendency to fill in the gap with your own assumption and begin your argument based off of that. This led to a nice digression about personhood in this case, but you should avoid such gap-filling in the future. "Personally I feel this one's more agredious then the citizens united thing. It's the reason why some very large corporations CEO's never went to jail for the things they did. (AIG, Goldman-Sachs, etc)" Definitely, and I would say it's what opened the door for things like Citizens United. The way these issues intertwine is part of what makes this entire dilemma so difficult to deal with. "Let's put it this way. You can't put out 20 fires with a limited amount of water all at once. You put out the largest fire first and move on one-by-one until you run out of fires. When you dilute the message you're trying to get across the overall effect is nothing gets done. If a strong resolute message is sent with the focus on one major problem (pick the largest issue people have a problem with, Citizens United, fine let's decide that one first) then the movement can be all about that problem. That problem gets delt with the movement moves on to a new problem. Then the movement takes on the role of a party with a set platform. A platform people can take seriously." That's really a personal approach, though. It may be valid in many cases, but I find that this is too complicated to just try and "fix" one problem before moving on. As I said, they are too closely intertwined. Even the 1 percenter from the video posted earlier in the thread suggested that this goes beyond Wall Street, and that the protesters should be in Washington, too. Even if you were to tackle one thing at a time, what do all the suffering families do in the meantime? I'm sure they'd appreciate having money out of politics, but they need relief. There are simply too many different things at stake to set most of them on the back-burner. What's more, who's to say a platform should even be the end goal? Why should OWS want to become a tea party style of movement at all? Why does it have to become more political to be taken seriously? As I said before, I think it would be fine if it simply continues to gain support and change the way people think about the system in general. If more people simply acknowledge what's going on, there will be more people who can contribute to solutions in their own way.
I was going to go on a quoting spree again but, as you have have one of the worst cases of "last word" syndrome on the face of the Earth, and I love showing the weaknesses in a poorly formed point of view, it would go infinitely long. My opinions are based off the opinions of many smart people who know what they're talking about. It is also based off historical precedent of what worked. You're arguing with me like I'm the one not listening to the occupy movement or trying to stop them. My entire point is simply why they aren't being taken to seriously. That isn't an opinion, that's an observable fact of the occupy movement right now. I compare this to the tea movement because they weren't taken seriously first either, they formed a clear message, and that message made its way into politics and got serious discussion over it. I don't like their message but the point is their tactics were effective. But you know what, if you find my dissenting but well grounded opinion on the movement too negative then hey, we'll try it their way. Sure there's no historical precedent of anything they want happening (other then the Russian Revolution, and that worked out well for Russia in the long run /sarcasm) nor of their tactics working but if they want to continue doing it then by all means. By the way, a movement that did have results was the peace movement of the late 60's to 70's. That message was 1 thing, bring the troops home. Sure many hippies and disillusioned people wanted many other changes to happen within government but it was that single message that essentially won Nixon the election because he promised to do that 1 thing, despite what generals advised which was send in more troops.
Further proof that you just want to argue. You should try having your own opinion instead of the opinion of some smart people you googled, lol.
You have no grounds to say my point of view is poorly formed. Considering we agree about much of this, you're insulting your own view as well. "My opinions are based off the opinions of many smart people who know what they're talking about." I thought this was cute, but I'm not questioning what you know. As I said, I give people the benefit of the doubt. I've never said OWS wasn't being taken seriously enough, nor have I said you're against them. You have claimed that they "need" to do certain things, while I have suggested that their motives may not be the same motives you believe they should have. As for tactics, I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture here. OWS itself doesn't have to accomplish anything major. It doesn't even have to survive the entire ordeal. OWS could merely be the trigger for more substantial events in the future. If it manages to become a platform like the tea party, then hey, that'd be interesting to see. If all it does is raise awareness among the public, that's fine too. As I pointed out near the end of my last post, a movement with one simple message would be just dandy, but unfortunately, that won't be possible for OWS. There are simply too many factors involved.
I am not an expert on politics, I don't keep voting statistics or information about bills in my head (I do have my own life to concern myself with). I refer to the experts when my own opinion isn't enough to form a discussion on, something everyone should do. I also watch C-SPAN (on rare occasion), CNN, MSNBC, listen to NPR, and occasionally watch Fox news, CBS news, and NBC news as well as research things for various school paper editorials. So whenever I do use google its to get a specific statistic to drive my point or get my definitions from (so, not my own personal definitions of terms chrono ).
You specifically said they were your personal definitions, so yes they are. Even if you add other people's personal definitions, that doesn't necessarily make them any more correct. Just to be clear, it may not be a dictionary definition I'm referring to, either. Your view of what constitutes an informed voter is a good example.
Seek help regarding the last word syndrome, seriously. I've said that once And that was in reference to the definitions I looked up from other scholarly works (the pdf's I mentioned in that paragraph) to compare what you called an uninformed voter and what I called an uninformed voter. And by adding opinions from people that are experts or more learned in what we're talking about then I am then that certainly does make my opinion more correct or at least more well founded. It makes it factually supported as opposed to just piecing together a point of view from disjoint sources that may or may not be credible (not saying you are, just saying what the alternative is to not researching what experts have to say on the topic). You wouldn't learn calculus from a hobo off the street when you could learn it from an accredited teacher. Sure the hobo might know a thing or two but I'll trust the teacher every time. By the way, me choosing to reply to titmar instead of your reply (which I could have easily continued on) was my subtle hint of saying I'm done. A hint I thought I put in the previous response to you when instead of quoting every single counter point you made I went meta and summed up my general opinion. Tell ya what, you have free reign of the discussion now. I'm out.
Drop the last word nonsense. There's no competition here, and if I feel something needs to be said then I will say it. "to compare what you called an uninformed voter and what I called an uninformed voter." This was the problem I pointed out, how you're making a distinction about something that should be pretty standard. I didn't just come out and say that your definition is wrong because you at least have your own personal rationale that justifies an informed voter in your mind, but the reality is that even people who vote along party lines can easily be uninformed, and they usually are. Knowing a candidate's party is typically a given. I'm only pointing this out to you so that you don't try to build an argument on a foundation that is fundamentally unsound. Even if you end up making a decent point, other people may not be able to follow the trail of logic that you've developed in your own mind.
Links Dump: Hour Long discussion panel Occupy Everywhere: Michael Moore, Naomi Klein on Next Steps for the Movement Against Corporate Power | Truthout Why America Is Doomed: We Riot For Waffle Irons And Disgraced Football Coaches | Mediaite Why Iceland Should Be in the News, But Is Not | Truthout The Occupy Movement Stats & Figures, What Are Your Views? - YouTube Corporations Are Patenting Human Genes and Tissues -- Here's Why That's Terrifying | | AlterNet [br][/br]Edited by merge: Phase Two of Occupy Will Not Be Electoral | War Is A Crime .org A Statement by the General Assembly of OccupyWashingtonDC.org and proposed to the Occupy Movement A growing list of media outlets and partisan organizations are urging us to "evolve," "mature," and "move on" to become part of the problem we have been protesting for months. Most specifically Move On and Rebuild the Dream are promoting and attempting to co-opt and divert the Occupy Movement into a policy of electing Democrats and legislative reform--thereby keeping a system based on control by the 1% firmly in place with yet more promises (never fulfilled) of "change we can believe in." Both Move On and Rebuild the Dream have attempted in insidious ways to hitch their faltering Democratic wagons to the struggle and success of the Occupy Movement. Both have attempted to appear as supporters and organizational spokespersons for the Occupy Movement while in reality they are and always have been front organizations for the Democratic Party. We believe elections are essential to a peaceful, just, and sustainable future, and we will continue to push for changes in our electoral system that will guarantee every human the right to vote for candidates who are not financially corrupted or filtered through gerrymandering, unreasonable ballot restrictions or corporate media gate-keeping, and to have our votes verifiably and publicly counted. We believe, however, that elections alone cannot accomplish what is needed. We cannot "vote" against the disastrous influence of Wall Street or war profiteers by backing either of the two major political parties. Next year's presidential election and most congressional races will offer two major-party candidates, neither of whom agrees with the majority of the people on fundamental issues. We will not divert our energies into electoral work. We will not identify with or begin to make compromises and apologies for any party, political candidate, or elected official. We demand that the corporate plutocracy be replaced by majority rule. We will educate and organize. We will agitate and mobilize. We will escalate our campaign of cultural and societal change. We will bring increased pressure to bear on our government in Washington, D.C. We will bring this pressure as the people to the government as a whole, not as cheerleaders for one part of the government against another. We will not go away, we will not be silenced, we will not relinquish the right to speak freely, to peaceably assemble, and to petition our government for a redress of grievances. We will not relent. We will not be defeated. We will not be co-opted by either the Democratic or Republican Party, both of which have sold us out in Congress, the Supreme Court, and in the White House. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Ehrenreich: The Truth Exposed by Occupy Shows That the Real Elites Are the Thieves of the 1%, Not The Liberals of Conservative Myth | Occupy Wall Street | AlterNet
I feel like this belongs here: HR 347 - Trespass Bill Threatens First Amendment - YouTube George Orwell must be turning in his grave right now.
That's our government. Bi-partisan support when it comes to solutions for fixing our nations problems such as debt, unemployment, corruption? No. Bi-partisan support for a bill further degrading the First Amendment to the point where the amendment is just for show? Yes. Who needs to fix problems when you can just silence the people bringing them up?