Jump to content
Crisis

American Politics

Recommended Posts

I have contacted my congressmen, representatives, senator and govenor and sent them this message...

 

I am writing you regarding the NM House bill (206) which was introduced on Wed 24, Jan in New Mexico by Rep. Cathrynn Brown ®. I want you to know that should anything even remotely close to this bill be presented in any state which I reside in I will do everything in my legal power to ensure that not only does the bill not make it past the introduction but that whoever is associated as a supporter of such a bill never gets re-elected. I am not stating this as a threat but as an impassioned plea to you to please be aware of these types of issues and to represent me in the fact that what I do with my body is not the government’s right to decide.

Thank you for your time and continued service.

 

I just want to make sure that they know that should they consider anything as atrocious as this representative did I will not take it lightly.

Share this post


Link to post

Also, the RNC is working on a plan to change the vote process in blue states so that electoral votes are split. This means that even though a democrat might get the popular vote, they'd lose the election.

This got long, but we talked about voter fraud and suppression before the election here and I'd just like to touch on that now that the election is over and we have a clearer picture of things as opposed to all of our speculations as to how things would turn out.

 

First of all, despite the continued cries of fringe groups, no one seems to be seriously making a credible case of Democratic voter fraud in the 2012 election. Accusations of more votes cast that voters and the like have been routinely debunked and exhaustively explained by things like voter rolls that are affected in situations such as places with ever changing college populations or counties where there are more than one page of the ballot which can appear to double the amount of the votes cast ratio to voters.

 

But, aside from all of the fact checking, let's just look at the reality of the situation for a moment – Republican backers have billions of dollars, and they've still committed a lot of money to causes and candidates (the Koch brothers have been very active since the election). In the election, however, much of that money went to losing candidates and causes – just look at Karl Rove's results. These folks have access to news programs, can afford television time, and the Republicans control the House of Representatives; there's plenty of reasons and opportunities for them to raise a huge public alarm if they honestly believed that fraud decided the election.

 

In the absence of high level demands for investigations from the side that lost, I think it's safe to say that no, fraud didn't give Obama the election. Especially considering that we're talking about a 5 million popular vote win.

 

However, there was a flip side of this. While Democrats were being accused of vote targeted fraud, Republicans were being accused of restructuring the system to suppress votes. And I think that plenty of evidence has developed to support that.

 

For instance, the co-chair of Romney's campaign in Wisconsin said that, absolutely, the voter ID laws, which a judge halted before the election, would have given Romney the state.

 

Romeny lost that state by 200,000 votes. That would require about 6.5% of the votes being fraudulent. That's a fantastically ridiculous number, that no one really believes would happen, which is why she went on to say that even though a lot of people have denounced the fraud idea, they should still be able to have it just on the basis that it was voted for, meaning not necessarily because it was needed.

 

Now, without getting into whether they should have it or not, the fact is that in order for Romney to have won Wisconsin, 200,000 votes would have had to have not been cast. And since it's ridiculous to think that such a large percentage of the vote was fake, her absolute certainty that Romney would have won means that the ID laws would have resulted in a huge amount of real, lawfully eligible voters would have not been heard from on election day.

 

And, although he had to walk the suggestion back, after Obama's win in the state Republican governor Scott Walker began talking about ending the state's same day registration policy – despite the fact that his own son used the process.

 

And then there's REDMAP, which was the Republicans plan for redrawing congressional districts after the last census -

 

The rationale was straightforward:  Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn.  Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.

(Interesting note, the Wikipedia explanation of gerrymandering: In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander; however, that word can also refer to the process. When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term gerrymandering has negative connotations.)

 

In a recent report that they released, they actually bragged about the following:

 

On November 6, 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States by nearly a three-point margin, winning 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 206 while garnering nearly 3.5 million more votes.  Democrats also celebrated victories in 69 percent of U.S. Senate elections, winning 23 of 33 contests. Farther down-ballot, aggregated numbers show voters pulled the lever for Republicans only 49 percent of the time in congressional races, suggesting that 2012 could have been a repeat of 2008, when voters gave control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Democrats.

 

But, as we see today, that was not the case.  Instead, Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans.

And now, as Vhale pointed out, there's the move to take that to a national level, by attempting to have states split their electoral votes and award them based on the districts that have been gerrymandered.

 

In fact, in Virginia, the senate pushed through a bill about it by taking advantage of one of the members, a civil rights activist, going to the inauguration on Martin Luther King day, which created a 20-19 voting situation. It not only made major district changes in an off year, but it planned to use those districts to allocate electoral votes.

 

The best part – although Obama won the state by 150,000 votes, Romney would have ended up with twice as many of Virgina's electoral votes.

 

And Virgina wasn't the only state considering this. There has been talk about this in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

 

The move seems dead in Virginia, and now some of the governors are coming out as not supporting it – a turn around from the interest they previously expressed. And it's basically dying for two reasons – 1. It started getting massive national attention. Once a light was shown on the plans, elected officials – especially considering that we're talking about states that Obama won – seemed less eager to be seen stacking the electoral deck. 2. The National Popular Vote movement – in which states agree to give all of their electoral votes to the person who wins the popular vote, thus guaranteeing that person the presidency once enough states to equal 270 electoral college votes sign on – began picking up steam, and for the Republican party that hasn't won the popular vote in five of the last six elections, that isn't necessarily a good move, and it also wouldn't take every state's agreement to enact it.

 

Now, to be really clear, I'm not saying that both parties haven't engaged in gerrymandering over the years, or that the Democrats haven't pulled things. But it's undeniable that the Republicans are currently trying restructure the actual voting system. And while I've supported looking at the electoral college system, the way they want to change it is so that it's results would have directly and purposefully contradicted a 5 million popular vote win.

 

And what I find deeply concerning, is that it's not just that the Republicans are so open about this, but that they're going around demanding things like voter ID laws because of some supposed wide spread voter fraud that no one can find, while they're actually rigging the entire system, which they seem to think is perfectly okay as if they have some kind of inherent right to these positions in government.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it Obama feels the right to be judge, jury and executioner about the drone memo

 

This has to do with Obama and his administration memo. This was first obtained by NBC News if it is true.

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05...drone-memo?lite

 

There is a document that says the government can use lethal force against its citizens under three conditions

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06...drone-memo?lite

Share this post


Link to post
Why is it Obama feels the right to be judge, jury and executioner about the drone memo

 

This has to do with Obama and his administration memo. This was first obtained by NBC News if it is true.

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05...drone-memo?lite

 

There is a document that says the government can use lethal force against its citizens under three conditions

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06...drone-memo?lite

Obama's killed countless people. And it really doesn't need a reason.

 

Not only are wars killing and driving U.S. soldiers insane, the other sides have it worse because they can't defend themselves. I mean, a wedding party. The groom must have been devastated.

 

 

Speaking of American politics, if you've ever studied ancient Rome's fall, you should find it creepy how similar it is to the U.S. Two empires falling almost exactly the same ways.

 

Overexpansion, difficulty maintaining limits of the Empire, wars with "barbarians," debt borrowed to pay for the wars, and rapid inflation to pay for the debt. It's the same things, in the same order. And politicians acted the same way too-giving the public panem et circumsis to distract them from the gaping holes in the Empire, and promoting militarism to abate the consciences of those wondering how it could be ethical for people to kill other people, in an effort to get plenty of recruits to fight their wars.

 

And when I say Empire, the term applies to the U.S. too because it is, in fact, the largest empire on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post

So. We're used to the transvaginal ultrasound and fetal personhood bills that seem to take precedence over, job bills. Now we've got a bill that aims to give voting rights to corporations from Montana State Rep. Steve Lavin ®, another ALEC task force member.

 

  Provision for vote by corporate property owner. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election as provided in [section 1].

 

    (2) The individual who is designated to vote by the entity is subject to the provisions of [section 1] and shall also provide to the election administrator documentation of the entity’s registration with the secretary of state under 35-1-217 and proof of the individual’s designation to vote on behalf of the entity.

 

Source

Share this post


Link to post

*flails about*

 

Did anybody here catch the Kimani Gray protests? I was getting text reports all over the place, but by the time I got to livestream, it had mostly fizzled out.

 

Crazy stuff. o_o

 

For those that don't know, this Kimani Gray situation has caused quite a bit of tension in the involved areas. Kimani was a 16 black male who was shot 7 times (3 in the back - autopsy report was released today) by NYPD three days ago(?). NYPD claims he had pulled a gun. Eyewitness accounts claim he was unarmed and had his hands out in plain view when he was shot. Tension has been crazy and I've been super behind the situation, so I'm a little unclear on what all went down. My understand is that there's been building tension and a few incidents here and there. I hear there was something with the Gray family where the police had them in a police car and people were shouting for them to be let go. I'm unsure if that was what started it tonight or not. I'm seeing a lot of conflicting and biased information on what has happened thus far.

 

Tonight, there was a candlelight vigil. Supposedly the vigil was later supposed to turn into a protest but apparently NYPD bust in and the protest started early. I've heard a rumor people elsewhere in the vicinity had thrown bricks through shop windows and so the police decided to crash the vigil. There were people all over, shouting on the streets. I've heard police charged in with horses at some point. Livestreams caught several people being arrested, shoved, and pushed away with batons. Helicopters began flying over the area and some people were wondering about drones, but that was never confirmed. I heard that police had scratched the numbers off their helmets to try and avoid being identifiable. I believe one livestreamer caught a 15 year old girl being arrested as her father shouted for her to be let go. When police later sent in people to try and de-esculate the situation, witnesses reported that she was being arrested for something her father supposedly did. There's an unconfirmed report of 45 people, mostly WOC, being arrested.

 

Like I said, it seems to have fizzled out tonight, but who knows what the repercussions of this will be and where it will go.

 

I've seen a quote going around from, I believe one of the police staff, saying that if people don't like being treated like that, they should move to a white neighborhood, implying a whole bunch of racial things. This is hardly the first time the NYPD have been caught up in racist accusations or caused racially-charged riots or protests. I mean, something's gotta change somewhere, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

That's completely insane. Why is no one stepping in to stop this crap? I seriously wonder where peoples common sense has gone anymore. :/

 

(Also what does WOC mean? Never seen the acronym before.)

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard it said, though I can't currently seem to trace the quote at the moment, that the line between a cop and a criminal is a badge.

 

Incidently this sort of thing was what sparked off all that rioting we had in the UK a while back. Well, the shooting of a young black man, anyway. I don't believe there were reports of overt racism, here, and it was later found that Mark Duggan *had* been carrying a gun, just as the police had said.

Share this post


Link to post
(Also what does WOC mean? Never seen the acronym before.)

(Woman of Color. POC is something else you might see me use, which is person of color.)

 

Oh yeah, I saw that, greatguy. My bf and I ranted about it when that was called. My bf, who has far more faith in the cops than I, did mention that, even if that's what the official stance was, many of them felt it still was their duty to protect and serve. However, I think those ones are either outnumbered by the corrupt ones or the corrupt ones just have their fingers in too much that they easily overcome those who got into law enforcement for the right reasons. =\

 

Hm, interesting, Tiki. I've heard some of those sayings and I pretty much agree with them. Those who hunt monsters need to the most careful of becoming monsters themselves.

 

At this point, even if Kimani had been carrying, I'm not sure it would really change things. From Trayvon Martin to Kimani Gray, I think the POC community has to be really sick of "good guys" killing their children.

Share this post


Link to post

Thought steming from the CISPA thread - one wonders at what point the USA is going to stop allowing men that have been openly members of a terrorist organisation (the IRA) the fly over and visit the President. Gerry Adams I'm looking at you.

Share this post


Link to post

Thought steming from the CISPA thread - one wonders at what point the USA is going to stop allowing men that have been openly members of a terrorist organisation (the IRA) the fly over and visit the President. Gerry Adams I'm looking at you.

Already when we fly from Glasgow to Canada all our details have to be submitted to the US because we will be within 100k or their border or something. How they have the RIGHT to do that defeats me....

 

Oh - and I accidentally joined the Communist Party at university. Never even went to a meeting, and cancelled as son as I realised what I;d done (it was at a Freshers Fair and I wasn't paying attention.) 25 years later this gave the guards at a border post pause for thought xd.png I guess they must have said rubbish and cancelled it, as it doesn't happen now... I'm lucky; I do cross the border occasionally. But not often, as the border staff are thugs. (as for customs - well, totally wrecking the inside of our car - which had NOTHING in it of interest - was rather OTT... we weren't even in it - we had to watch, horrified, from the other side of a chain fence !)

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Oh - and I accidentally joined the Communist Party at university. Never even went to a meeting, and cancelled as son as I realised what I;d done (it was at a Freshers Fair and I wasn't paying attention.) 25 years later this gave the guards at a border post pause for thought xd.png I guess they must have said rubbish and cancelled it, as it doesn't happen now... I'm lucky; I do cross the border occasionally. But not often, as the border staff are thugs. (as for customs - well, totally wrecking the inside of our car - which had NOTHING in it of interest - was rather OTT... we weren't even in it - we had to watch, horrified, from the other side of a chain fence !)

Why does the Western World hate Communism so much? I mean, I know the reasons with the Cold War and propaganda against Communist Russia but it seems like we just label every bad thing in politics with 'Communism'. Don't like a president? He must be a Communist! Don't like a bill? It must support Communism. The word just gets tossed around so much that I doubt most of America actually knows what Marxism is. Communism isn't bad. As it is, we don't have any Marxist-Communist states in the world at the moment but we still feel the need to hate something that isn't, at its core, a bad thing.

 

What Communism-in a traditional sense-is trying to create is a classless, moneyless, stateless social order. Basically, Communism is trying to create equality. Yet America, a place that prides itself on freedom, chooses to hate Communism with a burning passion. Why does the country I live in have to be so prejudice? I mean, seriously America?

Share this post


Link to post
Why does the Western World hate Communism so much? I mean, I know the reasons with the Cold War and propaganda against Communist Russia but it seems like we just label every bad thing in politics with 'Communism'. Don't like a president? He must be a Communist! Don't like a bill? It must support Communism. The word just gets tossed around so much that I doubt most of America actually knows what Marxism is. Communism isn't bad. As it is, we don't have any Marxist-Communist states in the world at the moment but we still feel the need to hate something that isn't, at its core, a bad thing.

 

What Communism-in a traditional sense-is trying to create is a classless, moneyless, stateless social order. Basically, Communism is trying to create equality. Yet America, a place that prides itself on freedom, chooses to hate Communism with a burning passion. Why does the country I live in have to be so prejudice? I mean, seriously America?

I have no idea. TRUE communism is an ideal state. As practised so far it hasn't been, but still.

Share this post


Link to post

Why does the Western World hate Communism so much? I mean, I know the reasons with the Cold War and propaganda against Communist Russia but it seems like we just label every bad thing in politics with 'Communism'. Don't like a president? He must be a Communist! Don't like a bill? It must support Communism. The word just gets tossed around so much that I doubt most of America actually knows what Marxism is. Communism isn't bad. As it is, we don't have any Marxist-Communist states in the world at the moment but we still feel the need to hate something that isn't, at its core, a bad thing.

 

What Communism-in a traditional sense-is trying to create is a classless, moneyless, stateless social order. Basically, Communism is trying to create equality. Yet America, a place that prides itself on freedom, chooses to hate Communism with a burning passion. Why does the country I live in have to be so prejudice? I mean, seriously America?

That's only America, not the entirety of the Western World. Europe doesn't suffer from it, and I'm not aware that Canada does either.

 

As for why - McCarthyism. There was a whole generation of people who grew up in an political atmosphere where the mere suggestion you were communist could get you (at best) fired, and possibly arrested. For that whole generation, because of the Cold War, and the use of language at the time, 'Communist' became synonymous with 'Traitor'.

 

Obviously we didn't have Senator McCarthy and his particular brand of lunacy over the pond, so we never had quite the same issue.

 

Edit to add: If you want to talk about socialised healthcare the best way to start is by asking the person if they consider the UK and Canada to be communist countries. Then follow that up by pointing out that both have Nationalised Healthcare systems. It's puts them in a bit of a bind, because they'll normally just have admitted that those places *aren't* communist. Stop the slippery slope argument before they even know they're going to want to use it.

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Edit to add: If you want to talk about socialised healthcare the best way to start is by asking the person if they consider the UK and Canada to be communist countries. Then follow that up by pointing out that both have Nationalised Healthcare systems. It's puts them in a bit of a bind, because they'll normally just have admitted that those places *aren't* communist. Stop the slippery slope argument before they even know they're going to want to use it.

There are a few people here who have said, in respect of that, that yes, the UK and Canada are.... sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Why does the Western World hate Communism so much? I mean, I know the reasons with the Cold War and propaganda against Communist Russia but it seems like we just label every bad thing in politics with 'Communism'. Don't like a president? He must be a Communist! Don't like a bill? It must support Communism. The word just gets tossed around so much that I doubt most of America actually knows what Marxism is. Communism isn't bad. As it is, we don't have any Marxist-Communist states in the world at the moment but we still feel the need to hate something that isn't, at its core, a bad thing.

 

What Communism-in a traditional sense-is trying to create is a classless, moneyless, stateless social order. Basically, Communism is trying to create equality. Yet America, a place that prides itself on freedom, chooses to hate Communism with a burning passion. Why does the country I live in have to be so prejudice? I mean, seriously America?

Yep, same way as how socialistic countries with free-ish healthcare and social = communist = THE SPAWN OF SATAN. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? cool.gif

 

It's not so much the Western world as just the USA, I've even experienced an American friend's friends on FB replying to me about how I'm a poor thing, living in the "****ing commiesocialist Europe". /rolls in facepalms

Share this post


Link to post
There are a few people here who have said, in respect of that, that yes, the UK and Canada are.... sad.gif

That's why you ask them their opinion on those countries *before* you mention the healthcare thing.

Share this post


Link to post

I, as an American, don't get the knee-jerk reaction that "communism = evil" myself.

 

As an ideal, it's not a bad thing. When human nature gets thrown in it ends up corrupted and a problem, but as an IDEAL...

 

I mean, we're not a communist country and we're pretty backwards in a lot of ways and have a lot of problems. We're not really this paradise people like to pretend we are. So why would communism be worse than a country that seems determined to keep the rich rich and everybody screwed over? :/

Share this post


Link to post
That's why you ask them their opinion on those countries *before* you mention the healthcare thing.

I'd agree - EXCEPT that the person here I am most thinking of immediately says oh yes, I forgot that, they ARE communist (or even, now, says so BEFORE you get to mention healthcare !) Or at the very least, people say they are socialist - which, again, they aren't.

 

And yes, Kage Sora, I agree with you. If people here haven't seen Winter's Bone, which highlights America's underbelly, I recommend it most highly. There are many NOT involved with crime who are forced to live as that family does... In such a rich country, that is shameful. (And the UK is getting to be as bad.)

Share this post


Link to post
smile.gif Hello! May I ask what's the difference between Republic and Democratic? Thanks! I'm not from US- so don't ask how I don't know tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post

So why would communism be worse than a country that seems determined to keep the rich rich and everybody screwed over? :/

 

Because it's better than a country that systematically murders its citizens like every established communist nation has.

Share this post


Link to post

Because it's better than a country that systematically murders its citizens like every established communist nation has.

See, now, I'm a believer of the idea that it's the HUMAN factor, not the communism itself, that is the cause of things like that.

 

But hey--you'd rather not get murdered, I'd rather be outright killed than left to die on the streets because I wasn't deemed well-off enough.

Share this post


Link to post
See, now, I'm a believer of the idea that it's the HUMAN factor, not the communism itself, that is the cause of things like that.

 

But hey--you'd rather not get murdered, I'd rather be outright killed than left to die on the streets because I wasn't deemed well-off enough.

And the human factor is such that even if the abdication of private property was an ideal state of existence (which it's not, in my opinion), it could still never work.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.