Politics 101

Thanks, Amigo. I definetly am interested. It can be difficult knowing where to start a political education. So many angled, vested-interests sources. It is not the sort of thing we learn in school. At least, that is my personal experience. Other than a short lesson in a Social Studies class - zippola. All I know has been wading in and talking to people - attempting to keep an open mind.

Vocab. Where to start?

I really like the intent of this thread.

I'm halfway through Cornel West's "Democracy Matters". He is amazing.

I'm on the first four pages.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

"Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Amigo, Those are wise words spoken decades ago by an American giant. We now have a president and congress that believes sacrificing a little bit of Constitutional and Bill of Rights for our security is justified. They still haven't learned that military might is not the answer for peace.

In my opinion the entire world is being run by a Plutocracy not just our country. The richest people are orchestrating every war and epidemic to allow for them to keep their way of life.

LCB, One wonders why more people hasn't questioned Cheney's connection to Haliburton, and their billion(s) dollar, nonbid, contracts. I guess it's more important to support the "party."

Wether you support them or not they are still going to get into office. Its almost pointless to try and educate people because the masses are happy with there worker ant mentality
(on a side note cicerone imposter do you really live way out in the middle of know where? like you coordinates say)

LCB, Thanks for the head's up; the second coordinate should have a minus sign in front of it. WHEW!

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.

-Oscar Ameringer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.

Sounds like an old definition of Foreign Aid. "Taking money from poor people in rich countries, and giving it to rich people in poor countries."

I think C.I. said that, but not sure.

Where there is a will there is a way. Remember until 18th Century much of the world was run by the aristocracy who were descendants of warriors. We got the constitution and a democratic republic. Now a new threat appears on the horizon. A new form of aristocracy who based on meritocracy are being lodged in corporations and will, if not already, subjucate democracy with free-trade agreements where multi-national corporations may disregard local governments and control of their natural resources. Multi-national corporatioons will run the world. They are not elected by the people but by "shareholders". Look at corporations and industry-wide unions as they are twins in the creation of oligarchies.

talk, Another good analysis; corporate money and power needs to be controlled by government. As it is now, most elected officials are obligated to the corporations for their campaign financing. There needs to be change in the way campaigns are financed, and the laws concerning the elected officials obligations to the constituency. The voting public must accept some of the responsibility for these shifts, because we continue to vote in those same politicians who take corporate bribes.

Thanks, ci!

I think both parties are on the intake from corporations that is why I would like to see proportional representaion with parties that truly represent the people with funding from the government as the government is the people.

To expand on that idea, I'd also like to see the president elected by popular vote.

Something needs to be done about the electronic voting machines that are open to fraud.

I read all your post talk72000.

Don't forget coercive.

Coercion;

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to involuntarily behave in a certain way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may typically involve the actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

The term is often associated with circumstances which involve the unethical use of threats or harm to achieve some objective. Coercion may also serve as a form of justification in logical argument (see appeal to force).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

I don't agree with you on that, ci. I just got back from a Google search using "Statistics Electoral Votes Popular Vote." A mind-numbing amount of data to wade through regarding the arguments for changing the current system or leaving it as is.
I stumbled over this statement: "Only twice has a candidate failed to win the popular vote but won the Presidency in the Electoral College." Is that the same as saying that only twice has a candidate won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College? I think it is but it sure was worded awkwardly. In any event, it has been only twice.
It is going to take a lot of reading to understand what flaws there are in the current system and what problems there might be in a "popular vote" system.

Among the problems I see with the popular vote system:
1) The populous states would get all of the attention, ie all of the effort. And the candidates might tend to tailor their message to those states. What is good for California is good for the country. The less populous states and the needs, desires and ambitions of the citizens there would become less important.
2) There would be more incentive for fraud under a popular vote system.
Every district everywhere would be susceptible to vote manipulation to pad the totals. The turnout amongst the people who happen to be dead would probably increase a lot.
3) There is an issue, and I am probably going to state this clumsily, about an "uniformed electorate." It doesn't really bother me that only x% of eligible citizens register to vote and only y% of them show up. I fear that a popular figure who doesn't have a lick of sense could get elected on some campaign issue that resonates with a whole bunch of people, like free grilled cheese sandwiches on Wednesday. President Britney Spears.
4) A popular vote system would ensure, I think, that all future Presidents would be elected without getting a majority of the popular vote. Third, fourth and fifth party candidates would proliferate. The current two party system of Tweedledee and Tweedledum isn't sacred to me, but could a President function if he/she was elected with only 45% or 40% or 35% of the popular vote?

Johnboy knows that, for my entire life as a voter in Virginia, my vote in a Presidential election has never counted. Hell, when I first moved to this house in this voting district, I was something like one of thirty Democrats out of 600 voters. And Virginia always went Republican.

Anyway, sorry for being so long-winded. I guess I would ask, ci, a basic question. What is wrong with the current system?

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

-John Adams (1814)

"If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side."

-Orson Scott Card


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

-Winston Churchill

http://www.geocities.com/rab_fw/democracy.htm