![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
kayjayuu.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn the last two weeks, we have been treated to the way in which the two major parties conduct their own personal affairs, among people with whom they usually agree and whose support they need/want/seek out/spend millions of dollars on. This has meant the public has been exposed to the whole sausage-making process, especially thanks to social media and YouTube. In times past, all this happened but remained "in Vegas," as it were. Now, when you say you are going to have the most open and accessible convention in history, well... that's what happens, then. Everybody gets to see your true colors.
Democrats' Efforts to Reinstate 'God' and 'Jerusalem' Into Platform Met With Loud Opposition:
Bolding mine. I don't care what the vote was about, the relevant matter is the vote was apparently immaterial. It didn't matter what the delegates wanted, it's what the DNC -- in this case, the President -- wanted. Period. Villaraigosa was so perplexed at the unexpected input during a democratic process that he asked for three votes in case those who were in favor were perhaps preoccupied with texting or had their mouths full. But no, the nays were louder every single time.
No matter. In the opinion of the chair, there was a 2/3rd majority in favor and it passed.
The video is both damning and embarrassing.
The Republicans had plenty of their own moments, as in this loudly protested rule change shoved through over lots of objections:
Read verbatim, as in the Democratic Convention, from a teleprompter, with no apparent concern (or even consideration) for the actual nays, which were as loud as the ayes.
I'm sure many here will say, well, this is democracy, this is the way it's done, behind the scenes. What makes these conventions so different, though, is that here it is, for the world to see. Well, for America to see, if they want to look. Some of this made the news, some didn't. I know I kept waiting for someone here to post something, but finally figured that sometimes you just gotta do it yourself.
Is overriding the will of the majority within a convention setting a non-issue? Is it a microcosm of politics on the outside? When people who run roughshod over obvious objections because it's not what they want to hear are the same people who make sausage laws at all levels of government, does that instill confidence in the process?
For myself, it makes me want to walk away from the process entirely, which may be exactly what they really want. But it also makes me look for alternatives. So my vote for whichever major party candidate just won't there this year, and whether they want to admit it or not, it does have an impact on the outcome. That's what they'll all be saying about spoiler candidates when the party is over. But that'll all be on the teleprompter, too. And mean just as much as the party chairs' rulings.
Democrats' Efforts to Reinstate 'God' and 'Jerusalem' Into Platform Met With Loud Opposition:
... when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the convention chairman, came to the podium to ask for the approval of the delegates, those who shouted opposition to the language change were as loud, if not louder, than those who voiced their support.
Villaraigosa, in what quickly became an awkward moment, asked for the voice vote three times in all. After the second time, he paused for several seconds and looked behind him for guidance from a convention staffer -- possibly a parliamentarian -- before turning back and asking for a third vote.
Even though the no's were again as loud if not louder than the aye's on the third vote, Villaraigosa said he had determined that two thirds of those present had voted in favor. Boos filled the arena in response.
Bolding mine. I don't care what the vote was about, the relevant matter is the vote was apparently immaterial. It didn't matter what the delegates wanted, it's what the DNC -- in this case, the President -- wanted. Period. Villaraigosa was so perplexed at the unexpected input during a democratic process that he asked for three votes in case those who were in favor were perhaps preoccupied with texting or had their mouths full. But no, the nays were louder every single time.
No matter. In the opinion of the chair, there was a 2/3rd majority in favor and it passed.
The video is both damning and embarrassing.
The Republicans had plenty of their own moments, as in this loudly protested rule change shoved through over lots of objections:
Read verbatim, as in the Democratic Convention, from a teleprompter, with no apparent concern (or even consideration) for the actual nays, which were as loud as the ayes.
I'm sure many here will say, well, this is democracy, this is the way it's done, behind the scenes. What makes these conventions so different, though, is that here it is, for the world to see. Well, for America to see, if they want to look. Some of this made the news, some didn't. I know I kept waiting for someone here to post something, but finally figured that sometimes you just gotta do it yourself.
Is overriding the will of the majority within a convention setting a non-issue? Is it a microcosm of politics on the outside? When people who run roughshod over obvious objections because it's not what they want to hear are the same people who make sausage laws at all levels of government, does that instill confidence in the process?
For myself, it makes me want to walk away from the process entirely, which may be exactly what they really want. But it also makes me look for alternatives. So my vote for whichever major party candidate just won't there this year, and whether they want to admit it or not, it does have an impact on the outcome. That's what they'll all be saying about spoiler candidates when the party is over. But that'll all be on the teleprompter, too. And mean just as much as the party chairs' rulings.
(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 00:33 (UTC)The reality, too, is that Israel is not a US state and I don't give a fuck about Israel's claim to Jerusalem any more than I do about the PLO's. Neither has a legal claim to it, it's legally UN territory, off limits to both. That nobody in the region respects this has more to do with the fragility of International Law. Israel's capital is Tel-Aviv, Palestine's should be Nablus (assuming Israelis have the intellectual and moral ability to create a real Palestine instead of replacing
the Apaches-er the Palestinians withcivilization und Lebensraum vor das VolksgemeinschaftIsraeli settlers. So why the Hell should it matter to the USA, or to US Jews, what the capital of Israel is? If US Jews want to live in Israel, they can go Aaliyah. The USA is the USA. Period.(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 00:39 (UTC)I've never heard this before. Any sources?
(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 00:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 00:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 00:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 00:47 (UTC)http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/3f1bd9477022a0c285256cc500530c1f/Body/0.3E6!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif
I'd argue that UN resolutions are the only law standing right now unless we abolish the UN and replace it with something else. But I repeat that I don't see Palestinians with any greater claim than the Israelis to Jerusalem using the same standard for both, so at least it's a consistent approach. And yes, this would mean that nobody in the region by now has clean hands with UN resolutions.
(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 08:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 00:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 02:41 (UTC)O.... kay.
By... abiding by... Robert's Rules of Order and... counting votes correctly. Got it.
Sometimes I don't know what planet you are reading my posts on.
(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 03:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/9/12 03:53 (UTC)If conventions are showboating to their followers, they R doin' it rong.