ext_306469 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-03-10 09:06 am
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-03-10 09:06 am
Lawless
As I was saying:
This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.
This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.
I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.
The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.
They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.
And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.
I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.
But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.
Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:
If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.
Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:
This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.
This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.
This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.
I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.
The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.
They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.
And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.
I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.
But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.
Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
no subject
In what manner do you qualify as a troll?
sw: "Logical Consitancy" in the mathimatical/philosophical context has a specific meaning. Namely that the core premise/assumptions of an argument/position contain no inherent contradictions.
And part of that involves applying a premise consistently. If, for instance, you state the premise, "It's wrong to respond to trolls," you don't follow up by responding to a troll.
sw In general your posts are emotionally charged and one-sided. More specifically, in this very thread you claimed to care about voter fraud and other issues of social justice yet seem to ignore them when it suits your chosen side's agenda.
There's nothing inconsistent about pointing out that bonafide, documented cases of voter fraud (an illegal voter deliberately casting a ballot) infrequent in this country, while bonafide, documented cases of deliberate and massive voter suppression are not. That's simply a statement of fact.
If you have some evidence to show otherwise, by all means cite it.
no subject
I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy kicking the intellectual hornet nest. I engage in drive-by snark and play devil's advocate because, to me, how someone responds is often more interesting than the actual topic being discussed.
In this regard my behavior could be considered troll-like.
As for the issue of election fraud... the disadvantage of a secret ballot is that it is incredibaly difficult, if not impossible, to audit. Dead men voting (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting) is not a new phenomenon, but without knowing who they voted for it is hard pin allegation of fraud on a specific party. The only thing we can do is compare the official election results to independant sources (polls) and make an educated guess.
The Dems probably cheated in Minnesota
The GOP probably cheated in Ohio
Both sides probably cheated in Florida
Chicago's Political machine is probably run by an unholy alliance of the Mob, the SEIU, and an Eldritch Abhomination that lives at the bottom of Lake Michigan. ;)
no subject
sw I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy kicking the intellectual hornet nest. I engage in drive-by snark and play devil's advocate because, to me, how someone responds is often more interesting than the actual topic being discussed.
But you respond directly to questions and at least attempt to address points. Your posts don't consist entirely of ad hominem attacks and personal insult. That exempts you from the label "troll," even though arguing in bad faith may make your posts "troll like."
What do you find interesting about the manner in which people respond?
sw: As for the issue of election fraud... the disadvantage of a secret ballot is that it is incredibaly difficult, if not impossible, to audit...
This sounds more like an article of faith than anything based on actual evidence. Most investigations of voter fraud, including the accused case in Minnesota, have concluded that the actual frequency of voter fraud is pretty low.
no subject
This sounds more like an article of faith than anything based on actual evidence.
Assumption A: The point of a secret ballot is to make sure that a specific ballot cannot be linked to a specific voter.
Assumption B: In the event of fraud there will be X number of fraudulent voters.
Conclusion: Because ballots can not be linked to specific voters (Assumption A) it is impossible to know which ballots are fraudulent, only that there are X number of them (Assumption B).
What do you find interesting about the manner in which people respond?
Hard to say, I just find it fascinating that out of deceptively simple motivations and interactions we get the entire range of human achievment. I might as well ask you why _____ is your favorite color?
no subject
Assumption B: In the event of fraud there will be X number of fraudulent voters.
Conclusion: Because ballots can not be linked to specific voters (Assumption A) it is impossible to know which ballots are fraudulent, only that there are X number of them (Assumption B).
Assumption A: Because ballots can not be linked to specific voters it is impossible to know which ballots are fraudulent, only that there are X number of them.
Assumption B: Therefore, voter fraud is just as widespread as voter suppression.
You don't see a a rather huge leap of faith from Assumption A to Assumption B?
no subject
If A and B are true the conclusion will follow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens).
no subject
no subject
We are discussing Logic, breaking complicated issues down into abstract equations is the whole point.
no subject
You would rather break this down into an abstract discussion of logical terms because that's much easier for you than grappling with the reality of the GOP's repeated efforts to suppress the black and minority vote.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Paft believes that the GOP engages in voter suppresion while the Democrats do not. er go the GOP is corrupt.
(If I have misread your position please clarify)
I believe that ALL politicians engage in voter suppresion, (or at least turn a blind eye to it) er go ALL politicians are corrupt.
At the very least we can both agree that half of all politicians are corrupt so why all the vitriol?
no subject
Back when I was a teenager, my Dad served as mayor of our town. I'll never forget having to deal with people who think like you during an ice-storm that paralyzed the city. All the power was knocked out, including the power to our house, but somehow the rumor got around that we had electricity. Indignant citizens, who just KNEW Dad was corrupt ("He's a pollyTISHUN ain't he?") began calling our house. At least one of them told us (while we sat there shivering by candlelight) that he'd driven by the house and seen all the lights blazing. For months afterwards, this rumor was repeated to me, and it did absolutely no good to deny it. See, they KNEW.
Cause, see, Dad was a pollyTUSHun! And if he DIDN'T do that, he was probably doing something else just as bad! They just KNEW it!
S: At the very least we can both agree that half of all politicians are corrupt so why all the vitriol?
What makes you think that I believe "half of all politicians are corrupt?" And how do you define corrupt?
no subject
You have stated that you believe that the GOP as a party has displayed a contempt for deomcracy. Thus, within the bounds of the above definition the GOP is corrupt.
The GOP represents roughly half of the politicians in our government.
Er go, roughly half of our government is corrupt.
no subject
If most politicians were really out solely for Number One (themselves) they'd more likely have gone into private industry, which is MUCH more lucrative. No, most of the politicians I've known have been convinced that they are acting in the best interests of their constituents and country -- though they sometimes believe they know better than their own constituents what's good for them.
s: "contempt for the concept of a popular vote" (as you put it) could certainly be included in this definition.
That stretches the definition of "corrupt," past where I would apply it.
no subject
Fair enough.
As for the rest, I suppose it gets into individual values. If one is more interested in power and prestige than strictly material wealth, politics is far more lucrative than private buisness.
no subject
No doubt most politicians like the idea of power, but that's almost always tied to the notion of using that power for what they perceive as the public good.
What you're espousing is really every bit as naive and malleable as the mindset of wide-eyed souls who believe every politician is their friend and knows what's best. A person who sees every politician as "corrupt" and dishonest and out for number one is just as incapable of distinguishing between a candidate who will actually promote policies that help them and a candidate who won't.
They can be just as easily lied to and manipulated. And they are a big part of what makes going into public service such a thankless, miserable, and expensive undertaking that many qualified people who would do a great job in the public sector would rather eat glass.
no subject
Of course they can be found in the private sector. Just as well paying jobs can be found in the public sector.
What you're espousing is really every bit as naive and malleable as the mindset of wide-eyed souls who believe every politician is their friend and knows what's best. A person who sees every politician as "corrupt" and dishonest and out for number one is just as incapable of distinguishing between a candidate who will actually promote policies that help them and a candidate who won't.
That is a fair criticism, and I will concede the point. That said, who is more likely to be taken advantage of, he you trusts everyone, or he who trusts none?
no subject
sw: Of course they can be found in the private sector. Just as well paying jobs can be found in the public sector.
Those "well-paying jobs" are highly unlikely to be as well paid as private sector jobs.
sw: That said, who is more likely to be taken advantage of, he you trusts everyone, or he who trusts none?
In the political arena, both are just as likely to be taken advantage of.
no subject
no subject
You asked me a question. I answered it.
no subject
Those "well-paying jobs" are highly unlikely to be as well paid as private sector jobs.
to this
Those "powerful/prestigious jobs" are highly unlikely to be as powerful or prestigious as public sector jobs.
no subject
no subject
The question is not wether it was possible to achieve power and prestige in the private sector but how common it is. If becoming a Bill Gates, or Richard Branson, were easy a lot more people would do it.
no subject
Likewise compare a succesful executive to a succesful politician.