But I do buy it. I invented the theory on my own and tested it over some years. Along the way found out others were thinking the same thoughts. On the other hand I didn't fall into the trap of assuming we can do nothing because George has more money. So we mights well give up and learn how to chant ''I serve the party Comrade." They have ways we have ways. They work at the higher levels we work at the lower levels and they don't have enough to conduct political raiding (the political science term) in all districts, all precincts even all states at all times. Attack the hollow and the weak avoid the strengths. Take not counsel of your fears. Nor take counsel of the fears and despair of others. After all you have nothing to lose and the old methods of go along get along obviously have failed.
So what is this proportional representation? By definition.
Posted by $jdg 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
This is a senseless and shallow view. We all still wind up fighting Soros and GM, because Soros and GM have ways of spending money to change the minds of the public that aren't considered part of "politics." Soros does it by owning large chunks of the media industry. Any law that purports to fix that will certainly only make it worse, because of who would be writing, enacting, and interpreting that law.
You've fallen into the lefty trap of assuming that a law you propose would be interpreted and enforced by your allies. Government doesn't work that way.
And lumping the two major parties together as "the Government Party" is a conspiracy theory I don't buy.
I would suggest a few word changes. You live in a portion of California that is overwhelmingly Government Party. Then define proportional representation. Is that something like so many Democrats so many Republicans totaling so many Government Party candidates elected?
In any case it sounds like bi-partisanship or cross-partisanship two other terms for a single party system of government so I have to find out what it might really be.
The point of the suggestion which was offered as a way to cure soft money from where ever is to get rid of any donating or volunteering entity that has no business in any specific voting district - be it state, county, city, federal or other district, township or any other special district such as those dealing with water use. The key point is only people in that district as set down in the precinct voting system or booklet who are able to vote in that precinct have any business trying to sway the vote in that precinct one way or the other. The answer to your problem of not enough conservatives or any other stripe is not solved by working for them elsewhere but enabling them a fighting chance of establishing themselves in your precinct. That they aren't going to be able to accomplish with the likes of non-voting entities getting in the way. Such as all corporations or companies, political machines from other states, other countries, union and other PACs none of which can vote.
The playing field is leveled to contain you and your neighbors. You aren't fighting George Soros or General Motors. As one moves through the voting handbook and the ballot the stage enlarges automatically until the final step that of President and Vice-President. Presently that is confined to two candidates for each from the Government Party. The guy or gal you really wanted is out in the cold. Same with measures and speaking of which if you don't have them add Recall, Initiative, Whatever amount of funding is allowed for each local registered voter for each candidate or measure. Those sorts of follow on or lead the way clean up the ballot tools. The list is incomplete but it's a start. If you or it can't vote it can't participate. As far as those other districts are concerned they aren't your business unless you move. Works in two directions. And don't forget students., If they register to vote locally make sure they are on the tax and jury selection rolls as well.
Notice this does not encourage any particular party nor even only two party's but a way of getting away from a monolithic single party system and go to a new idea - more than one party or even as our Government Party has become a Political Coalition'
Best of all you still have the right of free assembly and free speech. It's dollars, volunteer time and sign painters, tv and radio advertising time that are the targets.
Now think about how to control that last group. I'm worn out from gun control which usually only recites a few old saws and ends up hammering away at not much. Anchor threads in the sailing community are much like that.
Posted by $jdg 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
I live in a part of California that is overwhelmingly Democrats, and all those who "represent" my area are from that party. If I weren't allowed to contribute, or volunteer, for the few decent conservative candidates that represent other districts in California, I would feel shut out of the political process entirely.
Of course, proportional representation would remove this specific problem, but it's also not going to happen. Enacting it is a "who bells the cat" problem.
Posted by $jdg 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
There have been attempts to invent a language with that property (Loglan, for one) but they never catch on. It would mean everybody has to learn the new tongue.
On the other hand, lots of new countries create new languages, as a way to ensure their continued independence. So perhaps a large enough Gulch *should* consider adopting one of these "perfect" languages. If it really is superior it would make us more efficient, too. I'm not sure if it'll work very well, but wouldn't mind being part of the experiment.
And you still think banning donations of funds, time, or material items from those entities not entitled to vote is a bad idea? Or limiting the collection and expenditure of same to the same geo-political area in which collected. One swift way to ban foreign countries, corporations, PAC's, unions, and any non voting entity from buying an election. If you can't vote you can't contribute. And it does nothing to stop the free and open discussion of anything. Right of Assembly is not the same as buying votes and fixing elections.
It is your typical liberal mindset, one set of rules for them and another for everyone else beneath them. They think they are the only ones smart enough to get away with buying elections. Who pays the big bucks to have someone so idiotic indoctrinate their college kid? Liberalism is a disease of the mind, wherein they are unable to see reality, only their utopian view of what they think should be, They just seem unable to reason.
For Hegel and others who advocate the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of existence, truth is found in contradictions. You have your truth, I have my truth which is the opposite of yours, and a new truth emerges from the two.
You may disagree with that, but in the process yet another new truth will emerge. Neither the mystics of mind nor the mystics of muscle are interested in objective reality, except perhaps as a way for them (not you) to have automobiles.
I'm reminded of a guy who ran for county commissioner of some district and lost when I was a weekly newspaper reporter during the 70s. Every time he would call and come in with some complaint, I would hear him start off griping about how many thousands of dollars he spent to be a loser. It got to the point I wanted to call him a loser to his face but I knew he'd go whining to my boss. Glad that 7 years of PR handling whiners with kid gloves is way in my past.
There is a good sign to this - no matter how much pull they try to get and how much money they shovel to get their corruption into office, sometimes the voter will still do the right thing and keep these "Buy my way in" parasites out.
In truth, since in her world there is no real truth, as taught for a long time by schools like, er, Harvard, she ever feels the need to convince herself of anything.
i think it's only in a world like the Gulch, and other rare similar groups, where a person thinks: "Hey, this is important stuff, I'd better make sure, i.e., convince myself, that it's true, before i go spreading it around." I think that's called respect, or better, reverence, for the Truth.
And that's the really scary part. She and a lot of her ilk deeply believe that there is nothing wrong with contradictory utterances. In her mind the money contributed to Tillis' campaign was bad, while the money to hers was good.
Well, Salty, you were absolutely right. The headline was only the first of many "Huh?" moments. And you were right too about the U of Bizzaro World. That she is teaching a class at Harvard was not a "Huh?" moment at all. More like an: "Of course."
An incumbant with name recognition can almost always destroy a relatively unknown challenger, so that is nothing like a fair contest or level playing field. (Of course, the incumbant would want people to believe they want a fair contest, just like the CEO of Goldman Sachs wants con-gress to believe that he is doing God's work.) The incumbant's previous lies usually are hidden under layers of new lies so their record of failure to keep campaign promises in office is usually not enough to make it a fair contest. I agree that all politicians from the one DemRep party want to have no competition at all if possible. Looters deserving of scorn by every voter. In a fair world it's a problem easily solved, one term only, no re-elections, no career politicians.
No, what she really meant is, regardless of incumbency, she wanted some supposedly "independent" agency (you know, like the Fed or the FCC) to decide through some contorted logic that contributions to her campaign were from "legitimate" groups, while the groups contributing to her opponent were "somehow" illegitimate and, BTW, illegal.
And zero spending would be way too level of a "level playing field" for a Democrat. They prefer to be more level than the opposition.
Maybe she meant that if they both were restricted to zero spending, she, the incumbant, would have been victorious, the way all incumbants have the sole right to be.
Correct. If I asked on this forum whether a Socialist America was not contradictory to what the Founders intended...well, let's not go there.
But if you asked this woman the same question, I'm sure she could in good faith state that no, it's not a contradiction. Welcome to the world of polylogism...
Not only that, but how can she say that she lost the election because of big money politics when in fact, she got her ass handed to her after outspending her opponent by more than a 2 to 1 margin? Further, how as a teacher can she grade students when THAT is the premise of the course??? (By her 'logic', an 'F' in her course means an 'A+' to normal people.)
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
So what is this proportional representation? By definition.
You've fallen into the lefty trap of assuming that a law you propose would be interpreted and enforced by your allies. Government doesn't work that way.
And lumping the two major parties together as "the Government Party" is a conspiracy theory I don't buy.
In any case it sounds like bi-partisanship or cross-partisanship two other terms for a single party system of government so I have to find out what it might really be.
The point of the suggestion which was offered as a way to cure soft money from where ever is to get rid of any donating or volunteering entity that has no business in any specific voting district - be it state, county, city, federal or other district, township or any other special district such as those dealing with water use. The key point is only people in that district as set down in the precinct voting system or booklet who are able to vote in that precinct have any business trying to sway the vote in that precinct one way or the other. The answer to your problem of not enough conservatives or any other stripe is not solved by working for them elsewhere but enabling them a fighting chance of establishing themselves in your precinct. That they aren't going to be able to accomplish with the likes of non-voting entities getting in the way. Such as all corporations or companies, political machines from other states, other countries, union and other PACs none of which can vote.
The playing field is leveled to contain you and your neighbors. You aren't fighting George Soros or General Motors. As one moves through the voting handbook and the ballot the stage enlarges automatically until the final step that of President and Vice-President. Presently that is confined to two candidates for each from the Government Party. The guy or gal you really wanted is out in the cold. Same with measures and speaking of which if you don't have them add Recall, Initiative, Whatever amount of funding is allowed for each local registered voter for each candidate or measure. Those sorts of follow on or lead the way clean up the ballot tools. The list is incomplete but it's a start. If you or it can't vote it can't participate. As far as those other districts are concerned they aren't your business unless you move. Works in two directions. And don't forget students., If they register to vote locally make sure they are on the tax and jury selection rolls as well.
Notice this does not encourage any particular party nor even only two party's but a way of getting away from a monolithic single party system and go to a new idea - more than one party or even as our Government Party has become a Political Coalition'
Best of all you still have the right of free assembly and free speech. It's dollars, volunteer time and sign painters, tv and radio advertising time that are the targets.
Now think about how to control that last group. I'm worn out from gun control which usually only recites a few old saws and ends up hammering away at not much. Anchor threads in the sailing community are much like that.
Of course, proportional representation would remove this specific problem, but it's also not going to happen. Enacting it is a "who bells the cat" problem.
On the other hand, lots of new countries create new languages, as a way to ensure their continued independence. So perhaps a large enough Gulch *should* consider adopting one of these "perfect" languages. If it really is superior it would make us more efficient, too. I'm not sure if it'll work very well, but wouldn't mind being part of the experiment.
Sorry Ms. Hagan, your constituents realized just how phony and self serving you really are.
They think they are the only ones smart enough to get away with buying elections. Who pays the big bucks to have someone so idiotic indoctrinate their college kid? Liberalism is a disease of the mind, wherein they are unable to see reality, only their utopian view of what they think should be, They just seem unable to reason.
You may disagree with that, but in the process yet another new truth will emerge. Neither the mystics of mind nor the mystics of muscle are interested in objective reality, except perhaps as a way for them (not you) to have automobiles.
Every time he would call and come in with some complaint, I would hear him start off griping about how many thousands of dollars he spent to be a loser.
It got to the point I wanted to call him a loser to his face but I knew he'd go whining to my boss.
Glad that 7 years of PR handling whiners with kid gloves is way in my past.
i think it's only in a world like the Gulch, and other rare similar groups, where a person thinks: "Hey, this is important stuff, I'd better make sure, i.e., convince myself, that it's true, before i go spreading it around." I think that's called respect, or better, reverence, for the Truth.
And zero spending would be way too level of a "level playing field" for a Democrat. They prefer to be more level than the opposition.
But if you asked this woman the same question, I'm sure she could in good faith state that no, it's not a contradiction. Welcome to the world of polylogism...
Load more comments...