• Just Before Passing Surveillance Expansion, Lawmakers Partied With Pro-CISA Lobbyists
    24 replies, posted
[IMG]https://prod01-cdn06.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/12/465776412-promo.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]The night before Congress passed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, a broad expansion of surveillance power in America, legislators attended a party with the chief lobbyists for the bill. Last Thursday, Sens. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., along with a number of other lawmakers, went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s famously lavish Christmas party. The next morning, on December 18, the senators voted to pass the omnibus spending bill that included a version of CISA that guts privacy protections and creates new channels for both government agencies and private businesses to share information with the National Security Agency and law enforcement. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents dozens of Fortune 500 companies and serves as the biggest lobby group in Washington, acted as the chief private sector advocate for CISA. Congressional records show the group’s lobbyists testified in both the House and Senate on behalf of the bill, and helped corral a number of other trade associations to build support for its passage. Big business interests support CISA because the bill provided liability protection for corporations that share information with the government, an exchange that business interests hope will shift some of the burden for cybersecurity issues.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://theintercept.com/2015/12/24/cisa-party/"]Source[/URL]
:suicide: I hate this nation
man i sure do love living in a democracy [editline]25th December 2015[/editline] just kidding i'm not
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49392204]man i sure do love living in a democracy [editline]25th December 2015[/editline] just kidding i'm not[/QUOTE] the best part of the democracy is voting because we all know the people votes is important [editline]25th December 2015[/editline] *cough* [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlwbTUs-17k]electoral college[/url]
[QUOTE=Aide;49392295]the best part of the democracy is voting because we all know the people votes is important [editline]25th December 2015[/editline] *cough* electoral college[/QUOTE] Welcome to the republic.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49392204]man i sure do love living in a democracy [editline]25th December 2015[/editline] just kidding i'm not[/QUOTE] the US isn't a democracy, we're a republic. you can't actually have a proper democracy, see: population and what happened to greece
[QUOTE=Map in a box;49392448]the US isn't a democracy, we're a republic. you can't actually have a proper democracy, see: population and what happened to greece[/QUOTE] There's different types of democracy, you know.
Oh man, lovely corruption!
Let's outline some stuff just because this thread is already off to a fantastic start: First, the electoral college has no significant impact on the democratic process vis voting. The votes given by the electoral college are directly dictated by the popular vote of the state. The last time someone tried to circumvent this, that state's supreme court found their behavior to be in violation of the state constitution. If you want to argue "But George W. Bush!" then that was, quite literally, an exception to a system that otherwise functions perfectly well. It would require absurd circumstances to reliably reproduce the events of the 2000 election. The 2000 election was the democratic equivalent of the logical paradox -The statement below is false -The statement above is true Any such system strong enough to not be gamed or abused can produce such paradoxes. Second, the United States is a [I]Democratic Republic,[/I] or in other terms, [B]A Representative Democracy.[/B] Direct Democracy does not work. It is difficult enough to directly poll the people of the nation, but to give them direct power over policy would be insane. Segregation would have never been abolished in the South, and Planned Parenthood would have never advanced, and many states would have absurdist reactionary policies dripping from their lawbooks of the sort, "Ban anything or one that we do not happen to like." Hell, Twitch Plays ANYTHING is a great example of the failures of Direct Democracy. The people of the United States vote for a representative who they should believe will best carry out their own best interests, while also being highly educated on what [I]the best[/I] policy to carry out is. This sometimes even means the representative will make choices that defy your wishes, for the better of everyone. You can react to those choices by voting. Now, third and finally: The problems we seem to have with politicians, with corruption, with the clear and apparent abuse of the democratic spirit are many and complex. Some rely on how we elect those representatives. Gerrymandering makes almost any incumbent politician virtually immune to public backlash. Some of those issues have to do with Voter Despondency or Apathy. Only about 60% of the U.S are registered voters, and only about half of that figure actually choose to exercise their right to vote. More of those issues have to do with how we have structured lobbying, term limits, and legislative procedure. However simply abolishing those practices undoes the good they do and does little to effectively treat the bad. It's a guarantee that even if a Senator could never receive a donations or gifts from lobbyists, they would find other ways to approach and influence them. An example of a typically "non-lobbied" institution, the Supreme Court, shows that even though the justices can never be approached so directly or boldly, lawyers often build cases to appeal to their known sensibilities and apparent beliefs. (For instance, comparing homosexual marriage to beastiality.) Overall though, you do live in a Democracy, reflective of the beliefs of your society. Blaming the system does little to engage the problem. If you want to change it, you need to note only vote yourself, and vote for candidates who you believe reflect your beliefs, but encourage others that you know to do the same. I will not exhaust the many other problems that exist. Riders, Fillibustering, Procedural Choke-Holds, politicians without term limits, and many more are real complicated issues. However they do not, by their combined evils, mean that you are a slave to a fascist empire. You still posses, not merely are given but innately possess, the right to participate in the process that forms those decisions. Hopefully this will somehow set aside the asinine democracy argument.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;49392448]the US isn't a democracy, we're a republic.[/QUOTE] Both... Sorta. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a democracy, the United States is a constitutional republic and a democracy. We are what's known as a representative democracy, which includes most "democratic" nations, basically Northern America, most of Europe, Oceania (the western world) etc. are all hybrids between democracy and oligarchy. The only country with a true/direct democracy would probably be Switzerland. It's better than nothing though, some representative democracies are more corrupt and less representative than most of the free world such as Argentina, Turkey, India etc.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;49392448]the US isn't a democracy, we're a republic. you can't actually have a proper democracy, see: population and what happened to greece[/QUOTE] Plenty of countries have democratic systems not rigged to keep the poor people underrepresented. Also, using Greece is a silly idea. As if it were well managed under autocratic rule.
The greeks constantly voted to go to war. Better stated would be that were not a true democracy.
Boy the NSA surely wanted Metadata so bad after they lost it. Almost like they were addicted to it.
For some reason this reminds me of that party the big hooby-doobies on Wall Street threw where they were laughing about the bail-out situation. "HAHA, yeah we sure fuck'd 'em good, pop another one, Steinman!"
[quote]First, the electoral college has no significant impact on the democratic process vis voting. The votes given by the electoral college are directly dictated by the popular vote of the state. The last time someone tried to circumvent this, that state's supreme court found their behavior to be in violation of the state constitution. If you want to argue "But George W. Bush!" then that was, quite literally, an exception to a system that otherwise functions perfectly well. It would require absurd circumstances to reliably reproduce the events of the 2000 election.[/quote] Except each state has its own constitution, no one's actually required by law to cast the vote based on who the people voted for, and who cares if the Bush/Gore election was an exception, it still happened
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49393967]Except each state has its own constitution, no one's actually required by law to cast the vote based on who the people voted for, and who cares if the Bush/Gore election was an exception, it still happened[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure every state has a law saying the votes of the electorate have to be cast in reflection to the popular vote, that's why when someone throws their vote the state courts are pretty tough on them As far as how the proportions of the votes as distributed by the electoral college goes, the answer is to get rid of winner take all and move towards proportional based ones, already a few states split their votes, and its only going to become more and more popular especially in light red or light blue states where one side doesn't feel represented in the presidential elections As for the article though, these senators ruin the integrity of congress when they do this stuff, they may not have breached any law but public perception is why we have Donald Trump as a republican frontrunner If they want people to believe they are doing the right thing they shouldn't be going to lavish parties sponsored by the people who they're going to pass a massive bill for, but a large number of congressmen and women don't exactly care about the institute's integrity, they're more worried about their image and omnibus packages like this are a fantastic way to get their lobby friends shit passed while not directly be responsible for taking their money to pass this
[QUOTE=Aide;49392295]the best part of the democracy is voting because we all know the people votes is important [editline]25th December 2015[/editline] *cough* [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlwbTUs-17k]electoral college[/url][/QUOTE] In Portugal, we basicaly voted right, and the left made such a fuss that we ended up getting them instead. fuck this shit
Oh boy they will change their tune when the government get's hacked again.
One day I hope that all these cunts are dragged out onto the streets and beaten
Even ignoring the electoral college, we only get a choice between 2 people from extremely similar parties, and who don't tell us what they'll do in office.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49392699]Let's outline some stuff just because this thread is already off to a fantastic start: First, the electoral college has no significant impact on the democratic process vis voting. The votes given by the electoral college are directly dictated by the popular vote of the state. The last time someone tried to circumvent this, that state's supreme court found their behavior to be in violation of the state constitution. If you want to argue "But George W. Bush!" then that was, quite literally, an exception to a system that otherwise functions perfectly well. It would require absurd circumstances to reliably reproduce the events of the 2000 election. The 2000 election was the democratic equivalent of the logical paradox -The statement below is false -The statement above is true Any such system strong enough to not be gamed or abused can produce such paradoxes. [/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? George Bush wasn't a simple exception. This happened 2 other times in the entire history of the 56 US election cycles. That's a fucking failure rate of 5 percent. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. The Electoral College makes it so some peoples votes aren't as equal as others. You could theoretically win the entire presidential election with only 22% of the popular vote. 22! That's not fucking democracy, it's indefensible. You don't even have to abolish it. Changing it so it isn't a first-past-the-post winner-take-all system would alleviate some of the major problems surrounding it. It's stupid not to support a change to the system in some way.
We're more of an oligarchy. Which is fucking infuriating
[QUOTE=Billy-Bobfred;49394725]One day I hope that all these cunts are dragged out onto the streets and beaten[/QUOTE] I love it when a mob beats people I don't like!
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49397235]What the fuck are you talking about? George Bush wasn't a simple exception. This happened 2 other times in the entire history of the 56 US election cycles. That's a fucking failure rate of 5 percent. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. The Electoral College makes it so some peoples votes aren't as equal as others. You could theoretically win the entire presidential election with only 22% of the popular vote. 22! That's not fucking democracy, it's indefensible. You don't even have to abolish it. Changing it so it isn't a first-past-the-post winner-take-all system would alleviate some of the major problems surrounding it. It's stupid not to support a change to the system in some way.[/QUOTE] Okay, so let's go to a quick summary of the facts: First a handy reference from factcheck.org [url]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/[/url] The incidents where someone was elected by the electoral college over the popular vote all took place before 1900. In one of those cases: Hayes versus Tildon, the Electoral commission decided the election due to a dispute over the outcome of [I]four[/I] state's votes. The final electoral balance was, quite literally, [B]one vote.[/B] In Harrison versus Cleveland, the popular vote was only a difference of 100,000. Although that might sound like quite a big number, out of 10,000,000 that is, quite literally, a percent. Never mind the fact that in your wonderfully vitriolic spiel, you fail to note that the two other times it happened, the United States did not extend "full democracy" to the people. The vote substantially changed. In fact, attitudes before 1900 and even well in to the 30's and even 40's, were significantly more of the opinion that not everyone should vote. So three points: I cannot imagine how a five percent failure rate is "unacceptable." That's acceptable for literally any sort of procedure or trial. Are you going to tell me that we should abolish the discipline of heart surgery because it's rate of failure is too high? Second, you extend you point to a logical absurdity that [I]literally hasn't happened.[/I] Never in the case of the United States has someone performed the miraculous "22% victory" or even come close for that matter. Third and finally, what magical solution do you have that cannot be abused or rigged in another manner? If you demand something like proportional representation, then you had better be fucking ready for the DIXIECRAT party. Do you genuinely want a major party in the U.S. who will espouse anti-democratic, anti-federal, anti-progressive views? Would you like it if nearly a third of the U.S. government's sitting seats belonged to people who believed abortion was a sin, rape was merely misunderstood sex, and slavery was probably not that bad? That sort of system would, I guarantee, balkanize U.S. politics and create exactly what the U.S. political system was designed to deter: multiple, ideologically incompatible factions who would inevitably tear the nation apart.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;49395496]Even ignoring the electoral college, we only get a choice between 2 people from extremely similar parties, and who don't tell us what they'll do in office.[/QUOTE] To be fair, this is because our voting method (first past the post) sucks compared to literally every other voting system.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.