Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[ALF]

Political theater for the benefit of the two major parties, and the power elites within them.

 

Honest answer , thank you

[Deranged Rhino]

Why go thru the trouble of the public voting and massive expense then?

 

Because people still think we live in a democratic republic where we have a say in how government runs. Not holding elections, as crooked and meaningless as they've become, would ruin the delusion.

 

But we don't live in a democratic republic anymore, not really. And we certainly don't have a say in how the government governs anymore.

 

In the past 16 years we've lost our constitutional rights to privacy and due process, we live in a country where our government monitors our movements, correspondence, and phone calls 24/7 under the guise of "fighting terrorism" when really it gives them almost god-like powers to silence and/or slander anyone they deem a threat to the status quo and the powers that be.

 

Most people would call that a totalitarian state...

[B-Man]

CHRISTIAN ADAMS ON DEMOCRATS AND THE NEW JIM CROW.

 

Imagine an election for president where votes cast at the ballot box mean next to nothing. While activist groups gripe about long lines and the return of Jim Crow whenever someone has to pull out a photo ID, it’s the Democratic Party primary that deserves scorn for disenfranchising voters this year. With Hillary stacking up the super-delegates even while Bernie Sanders keeps winning, why should anyone bother voting?

 

This is nothing new. The Democrat Party has a long history of disenfranchising its party members and voters through Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised the vast majority of African Americans.

 

While the hyperbole of Jim Crow is tossed at Republicans who seek to bring integrity to elections, it is the Democrats practicing systematic disenfranchisement again in 2016.

 

Bernie Sanders has won seven of the last eight Democratic primaries or caucuses but he is no closer to winning the Democratic Party nomination.

 

Consider New Hampshire, where Bernie Sanders won by 22 points with the voters, but tied or lost the state because the party leaders control the winner through super-delegates. Fifteen percent of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are super-delegates, party leaders, insiders, and elected officials who may vote for whomever they like without regard to the popular vote, and nearly all of them support Hillary Clinton. Whoever wins the super-delegates is on a fast track to winning the Democrat nomination, voters be damned.

[DC Tom]

Why go thru the trouble of the public voting and massive expense then?

 

Because we're a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

[ALF]

 

Because we're a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

 

 

 

Because people still think we live in a democratic republic where we have a say in how government runs. Not holding elections, as crooked and meaningless as they've become, would ruin the delusion.

 

But we don't live in a democratic republic anymore, not really. And we certainly don't have a say in how the government governs anymore.

 

In the past 16 years we've lost our constitutional rights to privacy and due process, we live in a country where our government monitors our movements, correspondence, and phone calls 24/7 under the guise of "fighting terrorism" when really it gives them almost god-like powers to silence and/or slander anyone they deem a threat to the status quo and the powers that be.

 

Most people would call that a totalitarian state...

 

I believe the second answer , sorry DC Tom

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Because we're a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

He's confusing our government structure with the private primary season.

 

 

 

 

I believe the second answer , sorry DC Tom

Tom isn't wrong. We go through our Presidential election process, as proscribed by our Constitution, because we are a representative republic.

 

It's very important to draw the distinction, however, between the Presidential election, and the private primary process which takes place prior to that election, which is where we are now.

 

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties are party of our government. They are private entities whose sole purpose is to consolidate power and influence for their elites.

 

Primary season framed as part of our government election process is nothing more than political theater.

 

Federal elections are because we a representative republic.

[Andrew in CA]

 

Because people still think we live in a democratic republic where we have a say in how government runs. Not holding elections, as crooked and meaningless as they've become, would ruin the delusion.

 

But we don't live in a democratic republic anymore, not really. And we certainly don't have a say in how the government governs anymore.

 

In the past 16 years we've lost our constitutional rights to privacy and due process, we live in a country where our government monitors our movements, correspondence, and phone calls 24/7 under the guise of "fighting terrorism" when really it gives them almost god-like powers to silence and/or slander anyone they deem a threat to the status quo and the powers that be.

 

Most people would call that a totalitarian state...

 

Not sure I would go so far as to call it a totalitarian state but I agree that the bolded is spot on.

[GG]

 

Because people still think we live in a democratic republic where we have a say in how government runs. Not holding elections, as crooked and meaningless as they've become, would ruin the delusion.

 

But we don't live in a democratic republic anymore, not really. And we certainly don't have a say in how the government governs anymore.

 

In the past 16 years we've lost our constitutional rights to privacy and due process, we live in a country where our government monitors our movements, correspondence, and phone calls 24/7 under the guise of "fighting terrorism" when really it gives them almost god-like powers to silence and/or slander anyone they deem a threat to the status quo and the powers that be.

 

Most people would call that a totalitarian state...

 

And how has this changed since 1789?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Not sure I would go so far as to call it a totalitarian state but I agree that the bolded is spot on.

 

I admittedly have a flair for the dramatic in my choice of words.

 

I don't think we've gone completely over the cliff yet, I do believe there is hope to retake the government back from the big moneyed interests which now own it -- but it's going to take effort and true political action to do so. I'm less confident that there's enough energy or optimism left in the population to get that done though.

 

But I still have hope...

 

 

And how has this changed since 1789?

 

In countless ways.

 

* We used to have constitutional checks and balances.

* We used to have the right to due process.

* We used to have the right to privacy, which is necessary for democracy to not only function but to flourish.

* The world has shrunk while government's reach (and ability to overreach) has expanded.

* Technology has changed not just how the world operates, but how governments govern.

 

It's endless...

[GG]

 

I admittedly have a flair for the dramatic in my choice of words.

 

I don't think we've gone completely over the cliff yet, I do believe there is hope to retake the government back from the big moneyed interests which now own it -- but it's going to take effort and true political action to do so. I'm less confident that there's enough energy or optimism left in the population to get that done though.

 

But I still have hope...

 

 

In countless ways.

 

* We used to have constitutional checks and balances.

* We used to have the right to due process.

* We used to have the right to privacy, which is necessary for democracy to not only function but to flourish.

* The world has shrunk while government's reach (and ability to overreach) has expanded.

* Technology has changed not just how the world operates, but how governments govern.

 

It's endless...

 

Does that balance include a Presidential threat 80 years ago to stack the Supreme Court?

Tell me again about the Miranda warning in 1789?

Please read up on the privacy debates when wiretapping rules were enacted.

Please tell me about the democratic process in 1789 when only a small percent of adults participated in the democratic process.

Technology is a two way street, and right now traitors and criminals have the upper hand.

[Tiberius]

 

Does that balance include a Presidential threat 80 years ago to stack the Supreme Court?

Tell me again about the Miranda warning in 1789?

Please read up on the privacy debates when wiretapping rules were enacted.

Please tell me about the democratic process in 1789 when only a small percent of adults participated in the democratic process.

Technology is a two way street, and right now traitors and criminals have the upper hand.

Don't forget slavery and women being legally children

[Magox]

If the government is monitoring our movements, correspondence, and phone calls 24/7, it's not because of any sort of legislation or executive action instituted by the government, but because of some rogue government employees abusing the tools provided to them. There is no legal form of monitoring of our phone calls, movement or correspondence only unless there is reasonable suspicion of potential harm to the homeland. In other words, there is nothing different today than at any time before us other than improved technology.

 

Storing data in a lock box does not constitute a breach of privacy.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Technology is a two way street, and right now traitors and criminals have the upper hand.

 

Considering you're an unabashed neocon it's not surprising you think this.

You're wrong, but it's not surprising.

 

If the government is monitoring our movements, correspondence, and phone calls 24/7, it's not because of any sort of legislation or executive action instituted by the government, but because of some rogue government employees abusing the tools provided to them. There is no legal form of monitoring of our phone calls, movement or correspondence only unless there is reasonable suspicion of potential harm to the homeland. In other words, there is nothing different today than at any time before us other than improved technology.

 

Storing data in a lock box does not constitute a breach of privacy.

 

You could make that argument if Snowden hadn't come forward. But he did, so you can't.

[GG]

 

Considering you're an unabashed neocon it's not surprising you think this.

You're wrong, but it's not surprising.

 

 

You could make that argument if Snowden hadn't come forward. But he did, so you can't.

 

Here's another case of you staking out polar opposite positions

[Magox]

 

 

 

You could make that argument if Snowden hadn't come forward. But he did, so you can't.

 

Are you referring to the spying?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Are you referring to the spying?

 

No, I'm referring to the massive troves of information leaked by Snowden, Binney, and others that show without a shadow of a doubt that your above statement is just not accurate. You claim there's no difference between how privacy and due process are treated by the government today than there was in any other point in our history.

 

That is flat out wrong. It's also wrong to state that only a rogue element of the government bends the rules.

 

 

Here's another case of you staking out polar opposite positions

 

Not sure how you're arriving at that conclusion. I'm saying you're kidding yourself if you think the technical capabilities of the US Intelligence services are somehow behind the curve compared to criminals and "traitors".

 

Not just kidding yourself, deluding yourself and bending the narrative to fit your world view rather than looking at the world how it really is.

******

 

Though this recent chain should probably go over into the New Normal thread rather than this one...

[GG]

Not sure how you're arriving at that conclusion. I'm saying you're kidding yourself if you think the technical capabilities of the US Intelligence services are somehow behind the curve compared to criminals and "traitors".

 

Not just kidding yourself, deluding yourself and bending the narrative to fit your world view rather than looking at the world how it really is.

******

 

Though this recent chain should probably go over into the New Normal thread rather than this one...

 

If the US intelligence had greater resources than the criminals & traitors, then Snowden & Mannings wouldn't have leaked as much information as they did.

 

I am not deluding myself in thinking about the world, in the same way that I'm not deluding myself by thinking it's getting more repressive & controlling. It is getting more stupid, though.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

If the US intelligence had greater resources than the criminals & traitors, then Snowden & Mannings wouldn't have leaked as much information as they did.

 

Maybe we should move this to the other thread, but I'm curious how you're arriving at that conclusion.

 

How does the existence of whistle blowers prove that the intelligence services aren't the most technically advanced groups in operation? That doesn't add up at all to me, not trying to be a dick about it, I'm genuinely curious. Are you saying that the Snowden's ability to leak information proves he's a more capable technical actor than the entirety of the US government?

 

 

I am not deluding myself in thinking about the world, in the same way that I'm not deluding myself by thinking it's getting more repressive & controlling. It is getting more stupid, though.

 

It's not delusion to use your brain and eyes and look at what's happening all around us.

[Magox]

 

No, I'm referring to the massive troves of information leaked by Snowden, Binney, and others that show without a shadow of a doubt that your above statement is just not accurate. You claim there's no difference between how privacy and due process are treated by the government today than there was in any other point in our history.

 

That is flat out wrong. It's also wrong to state that only a rogue element of the government bends the rules.

 

 

 

 

Give me an example of what Snowden leaked that shows there is a systemic legal breach of peoples privacy. I don't doubt what you say, just would like to know of these troves of information that show otherwise.

[3rdnlng]

This is the Hillary Campaign Kickoff thread.