Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 321 posts

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#311

Post by Retric »

jacoblyles wrote: post #300
grellas wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is not so much whether you vote (most people will) but what you vote for. The U.S. system of government is deeply rooted in an English common law and constitutional framework. In its U.S. variant, it became a constitutional republic, with the broad idea being that power within the government is divided by design so as to help prevent its abuse. That means a federal system premised on the legal principle…

The present reality of our government's structure is certainly nothing like it claims in its charters and bylaws. America is best described as a post-democratic state. The permanent bureaucracy is the largest and most powerful branch of government and it is never subject to elections. From the Washington Post editorial desk[1]: "Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a…

If you adjust for population growth, your numbers suggest the government significanly shrunk from 1962 to now.

182 million :2.5million in 1962 vs 312 million:2.8million in now. Granted you don't need to double the size of government when the population doubles but you do need significantly more people.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#312

Post by comrade_ogilvy »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #215
bpatrianakos wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carlin was a great comedian and I'm a big fan but I'm not about to agree with this simply because the late great George Carlin said it. This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. In the end, this is what it is, a joke. If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are…

>This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. I think he was pretty much dead on on this one. Swap Republican/Democrat politics for another any other choice and the "you have no right to complain" point makes less sense. Take a fictional encounter with a Doctor... Dr: You're going to get testicular cancer. Would you prefer it in the left testicle or the right? Me: I don't want ca…

In reality, I could write in my neighbor's dog on the ballot, to demonstrate I am a politically engaged individual who is likely to vote for a human candidate if the candidates change their tune.

That is the superior answer to the mythical doctor visit, as well.

I would further argue that refusing to be involved may have resulted in cancer in both the left nut and right nut.

Unfortunately the analogy may be a bit too applicable for comfort, eh?

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#313

Post by Nursie »

betterunix wrote: post #238
Nursie wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your vote is your mandate. If you so choose not to give your mandate to anyone, that is up to you. It is the only political power I have, and even though the statement is ignored or interpreted as apathy, the statement that you don't believe in any of those arseholes is just as valid as the statement that you do. I, personally, cannot stand the "then vote for the least worst because at least the other guy won't get i…

Your vote is not the only political power you have. You can organize people, even if it is only at the local level. Once you do that, you have begun to gain political power, and that is how political careers are started. We do not have titles of nobility here; nobody is more entitled to be politically engaged than anyone else. In practice, it is hard to take power from the established parties. It is hard to get past…

It's the only power I actually have and hold now, unlike the possibility of future influence that may come from running for office.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#314

Post by robomartin »

ars wrote: post #255
robomartin wrote: post #169

At some level this has to bring up the issue of voting age into the fold. I'm sorry but I know few 18 year olds who could be trusted to run their lives, much less make sensible, informed and intelligent voting decisions. They simply don't have enough education and life experience to understand what they are voting for. Is there an argument for producing better vote quality by raising the minimum voting age to somewhe…

That would make it worse. Instead they should lower the voting age to 14. The only way to get the life experience you are looking for is to DO it! Despite the common belief, it does NOT automatically come with age. The earlier you start, the better the results are (since younger brains learn faster and are more flexible), and the longer a person has to gain experience. The earlier people get used to participating in…

You got me wrong. I am not talking about learning to participate in government at all. I am talking about learning about life's realities.

A random example would be that there's a huge difference between an 18 year old kid and a 25 year old who has been working, going to school and managing his/her life. An 18 year old is bound to make voting decisions without any real context grounded in having lived a little. They are naive and tend to be innocently dumb. There are exceptions, of course, but I have trouble calling an 18 year old an "adult" other than under the legal definition.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#315

Post by robomartin »

megablast wrote: post #198
robomartin wrote: post #169

At some level this has to bring up the issue of voting age into the fold. I'm sorry but I know few 18 year olds who could be trusted to run their lives, much less make sensible, informed and intelligent voting decisions. They simply don't have enough education and life experience to understand what they are voting for. Is there an argument for producing better vote quality by raising the minimum voting age to somewhe…

And I know lots of older people who vote for what I consider stupid reasons, they vote for who there church tells them to, or because they are being lied to or can't understand how taxes work. But certainly the most enthusiastic voters to me are the young ones. They are the ones who would actually protest, and put themselves in danger for what they really believe in.

Absolutely right. That's an entirely different problem. One of education. Not implying college as a requirement but rather an understanding of the issues.

It's really easy for politicians to snow voters with statistics, percentages, factoids, contortions and all manner of lies and manipulative tools in order to get their votes. Few people really have command an understanding of all topics that come into play in an election. At some level allowing everyone to vote might be a romantically attractive feel-good idea but it sure creates a situation where you have a lot of really ignorant voters (probably a majority) voting on stuff they simply know nothing about.

While I consider myself a well-rounded and reasonably educated person I would gladly welcome a scenario where, for example, the general public (including myself) is not allowed to vote on, say, medical laws or policies where medical knowledge is paramount to the understanding of the issues at hand.

I am not exactly ignorant about these things but compared to my wife, who is a doctor, I am the equivalent of a moron. Her vote ought to have hugely more value than mine when medical knowledge is key to understanding what you are voting for or against.

Now, I can see a scenario where if I wanted to have a voice in such a vote I could take a test (and maybe a class prior to that) in order to receive qualifications to vote.

I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I really don't see why we insist that everyone's votes are equal for every single issue in front of us. I don't think it makes any sense. I am not, even for a millisecond, trying to be elitist here at all. I include myself with the millions of "ignorant" when it comes to a myriad of topics.

Two hundred years ago people didn't have to deal with the complex array of knowledge domains we have in our hands today. You could make an argument for voting being open to everyone. Today, well, nobody knows everything. Why is it that everyone can then vote on everything? I mean, people vote on matters of economic impact and, if you dig, they don't even know how to balance their checkbook or are "uncomfortable with math". Really?

I really think voting age ought to be increased significantly and voters ought to qualify to vote in areas that require having an understanding of the topic at hand. This would definitely prevent politicians from manipulating the masses into voting based on utter bullshit arguments designed to guide them by the nose.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#316

Post by jbigelow76 »

comrade_ogilvy wrote: post #312
jbigelow76 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. I think he was pretty much dead on on this one. Swap Republican/Democrat politics for another any other choice and the "you have no right to complain" point makes less sense. Take a fictional encounter with a Doctor... Dr: You're going to get testicular cancer. Would you prefer it in the left testicle or the right? Me: I don't want ca…

In reality, I could write in my neighbor's dog on the ballot, to demonstrate I am a politically engaged individual who is likely to vote for a human candidate if the candidates change their tune. That is the superior answer to the mythical doctor visit, as well. I would further argue that refusing to be involved may have resulted in cancer in both the left nut and right nut. Unfortunately the analogy may be a bit too…

    >In reality, I could write in my neighbor's dog on the ballot, to demonstrate I am a politically engaged individual who is likely to vote for a human candidate if the candidates change their tune. That is the superior answer to the mythical doctor visit, as well.
Does anything you say have anything have to do with addressing the point that making a choice somehow magically correlates to the ability to hold an opinion? Because politics or your dog doesn't really have anything to do with it.

    >I would further argue that refusing to be involved may have resulted in cancer in both the left nut and right nut.
Well for anybody that insists on flogging the cancer/politics analogy then this would be impossible, assuming you are a member of the US electorate, as a viable candidate from either party would never pick a running mate from the other side of the aisle (right nut cancer would be mutually exclusive of left nut cancer).

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#317

Post by Datsundere »

Fixnum wrote: post #208
agwa wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those in power want you not to vote No, those in power very much want you to vote. Voting is a great feel-good process that gives the illusion that the people are sovereign when in reality we have practically no power and the government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as both parties agree on it. If this wasn't a democracy it would be quite clear where the power really lies, but since it is a democracy, t…

I was involved in marking a standardized test for high school students and one question involved inventing a story on an (unspecified) election. What shocked me the most, aside from the poor writing ability, the unintentionally unbelievable facts of the stories, and the surprising amount of confusion and internal contradiction within the students' responses, was that although remarkably few students demonstrated much…

Isn't it because that's how they are taught to answer those type of questions by their ol government teachers?

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#319

Post by swombat »

daughart wrote: post #161
swombat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You merely have a failure of imagination. Try reading some books, like 1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World, for your education.

These books don't tell me how the government analyzing communication metadata is an infringement of rights. "Imagine a world where the government assigns you a number when you are born. Where you have to register with the government when you turn 18. Where each year you must report detailed financial information to the government. It's like 1984!"

Read this, then: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#320

Post by [deleted] »

daughart wrote: post #161
swombat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You merely have a failure of imagination. Try reading some books, like 1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World, for your education.

These books don't tell me how the government analyzing communication metadata is an infringement of rights. "Imagine a world where the government assigns you a number when you are born. Where you have to register with the government when you turn 18. Where each year you must report detailed financial information to the government. It's like 1984!"

[deleted]
Post reply on HN