81–90 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they should have a registration-based website with registration tied to actual party membership So if I'm in an area that is represented by a member of another party, then my voice deserves less weight than the voice of someone that is a member of that party?
You can be a Republican in a district represented by a Democrat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying politicians shouldn't listen to the people when developing policy ideas? If people actually used such a website in good faith then it could potentially produce some useful ideas and allow them to percolate upwards to party policymakers. They shouldn't blindly pick whatever ideas turn out to be popular on their website, but it might bring up some things they hadn't thought of before.
I would not trust any politician who says “I have no idea what policies I should be proposing once I get elected, so I want to hear your ideas.” Such a politician is either an idiot or a liar. A politician with intelligence and integrity would say something like “If I’m elected, I will try to get the government to do X, Y, and Z. If you have any particular ideas about how to accomplish these goals, or if you want to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad part is they feel a website like this is necessary. They're professional politicians in a democratic country. They should already be in touch with their constituency. They should have a chain of advisement and direction built all the way from local caucuses at the precinct level. And if they were serious about making the project more efficient by taking it online, they should have a registration-based website…
> they should have a registration-based website with registration tied to actual party membership So if I'm in an area that is represented by a member of another party, then my voice deserves less weight than the voice of someone that is a member of that party?
But it's a website specifically for the GOP to garner ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"After reading some of the comments on their website I have hard time distinguishing trolls from republican talking points." Look, can't we come together under the banner of mutual brotherhood and fraternity and agree that Internet trolls can't be held against any political view? Can't we all come together and agree that whatever our differences, at least we can look down our noses at that lot? Do you really think it…
If anyone doubts it would be different if the Dems made such a site: "We must not stop until the American people win the war on Health-Care [...] Our leaders today are nothing short of Angels. “Gods Elect” put in power by God for his people and his world." http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/dalecourtney?p...
I think that you were be hard-pressed to find someone that believes that the majority Democrats believe that God put their leaders into power. Especially since (at least in my opinion) a majority of America views the Democrats as being associated with Atheism/science (e.g. Creationism vs Evolution).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"After reading some of the comments on their website I have hard time distinguishing trolls from republican talking points." Look, can't we come together under the banner of mutual brotherhood and fraternity and agree that Internet trolls can't be held against any political view? Can't we all come together and agree that whatever our differences, at least we can look down our noses at that lot? Do you really think it…
If anyone doubts it would be different if the Dems made such a site: "We must not stop until the American people win the war on Health-Care [...] Our leaders today are nothing short of Angels. “Gods Elect” put in power by God for his people and his world." http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/dalecourtney?p...
The article is amusing but unfair - it's mostly just selected quotes from contributors to the new site. One could write a similarly far out (and amusing) story about HN or any other social site, by judiciously selecting from amongst the troll comments.
Democrat's new website not exactly what he hoped it would be : "Today presently in our world you can notice a lot of instability in our Earth’s physic’s. Like now we are having a lot of Earthquakes, Tsunamis, we also have El nino on the equator and now something new like Iceland’s new erupting Volcano and this hasn’t happened since the 18 hundreds. I would also like to talk about how I thing we can possibly repair so…
Unfortunately, there is no mandatory mental health screening required to purchase an Internet connection or a computer.
The article is amusing but unfair - it's mostly just selected quotes from contributors to the new site. One could write a similarly far out (and amusing) story about HN or any other social site, by judiciously selecting from amongst the troll comments.
I think they just underestimated the need for moderators. Though I can't really fault them for that, a good moderation system is tough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they should have a registration-based website with registration tied to actual party membership So if I'm in an area that is represented by a member of another party, then my voice deserves less weight than the voice of someone that is a member of that party?
If this was a government or public institution website you'd be correct. But it's a website specifically for the GOP to garner ideas.
I was of the understanding that this thread had branched to discuss communication at the ground level with your elected representative, not a forum to discuss the direction of an entire political party as a whole. The discussion was just framed around each political party providing their elected officials with a way of communication with their constituents.
[I could be way off here, though.]
Great political ideas come, not from committees or from random samplings of the uninformed or semi-informed masses, but from intelligent and forceful leaders who can think them through thoughtfully, who can articulate them in a way that resonates with people, and who can set out an agenda to carry them into effective action. None of this is easy to do and it takes exceptional people even to make a credible stab at it…
[1] Yes, I'm well aware some people claim that Wikipedia has failed. But arguing with people who use "failure" to describe a site with Wikipedia's impact isn't worth the time.