Common Dreams reports:
Now that official debate has begun, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants to pass Fast Track bill before Memorial Day.
[...] The U.S. Senate on [May 14] approved a motion to begin debate on the Fast Track authority President Barack Obama needs to advance controversial trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The measure passed 65-33.
Senate Democrats blocked the first attempt to proceed on the trade legislation on Tuesday, but backtracked in the wake of further negotiations--and intense pressure from the White House.
Boing Boing warns URGENT: Senate backtracks on TPP fasttrack--call Congress to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership
TPP is a treaty negotiated under extraordinary secrecy--Members of Congress were threatened with jail for discussing its contents--and virtually everything we know about it comes from leaks. One thing we do know is that it contains a provision to let multinational corporations sue governments for passing environmental and labor laws that undermine their profits (similar provisions in other treaties have been used by tobacco companies to sue the Australian government over a law mandating plain packaging for cigarettes). We also know that TPP hardens the worst elements of US copyright, trumping Congress's right to review the term of copyright and the scope of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (these are the rules that allowed John Deere to claim that farmers don't own their tractors, because of the copyrights in the software in their engines).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation needs your help to contact your Congresscritter to block this. TPP is a fragile monster, and it can really only pass if the Congress abdicates its legislative authority and lets the President make up laws and legal obligations without Congressional input. The Republican Congress--and many Democrats--is vulnerable to messages from voters opposing the extension of these powers to the President.
Related: Fast-Track Trade Measure Fails Key Test Vote In Senate
Related Stories
Zero Hedge reports
[May 12], in an embarrassing setback for the president, Senate Democrats in a 52-45 vote--short of the required 60 supporters--blocked a bill that would give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to expedite trade agreements through Congress, a major defeat for Obama and his allies who "say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration's economic agenda."
The passage failed after a leading pro-trade Democrat said he would oppose the bill: Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he would vote no and his loss was a major blow to hopes of attracting a sufficient number Democrats to get 60 "yes" votes in the chamber.
According to Reuters, the Senate vote was one of a series of obstacles to be overcome that hinged on the support of a handful of Democrats. The White House has launched a campaign blitz directed at them in support of granting the president authority to speed trade deals through Congress.
Fast-track legislation gives lawmakers the right to set negotiating objectives but restricts them to a yes-or-no vote on trade deals such as the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama.
[...]Why is Obama scrambling to ram the TPP bill through Congress as fast as possible?
[...]This enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.
[Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)] would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws--and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers--without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here's how it would work:
Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators [read: corporate-friendly tribunal]. If the company won, the ruling couldn't be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions--and even billions--of dollars in damages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:09AM
Politicians do not care about policy. They only care about popularity and winning elections.
Voters do not care about policy. They only care about popularity and voting for winners.
Democracy does not work. We need to get rid of it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Monday May 18 2015, @06:20AM
Democracy is shit, but the alternative is way worse.
What US got isn't really democracy at the moment. But rather corpocracy. So giving them all of government instead of pieces of it isn't a good idea.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @10:10AM
Democracy is shit, but the alternative is way worse.
I keep seeing this kind of statement being thrown around whenever the merits of Democracy is being discussed (and getting modded to +5).
Other than dogma, what evidence are there? Are you claiming that there can NEVER be any system better than Democracy? Thus mankind had already reached the best possible form of government? That's absurd.
How is this behavior different than bible-thumpers and flat-earthers?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday May 18 2015, @01:06PM
Your confusion is a direct result of you trying to see it as a binary only solution: it's either x, or it has to be y.
Sometimes it's neither, both, or some other combination.
Straight democracy is 'mob rule' dressed up nicely, USA's 'represented democracy' is obviously heavily influenced by corruption, as we see today. Dictatorships and monarchy rule both have their problems, as we all know by now.
The problems of ANY political system has less to do with the 'system', and more to do with the people involved in it. Draw up the most perfect, ideal, fair, benevolent, and prosperous system, and it can pass all reviews with flying colors...but as soon as humans actually engage that system, it will cease being perfect due to manipulation/'gaming the system' by those wanting an unfair advantage.
In other words, the 'perfect system' ceases to be perfect as soon as a human gets his hands on it with the intent of personal gain.
'kazz' never made the claim that democracy is the 'best system'(just better than the alternatives SO FAR), just pointing out the current state of things in the US, and known alternatives have proven worse. And 'kazz' is correct about democracy being shit, but better than the alternatives. If democracy was perfect, then there would be nothing but happiness for EVERYONE subjected to it. Historically, that has never happened on this planet, IIRC.
There is a lot of truth to the old saying that 'democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding who's for dinner'. Great if you are a wolf, but tough luck if you are the sheep. Represented democracy enables the sheep to elect a wolf to vote for him. Sometimes it works better for the sheep, sometimes not.
[sarcasm] Maybe Bender has the only solution: "Kill all humans" for a perfect system. [/sarcasm]
With your 'either/ or' mindset, how are YOU different from bible-thumpers and flat-earthers'? ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @02:46PM
Your reply was very kind. Here's mine:
Evidence? Exhibit A: World History
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday May 18 2015, @04:04PM
The problems of ANY political system has less to do with the 'system', and more to do with the people involved in it. Draw up the most perfect, ideal, fair, benevolent, and prosperous system, and it can pass all reviews with flying colors...but as soon as humans actually engage that system, it will cease being perfect due to manipulation/'gaming the system' by those wanting an unfair advantage.
The US Constitution came pretty damn close, and was the best thing going at the time. The killer feature was that it required participation of all citizens, as well as horizontal competition (federal branches), and local authority having default jurisdiction in all but a few limited (and enumerated) powers. The goal was to eliminate the human factor as much as possible.
As Jefferson said, "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will." True today as ever, but the citizenry is woefully uninformed, leading to the vast expansion of the once-limited central government, among other issues. Centralized authority is what the founders were trying to avoid.
It has been said before that the best and most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, and that's probably true. Unfortunately, it depends on the people involved in it more than any other form of government. And power corrupts.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday May 18 2015, @06:25PM
Surely you jest!! (only in regards to your sig:)
I agree totally with your comment.
The sad state of affairs points to animals being lazy by nature, and we forget/deny we are animals too.
You see it in the rise and fall of societies, nations, empires, religions, etc. throughout history. When things are 'really bad', we work to improve them, when they get 'really good', we slack off and get complacent, then we get to where we are today, and start to get panicky. The well documented history of mankind points to a continued decline to 'really bad', thus continuing the cycle.
It's depressing to think about it in those terms, but it is rational and logical, IMO.(as for practical? well, YMMV) As for realistic, well we will have to see; I don't think it is pre-ordained/engraved in stone, immutable.
I see things start to really come apart starting back when being a political official/leader became a paid profession and career, instead of a duty that took time away from your normal life.
I doubt that our 'founders' imagined their 'experiment' to balloon the way it did, and as a negative side-effect, the original system has not scaled up as gracefully as one would hope.
I love the USA and it's Constitution a lot. Enough so that I truly put my life at risk many times when I enlisted in the US Army in 1977...no regrets here.
So that is why I would like to help bring about some improvements to be able to feel good about my country again, like I did back then.
I hate myself for having to admit that 'it happened on MY watch', and I am extremely pissed-off at those that are the cause for me having to feel like this.
Well, go ahead and call me 'Rip van Winkle' if you must, but I am awake now, and the way I am channeling my anger is to do as the Army trained me: get inside, turn it against itself, and give the ensuing chaos a liberal dose of 'helping hand' as I exit to watch the show at a distance.
Since I'm old and broke(physically and financially), I can do very little by myself, so I vote, and support http://www.wolf-pac.com/ [wolf-pac.com] as a start.
*rhetorical question warning*
Can you still call it 'running' for office if it involves mounting wheels and 2-liter Geritol IV on your walker, while your grand kids overclock your pacemaker?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @10:42PM
I love the USA and it's Constitution a lot. Enough so that I truly put my life at risk many times when I enlisted in the US Army in 1977...no regrets here.
However, fighting enemies who don't truly threaten us in any capacity isn't really defending the constitution, because there was no real threat to begin with. And as of late, we haven't had a true enemy.
I don't love the USA; only the principles to which it is supposed to aspire. Too bad it's failing, like every other country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @10:37PM
If you have a better alternative I'm sure everyone would be grateful if you shared it with us.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 18 2015, @07:46PM
FTFY.
(a bit redundant but, truetrue, I think there's a merit for it in this case)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by spamdog on Monday May 18 2015, @06:25AM
What do you suggest as an alternative? Carpet bombing?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:58AM
Install gewg_ as dictator-for-life. My biased rule shall last until I am assassinated by revolutionaries. Then they can pick one of their own as the next dictator-for-life.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:35AM
8-)
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 18 2015, @03:41PM
I would vote for someone with laser blasts and slug slime. sure. count me in!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 18 2015, @04:03PM
if the carpet is that ruined, you should just replace it. that's what the landlords do around here; they put down hardwood floors instead of replacing worn out carpets.
(oh wait, did I just have an emily litella moment? lol)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Informative) by dmbasso on Monday May 18 2015, @06:52AM
You say democracy does not work based on the false assumption that's the system currently in place. It is not. Someone more knowledgeable may correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe what we have in place is a veiled oligarchy. That's what we need to get rid of.
If you wanna help, join http://www.wolf-pac.com/ [wolf-pac.com]
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:07AM
You misunderstand the objection to the system currently in place and substitute your own assumptions about oligarchy. The objection is about voter idiocy. Idiot voters completely ignore policy and don't care who's in charge as long as they get to participate in a pointless popularity contest. The voters are the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dmbasso on Monday May 18 2015, @07:22AM
The voters are the problem.
No, the voters are irrelevant. When all the options they have have been selected by the oligarchs long before the election, voting or not voting has the exact same outcome. It doesn't matter if the voters are idiot or not.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:32AM
You know there are other candidates outside the two party system, right? If enough voters actually voted for them, they would actually win. But that won't ever happen because independent candidates aren't popular winners, so the idiot voters won't ever vote for them. The voters are the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dmbasso on Monday May 18 2015, @07:59AM
You know there are other candidates outside the two party system, right? If enough voters actually voted for them, they would actually win.
Except they don't have any visibility, because their campaigns are not overflown with corporate money. As the probability of any of them winning is low, the most rational decision is to vote for the least worse of the top contenders.
It is a perception trick, psychology manipulation... not unlike a magician making you believe in a illusion. You are saying people are idiots for believing in the magician's illusion. I'm saying ban the fucking magician.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:47AM
During his election where did Obama advertise that he was going to support these sorts of treaties? The answer? He didn't. Voters vote for him based on one thing and, once elected, he does something else. This is not something easily remedied by simply voting for someone else. Every candidate will proclaim what the public wants to hear during elections. Once elected they all change their minds and do something they didn't tell us they were going to do while running. The fact that this isn't what politicians advertise during elections is evidence that this is not what the American people want and that the politicians running for office/in office know this.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:53AM
Except they don't have any visibility, because their campaigns are not overflown with corporate money
Ultimately it's still the voters responsibility.
As the probability of any of them winning is low, the most rational decision is to vote for the least worse of the top contenders.
Really? That "rational decision" is only rational for the case where there's going to be only one election. Don't play that stupid game theory stuff - the politicians play it better. How's that been working out for you all so far?
The most rational decision in the event you're stuck in a Two Crap Party scenario is to start voting for the candidate that's closest to representing your interest. That candidate might never actually win. But be aware the Two Parties keep an eye for what the voters want and they often actually do try to give the people what they want most. So if more and more people want gay marriage or marijuana or "open carry" that's what they get. And that's what has been happening. The Two Parties have changed with the times - depending on what the voters want.
Thing is, what the voters want most and what the Corporations want most are often not that conflicting. Most Corporations don't actually care about gay marriage or abortion. And most voters don't care about TPP. If you don't believe me just go speak about gay marriage or abortion and you'd get strong emotions from very many "normal" voters, try again with TPP - and they'll go "Huh what?".
So the people get gay marriage and the Corporations get TPP. Win-win ;).
Now if the voters really don't want TPP it's time for them to make more noise about it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 18 2015, @02:30PM
As the probability of any of them winning is low, the most rational decision is to vote for the least worse of the top contenders.
The most rational decision is to vote for evil scumbags forever, thereby ensuring that nothing ever changes? No. That's just irrational and unprincipled, like a grand majority of voters. You have to look beyond the next election and keep voting based on your principles, and disregard the the self-fulfilling prophecies. You don't win by voting for evil; that is for sure.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 18 2015, @08:43AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by AudioGuy on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:04AM
"At best, you have a democratically elected oligarchy. The oligarchy part is indisputable. The "democratically-elected" is the part that needs scrutiny."
And the real problem is that BOTH are degenerate forms of government! Switching from one to the other does not help matters.
I offer the following, from Aristotle, who wrote the best book on government ever written:
"Having determined these points, we have next to consider how many forms of government there are, and what they are; and in the first place what are the true forms, for when they are determined the perversions of them will at once be apparent. The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of the many. The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. For the members of a state, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in its advantages. Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name- a constitution. And there is a reason for this use of language. One man or a few may excel in virtue; but as the number increases it becomes more difficult for them to attain perfection in every kind of virtue, though they may in military virtue, for this is found in the masses. Hence in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens.
Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all."
The best form of government is constitutional government. Which we have lost.
An earlier commenter wanted to know what was better than democracy. I offer the above for consideration.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:49AM
For that reason, I'd like to see the larger countries broken up. Give Bavaria and Texas back their independence. Sure, have trading and travel agreements, have legal alignment agreements even, but have self-governance. Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-EU, and love the Euro (yay, 6 countries in 10 days last month, and didn't need to change money once), so I don't have a problem with super-structures existing. However, despite what the Flaily Fail tells you about pints and sausages, the EU really doesn't have that much control over the lives of hoi poloi in each individual country.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:51PM
I don't really see how that follows. I understand the rest, but I don't understand how democracy is a perversion of a constitutional government, nor how it is a perversion that only has a vested interest in the needy. It reads like a false equivalence to me.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Monday May 18 2015, @08:49AM
> It is not.
Why not?
Without a good answer to that question we can only judge the system by what it purports to be. Consider:
- Communism works, but the USSR (and China, N. Korea, etc) were not real communists
- Monarchy works, but King George III was not a real monarch
We know over 2000 years that Democracy has problems. Whether you agree with all Plato's arguments or not, I'd say history shows that there is a real danger that democracy selects for people that win elections, which is not the same as people who govern well. This problem is part of democracy. You cannot simply say, its not democracy's fault that we have a veiled oligarchy, as this is exactly one of the consequences of setting up a democratic system. It might be possible to patch up a democracy to prevent such problems, but I am not very confident in that (laws can always be changed or ignored. Besides, nobody currently in power is going to do the patching).
I also find it quite narrow-minded to think that the current system is the best one. There are ways of governing possible in the current age that were impossible 30 years ago. Such things have never been tried and might have advantages (though I am sure they come with their own set of problems).
I should write a book about it and after a bloody war, some psychopath will attempt to implement it all wrong...
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 18 2015, @07:31PM
communism isn't a political system, its an economic system. if you're going to list communism as a political system, you must also list capitalism, ie, oligarchy or feudalism (eg, the people with the most capital have all the power, our exact system today). capitalism does have direct equivalencies to political systems, what's the political equivalent to communism? and don't say "communism" because its not a political system, you know, by definition.
(Score: 1) by moondrake on Monday May 18 2015, @08:56PM
Agreed (and a silly mistake of me, having argued this exact point at some moment in the past).
My main point still stands though.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 18 2015, @09:55PM
i agree, democracy has problems. its basically just mob rule. what are the alternatives though (specifically the ones you say weren't possible 30 years ago)? authoritarianism/totalitarianism are pretty obviously bad; monarchies are hit-or-miss, depending on the individual ruler, and can fluctuate wildly; afaik, that just leaves us with various flavors of democracy (since i brought it up earlier, i'm pretty sure democracy would be the political equivalent of communism).
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:38AM
well, the "should write a book about it" was meant mostly tongue in cheek, but I do not think one can propose a consistent new political system in a few lines. Besides, I am a scientist, and never studied political "sciences", so I would have to do research.
A major problem with the current implementation of democracy in most countries is that it works by selecting representatives. If people were to directly vote, they made make stupid decisions, but it is much more difficult to make selfish decisions. However, the problem is that a lot of people select evil/selfish or incompetent representatives. Power accumulated in such people is never a good idea.
I think the world is currently connected well enough to move to far more direct forms of democracy. People can collect info on all kinds of things, and people can quickly vote on such things. There is much less need for representatives. Switzerland is a nice example of such a system, but is still mostly semi-direct. One of the problems that need to be solved is how to get a significant group of people interested in understanding complex problems, so that they can make a qualified decision on this.
Merging direct democracy with some kind of AI decision making could be interesting. There are fun little projects around (like this one [zemerge.com] that I think should be further developed and tested. To make a car analogy: humans can drive a car, but make mistakes because of being tired, emotions, limited capacities, etc. But we can, with a group of people, program a car to nearly always drive perfectly (at least, I think we can). Why could we not program a computer to make decisions that are always best for the country/city?
I am sure many of us would get nervous when hearing that I propose to let an emotionless machine (which may have bugs) control a country, but I actually think it would be not worse compared to some of the jokers that have power now. Machines are reliable though, they will never break the constitution, nor let emotions or money dictate policy. There needs to be a safety switch ("checks and balances") though, to take care of bugs and other unforeseen issues. It would be trivial to just allow all people to veto AI government decisions. And a system for updating the set of rules needs to be developed.
Rather than think and discuss endlessly about the pros and cons of such a system, I think it should just be tested on a small scale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @11:24PM
Your mistake--and the mistake of many others--is in believing that democratic elections are to select people who govern well. It does not. As others have pointed out the painfully obvious, politicians routinely promise one thing while campaigning and do another after being elected. Rather democratic elections mean that elected officials who govern poorly can be easily removed, at least in theory. Before the birth of modern democracy, those who governed poorly often could only be removed by (typically violent) revolutions or assassination. In that sense, modern democracy is a definite improvement. Of course, it goes without saying that we can and should make some improvements to the system. It seems to me that one thing that needs desperate attention is to raise up a better informed electorate. It makes it a bit harder to bamboozle voters if they can immediately see through the obvious bullshit that a politician is proffering to them at election time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @10:12AM
You say democracy does not work based on the false assumption that's the system currently in place. It is not.
So, you mean Democracy is like Agile?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday May 18 2015, @12:31PM
When your job security depends on votes, you will do most anything to stay employed. The people sure as shit aren't opening their wallets, they mostly can't afford to. The people with fatter wallets like it that way. Setting term limits *might* curb some corruption as the fat cats can't get too cozy with their prostitute. But that could only make it worse as the new prostitutes waiting in line would each try to out spread each others legs to entice their johns.
Voters do and will care about policy but it becomes obfuscated by the media. Most people are too incompetent or distracted to actually research the issues at hand. Non-topics like gay rights and obama care are rammed down everyone's throat and then substituted with how much dick the kardashians are jumping on or america's next top loser when things are quiet. Then back to rabble rousing the public about more non issues. I mean the other day a Fox news host brought up the fact that the Amtrak engineer that crashed the train was a gay rights supporter AND said I bet the other media outlets keep that fact quiet. It's this type of shit that has destroyed us as a people.
You want to take back your government? Eliminate the major media outlets. They are the great manipulators who are at the front of destroying our democracy. Their fat cats are the johns paying the "elected" prostitutes in congress. They have built quite a network of smoke and mirrors. We need to smash it all. How? Good question. They are so dug in and the public so ignorant that I am afraid we are too far gone. I mean we have people in this country who support invading another country under false pretenses and were still fine with it after said false pretenses were revealed. And they support this just on the word of some dimwit on TV. They don't even do their own research or even think to. They are happy with sitting on their ass nodding at everything some gas bag pundit or news anchor tells them. Nothing but bobbleheads. The media is sick and they have also sickened us.
And install what exactly? I highly doubt any form of human government will ever work. Every system has drawbacks, there is no perfect solution. Unless we build a computer to govern us that hopefully won't go full skynet/matrix on us, we will never be free of corruption unless the human element is eliminated. Shit, a magic 8-ball would make a better politician.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 18 2015, @02:34PM
Voters do and will care about policy but it becomes obfuscated by the media.
Most people I see simply do not care. If you listen to the media to that extent and actually believe it, you're an idiot and truly do not care about policy.
Non-topics like gay rights
Why is that a non-topic? It's not the only important topic, but it is still a matter of freedom, which makes it important.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday May 18 2015, @03:34PM
I'll admit that came out wrong.
I see it like this: There are those who are making a really big deal over something that they claim will destroy this nation. The news outlets are full of gay rights arguments when it's a non argument. They are a group of people who deserve rights. Just give them their rights and be done with it. Stop fucking around. But no. They know the christians and other hate mongers will vote for whoever says no to gay-whatever. So they blow that up into a really big deal in order to secure votes because it's an easy target to argue about. Meanwhile the real shenanigans, complex ones, which are actively and currently destroying this nation go unchecked. Smoke and mirrors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @04:28PM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 18 2015, @06:36AM
Seems this TPP bill and others are part of a continual attack on people, just to make another buck for someone else. It's probably time to get to the roots of this shit production.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday May 18 2015, @06:38AM
We are back to the Capitalist version of the Stalin-Hitler Pact? If this was a real treaty, the draft version would be open of public discussion. Since it is not. we can only assume it is a criminal conspiracy to keep a copyright on Micky Mouse at least until the head of Walt Disney is defrosted. I vote no, as a citizen of the world, until it is public.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:10AM
You have no suffrage rights as a citizen of the world. Kindly fuck off and die, hippie utopian moron.
(Score: 5, Touché) by aristarchus on Monday May 18 2015, @08:47AM
Mon Dieu, Monsieur! You seem to have taken my comment literally, which can only mean you are a moron. We will begin with this. Yes, all citizens of the planet have a vote, that vote is cast at the United Nations. You may not thing that is body is legitimate, but then many of your fellow citizens of whatever benighted nation you belong to no doubt feel the same. Yes, some nations who have representation at the UN do not have governments where their individual citizens have a vote on their representation. The United States and the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland come to mind. But these are mere anachronisms that the course of history will sweep away in due course of time.
(Oh, and despite the AC, we know exactly who you are. Look out your window. Do you see anything unfamiliar? No, you don't., but the suggestion is scary enough, no?)
Now what was your point? Ah, yes, hippie utopians! Well, you know, that is not a bad thing to be. It is certainly preferable to being a "fuck off and die" reactionary fascist type who has nothing to say other than, "Boo"! Are you saying, "Boo"? "Boo" as in, "the world is changing, and in fact has changed, and now I am a powerless former lackey of an oppressive form of government and I don't like it"? That kind of "Boo"? Well, I don't hope you die, but it is inevitable that you shall, we all do. What you might want to consider, at least a little bit, is how has your existence on the planet in some small degree made it a better place. Have you raise children to be good citizens of the world? Have you produced art that brings meaning to existence? Have you produced goods that have made life better for all who have received them? Have you made the world a better place even a little? If not, well, we still all love you, and we are sorry for your failure, you hippie-punching asshole.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday May 18 2015, @01:16PM
Well done! LOL!
I think that was the most eloquent 'piss off, moron...don't come back until you've been out of Mom's basement a while' reply I have witnessed in a long time. :-)
Well done, indeed. *tips hat*
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday May 18 2015, @09:03PM
I've always thought there something fundamentally wrong with people when I see stuff like proudly displayed attitudes that show that they consider the ideal of a utopia somehow a BAD thing.
Your comment makes me picture an environment where real people might say it. I picture something like two guys, collars popped, at a bar drinking bud lite, "Yo brah, you know what I don't wanna see? A better world for everyone, mang!" The other responds, "Fucking right brah. That shit's fer fags!" and then they proceed to attempt to crush their bottles on their heads, as if they were cans, because THEY'RE FUCKING RETARDED.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VortexCortex on Monday May 18 2015, @07:21AM
Looking back at a post-TPP world you'll wonder why you never listened to those "one world order conspiracy theorists".
No matter how you try to influence the powers that be, you have no power to do so. Best to focus on preparations for the future rather than waste time being impotently angry. What? You want to take back control with a revolt? Yeah, that's why they have been militarizing police and installing "anti-extremist" task forces (Fusion Centers). They're so ready for that, it's like the governments are planning for an uprising...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:42AM
important fusion center work [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:40PM
I've recognized our neo-feudalist future, with corporations as the lords, but it never really clicked that corporations are about to become our one-world-government (although "money"/"capitalism" as the one-world-religion has been obvious for a long time). Thanks for pointing that out.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:36AM
Awww yeah. Swallow my jizz.