Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Max White]

Your parties are weird... Anywhere else in the world when somebody goes full retard and refuses to back down, you boot them out with a the wrath of the gods.

[misko27]

Did you not here "freedom of association"? You can't kick them out any more then you can arrest people for legally naming themselves "Virgin Mary Fucker".

Of course, that's a freedom thing; you wouldn't understand.
[/USA!USA!USA!]

[Max White]

So under that law, if there was some sort of club that wanted to be very selective about their members, could I just join and they couldn't stop me?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, you can have exclusive clubs. The big two just aren't. Freedom of association means the government cannot prevent you from freely joining a group, not that groups have to accept you.

[Max White]

No members list... You just say you are in and you are in... No way to actually remove somebody from the party. Apparently no actual structure at all!
Guys, these aren't real political parties. They are just vague shorthand labels to make picking a candidate easier. You don't have a two party system, you have a no party system.

[GlyphGryph]

So under that law, if there was some sort of club that wanted to be very selective about their members, could I just join and they couldn't stop me?

A political part isn't a club, it's a cultural label. You can't kick them out any more than the "goths" can kick someone out of being a goth.

And yes, you've totally figured it out. There are not any recognized political parties in the US legal system.

[XXSockXX]

Actually, even with our parties having only card-carrying, registered, fee-paying members, it's still not easy to kick someone out. There has to be an arbitration tribunal which decides whether someone has done or said something that goes against basic party principles and/or is damaging to the party. It doesn't happen that often and it may fail, in recent times our Social Democrats failed two times to kick a prominent member out for what were widely considered xenophobic public opinions.
Calling for the hanging of someone, even if it's not the president, would probably do it though.

[GlyphGryph]

I should note that the "parties", as in the commission leaders, CAN choose who they give money to and may have influence, depending on the state, on whether or not they can put a party letter next to their name. (Sometimes you have to be an "official candidate" for that, since party votes and whatnot, but you'll still get multiple Republicans or Democrats running in the same race regardless).

So it's actually a bit in between. They don't issue membership cards, and they can't stop you from calling yourself a Republican/Democrat, but they can certainly stop providing you with any sort of national organizational support or recognition.

[FearfulJesuit]

The Atlantic reckons Rand Paul is the 2016 GOP frontrunner. Of course, the primaries ARE two years away...

Holy shit, guys. We're at the midpoint between the 2012 primary season and the 2016 primary season...

[darkrider2]

Your parties are weird... Anywhere else in the world when somebody goes full retard and refuses to back down, you boot them out with a the wrath of the gods.

Well there's membership, and then there's identity.

Anybody can identify themselves as a republican/democrat/whatever and go ranting on about any topic no matter how ridiculous their ideas, usually not a big deal until someone ends up all over the TV for something, at that point if it makes the group look bad they just denounce affiliation with them.

The GOP seems to have a problem, plenty of people do the first part, but the GOP isn't doing the second part. Without outflow, the dammed up crazy seems to be causing some issues.

Also:

I should note that the "parties", as in the commission leaders, CAN choose who they give money to and may have influence, depending on the state, on whether or not they can put a party letter next to their name. (Sometimes you have to be an "official candidate" for that, since party votes and whatnot, but you'll still get multiple Republicans or Democrats running in the same race regardless).

So it's actually a bit in between. They don't issue membership cards, and they can't stop you from calling yourself a Republican/Democrat, but they can certainly stop providing you with any sort of national organizational support or recognition.

[GlyphGryph]

So, let's stop for a moment and review the most recent NSA-related leak. Not as any commentary on the NSA itself, but because holy fuck why do Presidents pull this shit. For those unaware,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf

So there have now been two reviews of the NSA program by independent government agencies staffed with experts, and specifically created to make recommendations about the NSA program. Each of them has found the program significantly lacking, if not outright illegal, and that in its current form it is dangerous to the proper functioning of our nation, in addition to being entirely ineffective at its stated goals.

The President has chosen to ignore each of these reports, in turn, including the one he commissioned and with his most recent speech he has made it quite clear that he has no intention of doing a single meaningful thing to reign them in or hold them accountable - he has no plan to even require them to produce results. He has essentially given them blanket permission to violate whatever American laws they see fit. The FISA court recommended no more than that the NSA be required to follow the rules that it, itself, set up, to govern its own policies, and the President has denied even this!

The strangest part is, he doesn't seem to get any benefit from doing this. His behaviour makes no sense, from a policy perspective, unless we're all missing something. Why would you tirelessly support an unpopular program that gets you none of what you claim to want?
Which leaves two options, really. Either Obama wants something different than what he claims, or the NSA obtained some sort of leverage while listening to HIS calls. They've already admitted, publicly, that they spy on Congress, and there is evidence that they use the information they uncover. Even if they avoid spying on POTUS, they undoubtedly surveilled him while he was running. THIS seems to me to be the real danger of a thing like the NSA. It's not about me, and whether or not I have anything to hide - it's about what they can do with this kind of power over people who DO have something to hide. Which is essentially every politician ever.

So here are the recommendations the President has ignored so far:
President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications:
Established by the President himself to investigate the NSA. Made a series of recommendations as to what would be required to insure NSA compliance with the law, and additional recommendations about what would changes would simply be a /good idea/ to implement if the President wanted them to do anything he said. All of these recommendations were ignored.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board:
Independent body established by Congress to investigate the NSA. Concluded the entire program should be shut down, as there is no way to bring it in line with the law in the current environment and it's behaviour is grossly illegal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/us/politics/watchdog-report-says-nsa-program-is-illegal-and-should-end.html?hp&_r=0

And finally, the reccomendations of the FISA Court tasked with overseering the NSA, who have repeatedly stated that the NSA is failing to live up to it's legal duties and has outright lied to and deceived the judges tasked with keeping them in line. Their recommendation was simple - do something, anything, to force the NSA to follow even the rules it, itself, set up. The President has decided to ignore this as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/fisa-court-documents-nsa-violations-privacy

Can anyone provide an alternative explanation as to what the President might actually want that he would disregard the opinions of all of these bodies of experts? Or is it just hubris? It certainly doesn't make any bloody sense to me...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Bryan Fischer believes Glenn Beck may have embraced the well-defined arms of Big Gay.

[Steeled]

So, let's stop for a moment and review the most recent NSA-related leak. Not as any commentary on the NSA itself, but because holy fuck why do Presidents pull this shit. For those unaware,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf

So there have now been two reviews of the NSA program by independent government agencies staffed with experts, and specifically created to make recommendations about the NSA program. Each of them has found the program significantly lacking, if not outright illegal, and that in its current form it is dangerous to the proper functioning of our nation, in addition to being entirely ineffective at its stated goals.

The President has chosen to ignore each of these reports, in turn, including the one he commissioned and with his most recent speech he has made it quite clear that he has no intention of doing a single meaningful thing to reign them in or hold them accountable - he has no plan to even require them to produce results. He has essentially given them blanket permission to violate whatever American laws they see fit. The FISA court recommended no more than that the NSA be required to follow the rules that it, itself, set up, to govern its own policies, and the President has denied even this!

The strangest part is, he doesn't seem to get any benefit from doing this. His behaviour makes no sense, from a policy perspective, unless we're all missing something. Why would you tirelessly support an unpopular program that gets you none of what you claim to want?
Which leaves two options, really. Either Obama wants something different than what he claims, or the NSA obtained some sort of leverage while listening to HIS calls. They've already admitted, publicly, that they spy on Congress, and there is evidence that they use the information they uncover. Even if they avoid spying on POTUS, they undoubtedly surveilled him while he was running. THIS seems to me to be the real danger of a thing like the NSA. It's not about me, and whether or not I have anything to hide - it's about what they can do with this kind of power over people who DO have something to hide. Which is essentially every politician ever.

So here are the recommendations the President has ignored so far:
President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications:
Established by the President himself to investigate the NSA. Made a series of recommendations as to what would be required to insure NSA compliance with the law, and additional recommendations about what would changes would simply be a /good idea/ to implement if the President wanted them to do anything he said. All of these recommendations were ignored.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board:
Independent body established by Congress to investigate the NSA. Concluded the entire program should be shut down, as there is no way to bring it in line with the law in the current environment and it's behaviour is grossly illegal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/us/politics/watchdog-report-says-nsa-program-is-illegal-and-should-end.html?hp&_r=0

And finally, the reccomendations of the FISA Court tasked with overseering the NSA, who have repeatedly stated that the NSA is failing to live up to it's legal duties and has outright lied to and deceived the judges tasked with keeping them in line. Their recommendation was simple - do something, anything, to force the NSA to follow even the rules it, itself, set up. The President has decided to ignore this as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/fisa-court-documents-nsa-violations-privacy

Can anyone provide an alternative explanation as to what the President might actually want that he would disregard the opinions of all of these bodies of experts? Or is it just hubris? It certainly doesn't make any bloody sense to me...

You're expecting a government official to give up power? Are you delusional? The one consistent thing the government has done over 250ish years is give itself more and more power.

[GlyphGryph]

Here's the thing though - what power does Obama get from the NSA?

I expect government officials to act in their own interest. Supporting the NSA, at this point in time, doesn't seem to align with Obama's interest. Sure, it gives the a government agency more power, but how does it give him more power?

Either he's found some use for beyond which is already publicly known or admitted, or he has some other reason to support them, or he thinks he's going to be able to use them for something.

[Reelya]

Or, it's a thing that goes beyond party boundaries, and the true powers that be, corporate backers approve of expanding the police state.