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

[LordSlowpoke]

heh, cue people arguing which constituents are right and wrong in being defended by their elected officials

[mainiac]

The comment "politicians just care about being reelected" needs to be enshrined in some sort of national monument for the most used political argument of all time.

It's beautiful in how it lets people complain about incentives without bothering to point out a single incentive or the results of that incentive.  It's like the efficient market theory applied to politics, you just assume the truth by assuming the non-existence of contrary evidence.

Just by way of personal experience my own congressman a while back decided that he would rather lose re-election then support policies.  So I suppose it must be "all politicians except for Wayne Gilchrest (MD-1) just care about being reelected."  Unless of course other counter examples exist.  But what are the odds of that?

[Frumple]

However, politicians still need privacy to negotiate effectively etc. As long as the final bills are helping their constituents, it doesn't matter what they discussed in the meantime.

I have to say, this is kinda' amazing to me. We apparently shouldn't give a damn about how our representatives do their job? Only what pops out at the end. Right. That's how you elect a good representative in a democratic system -- by not knowing a damn thing about how the people in question represent you.

Personally? I kinda' care if my representative is getting me a personally favorable political system by bribing everyone else in the process with whores and graft. Or throwing some other aspect of legislature under the bus. I'd like to know about stuff like that. In a representative democracy, the constituents have a sincerely goddamn vested interest in knowing what's being "discussed in the meantime."

So -- no. They don't need privacy when discussing any freaking thing at all to do with bloody anything related to legislature, or a great deal else. Some things, perhaps -- maniac has brought up a fair amount. But most things? A lot of what currently is hidden? No. Bloody no.

[GavJ]

Just by way of personal experience my own congressman a while back decided that he would rather lose re-election then support policies.

In what situation is that not irresponsible?

I kinda' care if my representative is getting me a personally favorable political system by bribing everyone else in the process with whores and graft.

This is strongly bending the conversation out of shape from the point that was being made. You can monitor for bribes by standard IRS audit types of systems already in place. The discussion was about government secrets, and the specific example was records of conversations in committee meetings.

And completely aside from what you think "should" be the "right" way to do it, you have not addressed the original argument -- if you make everything transparent, then the politicians are forced to put on their election persona 24/7 and no laws ever get passed. How do you propose for that horrible side effect to not happen?

[GlyphGryph]

No, actually, we were responding to specific and concrete suggestions from other members who were saying that the United States should not have any secrets at all. Both of whom seem to have changed their minds, so it's no longer an issue - I think everybody seems to agree now with the same thing you're saying: measured scaling back and greater oversight.

I will mention that I still disagree with some of what you've said, and although mainiac was right to point out my own frustrated response was downright ridiculous, it certainly doesn't mean I agree with you about things. Especially since you seem to be arguing that ridiculous stuff like the secret TPP, where they argue we can't see it until it's done and we have no say in the result, is a good thing. (Maybe I'm wrong)

But that's all I'm going to say about that because god damn is posting here frustrating today!

[mainiac]

Just by way of personal experience my own congressman a while back decided that he would rather lose re-election then support policies.

In what situation is that not irresponsible?

In the situation where he considered opposing these policies important?

[Angle]

Just by way of personal experience my own congressman a while back decided that he would rather lose re-election then support policies.

In what situation is that not irresponsible?

Well, if the policies in question are bad ones (Or if you just think they are), then losing one job in attempting to stop them might well be the responsible thing to do. I'd say the responsibility to support good policies outweighs the responsibility to get re-elected.

Edit: Ninja'd by mainiac! I blame the forums...

I kinda' care if my representative is getting me a personally favorable political system by bribing everyone else in the process with whores and graft.

This is strongly bending the conversation out of shape from the point that was being made. You can monitor for bribes by standard IRS audit types of systems already in place. The discussion was about government secrets, and the specific example was records of conversations in committee meetings.

And completely aside from what you think "should" be the "right" way to do it, you have not addressed the original argument -- if you make everything transparent, then the politicians are forced to put on their election persona 24/7 and no laws ever get passed. How do you propose for that horrible side effect to not happen?

Oh, I'm sure people would learn to deal with compromises. For that matter, they'd probably lose interest relatively quickly. I give it a couple months before people go back to mostly not caring.

[Frumple]

And completely aside from what you think "should" be the "right" way to do it, you have not addressed the original argument -- if you make everything transparent, then the politicians are forced to put on their election persona 24/7 and no laws ever get passed. How do you propose for that horrible side effect to not happen?

Right -- because that's the only possible results. No, I'd rather say the electorate will wise up and elect people able to do their bloody job -- which is the entire ruddy purpose of us having a freaking republic! One or two cycles -- if that -- with nothing getting done and the political engine having a serious motivation to back off the partisan bullshit and things would normalize.

And if not, well, we get what we deserve. Still better than having no idea what the hell the people we elected are doing.

[GavJ]

Well, if the policies in question are bad ones (Or if you just think they are), then losing one job in attempting to stop them might well be the responsible thing to do. I'd say the responsibility to support good policies outweighs the responsibility to get re-elected.

If it's a policy that would be obviously bad to anybody, then you shouldn't have to lose your job, because you can explain to your constituents how it is so obviously bad. If you even have to -- they might just recognize it themselves.

The situation you're describing where you would lose your job only makes sense if the law is one that YOU think is bad, but most of your constituents think is good. And in that situation, where do you get off thinking your opinion matters more than tens of thousands of constituents' opinions who you are supposed to be representing?

You are one person. They are a whole district. You don't matter / you're a public servant.

Oh, I'm sure people would learn to deal with compromises. For that matter, they'd probably lose interest relatively quickly. I give it a couple months before people go back to mostly not caring.

On an ongoing basis? Of course they won't care.

During election time? BAM! hundreds of ads full of painfully misleading bullshit where people now all go run to dredge up anything from committee negotiations that sounds like a politician "flip flopping" and we obscure the things that actually matter even more.

^
That's the best case scenario, which assumes the politicians will give up and negotiate as normal in the first place. Which they might do, as you suggest. I agree. But then again, maybe they won't (or some won't) Maybe they will just stonewall, knowing full well that if they do negotiate normally, they WILL get mud flung at them in the next election.

[BurnedToast]

This conversation has gotten ridiculous very quickly, as just about every discussion on this subject seems to do.  The pro-surveillance side of this thing has exploded with strawmen and hyperboles.  This is what I'm seeing right now.

Anti-surveillance side:  Surveillance and government secrecy are being taken to extremes that are not healthy.  Operations like this should not be kept so secret from the public.  Millions of people are caught up in this thing and denied any knowledge as to why, when, or how, with potentially great consequences to those people and the state of our society in general should circumstances shift at all.  This kind of thing tends not to work out well in the long-run, and all previous comparable instances of these things happening are now pointed to as real-world examples of dystopia.

Pro-surveillance side:  THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO THIS SUPPOSED EXTREME YOU REFER TO IS THE OTHER EXTREME WHERE ALL SECRECY IS ABOLISHED FOREVER AND EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD HAS FULL-TIME ACCESS TO EVERY BIT OF GOVERNMENT DATA ABOUT ANYTHING FOREVER.  YOU MUST BE INSANE!  Plus, there are legal processes to these things that keep them within acceptable bounds.  There might be a little corruption here and there, but it's self-correcting.  So you don't need to worry, because I assure you this military-police-surveillance state is nothing like any of the other military-police-surveillance states throughout history.  It's all there to protect you for realz this time.

really?! Did you even read the thread?

No policy secrets. No institutional secrets. No methodological secrets.

Those two exceptions might be acceptable. If it's a question of "we get everything we have now or no secrets at all", though, I'm gonna come down on the side of "no secrets at all".

1) Should the NSA (or a similar body) be legally allowed to conduct secret surveillance against individuals? If so what conditions are the minimum requirement for doing so?

Nope. NSA shouldn't exist for that matter.

...I find myself in agreement. Really, I don't think governments should be allowed to have secrets.

Yeah, it's totally the "pro-surveillance" side (nice framing there, by the way) making the crazy statements and being completely unreasonable, while the "anti-surveillance" side is totally reasonable and only wants to tweak the current system a little bit. That's EXACTLY how this thread is going 

[Helgoland]

GavJ, are you familiar with the distinction between imperative and free* mandate?

*It may have a different name in English, I wasn't able to find a wiki article.

[Angle]

Oh, I'm sure people would learn to deal with compromises. For that matter, they'd probably lose interest relatively quickly. I give it a couple months before people go back to mostly not caring.

On an ongoing basis? Of course they won't care.

During election time? BAM! hundreds of ads full of painfully misleading bullshit where people now all go run to dredge up anything from committee negotiations that sounds like a politician "flip flopping" and we obscure the things that actually matter even more.

^
That's the best case scenario, which assumes the politicians will give up and negotiate as normal in the first place. Which they might do, as you suggest. I agree. But then again, maybe they won't (or some won't) Maybe they will just stonewall, knowing full well that if they do negotiate normally, they WILL get mud flung at them in the next election.

That's easy- Just ban (or at least restrict) political ads. Really, we should've done this already. Perhaps replace them with each candidate getting a set space, whether on television or wherever, to explain they're positions.

[GavJ]

That's easy- Just ban (or at least restrict) political ads. Really, we should've done this already. Perhaps replace them with each candidate getting a set space, whether on television or wherever, to explain they're positions.

That would be nice, but how can you pull it off without violating the first amendment? I can imagine it might probably be constitutional to prevent candidates themselves from doing so, since they are requesting a privilege and can be expected to make concessions in exchange (just like getting a driver's license voids other certain freedoms).

However, you still have any random citizen who isn't running for office who might want to run an ad for a candidate or against a candidate on their own. How do you stop them constitutionally?

GavJ, are you familiar with the distinction between imperative and free* mandate?

Yes. And I'm asking, "In an age where instant communication and polls are widely available and affordable and can be statistically quite good, what is the Democratic benefit or justification for departing from the wishes of your constituency?"

[Angle]

Mmm... That's something I'd really say shouldn't be covered under the first amendment, but I suppose the supreme court probably disagrees. *shrug* Convince everyone to see things my way, I suppose? It's about as likely as any of my other ideas being implemented.

I guess now we argue about whether Money == Speech.

[GavJ]

I suppose you could pass an amendment. Not entirely sure how you draw the line between tv ads versus just talking about a candidate with your friends or facebook posts, or whatever (what if you have a facebook page with 400,000 followers who share to 5,000,000?). But anything's POSSIBLE. Just quite unlikely.

Maybe after direct campaign finance reform happens, things like that will become more reachable.