But I get what you're saying about life. I've been a stay at home dad for the last seven years. My own activism has been drastically curtailed. My older son, 7 years old is full-time in school now, his 4 year old brother is in half-time pre-school. When he joins his brother I am so looking for a venue to serve the public good.
"Three's so little room for error."--Elwell
Well, obviously there's a problem. Otherwise you wouldn't be in the situation you're currently in. And does it really matter if voters don't like what you're saying, when you're the only one saying anything in the first place?That's why it's silly to talk about "buying" elections, as if the biggest spender automatically wins. At the end of the day, we are still talking about speech, which works only if it persuades."
Well. Yes. That's the idea, right? In a democracy public interests is what should determine the outcome of elections. What other interests are there that matter? I don't even see what you're arguing against here. And like I said. The United States is the only first world country I know of that has this problem. (Though there might be others, what do I know.) So saying that "there's no simple solution" is just bs.Having parties without access to wealthy sponsors to have the same chance as anyone else would be a great thing, but like TASmith said, there is not simple or fair solution. Stopping money from private monetary interests would an upper hand to those with their hands in public interests.
I don't doubt that. But whatever the obsctacles are doesn't really make it less of an issue.I would assume it's more of legal entanglement issues. They probably put in so many laws to change it entirely becomes harder because someone could post up a legal challenge delaying it even longer.
If someone wants to spend millions on getting a person elected, why should that be against the law? This is exactly what happened with Romney, some very wealthy people pumped millions into his campaign (after doing the same with other candidates who failed to win the primary). It still failed because their candidate and their message was rejected by a majority vote to elect the other guy instead. A phrase I've heard that really resonates with me is that President Obama was the only moderate Republican on the ballot.
We have a two party system, so in this case it was going to be President Obama against whomever the Republicans can find to run against him. There is no reason to believe that the billions spent on the campaign made any difference, if anything it played against them. We still have the same president, same ratio in the house and senate and some ground breaking votes with an openly lesbian woman being elected for the Senate among others. You are referring to an "issue" we are having over here because of it, but in the outcome it didn't really do anything for them.
If people want to spend billions to push their far right or left ideas let them, most Americans are pretty much squarely in the center so it's a risky thing to do.
Where this kind of thing does hurt is for the 3rd party that attempts to run. Although most of the people I know have pretty strong libertarian feelings including myself (socially liberal, low taxes, fiscally conservative, stop fighting wars etc.) - the established parties do a good job of portraying 3rd parties as just taking votes away from either side (green from democrat, libertarian from republican...). If they had Romney money it might have a chance. For the established parties though, it's their money to waste so let them.
Oh and if you notice they spent a lot of time going to battleground states and holding rallies... with supporters. What percentage of undecided voters come out to hoorah for these candidates? I bet it is pretty much members only, but have never been to one myself.
Last edited by Kolbenito; November 9th, 2012 at 11:56 AM.
Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Democrats and republicans are pretty much on equal footing. Whoever of them spends more than the other on the election doesn't really matter in the grander scheme of things. The problem is that noone else can even hope to spend as much money as they do. Which is why you end up with two parties with pretty much the same ideas playing tug of war with the power.Where this kind of thing does hurt is for the 3rd party that attempts to run.
It's a combination of that and the mentality of "if I vote for the independent then the greater of two evils might win". Take away 5-10% of the vote and the election could have changed entirely.
Some of the Senate races reached 30-70+ mil for a single state. Like I said before. It's going to get worse where this becomes a norm. People say money doesn't buy an election but it sure as shit helps. Then like my long winded earlier post which should have just said simply "I worry about buying influence with our elected officials" since it makes it immensely easy for 3rd parties with rich individuals to coordinate with those running. You don't give that kind of money for nothing.
Now, we move on to what may be Obama's Watergate-- Benghazigate:
Last edited by Kamber Parrk; November 10th, 2012 at 08:08 PM.
. . . . .
I don't think his monologue was based on asking the actual facts or questions as much as like always with him and John Stewart pointing out the ridiculous behavior of the mainstream media.
Which is kind of hard to do when CNN recovered slain Ambassador Stevens' diary from the unsecured "crime scene" about 3 weeks before the FBI arrived to diligently investigate whole affair!
Last edited by Kamber Parrk; November 11th, 2012 at 01:48 PM. Reason: CNN found the diary within a couple days of the killing. FBI was not on the ground in Benghazi til Oct. 4!
Kamber, it's very important to investigate what happened there. From what I understand this attack was unexpected. America supported the uprising with airstrikes, weapons, and logistics. We've long been an opponent of Qaddafi. The video that spurred this attack came out of nowhere and the response it provoked was almost immediate. It's obvious American intell and security failed. To what extent you can blame Obama... that's where I begin to roll my eyes, and I see a parallel to truther conspiracies involving 9/11. Who was head of security in Bengazi? Let's start with him.
There is too much political hyperbole and attempts to link President Obama to a scandal rather than looking at it for what it is, an attack on our Ambassador. We are playing a very high risk game of actively propping up or overthrowing governments in a region where these actions have come to hate us and our meddling. You can argue that it was an intelligence failure, or that the role of the CIA created the crisis and both would be valid points. People who think a resignation will stop a testimony have never heard of a subpeona, I mean come on...
The FBI does not have jurisdiction or authority to just go wherever they want and investigate outside the U.S. The CIA doesn't either, but their job is basically to break the rules other agencies have to respect. Civilian security contractors do not generally operate with military backup on standby - that kind of coordination is rare between our Army and Marines without prior planning. It was a tragic event, made more so by people cooking up stories to make it into an anti-Obama thing and taking focus away from the Americans that were killed.
Not according to Ambassador Steven's communications related to several other attacks in the region and on his consulate indicating the need for greater security.From what I understand this attack was unexpected.
Oops! You're still believing the old talking points there TA! The White House has admitted that the video story was false and that the attack was a well planned and coordinated terrorist assault-- most likely by Ansar al-Sharia [sp.].The video that spurred this attack came out of nowhere and the response it provoked was almost immediate.
Yep. For some reason, there wasn't enough American security present to: defend the Ambassador and his staff and secure classified documents.It's obvious American intell and security failed.
Currently, it's a Pat Tillman level of bullshit and evasion. I have no idea what extent Obama even can or even will be connected to this lethal failure. But, it seems that not securing the scene and "investigating" 3 weeks later shows a remarkable lack of diligence on his part in regard to activities we can see him taking in the aftermath.To what extent you can blame Obama... that's where I begin to roll my eyes, and I see a parallel to truther conspiracies involving 9/11.
Technically, Ambassador Stevens. And, as of now, he ain't talkin' to anybody. . .Who was head of security in Bengazi?
"Yep, that's the way important murder cases are handled here in the States-- the authorities leave the crime scene unsecured for 3 weeks so that the perpetrators, the media, and and random passersby have complete unfettered access to it!"
Well, you see Kamber, this didn't happen in the states. It happened in Libya, i.e. in a state of total chaos, the country that just recently toppled its dictator and slew him in the streets, where the capital building is also a looted shell of its former self, where there is no rule of law, police force, established government, nor any semblance of normalcy. Nor will there be for decades. So, in order to "secure the crime scene" immediately, you'd have to send in several platoons of marines or Seals, shoot up all the people on the site, and then fight off the horde of protestors that would follow - the same ones we recently armed with rockets and heavy machine guns. Instead of 4 dead Americans, you'd have hundreds, with pinned down American soldiers dying one by one, and begging for more and more backup and airstrikes. It'd be an unwinnable situation that'd just push a bigger wedge between the US and this fledgling democracy.
I mean, I'm no expert, but isn't this obvious?
Last edited by TASmith; November 13th, 2012 at 12:56 PM.
The USMC provide two types of security to our Embassies and Consulates. Marine Security Guard (MSG) which provides on site 24/7 security and Fast Action Security Team (FAST) which is a specially trained in anti-terrorism unit and frequently used to reinforce MSG when a region becomes unstable.
I haven't heard any details as to why a very small number of civilian contractors were assigned the job of security. The intentions could have been very good and the reasoning might have also. I just haven't heard anything on it so I am not sure why a detachment of MSG/FAST was not in the area. Would it have thwarted anything or just increased the casualty number, I have no idea.
We weren't even sure what kind of people were being supported by our involvement in the over through of Khadafi. This is a costly situation the U.S. finds itself in repeatedly. Nature of the business of us being in the middle of someone's crap at all times.
Last edited by Kolbenito; November 12th, 2012 at 05:15 PM.
In addressing both of you guys: I was rather dumbfounded that the FAST team dispatched by the Administration didn't go to Benghazi and secure the scene!
And, I don't know how secret "The Annex" was. If the contractor SEALs were disobeying orders, perhaps the orders were intended to avoid drawing attention to the Annex!?
And, why did the Administration try so hard to make that video story stick when we now know they had real time drone coverage of nearly the whole event and reports on the ground indicating that the attack was by Ansar al-Sharia?
I think there can be many versions of events. . .
"Some experts believe the Abu Obeida brigade is now part of Ansar al Sharia, an Islamist militia and social organization that disappeared from Benghazi after it was targeted in popular protests against the attack. U.S. officials reportedly intercepted communications from members of Ansar al Sharia bragging about the attack to Al Qaeda affiliates in North Africa."
sb's sb: Crit it! Hurt it! Make it cry!