Topic awaiting preservation: Hmmm what do you think of this? (Page 1 of 1)

Here's a little quote from 2600 about the situation of well the U.S. anyway....

quote:

---

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacmakers for lack of patriotism and exposing their country to danger. It works the same in any country.

- Hermann Goering, Hitlers designated successor before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials

---

[This message has been edited by Maskkkk (edited 03-15-2003).]

Moving to Philosophy...

:::krets.net:::

Here's another little quote from his master:

quote:

---

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

--Adolf Hitler

---

The Nazi's were masters of propoganda. Just watch one of Hitler's political rallies on a documentary and tell me they aren't inspiring at some core level. They knew how to manipulate the masses and had no compuction in using that ability to further their agenda.

Human beings are susceptible to this type of thing because it is indemic to how we operate and are designed as organisms. But here's a little secret. We also have brains and *individual* consciences that allow us to think for ourselves.

The key here, Maskkkk, is not that propoganda exists, but rather knowing the difference between different agendas being pushed. Not all agendas are created equal. I am much more concerned about your ability or lack thereof to discern between agendas because ultimately that is the only protection we have against true abuse of power.

. . : slicePuzzle

About the situation of the US? I'm missing something there apparently...the quote is obviously far older than any current situation...

But anyway, whatever your point may be, it is a quote about the human condition. Period.

A Nazi ringleader saw that a certain tactic was an excellent way to ensure unity of opinion in a country. Our leaders (and country singers) are using that tactic to ensure unity of opinion. That doesn't mean our leaders and country singers are Nazis -- it just means they're using a propaganda technique also used by Nazis.

Is "unity of opinion" a scary term? To my American ideals, yes.

Oh, like these kind of country singers?

It's germane to the situation in the states because americans are under major governmental propaganda barrage right now. We're beginning to slip back into the McCarthy era. Frankly, that scares me more than these "rogue nations" do. If we take away all that makes america worth living in, what do we even have left to fight for?


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

I started this post intending to say that I don't think we are even close to McCarthyism at this point but I will hold off on that. I think it is important for citizens to always be on the lookout for government abuse and I don't necessarily want to discourage anyone from being vigilant even if I disagree with their political bias. So, in short, carry on with the paranoia

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs, I don't care what someone's political views are as long as they're relatively well-informed. If I come to the conclusion that someone's views have been shaped, not independently determined, that's when I draw the line.

There are a lot of "shaped" viewpoints out there. That's the big problem.

edit: And when I say "out there," I mean everywhere in the world, in all time periods. Historically, only the privileged have had the luxury of the kind of education that enables critical thought. One of my great hopes is that critical thought will eventually become more of a driving force.

I watched the State of the Union address with a few of my friends... I was the only person in the room commenting on it. I had a few "okay, now that I like" moments, like the billions to fight AIDS in Africa; and I had several "I can't believe he just said such stupidity" moments, like when he was talking about the magical fuel cell car that runs on magic. (Fuel cells: good idea, and probably the future, but NOT the kind of white magic he was talking about.)

The trouble is, nobody else in the room was groaning at the factual errors or statistical twisting (like every time he said "will save Americans an average of" ... we know that if the richest 1% saves 99% of the money, the average is still the same.)

I want to live in a world where people yell at the TV whenever someone says something like that. Is that dream wrong?

[This message has been edited by Perfect Thunder (edited 03-17-2003).]

I yell at Korean TV dramas all the time, but only because they are incredibly cheesy. I suppose that doesn't count...

it has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. vigilance does not equal paranoia. caution perhaps, but not paranoia. questioning is a part of that caution.

Yeah I agree,
I mean it seems to me like the people who are against the war are being squeched. I just read an article the other day about how stuff similar to the anti-war music of the 60's is being written, but it's not being played, because all the radio stations are owned by only a few big cooporations. It doesn't sound like free speech to me. (But granted that's not the government doing it) It's still wrong.

quote:

---

I want to live in a world where people yell at the TV whenever someone says something like that.

---

I'd rather live in a world where people realize that such televised events are nothing but bullshit rhetoric and politics, and won't gether to watch the damn thing anyway

.

Everyone's opinion is 'shaped' by the information available to them. Some people's information is better than others...

PT, it sounds like we share a common dream

You and I probably had very different reactions to the state of the union speech but we were both speaking to the TV as we were watching it and that is a good thing. I think we live in a very privileged time where a great many of us have access to more information than at any other time in history. You could say that leaves us with little excuse not to make use of it.

VR, yeah I know it's not necessarily paranoia but I have come across a few people who are more than paranoid about the government as they go on and on with their conspiracy theories. And that quote is a very very good one and one that I hope we will all take to heart.

quote:

---

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

--John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)

---

Maskkkk, as long as the government isn't the one suppressing freedom of speech then it is the people's decision. If there was a huge demand to listen to commie-lib music, you had better believe some large corporation would be there to soak up the profits! If you don't like the fact that public opinion in this country is swinging to the right wing, then get out and change some hearts and minds. It's really just as plain as that. You have just as much right to push your bias as I do mine and we let the chips fall where they will.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-17-2003).]

'And this too, will pass.' - I think this comes from the words of an Egyptian advisor, to his king, when asked of a saying that always applies to the situation at hand.

At the moment, the US has swung right, and the Republicans have power...but it will not always be so, just as it was not always so. it will swing left again...and things done now, will be undone. The only thing that remains to be seen is, of what consequences come out of what is now being done, for those must surely be dealt with.

If enough people get pissed off about how this whole shebang is being orchestrated, the 2004 presidential election will have a COMPLETELY different outcome than the 2000 election... (Propaganda aside, that's where the voices of the people are supposed to be heard.)

I don't recall that Bush Sr. had more than one term in office. He had war-glory dreams too...

In the meantime, remember "duck and cover" only works for tornado and hurricane watches... for this, make sure you have your supply of plastic and duct tape!

Bodhi - Cell 617

Yeah but I thought the electoral college (whatever that is) are the people who elect the president. (Anyway just who the heck are they and why does their vote count over mine?)

Oh and one more thing...
WebShaman are they going to send you in?
(I hope not, you seem to be the voice of wisdom around here)

No worries, Maskkk...I've already served more than 8 years in the military (which is a duty, btw, in the US), and I was in a war (the Gulf War). As such, I am exempt from being called to duty (because I have already served it).

So no, they are not sending me, this time.

As for the Electorial College, hoboy. Now, that's a real mess, actually, and explaining how it works is both difficult, and kinda hard to understand. And actually, I'm no expert on it, myself. I would suggest google-ing it.

There are examples, of where the popular vote went to one candidate, but the electorial college voted in the other. How and why that happens, is beyond me. Personally, I'd very much like the electorial college system to be done away with.

If I understand the electoral college correctly, it's like so:

<memory class="foggy" src="high_school">

Each state has a certain number of "electoral votes."

Each state has a "popular vote," which is the actual person-by-person votes of the population.

If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, he gets all of that state's electoral votes -- even if he only won a bare minimum of the popular vote.

Thus, in a race with two major parties and a third-party spoiler (Nader, Perot, whatever), a candidate might win every state in the union with 40% of each state's popular vote -- he'd still collect 100% of the electoral vote.

Given that unlikely but instructive scenario, it's easy to see how a president might lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote.

</memory>

...now, the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question is "why did we use this system in the first place, and/or why are we still using it now?" Well, erm, who knows?

So anotherwords....

They check to see what percentage of the votes in one state have, and then the canidate with the highest percentage wins in that state. Then they take all the states together and figure out who won the most number of states?

See I always thought there were just a bunch of guys at some place called the electorial college and they just voted...and then our votes were crap. My bad.

The electoral college should do as described above, but doesn't always follow those guidelines...which history shows. Thus, it has come to pass, that someone was elected President, that didn't have the popular vote (and there was no third party). Note that this is rare, but it does happen. Here's a source on this Electoral College

Go figure.

quote:

---

Then they take all the states together and figure out who won the most number of states?

---

Not quite. Each state has a certain number of votes based on population. I believe the number of votes coincides with the number of reps the state has in the house of representitives.

If a candidate wins the vote in that state, he gets the number of predetermined votes that the state has.

here's a more descriptive link: Election Process

...and the pertinent information:

quote:

---

Gather Electoral Votes
The electoral system is unique to the United States. The Electoral College refers to the group of electors who vote for the President, each elector having one electoral vote. Each state has an number of electors equal to the number of their Senators and Representatives. The District of Columbia has the minimum three electors by the 23rd Amendment. Today, there are 538 electors: 535 from the 50 states (100 Senators, 435 Representatives) plus 3 from the District of Columbia.
On Election Day, the ballot has the phrase "electors for" followed by the names of the President and the Vice President. The winning slate of electors is the one that receives the majority or the plurality of popular votes from the state (A plurality occurs when a someone has the largest number of votes, but the number of votes is less than fifty percent of all the votes). After Election Day, the electors meet and officially vote on the President.
Contrary to popular belief, an elector is not obligated to vote for the candidate he or she originally indicated. Electors are free to vote for whomever they wish when they gather to officially vote. However, it is extremely rare for an elector to not vote for whom he or she originally indicated.

Majority ? Plurality
A candidate must receive a majority of votes (over 50%) to become President. If no one has a majority, the person with the most votes has a plurality, but is not President.
The constitution includes a clause that guides the selection process in the event of a plurality. Article II, Section I states that "If the Electoral College does not give any candidate the necessary majority, the House of Representatives chooses the President from among the top three candidates in electoral votes. In such a situation the House votes by states, with each state having one vote. To be elected president, a candidate must receive the votes from a majority of the states."
This clause has been used twice in the history of the United States. In 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied for the presidency with 69 electoral votes each. After 36 ballots, Thomas Jefferson was elected the president of the United States. In 1824, Andrew Jackson led in electoral votes, but he did not have a majority. The House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams as President after Henry Clay gave Adams his support.

---

*edit... spelling... dang it!

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 03-20-2003).]

If all of the states were to do what Maine does, which is split the electoral vote by percentage of popular vote I wouldn't have as much of an issue with the electoral college. I really don't understand why the electoral college exists. They are already tallying all of the popular votes in the state so why the extra step? It just makes voting one more step away from 'of the people, by the people' in my opinion.


GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

the electoral college was created so the original u.s. citizens could vote for someone they knew.. how would a georgia farmer know a presidential candidate from maine? or a connecticut resident know who the candidate from south caroline was? by having people from the area of the voting residents (that the constituency knew and trusted), those people could then go to washington, meet the candidates and choose whom they thought would be the best for the office. as communications improved, this method has become a bit obsolete (imo), but is still part of the constitution afaik.

Aahhh... I was born and mis-educated in London where the politics are somewhat simpler...but I have never voted, I have not even put my name on the electoral register. I was born with little if any faith in the machinations of men... my hopes, aspirations and beliefs are not of this world at all... something more than man is at play in this grand theatre...

...xpi...

"nuff said"

Well certainly grander things than man are at play.

But there are two schools of thought - one speaks of this grander thing as if it's purpose is somehow a servant of ours.

The other is more realistic, and clearly has nothing at all to do with man or his works.

=)