We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[dcraelin]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

No matter how many Constitutions we may write in YOUR opinion, the same thing will happen. Just like any book, the words may be twisted or defined differently. (Generally, the primary definition is the definition....for future reference to avoid the crazies)

Our Constitution was MADE to change and adapt to future situations, so why would we need a new one?

well what I was proposing would be in the way of amendments. But the founding framers were in some ways hypocrites because they proposed an amending system that in some ways is harder than the method they used for changing, completely, the Articles of Confederation. In fact they were not authorized to abolish the Articles but merely to suggest changes.

 

[dblack]

Perhaps you should ask your question about your own proposals;



How do you intend to alter the Constitution when it comes to "the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy"?

What specific changes do you intend to make to the general welfare and commerce clauses?

I suppose I'd rephrase the taxation power to make it clear that A) it's merely the power to raise money for the implementation of the other enumerated powers, and not to be construed as a 'general power to spend', and B) that taxes are to be applied equally to all with the sole purpose of raising revenue for government, not for the purpose of incentivizing or punishing behaviors.

I'd probably just remove the commerce clause altogether, and reaffirm economic freedom by adding it to the protections of the first amendment, along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I wasn't trying to stir up shit by dismissing your issues, but those are temporal issues that would be subject to change with each successive administration, whereas Constitutional amendments change the rules government must follow in making law. As such, Constitutional rules aren't subject to (frequent) change, and are in place so we'll all know what to expect from government. I'm hoping you get that distinction, because its crucial.

That's one of the reasons I want to see Constitutional amendments, or even a Constitutional Convention, take center stage. It would help to elevate this important concept in the national consciousness. Too many people see Constitutional issues as just another policy decision, and they're more fundamental than that. They define what issues are legitimate targets for government policies and which aren't.

Thank goodness none of this will ever come to pass, and for good reason.

That power to dictate behavior with the tax code is just too sweet for you statists to give up, eh?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I suppose I'd rephrase the taxation power to make it clear that A) it's merely the power to raise money for the implementation of the other enumerated powers, and not to be construed as a 'general power to spend', and B) that taxes are to be applied equally to all with the sole purpose of raising revenue for government, not for the purpose of incentivizing or punishing behaviors.

I'd probably just remove the commerce clause altogether, and reaffirm economic freedom by adding it to the protections of the first amendment, along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I wasn't trying to stir up shit by dismissing your issues, but those are temporal issues that would be subject to change with each successive administration, whereas Constitutional amendments change the rules government must follow in making law. As such, Constitutional rules aren't subject to (frequent) change, and are in place so we'll all know what to expect from government. I'm hoping you get that distinction, because its crucial.

That's one of the reasons I want to see Constitutional amendments, or even a Constitutional Convention, take center stage. It would help to elevate this important concept in the national consciousness. Too many people see Constitutional issues as just another policy decision, and they're more fundamental than that. They define what issues are legitimate targets for government policies and which aren't.

I didn't presume that you were "trying to stir up shit".

The National Debt and Taxation are Constitutional issues since you will find Amendments relating to both. Therefore there is nothing wrong with another Amendment that imposes a conditional tax that is applied only to the National Debt under specific circumstances.

As far as Taxation being a "general power to spend" or "incentivizing or punishing behaviors" that falls under policy and is not a Constitutional matter. Giving tax breaks to homeowners and applying surcharges to yachts are legitimate policy decisions for Congress to make. The wording of an Amendment such as you suggest could be misconstrued and therefore be impractical.

How so? Whether or not targeted tax breaks or surcharges are "legitimate policy decisions" can, and should in my view, be specified in the Constitution. I wasn't suggesting any specific wording, but the expression of intent would go a long way toward cleaning up the tax code. As it is, the Court accepts (according to Robert's ruling re: ACA) the current practice of using discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. It's possible to make it clear that is not an intended purpose for taxation.

You could set up provisions in the Constitution limiting the percentage of the budget that could be applied to defense, which is why I asked you if you wanted to frame your proposal as a Constitutional amendment. I'd probably be ok witha that - our current military budget is insane - but it seems risky in times of war. Presumably there would be some emergency provision.

The Defense Budget should be capped at 10% of Annual Revenue except in the event of a War declared by Congress and then all spending for the war will fall under the Supplemental Tax for incomes exceeding 25 times the poverty rate for whatever period the National Debt exceeds 5% of Annual Revenue.

 

[dcraelin]

Interesting to note the OP Poll results so far;
Do we need a new Constitution?
Yes 11
No 55
That means that only 1 in 6 USMB posters support the idea of a new constitution. Amongst the population at large it is probably even less.
Please note that 2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes.
So by the looks of it this a lost cause.

1) some here that oppose a "new" constitution support amendments....which would in a way create a new Constitution...and amending is what I meant to propose

2) I've seen studies that show the internet in general skews rightward in responses to polls etc. and doesnt well reflect the voting population. "conservatives" I think are generally more likely to reflexively support no change.

3) if USMB is anything like twitter then I think about half the so-called conservatives are astro-turf created frauds, autobots really, or duplicate identities.

Twitter admits it has 20 million fake accounts 5% Of Twitter Monthly Active Users Are Fake - Business Insider

I've seen references to upward of 25 million fake accounts

NBC news had article that said researchers say as many as 1 in 10
1 in 10 Twitter accounts is fake, say researchers - NBC News

 

[CorvusRexus]

Interesting to note the OP Poll results so far;
Do we need a new Constitution?
Yes 11
No 55
That means that only 1 in 6 USMB posters support the idea of a new constitution. Amongst the population at large it is probably even less.
Please note that 2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes.
So by the looks of it this a lost cause.

Hold on. That is not necessarily true. Some may have voted No because they intend to win back their country with Amendments and elections.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Interesting to note the OP Poll results so far;
Do we need a new Constitution?
Yes 11
No 55
That means that only 1 in 6 USMB posters support the idea of a new constitution. Amongst the population at large it is probably even less.
Please note that 2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes.
So by the looks of it this a lost cause.

1) some here that oppose a "new" constitution support amendments....which would in a way create a new Constitution...and amending is what I meant to propose

2) I've seen studies that show the internet in general skews rightward in responses to polls etc. and doesnt well reflect the voting population. "conservatives" I think are generally more likely to reflexively support no change.

3) if USMB is anything like twitter then I think about half the so-called conservatives are astro-turf created frauds, autobots really, or duplicate identities.

Twitter admits it has 20 million fake accounts 5% Of Twitter Monthly Active Users Are Fake - Business Insider

I've seen references to upward of 25 million fake accounts

NBC news had article that said researchers say as many as 1 in 10
1 in 10 Twitter accounts is fake, say researchers - NBC News

USMB is not Twitter!

Yes, there probably are some fakes but that is inevitable. However to assume that there are sufficient fakes to skew a poll this far stretches credulity.

As far as the Internet goes, yes, it does have an active population of extreme RWers who vote in online but isn't necessarily a factor in a poll that doesn't have a partisan question.

The desire for wanting a "new" Constitution is coming from a disaffected extreme RW group who are upset that this nation has a changing demographic that will dilute their power base in the future. And no, they don't reflect the views of moderate conservatives.

So overall I see the poll results as being in line with the population at large.

 

[dcraelin]

1) some here that oppose a "new" constitution support amendments....which would in a way create a new Constitution...and amending is what I meant to propose

2) I've seen studies that show the internet in general skews rightward in responses to polls etc. and doesnt well reflect the voting population. "conservatives" I think are generally more likely to reflexively support no change.

3) if USMB is anything like twitter then I think about half the so-called conservatives are astro-turf created frauds, autobots really, or duplicate identities.

Twitter admits it has 20 million fake accounts 5% Of Twitter Monthly Active Users Are Fake - Business Insider

I've seen references to upward of 25 million fake accounts

NBC news had article that said researchers say as many as 1 in 10
1 in 10 Twitter accounts is fake, say researchers - NBC News

USMB is not Twitter!

Yes, there probably are some fakes but that is inevitable. However to assume that there are sufficient fakes to skew a poll this far stretches credulity.

As far as the Internet goes, yes, it does have an active population of extreme RWers who vote in online but isn't necessarily a factor in a poll that doesn't have a partisan question.

The desire for wanting a "new" Constitution is coming from a disaffected extreme RW group who are upset that this nation has a changing demographic that will dilute their power base in the future. And no, they don't reflect the views of moderate conservatives.

So overall I see the poll results as being in line with the population at large.

well, I dont think the pro "new" constitution probably won....but it certainly wasn't extreme RW people who made up a majority who wanted to change it. Read thru responses.

USMB is MORE skewed to political questions in which partisanship always plays a role. I can see it being worse than twitter.

Tea Party types are always on TV with tricorne hats, reflexively covering themselves in "patriotism". I admire some aspects of their movement but I think overall they view the past with rose colored glasses.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Interesting to note the OP Poll results so far;
Do we need a new Constitution?
Yes 11
No 55
That means that only 1 in 6 USMB posters support the idea of a new constitution. Amongst the population at large it is probably even less.
Please note that 2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes.
So by the looks of it this a lost cause.

Hold on. That is not necessarily true. Some may have voted No because they intend to win back their country with Amendments and elections.

Which side would be the "some" that you are referring to?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Twitter admits it has 20 million fake accounts 5% Of Twitter Monthly Active Users Are Fake - Business Insider

I've seen references to upward of 25 million fake accounts

NBC news had article that said researchers say as many as 1 in 10
1 in 10 Twitter accounts is fake, say researchers - NBC News

USMB is not Twitter!

Yes, there probably are some fakes but that is inevitable. However to assume that there are sufficient fakes to skew a poll this far stretches credulity.

As far as the Internet goes, yes, it does have an active population of extreme RWers who vote in online but isn't necessarily a factor in a poll that doesn't have a partisan question.

The desire for wanting a "new" Constitution is coming from a disaffected extreme RW group who are upset that this nation has a changing demographic that will dilute their power base in the future. And no, they don't reflect the views of moderate conservatives.

So overall I see the poll results as being in line with the population at large.

well, I dont think the pro "new" constitution probably won....but it certainly wasn't extreme RW people who made up a majority who wanted to change it. Read thru responses.

USMB is MORE skewed to political questions in which partisanship always plays a role. I can see it being worse than twitter.

Tea Party types are always on TV with tricorne hats, reflexively covering themselves in "patriotism". I admire some aspects of their movement but I think overall they view the past with rose colored glasses.

If it isn't the extreme RW then who does support a "new" constitution?

 

[dblack]

USMB is not Twitter!

Yes, there probably are some fakes but that is inevitable. However to assume that there are sufficient fakes to skew a poll this far stretches credulity.

As far as the Internet goes, yes, it does have an active population of extreme RWers who vote in online but isn't necessarily a factor in a poll that doesn't have a partisan question.

The desire for wanting a "new" Constitution is coming from a disaffected extreme RW group who are upset that this nation has a changing demographic that will dilute their power base in the future. And no, they don't reflect the views of moderate conservatives.

So overall I see the poll results as being in line with the population at large.

well, I dont think the pro "new" constitution probably won....but it certainly wasn't extreme RW people who made up a majority who wanted to change it. Read thru responses.

USMB is MORE skewed to political questions in which partisanship always plays a role. I can see it being worse than twitter.

Tea Party types are always on TV with tricorne hats, reflexively covering themselves in "patriotism". I admire some aspects of their movement but I think overall they view the past with rose colored glasses.

If it isn't the extreme RW then who does support a "new" constitution?

I voted for a new constitution. Do you consider me extreme RW?

 

[dcraelin]

USMB is not Twitter!

Yes, there probably are some fakes but that is inevitable. However to assume that there are sufficient fakes to skew a poll this far stretches credulity.

As far as the Internet goes, yes, it does have an active population of extreme RWers who vote in online but isn't necessarily a factor in a poll that doesn't have a partisan question.

The desire for wanting a "new" Constitution is coming from a disaffected extreme RW group who are upset that this nation has a changing demographic that will dilute their power base in the future. And no, they don't reflect the views of moderate conservatives.

So overall I see the poll results as being in line with the population at large.

well, I dont think the pro "new" constitution probably won....but it certainly wasn't extreme RW people who made up a majority who wanted to change it. Read thru responses.

USMB is MORE skewed to political questions in which partisanship always plays a role. I can see it being worse than twitter.

Tea Party types are always on TV with tricorne hats, reflexively covering themselves in "patriotism". I admire some aspects of their movement but I think overall they view the past with rose colored glasses.

If it isn't the extreme RW then who does support a "new" constitution?

I think students of government on both sides, of all stripes. Daniel Lazare(the Frozen Republic) to Mark Levin and his Liberty amendments.

IN post 257 you said "2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes. "...................................actually I think that call was to vote AGAINST a new Constitution....so if all them showed up... its really more like 27 vs 13

 

[Andylusion]

Twitter admits it has 20 million fake accounts 5% Of Twitter Monthly Active Users Are Fake - Business Insider

I've seen references to upward of 25 million fake accounts

NBC news had article that said researchers say as many as 1 in 10
1 in 10 Twitter accounts is fake, say researchers - NBC News

USMB is not Twitter!

Yes, there probably are some fakes but that is inevitable. However to assume that there are sufficient fakes to skew a poll this far stretches credulity.

As far as the Internet goes, yes, it does have an active population of extreme RWers who vote in online but isn't necessarily a factor in a poll that doesn't have a partisan question.

The desire for wanting a "new" Constitution is coming from a disaffected extreme RW group who are upset that this nation has a changing demographic that will dilute their power base in the future. And no, they don't reflect the views of moderate conservatives.

So overall I see the poll results as being in line with the population at large.

well, I dont think the pro "new" constitution probably won....but it certainly wasn't RW people who made up a majority who wanted to change it. Read thru responses.

USMB is MORE skewed to political questions in which partisanship always plays a role. I can see it being worse than twitter.

I doubt it. Partisanship doesn't create any need to make fake accounts.

The chances of having fake accounts is a function of desirability, usability, and difficulty.

First there is no use to having multiple accounts on a forum like this, except for the random poll every other month that you might want to influence.

But if I want to follow you specifically, all around the forum, I don't need a fake account to do it. I can dog you until the end of time, and insult you in every post, and nothing will happen here. The rules are fairly limited on this forum, so there's no need for a fake account. There are only a few specific sections of the forum, that are restricted on insults and such, and otherwise everyone is free to say whatever they want.

I can ban you from my twitter feed, and there is nothing you can do about it. The only way to get around it, is with a fake account. Not so here.

Second, forums like this restrict accounts. You can get around it, but it's a pain in the butt. Setup a new email address, go through a proxy server, and all the other crap, to open one fake account on this forum. And there's a risk, if I accidentally open my fake account, without going through the proxy, I'll end up with both main and fake accounts banned.

Twitter, I can open a hundred fake accounts, it's simple.

And lastly, the desirability of having a fake account is fairly limited on a forum like this. On twitter, I can jump on twitter feeds that millions of people see.

This forum only 40,000 people. Only a fraction of which are active, and only fraction of that is in this particular section of the forum.

So you think I'm going to go through the trouble, and effort, and risk, of opening 50 fake accounts, just so I can go on here and screw up your poll? A poll that only 90 people have seen? Why bother?

It's not like I can't post to the thread. You can't ban me from your thread, like you can ban me from your twitter feed.

Nah, I doubt there are many fake accounts on here. The few that are, I wager are rarely used. There isn't much use for them. Could be wrong... I could be. But what would be the point? Just to mess up your poll? Seems a like a ton of effort, to do very little.

 

[Derideo_Te]

well, I dont think the pro "new" constitution probably won....but it certainly wasn't extreme RW people who made up a majority who wanted to change it. Read thru responses.

USMB is MORE skewed to political questions in which partisanship always plays a role. I can see it being worse than twitter.

Tea Party types are always on TV with tricorne hats, reflexively covering themselves in "patriotism". I admire some aspects of their movement but I think overall they view the past with rose colored glasses.

If it isn't the extreme RW then who does support a "new" constitution?

I voted for a new constitution. Do you consider me extreme RW?

We debated what you wanted in a "new" constitution and determined that you were trying to impose policy rather than dealing with structural issues. Yes, eliminating the welfare clause and trying to define strict rules on the use of taxation is policy rather that structure.

So in that respect your desire to impose your policy as constitutional restrictions does fit into the category of extreme and since those policies are RW that does classify you as extreme RW when it comes to this issue.

That doesn't mean that you don't have more moderate views in other regards but on this topic that is where you chose to stand in my opinion. I might have missed it but I didn't see anyone from the LW (extreme or otherwise) advocating for a new constitution.

 

[dcraelin]

well, I dont think the pro "new" constitution probably won....but it certainly wasn't RW people who made up a majority who wanted to change it. Read thru responses.
USMB is MORE skewed to political questions in which partisanship always plays a role. I can see it being worse than twitter.

Tea Party types are always on TV with tricorne hats, reflexively covering themselves in "patriotism". I admire some aspects of their movement but I think overall they view the past with rose colored glasses.

I doubt it. Partisanship doesn't create any need to make fake accounts.

You have GOT to be kidding with that statement. Partisanship and/or special interests are the really the only reason to have fake accounts.

The chances of having fake accounts is a function of desirability, usability, and difficulty.
First there is no use to having multiple accounts on a forum like this, except for the random poll every other month that you might want to influence.
But if I want to follow you specifically, all around the forum, I don't need a fake account to do it. I can dog you until the end of time, and insult you in every post, and nothing will happen here. The rules are fairly limited on this forum, so there's no need for a fake account. There are only a few specific sections of the forum, that are restricted on insults and such, and otherwise everyone is free to say whatever they want.
I can ban you from my twitter feed, and there is nothing you can do about it. The only way to get around it, is with a fake account. Not so here.
Second, forums like this restrict accounts. You can get around it, but it's a pain in the butt. Setup a new email address, go through a proxy server, and all the other crap, to open one fake account on this forum. And there's a risk, if I accidentally open my fake account, without going through the proxy, I'll end up with both main and fake accounts banned. Twitter, I can open a hundred fake accounts, it's simple. And lastly, the desirability of having a fake account is fairly limited on a forum like this. On twitter, I can jump on twitter feeds that millions of people see.This forum only 40,000 people. Only a fraction of which are active, and only fraction of that is in this particular section of the forum. So you think I'm going to go through the trouble, and effort, and risk, of opening 50 fake accounts, just so I can go on here and screw up your poll? A poll that only 90 people have seen? Why bother? It's not like I can't post to the thread. You can't ban me from your thread, like you can ban me from your twitter feed.
Nah, I doubt there are many fake accounts on here. The few that are, I wager are rarely used. There isn't much use for them. Could be wrong... I could be. But what would be the point? Just to mess up your poll? Seems a like a ton of effort, to do very little.

Well I didnt think the 50 referred to are probably fake....just that its kind of illegitimate to call a bunch of people in on one side of a question.

You can block people here...tho not as totally as on twitter I suppose., so people might want a "fake" account to get around a block. And their are other reasons to have fake accounts other than polls. Ive seen stories on whole companies built up around astro-turf....fake grassroots lobbying. This site does I think get more views than it has posters and perhaps can be seen as usefull in some way towards such an effort.

I was hacked out of twitter a couple of times.....and certainly didnt find it easy to set up another account. Yet there are apparently 25 million people that know how to run fake accounts. Or, a couple of people that know how to run 25 million fake accounts. People that know how to set up multiple accounts.

The internet is full of hacks and fakes.

 

[Andylusion]

well, I dont think the pro "new" constitution probably won....but it certainly wasn't RW people who made up a majority who wanted to change it. Read thru responses.
USMB is MORE skewed to political questions in which partisanship always plays a role. I can see it being worse than twitter.

Tea Party types are always on TV with tricorne hats, reflexively covering themselves in "patriotism". I admire some aspects of their movement but I think overall they view the past with rose colored glasses.

I doubt it. Partisanship doesn't create any need to make fake accounts.

You have GOT to be kidding with that statement. Partisanship and/or special interests are the really the only reason to have fake accounts.

The chances of having fake accounts is a function of desirability, usability, and difficulty.
First there is no use to having multiple accounts on a forum like this, except for the random poll every other month that you might want to influence.
But if I want to follow you specifically, all around the forum, I don't need a fake account to do it. I can dog you until the end of time, and insult you in every post, and nothing will happen here. The rules are fairly limited on this forum, so there's no need for a fake account. There are only a few specific sections of the forum, that are restricted on insults and such, and otherwise everyone is free to say whatever they want.
I can ban you from my twitter feed, and there is nothing you can do about it. The only way to get around it, is with a fake account. Not so here.
Second, forums like this restrict accounts. You can get around it, but it's a pain in the butt. Setup a new email address, go through a proxy server, and all the other crap, to open one fake account on this forum. And there's a risk, if I accidentally open my fake account, without going through the proxy, I'll end up with both main and fake accounts banned. Twitter, I can open a hundred fake accounts, it's simple. And lastly, the desirability of having a fake account is fairly limited on a forum like this. On twitter, I can jump on twitter feeds that millions of people see.This forum only 40,000 people. Only a fraction of which are active, and only fraction of that is in this particular section of the forum. So you think I'm going to go through the trouble, and effort, and risk, of opening 50 fake accounts, just so I can go on here and screw up your poll? A poll that only 90 people have seen? Why bother? It's not like I can't post to the thread. You can't ban me from your thread, like you can ban me from your twitter feed.
Nah, I doubt there are many fake accounts on here. The few that are, I wager are rarely used. There isn't much use for them. Could be wrong... I could be. But what would be the point? Just to mess up your poll? Seems a like a ton of effort, to do very little.

Well I didnt think the 50 referred to are probably fake....just that its kind of illegitimate to call a bunch of people in on one side of a question.

You can block people here...tho not as totally as on twitter I suppose., so people might want a "fake" account to get around a block. And their are other reasons to have fake accounts other than polls. Ive seen stories on whole companies built up around astro-turf....fake grassroots lobbying. This site does I think get more views than it has posters and perhaps can be seen as usefull in some way towards such an effort.

I was hacked out of twitter a couple of times.....and certainly didnt find it easy to set up another account. Yet there are apparently 25 million people that know how to run fake accounts. Or, a couple of people that know how to run 25 million fake accounts. People that know how to set up multiple accounts.

The internet is full of hacks and fakes.

No, you can not block people. You can ignore people, which only hides their posts TO YOU. If you put me on ignore, I can still post, and everyone else can still see my posts. The only thing it does is prevent you from seeing my posts.

If there is a way to actually block people from posting to a thread... PLEASE tell me how, because I would LOVE to block left-wingers from my threads.

The first "astro-turf" claim, was a bunch of left-wing nut cases, who wanted to de-ligitimize right-wing grass roots efforts. The original story that made up with false claims, and eventually retracted.

Every protest of any kind, has backers from somewhere, or it doesn't happen. Why is OWS, which got money from Democrat Unions, and George Soros, 'grass roots', but the Tea Party, getting some support from Freedom Works, not?

There is no such thing as a movement, that gets zero support from anyone.

Now there are organizations that drum up support for a given industry.... That's true. And those organizations cost thousands and thousands of dollars.

You think that anyone anywhere, is going to pay any significant amount of money, to gain influence over a forum, that 99% of the population has never heard of, and will never see? Really? I doubt that. Could be wrong... but I doubt it.

 

[dblack]

If it isn't the extreme RW then who does support a "new" constitution?

I voted for a new constitution. Do you consider me extreme RW?

We debated what you wanted in a "new" constitution and determined that you were trying to impose policy rather than dealing with structural issues. Yes, eliminating the welfare clause and trying to define strict rules on the use of taxation is policy rather that structure.

It's clearly defining scope and purpose, and that's very much part of structure.

So in that respect your desire to impose your policy as constitutional restrictions does fit into the category of extreme and since those policies are RW that does classify you as extreme RW when it comes to this issue.

Which issue?

That doesn't mean that you don't have more moderate views in other regards but on this topic that is where you chose to stand in my opinion. I might have missed it but I didn't see anyone from the LW (extreme or otherwise) advocating for a new constitution.

And of course, there are only RW and LW.

 

[dcraelin]

I doubt it. Partisanship doesn't create any need to make fake accounts.

You have GOT to be kidding with that statement. Partisanship and/or special interests are the really the only reason to have fake accounts.

The chances of having fake accounts is a function of desirability, usability, and difficulty.
First there is no use to having multiple accounts on a forum like this, except for the random poll every other month that you might want to influence.
But if I want to follow you specifically, all around the forum, I don't need a fake account to do it. I can dog you until the end of time, and insult you in every post, and nothing will happen here. The rules are fairly limited on this forum, so there's no need for a fake account. There are only a few specific sections of the forum, that are restricted on insults and such, and otherwise everyone is free to say whatever they want.
I can ban you from my twitter feed, and there is nothing you can do about it. The only way to get around it, is with a fake account. Not so here.
Second, forums like this restrict accounts. You can get around it, but it's a pain in the butt. Setup a new email address, go through a proxy server, and all the other crap, to open one fake account on this forum. And there's a risk, if I accidentally open my fake account, without going through the proxy, I'll end up with both main and fake accounts banned. Twitter, I can open a hundred fake accounts, it's simple. And lastly, the desirability of having a fake account is fairly limited on a forum like this. On twitter, I can jump on twitter feeds that millions of people see.This forum only 40,000 people. Only a fraction of which are active, and only fraction of that is in this particular section of the forum. So you think I'm going to go through the trouble, and effort, and risk, of opening 50 fake accounts, just so I can go on here and screw up your poll? A poll that only 90 people have seen? Why bother? It's not like I can't post to the thread. You can't ban me from your thread, like you can ban me from your twitter feed.
Nah, I doubt there are many fake accounts on here. The few that are, I wager are rarely used. There isn't much use for them. Could be wrong... I could be. But what would be the point? Just to mess up your poll? Seems a like a ton of effort, to do very little.

Well I didnt think the 50 referred to are probably fake....just that its kind of illegitimate to call a bunch of people in on one side of a question.

You can block people here...tho not as totally as on twitter I suppose., so people might want a "fake" account to get around a block. And their are other reasons to have fake accounts other than polls. Ive seen stories on whole companies built up around astro-turf....fake grassroots lobbying. This site does I think get more views than it has posters and perhaps can be seen as usefull in some way towards such an effort.

I was hacked out of twitter a couple of times.....and certainly didnt find it easy to set up another account. Yet there are apparently 25 million people that know how to run fake accounts. Or, a couple of people that know how to run 25 million fake accounts. People that know how to set up multiple accounts.
The internet is full of hacks and fakes.

No, you can not block people. You can ignore people, which only hides their posts TO YOU. If you put me on ignore, I can still post, and everyone else can still see my posts. The only thing it does is prevent you from seeing my posts.
If there is a way to actually block people from posting to a thread... PLEASE tell me how, because I would LOVE to block left-wingers from my threads.
The first "astro-turf" claim, was a bunch of left-wing nut cases, who wanted to de-ligitimize right-wing grass roots efforts. The original story that made up with false claims, and eventually retracted.
Every protest of any kind, has backers from somewhere, or it doesn't happen. Why is OWS, which got money from Democrat Unions, and George Soros, 'grass roots', but the Tea Party, getting some support from Freedom Works, not?
There is no such thing as a movement, that gets zero support from anyone.
Now there are organizations that drum up support for a given industry.... That's true. And those organizations cost thousands and thousands of dollars.
You think that anyone anywhere, is going to pay any significant amount of money, to gain influence over a forum, that 99% of the population has never heard of, and will never see? Really? I doubt that. Could be wrong... but I doubt it.

well the ignore function was what I was talking about....and I think there is a blocking ability from groups.

I too think there should be a blocking ability from posts by the original poster.....sometimes people come in and have off-topic conversations and its distracting.

I doubt your story on astro-turf claim being from left-wing nut cases. What retracted story??

Dont know what your getting at saying no movements having zero support....yeah...so?
I will say if a movement is backed by unions it generally represents more people than a movement backed by freedom works etc.

I dont know how popular this forum is. It lists 31700 some members. And I dont know to what lengths some of these wealthy RWingers will do. Sheldon Adelstin dumped millions on Gingrich in a losing effort..... and I doubt running a few fake accounts here and there costs an awful lot. Like I said the internet is crammed full of fakes and hacks.

Just got hacked out of a gaming room for "cheating" when I was doing no such thing...but apparently pissed off some damn hacker who screwed up my account somehow.

The poll results aren't probably off that much but If it gets 14% in here I'd bet it has more support among the general population.

 

[dcraelin]

just came across an interesting article in Wikipedia about features in the longest lasting, most stable Democracies/Republics. See the chart towards end of article. most have parlimentary systems with party list voting. they also have less strong judicial review.

How Democratic Is the American Constitution? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

just came across an interesting article in Wikipedia about features in the longest lasting, most stable Democracies/Republics. See the chart towards end of article. most have parlimentary systems with party list voting. they also have less strong judicial review.

How Democratic Is the American Constitution? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The movement away from judicial review (AKA constitutionally limited government) and toward democracy as the primary check on state power, tracks the devolution of the liberal movement. What began as an egalitarian movement to establish and protect individual rights, has morphed into full-on corporatism.

 

[dcraelin]

just came across an interesting article in Wikipedia about features in the longest lasting, most stable Democracies/Republics. See the chart towards end of article. most have parlimentary systems with party list voting. they also have less strong judicial review.
How Democratic Is the American Constitution? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The movement away from judicial review (AKA constitutionally limited government) and toward democracy as the primary check on state power, tracks the devolution of the liberal movement. What began as an egalitarian movement to establish and protect individual rights, has morphed into full-on corporatism.

I disagree, (I think). Corporatism is a problem but has been aided by excessive judicial power.