addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Re: [lpsf] Re: Why You Lose Elections

From: John B.
Sent on: Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:12 PM
We plan to have them everywhere in the US.  Someone travelling around could be handy.  We're hoping the Guardian can be a part in UK.

The format is simple enough:  all that's needed is a web cam, tiki-torch and some people.  Half the people carry the torch to the gathering place,  plant the torch, whoop, holler, make speeches,  pass the torch to the other half who carry it away.   Time and location are up to the local organizers.  

We may make some stock symbolic footage of torch carrying in mountains, plains, seacoasts etc.
--------------------­----------
 On Sun, May 12,[masked]:48 PM PDT Eric "OoPs" Diesel wrote:
 
 >I will be out of town, but I will gladly help if my travel plans change. 
 > 
 >If you read the "Social Activism" section in the Wikipedia article on me, you will Bradley Manning is exactly my kind of whistleblower! - http://en.wikiped...­ 
 >
 >I may even be able to help with "dovetailing" from afar  - I once produced and co-choreographed a Capoeira-Tahitian lecture/drum-and-dan­ce event in LA, at the same time as I was very far away in Death Valley. 
 >
 >
 >--- On Sun, 5/12/13, John Bechtol <[address removed]> wrote:
 >
 >
 >From: John Bechtol <[address removed]>
 >Subject: Re: [lpsf] Re: Why You Lose Elections
 >To: [address removed]
 >Date: Sunday, May 12, 2013, 1:58 PM
 >
 >
 >
 >Eric,
 >Will you help us with the Bradley Manning Freedom Torch Ceremony to dovetail with the Pride Parade?
 >John
 >[masked]
 >----------------­--------------
 >On Sun, May 12,[masked]:33 PM PDT Eric "OoPs" Diesel wrote:
 >
 >>I believe that the enforced PC attitude of trying to make the Libertarian party and its events look more like Republicans and less like Starchild is counterproductive to getting more involvement. 
 >> 
 >>Most Libertarian oriented people I have met in San Francisco, in San Bernardino County, and in Nevada, look just like Starchild, and likely have similar attitudes to a PC code on appearance for people and events. 
 >> 
 >>An active membership of a mere ten people, in the city that spawned the ultra-Libertarian Burning Man civilization, and corresponding Libertarian/minimal-­government structure of Black Rock City, is empirical evidence that I am correct.
 >> 
 >>
 >>
 >> 
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>Why You Lose Elections
 >>
 >>
 >>by Jim Babka
 >>
 >>
 >>I know the SECRET to defeating partisan incumbents. By sharing it with you, I hope to cure...
 >>The Citizens United Disease
 >>
 >>
 >>We get nasty messages whenever we say anything good about the Citizens United decision (CU).
 >>This is a by-product of self-serving brainwashing from the political class. Both incumbents and the media have incentives to lie about campaign finance laws in general, and the CU decision in particular. Here’s the truth...
 >>
 >>
 >>Campaign finance laws...
 >>
 >>Protect partisan incumbents from challengers.
 >>Help the regime media dominate public opinion.
 >>These incentives lead both incumbents and the media to tell big lies about the CU decision...
 >>
 >>
 >>Lie #1: CU overturned a century of campaign finance law.
 >>
 >>False. It only overturned aspects of two decisions from 2003 and 1990.
 >>
 >>
 >>Lie #2: CU allows corporations to make unregulated campaign contributions.
 >>
 >>False. Corpo­rate donations are still regulated. All candi­date donations are still regulated. CU does only one narrow thing...
 >>
 >>
 >>It allows corporations, including DownsizeDC­.org, Inc., to spend money advocating for or against candidates, as long as that spending is NOT coordinated with a candidate. All direc­t contributions to candidates are still regulated.­
 >>Now, to fully comprehend why the political class hates this narrow change so much, you must understand...
 >>
 >>
 >>The Secret to Defeating Incumbents
 >>
 >>The best way to defeat an incumbent is to get him or her to spend lots of money
 >>But that will only happen if the challenger also has money
 >>Here’s my favorite example...
 >>George Nethercutt defeated Speaker of the House Tom Foley in 1994. That hadn't been done in 134 years (or since).
 >>Nethercutt had FAR LESS money than Foley. But he had ENOUGH funding to make Foley start spending his own money. Then, something funny happened...
 >>The more money Foley spent, the more he lost ground!
 >>People noticed and poured more funding into Nethercutt’s challenge. So Foley did the only thing he could. He spent more money too.
 >>And the more he spent, the more his poll numbers fell!
 >>
 >>
 >>Here’s how the logic works...
 >>The incumbent has already peaked. That’s what it means to win office. He can't go much higher, no matter how much money he spends. But...
 >>The challenger starts in the basement. She can only go up. But that climb requires dollars.
 >>
 >>
 >>Simply put...
 >>
 >>Money matters more to challengers than incumbents
 >>Regulating contributions benefits incumbents by crippling challengers
 >>So why do incumbents amass large war chests if the extra dollars lack marginal value?
 >>Simply, to scare off strong challengers!
 >>
 >>
 >>So here’s what the challenger faces...
 >>
 >>The more she can force an incumbent to spend his war-chest, the more likely that incumbent is to lose
 >>But to force an incumbent to spend, the challenger must start with a competitive amount of money
 >>Raising money is easy for the incumbent, because he has access to sell
 >>But raising money is hard for the challenger, because she has to start from scratch and her prospects are, initially, poor
 >>Nearly all start-up businesses face this problem.
 >>So they borrow or raise large amounts from wealthier people. This also used to work in politics. For instance...
 >>A major donor gave Eugene McCarthy $200,000 to start his 1968 presidential campaign. McCarthy claimed that this capital allowed him to scare Lyndon Johnson out of his re-election race.
 >>But this kind of challenge is now illegal.
 >>Imagine how much the economy would struggle if was illegal for start-up companies to raise large amounts of capital. So...
 >>

Our Sponsors

  • CopBlock.org

    February's honorary sponsor supports activism for police accountability!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy