Below is a Facebook conversation between Willamette University law students about the strategy of autovoting #Dempublican, compared with the strategy of pushing to collectively find a candidate worth supporting on a sufficient number of issues. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate running a campaign in 2016 who meets this threshold AND who also has the experience and popularity to win!
Lets encourage Bernie to completely discontinue the use of weaponized drones on our fellow humans when he is president. He may not be a war hawk like the others, but he can use a little help crafting better foreign policies. I have confidence in his willingness to see the views of others, given his record, and am sure that reason could always be talked into him if there is a better course of action.
Avoid the mistakes of my classmates–Be sure to vote for Bernie and for #SandersDems in Congress as well to ensure this a political revolution instead of just another election!
Michael HicksErik M Kulick
9 November at 17:01 near Salem ·
Okay, Facebook has been around for three election cycles now and in each one the third party candidates together have failed to garner 2% of the vote. Obviously, the social media plan isn’t working. If you are going to take this 3rd party stuff seriously, the focus needs to shift from running presidential candidates to gathering local seats and gaining respect for the party from the bottom up. Like ·
Michael Jared Farnbach, Jennifer Beth and 2 others like this.
Erik Kulick: You still don’t get it Michael Hicks. 10 November at 11:32 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick: Do you understand the concept of a long term strategy? 10 November at 11:32 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick: It’s not my fault so many Americans love their religious obsessions. Don’t worry, I won’t give up on you guys. I have patience. It’s required for long term strategies. You still haven’t explained how you and the rest of the loyal Dems plan to undo the harms your party is ramping up with its Siamese twin, the Repub party. 10 November at 11:35 · Like
Edwin Shoaf: Also, i think what Hicks just described there is the very definition of a long-term strategy. 10 November at 11:48 · Like · 6
Erik Kulick: The point is that if we don’t demand necessary changes from our politicians like creating political market diversity, eliminating money from elections completely, heavily restricting the ability of politicians to earn and access money during and even a for a number of years after their service, and the creation of a pro-jury, any attempt to get anything of substance out of any politician, Dempublican or not, for the long term will be futile. 15 November at 18:28 · Like
Erik Kulick: The odds of Democrats or Republicans touching these things with any seriousness is fairly slim. There may be a few rouge standouts, but if after those standouts are edged out by more mainstream candidates, like Dennis Kucinich was by Obama, to continue to vote for candidates who have proven themselves to be beholden to corporate interests in the main elections only further legitimizes their agenda and emboldens them to take bigger steps in the wrong direction. Like I told Michael yesterday at school, I have no problem w/ people registering as Dems or Repubs and trying to use the primaries to influence the direction of the party, but to keep supporting the party after it has selected candidates who have proven themselves unwilling or unable to represent the voters by at the very least preserving their Constitutional rights is asinine.
Michael insists that the Obama administration must keep pushing the section in the NDAA as a function of his office, but like the cops who could have refused to give me the $1000 ticket for smoking a bowl in protest before the election on the sidewalk next to the capitol building, as a human being he could refuse to fill the administrative role of his job in protest of the unjust law. Besides, Obama has a greater duty to uphold the Constitution, so as a former Conlaw prof, he should be more sensitive to this fact. 15 November at 18:40 · Like
Michael Hicks: How is that even slightly analogous? Besides you are mischaracterizing my position… again. I never said it was merely a function of the office. 16 November at 09:21 · Like
Erik M Kulick: In both cases, executive officers decided to uphold functional duties of their jobs, when neither, as rational beings, had to follow through.
“The Obama administration insists that the indefinite detention provisions of the legislation are necessary are necessary for the safety and security of our nation, a claim that Hedges and his colleagues have condemned whole-heartedly in the ten months since the NDAA went on the books. Journalists and human rights activists insist that Section 1021 actually allows the government to label any American citizen as a suspected terrorist and then treat them accordingly.” Court upholds NDAA; stay extended on indefinite detention injunction — RT rt.comA federal appeals court has extended a stay on the injunction blocking the notor…See more 16 November at 18:39 via mobile · Like · Remove Preview
Michael Hicks: I love it, you don’t trust any information coming out of our government. But if the story is coming from a fully federally funded source in Russia, then that info is solid. 16 November at 19:48 · Like
Erik M Kulick: I’m not sure why you’re getting defensive over the quote and its source; This motion for an immediate stay reflects its accuracy quite clearly:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/433357-hedges-motion-to-stay-2nd-circuit.htmlHedges Motion to Stay 2nd Circuit www.documentcloud.org 18 November at 20:03 · Like · Remove Preview
Erik M Kulick: Also, you avoided my other points. 18 November at 20:05 · Like
Michael Hicks: My point is that you’ve become so blinded by ideology that you’ll grab onto anything that supports your view, even trash journalism like RT. I avoided your other points because they’ve been rehashed many times over by now. If you want me to address your point, go read page 3 of the motion, it’s clear as day there. They want a decision from the supreme court. That’s all you are getting out of me. You aren’t looking for a discussion, you are just looking for an audience to shout at. 18 November at 22:10 · Like
Erik Kulick: I’m glad to see that your political religion has counseled you well on the sources of truth. How do you know your news sources aren’t selling you out?
I referenced an article which explained that Obama is insisting that the provision is important for the safety and security of our nation. This is not in conflict with the message given in the motion, so I’m not sure why you’re getting so worked up about the source. The Obama admin is pushing to go to the Supremes BECAUSE he insists that section 1021 is necessary. I said it a dozen times already, I’ll say it again: Obama does NOT have to push to check the validity of the law. It’s blatantly obvious that the law is attempting to limit the right to due process for someone, even if it is supposed to only be “terrorists” who are affected. He can let his successor dare to push on the initial rulling and he can stop insisting on an emergency administrative stay while he’s at it. I find it odd that you still view the actions by the Obama administration as attempts at trying to prove the law to be unconstitutional. Even if it can be loosely argued that the provision can’t be applied to Americans, to support the deprivation of due process of any living soul is appalling.
You can hide behind your derision of my tone all you want. The bottom line is you’ve got shitty reasons to support a war criminal. I forgive you, just don’t make the same mistake next time. 20 November at 21:29 · Like
Michael Hicks: A war criminal? You’re acting like I voted for Kony (what a joke, after that whole Kony2012 campaign, the dude wasn’t even on the ballot). You forgive me? Don’t make the same mistake next time? I’ll exercise my right to vote however I please. I don’t respond well to tacit threats, you can kindly go fuck yourself. 20 November at 21:49 · Unlike · 2
Erik M Kulick: You can rationalize you support of a politician who actively uses remote controls to kill inferior humans all you want. Hopefully America can look back on its mistake and better understand the Germans of Hitler’s day. Milgram strikes again! 20 November at 22:17 · Like
Joe Scovel: Lol, Nazi references. The fringe lunatic hail Mary pass. 20 November at 22:38 via mobile · Like · 3
Michael Hicks: Godwin’s Law telling me this conversation has gone on too long. 20 November at 22:40 via mobile · Like · 1
Erik M Kulick: Yes Joe, bringing up Nazi’s invalidates my arguments. How are Hitler’s actions worse than those of our presidents? Number of deaths? Motivation? Because we are trying to defend our nation from legitimate threats our leaders’ actions are justified? Do you guys not understand the terrible precedent we’ve set by allowing the use of remote control in war? At least Hitler had the goddamn balls to send humans in to do his dirty work.
This nation is doomed if you guys are the kinds of lawyers American institutions are churning out. Wednesday at 14:52 via mobile · Like
Michael Hicks: Yes… it does. I suggest you take a good look at the third video, you sound just like the ideologues on Hannity’s panel.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues—sean-hannity-s-holy-sausage-festDaily Show: A Relatively Closer Look – Hitler Reference www.thedailyshow.comPlease stop calling people Hitler when you disagree with them. Wednesday at 17:24 · Like · Remove Preview
Michael Hicks: I didn’t realize this shit was being broadcast to people on my friend’s list. They shouldn’t have to be subjected to this. I’m deleting the thread in the next day or so, get your shots in while you can. Wednesday at 17:27 · Edited · Like
Joe Scovel: I’m not quite sure what I just saw there. The argument to the absurdest claim that Obama=Hitler is that Hitler was better than Obama? W-H-A-C-K-O. As long as we’re playing fast and loose with the analogies. I will submit that the Vikings were the greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the world has ever seen, ergo, anyone who looks like a Viking probably expounds their rapacious philosophy. NO arguments. ipso post facto ergo tanto, donzo. Wednesday at 17:36 · Like
Erik M Kulick: What a shame Michael, I thought you’d like to have your friends see you defending your hero’s honor.
Joe, I’m arguing that both the holocaust AND drone usage are terrible war crimes. ANY number of people dying as a result of cowardly behavior is inexcusable. You can rationalize your support for murdering regimes all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re downplaying the severity of the leaders you defend because you THINK you have no other options. It really is a shame that so many people succumb to this faith-based error. Thursday at 19:41 · Like
Michael Hicks: … I don’t think the guy is a mass murderer and suddenly he’s my hero. Besides, contrary to your view on things, the people I know deserve to be able to live their lives without being browbeaten into agreeing with me on everything issue. I’d like for the people in my life to continue to be able to tolerate my presence.
“ANY number of people dying as a result of cowardly behavior is inexcusable.” Says the guy using electronics made in Chinese sweatshops. (Don’t think I haven’t forgotten your bullshit reasoning that it is okay for you to do it because ultimately you are using the electronics to help “change the system”). Also you mention getting busted for smoking pot in front of the capital. Can you 100% confirm your source is completely local? Up to 2/3 of the marijuana in the country has ties to Mexico and the cartels. You could very well be financially supporting the violent deaths of thousands of civilians. 17 hours ago · Like
Michael Godfrey: Congratulations, everyone in this room is now dumber for listening to your answer and may God have mercy on your soul… 14 hours ago via mobile · Like
Erik M Kulick: It’s a good thing you’re so specific Michael Godfrey. The fact that you replied under Michael Hicks’ comment and didn’t direct it toward any individual makes it look like you were talking to him.
How many kills puts someone at the level of mass murder, Michael Hicks? Do you really believe that because Obama is only targeting “terrorists”, it makes his murders more acceptable? At least I’m actively trying to show people why they shouldn’t support the corrupt and incompetent politicians who allow our nation to do business with those places.
You still haven’t actually addressed any of my questions. You really are good at the whole “speaking without saying anything” technique your president used to get himself elected. A few seconds ago · Like