White House Quadruples Petition Signature Threshold To 100K

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Not so long ago, it only took 5,000 signatures to get a response from the White House. Then, once people started signing petitions, the number grew to 25,000. Today, that number has quadruple to 100,000. Keep "pestering" the government with petitions and pretty soon it will be 250,000. :(

Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration. This new threshold applies only to petitions created from this point forward and is not retroactively applied to ones that already exist.
Click to expand...
 
When people use a system for jokes (like the Death Star), I'm not surprised IF there are a large number of "funny" petitions (I'm not talking about disagreeing with the Admin--just silly ones).
 
I'm sure this has nothing to do with petitions involving building a Death Star.
 
Sovereign said:
When people use a system for jokes (like the Death Star), I'm not surprised IF there are a large number of "funny" petitions (I'm not talking about disagreeing with the Admin--just silly ones).
Click to expand...

The system IS a joke. Nothing useful has come from the serious petitions and Obama can't even be bothered to respond to them himself, instead using his lackeys to do it for him.
 
When population grows, the required numbers go up too. It's the percentage that counts, not the actual number.
 
This government is starting to really show its colors now, especially with the current President...
 
What were the stupid people expecting would happen? This is what happens when you abuse a system like that.
 
Stupid petitions get the most votes though. If anything this will make fewer serious petitions get answers.
 
Lets get smart & serious and start a petition with say a million signatures demanding the government to stop illegally drone striking country after country terrorizing the people of the world which is in turn creating new future enemies for the US to call terrorists. See where that gets us. Probably the same place the death star petition did.

At the end of the day, they couldn't give two fucks either way what the people think so the whole process is useless. They should just raise it up to 315,170,651 signatures required.
 
Well, considering there are an estimated 200,000,000 eligible voters in the USA and 100,000 is only 0.05% of them I don't think it is that bad ;)
 
"This democratized system is working effectively. We'd better make it less democratized!"
 
Also, there is a petition to overturn Citizens United. Everyone better sign it so the GOV can ignore that one too. :)
 
MasonD said:
At the end of the day, they couldn't give two fucks either way what the people think so the whole process is useless. [/URL] signatures required.
Click to expand...

^^ Sums it up. I'm surprised people think these petitions actually mean anything.
 
Azhar said:
When population grows, the required numbers go up too. It's the percentage that counts, not the actual number.
Click to expand...

So the population of the US has gone up by 20 times since Obama was elected?

I know a friend of mine (Republican) was going around saying the country was screwed with Obama being president, but I never realized it was by that much.:eek:
 
damicatz said:
The system IS a joke. Nothing useful has come from the serious petitions and Obama can't even be bothered to respond to them himself, instead using his lackeys to do it for him.
Click to expand...

Westborough Baptist Church was finally recognized as a hate group, and can be charged with hate crimes.
 
As an aside there is no law in the constitution that requires the government to respond to your request ... the constitution only allows you to contact the government (it doesn't mandate them to respond) ... which you can still try and do through a variety of means (letter, phone, email, etc) ... the only impact this has is that the electronic process that the current president set up to allow for government responses (something he was under no obligation to do) is being changed due to the larger number of requests ... he could have legally just gone with the previous processes that the requests just disappear into a black hole after they are received ;)
 
MasonD said:
Also, there is a petition to overturn Citizens United. Everyone better sign it so the GOV can ignore that one too. :)
Click to expand...

The government doesn't want to overturn citizens united, they just want you to think so.
The government *cannot* overturn citizens united because it's a completely rational supreme court ruling, not a law.
 
Zangmonkey said:
The government doesn't want to overturn citizens united, they just want you to think so.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. Normal operating procedure.

The government *cannot* overturn citizens united because it's a completely rational supreme court ruling, not a law.
Click to expand...
Sold, to the highest bidder!
 
You abuse the system with moronic shit...and people have the gall to pretend to be outraged?

kbrickley said:
As an aside there is no law in the constitution that requires the government to respond to your request ... the constitution only allows you to contact the government (it doesn't mandate them to respond) ... which you can still try and do through a variety of means (letter, phone, email, etc) ... the only impact this has is that the electronic process that the current president set up to allow for government responses (something he was under no obligation to do) is being changed due to the larger number of requests ... he could have legally just gone with the previous processes that the requests just disappear into a black hole after they are received ;)
Click to expand...

Yup some folks need to go back to school and learn the difference between democracy and republicanism in terms of governmental structure.

Zangmonkey said:
The government doesn't want to overturn citizens united, they just want you to think so.
The government *cannot* overturn citizens united because it's a completely rational supreme court ruling, not a law.
Click to expand...

It is called an Amendment, grasshopper. There are two paths to do one. If people were as serious and civicly active about getting rid of Citizens United as they are about Death Star petitions...we could probably get an Amendment drafted and 3/4 of the states on board before Valentine's Day and have it ratified.

People are far more content to piss and moan, and let DC run on auto pilot though.
 
The real joke is that people actually think the governemt will listed to one of these petitions. They are nothing more that a political joke to make people think the government cares and is interested in what the people want.
 
Skripka said:
It is called an Amendment, grasshopper. There are two paths to do one. If people were as serious and civicly active about getting rid of Citizens United as they are about Death Star petitions...we could probably get an Amendment drafted and 3/4 of the states on board before Valentine's Day and have it ratified.

People are far more content to piss and moan, and let DC run on auto pilot though.
Click to expand...

An amendment would have to specifically address the first amendment.

Citizens United is effectively a ruling that you have the right to spend your own money on political advocacy.
It is relevant case law for every advocacy group in the nation, ranging from tiny ragtag groups to ActBlue.

I doubt very much that those who seem so adamantly opposed to "Citizens United" would say that Michael Moore should have been prohibited from making Fahrenheit.... yet that is a considered fact in the case.
 
Zangmonkey said:
An amendment would have to specifically address the first amendment.

Citizens United is effectively a ruling that you have the right to spend your own money on political advocacy.
It is relevant case law for every advocacy group in the nation, ranging from tiny ragtag groups to ActBlue.

I doubt very much that those who seem so adamantly opposed to "Citizens United" would say that Michael Moore should have been prohibited from making Fahrenheit.... yet that is a considered fact in the case.
Click to expand...

Amendment 28: People are people, and corporations are corporations. People are not corporations nor are corporations people.

Granted I'm not a lawyer, and have seen what happen 1st hand in my state when people misplace a comma or a semicolon and do not consider the larger implications....But I believe the above addresses C.U. and might dodge the thorny 1st amendment issues while addressing the issue. It would nail the SuperPACs as well as their 501(c)(4) Delaware corporation money launderers too.
 
Skripka said:
Yup some folks need to go back to school and learn the difference between democracy and republicanism in terms of governmental structure.
Click to expand...

I must be one of these kinds of people. Especially since I thought it was more of a Corporatocracy than either of the those structures you mentioned.
 
I don't see any reason to get too excited one way or another about this one. It was a new system being implemented and as time goes on they've decided to tweak the rules to make the system work as intended. Its like complaining about changes between beta and final versions of software.
 
MasonD said:
I must be one of these kinds of people. Especially since I thought it was more of a Corporatocracy than either of the those structures you mentioned.
Click to expand...

This is an off topic for the Soapbox...too bad too, I had a nice old post drafted.
 
Skripka said:
Amendment 28: People are people, and corporations are corporations. People are not corporations nor are corporations people.

Granted I'm not a lawyer, and have seen what happen 1st hand in my state when people misplace a comma or a semicolon and do not consider the larger implications....But I believe the above addresses C.U. and might dodge the thorny 1st amendment issues while addressing the issue. It would nail the SuperPACs as well as their 501(c)(4) Delaware corporation money launderers too.
Click to expand...

How does this stop big-money in politics?
 
Zangmonkey said:
How does this stop big-money in politics?
Click to expand...

That would be ammendment 29 ... "all elections will be publically funded with competing candidates receiving a fixed and equal amount of financing ... no outside or third party financing is permitted"

You can't prevent outside entities ability to run ads (due to the 1st ammendment) but you could prevent the government folks from collecting any money directly from outside parties ... that might help a little
 
Zangmonkey said:
How does this stop big-money in politics?
Click to expand...

kbrickley said:
That would be ammendment 29 ... "all elections will be publically funded with competing candidates receiving a fixed and equal amount of financing ... no outside or third party financing is permitted"

You can't prevent outside entities ability to run ads (due to the 1st ammendment) but you could prevent the government folks from collecting any money directly from outside parties ... that might help a little
Click to expand...

It wouldn't...but it would at least get campaign financing back to more reasonable pre-CU levels. Thanks to C.U. and 501(c)(4)s, Rove alone blew $300million in untraceable donations trying to get Romney elected.
 
mynamehere said:
And in one fell swoop our "Prez" just quadrupled his vacation & golf time. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So what? He doesn't have to respond to petitions no matter what you might want to think. He did this on his own time and can take back that time if he wants to.
 
mynamehere said:
And in one fell swoop our "Prez" just quadrupled his vacation & golf time. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, the president does have other responsibilities besides responding to petitions on building deathstars ;) ... considering Congress passes the laws and budget (not the president) they are the ones who should be responding to petitions anyway ... the only time a petition to the president should matter is if you are asking for a change to a federal agency, requesting the president to not sign or sign a law passed by congress, or reporting a crime that the government needs to be aware of ... most other functions of government belong to congress (who you can petition) and the courts (who are a lot tougher to petition) ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top