Suspicions confirmed

[Thrilla]

Which is irrelevant and has nothing to do with problems that exist

it's entirely relevant to your characterization of my position as "right wing"..... unless speaking in relative to a leftist ideology, liberalism cannot be accurately described as "right wing"

Your position on this issue is horribly right wing. So there is no lie. Once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what a LIE actually is since in this case it is an accurate description of your position.

in correct once again... classical liberalism is not " horribly right wing", unless you're comparing it to communism.
in your case, it might not be a lie... it might be simply objective ignorance.... you very well might belive that classical liberalism is "right wing", even if it's a wholly false belief.

Oh but you did argue it. Your argument is based on the assumption that for "200 years" there was no need to adopt the reform I and there have indicated in reporting campaign contributions. And that is predicated on the assumption that you can demonstrate that big money in politics was no problem and thus needed no reporting.

incorrect.... my position was clearly that mandatory disclosure is NOT ruinous to the country, as you clearly and unequivocally stated it was.
I cannot answer to any assumption you make, nor can i be made ot be responsible for your assumptions of inferences..... those are entirely on you and you alone.

But you have not done that. You cannot do that. You will not do that. Your aversion to backing up your opinion with verifiable evidence is obvious and the achilles heel of your posts.

my evidence is ..well, self evident..... you clearly argued that not requiring disclosure was ruinous to the country... the fact that this nation existed and prospered without mandated disclosure, for 200 years, is proof that your claim is false..... sorry, but dems da facts.

only if your have any honor or integrity to defend. And that is obvious that you do not as you apply extremist labels to me but then you cannot case the checks your mouth carelessly writes.

again, neither my honor nor my integrity have anything to do with this... this is just your feeble and idiotic attempt at emotional blackmail... and i don't care one bit about your opinion of my opinion.... whine, bitch moan, .. it changes nothing.
I know it pisses you off that i'm too smart to play your dishonest games, but that's just icing on the proverbial cake.

Yes - you can provide the verifiable evidence that I am an anti-American authoritarian that you accused me of being. Or can you prostrate yourself before me and beg for forgiveness for applying such a label without any proof. .

again, your agreement or approval of my opinion is irrelevant...it simply doesn't matter...... ... it's my opinion and only your arguments presented on various topics can change it... your continual and pathetic whining will not.

you can dispense with any thought of me prostrating before you... I don't prostrate myself in front of inferior creatures.

 

[Thrilla]

every single thing you said in this post was dealt with in my previous posts. You are only repeating and saying nothing new which has not already been crushed and flushed.

incorrect...

that argument is nonsensical and worthless as evidenced by it applies TO EVERYTHING THAT HAS GONE BEFORE.

incorrect, it stands as indisputable evidence that your opinion that to not require disclosure is ruinous to the nation....

One could say in 1860 that "slavery has worked well during out nations existence and there is no need to change".

wow, dishonest much?... i've said nothing that address a need ot change... not one thing.

One could apply your illogic and say that "denying females equal rights as citizens has worked well for 150 years and there is no need to change".

same thing, you're being dishonest again... i've not addressed the need to change.

One could apply your claim to any issue that has existed in our history but then was reformed with new law.

maybe, maybe not... but what we do actually know.. an objective truth.. is that not requiring disclosure of identity for contribution is NOT ruinous to the nation, as you previously claimed.
you are free to belive otherwise, but it's self evident that your claim on the matter is false.... you can choose to come back to reality, or spew more nonsense

And it is an argument that is worthless in and of itself.

obviously it's worth a great deal to you.


now, it's self evident that your claim that not requiring disclosures is ruinous to our nation is objectively and unequivocally false.. .we can move on to bigger and better things.

 

[haymarket]

it's entirely relevant to your characterization of my position as "right wing"..... unless speaking in relative to a leftist ideology, liberalism cannot be accurately described as "right wing"

Your position is not liberal - never has been. Your position on the issue being discussed is the right wing position.

again, your agreement or approval of my opinion is irrelevant.

The essence of debate is not simply taking a position as anyone can do that without debating anything. The essence debate is taking a position and being able to support it. Until they change the name of this site to POMPOUS PERSONAL PONTIFICATIONS - your opinion - is utterly worthless unless you can support it.

And you calling me an anti-American authoritarian is completely worthless unless you can support it with evidence and you heave bene completely impotent to even attempt to do that.

my evidence is ..well, self evident..

that is what people who cannot support their position tend say because they are powerless to bring forth any evidence to support the indefensible. The reality is that nothing in dispute is self evident or it would not be in dispute.

again, your agreement or approval of my opinion is irrelevant.

It is your opinion of me as an anti-American authoritarian which is irrelevant unless you can support that label with evidence. And if you cannot it simply becomes an ideologically based track borne from your own personal vitriol for me.

 

[haymarket]

incorrect...

NO. I was correct about that post and this one also. Nothing you have said here is new and it all has been previously refuted.

 

[JasperL]

so you move the discussion into foreigners and foreign corporation ,and have the gall to say i'm moving goalposts?....interesting.

You asked for limits on political speech, I provided an easy example, and it doesn't count?

As you know foreigners and foreign corporations are protected by the U.S. while here, same as you. So the NY sub of Bank of China has the same 1st Amendment rights as JPM.

aye, it's current law, and it was hte law before the unconstitutional McCain fiengold was passed in 2002.
of course money is speech, it can be no other way.... 1st,everything related to speech costs money, so there is no separating money from speech there.... spending money on electioneering, issues, or whatever, is most definitely a politcal expression... IE, politcal speech.
SCOTUS has called it correct twice.

you're talking about limiting foreigners and saying its' somehow a limit on "our" speech?...shouldn't you be arguing it's a limit on "their" speech?... but yes, it's correct there are rational limits, especailly when we talking about matters of national sovereignty.

The question is whether we as society can limit political speech, and the answer is yes, we obviously can and do. You recognize good reasons to limit the speech of foreigners on U.S. soil, or U.S. subs of foreign companies because, presumably, of the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Why do those risks not apply to GE or Exxon or Warren Buffett. If Bank of China can corrupt the process, exert undue influence, why can't GE?

why is GE different?... because it's an American corporation... duh.

So if it's incorporated in Delaware but does 80% of its business overseas, it's an "American" corporation? Large corporations with foreign based parent companies have all kinds of subsidiaries incorporated in DE and elsewhere. Many are traded on U.S. stock exchanges. What makes them different than GE? Does GE care more about the U.S. economy than, say, VW? No, they care only about profits, period.

and i would suggest that contribution limits serve the purpose pf mitigating corruption ( IE, quid pro quo bribery)...but banning associations from spending money on political speech that is independent of campaigns or parties is , no matter how you slice it, a violation of the 1st amendment...

So, giving $50,000 directly to a campaign poses a risk of corruption, but spending $100 million in "independent" expenditures does not? That's absurd, seriously. The press has even acknowledged this by referring to things like "Hillary Clinton's superpac, ______" So we can violate the 1st Amendment when it comes to direct contributions but NOT! for the candidate's super pacs? Why? What is the principle working here?

and really... if you can ban or limit politcal speech form associations, under what premise can individuals be believed to have protected speech at all?... you claim all the employees at a corporation still have their free speech rights, but you've just taken those rights and placed them in severe jeopardy and vacated any rationale you would have to retain those rights for individuals...you would have completely undermined the entire concept of free speech.

See above. And sure, the employees of GE would have the same rights as you or I, but the Board of GE or the CEO or whoever simply cannot tap the corporate balance sheet for the funds.

that's true as well....
I haven't really said anything about unlimited rights... that's an inference you're making.

So you agree it's "when" not "if" we can violate free speech rights. You agree, because you must, then make assertions that some limits are OK, but without being able to explain the principle at work, other limits are not OK.

national sovereignty and disallowing a foreign country from electioneering is a well grounded rationale to ban speech...and we've yet to see a well grounded rationale for banning Americans politcal speech.

The reasons to limit speech of foreign entities and individuals are the same reasons to limit the speech of U.S. entities and individuals - corruption or the appearance of corruption.

 

[JasperL]

you're curiosity is of no objective value to the political process.
at best, the only thing you would be doing is seeing if a group influenced the position of a candidate, and even that would be a stretch
the important quality is the actual position of the candidate, not who agrees with him or supports him...period.

LMMFAO. You're just giving us your subjective opinion and then because it's yours declaring it objective. Who/what entities contribute to various candidates is objectively valuable to me, because I use this information to inform my votes. If you don't, fine, disregard useful information if you want. The rest of us would rather be informed than ignorant.

Let's take Hillary. Her "actual position" is she'd be "tough" on Wall Street. But I can see because donors are disclosed that she's 1) received $millions for short speeches in front of Wall Street firms and 2) received $10s of millions in donations from Wall Street firms and employees. Her donation history casts a lot of doubt on her stated position. In fact, anyone who actually believes Hillary will be tough on Wall Street is a brain dead moron, and they're a moron because firms don't contribute huge sums to people who they expect to harm their interests. Bernie received no money (or nearly none) from Wall Street and has many of the same stated positions on Wall Street as Hillary. Only the same brain dead moron would evaluate the odds of them ACTUALLY being hard on Wall Street in the same universe. And the donor history is, in part, what allows us to make this informed distinction.

How can you possibly argue that the donor history doesn't provide key information on Hillary versus Bernie? And even if it means nothing to you (seems stupid to ignore, but that's your business) then you certainly can't argue that it means nothing to me or others - it simply does and affects how I vote.

I suggest you do research on the right ot privacy.... there' plenty of material, including multiples SCOTUS cases, to learn from.
some landmark cases are Roe V wade, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas
and of course, the 4th Amendment.

I suggest you do the same research and find where the courts have repeatedly upheld disclosure laws..... :roll:

you'll have to show me where the right of you to demand the government hand over private details of other peoples affairs would find legal protection...because, really this is the first time hearing of this new "right".

Sheesh, Citizens United upheld disclosure requirements. You need to do more research before lecturing others to do....research.

i'm talking about the right of anyone who engages in political expression....in particular to anyone who donates money for political causes, issues, or candidates..... which, i'm not sure of you're aware or not, consists of individuals and associations alike..... individuals, who you argue, must be forced to disclose their identity to quench your idle curiosity.

Again, some of us prefer information to ignorance, but YMMV.

 

[JasperL]

congratulations,. you provided verifiable evidence of something I wasn't arguing .... good Job Haymarket!.. way to go!

I've never argued past elections were free of influence, nor would I..... hell, the entire notion of politcal speech is to influence politics.

now, instead of dishonestly moving the goalposts , why don't we go back to what was actually being discussed... forced disclosures.
how did our nation survive 200 years of not having forced disclosures haymarket?... how do you reconcile facts with your fanciful opinion?

I have a question! Who has ever argued that without disclosure the country will cease to exist?

 

[Dittohead not!]

LMMFAO. You're just giving us your subjective opinion and then because it's yours declaring it objective. Who/what entities contribute to various candidates is objectively valuable to me, because I use this information to inform my votes. If you don't, fine, disregard useful information if you want. The rest of us would rather be informed than ignorant.

Let's take Hillary. Her "actual position" is she'd be "tough" on Wall Street. But I can see because donors are disclosed that she's 1) received $millions for short speeches in front of Wall Street firms and 2) received $10s of millions in donations from Wall Street firms and employees. Her donation history casts a lot of doubt on her stated position. In fact, anyone who actually believes Hillary will be tough on Wall Street is a brain dead moron, and they're a moron because firms don't contribute huge sums to people who they expect to harm their interests. Bernie received no money (or nearly none) from Wall Street and has many of the same stated positions on Wall Street as Hillary. Only the same brain dead moron would evaluate the odds of them ACTUALLY being hard on Wall Street in the same universe. And the donor history is, in part, what allows us to make this informed distinction.

How can you possibly argue that the donor history doesn't provide key information on Hillary versus Bernie? And even if it means nothing to you (seems stupid to ignore, but that's your business) then you certainly can't argue that it means nothing to me or others - it simply does and affects how I vote.



I suggest you do the same research and find where the courts have repeatedly upheld disclosure laws..... :roll:



Sheesh, Citizens United upheld disclosure requirements. You need to do more research before lecturing others to do....research.



Again, some of us prefer information to ignorance, but YMMV.

but information doesn't win elections. Ignorance does.

 

[eohrnberger]

England did it. Why can't we?

Term limits? I think that would prevent political entrenchment and the career politicians we see now, and it would give the lobbyists a moving target, which I think would be a good thing, AND it would be an influx of new faces and new ideas.

I'm not seeing a losing aspect to this.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Term limits? I think that would prevent political entrenchment and the career politicians we see now, and it would give the lobbyists a moving target, which I think would be a good thing, AND it would be an influx of new faces and new ideas.

I'm not seeing a losing aspect to this.

I'm ambivalent when it comes to term limits. For instance, look at how far to the Right the GOP rank-and-file swung from 1992 to 2012, particularly after the rise of the Tea Party. Can you imagine what the congressional Republicans would be like if the rank-and-file had sent the kind of fire-eaters to Congress that they wanted, instead of re-electing the (very relatively) moderate GOP congressmen that aren't always so eager to burn the government down?

Don't get me wrong - I see the benefits of term limits, too - it's hard not to see them. But considering the other possible consequences...um, it might not be as great an idea as it first seems.

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm ambivalent when it comes to term limits. For instance, look at how far to the Right the GOP rank-and-file swung from 1992 to 2012, particularly after the rise of the Tea Party. Can you imagine what the congressional Republicans would be like if the rank-and-file had sent the kind of fire-eaters to Congress that they wanted, instead of re-electing the (very relatively) moderate GOP congressmen that aren't always so eager to burn the government down?

Don't get me wrong - I see the benefits of term limits, too - it's hard not to see them. But considering the other possible consequences...um, it might not be as great an idea as it first seems.

Hmm. I see what you mean.

So really I think we need to balance the negatives of excess money and special interests influence on congress with the possibility that the congress reflects the mood of the electorate more closely.

Right now, the mood of the electorate is in fact to 'burn down' the government (whatever that means), and this is in response to the establishment same ol' same ol' politics as usual (yes in both parties).

Should term limits be enacted, I think that pressure vessel, that electorate frustration with congress and government, would have it's pressure relieved, and would continue to do so going forward.

 

[Fearandloathing]

but information doesn't win elections. Ignorance does.

With ignorance it is far easier to breed fear.

 

[MickeyW]

No surprises there, at least not to most of the members of DP.

source

Think that's bad, wait until I post on the ICE agent suicide.

 

[Dittohead not!]

With ignorance it is far easier to breed fear.

Exactly, and to control the masses as well.

 

[jimbo]

England did it. Why can't we?

It's a bad idea. The problem is if the elections are publicly funded, then the sitting politicians will decide who gets to run. People like Trump and Sanders would have no shot.

Even if it happened, it would not stop politicians from accepting bribes.

 

[polgara]

Term limits? I think that would prevent political entrenchment and the career politicians we see now, and it would give the lobbyists a moving target, which I think would be a good thing, AND it would be an influx of new faces and new ideas.

I'm not seeing a losing aspect to this.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: Most States have term limits for their Governors - two four year terms for most. How important should that be for those we elect to Federal office? Very, IMO! Serving in Congress should never have become a career! It's probably not going to happen, though, since Congress would have to vote on it, and they are not going to vote themselves out of a job, which suits lobbyists with their special interest agendas just fine - it makes their jobs a lot easier! :thumbdown:

 

[eohrnberger]

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: Most States have term limits for their Governors - two four year terms for most. How important should that be for those we elect to Federal office? Very, IMO! Serving in Congress should never have become a career! It's probably not going to happen, though, since Congress would have to vote on it, and they are not going to vote themselves out of a job, which suits lobbyists with their special interest agendas just fine - it makes their jobs a lot easier! :thumbdown:

Realistically, that spot on. But still, I suppose there's always hope.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Realistically, that spot on. But still, I suppose there's always hope.

I think the only hope is for the voters to wake up and vote them out.

 

[eohrnberger]

I think the only hope is for the voters to wake up and vote them out.

Agreed.

Given the long history of low congressional approval rating you'd think that this would be a no brainer, but no, it's always the 'other guys' congressman. Go figure.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Agreed.

Given the long history of low congressional approval rating you'd think that this would be a no brainer, but no, it's always the 'other guys' congressman. Go figure.

I think it has a lot to do with gerrymandering districts and with party loyalty. If Congressperson X is a Democrat (Republican) and the majority of the voters in that district belong to the same party, then Congressperson X will most likely be re elected. Voters are reluctant to cross party lines.

 

[eohrnberger]

I think it has a lot to do with gerrymandering districts and with party loyalty. If Congressperson X is a Democrat (Republican) and the majority of the voters in that district belong to the same party, then Congressperson X will most likely be re elected. Voters are reluctant to cross party lines.

If it were attributable to gerrymandering districts, wouldn't we see a lot more redistricting when control of congress changes hands?
Isn't redistricting / gerrymandering only possible in response to the census every 10 years?
Are we sure that there's as much gerrymandering going on, and that it's as impactful as we might think it is?

I'm left more with the impression that it's 'DC money is great for my district. Hey! Wait! Someone else's district got money! How dare they!' kinda of a thing.

Certainly this sort of stupidity isn't helping matters:

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month's election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)

"Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that," said Watson. "Of course, not just that, but why not?"

Nearly 75 percent of Wayne County voters pulled the lever for Obama in November.

"After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. He came home with some bacon," said Watson. "That's what you do."

Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out | WJBK

 

[Frank Apisa]

It also has to do with people realizing that a tenured, long-in-office Representative...has more power than someone newly elected. Having power can mean the difference between a district getting what it wants in legislation (and goodies) and not getting it.

The whole idea of term limits has appeal to me...but there are also concerns about it.

Do I want a surgeon with lots of experience...or one fresh out of training to cut into my abdomen and remove a piece or two?

Experience is as valuable in the political setting as it is in business and the professions.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

It's a bad idea. The problem is if the elections are publicly funded, then the sitting politicians will decide who gets to run. People like Trump and Sanders would have no shot.

Even if it happened, it would not stop politicians from accepting bribes.

So...the sitting politicians - who were almost certainly mostly mainstream "Christian" - were the ones who made the decision to have a Muslim run for mayor of London? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If it were attributable to gerrymandering districts, wouldn't we see a lot more redistricting when control of congress changes hands?
Isn't redistricting / gerrymandering only possible in response to the census every 10 years?
Are we sure that there's as much gerrymandering going on, and that it's as impactful as we might think it is?

I'm left more with the impression that it's 'DC money is great for my district. Hey! Wait! Someone else's district got money! How dare they!' kinda of a thing.

Certainly this sort of stupidity isn't helping matters:

There are a few congressional districts where both parties are represented to the point that the seat can be contested. Most of them just stay in until they get ready to retire, secure in the knowledge that their party will support them. Look at California, for example: We have two Democratic senators who have been in power since the Pleistocene era practically. We have Democratic seats that are perfectly safe representing San Francisco and Los Angeles. Here in the Central Valley, congressional (house) seats do change hands periodically as there are both Republican and Democratic voters here, but the Senate seats remain occupied until the senator decides to retire.

If we really want to clean house, we have to willing to vote across party lines. If we don't, then nothing much will change.

 

[eohrnberger]

There are a few congressional districts where both parties are represented to the point that the seat can be contested. Most of them just stay in until they get ready to retire, secure in the knowledge that their party will support them. Look at California, for example: We have two Democratic senators who have been in power since the Pleistocene era practically. We have Democratic seats that are perfectly safe representing San Francisco and Los Angeles. Here in the Central Valley, congressional (house) seats do change hands periodically as there are both Republican and Democratic voters here, but the Senate seats remain occupied until the senator decides to retire.

If we really want to clean house, we have to willing to vote across party lines. If we don't, then nothing much will change.

I see what you mean, but in your given example of San Francisco and Los Angeles, you'd think that there'd be a much higher concentration of Democratic voters in those areas than Republicans, given that this has been pretty much established as fact that those in the large cities are more liberal than out lying areas.

Granted, voting across political lines would play a factor in voting the career politicians out. In previous history, it seems that the electorate has done someof this in the past, but given the intractable mood of the electorate at present, doesn't seem like is going to happen again anytime soon.