Suspicions confirmed

[D_NATURED]

It's one thing to have confirmation of our fears. Now, what do we do with the information? I understand the hypocrisy of the right who celebrate Citizens United and then complain that the government is corrupt. They aren't going to change the way they do things, though. What I fear is that this sort of revelation will do more to fuel the anti-government sentiment than the "change the government for the better" sentiment. I, for one, still see the need for a government of, by and for the people.

Selling me a book, telling me that what I knew was true is true, doesn't change anything. Until a few of our representatives stand up for us, I don't see a beginning to the end of our problem.

 

[jimbo]

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.

I know nothing of London elections, nor do I care. Bottom line, here and now in the US, outsiders would never get funding equal to the mainstream candidates. If they did and it began to look like the outsider might have a shot, it would be all too easy to cut off funding.

Trump and Sanders are considered outsiders.

 

[Dittohead not!]

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.

I think voting across party lines is the only way we'll get the career politicians out and get people who will reflect the will of the voters. San Francisco keeps voting for the Democrat, and no one will oppose said Democrat until he/she decides to retire. There are other areas that will vote for the Republican in the same way.

But, alas, trying to get voters to vote for the person and not for the party is just tilting at windmills. You're right: It's not going to happen any time soon.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I know nothing of London elections, nor do I care. Bottom line, here and now in the US, outsiders would never get funding equal to the mainstream candidates. If they did and it began to look like the outsider might have a shot, it would be all too easy to cut off funding.

Trump and Sanders are considered outsiders.

Um, I was just reading this morning that the one candidate who has spent the most on the election...is Bernie Sanders.

 

[jimbo]

Um, I was just reading this morning that the one candidate who has spent the most on the election...is Bernie Sanders.

I think that's incorrect. Clinton has raised some 300 million with 30 million on hand. Sanders some 215 million with 6 million remaining. No Republican is even close.

But that's not relevant to the point. If elections are publicly funded, somebody has to decide who is a valid candidate and who is a pretend wannabe. Trump and Sanders would have made the cut.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I think that's incorrect. Clinton has raised some 300 million with 30 million on hand. Sanders some 215 million with 6 million remaining. No Republican is even close.

But that's not relevant to the point. If elections are publicly funded, somebody has to decide who is a valid candidate and who is a pretend wannabe. Trump and Sanders would have made the cut.

Hillary may have raised the most - but Sanders has spent the most.

In other words, Hillary's wisely saving the money in her war chest for the campaign against Trump.

But don't get me wrong - I still think we need to get all private money out of politics.

 

[jimbo]

Hillary may have raised the most - but Sanders has spent the most.

In other words, Hillary's wisely saving the money in her war chest for the campaign against Trump.

But don't get me wrong - I still think we need to get all private money out of politics.

Do the math. Hillary has raised 300 million. Hillary has 30 million on hand. Hillary has spent 270 million.
Bernie has raised 215 million, Bernie has 6 million on hand. Bernie has spent 209 million.

I agree about too much money in politics. A half billion or so just to get nominated for a job that pays a half million at best/year. That money has to come from somewhere, and no one gives a lot to anyone without expecting return on investment. But I don't have another answer. Public funding only severely limits the candidate pool.

 

[radcen]

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.

This is why it is foolhardy for some states to institute term limits while other states do not (for Senate and House).

 

[Frank Apisa]

This is why it is foolhardy for some states to institute term limits while other states do not (for Senate and House).

That's the way I see it also, Radcen.

The southern states seem more willing to keep their people in office forever...allowing them to gain more and more power. The northern states seem more willing to change their people often...and in so doing, effectively demand diminished representation.

 

[Thrilla]

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

it's a classical liberal position to support individual liberties and rights.... in this case, and individual first amendment rights.
advocating for the government to vacate individual rights pertaining to free speech is not a liberal position... a leftist authoritarian position, sure.. but not a liberal position like mine.

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.

your personal opinion on the matter doesn't concern me.... nor does your approval or agreement.

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.

again, you're free to belive as you will.... if you don't believe you're an anti-american authoritarian, that's fine with me....

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.

the term" self evident" has a meaning... it's best you learn it, and reconcile your arguments according
it's your argument that the US would be destroyed if we didn't disclose politcal spending... the fact that this country did not mandate disclosure for 200 years and was not destroyed tells any reasonable person with a functioning brain that your opinion on the matter has zero merit.

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.

[/QUOTE] as I'm not an authoritarian, I find it perfectly legitimate for you to find my opinion irrelevant.
my personal opinion is primarily based on your many arguments here, on many topics... but your negative perona attributes do color my opinion as well.. such as your dishonesty, your authoritarian nature, and your constant whining in general.

 

[haymarket]

it's a classical liberal position to support individual liberties and rights.... in this case, and individual first amendment rights.
advocating for the government to vacate individual rights pertaining to free speech is not a liberal position... a leftist authoritarian position, sure.. but not a liberal position like mine.



your personal opinion on the matter doesn't concern me.... nor does your approval or agreement.


again, you're free to belive as you will.... if you don't believe you're an anti-american authoritarian, that's fine with me....



the term" self evident" has a meaning... it's best you learn it, and reconcile your arguments according
it's your argument that the US would be destroyed if we didn't disclose politcal spending... the fact that this country did not mandate disclosure for 200 years and was not destroyed tells any reasonable person with a functioning brain that your opinion on the matter has zero merit.






as I'm not an authoritarian, I find it perfectly legitimate for you to find my opinion irrelevant.
my personal opinion is primarily based on your many arguments here, on many topics... but your negative perona attributes do color my opinion as well.. such as your dishonesty, your authoritarian nature, and your constant whining in general.

Not one thing you said in that post does anything to advance your position or my refutation and exposition of it.

 

[Thrilla]

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.

we're all familiar with your repeated attempts to shut down a discussion by claiming the subject matter has been " flushed and crushed"... it's part of your usual debate tactics.


as for this specific situation... you argued something I was NOT arguing, and then pretended you refuted myoriginal argument... as is your usual fare, you were being dishonest.

 

[haymarket]

we're all familiar with your repeated attempts to shut down a discussion by claiming the subject matter has been " flushed and crushed"... it's part of your usual debate tactics.


as for this specific situation... you argued something I was NOT arguing, and then pretended you refuted myoriginal argument... as is your usual fare, you were being dishonest.

Not one thing you said there is anything new that I have not already dealt with. This is just you trying to justify your vitriolic labeling of me as an anti-American authoritarian and your inability to offer any verifiable evidence of that irresponsible claim.

I am not trying to "shut down a discussion". Quite to the contrary. I want you to offer proof for your claims in the discussion that I am a "anti American authoritarian". I want you to prove that claim or admit its a vitriolic slur simply based on your own skewed belief system and instinctive hatred for my views.

You have failed in your responsibility to provide any evidence for your claims despite being challenged repeatedly to do so. As such, your comments are worthless.

 

[Thrilla]

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

in the context of hte discussion, no , 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.

again, you're going far outside the context of the discussion in attempt to make a point.

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?

contributions from foreign entities isn't about corruption... it's about national sovereignty.
independent expenditures cannot be presumed ot be corrupting.... direct contribution, however, can be

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.

if the corporation is chartered in the US, it's a US corporation... it's pretty easy. ( subsidiaries are also delineated by parent company nationality, so that's not a concern either)

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?

independent expenditures cannot be presumed to be corruption, as they are independent ... direct contribution, however, can be.( every direct contribution, at it's core, is a form of bribery)

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.

not much i can tell you except that every individual, association, corporation , or union is legally a separate and distinct legal person

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.

the overriding principle is found in the first amendment... from there, we need to have specifics to discuss any other principles at play... every situation is not the same.

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.

no .. foreign nations and foreign corporations being banned is about national sovereignty, not corruption.
regulating direct campaign contributions is entirely about corruption.... regulating independent speech is NOT about corruption (nor can it be)

 

[Thrilla]

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.

that true enough, though we'd probably squabble over what being "informed" consists of...

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.

that's a decent point, though I don't feel that disclosing the identity of the individual donor is going help you much there.
I have no real problems with disclosing certain information of the donors (especially direct contributions) ... such a what industry one is employed in, or other such information that is not private in nature.
doing such would serve both your interests in the information, and protect the privacy of the donor.

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'm interested in protecting identities, not necessarily histories.
it's unreasonable to require one to disclose their specific identity, unless you are looking to chill their speech, or somehow exact retribution for their speech.
pertinent information that does not jeopardize their privacy can be made to be disclosed, but mandating they vacate their privacy as a condition of exercising their free speech is unreasonable.

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

yes, there are quite a few of those cases as well..... and quite a few that overturned disclosure rules as well.... specific sisutaion, and specific rules are different.
that wasn't my point though.. my point as to show that the right ot privacy exists...something you've yet ot acknowledge. (ironically , while posting anonymously)

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

sorta... CU didn't really take on the merits of disclosure rules, they just let them stand.
as of right now , the issue surrounds a Constitutional right ( privacy) versus an extra-constitutional value (disclosure)... and I think it will be taken on, directly, in the coming years . ( high and low courts kinda dance around it, and haven't set set guiding principles or standards of adjudication)

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

you've no legitimate need of anyone else's personal information or identity....general information, sure, why not... general information cannot result in "chilling" of speech or retributions for political views.

 

[Thrilla]

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

haymarket.

Your formula is a recipe for complete and total disaster and a obscene corruption of our political process.

Of course you want privacy to rule in political contributions as it then permits rich right wing corporatists to stand int he dark shadows and manipulate our politicians to dance their own tune. And since they share your political ideology and agenda, that is fine with you.

Its disgusting and will help destroy our system.

 

[Thrilla]

It's one thing to have confirmation of our fears. Now, what do we do with the information? I understand the hypocrisy of the right who celebrate Citizens United and then complain that the government is corrupt. They aren't going to change the way they do things, though. What I fear is that this sort of revelation will do more to fuel the anti-government sentiment than the "change the government for the better" sentiment. I, for one, still see the need for a government of, by and for the people.

Selling me a book, telling me that what I knew was true is true, doesn't change anything. Until a few of our representatives stand up for us, I don't see a beginning to the end of our problem.

interesting.

I'm not sure how it's "hypocrisy" to support the CU decision and complain government is corrupt, but I guess I'll allow you to expand on that personal theory of yours..

in addition, why do you belive the government should ignore the first amendment and restrict independent political speech?

 

[Thrilla]

Not one thing you said there is anything new that I have not already dealt with. This is just you trying to justify your vitriolic labeling of me as an anti-American authoritarian and your inability to offer any verifiable evidence of that irresponsible claim.

sorry, but hte "flushed and crushed " post has nothing to do with my opinion of you... it was about an argument about " big money being a problem" you dishonestly levied.

I am not trying to "shut down a discussion". Quite to the contrary. I want you to offer proof for your claims in the discussion that I am a "anti American authoritarian". I want you to prove that claim or admit its a vitriolic slur simply based on your own skewed belief system and instinctive hatred for my views.

you've already decided my opinion is irrelevant... so what else is there to discuss?

You have failed in your responsibility to provide any evidence for your claims despite being challenged repeatedly to do so. As such, your comments are worthless.

I know you can't help your authoritarian streak, but you have no standing to dictate my responsibilities to me.... and i'm fine with you believing my comments are worthless, it's evident that any comments you don't agree with are worthless to you... such is your history here, anyways.
that's another hallmark of leftist authoritarians..

now, are you going to get back to the topic, or continue with this nonsense?

 

[Thrilla]

Not one thing you said in that post does anything to advance your position or my refutation and exposition of it.

I challenged your opinion that my position is "right wing"... and I displayed your opinion that our system would be destroyed is not based in reality.

as is your usual, i expected you to ignore those things, though....

 

[haymarket]

you've already decided my opinion is irrelevant... so what else is there to discuss?



I know you can't help your authoritarian streak, but you have no standing to dictate my responsibilities to me.... and i'm fine with you believing my comments are worthless, it's evident that any comments you don't agree with are worthless to you... such is your history here, anyways.
that's another hallmark of leftist authoritarians..

now, are you going to get back to the topic, or continue with this nonsense?

Explaionng what duties you have in debate has not a damn thing to do with anybody being an authoritarian or a communist or a fascist or a vegetarian or any other thing for that matter so stop that line of crap.

You made a claim about me - that I was an anti American authoritarian - and you have provided no evidence for your claim.

That is WHY your posts to me are irrelevant. You made them so due to your own impotence to engage in the normal steps in debate.

 

[haymarket]

I challenged your opinion that my position is "right wing"... and I displayed your opinion that our system would be destroyed is not based in reality.

as is your usual, i expected you to ignore those things, though....

Challenging without evidence makes your opinion irrelevant.