Obama and how liberals think

[IndyDave1776]

YES!!!!! You got it.....

Oh and corporations are evil...Well except for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting...

Billionaires who invest in candidates are evil...Well if they are from Middle America and named "Koch" they are evil...However, Soros, Buffett, Bloomberg, and Gates are GOOD Billionaires because they support banning guns, men marrying men and killing babies so they are cool....Got it...

Conservative wealthy person donating to causes they believe in- Evil Lobbyists...
Liberal wealthy people donating to liberal causes- Activists for Social justice...

Got it...mmkay?

Pretty much correct with one exception: Eli Lilly, Cummins Engine, and the Koch brothers bough a state senate primary with the primary motive (albeit not brought out in public) was homosexual marriage. The left does not have a monopoly on b***f**k**g.

 

[MisterChester]

YES!!!!! You got it.....

Oh and corporations are evil...Well except for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting...

Billionaires who invest in candidates are evil...Well if they are from Middle America and named "Koch" they are evil...However, Soros, Buffett, Bloomberg, and Gates are GOOD Billionaires because they support banning guns, men marrying men and killing babies so they are cool....Got it...

Conservative wealthy person donating to causes they believe in- Evil Lobbyists...
Liberal wealthy people donating to liberal causes- Activists for Social justice...

Got it...mmkay?

Not really. It doesn't matter if your name is Koch or Soros, I don't believe money and politics should mix. Politicians should serve the public they represent as their duty, not serve the whim of the very top just because they'll fatten the campaign wallet.

 

[Shadow8088]

Not really. It doesn't matter if your name is Koch or Soros, I don't believe money and politics should mix. Politicians should serve the public they represent as their duty, not serve the whim of the very top just because they'll fatten the campaign wallet.

^^^^ This....

 

[jamil]

Not really. It doesn't matter if your name is Koch or Soros, I don't believe money and politics should mix. Politicians should serve the public they represent as their duty, not serve the whim of the very top just because they'll fatten the campaign wallet.

I agree with that. But there ain't no stopping the train now.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not really. It doesn't matter if your name is Koch or Soros, I don't believe money and politics should mix. Politicians should serve the public they represent as their duty, not serve the whim of the very top just because they'll fatten the campaign wallet.

Great theory. Now, how do you stop it in a way that does not cripple free speech, set the government up as arbiter of who may or may not participate in the public conversation, or prevent, say, Soros from finding a way around it while the Koch brothers are silenced?

 

[findingZzero]

YES!!!!! You got it.....

Oh and corporations are evil...Well except for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting...

Billionaires who invest in candidates are evil...Well if they are from Middle America and named "Koch" they are evil...However, Soros, Buffett, Bloomberg, and Gates are GOOD Billionaires because they support banning guns, men marrying men and killing babies so they are cool....Got it...

Conservative wealthy person donating to causes they believe in- Evil Lobbyists...
Liberal wealthy people donating to liberal causes- Activists for Social justice...

Got it...mmkay?

OK, now you got yer mind right! How does it feel?

 

[Birds Away]

OK, now you got yer mind right! How does it feel?

I don't know but it sounds like he just dropped 100 IQ points.

 

[Birds Away]

OK, now you got yer mind right! How does it feel?

Very telling.

 

[jamil]

Great theory. Now, how do you stop it in a way that does not cripple free speech, set the government up as arbiter of who may or may not participate in the public conversation, or prevent, say, Soros from finding a way around it while the Koch brothers are silenced?

I get that people with vastly more resources than you or I will be able to influence politics more than we can, for no simpler reason than their position. But we've gone far beyond that.

Votes are for sale to the highest bidder. Elections are now more about raising money than about finding the best leaders. I don't want to silence rich people. But you have to admit that as the political process becomes more dependent on money, the people with the most money have an increasingly disproportionate say in politics. The astonishingly rich people have the same right to free speech as anyone, but we shouldn't have a political process so dependent on money that they exclusively control the outcomes.

I don't know what the solution is, but we're getting further from a Republic and closer to an Oligarchy.

 

[MisterChester]

I get that people with vastly more resources than you or I will be able to influence politics more than we can, for no simpler reason than their position. But we've gone far beyond that.

Votes are for sale to the highest bidder. Elections are now more about raising money than about finding the best leaders. I don't want to silence rich people. But you have to admit that as the political process becomes more dependent on money, the people with the most money have an increasingly disproportionate say in politics. The astonishingly rich people have the same right to free speech as anyone, but we shouldn't have a political process so dependent on money that they exclusively control the outcomes.

I don't know what the solution is, but we're getting further from a Republic and closer to an Oligarchy.

I agree 100%. I'm not looking to silence anybody, BUT the process as we know it is so dependent on money. Sure we'll have our exceptions (Eric Cantor losing even though he outspent his opponent by A LOT) but these are far and few between. It only happened because enough voters were angry enough to go to the polls. Honestly, that's the only way I can see entrenched politicians like that get the boot. Not enough voters are aware how bad of a problem it really is.

 

[gravitas73]

I have to admit I am shocked to see so much support for getting money out of politics here. There is a liberal movement trying to get it Amended to the Constitution at the state level using Article V.

And I've never seen a Republican think it was a good idea. Is that because there is some ideology in the Republican platform that says "Corporations are People" like Romney's famous quote? Or is it because if the liberals came up with it then it must automatically be bad?

 

[jamil]

I have to admit I am shocked to see so much support for getting money out of politics here. There is a liberal movement trying to get it Amended to the Constitution at the state level using Article V.

And I've never seen a Republican think it was a good idea. Is that because there is some ideology in the Republican platform that says "Corporations are People" like Romney's famous quote? Or is it because if the liberals came up with it then it must automatically be bad?

Could it be that you have an innacurate view of people who generally have a different political perspective than you?

 

[gravitas73]

Could it be that you have an innacurate view of people who generally have a different political perspective than you?

Or the people I've talked to before about this that claim to be "Republicans" and hated the idea aren't really Republicans?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have to admit I am shocked to see so much support for getting money out of politics here. There is a liberal movement trying to get it Amended to the Constitution at the state level using Article V.

And I've never seen a Republican think it was a good idea. Is that because there is some ideology in the Republican platform that says "Corporations are People" like Romney's famous quote? Or is it because if the liberals came up with it then it must automatically be bad?

I would say that the reason behind this is that the average republican sees himself or a like-minded person directly paying out of his own pocket to attempt to realize a goal he has. By contrast, Democrats are generally better at organizing people while camouflaging their own dependence on sugar daddies while projecting the image of being a true grass-roots movement. In reality, both parties are millionaire/billionaire dependent, repay the cash with favors, and don't really give a damn about their respective constituents. Generally the side favoring 'reform' has a way of hiding the same transgression while the one opposing it does not or does not believe it should be necessary, as in "It's my money and I should be able to spend it however I damned well feel like spending it without laundering it through a non-profit or two on the way to do the same job I would do directly."

I would be far more supportive of an effort to mitigate this problem if I could see any way that it would drive money out of politics rather than simply shift the balance of power in favor of those who are better at manipulating the system or those who are being protected in some way. Then, we would have the problems caused by leaving a vacuum to be filled by the news media who are, at minimum, far from being a non-partisan group. Any potential effort within the present structure of .gov appears to me to offer no outcome other than the .gov picking the winners which is the last thing in the universe we need.

As for something which has potential to yield an outcome which is actually different and not merely a reapportionment of who gains the most from the present dysfunction, I can see where it eventually leads, but discussion thereof is prohibited by INGO rules.

 

[Tombs]

I have to admit I am shocked to see so much support for getting money out of politics here. There is a liberal movement trying to get it Amended to the Constitution at the state level using Article V.

And I've never seen a Republican think it was a good idea. Is that because there is some ideology in the Republican platform that says "Corporations are People" like Romney's famous quote? Or is it because if the liberals came up with it then it must automatically be bad?

Because almost any "free market capitalist" will seek as many handouts as possible. Crazy concept isn't it? That's how you climb the ladder, by shutting down competition through politics, creating a monopoly for yourself.

As with most things in politics, the label is usually the opposite of the actual reality.

 

[gravitas73]

I knew it must be on paper somewhere..

2012 Republican Party Platform
"The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. They include the free speech right to devote one’s resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals. As a result, we support repeal of the remaining sections of McCain- Feingold, support either raising or repealing contribution limits, and oppose passage of the DISCLOSE Act or any similar legislation designed to vitiate the Supreme Court’s recent decisions protecting political speech in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."

 

[jamil]

Or the people I've talked to before about this that claim to be "Republicans" and hated the idea aren't really Republicans?

Yeah, you're probably right. Republicans are a very unified group and never disagree with points of platform. You can tell this because there's never even any disagreements between Republican representatives even on matters such as where to go out for lunch.

 

[Twangbanger]

...I would be far more supportive of an effort to mitigate this problem if I could see any way that it would drive money out of politics rather than simply shift the balance of power in favor of those who are better at manipulating the system...Any potential effort within the present structure of .gov appears to me to offer no outcome other than the .gov picking the winners which is the last thing in the universe we need.

But you see, Dave...the .gov picking the winners and losers _IS_ the whole point. Go back to the first page of this thread and look at the YouTube video. Gravitas is butt-hurt that certain people have too much money. "It's not fair!" He thinks it's "not distributed right," and that the "correct" distribution is for _him_ to determine (or "x" number of people like him to determine). He basically asserts "the system" cannot be trusted to distribute the wealth "correctly," and we have to get money out of politics so that the "correct" winners (as deemed by him and others like him) can win.

Essentially, he exhibits characteristics of a totalitarian / mob ruler, yet thinks he has Libertarian tendencies...and the conflict in that seems to be a complete secret to him. "Getting the money out of politics" is about somebody declaring, "the system picks winners and losers wrongly - we need to re-rig it somehow." Young people are being taught to think _that_ is Libertarianism.

They get riled up watching YouTube videos produced by socialists, and end up convinced that Socialism = freedom, and Libertarianism = freedom, and therefore, Socialism = Libertarianism.

 

[gravitas73]

But you see, Dave...the .gov picking the winners and losers _IS_ the whole point. Go back to the first page of this thread and look at the YouTube video. Gravitas is butt-hurt that certain people have too much money. "It's not fair!" He thinks it's "not distributed right," and that the "correct" distribution is for _him_ to determine (or "x" number of people like him to determine). He basically asserts "the system" cannot be trusted to distribute the wealth "correctly," and we have to get money out of politics so that the "correct" winners (as deemed by him and others like him) can win.

Essentially, he exhibits characteristics of a totalitarian / mob ruler, yet thinks he has Libertarian tendencies...and the conflict in that seems to be a complete secret to him. "Getting the money out of politics" is about somebody declaring, "the system picks winners and losers wrongly - we need to re-rig it somehow." Young people are being taught to think _that_ is Libertarianism.

They get riled up watching YouTube videos produced by socialists, and end up convinced that Socialism = freedom, and Libertarianism = freedom, and therefore, Socialism = Libertarianism.

Did I hurt your feelings by showing how Libertarians have solidarity with Liberals on some select issues?

The video clearly says what the perception was from the 5000 people selected for the study. I'm sorry to hurt your feelings again but I was not one of the people polled.

And if you don't think the purpose of our monetary system is to filter the wealth to the top then I lol at you sir. A basic course in monetary banking can teach you that. But hey, totalitarianism is fine by you as long as the ruler "earned it" right?

 

[MisterChester]

I would say that the reason behind this is that the average republican sees himself or a like-minded person directly paying out of his own pocket to attempt to realize a goal he has. By contrast, Democrats are generally better at organizing people while camouflaging their own dependence on sugar daddies while projecting the image of being a true grass-roots movement. In reality, both parties are millionaire/billionaire dependent, repay the cash with favors, and don't really give a damn about their respective constituents. Generally the side favoring 'reform' has a way of hiding the same transgression while the one opposing it does not or does not believe it should be necessary, as in "It's my money and I should be able to spend it however I damned well feel like spending it without laundering it through a non-profit or two on the way to do the same job I would do directly."

I would be far more supportive of an effort to mitigate this problem if I could see any way that it would drive money out of politics rather than simply shift the balance of power in favor of those who are better at manipulating the system or those who are being protected in some way. Then, we would have the problems caused by leaving a vacuum to be filled by the news media who are, at minimum, far from being a non-partisan group. Any potential effort within the present structure of .gov appears to me to offer no outcome other than the .gov picking the winners which is the last thing in the universe we need.

As for something which has potential to yield an outcome which is actually different and not merely a reapportionment of who gains the most from the present dysfunction, I can see where it eventually leads, but discussion thereof is prohibited by INGO rules.

I agree that it would be tricky. The system shouldn't favor one over the other. But votes are still bought and sold, so how does a free society combat the problem? I think a good first step would be making the political donation process a lot more transparent. Get rid of the anonymity of dummy superpacs for one. Mandate a paper trail for the money. You're not silencing free speech or inhibiting what can be donated, but everything has a name. I'm sure many of them won't mind their names being attached to certain causes. Then we can have our politicians wear the logos of all their corporate donors on their clothes while congress is in session