|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote:
"Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE!
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise.
Yea I'm sure those new senators with their $100 Million campaigns will be perfectly impartial and immune to conflicts of interest.
Such a dishonest, unreasonable conversation to have.
|
On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote:
"Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE!
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever.
Political bribery is illegal in the US.
|
On October 22 2014 05:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 22 2014 04:51 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list. it is a performative fallacy to argue for the passing of a resolution because it is popular, yet wrong by virtue of a relevant but false belief. reducing the voter population to 1, it becomes obvious why this is so, because the majority vote depends on majority holding false belief. the voter will say, i am right because i believe in [false belief]. this is a circularity dependent on treating one's self held beliefs as a factual condition. the false belief does not provide any warrant for passing the resolution because holding the belief is a performative fact. simple lesson is this, engage with the actual substance of the belief and not its popularity, if you are actually considering yourself a part of the deliberating public. instead of writing all of this down you could actually answer my question. What is factually false about labelling gm-food as gm food? it becomes hard to get the hamster into the hoop in order, so i have resorted to desperate measures. the preceding post was to make this point: no matter the popularity of a position, let us look at the facts. then there's your post suggesting an argument which is never made by anyone, namely GMO labeling is wrong because it is factually inaccurate. but factual accuracy is not the only consideration for a label policy, which has a good deal of market impact, not to mention the regulatory structure that comes with it. the argument, once again, is this:
by the fact of the situation at hand, there is no benefit for a costly and detrimental law. consumers who wish to be informed about GM procedures on their foodstuff can do so on their own, without the force of law behind it.
We don't know what the costs are. They might be negligible. Maybe the GMO labeling initiative is just popular sentiment against Monsanto. There are conceivable reasons for wanting it labeled that have nothing to do with an "unscientific" belief that GMO foods are bad for your health. If people wanted to boycott Monsanto they could pass a law requiring that all products from Monsanto be labeled as such.
|
And people on all sides of the political spectrum describe the massive lobbying and such as legal bribery, not just the far left.
|
On October 22 2014 05:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list. For the government to mandate something there's usually a compelling public interest, rather than idle curiosity. By pointing out the science, we're demonstrating that there's no compelling public interest to mandate the labeling. It's not just multi-nationals who oppose the labeling either. Scientific American opposes labeling, as does the NY Times, Boston Globe, and a plethora of other publications that have looked closely at the issue. But you're not taking anything away from anybody by adding additional information. People who have no problem with anything regarding gm-food will buy it, people who wished to not buy it before but couldn't differentiate now have an additional choice. @oneofthem: I don't buy this "the market will collapse" argument. GM food is being produced and researched here in Europe too and our regulation goes far beyond labelling. Countries like France more or less oppose it altogether which hasn't stopped research from continuing.
You are taking away from people. You're raising food costs and using unfounded fears to restrict access to GM foods.
Currently if you want to avoid GM foods you can do so without the labeling.
|
On October 22 2014 05:10 DoubleReed wrote:
And people on all sides of the political spectrum describe the massive lobbying and such as legal bribery, not just the far left.
It's called hyperbole.
|
On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote:
"Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE!
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US.
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
|
On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote:
"Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE!
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
|
No law against deep capture.
|
On October 22 2014 03:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 03:33 WhiteDog wrote:
I personally consider that protecting nature should be one of our top priority in this day and age, and GMO have bad impacts not on health but in biodiversity - not only GMO but also modern "intensive" agriculture".
The gain behind GMO are hugely overstated, we actually produce enough food for everybody, but there is too much waste and some people just eat more than they should. The best quality that GMO have for the agro industry is that they permit pattern and monopole like situations. It's about profit, not human well being or research. it is not actually overstated, just not developed. onerous regulation in the U.S. leads to only a few industrial size farming strains, because approving one single strain is very costly. a lot of things can be done via GE to enhance a crop, including adding more climate/soil degradation resistance. you are also not accountig for all the exported pesticide and resource use that gm-banning regions are placing on their source countries. it is a strategic level technology which is why china and rusrus are being all protectionist about it. in an increasingly climate and arable land challenged world, GE crop is indispensable. current gmo adoption is pretty good for developing countries, but the rich world being organic snobs also carries cost for the whole world. export reliant, gmo banning places are just exporting inefficient and environmentally burdensome farming elsewhere.
It's more complicated than that.
There are many variant of crops naturally resistant to difficult climate, but the GMO usage at the worldwide level is actually making those crop disappear. Plenty of public researcher are trying to get those crop back before they are completly eradicate because GMO crop are taking over all traditionnal agriculture and their traditionnal crop.
Again, this idea that it is beneficial for developed countries is just a marketing argument in order to make those countries' farmer entirely dependant on american engineering. It's a business, not a progress.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to.
|
On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote:
"Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE!
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
|
On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to.
Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity.
GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate.
Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity.
Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated.
|
Washington (CNN) -- The outgoing U.S. attorney general said he is "cautiously optimistic" when it comes to Washington and Colorado's experiment with marijuana legalization.
Eric Holder, who announced last month his plans to retire, is one of President Barack Obama's longest-serving Cabinet members and has faced the delicate task of defining federal policy after a wave of marijuana legalization at the state level across the country.
"We don't want to put into the federal system, low level people who are simply there for possessory offenses," Holder said Monday in an interview with CNN's Evan Perez
Holder last year outlined eight enforcement areas the Justice Department would focus on in a move aimed at calming nerves in Washington and Colorado, the only two states where recreational marijuana is legal.
The eight "priority areas" have focused the Justice Department's efforts on preventing marijuana distribution to minors, inter-state trafficking and drug violence.
But Holder made clear Monday that his agency could change its non-interventionist stance if the states' regulatory frameworks aren't up to snuff.
Source
|
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote:
"Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE!
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
|
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote:
"Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE!
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
|
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote:
"Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE!
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
You aren't giving $100 million to a candidate. Donations are capped and regulated. Citizen's United was about outside spending, and that matters because the quid pro quo there is much weaker.
I'll agree with you on the appearance of corruption end of things, and if the laws change I suspect it will be on those grounds.
|
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
|
On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left?
I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations.
There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
|
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
