|
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. |
I think Bloomberg decided against his run when he realized who he'd be putting in the oval office by doing so.
|
On March 08 2016 08:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 07:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 08 2016 07:51 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 Simberto wrote:On March 08 2016 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 08 2016 00:52 Plansix wrote:
I have so many friends from Canada and the EU that can’t understand why the US system is so terrible and people put up with it. Then I have to explain to them that the health insurance lobby has a lot of influence over government and donates heavily. Then they ask why we put up with that too.
By the end it, it degrades down to the fact that we are terrified of government, so we will let anyone else screw us over so long as we don’t vote for them.
Is that when you tell them you're supporting the candidate that's been paid a millions of dollars by that health insurance lobby instead of the one who isn't and is for universal healthcare? Lobbying is kind of a fundamental right and whatnot. Why exactly is bribing officials a fundamental right? Well regulated lobbying is part of the political process. We lack "well regulated' part and could do more. But lobbying it something all groups do. 1) Corporate lobbying IS NOT a fundamental right. 2) Regulated lobbying American style is part of the political process only in USA 3) An action being involved in a political process does not make it a right in any case. I have never laughed heartier than at bullet nr 2. Lobbying is ALWAYS going to take place in ANY political system. You can either embrace it and regulate it in a way so that it is transparent or you can try and outlaw it in which case it is just going to happen in the shadows. It is not going to go away though.
Are you telling me that the Socialist Utopia of Denmark as not destroyed all lobbying? I thought it was the perfect land?
|
On March 08 2016 08:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 07:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 08 2016 07:51 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 Simberto wrote:On March 08 2016 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 08 2016 00:52 Plansix wrote:
I have so many friends from Canada and the EU that can’t understand why the US system is so terrible and people put up with it. Then I have to explain to them that the health insurance lobby has a lot of influence over government and donates heavily. Then they ask why we put up with that too.
By the end it, it degrades down to the fact that we are terrified of government, so we will let anyone else screw us over so long as we don’t vote for them.
Is that when you tell them you're supporting the candidate that's been paid a millions of dollars by that health insurance lobby instead of the one who isn't and is for universal healthcare? Lobbying is kind of a fundamental right and whatnot. Why exactly is bribing officials a fundamental right? Well regulated lobbying is part of the political process. We lack "well regulated' part and could do more. But lobbying it something all groups do. 1) Corporate lobbying IS NOT a fundamental right. 2) Regulated lobbying American style is part of the political process only in USA 3) An action being involved in a political process does not make it a right in any case. I have never laughed heartier than at bullet nr 2. Lobbying is ALWAYS going to take place in ANY political system. You can either embrace it and regulate it in a way so that it is transparent or you can try and outlaw it in which case it is just going to happen in the hidden. It is not going to go away though.
Don't you have the opposite stance when it comes to the drug war?
On March 08 2016 08:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:02 Ghostcom wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 08 2016 07:51 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 Simberto wrote:On March 08 2016 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 08 2016 00:52 Plansix wrote:
I have so many friends from Canada and the EU that can’t understand why the US system is so terrible and people put up with it. Then I have to explain to them that the health insurance lobby has a lot of influence over government and donates heavily. Then they ask why we put up with that too.
By the end it, it degrades down to the fact that we are terrified of government, so we will let anyone else screw us over so long as we don’t vote for them.
Is that when you tell them you're supporting the candidate that's been paid a millions of dollars by that health insurance lobby instead of the one who isn't and is for universal healthcare? Lobbying is kind of a fundamental right and whatnot. Why exactly is bribing officials a fundamental right? Well regulated lobbying is part of the political process. We lack "well regulated' part and could do more. But lobbying it something all groups do. 1) Corporate lobbying IS NOT a fundamental right. 2) Regulated lobbying American style is part of the political process only in USA 3) An action being involved in a political process does not make it a right in any case. I have never laughed heartier than at bullet nr 2. Lobbying is ALWAYS going to take place in ANY political system. You can either embrace it and regulate it in a way so that it is transparent or you can try and outlaw it in which case it is just going to happen in the shadows. It is not going to go away though. Are you telling me that the Socialist Utopia of Denmark as not destroyed all lobbying? I thought it was the perfect land?
I think there's a notable difference between the existence of lobbying and having one's campaign run by lobbyists but I suppose it's no difference to some.
|
On March 08 2016 08:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:02 Ghostcom wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 08 2016 07:51 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 Simberto wrote:On March 08 2016 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 08 2016 00:52 Plansix wrote:
I have so many friends from Canada and the EU that can’t understand why the US system is so terrible and people put up with it. Then I have to explain to them that the health insurance lobby has a lot of influence over government and donates heavily. Then they ask why we put up with that too.
By the end it, it degrades down to the fact that we are terrified of government, so we will let anyone else screw us over so long as we don’t vote for them.
Is that when you tell them you're supporting the candidate that's been paid a millions of dollars by that health insurance lobby instead of the one who isn't and is for universal healthcare? Lobbying is kind of a fundamental right and whatnot. Why exactly is bribing officials a fundamental right? Well regulated lobbying is part of the political process. We lack "well regulated' part and could do more. But lobbying it something all groups do. 1) Corporate lobbying IS NOT a fundamental right. 2) Regulated lobbying American style is part of the political process only in USA 3) An action being involved in a political process does not make it a right in any case. I have never laughed heartier than at bullet nr 2. Lobbying is ALWAYS going to take place in ANY political system. You can either embrace it and regulate it in a way so that it is transparent or you can try and outlaw it in which case it is just going to happen in the shadows. It is not going to go away though. Are you telling me that the Socialist Utopia of Denmark as not destroyed all lobbying? I thought it was the perfect land?
They banished all the lobbyists to the terrifying corrupted wasteland that is Sweden
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
how do sandernistas reconcile hillary's demonic presence to the gop with her alleged corruption. are republicans sincere crusaders of integrity?
|
On March 08 2016 08:10 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:05 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2016 08:02 Ghostcom wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 08 2016 07:51 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 Simberto wrote:On March 08 2016 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 08 2016 00:52 Plansix wrote:
I have so many friends from Canada and the EU that can’t understand why the US system is so terrible and people put up with it. Then I have to explain to them that the health insurance lobby has a lot of influence over government and donates heavily. Then they ask why we put up with that too.
By the end it, it degrades down to the fact that we are terrified of government, so we will let anyone else screw us over so long as we don’t vote for them.
Is that when you tell them you're supporting the candidate that's been paid a millions of dollars by that health insurance lobby instead of the one who isn't and is for universal healthcare? Lobbying is kind of a fundamental right and whatnot. Why exactly is bribing officials a fundamental right? Well regulated lobbying is part of the political process. We lack "well regulated' part and could do more. But lobbying it something all groups do. 1) Corporate lobbying IS NOT a fundamental right. 2) Regulated lobbying American style is part of the political process only in USA 3) An action being involved in a political process does not make it a right in any case. I have never laughed heartier than at bullet nr 2. Lobbying is ALWAYS going to take place in ANY political system. You can either embrace it and regulate it in a way so that it is transparent or you can try and outlaw it in which case it is just going to happen in the shadows. It is not going to go away though. Are you telling me that the Socialist Utopia of Denmark as not destroyed all lobbying? I thought it was the perfect land? They banished all the lobbyists to the terrifying corrupted wasteland that is Sweden
The lesser Socialist Utopia, always jelly of Denmark and its happy, Utopian people.
PS: GH, you aren't even fun any more. Just stop, its sad now.
|
Well Bernie is doing well on Fox at the moment. Just got a compliment for being more honest than Hillary. Suppose I'll focus on that and my calls.
|
An interesting thing about this election is the fact that it almost begged the question: is campaign financing...necessary? I honestly feel like if there was some sort of centralized way of seeing who is running for president, you could perhaps even do away with campaign financing.
How much does it cost to have a youtube channel, facebook account, twitter account and a mailing list? At risk of getting GH fired up, isn't Sanders a perfect example of just being popular by saying shit people like? It would be interesting to see a situation where there was no financing outside of 1 candidate having 1 bank account that only individuals could contribute to.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 08 2016 08:11 oneofthem wrote:
how do sandernistas reconcile hillary's demonic presence to the gop with her alleged corruption. are republicans sincere crusaders of integrity?
What kind of stupid question is this? Just because one entity is bad it has to make the other good?
No, they're all crap.
|
On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country?
Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. There are obviously plenty of people in their ranks who dislike her, but many others have extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base.
I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP.
|
On March 08 2016 08:19 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base. I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP.
Is that so? Or perhaps you could simply avoid the knee-jerk reaction and actually look at what's being said.
|
On March 08 2016 08:15 Mohdoo wrote:
An interesting thing about this election is the fact that it almost begged the question: is campaign financing...necessary? I honestly feel like if there was some sort of centralized way of seeing who is running for president, you could perhaps even do away with campaign financing.
How much does it cost to have a youtube channel, facebook account, twitter account and a mailing list? At risk of getting GH fired up, isn't Sanders a perfect example of just being popular by saying shit people like? It would be interesting to see a situation where there was no financing outside of 1 candidate having 1 bank account that only individuals could contribute to.
Campaign Finance is complicated.
It pays for advertisement, yes. But it also pays for things like plane tickets, gas, tolls, it pays for employees, researchers/experts to help you design the policies your proposing, it helps keep you and your family fed while your on a 24 hour campaign trail. Its also not purely your spending.
For example: Super Pacs are not really "owned" by a candidate. Anyone can make a super pac for any reason for the same reason anyone can do a kickstarter for any reason. It is legal in the united states for you to ask people for money and for them to give it to you. Should you spend that money on advertisements promoting/demoting a particular candidate is not something that is regulated for the same reason it isn't regulated that you have them pay you that money to make potato salad.
So, lets say you do away for "campaign finance" and make it a public good. Each candidate has X time to do Y on channel Z. Each candidate has W allotted social media forays, etc...
What is to stop the average person who likes that candidate from walking around with a T-Shirt they made themselves? What if that individual was owned a company and decided to sell that T-Shirt? Or maybe its not a T-Shirt, but is instead a blog where the person talks about the politician he likes. What if that blog started being advertised by lobbyists?
Money will always find a way to affect an election. Much like alcohol, the best way to fight it is to regulate it, not prohibit it.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 08 2016 08:23 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:19 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base. I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP. Is that so? Or perhaps you could simply avoid the knee-jerk reaction and actually look at what's being said.
Uh, that link is completely irrelevant, and the only one who's having knee-jerk reactions is you if you think I didn't skim through your other link, which made no difference.
kwizach I find it funny that in the 2012 election thread you threw Mitt Romney under the bus for basically being Hillary (an insane flip flopper) but refuse to apply that logic to Hillary. It's no wonder you're siding with Shilldawg.
|
On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. There are obviously plenty of people in their ranks who dislike her, but many others have extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base.
How Hillary will be treated if she's elected will be entirely dependent on whatever strategy the GOP has for her, assuming they're still intact by then. Mitch McConnell said at the outset of Obama's tenure that their plan was obstructionism, and they followed it to a T. Saying they will or will not be obstructionist has nothing to do with how they feel about her, and everything to do with whatever direction the GOP wants to take their party. We've seen time and again what happens to elected officials that choose to ignore their party line (namely, they get ostracized / marginalized).
The better question is, what do we project the GOP strategy to be for the next 4 years? How can they unify the party again? A lot of decisions to be made in the coming year.
|
On March 08 2016 08:19 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base. I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP.
Not the GOP generally, but I'd certainly pause and take a step back if I got complimented by Henry Kissinger.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 08 2016 08:18 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:11 oneofthem wrote:
how do sandernistas reconcile hillary's demonic presence to the gop with her alleged corruption. are republicans sincere crusaders of integrity? What kind of stupid question is this? Just because one entity is bad it has to make the other good? No, they're all crap. for real though why do you think the gop hate her
|
On March 08 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:18 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:11 oneofthem wrote:
how do sandernistas reconcile hillary's demonic presence to the gop with her alleged corruption. are republicans sincere crusaders of integrity? What kind of stupid question is this? Just because one entity is bad it has to make the other good? No, they're all crap. for real though why do you think the gop hate her
cuz it's an election year
|
On March 08 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:18 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:11 oneofthem wrote:
how do sandernistas reconcile hillary's demonic presence to the gop with her alleged corruption. are republicans sincere crusaders of integrity? What kind of stupid question is this? Just because one entity is bad it has to make the other good? No, they're all crap. for real though why do you think the gop hate her
The statement is simply utterly irrational. Just because two people are corrupt does not mean they are on the same side. If i am bought by the beef lobby, and you are bought by the tofu lobby, despite the fact that we are both bought we are still very much opposed and will champion very different agendas, and thus try to make the other look bad.
|
On March 08 2016 08:29 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 08:23 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 08:19 Souma wrote:On March 08 2016 08:18 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2016 07:50 kwizach wrote:On March 08 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess the question starts with "do you think $ has undue influence in politics" if your answer is "yes" Bernie is the only person to vote for No, Bernie's the person to vote for if you want someone who'll complain a lot about it and then achieve nothing because he won't even get elected, and because he has no serious plan to change anything even if he did get elected. Hillary's the candidate for people who want results, not simply rhetoric. Aren't both Hillary's and Bernie's level of success contingent upon the willingness of Republicans/ Congress to work with her/ him? I think they hate Hillary far more than Bernie; they sure hated working with Obama, and Hillary is running as Obama's third term. Also, what if the results that Hillary obtains aren't what you want, because you disagree with her ideas and vision for the country? Let's not confuse the rhetoric that the GOP has been using against Hillary in order to win elections and their actual feelings about her. They've extensively praised her competence and integrity in the past, and they see her as someone with whom they can work. I highly doubt that they will be as obstructionist under Hillary as they've been under Obama, especially given what they're currently reaping with regards to their base. I'd pause and take a step back when someone gets complimented by the GOP. Is that so? Or perhaps you could simply avoid the knee-jerk reaction and actually look at what's being said. Uh, that link is completely irrelevant, and the only one who's having knee-jerk reactions is you if you think I didn't skim through your other link, which made no difference. kwizach I find it funny that in the 2012 election thread you threw Mitt Romney under the bus for basically being Hillary (an insane flip flopper) but refuse to apply that logic to Hillary. It's no wonder you're siding with Shilldawg.
That link is not irrelevant at all, since I was pointing out that receiving praise from the GOP should not lead one to automatically look more negatively at the person they're praising. If the GOP says the Earth is not flat, it doesn't mean it actually is. In the context of this discussion, the kind of praise from several Republican officials that I was referring to was about Hillary's competence, her deep knowledge of the issues she tackles, and her integrity. Concluding that she must be the opposite of that because Republicans happened to join Democrats in praising her merits is a knee-jerk, a frankly ridiculous, position.
I did not support Romney for a number of reasons, the most important of which was that I disagreed with a lot of his views and policies. I largely agree with Hillary on the issues (even though I am considerably to the left of her), and she has put forward several plans outlying clearly what she hopes to achieve and what she will fight for, and how. She's not the kind of flip-flopper that you're describing. You've painted a caricature of her in your head -- not much more to add.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
