|
So are you saying that it's entirely impossible to diminish the effectiveness of Big Evil Corporations Buying Elections effect? I don't think any of us are actually under the impression that this is a new phenomenon, but it's surely a problem. What tactic, if any, do you think would help? If it's hopeless, should we not try anything, in order to make the problem super visible for like, accelerationism until we get that leftist uprising we all want?
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:loving education over is a bipartisan thing. Obama would charter school the entire country today if he could. The fish was more than likely a bass, which you are not allowed to catch in Michigan until Memorial Day. This is because bass are on their spawning beds until around that time. If it appears you're using lures that are used for catching bass that could earn you a visit from the DNR.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:So are you saying that it's entirely impossible to diminish the effectiveness of Big Evil Corporations Buying Elections effect? I don't think any of us are actually under the impression that this is a new phenomenon, but it's surely a problem. What tactic, if any, do you think would help? If it's hopeless, should we not try anything, in order to make the problem super visible for like, accelerationism until we get that leftist uprising we all want? The solution is to find ways that actually lessen corporate influence. For example - in House elections, corporations are required because Representatives' districts cover a wide area, and so they need to reach a lot of people to win their elections (~700,000 people per district). If you reduce the number of people a Representative represents, you make it more likely for their election to be funded without outside means (in other words - make more Representatives).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:So are you saying that it's entirely impossible to diminish the effectiveness of Big Evil Corporations Buying Elections effect? I don't think any of us are actually under the impression that this is a new phenomenon, but it's surely a problem. What tactic, if any, do you think would help? If it's hopeless, should we not try anything, in order to make the problem super visible for like, accelerationism until we get that leftist uprising we all want? It certainly is impossible to do it by trying to set per-entity limits on spending. We know that can't work because creating more entities and even simply doing things like handing employees money and "suggesting" it be donated to X campaign were all done with high frequency when we were using those limits. The wealthy have been in big with politics literally since the country was founded. They're in big with politics in just about every country today, regardless of what campaign finance laws they might have. It's essentially impossible to dissociate the two things, money is factually power, influence, and speech. To think that you can have entities massively more wealthy than your average person, whether some billionaire with it all to himself or a corporation with the same billions shared amongst a bunch of executives, and think that it's possible to meaningfully reduce the amount of political influence the more wealthy have compared to the normal people - that's essentially an ignorance of not just capitalism but what wealth and money are. Take a look at Canada for instance. They have pretty stringent campaign funding laws. Yet the country's definitely in thrall to whatever the energy companies want at the moment as just one example.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It certainly is impossible to do it by trying to set per-entity limits on spending. We know that can't work because creating more entities and even simply doing things like handing employees money and "suggesting" it be donated to X campaign were all done with high frequency when we were using those limits. Okay, so do we do anything at all. Since X and Y and Z are fundementally impossible, what is the change or idea or cause that you'd rather. I swear this isn't some disingenuous "so what do YOU suggest  " attempt at a argumentative trap. It's just that seeing you make these all these posts where you explain how it's pointless to regulate campaign finance, but don't vocalize any alternatives, and I'm genuinely curious what angle you're coming at this from.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Okay, so do we do anything at all. Since X and Y and Z are fundementally impossible, what is the change or idea or cause that you'd rather. Mandating information be turned over about who's giving the money is useful, and continuing to do things like not allow anyone but campaigns themselves (who must be way more transparent about where their money came from) to have access to privileged lower cost ad buys and the like are good. Continuing to have bribery illegal which it is is also highly useful. Pretending that there's any way to keep money out of politics however is just wrong-headed.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Once the right began sucking O'Keefe's cock for being so awesome it was really just a matter of time until someone started emulating him in order to hunt RINOs. Has O'Keefe been even remotely as influential as he was before Breitbart dropped dead? I swear all I've seen him in the news for since has been him being a knobby little sex predator.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
xrunner posted:It doesn't seem to address it in the article, but I heard the story on the radio a few days ago and they made clear that he mistook the fish for another kind that was in season. Whether you believe him or not, there's that, but he definitely kept it, and also shouldn't have gone to jail for it. Catch one fish out of season, go to jail. Build a business around trawling the entire sea-floor, receive tax incentives.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:So are you saying that it's entirely impossible to diminish the effectiveness of Big Evil Corporations Buying Elections effect? I don't think any of us are actually under the impression that this is a new phenomenon, but it's surely a problem. What tactic, if any, do you think would help? If it's hopeless, should we not try anything, in order to make the problem super visible for like, accelerationism until we get that leftist uprising we all want? Stopping spending in elections won't affect the issue of corporations having outsized influence in national politics because that's not how corporations are effective in national politics.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Has O'Keefe been even remotely as influential as he was before Breitbart dropped dead? I swear all I've seen him in the news for since has been him being a knobby little sex predator. He was arrested and convicted for loving with Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office phone. Give him time, his kind always comes back. http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/100105-filmmaker-okeefe-sentenced-in-sen-mary-landrieu-break-in
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Pohl posted:He was arrested and convicted for loving with Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office phone. Give him time, his kind always comes back. Try to tap a sitting senator gets him a misdemeanor. Gotta love when your friend's dad can let you off the hook.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Funny you should bring up O'Keefe, he's been in the headlines this week over a video catching filthy Hollywood LIEberals as the perpeTRAITORS of the fracking dangers HOAX.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Yeah. That's why we're talking about him. I really do like the defense of "it was a joke!" when it comes to wiretapping an elected official.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Nah. The best was the sex-lair houseboat where he tried to seduce and honeypot a female reporter...into what exactly? It made me nauseous just reading about it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
So Marjorie Margolies tried to reclaim her old PA-13 House seat before being voted down in the primary ( ). One of the platforms she ran on was "the deciding vote on Clinton's budget." How does one get to claim that he/she is a deciding vote on something? Did the budget vote take place when she was in the bathroom and she came back 5 mins later when it was a straight tie? What was Congress like back then?. Something passing by one vote/a tie seems improbable.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:So are you saying that it's entirely impossible to diminish the effectiveness of Big Evil Corporations Buying Elections effect? Is it really that effective? In a few places it's worked like a charm, sure, but those were largely red states in the first place. It kind of seems like the majority of the money these guys have dropped has been useless.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:Is it really that effective? In a few places it's worked like a charm, sure, but those were largely red states in the first place. It kind of seems like the majority of the money these guys have dropped has been useless. It's not so much about winning elections as it is about using elections as a gigantic ad campaign for the corporatist agenda. They pay politicians to advocate distractingly far-right positions which seems like a play to make the establishment far-right positions seem reasonable. I mean, we all know how Obamacare was built from the blueprints of the establishment Republican alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's attempt at universal coverage. Republicans, in the long view, got what they wanted on policy terms and they have been able to raise senseless amounts of money and paralyze the political process by throwing a fit for over four loving years.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
As a Canadian, and one who generally likes to watch American politics, for some reason I somewhat doubt the general accuracy of this statement. I certainly feel our politics are not nearly as degraded by the influence of money nor has the political overtone window shifted so far right despite existing finance laws? Our socialist option is by most generous definitions actually "left wing" and significantly further left than the American democrats. I would consider this restraining effect at least a "win".
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Mandating information be turned over about who's giving the money is useful, and continuing to do things like not allow anyone but campaigns themselves (who must be way more transparent about where their money came from) to have access to privileged lower cost ad buys and the like are good. Continuing to have bribery illegal which it is is also highly useful. This is the campaign finance version of the "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yes, actually, quite a few Republicans and they have a poo poo load of doublethink on the issue. On one hand, they are extremely anti-elitist when it comes to intellectuals and the well educated. On the other hand, they think they're extremely morally superior and know what's best for the world. The attitude is that those smug, educated liberal shits have absolutely no right to act elitist at all or to voice an opinion, ever, because they're so wrong. Good conservatives, however, are all salt of the earth laborer types and that makes them far better qualified to boss everybody around. That's not elitism though, that's an expression that they want [ordinary] people just like them to wield power. It's like the worker who thinks they can do a better job than the boss. That's not an unreasonable or silly thing in and of itself, only in how it manifests. People is people. Being regionalist or all rah rah team isn't helpful(although it can be highly cathartic).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:As a Canadian, and one who generally likes to watch American politics, for some reason I somewhat doubt the general accuracy of this statement. I certainly feel our politics are not nearly as degraded by the influence of money nor has the political overtone window shifted so far right despite existing finance laws? Our socialist option is by most generous definitions actually "left wing" and significantly further left than the American democrats. I would consider this restraining effect at least a "win". None of this means that money doesn't have major influences on your politics. It only means that you have a different voting base to begin with. Warchicken posted:This is the campaign finance version of the "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument. Please explain why you think campaign donation limits worked.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:
People like you fascinate me. You do know that you look like a petulant little baby when you get so mad that someone doesn't take your word as gospel that you make poo poo up and attribute it to them, right? I will buy you a forums upgrade of your choice if you can show me where I said "campaign donation limits worked".
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:People like you fascinate me. You do know that you look like a petulant little baby when you get so mad that someone doesn't take your word as gospel that you make poo poo up and attribute it to them, right? I will buy you a forums upgrade of your choice if you can show me where I said "campaign donation limits worked". If you don't think they work why would you favor them?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:People like you fascinate me. You do know that you look like a petulant little baby when you get so mad that someone doesn't take your word as gospel that you make poo poo up and attribute it to them, right? I will buy you a forums upgrade of your choice if you can show me where I said "campaign donation limits worked". The thing I was posting about not working was "campaign donation limits", they were the thing that Citizens United shut down. You then made that post saying that I was wrong to think that way. How am I read that except as you thinking they did work?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The thing I was posting about not working was "campaign donation limits", they were the thing that Citizens United shut down. You then made that post saying that I was wrong to think that way. How am I read that except as you thinking they did work? When did I say you were wrong to think that way? You used "it's impossible to keep money out of politics" as a reason to not place such limits, and if the parallel between the two things isn't obvious then I don't know what to tell you. You keep saying I said x or y when I clearly didn't, maybe you should take a break or something dude.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:When did I say you were wrong to think that way? You used "it's impossible to keep money out of politics" as a reason to not place such limits, and if the parallel between the two things isn't obvious then I don't know what to tell you. You keep saying I said x or y when I clearly didn't, maybe you should take a break or something dude. Yes we shouldn't place the limits because they don't work. Like, provably do not work because as soon as they were enacted companies figured out how to easily dodge around them, and that's to say nothing of how the vast majority of money in politics does not come from campaign donations.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Yes we shouldn't place the limits because they don't work. Like, provably do not work because as soon as they were enacted companies figured out how to easily dodge around them, and that's to say nothing of how the vast majority of money in politics does not come from campaign donations. Exactly. The limits were trivial. If they had remained in place, companies and persons who wanted to donate past the limits would still have avoided them.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:None of this means that money doesn't have major influences on your politics. It only means that you have a different voting base to begin with. What. Um no, no it doesn't. I don't believe you can infer that our restrictions actually working means "our voting base is fundamentally different", nor that I said it "doesn't have an effect" but clearly as a point of contrast the effect is a fraction of what it is in America; implying that these restrictions actually do on some level work.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What. Um no, no it doesn't. I don't believe you can infer that our restrictions actually working means "our voting base is fundamentally different", nor that I said it "doesn't have an effect" but clearly as a point of contrast the effect is a fraction of what it is in America; implying that these restrictions actually do on some level work. Your restrictions do not work to prevent the people with money from having massive control of your politics. As an example, here's a site your federal government is currently paying for, including massively expensive ad buys related to it in American media: http://gowithcanada.ca/en/home.php Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 06:05 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Your restrictions do not work to prevent the people with money from having massive control of your politics. "As proof of my point, here's a website touting Canada's environmental protections around its energy exports"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:"As proof of my point, here's a website touting Canada's environmental protections around its energy exports" You're believing that the tar sands are being safely exploited. That's cute.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:"As proof of my point, here's a website touting Canada's environmental protections around its energy exports" You do realize that's a site promoting Keystone XL, right? That's the only reason they're doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Buffer posted:That's not elitism though, that's an expression that they want [ordinary] people just like them to wield power. It's like the worker who thinks they can do a better job than the boss. That's not an unreasonable or silly thing in and of itself, only in how it manifests. People is people. Being regionalist or all rah rah team isn't helpful(although it can be highly cathartic). I should have been more clear; they think themselves to be the elite and are pissed off at highly-educated people knowing more than them and speaking with authority. The attitude is that white conservative people of middle class or higher status are the elite and everybody should bow down to them.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:You do realize that's a site promoting Keystone XL, right? That's the only reason they're doing it. Except if Big Oil or whatever did control our politics why bother with that site instead of trying to paint environmental concerns as socialism and evil and whatever on the talk radio circuits?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Because they're trying to persuade the people who care about the environment. Advertising is most effective when you understand the target audience and speak to their concerns.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Except if Big Oil or whatever did control our politics why bother with that site instead of trying to paint environmental concerns as socialism and evil and whatever on the talk radio circuits? Because they're competent enough to understand that doing such a thing would not play well. That's why this site, among other things, had tie-in ads in the DC Metro system, and why the campaign included spending over $200,000 for a full page ad in the New Yorker.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Stop getting fishmeched you dolts. Also don't bother buying a custom title to warn people. He reverts it instantly.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Fishmeching would be more fun to watch if D&D wasn't literally shooting fish in a barrel with a hand grenade for him.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The official announcement that Shaun Donovan will be moving to OMB and Vice President Castro will be the new HUD Secretary will be tomorrow at 3:35pm. What do you think of the speculation that has been made in e.g. The WaPo that--especially since there were more "sensible" ways to shuffle his cabinet--, Obama is trying to move Donovan into his inner circle as a way of using the Executive to carry out programs he expects he'll be unable to get to legislatively?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
I don't think there's anything sneaky going on here. It's well known that Obama prefers promoting from within rather than bringing new people into the administration. So HHS opened up after Sebelius left and Burwell gets moved over there from OMB. Donovan had apparently been asking for a new post for a while, and signaling he might just leave, so he gets OMB which opens up HUD.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 17:54
|
|
