U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[KingHorse]

If he's accusing people of blatant political bias for not supporting it he needs to give an explanation on why he does.

You and others are accusing him of blatant political bias for supporting it.

[belfpala]

You and others are accusing him of blatant political bias for supporting it.

Is this about Oblivionx? I don't feel like reading back.

He started it by accusing me of Dem bias because I don't support it. I retorted that I didn't support it long before it was even heard by SCOTUS, and long before I even thought about the ramifications for this election. He then continued to accuse me of being against it because of Dem bias.

[KingHorse]

I think if contributions were publicly accessible it would be better. I still don't like the amount of money involved, but I'd prefer to at least know who gives what and how much.

We know who uses actual speech in support of their politicians, why does money as speech have to be different?

That is a very good point. You have a right to free speech, and I can understand that giving money to someone to speak on your behalf could fall under that protection. But you do not have protection from consequences of your speech, nor guaranteed anonymity when availing yourself of your free speech rights, so why should you receive that guaranteed anonymity when you give money to someone to speak on your behalf?

---------- Post added 2012-09-07 at 09:52 AM ----------

Is this about Oblivionx? I don't feel like reading back.

He started it by accusing me of Dem bias because I don't support it. I retorted that I didn't support it long before it was even heard by SCOTUS, and long before I even thought about the ramifications for this election. He then continued to accuse me of being against it because of Dem bias.

I think most things are like this, and hard to prove otherwise in the rare cases that they're not. Most Democrats support the ability of unions to throw buckets of money at elections. Most Republicans support the ability of pretty much anyone to throw buckets of money at elections. Both have legitimate legal arguments as to why they should be allowed to do what they're doing, both have legitimate legal arguments as to why the other guy shouldn't be allowed to do what he's doing, and it's hard to discern motivation in any of the mess. But you have to admit, the motivation looks the same from either side.

You say you were against CU before you knew who it favored, and FWIW I believe you, as you've shown little propensity for outright bullshit. But for most people, if it quacks, it's a duck.

[Grizzly Willy]

@KingHorse

I agree on the point of anonymity. If a political party is going to accept money, they need to disclose who they're accepting money from.

[belfpala]

I think most things are like this, and hard to prove otherwise in the rare cases that they're not.

I think my most important statement in the whole conversation was that, as far as I can tell, everyone posting here is against it except him (and Dacien, who said he needed to read more about it, and that's fine).

[ptwonline]

Right, which is why I was happy that Obama wants to: 1) pass the disclosure bill so that donations, even to superpacs, are more transparant; 2) push SCOTUS to reverse Citizens; and 3) push for an amendment if necessary.

Not only full disclosure, but I'd slap an escalating tax on it. Want to donate $1M to a Super PAC? Fine. 50% is going to fund things that should be broadly popular, like providing benefits to Veterans.

---------- Post added 2012-09-07 at 02:22 PM ----------

@KingHorse

I agree on the point of anonymity. If a political party is going to accept money, they need to disclose who they're accepting money from.

People will simply funnel the money through others as a form of policitcal contribution money-laundering, just like they used when there were more restrictions. Remember when "Bundlers" were all the rage?

And it's not just Citizens United. It's the 501(c)(4) groups that are a big problem as well, since that is what allows the contributions without disclosure.

[belfpala]

Not only full disclosure, but I'd slap an escalating tax on it. Want to donate $1M to a Super PAC? Fine. 50% is going to fund things that should be broadly popular, like providing benefits to Veterans.

That actually seems fair to me. We could probably brainstorm a couple dozen things that the vast majority would agree to support that way. Would it apply to personal donations direct to the actual campaign? Or just donations to PACs?

[ptwonline]

That actually seems fair to me. We could probably brainstorm a couple dozen things that the vast majority would agree to support that way. Would it apply to personal donations direct to the actual campaign? Or just donations to PACs?

Doesn't really matter. The point would simply to be taking some of the vast amounts of money spent on political advertising and use it for something constructive.

Personally, I think ALL political ads should be highly restricted and I also think that the media should make little or no money from them. Money corrupts politics. it can also corrupt the media that is supposed to cover the politics.

[Holtzmann]

Speaking of donations, why are they even there? I mean, shouldn't the campaigns stand on their own merit as opposed to on their pocket? I understand that it's a far too naïve point of view to hold (and I don't hold it), but don't you think it's a little excessive when political campaigns move more money around than the entire economy of the average African country?

I shouldn't be one to talk, though. We tried to pass public funding for election campaigns here and it failed miserably. No politician worth his salt will ever let that pass.

[belfpala]

I shouldn't be one to talk, though. We tried to pass public funding for election campaigns here and it failed miserably. No politician worth his salt will ever let that pass.

Public funding exists. I personally check the "NO" box (well, click it) when I'm doing my taxes and it asks me if I want to donate.

[KingHorse]

http://www.bobandtom.com/videos/?uri...345197/1039208

Vote Doug LaDouche!

---------- Post added 2012-09-07 at 10:48 AM ----------

On a more serious note: this is just a train wreck.

[ptwonline]

On a more serious note: this is just a train wreck.

96,000 isn't great, but considering a few years ago the country was losing as much as 800,000 jobs/month, I wouldn't exactly call it a "train wreck".

The U3 rate dropped a bit which is a bit deceiving, but even by the more complete U6 standard the unemployment rate has been improving year-over-year under Obama once he stopped the jobs slide.

I really wonder how much the Fiscal Cliff is holding back investment. Congress--and especially the Republicans who actually WANT this uncertainty because it helps them--deserves to be throttled for not dealing with this over the past year like they were supposed to. Ryan rails about leadership, but where was HIS leadership in Congress over this? This was in HIS bailiwick.

[Tastyfish]

96,000 isn't great, but considering a few years ago the country was losing as much as 800,000 jobs/month, I wouldn't exactly call it a "train wreck".

You don't understand. Slow change is not good. It has to be fast and violent. GOP Democrat critics = the wow forums in how they go about crying..

[belfpala]

I really wonder how much the Fiscal Cliff is holding back investment.

[intentionally omitted your Congress statements because I don't want to go there]

Short answer: A lot.

Longer answer: We both know the economy has a large psychological component. As a person who is considering investing in expanding my business, I'm wary because I don't know what the hell is going on. It's not that I'm uncertain about the investment itself. More that I have no idea who is going to be in power, and what that will mean for that investment.

[oblivionx]

You and others are accusing him of blatant political bias for supporting it.

Logic doesn't seem to work on those impervious to logic.

I guess it's mostly because they don't even know what Citizen's United decided and believe their demagogues.

But, one of the background things to Citizens United was Fahrenheit 9/11. That "film" was found not in violation even though it's obviously an attack piece versus Bush released right before election time. By the campaign laws it should not have been allowed to be shown 30 days before primary and 60 days before general elections. The ruling in the favor of Farenheit was what spurred Citizen's United on to start making their "documentaries".

When Citizens United released their commercial films they were blocked.

That's how it got to the Supreme court which then decided in favor of it.

You might want to note that it has no effect on actual campaign contributions. It only allows for forming and funding Super PACs and "documentaries" and advertising.

So... contrary to what has been claimed... Romney raising more money than Obama has NOTHING to do with Citizens United.

[belfpala]

Logic doesn't seem to work on those impervious to logic.

[snip]

So... contrary to what has been claimed... Romney raising more money than Obama has NOTHING to do with Citizens United.

I just got whiplash. Prepare for a lawsuit. (Kidding!)

[Tastyfish]

I want to throw this in here because I think, as this drama is going around us, this is something to switch tracts and think about.

[ptwonline]

I want to throw this in here because I think, as this drama is going around us, this is something to switch tracts and think about.

I understand his sentiment, but I think he is actually falling victim to the same mindset that he says for young people to avoid.

He talks about going after the things you want with a passion and single-mindedly, but a lot of people don't have that luxury. They have to compromise on their future to provide for the present because they have to support family, or even just to survive themselves.

[oblivionx]

I understand his sentiment, but I think he is actually falling victim to the same mindset that he says for young people to avoid.

He talks about going after the things you want with a passion and single-mindedly, but a lot of people don't have that luxury. They have to compromise on their future to provide for the present because they have to support family, or even just to survive themselves.

The diametric point would be that those that dwell on disadvantage and focus on "righting the perceived wrong" instead of taking what you got and going after what you desire with everything.. tend to fail. That failure reinforces their behavior...

[Wells]

Logic doesn't seem to work on those impervious to logic.

I guess it's mostly because they don't even know what Citizen's United decided and believe their demagogues.

But, one of the background things to Citizens United was Fahrenheit 9/11. That "film" was found not in violation even though it's obviously an attack piece versus Bush released right before election time. By the campaign laws it should not have been allowed to be shown 30 days before primary and 60 days before general elections. The ruling in the favor of Farenheit was what spurred Citizen's United on to start making their "documentaries".

When Citizens United released their commercial films they were blocked.

That's how it got to the Supreme court which then decided in favor of it.

You might want to note that it has no effect on actual campaign contributions. It only allows for forming and funding Super PACs and "documentaries" and advertising.

So... contrary to what has been claimed... Romney raising more money than Obama has NOTHING to do with Citizens United.

Please explain why you support Citizen's United.