Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Bernie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    ? Super PACs spawned because of it. Dark money influencing elections. The problem with our election system is there's too much corrupt influence in the form of money buying elections. You shouldn't encourage it.

    Do you like the name "Citizens United?" Has a nice ring to it right? Like it's a good thing for citizens. Like the "Patriot Act" too?
    You're being sold out.
    Influence is not the same as "buying", or manipulating.

    For a start, Bernie Sanders is influencing me to not vote for him because he's an idiot and socialist.

    Whether it's a candidate or an initiative, elections of either require some money to pay for campaign signs, literature, advertisements, and travel expenses for the candidate or printing expenses for the initiatives ~ and sometimes paid signature gatherers.

    I've yet to get actual cash from a candidate to vote for them, though most socialist ones will promise "free stuff", from the guv'mint, which is just redirected wealth taken from others. And I don't recall any cases of ballot counts or elections systems being "bought" by any candidate or faction within recent decades.

    One thing here that is disturbing is how many, usually on the Left-Wing fanatics, have such little regard or confidence in the average citizen/voter. Starts with the demeaning and denigrating reference to many of such as 'the little people', and carries through with the delusion that many of those voters can be "bought". I've seen numerous elections where the winner had a significantly smaller "war chest" for campaigning than did the loser.

    The "corrupt influence in the form of money buying elections' is a rather relative and subjective term. The Left Wing for example has most of the Unions on it's side, assorted PACs like 'Greenpeace' and other enviro-nazis, and persons like Soros and Styerer providing counter point to those "corporations"(which provide jobs and essential goods and services).
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

      Influence is not the same as "buying", or manipulating.

      For a start, Bernie Sanders is influencing me to not vote for him because he's an idiot and socialist.

      Whether it's a candidate or an initiative, elections of either require some money to pay for campaign signs, literature, advertisements, and travel expenses for the candidate or printing expenses for the initiatives ~ and sometimes paid signature gatherers.

      I've yet to get actual cash from a candidate to vote for them, though most socialist ones will promise "free stuff", from the guv'mint, which is just redirected wealth taken from others. And I don't recall any cases of ballot counts or elections systems being "bought" by any candidate or faction within recent decades.

      One thing here that is disturbing is how many, usually on the Left-Wing fanatics, have such little regard or confidence in the average citizen/voter. Starts with the demeaning and denigrating reference to many of such as 'the little people', and carries through with the delusion that many of those voters can be "bought". I've seen numerous elections where the winner had a significantly smaller "war chest" for campaigning than did the loser.

      The "corrupt influence in the form of money buying elections' is a rather relative and subjective term. The Left Wing for example has most of the Unions on it's side, assorted PACs like 'Greenpeace' and other enviro-nazis, and persons like Soros and Styerer providing counter point to those "corporations"(which provide jobs and essential goods and services).

      Agreed.
      It is funny (and hypocritical) that many on the left condemn the ability of corporations to make political contributions, but are completely fine with Unions doing the exact same thing. And Unions spend far more money than any other such entity.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Because money does not equal with freedom of speech. It is more appropriate to see money as volume of speech which helps it spread more efficiently during the elections.

        The fact that unions can also spend money does not change the fact that their voice, which is the voice of hundreds of thousands or millions of people is not more efficient than the voice of very few wealthy individuals who can spend the same amount of money to spread their message.

        On top of the above, the constant need to find huge amounts of money to support a political campaign corrupts politics. We do not see bribes of political persons or judges as an issue of limiting freedom of speech. We set some limits of how money can be spent in different settings because we see the dangers of corruption.
        The few times I've HAD TO be a member of a trade union, I noticed they spent my (dues) money for candidates and issues I didn't support. Been my experience that much of the officers/paid staff working in/for the Unions tend to be LW while most of the rank-n-file workers they are supposed to represent/advocate for tend to be RW. In the private sector anyway. Public (guv'mint) sector employees and their Unions, like SEIU, do lean mostly to LW/socialist agenda.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

          The few times I've HAD TO be a member of a trade union, I noticed they spent my (dues) money for candidates and issues I didn't support. Been my experience that much of the officers/paid staff working in/for the Unions tend to be LW while most of the rank-n-file workers they are supposed to represent/advocate for tend to be RW. In the private sector anyway. Public (guv'mint) sector employees and their Unions, like SEIU, do lean mostly to LW/socialist agenda.
          There have already been decisions regarding mandatory trade union contributions, but in any case, you just add an additional reason for why the citizen united decision is wrong.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • Bernie Sanders unzipped his fly years ago.

            "For better or for worse, the Cuban revolution is a very profound and very deep revolution. Much deeper than I had understood," Sanders wrote. "More interesting than their providing their people with free health care, free education, free housing ... is that they are in fact creating a very different value system than the one we are familiar with."

            from "Bernie Sanders praised communist Cuba and the Soviet Union in the 1980s," by Joseph Simonson, Washington Examiner, 6 Jun 2019
            - emphasis mine

            Damn that sure sounds familiar. Sounds an awful lot like Leyev Davidovich Bronshteyn aka Leon Trotsky,

            Man at last will begin to harmonize himself in earnest. He will make it his business to achieve beauty by giving the movement of his own limbs the utmost precision, purposefulness and economy in his work, his walk and his play. He will try to master first the semiconscious and then the subconscious processes in his own organism, such as breathing, the circulation of the blood, digestion, reproduction, and, within necessary limits, he will try to subordinate them to the control of reason and will. Even purely physiologic life will become subject to collective experiments. The human species, the coagulated Homo sapiens, will once more enter into a state of radical transformation, and, in his own hands, will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection and psycho-physical training. This is entirely in accord with evolution. Man first drove the dark elements out of industry and ideology, by displacing barbarian routine by scientific technique, and religion by science. Afterwards he drove the unconscious out of politics, by overthrowing monarchy and class with democracy and rationalist parliamentarianism and then with the clear and open Soviet dictatorship. The blind elements have settled most heavily in economic relations, but man is driving them out from there also, by means of the Socialist organization of economic life. This makes it possible to reconstruct fundamentally the traditional family life. Finally, the nature of man himself is hidden in the deepest and darkest corner of the unconscious, of the elemental, of the sub-soil. Is it not self-evident that the greatest efforts of investigative thought and of creative initiative will be in that direction? The human race will not have ceased to crawl on all fours before God, kings and capital, in order later to submit humbly before the dark laws of heredity and a blind sexual selection! Emancipated man will want to attain a greater equilibrium in the work of his organs and a more proportional developing and wearing out of his tissues, in order to reduce the fear of death to a rational reaction of the organism towards danger. There can be no doubt that man’s extreme anatomical and physiological disharmony, that is, the extreme disproportion in the growth and wearing out of organs and tissues, give the life instinct the form of a pinched, morbid and hysterical fear of death, which darkens reason and which feeds the stupid and humiliating fantasies about life after death.

            Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.

            from Literature and Revolution, Chapter 8, by Leon Trotsky, 1924
            Or Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

            There is the danger that the forest will not be seen for the trees. The pipe dream that socialism can be achieved with the help of the dull instruments left to us by capitalism (the commodity as the economic cell, profitability, individual material interest as a lever, etc.) can lead into a blind alley. When you wind up there after having traveled a long distance with many crossroads, it is hard to figure out just where you took the wrong turn. Meanwhile, the economic foundation that has been laid has done its work of undermining the development of consciousness. To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman.
            New consciousness






            That is why it is very important to choose the right instrument for mobilizing the masses. Basically, this instrument must be moral in character, without neglecting, however, a correct use of the material incentive — especially of a social character.[41]

            As I have already said, in moments of great peril it is easy to muster a powerful response with moral incentives. Retaining their effectiveness, however, requires the development of a consciousness in which there is a new scale of values. Society as a whole must be converted into a gigantic school.

            "Socialism and Man in Cuba," by Ernesto Guevara, Mar 1965
            Great. Bernie's gonna "evolve" man -- just like Stalin did I suppose.
            Last edited by slick_miester; 28 Feb 20, 12:42.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
              Bernie Sanders unzipped his fly years ago.

              - emphasis mine

              Damn that sure sounds familiar. Sounds an awful lot like Leyev Davidovich Bronshteyn aka Leon Trotsky,



              Or Ernesto "Che" Guevara.



              Great. Bernie's gonna "evolve" man -- just like Stalin did I suppose.
              Utopia is always just around the corner if you only put me in charge of everything.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                So if a group of people bands together and calls itself a union it is good and has rights.
                If that same group of people bands together and calls itself a corporation it is bad and has no rights?


                Sorry, but constitutional rights are not based on the assumption that a one group is inherently good.
                As you may recall, even the nazis have 1st Amendment rights.


                The government cannot create content based restrictions on free speech (e.g. union speech is good)

                By the way, the SCOTUS specifically said that " money is essential to disseminating speech," in the Citizens UNited case.
                I did not say that the citizens united should apply only to unions.
                My point is that freedom of speech should not be treated as a commodity which can be monetized and limits on spending on political advertising should be strict. Individual donations (which actually do have limits) to candidates could be used as the main source for political advertisement in MSM.

                Yes, I know the SCOTUS said and I explained why it is wrong. IIRC, the majority's decision made also the claim that there is no risk of corruption. It is more essential to have a procedure where money does not create more freedom for some citizens and less freedom for others. The elections are at the core of the political system and just like all citizens have the same freedom to cast just one vote without linking the process to their money as it was the case in the past, they must also have a freedom to spread their message which is not tied to how wealthy they are.
                Last edited by pamak; 28 Feb 20, 12:47.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  I did not say that the citizens united should apply only to unions.
                  My point is that freedom of speech should not be treated as a commodity which can be monetized and limits on spending on political advertising should be strict. Individual donations (which actually do have limits) to candidates could be used as the main source for political advertisement in MSM.
                  How about "donations in kind," aka union members being "volunteered" for political causes? Can Citizens Utd apply to that?
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    How about "donations in kind," aka union members being "volunteered" for political causes? Can Citizens Utd apply to that?
                    Not sure what you mean with the quotation marks. Are you saying that someone will be forced by his union to become a volunteer for a political cause in which he does not believe?

                    If the case is about donation in kind without some sort of blackmail as you make it sound, I do not have a problem with that because every citizen has about the same chance to "donate in kind." So everybody can play the game on a more level field regardless of the wealth and whether he belongs to a union or a corporate management.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      I did not say that the citizens united should apply only to unions.
                      My point is that freedom of speech should not be treated as a commodity which can be monetized and limits on spending on political advertising should be strict. Individual donations (which actually do have limits) to candidates could be used as the main source for political advertisement in MSM.

                      Yes, I know what the SCOTUS said and I explained why it is wrong. IIRC, the majority's decision made also the claim that there is no risk of corruption.


                      Sorry. Limiting the right to spend money on a campaign places a limit on free speech. You haven't explained why it is wrong, you have provided a hypocritical explanation of why you don't like it. (Unions-good, corps-bad)
                      Now it seems you have moved off the corporations v. union complaint and onto one where placing arbitrary limits on campaign spending accomplishes your goal.
                      Sorry, but it is very clear that the 1st Amendment permits spending money on political campaigns.

                      The SCOTUS"Claimed" there was no risk of corruption? Care to share what you are talking about?
                      Courts don't make "claims" in cases they are deciding.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                        Sorry. Limiting the right to spend money on a campaign places a limit on free speech. You haven't explained why it is wrong, you have provided a hypocritical explanation of why you don't like it. (Unions-good, corps-bad)
                        Now it seems you have moved off the corporations v. union complaint and onto one where placing arbitrary limits on campaign spending accomplishes your goal.
                        Sorry, but it is very clear that the 1st Amendment permits spending money on political campaigns.

                        The SCOTUS"Claimed" there was no risk of corruption? Care to share what you are talking about?
                        Courts don't make "claims" in cases they are deciding.
                        I have explained why it is wrong. You just do not like my explanation.

                        And again, I did not say that this is an issue of unions being good, The issue is about elevating the voice of a wealthier minority at the expense of a less wealthy majority since broadcast resources are limited and there is competition for their use. Sorry, but SCOTUS has over time shifted about many things. And if you are not convinced, you can have an amendment in the Constitution and make my proposition and view 100% bulletproof from any constitutional challenge.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          There have already been decisions regarding mandatory trade union contributions, but in any case, you just add an additional reason for why the citizen united decision is wrong.
                          I don't see that, but then I'm not looking through the delusional prism you are.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                            Not sure what you mean with the quotation marks. Are you saying that someone will be forced by his union to become a volunteer for a political cause in which he does not believe?
                            I know for a fact that UFT "volunteered" members to appear at political events for many years, and if individual members declined to "volunteer," then they faced reprecussions.

                            Originally posted by pamak View Post
                            If the case is about donation in kind without some sort of blackmail as you make it sound, I do not have a problem with that because every citizen has about the same chance to "donate in kind." So everybody can play the game on a level field regardless of the wealth and whether he belongs to a union or a corporate management.
                            In 2008, SEIU Local 1199 organized a phone bank for Barack Obama at the Port Authority Bus Terminal just off of Times Square. The personnel manning the phone bank were 1199 members -- but the phone bank service is an example of a "donation in kind," in that the transport, installation, and hook-up of dozens of phone lines and their associated hardware, desks, chairs, other furnishings -- not to mention the rental of prime office space in Midtown Manhattan -- are services of value, and as such, their donation should be as regulated as mass printings or cash donations. If not, then what's to stop Bill Gates from "making a gift" of millions of dollars of prepaid advertising to the candidate of his choice? After all, it's not a cash donation.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                              I have explained why it is wrong. You just do not like my explanation.

                              And again, I did not say that this is an issue of unions being good, The issue is about elevating the voice of a wealthier minority at the expense of a less wealthy majority since broadcast resources are limited and there is competition for their use. Sorry, but SCOTUS has over time shifted about many things. And if you are not convinced, you can have an amendment in the Constitution and make my proposition and view 100% bulletproof from any constitutional challenge.
                              Um, no. You didn't explain why it was wrong other than to say union voices good corporate voices bad.
                              Now you are pulling your usual defense of claiming you already answered. (you didn't)
                              If the decision was wrong, you should be able to explain why, under the 1st amendment, it was wrong. You didn't do that. Instead, you cited to your personal beliefs.

                              Even in this answer, where you deny saying unions are good, you argue that unions should be treated differently because they are good.

                              The fact that the SCOTUS can reverse itself isn't support for your claim the decision was wrong. It is an effort to avoid admitting you made crap up.
                              Also, I note you have dropped your assertion that the SCOTUS made a "claim" about corruption.

                              Forgive me if I've lost interest in responding to your ever changing positions.

                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                                I know for a fact that UFT "volunteered" members to appear at political events for many years, and if individual members declined to "volunteer," then they faced reprecussions.



                                In 2008, SEIU Local 1199 organized a phone bank for Barack Obama at the Port Authority Bus Terminal just off of Times Square. The personnel manning the phone bank were 1199 members -- but the phone bank service is an example of a "donation in kind," in that the transport, installation, and hook-up of dozens of phone lines and their associated hardware, desks, chairs, other furnishings -- not to mention the rental of prime office space in Midtown Manhattan -- are services of value, and as such, their donation should be as regulated as mass printings or cash donations. If not, then what's to stop Bill Gates from "making a gift" of millions of dollars of prepaid advertising to the candidate of his choice? After all, it's not a cash donation.
                                But you seem to forget that unions are good so it is ok. Or so I'm told .
                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X