POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[casimir]

2 hours ago, smr-nj said:

So, the question that begs to be answered is , simply, … why?

Exactly.  Nobody here needed to know about Oblong's legs.

[Archie]

Hilary and the DNC are being sued by Donald Trump for false allegation including false allegations of Russian collusion.  Since its been proven the so called docier was a sham this could get interesting but I doubt it  would ever go to trial.  I bet they will find a nice liberal judge to throw it out. I will provide a link from  a far left anti Trump site....

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/politics/trump-sues-hillary-clinton/index.html

 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Archie

[smr-nj]

Don’t 

take

the

bait.

[smr-nj]

3 hours ago, casimir said:

Exactly.  Nobody here needed to know about Oblong's legs.

Speak for yourself. 😂

[CMRivdogs]

Not holding my breath. Too many conservative states

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

Not holding my breath. Too many conservative states

Really, dark money is the only way Republicans can win, given how morally, ethically and even intellectually bankrupt their platform has been of late.

[CMRivdogs]

I've been reading the latest book on the Watergate Scandal. Besides the break-in and cover up, the amount of money the Nixon campaign raised outside the law is just amazing. Especially for 1970-72..

[oblong]

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

I've been reading the latest book on the Watergate Scandal. Besides the break-in and cover up, the amount of money the Nixon campaign raised outside the law is just amazing. Especially for 1970-72..

What is the book called?

[CMRivdogs]

21 minutes ago, oblong said:

What is the book called?

It's Garret Graff's Watergate, A New History

He does a good job of tying a lot of things together. Not only the break-in and aftermath, but things like the "Chennault Affair", his paranoia over the Pentagon Papers, GEMSTONE, etc. Not to mention explaining some of Felt's motives as Deep Throat (It was as much an effort to undermine Patrick Grey as much as anything else)

I find it interesting in light of what is currently happening. Especially if you look at it in the time of Trump...

Edited March 25, 2022 by CMRivdogs

[ewsieg]

5 hours ago, chasfh said:

Really, dark money is the only way Republicans can win, given how morally, ethically and even intellectually bankrupt their platform has been of late.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/592027-democrats-topped-gop-in-raising-spending-dark-money-from-undisclosed-donors

Might be more support from the right than you'd think.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/592027-democrats-topped-gop-in-raising-spending-dark-money-from-undisclosed-donors

Might be more support from the right than you'd think.

Conservatives should oppose CU. It should be fundamental to conservative dogma that rights inhere in individuals, and only individuals. The only rights that flow to an organization are those of the individuals in it acting in coordination but individually. The officers in a corporation have rights as individuals to participate in the political process, there is nothing what so-ever in any sane reading of the Constitution that gives those rights to a economic entity per se, let alone where the managers are taking advantage of the resources of other individuals to act in the political sphere in ways that may well be contrary to those individuals' interests, let alone an entity (the corporation) which is wholly a creation of statue law to being with. You have to admit it's a pretty neat metaphysical bootstrapping trick to leverage fundamental rights into an entity created by a completely reversible act of a legislature.   

Let managers pay themselves the money they want to put into politics and then use it as individuals. That level of indirection creates an important and fundamental difference.

Edited March 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

8 hours ago, ewsieg said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/592027-democrats-topped-gop-in-raising-spending-dark-money-from-undisclosed-donors

Might be more support from the right than you'd think.

Well, sure, as long as it’s being allowed, of course Democrats aren’t going to unilaterally lay down their arms and get rolled over in the dark funding game. And I grant there are Democrats who are just fine playing in that muck.

My belief is that, funding aside, in strictly a marketplace of ideas, absent either dark funding or dramatic funding imbalances, and with a free and fair election landscape in play in which literally everyone who is eligible to vote can do so if only they wish to, today’s Republican Party would get slaughtered by todays’ Democratic Party.

I would like to see dark money banned outright, for everyone, regardless.

[chasfh]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Conservatives should oppose CU. It should be fundamental to conservative dogma that rights inhere in individuals, and only individuals. The only rights that flow to an organization are those of the individuals in it acting in coordination but individually. The officers in a corporation have rights as individuals to participate in the political process, there is nothing what so-ever in any sane reading of the Constitution that gives those rights to a economic entity per se, let alone where the managers are taking advantage of the resources of other individuals to act in the political sphere in ways that may well be contrary to those individuals' interests, let alone an entity (the corporation) which is wholly a creation of statue law to being with. You have to admit it's a pretty neat metaphysical bootstrapping trick to leverage fundamental rights into an entity created by a completely reversible act of a legislature.   

Let managers pay themselves the money they want to put into politics and then use it as individuals. That level of indirection creates an important and fundamental difference.

The crux of the biscuit, right here.

Let’s not pretend that corporations are zombies rising from a state of inanimacy to impose its self-directed political will on the process. A corporations’s political activities reflect the supercharged will of the most powerful person within it, usually the CEO. It’s a way for one person to cloak themselves and their personal intentions behind the imprimatur of an institution. It’s a way for such people to wield an inordinate amount of power far out of proportion to what the Founding Fathers intended for the individual citizens of the nation. Call it dark influence, maybe, although if you think about it for a few seconds, you can usually figure out who’s behind it in most cases.

Edited March 25, 2022 by chasfh

[buddha]

6 hours ago, chasfh said:

Well, sure, as long as it’s being allowed, of course Democrats aren’t going to unilaterally lay down their arms and get rolled over in the dark funding game. And I grant there are Democrats who are just fine playing in that muck.

My belief is that, funding aside, in strictly a marketplace of ideas, absent either dark funding or dramatic funding imbalances, and with a free and fair election landscape in play in which literally everyone who is eligible to vote can do so if only they wish to, today’s Republican Party would get slaughtered by todays’ Democratic Party.

I would like to see dark money banned outright, for everyone, regardless.

"if everything was "on the level" everyone would agree with me!"

signed, everyone.

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

"if everything was "on the level" everyone would agree with me!"

signed, everyone.

Considering Republicans have only won one national election in the past 34 years and Democrats in the senate represent millions more people than Republicans, I think he's spot on with that assessment. 

[buddha]

just teasing, chas.

i think the democrats have more popular positions when it comes to monetary policy, taxing the rich and on most social programs.

however, they maintain less popular positions on a whole host of social issues which costs them elections.  which is not a criticism of them, per se, because they are usually ahead of conservatives on most issues, but i do think their positions on those issues would prevent them from "landslides" over republicans.

america is still a center-right country, imo. 

[buddha]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

Considering Republicans have only won one national election in the past 34 years and Democrats in the senate represent millions more people than Republicans, I think he's spot on with that assessment. 

consider that cherry picked!

[buddha]

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Conservatives should oppose CU. It should be fundamental to conservative dogma that rights inhere in individuals, and only individuals. The only rights that flow to an organization are those of the individuals in it acting in coordination but individually. The officers in a corporation have rights as individuals to participate in the political process, there is nothing what so-ever in any sane reading of the Constitution that gives those rights to a economic entity per se, let alone where the managers are taking advantage of the resources of other individuals to act in the political sphere in ways that may well be contrary to those individuals' interests, let alone an entity (the corporation) which is wholly a creation of statue law to being with. You have to admit it's a pretty neat metaphysical bootstrapping trick to leverage fundamental rights into an entity created by a completely reversible act of a legislature.   

Let managers pay themselves the money they want to put into politics and then use it as individuals. That level of indirection creates an important and fundamental difference.

the democrats complained a ton about CU in order to fundraise off it.  they dont really care and they do just as well or better than republicans when it comes to raising money from big donors, little donors, or corrupt donors.  all that doom and gloom about how republicans will now be able to blow the poor democrats out of the water following CU because of their big money interests was all hot air to get headlines.  

you want to limit big money influence?  make it a public campaign, pay for it with tax money, and limit the amount of time for the campaign.  make it two weeks.

but then the media wont get the ad money so they'll complain about "free speech" rights.  the unions wont be able to bankroll democrats and the billionaires will have their time with republicans (and democrats) cut back.  so it'll never happen.

so now in illinois we're about to have the second biggest monied campaign foe governor between the second richest man in illinois (the current governor) and the stand in for the first richest man in illinois (ken griffin).  democracy, baby.  feel it.

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, buddha said:

you want to limit big money influence?  make it a public campaign, pay for it with tax money, and limit the amount of time for the campaign.  make it two weeks.

but then the media wont get the ad money so they'll complain about "free speech" rights.

part one - YES.

Part two - a very big dirty little secret is that CU will never be a high profile issue on US TV political commentary because they know damn well they are the recipients of 90% of that money.

Doesn't change that CU is bad law, bad politics and bad metaphysics.

Edited March 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

16 minutes ago, buddha said:

consider that cherry picked!

What is cherry picked? A Republican hasn't won a popular vote since 2004. Democrats in the senate represent millions more people than Republicans. Democrats always win the generic ballot in the house. The US is left leaning. 

[buddha]

48 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

part one - YES.

Part two - a very big dirty little secret is that CU will never be a high profile issue on US TV political commentary because they know damn well they are the recipients of 90% of that money.

Doesn't change that CU is bad law, bad politics and bad metaphysics.

i dont think that money should be equated with speech, so i think that part of the law is wrong.  bad politics?  for whom?  both parties are fine with it for the reasons ive said before.  the democrats LOVE it because it allows them to 1) use it to get a ton of money and 2) campaign off it and get their base all riled up that theyre somehow the underdog against the big bad republicans.  

win-win for democrats.

i'll let you smart people deal with the metaphysics aspect.  🙂

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

for whom? 

for US. That the parties make hay from it hardly correlates with whether it's good for the republic! 

[Archie]

On 3/24/2022 at 1:19 PM, casimir said:

Exactly.  Nobody here needed to know about Oblong's legs.

Talking about legs just like Joe Biden. 😁

[Tigerbomb13]

 

[pfife]

Remember when people kept trying to tell us that Facebook was biased against Republicans?  That was hilarious.