Yes, it narrows the viewpoint of the parties because they can pay attention to less people and still get the money they need to fund a campaign. That's what I assume people are afraid of. Except it doesn't really change anything because it was already the state of things. If anything, it opens up a future where there are a lot of little parties representing narrower and narrower interest bands. Isn't that basically what everybody wants anyway? Coalition governments and the like.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay, if you agree that the president is largely a figurehead, why do you think the election of Ron Paul would change anything?
I can't believe you are championing the ruling on that citizens united case. Do you understand the impact?
I think electing Paul would simply send a message that the status quo is not acceptable. I don't agree with him on a lot of things: I don't want a gold standard, but I do want a balanced budget amendment with teeth. I do want our military to demobilize into an almost pure defensive posture. I do agree that more power needs to be pushed down as far as possible.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It broadens the definition of citizen to include corporations, which means corporations are allowed the same protections as people. It's a bit ominous in my opinion.
You didn't address my question about Ron Paul.
Except I think Paul is actually genuine and not just mouthing the words he thinks people want to hear.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You're essentially mimicking sheeple Obama supporters- he represents something new, anti-establishment, he can change the system. But then you acknowledge the president is largely a figurehead, which means he can't really change much because he lacks the total power to do so. So at the end of the day, you support Ron Paul because he offers a different look- the same reason a lot of people latched on to Barack
They just thought he was Not BushKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And plenty of people thought Barack was genuine too.
The Canadians seem to have a better system for campaigns. As far as I understand it, there is an equal amount of public funds for each side, and so donations don't really play into it. It's more about advertising and strategy than fundraising.Jay wrote:
I think its a win for free speech. Corporations get their say regardless, now its just more open. Republicans were at a disadvantage before because they get zero union camapign contributions, now its fairly even. Dems only whine because it fucked up thei artificial competitive advantage: see MoveOn among others.Spearhead wrote:
So Jay what do you think about the Citizens United ruling? Just curious.
Yeah, but that forces people that want nothing to do with politics to fund the salaries of campaign managers and stuffTurquoise wrote:
The Canadians seem to have a better system for campaigns. As far as I understand it, there is an equal amount of public funds for each side, and so donations don't really play into it. It's more about advertising and strategy than fundraising.Jay wrote:
I think its a win for free speech. Corporations get their say regardless, now its just more open. Republicans were at a disadvantage before because they get zero union camapign contributions, now its fairly even. Dems only whine because it fucked up thei artificial competitive advantage: see MoveOn among others.Spearhead wrote:
So Jay what do you think about the Citizens United ruling? Just curious.
Unless IRV or approval voting is implemented, Citizens United just makes it easier to buy elections out in the open.Jay wrote:
Yes, it narrows the viewpoint of the parties because they can pay attention to less people and still get the money they need to fund a campaign. That's what I assume people are afraid of. Except it doesn't really change anything because it was already the state of things. If anything, it opens up a future where there are a lot of little parties representing narrower and narrower interest bands. Isn't that basically what everybody wants anyway? Coalition governments and the like.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay, if you agree that the president is largely a figurehead, why do you think the election of Ron Paul would change anything?
I can't believe you are championing the ruling on that citizens united case. Do you understand the impact?
Individual voices, unless they were billionaires, were safely ignored pre-Citizens United. This hasn't changed. The only people really negatively affected are the small lobbyist groups with no money that were only heard because there was a spending cap which made them equal to everyone else. Can't say I care much.
No, plenty of people actually believed he was genuine, just like you think Ron Paul is actually genuine. You can't just dismiss that with a smiley face. I didn't vote for Barack either, but that is besides the point.Jay wrote:
They just thought he was Not BushKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And plenty of people thought Barack was genuine too.
He was status quo progressive from my perspective, which is why I didn't vote for him.
They already are forced to fund lots of other things they want nothing to do with.Jay wrote:
Yeah, but that forces people that want nothing to do with politics to fund the salaries of campaign managers and stuffTurquoise wrote:
The Canadians seem to have a better system for campaigns. As far as I understand it, there is an equal amount of public funds for each side, and so donations don't really play into it. It's more about advertising and strategy than fundraising.Jay wrote:
I think its a win for free speech. Corporations get their say regardless, now its just more open. Republicans were at a disadvantage before because they get zero union camapign contributions, now its fairly even. Dems only whine because it fucked up thei artificial competitive advantage: see MoveOn among others.
Obama didn't have 25 years of pushing the same message behind him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, plenty of people actually believed he was genuine, just like you think Ron Paul is actually genuine. You can't just dismiss that with a smiley face. I didn't vote for Barack either, but that is besides the point.Jay wrote:
They just thought he was Not BushKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And plenty of people thought Barack was genuine too.
He was status quo progressive from my perspective, which is why I didn't vote for him.
You want to make voting compulsory too?Turquoise wrote:
They already are forced to fund lots of other things they want nothing to do with.Jay wrote:
Yeah, but that forces people that want nothing to do with politics to fund the salaries of campaign managers and stuffTurquoise wrote:
The Canadians seem to have a better system for campaigns. As far as I understand it, there is an equal amount of public funds for each side, and so donations don't really play into it. It's more about advertising and strategy than fundraising.
Ken, I have to agree with Jay here. Obama's electoral history was rather brief, so we had little evidence to see what he supported or was against.Jay wrote:
Obama didn't have 25 years of pushing the same message behind him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, plenty of people actually believed he was genuine, just like you think Ron Paul is actually genuine. You can't just dismiss that with a smiley face. I didn't vote for Barack either, but that is besides the point.Jay wrote:
They just thought he was Not Bush
He was status quo progressive from my perspective, which is why I didn't vote for him.
Nope. I draw the line there.Jay wrote:
You want to make voting compulsory too?Turquoise wrote:
They already are forced to fund lots of other things they want nothing to do with.Jay wrote:
Yeah, but that forces people that want nothing to do with politics to fund the salaries of campaign managers and stuff
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/c … 46916.htmlThe Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court -- a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad -- wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons.
And in so doing, he -- not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder -- inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis's headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision.
Whether or not either of them are genuine doesn't matter- neither of them can enact whatever it is they want to because they don't have the power. Ron Paul can have 70 years saying the same message- it doesn't change the realityTurquoise wrote:
Ken, I have to agree with Jay here. Obama's electoral history was rather brief, so we had little evidence to see what he supported or was against.Jay wrote:
Obama didn't have 25 years of pushing the same message behind him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, plenty of people actually believed he was genuine, just like you think Ron Paul is actually genuine. You can't just dismiss that with a smiley face. I didn't vote for Barack either, but that is besides the point.
Paul has been in the system for a while, and despite that, he's never been the "insider" type. He's never really compromised his ideals for the sake of money or re-election.
True... bullets change governments far surer than votes.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Whether or not either of them are genuine doesn't matter- neither of them can enact whatever it is they want to because they don't have the power. Ron Paul can have 70 years saying the same message- it doesn't change the realityTurquoise wrote:
Ken, I have to agree with Jay here. Obama's electoral history was rather brief, so we had little evidence to see what he supported or was against.Jay wrote:
Obama didn't have 25 years of pushing the same message behind him.
Paul has been in the system for a while, and despite that, he's never been the "insider" type. He's never really compromised his ideals for the sake of money or re-election.
Why?eleven bravo wrote:
citizens united is the worst thing to happen to this country since dred scott
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It broadens the definition of citizen to include corporations, which means corporations are allowed the same protections as people. It's a bit ominous in my opinion.