PDA

View Full Version : Elections The oligarchy is on. Billionaires financing elections.


Direckshun
05-29-2012, 10:54 AM
What a freaking disaster (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/right-wing-billionaires-behind-mitt-romney-20120524).

This is Rolling Stone, so it's naturally highlighting the Romney angle. But if you honestly think billionaires are not throwing tens of millions into Obama's campaign, you're deluded.

This is Citizens United. This is what happens when elections are privately financed, rather than publicly financed. $50+ million dollars from 16 freaking people -- they are literally buying policy that will favor them against everybody else. If the interests of 16 billionaires ever collided with 100 million people, which they sometimes do, they're getting the green light, not everybody else.

Public financing, people.

Public financing. Public financing.

That allows for a democracy that puts everybody on the same fighting weight. It doesn't legitimize a handful of people against everybody else because they have all the resources.

Imagine you are Obama. Imagine you are Romney. These people, more now than ever before, drive your election prospects. You must coddle them with as many policy advantages as possible.

I want somebody to tell me this is anything positive for our democracy. I want somebody to tell me how this isn't the formalization of an oligarchy.

I want somebody to tell me the rich don't run our democracy.

Ace Gunner
05-29-2012, 11:16 AM
fucking spoon fed idiots in this country.

Donger
05-29-2012, 11:55 AM
I want somebody to tell me how this isn't the formalization of an oligarchy.

I want somebody to tell me the rich don't run our democracy.

Because each voter can make his or her vote based on their opinions and their will, not the people giving campaign donations.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 11:57 AM
Because each voter can make his or her vote based on their opinions and their will, not the people giving campaign donations.

If candidates are effectively getting screened by the incredibly wealthy, it doesn't matter.

Voters in Iran can freely select whomever they want as well, but all candidates must be approved by the Supreme Leader.

This is a problem that pre-dated Citizens United but was accelerated by it.

Voters have optimal choice if all candidates are given the same platform from which they can promote themselves, untainted by special interests and a handful of billionaires.

Donger
05-29-2012, 11:59 AM
If candidates are effectively getting screened by the incredibly wealthy, it doesn't matter.

Voters in Iran can freely select whomever they want as well, but all candidates must be approved by the Supreme Leader.

This is a problem that pre-dated Citizens United but was accelerated by it.

Voters have optimal choice if all candidates are given the same platform from which they can promote themselves, untainted by special interests and a handful of billionaires.

I was just answering your questions. How do you know that the candidates are being screened, BTW?

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 12:03 PM
I was just answering your questions. How do you know that the candidates are being screened, BTW?

Politicians cannot get to the national scene in the vast majority of cases without first touring the state and local circuits, so to speak. And you can't get any footholds on the local scenes without asking rich people for money.

Widespread knowledge. The President himself has written about it.

Donger
05-29-2012, 12:06 PM
Politicians cannot get to the national scene in the vast majority of cases without first touring the state and local circuits, so to speak. And you can't get any footholds on the local scenes without asking rich people for money.

Widespread knowledge. The President himself has written about it.

You just seem to have made up your mind that POTUS is a mere puppet for the wealthy.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 12:07 PM
You just seem to have made up your mind that POTUS is a mere puppet for the wealthy.

k

BucEyedPea
05-29-2012, 12:15 PM
****ing spoon fed idiots in this country.

The idiots on both sides of the aisle that buy the partisan charade that there's a dichotomy between the two parties.

Donger
05-29-2012, 12:16 PM
k

Well, if you don't believe that, your statements in the OP don't make any sense.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 12:36 PM
Well, if you don't believe that, your statements in the OP don't make any sense.

Not necessarily.

blaise
05-29-2012, 12:41 PM
Obama's different because he really doesn't like taking the money.

gblowfish
05-29-2012, 12:42 PM
One guy, two puppets.
The Bill Hicks Explanation of American Politics.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nXpdJLJqG9U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

HonestChieffan
05-29-2012, 12:52 PM
Who is the puppet master behind Obama?

BucEyedPea
05-29-2012, 12:53 PM
Who is the puppet master behind Obama?
The same one(s) behind Romney/Bush—Goldman Sachs.

HonestChieffan
05-29-2012, 01:03 PM
The same one(s) behind Romney/Bush—Goldman Sachs.

No, its bigger than that

BucEyedPea
05-29-2012, 01:26 PM
No, its bigger than that



Not necessarily. Rule by an oligarchy is rule by a small group....there are more than benefit than just GS. Just call them the "Globalists."
You can include Rockefeller interests in there. And other linked-to-govt power corporations. Afterall, when four presidents stood on that stage when nafta was passed, look who was standing behind them?

HonestChieffan
05-29-2012, 01:32 PM
I knew they had an -ist name and had faith you would know what it was

BucEyedPea
05-29-2012, 01:35 PM
I knew they had an -ist name and had faith you would know what it was

No, know "who" it is. People who haven't researched or who refuse to see it cannot confront evil and are in denial. Just like the German people circa 1930's. Meanwhile, both parties are dedicated to fascism, the police state and starting wars of aggression, (mass murder), while demonizing a whole new group.

Ace Gunner
05-29-2012, 01:55 PM
One guy, two puppets.
The Bill Hicks Explanation of American Politics.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nXpdJLJqG9U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


"btw -- keep drinkin beer you fuckin morons"

:clap:

it's not about reducing drug use. in fact it's just the opposite and americans, most of them can't see it. maybe because they are drugged out morons.

Ace Gunner
05-29-2012, 01:58 PM
The idiots on both sides of the aisle that buy the partisan charade that there's a dichotomy between the two parties.

yes, they are united in lunacy and they don't even know it. and if you try to point it out to them, they still don't want to know it.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2012, 02:08 PM
yes, they are united in lunacy and they don't even know it. and if you try to point it out to them, they still don't want to know it.

Here's one example: Romney is considering NeoCon Lieberman for Secretary of State. His voting record is on part with socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. They call it bi-partisanship.

DJJasonp
05-29-2012, 02:52 PM
The same one(s) behind Romney/Bush—Goldman Sachs.

BINGO!

oldandslow
05-29-2012, 03:54 PM
You just seem to have made up your mind that POTUS is a mere puppet for the wealthy.

Pretty much. Money buys influence. Money buys ad time. Money buys candidacy.

Most everyone seems ok with the wealth flowing upward. Present occupant of the Oval office included.

RedNeckRaider
05-29-2012, 04:39 PM
Agree or disagree, lobbists influence our country as much as anyone~

Democracy is dead ... lobbyists rule America
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-09-01/commentary/30781156_1_lobbyists-democracy-lobbying

HonestChieffan
05-29-2012, 04:41 PM
It should be required the poor give money so everyone plays.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 04:43 PM
Agree or disagree, lobbists influence our country as much as anyone~

Democracy is dead ... lobbyists rule America
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-09-01/commentary/30781156_1_lobbyists-democracy-lobbying

I don't mind lobbying -- lobbying is constitutional, and it follows directly from the 1st amendment's right to assemble.

But public financing would be a step in the direction of lobbying that would primarily work over lawmakers by assembling sheer size of membership, not simply assembling grotesque dollar amounts. A result I regard as more democratic and representative of the people.

Public financing, public financing, public financing.

HonestChieffan
05-29-2012, 04:46 PM
I don't mind lobbying -- lobbying is constitutional, and it follows directly from the 1st amendment's right to assemble.

But public financing would be a step in the direction of lobbying that would primarily work over lawmakers by assembling sheer size of membership, not simply assembling grotesque dollar amounts. A result I regard as more democratic and representative of the people.

Public financing, public financing, public financing.


Tie public financing to a balanced budget and a reduction in debt. Till then, in case you didn't hear, the government is broke and we don't have money for such foolishness now.

RedNeckRaider
05-29-2012, 05:01 PM
I don't mind lobbying -- lobbying is constitutional, and it follows directly from the 1st amendment's right to assemble.

But public financing would be a step in the direction of lobbying that would primarily work over lawmakers by assembling sheer size of membership, not simply assembling grotesque dollar amounts. A result I regard as more democratic and representative of the people.

Public financing, public financing, public financing.

Do you really believe Barry is at a financial disadvantage? He has been campaigning on the tax payers dime blatantly for quite awhile, all the while being backed flush compared to anyone. This appears as another "look at the evil way the right exploits us thread". You and I know both parties play the same game~

Ace Gunner
05-29-2012, 05:02 PM
Do you really believe Barry is at a financial disadvantage? He has been campaigning on the tax payers dime blatantly for quite awhile, all the while being back flush compared to anyone. This appears as another "look at the evil way the right exploits us thread". You and I know both parties play the same game~

has any other president done this? :D

RedNeckRaider
05-29-2012, 05:07 PM
has any other president done this? :D

Bush! it was Bush damn it! To answer your question yes, every incumbent has. It was just a response to a poster who is known for waving a white flag with one hand with his fingers crossed on the other~

Reaper16
05-29-2012, 05:25 PM
Do you really believe Barry is at a financial disadvantage? He has been campaigning on the tax payers dime blatantly for quite awhile, all the while being backed flush compared to anyone. This appears as another "look at the evil way the right exploits us thread". You and I know both parties play the same game~

Did you even read the OP?

RedNeckRaider
05-29-2012, 05:35 PM
Did you even read the OP?

Yes, but knowing the history of this poster, before it is over it will be spun into the left only doing it to fight off the right. After all the left would have put an end to this but the evil right will not allow it~

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 08:56 PM
Do you really believe Barry is at a financial disadvantage? He has been campaigning on the tax payers dime blatantly for quite awhile, all the while being backed flush compared to anyone. This appears as another "look at the evil way the right exploits us thread". You and I know both parties play the same game~

I think you did not read the OP.

RaiderH8r
05-29-2012, 09:11 PM
What a freaking disaster (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/right-wing-billionaires-behind-mitt-romney-20120524).

This is Rolling Stone, so it's naturally highlighting the Romney angle. But if you honestly think billionaires are not throwing tens of millions into Obama's campaign, you're deluded.

This is Citizens United. This is what happens when elections are privately financed, rather than publicly financed. $50+ million dollars from 16 freaking people -- they are literally buying policy that will favor them against everybody else. If the interests of 16 billionaires ever collided with 100 million people, which they sometimes do, they're getting the green light, not everybody else.

Public financing, people.

Public financing. Public financing.

That allows for a democracy that puts everybody on the same fighting weight. It doesn't legitimize a handful of people against everybody else because they have all the resources.

Imagine you are Obama. Imagine you are Romney. These people, more now than ever before, drive your election prospects. You must coddle them with as many policy advantages as possible.

I want somebody to tell me this is anything positive for our democracy. I want somebody to tell me how this isn't the formalization of an oligarchy.

I want somebody to tell me the rich don't run our democracy.

This didn't matter to Rolling Stone when Soros was funding Media Matters and any number of other leftist "watchdog" groups so excuse me if I am not surprised when the leftists get butthurt because it has gone from Soros funding elections with his own money or Richard Trumka funneling dues money to his pet Members. Dues money that puts new enviro religious butters into office whose policies put Trumka's members out of work. So it has gone from 2 to 16.

Aries Walker
05-29-2012, 09:18 PM
Citizens United was the worst Supreme Court decision made since . . . well, I might have to go back to Dred Scott.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2012, 09:30 PM
Citizens United was the worst Supreme Court decision made since . . . well, I might have to go back to Dred Scott.

Can always add an Amendment. Otherwise, the decision was right going by the language of the document.

RaiderH8r
05-29-2012, 09:42 PM
Can always add an Amendment. Otherwise, the decision was right going by the language of the document.

No amount of money votes in lieu of the individual. It remains, as always, the responsibility of the voter to be informed.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 10:19 PM
This didn't matter to Rolling Stone when Soros was funding Media Matters and any number of other leftist "watchdog" groups so excuse me if I am not surprised when the leftists get butthurt because it has gone from Soros funding elections with his own money or Richard Trumka funneling dues money to his pet Members. Dues money that puts new enviro religious butters into office whose policies put Trumka's members out of work. So it has gone from 2 to 16.

So you agree with me that this is a poisonous trend in democracy.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2012, 11:04 PM
No amount of money votes in lieu of the individual. It remains, as always, the responsibility of the voter to be informed.

This is true. However, an amendment is a valid procedure instead of just relying on courts to uphold legislation.

RedNeckRaider
05-30-2012, 05:13 AM
I think you did not read the OP.

Read my reply to reap~

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 08:01 AM
Read my reply to reap~

So you were replying to how you think I feel, rather than to what I said.

Makes all the sense in the world.

RedNeckRaider
05-30-2012, 09:20 AM
So you were replying to how you think I feel, rather than to what I said.

Makes all the sense in the world.

I have just seen your act. You will point out a flaw in our government, and play sincere, later doubling back with a left wing slant. Always portraying democrats as poor victims who are forced to participate, because the republicans are evil. It is very played out. You are the sportsshrink of the left~

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 09:30 AM
I have just seen your act. You will point out a flaw in our government, and play sincere, later doubling back with a left wing slant. Always portraying democrats as poor victims who are forced to participate, because the republicans are evil. It is very played out. You are the sportsshrink of the left~

I always considered myself the RedNeckRaider of the left.

RedNeckRaider
05-30-2012, 09:32 AM
I always considered myself the RedNeckRaider of the left.

LMAO Ok that made me chuckle~

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 09:39 AM
LMAO Ok that made me chuckle~

We're basically the same guy, you and I.

RedNeckRaider
05-30-2012, 09:50 AM
We're basically the same guy, you and I.

That my friend is a pretty big reach. Although I am in the middle, I am miles to the right of you~

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 09:53 AM
That my friend is a pretty big reach. Although I am in the middle, I am miles to the right of you~

I'm the RedNeckRaider of the left, though. That's my point. A spitting image, in my opinion.

Taco John
05-30-2012, 10:53 AM
http://i.imgur.com/kpb7i.jpg

RedNeckRaider
05-30-2012, 10:55 AM
http://i.imgur.com/kpb7i.jpg

LMAO pretty much~

RaiderH8r
05-30-2012, 03:40 PM
So you agree with me that this is a poisonous trend in democracy.

No. More voices is better.

Again, people owe it to themselves and their country to sift the wheat from the chaff, not the other way around. If they are spoonfed by a 527 then they will be spoonfed by public financing. BFD.

Money and the ability to spend it to voice a position, idea, or opinion is protected speech. Pure and simple. Period. Don't like it? Start a 527 and collect money from like minded individuals to put your ideas, philosophies, and beliefs into the market of competitive ideas.

We should limit how wide of a circulation the NY Times can have since they are a 527 shill for D's anyway.

RaiderH8r
05-30-2012, 03:41 PM
This is true. However, an amendment is a valid procedure instead of just relying on courts to uphold legislation.

You're right. A constitutional amendment would be in order and the appropriate way to address this should one feel so inclined.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 04:55 PM
No. More voices is better.

How does having billionaires pour enormous sums into elections allow for more voices?

It seems to me to actually provide for less.

HonestChieffan
05-30-2012, 05:11 PM
How does having billionaires pour enormous sums into elections allow for more voices?

It seems to me to actually provide for less.

Thats because you do not see a corporation as representing its shareholders. You see them as evil. Its not just billionaires you want to censor, its all those who hold a stake in companies who speak to issues that are important.

banyon
05-30-2012, 08:30 PM
Thats because you do not see a corporation as representing its shareholders. You see them as evil. Its not just billionaires you want to censor, its all those who hold a stake in companies who speak to issues that are important.

Corporations are controlled by those with greater than 51% of the shares. That's rarely ma and pa kettle.

RaiderH8r
05-30-2012, 08:45 PM
How does having billionaires pour enormous sums into elections allow for more voices?

It seems to me to actually provide for less.

Set up your own 527, collect money and spout your drivel. Boom. More voices. The ability to put your message out there is free speech. Limiting that ability is limiting free speech.

HonestChieffan
05-30-2012, 10:12 PM
Corporations are controlled by those with greater than 51% of the shares. That's rarely ma and pa kettle.

What utter bullshit.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2012, 10:35 PM
What utter bullshit.

The bullshit blinds your stoopid eyes....that's the bullshit, alright. :rolleyes:

banyon
05-30-2012, 10:38 PM
What utter bullshit.

Are you familiar with some different set of corporate rules that dont elect their boards by majority vote?

mikey23545
05-30-2012, 11:09 PM
The reasons liberals always want public funding of elections are pretty obvious.

It allows the state to prevent the formation of any third parties such as the Tea Party, or prevent then being able to gain any traction in the political arena.

If any party should gain a supermajority the potential for abuse is obvious since the government holds the purse strings for campaign spending.

Politicians are no longer beholden to the public in any way, only to the all-powerful state.

It is a way to force taxpayers to support political parties they would never support otherwise.

Etc, etc, etc...

dirk digler
05-30-2012, 11:16 PM
The reasons liberals always want public funding of elections are pretty obvious.

It allows the state to prevent the formation of any third parties such as the Tea Party, or prevent then being able to gain any traction in the political arena.

If any party should gain a supermajority the potential for abuse is obvious since the government holds the purse strings for campaign spending.

Politicians are no longer beholden to the public in any way, only to the all-powerful state.

It is a way to force taxpayers to support political parties they would never support otherwise.

Etc, etc, etc...

I believe if we had public financing the 2 party system would disappear and anyone could run for office without having to raise a billion dollars. I think it would open the process up not shrink it.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 10:11 AM
Set up your own 527, collect money and spout your drivel. Boom. More voices. The ability to put your message out there is free speech. Limiting that ability is limiting free speech.

The point isn't that our voices aren't out there.

It's that they matter less and less if what you and I contribute is getting crowded out by billionaires who are single-handedly paying sums of which we can't even meet a fraction.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 10:13 AM
I believe if we had public financing the 2 party system would disappear and anyone could run for office without having to raise a billion dollars. I think it would open the process up not shrink it.

Very possible.

I wouldn't say guaranteed, but much more possible.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2012, 11:25 AM
Public finance is a fools errand. You would never be able to stop spending by independent organizations and organized groups who represent an issue or an interest. It would Just increase the taxpayers burden.

Ace Gunner
05-31-2012, 11:35 AM
I believe if we had public financing the 2 party system would disappear and anyone could run for office without having to raise a billion dollars. I think it would open the process up not shrink it.

agreed. and pay them min wage.