Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Aug 4, 2011.
This system is so broken. 539 powerful jobs are basically yours, if you can afford them.
The Roberts Court is all about selling America to the highest bidder, whether domestic or foreign. We need another liberal on the bench to counteract his terrorizing of the American people.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Yes I agree. When you have to waste 287 million to convince a country you are the best candidate something is wrong.
This is messed up.
But instead of saying that again and again, what are the specific measures against this kind of thing?
Reforming campaign finance (and campaigns) would, more than any other single thing, give this country back to the people.
Campaigns should not cost hundreds of millions of dollars and last almost two years. Heck, congressmen are elected every two years and basically have to start fundraising and campaigning for the next election the minute they are elected. (The fact that Michelle Bachmann had to stop campaigning, albeit for President, in Iowa to go back to Washington of the debt ceiling vote says it all)
Also, it's not hard to imagine that these companies and individuals that are making large contributions will want something in return at some point.
Making elections cheaper to campaign for, and reducing the amount of time for campaigning would mean that those who already hold elected office would action be able to focus on their job. It would also mean that elected officials wouldn't be beholden to their million dollar contributors.
Seriously, they are all saying that people need jobs and are running out of money and the president is racking up 36k a person.
Granted it is not just Obama but every president before and after him and every other politician that sells their campaign to the highest bidder.
Damn, I missed that.
Were they available on TicketMaster.
That's less than one USD per person.
That's only one office, well two if you include the VP.
How much for all the other congressmen, governors, state congressmen, and the myriads of other elected offices in the US?
The only way to reform will never happen, every candidate gets no more than 5 million to use as they see fit. If they drop out of the campaign the money goes back into the pot. All TV ads are non profit PSA's since all candidates are going for public office. Most of the money raised currently is going to paying TV networks for ad time. All candidates get equal commercial time on TV. One person cannot load up the airways with crap drowning out everyone else, and all commercials have to be factual and non smear.
Everything in context of course. This is the US presidency we're talking about.
Don't mean to single out your post, nor to derail the thread, but does the term "terror" mean anything any more? Seriously.
I know mcrain will, if I don't preempt him, point to all of Bush's over- and mis-uses of the term. And that's fine. I wouldn't disagree. But we talk about John Boehner's"economic terrorism," or the GOP "holding the American people hostage," and you have to ask whether these words have meaning any more. Seriously, what do we do the next time someone with firearms says he is going to kill all the Pan Am (or the like) passengers aboard his plane unless XY&Z happens? If "terrorist" is reserved for fiscal matters, and "hostage" for debt negotiations, what terms do we use? "Super Terrortist?" "Hostage - fo' real!"
It's a complicated issue. For me the most immediately disturbing part is the direct role that corporations can play in the political process. As a group they are far wealthier than any individual and also much harder to nail down legally, since they can be created and dissolved rapidly.
Add it to the list:
And many, many more...
Did the word terror have any meaning during the Crusades/Inquisition/Reformation/Salem Witch Trials? If it did then, it certainly does now and terrorizing a country through the allowance of unlimited corporate contributions to elections is certainly equal in the end to any other form or terror.
So what is your point? That I'm right? That I'm wrong? That it's no big deal? That it is a big deal?
That because other words are meaningless, who cares?
Then they would do these fake informing companies that do nothing more than trash the other candidate. They would be claiming they are "informing" the public but it is pure campaign finances
that is how elections are won ... show me the money
The ONLY difference between what the GOP did and "terrorism" in its accepted meaning is that instead of violence or threats of violence, it was economic catastrophe or the threat of economic catastrophe. Which, by the way, had the potential to kill real people.
Hostage crisis doesn't really fit either because instead of a person being held, it's the economy.
Blackmail? That doesn't really work either because that involves payment being extracted by intimidation, threats of force, etc...
Perhaps the terms don't fit perfectly, but they are close enough to be used, if for no reason other than to demonstrate how incredibly similar the situation is to the term used.
287 billion is way off.
Catch-22, buddy, Catch-22. The people with the power to ban this practice won't. You think the guys who benefit most from this stuff is gonna pass a law banning it?
The word you are looking for is coercion.
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
Doesn't the term broken infer that at some stage US campaign finance was hunky dory?
When it's not your ox that is being gored, yes.
Unfortunately, it's the American people that are the ox in this scenario.