The Official Political Thread.

[philphan]

I mean, how can *anyone* think that a democratic system that allows ONE citizen the power to magnify his voice (and thus his vote) by 10,000,000, truly be "one man, one vote" ?[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]




I agree.
now John D. Rockefeller=Big business/big banks

Our laws do have to change just enough to help protect the people. We have went away from the republic and moved closer to a democracy out of necessity. It's our duty out citizens to help preserve the ideals of the republic as best we can.

Like John D. Rock, big buiss/banks are changing the rules forever with their greed. IMO

[MurderfaceMMA]

No one here is saying we should turf the (somewhat) free markets for something else.

The call is for smarter, better, and more effective regulations. Laws law Glass Steagall Act, which served the U.S. well for half a century, should be brought back in. Or at least a tough Volcker Rule that is not gutted by regulators and lobbyists.

We need less regulation in some areas (i.e. oil drilling), and more regulation in other areas. We certainly need to tax the living fuck out of any bank or corp that got bail out money and used it for bonuses. None of them deserve a bonus. I say they have to pay double what they spent in bonuses, and 35% interest on the overall loan. Fuck them.

I know people hate on him for bailing out the banks, but what was Obama going to do? Let them all fail, just so we can say we are good capitalists? Sure the bank owners and CEOs wouldnt have gotten paid, but the rest of us would be fucked if we went into a 2nd great depression.

[MurderfaceMMA]

No one here is saying we should turf the (somewhat) free markets for something else.

The call is for smarter, better, and more effective regulations. Laws law Glass Steagall Act, which served the U.S. well for half a century, should be brought back in. Or at least a tough Volcker Rule that is not gutted by regulators and lobbyists.

The task, however, may be impossible-- as Keyboard Pacifist points out-- the advantages for the ultra wealthy, big banks, and big business, may be so structural and systemic now, that it can't be overcome.

Mitt Romney is now the Wall Street candidate, and all his economic policies will do nothing but further re-trench those interests. And he's reaping the benefits right now from the billionaires-- out fundraising Obama and we're still months away from November. Sheldon Abelson, the billionaire casino owner, just wrote a cheque for $10 million for a Romney SuperPAC.

I mean, how can *anyone* think that a democratic system that allows ONE citizen the power to magnify his voice and his vote X millions and billions, truly be "one man, one vote" ?

Yeah there clearly needs to be some sort of regulation on this. I mean...it's one thing to let somebody spend their money how they want, but when it comes to Presidential candidates, each candidate should have equal time to talk and equal money to campaign to where even one of us could run for president, and not some Wall-Street crony beating out honest sensical guys like Ron Paul. It's a terribly flawed system. Romney almost lost his home state to Santorum, so he outspent him SIXTEEN to one.

I agree with the highlighted portion, but you and i arent presidential material. You want the guy in charge to have a degree from Havard. You want him to have experience in managing people, and he needs to have a record that shows he excells at it. He also needs to be likable and charismatic, with the ability to communicate well and debate well, without choking on the podium. He also needs to have a very good understanding of economics, world history, and international politics. There arent many people that fit description.

The average Joe with a good heart isnt going to cut it.

[counterstrike]

No one here is saying we should turf the (somewhat) free markets for something else.

The call is for smarter, better, and more effective regulations. Laws law Glass Steagall Act, which served the U.S. well for half a century, should be brought back in. Or at least a tough Volcker Rule that is not gutted by regulators and lobbyists.

We need less regulation in some areas (i.e. oil drilling), and more regulation in other areas. We certainly need to tax the living fuck out of any bank or corp that got bail out money and used it for bonuses. None of them deserve a bonus. I say they have to pay double what they spent in bonuses, and 35% interest on the overall loan. Fuck them.

I know people hate on him for bailing out the banks, but what was Obama going to do? Let them all fail, just so we can say we are good capitalists? Sure the bank owners and CEOs wouldnt have gotten paid, but the rest of us would be fucked if we went into a 2nd great depression.

I don't hate on Obama for bailing out the banks. He did what he had to do. But then he should have pressed harder to change the rules, and impose tougher regulations, so he (nor any other subsequent President) would ever have to do such bail outs again. Instead, he focused on healthcare. That's fine. But until you rebuild confidence in the economy, stabilize retail and commercial banking-- by taking away reckless betting, then there is more liquidity for banks to lend to small businesses, manufacturers, etc, you know, industries that actually employ people and do shit (unlike financial services which does nothing), the economy will remain in recession.

[50calReaper]

No one here is saying we should turf the (somewhat) free markets for something else.

The call is for smarter, better, and more effective regulations. Laws law Glass Steagall Act, which served the U.S. well for half a century, should be brought back in. Or at least a tough Volcker Rule that is not gutted by regulators and lobbyists.

The task, however, may be impossible-- as Keyboard Pacifist points out-- the advantages for the ultra wealthy, big banks, and big business, may be so structural and systemic now, that it can't be overcome.

Mitt Romney is now the Wall Street candidate, and all his economic policies will do nothing but further re-trench those interests. And he's reaping the benefits right now from the billionaires-- out fundraising Obama and we're still months away from November. Sheldon Abelson, the billionaire casino owner, just wrote a cheque for $10 million for a Romney SuperPAC.

I mean, how can *anyone* think that a democratic system that allows ONE citizen the power to magnify his voice and his vote X millions and billions, truly be "one man, one vote" ?

Yeah there clearly needs to be some sort of regulation on this. I mean...it's one thing to let somebody spend their money how they want, but when it comes to Presidential candidates, each candidate should have equal time to talk and equal money to campaign to where even one of us could run for president, and not some Wall-Street crony beating out honest sensical guys like Ron Paul. It's a terribly flawed system. Romney almost lost his home state to Santorum, so he outspent him SIXTEEN to one.

I agree with the highlighted portion, but you and i arent presidential material. You want the guy in charge to have a degree from Havard. You want him to have experience in managing people, and he needs to have a record that shows he excells at it. He also needs to be likable and charismatic, with the ability to communicate well and debate well, without choking on the podium. He also needs to have a very good understanding of economics, world history, and international politics. There arent many people that fit description.

The average Joe with a good heart isnt going to cut it.

That's the whole concept of voting...

Do you really think if some average Joe with a pocket-protector went up there and choked, didn't know what he was talking about, and had a history of drunk driving, people would actually vote for him? That's what democracy is supposed to be. The citizens vote for the person who they want to represent them as citizens of the United States, and NOT whoever has the most money and therefore the most commercials and billboards. "I'm a mormon." Yeah who gives a fuck Romney, we know you're the one putting up those billboards.

[MurderfaceMMA]

The problem is we cant give $100,000,000 campaign fund to every guy that wants a shot at the POTUS. The GOP and Democratic party needs to pick 7-10 guys they think my have a chance, which is basically what we do now. There needs to be some tweaking to the process though. One thing is for sure, they arent going to back someone who has no experience holding political office. Its always going to be a life long politician that gets picked.

[50calReaper]

The problem is we cant give $100,000,000 campaign fund to every guy that wants a shot at the POTUS. The GOP and Democratic party needs to pick 7-10 guys they think my have a chance, which is basically what we do now. There needs to be some tweaking to the process though. One thing is for sure, they arent going to back someone who has no experience holding political office. Its always going to be a life long politician that gets picked.

See that's the problem. Our country is on the verge of complete financial ruin, and we're still spending hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns. When did we accept the notion that you have to spend $100,000,000 on campaigns? When I suggested giving people equal money, I was not suggesting a price anywhere near that range. It should not be that expensive. Besides, there are plenty of life long politicians with clear heads on their shoulders that just simply can't run because of the financial variable. Ron Paul is the only one of those guys that has been able to somewhat get his head above water, and look how far that has gotten him. Overwhelming support during his campaign and visits to other states, and on the internet. No support in the polls, and that is NOT because Paul supporters are lazy and Romney supporters are proactive

The system is broken and needs to be completely gutted.

[counterstrike]

Sheldon Adelson Tops Romney Donor List That Now Includes 32 Billionaires

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconno ... onaires/2/


How Karl Rove's Billionaire-Backed Super PAC Will Be Election Game Changer

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconno ... e-changer/


Sheldon Adelson To Lavish $71 Million In Casino Money On GOP Super PACS, Nonprofits

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/1 ... 00149.html


McCain says Adelson puts foreign money into campaign

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-hab ... 26283.html

[TheAssassin]

What do you guys think of the Electoral College?

[philphan]

What do you guys think of the Electoral College?

I think it is an outdated practice that takes away the true value of each vote cast. It has made tampering or cheating in an election much easier over the years.

It is something that should have been changed long ago but neither side wanted to change because it would take away some of their power. Its just one step in a lot of changes that need to be made to the entire election process.

[KC Masterpiece]

What do you guys think of the Electoral College?

It's like a decaying limb on the body of a leper, IMO

[Lsquared]

[agonzalez1]

What do you guys think of the Electoral College?

we are a Constitutional Republic, still, thank god!

Electors are a good thing.

[agonzalez1]

[cerambus]

For me campaign finance reform is the only issue that matters. All other issues must wait for this issue to be resolved before we can start to believe that our representatives are representing our interests. The electoral college is not perfect, but if it was not beholden to large money interests it would be better. There is something to be said for not allowing our policy to be determined by large cities on the coast while neglecting middle America. Of course this is a spectrum for which the calibration can be debated. I continue to hope that we have reached a point where both members of the right and left can unite behind this single issue (finance of campaigns) to exact needed change. If our politicians are not representing us, but are representing international corporations, we are screwed. They will do whatever is needed to be elected. They are dependent on the money needed for ads. Politicians are cowards who will bow or cater to whatever works best for them. My hope was that outlets like Youtube and Facebook would eliminate the need for all of the money in traditional political campaigns. It hasn't so far, but could. We talk a lot about the need to raise millions or billions of dollars to run a campaign because it is assumed to be true. Wouldn't it be nice if for the low cost of free (a youtube account) a candidate could spread their message and rally voters? It would require us (the voters) to be active enough based on these free messages to convince people that TV adds are not needed

Good to see you all still here