By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - We The People Act or Why Ron Paul is a Crazy Person

rocketpig on 03 June 2012
Kasz216 said:

Weird, my post got lost.

Either way, i'm not sure.  I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way.  I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt.  So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?

Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up.  More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.

At least campaign adds are campaign adds.

Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way.  That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around.  Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.

Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help.  (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).

So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing.  I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.

I see it as a problem with incumbents, not necessarily first-timers. After a time, incumbent politicians are in bed with so many lobbyists that they need to keep scratching backs to keep that money flowing. Look at SOPA. Almost universally, the public thought it was a terrible idea. After a time, Republicans started bailing out from under the bill. Why? They don't get Hollywood money. Their interest was minimized. But those Democrats who supported the bill and received Hollywood money, they stood firm with the bill. Shit, those dirty motherfuckers at the MPAA actually threatened Congress because of it.

That's when you know corporate America has too much influence in politics. Instead of backing off after the public went nuts over the bill, the MPAA turned into bullies, threatening those who stopped supporting the bill. The more corporate money there is in politics, the more the will of the people is marginalized. Everybody should have a say in politics but when you're dealing with entities that have billions of dollars to throw at a problem, their influence needs to be limited by somebody and elected politicians won't do it because they're the ones receiving the money.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
Mr Khan on 03 June 2012
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:

Weird, my post got lost.

Either way, i'm not sure.  I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way.  I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt.  So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?

Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up.  More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.

At least campaign adds are campaign adds.

Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way.  That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around.  Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.

Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help.  (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).

So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing.  I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.

I see it as a problem with incumbents, not necessarily first-timers. After a time, incumbent politicians are in bed with so many lobbyists that they need to keep scratching backs to keep that money flowing. Look at SOPA. Almost universally, the public thought it was a terrible idea. After a time, Republicans started bailing out from under the bill. Why? They don't get Hollywood money. Their interest was minimized. But those Democrats who supported the bill and received Hollywood money, they stood firm with the bill. Shit, those dirty motherfuckers at the MPAA actually threatened Congress because of it.

That's when you know corporate America has too much influence in politics. Instead of backing off after the public went nuts over the bill, the MPAA turned into bullies, threatening those who stopped supporting the bill. The more corporate money there is in politics, the more the will of the people is marginalized. Everybody should have a say in politics but when you're dealing with entities that have billions of dollars to throw at a problem, their influence needs to be limited by somebody and elected politicians won't do it because they're the ones receiving the money.

I'd like to see where the MPAA threatened congress. Not because i don't believe you, just interested in seeing how low they'd stoop.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

rocketpig on 03 June 2012
Mr Khan said:

I'd like to see where the MPAA threatened congress. Not because i don't believe you, just interested in seeing how low they'd stoop.

You can find their unbridled douchebaggery here:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Kasz216 on 03 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm curious, have you looked at the abrieviated ruling?  While i'm not particularly sure of the outcome, there reasoning seemed 100% spot on.  In general the "Corproations are people" thing that's quoted from it is 100% NOT what they are saying.

What they do say is that

1) Political speech is the most important speech because all other speech is derived from it.  (This is certaintly true.)

2) There is no legal distinction between corporations and news media, and the way news networks work now it's essentially campaign contributions in fact, and really are so legally as well.  ( I mean, is there any doubt that 70% of anyting on Fox News or MSNBC is more or less a campaign add at this point?)

3) Corporations are groups of people, to restrict groups of people on speaking is against the first ammendment. (Which, it is, either free speech or assembly essentially.)

 

You can question the effects of the decision, but I don't beleive you can question the reasoning or logic behind it.  Which, the court is here to interpret and judge what's legal, not to judge based on what's "better".


I see their reasoning behind the ruling and unfortunately, it makes sense.

The problem is that even though it makes sense, it's a disastrous ruling for the average American. I don't really blame the court for making the decision they did because their analysis was reasonable, I just really hated the outcome. Now it's on the shoulders of Congress, who are the receivers of all that corporate money. They're not going to do a damned thing about it. Unfortunately, this is a classic situation where the people are getting screwed from all sides while everybody else profits from it.

Weird, my post got lost.

Either way, i'm not sure.  I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way.  I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt.  So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?

Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up.  More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.

At least campaign adds are campaign adds.

 

Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way.  That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around.  Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.

Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help.  (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).

So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing.  I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.

One wonders if it is not then economically wasteful and that this big huge businesses that seem to have no money to hire people could be spending that money on something productive, rather than empirically unproductive (except we factor in that campaign donations are legal and now completely deregulated forms of lobbying)

It's not that they don't have the money to hire people. 

Companies have been posting record profits.

It's that there is no real demand out there, it was just stuff that was pushed by the government and never grew into anything.



Kasz216 on 03 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:

Weird, my post got lost.

Either way, i'm not sure.  I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way.  I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt.  So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?

Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up.  More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.

At least campaign adds are campaign adds.

Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way.  That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around.  Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.

Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help.  (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).

So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing.  I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.

I see it as a problem with incumbents, not necessarily first-timers. After a time, incumbent politicians are in bed with so many lobbyists that they need to keep scratching backs to keep that money flowing. Look at SOPA. Almost universally, the public thought it was a terrible idea. After a time, Republicans started bailing out from under the bill. Why? They don't get Hollywood money. Their interest was minimized. But those Democrats who supported the bill and received Hollywood money, they stood firm with the bill. Shit, those dirty motherfuckers at the MPAA actually threatened Congress because of it.

That's when you know corporate America has too much influence in politics. Instead of backing off after the public went nuts over the bill, the MPAA turned into bullies, threatening those who stopped supporting the bill. The more corporate money there is in politics, the more the will of the people is marginalized. Everybody should have a say in politics but when you're dealing with entities that have billions of dollars to throw at a problem, their influence needs to be limited by somebody and elected politicians won't do it because they're the ones receiving the money.

I'd like to see where the MPAA threatened congress. Not because i don't believe you, just interested in seeing how low they'd stoop.

Dude, all you'd have to do is type "MPAA Threatens Congress."

Best part of all?  MPAA Spokesman?  Chris Dodd. (I still don't know why people think Dodd Frank will hurt big banks when it was written by the guy who was investigated for taking bribes to renovate his house.)

"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake. …

I would caution people don’t make the assumption that because the quote 'Hollywood community' has been historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don’t make the false assumptions this year that because we did it in years past, we will do it this year. These issues before us -- this is the only issue that goes right to the heart of this industry."

 

http://www.techspot.com/news/47160-mpaa-threatens-congress-over-sopa-says-blackout-abuse-of-power.html



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 03 June 2012
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:

Weird, my post got lost.

Either way, i'm not sure.  I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way.  I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt.  So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?

Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up.  More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.

At least campaign adds are campaign adds.

Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way.  That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around.  Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.

Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help.  (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).

So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing.  I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.

I see it as a problem with incumbents, not necessarily first-timers. After a time, incumbent politicians are in bed with so many lobbyists that they need to keep scratching backs to keep that money flowing. Look at SOPA. Almost universally, the public thought it was a terrible idea. After a time, Republicans started bailing out from under the bill. Why? They don't get Hollywood money. Their interest was minimized. But those Democrats who supported the bill and received Hollywood money, they stood firm with the bill. Shit, those dirty motherfuckers at the MPAA actually threatened Congress because of it.

That's when you know corporate America has too much influence in politics. Instead of backing off after the public went nuts over the bill, the MPAA turned into bullies, threatening those who stopped supporting the bill. The more corporate money there is in politics, the more the will of the people is marginalized. Everybody should have a say in politics but when you're dealing with entities that have billions of dollars to throw at a problem, their influence needs to be limited by somebody and elected politicians won't do it because they're the ones receiving the money.

I don't know, i think that might be more due to off the books bribery (like Chris Dodd) then anything else... well or douchebags like John Edwards.

I mean, what are they going to do, support the politcian with the opposite position on the othre side of the isle?

My point is, no matter what laws you make, the amount of corprate money in politcs won't change.  The only thing that will change is how it's spent.

 

Unless you go full publicly funded with some heavy heavy restrictions and monitoring. on tv, which just seems impossible as far as the US is concerend, and honestly ill advised.

 

Now... anonymousness... that should be done away with though.

 

Not sure how privacy got mixed up in it.



Mr Khan on 03 June 2012

Ah, now i remember that. Dodd's performance in that whole thing just showed the depths of how woefully inept and out-of-touch the big media execs are



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 03 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
Ah, now i remember that. Dodd's performance in that whole thing just showed the depths of how woefully inept and out-of-touch the big media execs are


Well / Politicians.

I think the biggest weakness of politicians is that being so old, they don't really understand new technology that well, and therefore often end up well... making horrible laws based on new technology.

Same with judges.  I still think the best example there is the court order demanding that Geohot "Retrieve all emails with Sony's propitary code."

Someone had to explain to the court that you can't just unsend email like that.



Mr Khan on 03 June 2012
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Ah, now i remember that. Dodd's performance in that whole thing just showed the depths of how woefully inept and out-of-touch the big media execs are


Well / Politicians.

I think the biggest weakness of politicians is that being so old, they don't really understand new technology that well, and therefore often end up well... making horrible laws based on new technology.

Same with judges.  I still think the best example there is the court order demanding that Geohot "Retrieve all emails with Sony's propitary code."

Someone had to explain to the court that you can't just unsend email like that.

I was thinking more in terms of the PR war that the debate over the bill was. On  the one hand you had some of the most beloved companies of the internet and countless eloquent grassroots movements, and then on the other side you had... Chris Dodd fumbling around. Even if big media had been in the right on that, that performance was just sad compared to what the other side was pulling.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.