Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

KLXVER said:
NightlyPoe said:

Smollett turned the corruption to 11 I'd say.  Freakin' hell.  Dude could have literally started a riot.

That was just insane. I couldn't believe it.

Not only didn't they show anything to refute anything in the overwhelming amount of evidence the police had gathered, they didn't even have anything that questioned a single thing. It was just drop the charges, wipe his record clean and close the case so no one can ask us about it...

The police were aghast at the decision. Their investigation was just swept under the rug over a $10,000 donation and some community service. The police chief publicly stated that justice wasn't served and that the city is owed an apology. And for those to whom it matters, yes, the police chief is black. For this to happen on such a nationalized case too, this was truly a devastating blow to public trust in the justice system. The people involved need to be impeached and investigated for corruption.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

Is the special Olympics a government ran event?

No, but an American sports organization founded in the 1960s that is dependent on various sources including the US government.

They will now have to cut their budget, operate in the red or increase their other revenue streams (higher fees, etc...).  Because apparently we can't afford that $18 million per year we provide....because POTUS can't cut 3 of his golf trips per year (same costs).

It would be an awesome gesture if Trump or any of his billionaire cabinet ponied up the difference.  But...see picture.  That's not going to happen.

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.



jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

No, but an American sports organization founded in the 1960s that is dependent on various sources including the US government.

They will now have to cut their budget, operate in the red or increase their other revenue streams (higher fees, etc...).  Because apparently we can't afford that $18 million per year we provide....because POTUS can't cut 3 of his golf trips per year (same costs).

It would be an awesome gesture if Trump or any of his billionaire cabinet ponied up the difference.  But...see picture.  That's not going to happen.

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.

You know the government doesn't run a lot of what it helps fund, right?  So nothing to the states either?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.

You know the government doesn't run a lot of what it helps fund, right?  So nothing to the states either?

Yeah I do. Like if its a contact like we have with SpaceX thats understandable since they are making stuff for the government to use. But something like the special olympics which we give them money to run their own private event should not be government funded

States are different since they are part of our government.

Last edited by jason1637 - on 26 March 2019

jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

No, but an American sports organization founded in the 1960s that is dependent on various sources including the US government.

They will now have to cut their budget, operate in the red or increase their other revenue streams (higher fees, etc...).  Because apparently we can't afford that $18 million per year we provide....because POTUS can't cut 3 of his golf trips per year (same costs).

It would be an awesome gesture if Trump or any of his billionaire cabinet ponied up the difference.  But...see picture.  That's not going to happen.

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.

Then how do you fund public organizations that act independently from the government? No, I don't think you should categorically bar any instance of funding a non-government organization with government money. If it performs a good public service, and does so in an efficient, non-corrupt, and not-for-profit way, it's a good idea to fund it as it can perform its mission without the inefficiency of partisan gridlock. Sure there are other ways to fund such organizations, but they usually aren't enough, and these things tend to be worth it for the public good. If it's something people want, but it would suffer if corporate greed got involved, and would also suffer if the government could corrupt it or gum it up with partisan bickering, a non-government organization is the best option. We should be using them for a lot more.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

You know the government doesn't run a lot of what it helps fund, right?  So nothing to the states either?

Yeah I do. Like if its a contact like they have with SpaceX thats understandable since they are making stuff for the government to use. But something like the special olympics which we giive them money and they run their private event should not get government funding.

States are different since they are part of our government.

So no government funding whatsoever unless it's another government entity.  Interesting.

There goes the National Endowment for the Arts, National Science Foundation, PBS, NPR, federal grants, the Small Business Administration, National Institute of Health, about 40 major labs including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory...and so much more.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

HylianSwordsman said:
jason1637 said:

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.

Then how do you fund public organizations that act independently from the government? No, I don't think you should categorically bar any instance of funding a non-government organization with government money. If it performs a good public service, and does so in an efficient, non-corrupt, and not-for-profit way, it's a good idea to fund it as it can perform its mission without the inefficiency of partisan gridlock. Sure there are other ways to fund such organizations, but they usually aren't enough, and these things tend to be worth it for the public good. If it's something people want, but it would suffer if corporate greed got involved, and would also suffer if the government could corrupt it or gum it up with partisan bickering, a non-government organization is the best option. We should be using them for a lot more.

Well you dont. If the government wants to fund a certain program them they should make a government program for it. Government money should be spent om government run programs and contracts only.



SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

Yeah I do. Like if its a contact like they have with SpaceX thats understandable since they are making stuff for the government to use. But something like the special olympics which we giive them money and they run their private event should not get government funding.

States are different since they are part of our government.

So no government funding whatsoever unless it's another government entity.  Interesting.

There goes the National Endowment for the Arts, National Science Foundation, PBS, NPR, federal grants, the Small Business Administration, National Institute of Health, about 40 major labs including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory...and so much more.

Shrug I guess. The government shouldn't fund them.



jason1637 said:
HylianSwordsman said:

Then how do you fund public organizations that act independently from the government? No, I don't think you should categorically bar any instance of funding a non-government organization with government money. If it performs a good public service, and does so in an efficient, non-corrupt, and not-for-profit way, it's a good idea to fund it as it can perform its mission without the inefficiency of partisan gridlock. Sure there are other ways to fund such organizations, but they usually aren't enough, and these things tend to be worth it for the public good. If it's something people want, but it would suffer if corporate greed got involved, and would also suffer if the government could corrupt it or gum it up with partisan bickering, a non-government organization is the best option. We should be using them for a lot more.

Well you dont. If the government wants to fund a certain program them they should make a government program for it. Government money should be spent om government run programs and contracts only.

Like I said, if it's in the public interest, and they can run it better than a government program and without corporate greed, why not spend government money on a non-government organization? I mean it's our money, if that's how we want it spent (as a democratic whole, not as individuals obviously), then it should be spent that way.



HylianSwordsman said:
jason1637 said:

Well you dont. If the government wants to fund a certain program them they should make a government program for it. Government money should be spent om government run programs and contracts only.

Like I said, if it's in the public interest, and they can run it better than a government program and without corporate greed, why not spend government money on a non-government organization? I mean it's our money, if that's how we want it spent (as a democratic whole, not as individuals obviously), then it should be spent that way.

what are you defining as a "democratic whole"? the majority of the population?



My pronouns are REX and REY