How to ACTUALLY make America great again

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
For saying that, @desert dude calls you a boot-licker. To him freedom to pour unlimited cash to buy influence is the ultimate freedom to be protected by correct thinkers everywhere. Take that boot licker.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to believe that's actually why they oppose campaign finance reform. They know their ideas themselves don't hold enough merit to pass through the gauntlet of modern American opinion, so they support a system that allows them to win, even if they must cheat
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'm beginning to believe that's actually why they oppose campaign finance reform. They know their ideas themselves don't hold enough merit to pass through the gauntlet of modern American opinion, so they support a system that allows them to win, even if they must cheat
Click to expand...
I was just pulling ty's chain. But yeah, their explanation for why cash is the same as speech requires a couple of figurative speech maneuvers on par with Olympic level gymnastics. The longer an explanation takes, the more full of bullshit it gets.

How about: Corporations aren't people and money isn't the same as speech. Is this really that hard to understand?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I was just pulling ty's chain. But yeah, their explanation for why cash is the same as speech requires a couple of figurative speech maneuvers on par with Olympic level gymnastics. The longer an explanation takes, the more full of bullshit it gets.

How about: Corporations aren't people and money isn't the same as speech. Is this really that hard to understand?
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the reasoning goes something like this..

-it costs money to promote your opinions (buying ads for example)
-promoting your opinions equates to expressing free speech
-so, money is an expression of free speech

As you said, it's all semantics gymnastics to promote the illusion of legitimacy. As Justice Kennedy stated in the Citizens United decision "..independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."...
Citizens United v. FEC Holding

The Freedom of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. And the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the this clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Click to expand...

If I have more money, that means I have a louder voice with more influence. To those that would oppose campaign finance reform, would you mind explaining how that is democratic?
 
Ace Yonder

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
That's why there are two axis...

Sorry I had to boil this whole thing you wrote down but this morsel here is the crux of your agument, so I will respond to it directly and leave out the rest of your rant. I'll just skip the part about your opinion on my politics (since you seem to think liberal v conservative encompasses all) and I'll skip the part about your definition of what the axis mean since you're essentially correct on that part.

The vertical axis is sociopolitical, the horizontal axis is socioeconomic, the grid is social. Economics are intrinsically bound to social stratification. This is not simply my opinion and therefore not a matter of bias. This is well known in sociology.
Click to expand...
But they explicitly state, on the site, that they measure "Left-Right" by just economics (not socioeconomic), and "Libertarian-Authoritarian" by just social (not sociopolitical), and the whole grid is political. They explicitly explain that, it is not just my interpretation.
Direct quote from the site: "Left---Right: If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet. That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian." They are dismissing the social implications of left-right ENITRELY, and only measuring social policy according to the other axis. So even by your own logic, their system is flawed. What you KNOW about politics and what I am saying about them are in line. The site's own description and methodology are what is flawed, as you should easily see based on what you just wrote. Unless you are going to disbelieve what they say about their own graph, and assume they are measuring it correctly despite the fact that they explicitly state they are not.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
For saying that, @desert dude calls you a boot-licker. To him freedom to pour unlimited cash to buy influence is the ultimate freedom to be protected by correct thinkers everywhere. Take that boot licker.
Click to expand...
That's so fucking backwards I don't even know where to start.

So money should mean more than a vote?

The wealthy and powerful, merely by dint of having said wealth, should be able to get what they want without the approval of the majority of the country?

Seems to be working so far... for them, at least. Not so much for the other 99% of us.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Getting money out of politics should be a universally accepted issue, left or right. There is no good reason to allow special interests to influence our elections. Two self proclaimed "conservatives" on RIU believe that since unions influence elections, corporations should be allowed to too "since that's only fair" (unions usually backing democrats, corporations backing both democrats and republicans - "fair"..). My reply is that no, we shouldn't be allowing corporations or unions to be influencing elections, only individuals who are registered to vote. There should be limits on donations and nobody's voice should be louder than anyone else's just because they have more money to spend on a campaign. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy.

If you are against campaign finance reform, you need to seriously examine the issue in depth. This is the most important thing that we could currently work to change that would make America and all of us better
Click to expand...
Here, here! A BILLION TIMES YES! The future of our country and all within it hangs in the balance, not even exaggerating at all.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I was just pulling ty's chain. But yeah, their explanation for why cash is the same as speech requires a couple of figurative speech maneuvers on par with Olympic level gymnastics. The longer an explanation takes, the more full of bullshit it gets.

How about: Corporations aren't people and money isn't the same as speech. Is this really that hard to understand?
Click to expand...
No, unless you're used to pulling those political strings to get what you want. And of course, since they've had those strings in hand for so long, they feel rather entitled to them, as petty tyrants generally do.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'm beginning to believe that's actually why they oppose campaign finance reform. They know their ideas themselves don't hold enough merit to pass through the gauntlet of modern American opinion, so they support a system that allows them to win, even if they must cheat
Click to expand...
I think you're onto something big here. It explains everything from voter suppression to influence peddling and SuperPACs. These are power magnifiers, used to increase the influence of money to subvert and defeat other forces like social welfare or justice.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Ace Yonder said:
But they explicitly state, on the site, that they measure "Left-Right" by just economics (not socioeconomic), and "Libertarian-Authoritarian" by just social (not sociopolitical), and the whole grid is political. They explicitly explain that, it is not just my interpretation.
Direct quote from the site: "Left---Right: If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet. That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian." They are dismissing the social implications of left-right ENITRELY, and only measuring social policy according to the other axis. So even by your own logic, their system is flawed. What you KNOW about politics and what I am saying about them are in line. The site's own description and methodology are what is flawed, as you should easily see based on what you just wrote. Unless you are going to disbelieve what they say about their own graph, and assume they are measuring it correctly despite the fact that they explicitly state they are not.
Click to expand...
Two dimension grid makes more sense even in your example.

Gandhi is not to the right of Stalin or Pol Pot. He would have to be shoe-horned into that spot on your single axis but you'd be wrong.

The two dimensional grid provides separation. They were all extreme left when it comes to leftist ideas of social ownership and sharing of resources. While all were extreme left, Stalin and Pol Pot are extreme authoritarian and Gandi was more libertarian compared to those two.

With a better graphics and more debate, I bet we can come up with 3 or 4 more axes. :hump:
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
If you are against campaign finance reform, you need to seriously examine the issue in depth. This is the most important thing that we could currently work to change that would make America and all of us better
Click to expand...
Having thought it over, I believe this is the central, lynchpin issue. If the strings of campaign donations, PAC money, and in kind 'donations' a la the Clinton Foundation were unequivocally cut and the resulting separation ENFORCED, the rest would very quickly fall into place as power would return to suffrage of the voter, rather than coinage or the peerage it buys.

This is THE political issue of our lifetime. If we get it wrong, the monsters, aka shareholders and board members of defense companies and those who service them, will drag us over a cliff of a series of ever escalating wars they believe they can survive and even profit from. Such is how civilisations fell in the past and we are no different today, save in our ability to be far more thorough with our killing.

One alternative is a return to the shared prosperity of the post WWII era. I'm notholding that time up as perfect; they had plenty of flaws all the more apparent from our historical perspective. Yet their relative income and wealth equality drove the economy like no other period in history and built our country into the envy and beacon of the world.

Today, both income and wealth are more concentrated than ever and buy more political influence than ever. This isn't a coincidence. That said, runaway politicalinfluence by those who will profit from wars against scapegoats from within and outside our borders will destroy us all.

And it won't be 'patriotic'.

Sooooooooo in a very real sense it IS 'us', the poor 99%, vs 'them', the elitist 1% or less who would decide our fates based on their marginal profits. It's time to fight and win this political and ideological civil war, so that we may once again have a country worthy of handing to our children.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Ace Yonder said:
But they explicitly state, on the site, that they measure "Left-Right" by just economics (not socioeconomic), and "Libertarian-Authoritarian" by just social (not sociopolitical), and the whole grid is political. They explicitly explain that, it is not just my interpretation.
Click to expand...
"The site" I don't care about the site political compass or its questions really. If they came up with the positions for the dots on a grid, fine, but the format of that grid is not their creation. Anyway, the grid is social. The entire grid, both axis. Politics are but a facet of social discussion, as are economics. The horizontal grid is socioeconomic or simply economic, since the grid is social and the vertical axis is sociopolitical or just political since the grid is social.

Every position on the grid is therefore a social position as measured by economic and political factors. My original conclusion stands, a line from liberal to conservative is thoroughly retarded. I don't say it to insult you, it just is, it insults me.
 
Ace Yonder

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
"The site" I don't care about the site political compass or its questions really. If they came up with the positions for the dots on a grid, fine, but the format of that grid is not their creation. Anyway, the grid is social. The entire grid, both axis. Politics are but a facet of social discussion, as are economics. The horizontal grid is socioeconomic or simply economic, since the grid is social and the vertical axis is sociopolitical or just political since the grid is social.

Every position on the grid is therefore a social position as measured by economic and political factors. My original conclusion stands, a line from liberal to conservative is thoroughly retarded. I don't say it to insult you, it just is, it insults me.
Click to expand...
You are wrong about this. They make it VERY clear that this is a graph that THEY designed. It is NOT the standard graph of the political spectrum.
From their own mouths: "The uniqueness of our take on politics is reflected...." "Our essential point is that Left and Right, although far from obsolete, are essentially a measure of economics."

From Wikipedia, about Political Compass's version of the political spectrum:
"The political compass [A chart proposed by the Political Compass Organization] has two axes. One represents economic issues as right-vs-left. The other represents issues of freedom, or social issues, as authoritarian-vs-libertarian. One can determine their position on the political compass through an online quiz by the same name."
"The underlying theory of the Political Compass is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate and independent axes. The Economic (Left–Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economyshould be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations."

This is a complete redefinition of the terms "Left" and "Right" (Which are specific ideas drawn from the French revolution, and concern mainly egalitarianism, but concern a combination of social and economic policies) into purely economic terms, an idea they admit is "unique". Contrast this with what real political scientists say: "Milton Rokeach claimed that the defining difference between the left and right was that the left stressed the importance of equality more than the right."

I am not saying they are using too many axes. I am saying they are redefining the terms they use to label them to suit their own ends, and that is an undeniable fact.
 
Last edited:
Ace Yonder

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Two dimension grid makes more sense even in your example.

Gandhi is not to the right of Stalin or Pol Pot. He would have to be shoe-horned into that spot on your single axis but you'd be wrong.

The two dimensional grid provides separation. They were all extreme left when it comes to leftist ideas of social ownership and sharing of resources. While all were extreme left, Stalin and Pol Pot are extreme authoritarian and Gandi was more libertarian compared to those two.

With a better graphics and more debate, I bet we can come up with 3 or 4 more axes. :hump:
Click to expand...
I agree that the more dimensions the better. What I disagree with is that it is okay to redefine the terms being used. That is a ploy to mislead and deceive people. You cannot redefine terms that have well know, common meanings to suit your own ends. I say more dimensions, with transparency and accuracy being key in the nomenclature used when defining each of those dimensions.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Ace Yonder said:
You are wrong about this. They make it VERY clear that this is a graph that THEY designed. It is NOT the standard graph of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
I don't really care what they say, they did not invent the Nolan chart. No terms were redefined. Leftwing and Rightwing refer to socioeconomic status and thought.

Your belief that a line from conservative to liberal can encompass all social positions is atrocious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top