Do you think the Dem party should move more right, left or stay the same to win future elections?

[tangerinegreen555]

You're half right.

So he's 50% more correct than you?

 

[ttystikk]

there should be a limit, and it should be transparent. no more dark money.

focus on that before you ban me from donating my $2700.

How about we outlaw all of it outright above $200 per individual, and not one thin dime from any other entity; Candidates get funding from a government fund. Advertising is done by requiring television to offer time. Mail chimp for email campaigns.

 

[ttystikk]

Just for once consider you might be wrong about a US-wide left majority. In a country that is more conservative than you, another moderate Democratic nomination is likely. Not because money bought it but because that is the kind of leader people prefer. Kind of like 2016. (insert rage here)

In which case, ninja's point is valid.

When the discussion centers on the issues, people are well to the left of the current political center.

I disagree with your mischaracterization of the average American being conservative. We've argued all the points already and I'm firm on my conclusion that our political system is being gamed by massive cash and other influence by mega corporations and the major shareholders who own them.

 

[Fogdog]

When the discussion centers on the issues, people are well to the left of the current political center.

I disagree with your mischaracterization of the average American being conservative. We've argued all the points already and I'm firm on my conclusion that our political system is being gamed by massive cash and other influence by mega corporations and the major shareholders who own them.

You misread me. I did not say the average american is conservative. I asked you to consider the possibility that you are wrong in the idea that the majority is progressive. And there is evidence to this claim. After all, just months after Republicans unified to stop campaign finance reform in opposition to a Democratic party that was just as unified to reform campaign finances, Republican gained seats and majority status in both houses of Congress. It was a huge defeat for Democrats. Same too with support for Obamacare. Same too for voter rights. Same too for addressing climate change. None of these issues were winning ones for Democrats in the majority of states in this country. It doesn't matter what opinion polls say, just the voting polls.

I'm not saying the majority of this country is conservative, but it sure looks to me that could be true.

 

[ttystikk]

You misread me. I did not say the average american is conservative. I asked you to consider the possibility that you are wrong in the idea that the majority is progressive. And there is evidence to this claim. After all, just months after Republicans unified to stop campaign finance reform in opposition to a Democratic party that was just as unified to reform campaign finances, Republican gained seats and majority status in both houses of Congress. It was a huge defeat for Democrats. Same too with support for Obamacare. Same too for voter rights. Same too for addressing climate change. None of these issues were winning ones for Democrats in the majority of states in this country. It doesn't matter what opinion polls say, just the voting polls.

I'm not saying the majority of this country is conservative, but it sure looks to me that could be true.

I believe you're confusing the wishes of the average American with outcomes by wilfully ignoring the outsized influence of money in our political system.

And I think the average American IS the majority. The science of statistics would seem to agree with me on this point.

 

[Fogdog]

I believe you're confusing the wishes of the average American with outcomes by wilfully ignoring the outsized influence of money in our political system.

And I think the average American IS the majority. The science of statistics would seem to agree with me on this point.

You make stuff up, Ty. Nobody is claiming there is not an out sized influence of money on the political system. I don't think it buys elections but certainly pushes results around and it most definitely affects legislation.

As far as "statistical majority" is concerned, Congress and the EC are constitutionally biased to prevent the overall majority from taking power. At this time, the power in Congress and results in the EC are driven by state election results, not anywhere do the "statistical majority" vote. I'd like to change that but right now, the minority living in less populous states have more sway in government than the statistical majority.

In your "belief", you are not addressing these facts: just months after Republicans unified to stop campaign finance reform in opposition to a Democratic party that was just as unified to reform campaign finances, Republican gained seats and majority status in both houses of Congress. It was a huge defeat for Democrats. Same too with support for Obamacare. Same too for voter rights. Same too for addressing climate change. None of these issues were winning ones for Democrats in the majority of states in this country. It doesn't matter what opinion polls say, just the voting polls.

 

[ttystikk]

You make stuff up, Ty. Nobody is claiming there is not an out sized influence of money on the political system. I don't think it buys elections but certainly pushes results around and it most definitely affects legislation.

As far as "statistical majority" is concerned, Congress and the EC are constitutionally biased to prevent the overall majority from taking power. At this time, the power in Congress and results in the EC are driven by state election results, not anywhere do the "statistical majority" vote. I'd like to change that but right now, the minority living in less populous states have more sway in government than the statistical majority.

In your "belief", you are not addressing these facts: just months after Republicans unified to stop campaign finance reform in opposition to a Democratic party that was just as unified to reform campaign finances, Republican gained seats and majority status in both houses of Congress. It was a huge defeat for Democrats. Same too with support for Obamacare. Same too for voter rights. Same too for addressing climate change. None of these issues were winning ones for Democrats in the majority of states in this country. It doesn't matter what opinion polls say, just the voting polls.

You lost me at money doesn't buy elections in America.

 

[Fogdog]

You lost me at money doesn't buy elections in America.

They don't. The are plenty of examples to show that big money isn't a big factor in winning elections. Begin with the recent presidential campaign. Campaign contributions buy access. Not disputing that.

 

[ttystikk]

They don't. The are plenty of examples to show that big money isn't a big factor in winning elections. Begin with the recent presidential campaign. Campaign contributions buy access. Not disputing that.

Right. So how do you explain the fact that over 90%of all elections in America are won by the candidate with the most finding?

 

[Fogdog]

You lost me at money doesn't buy elections in America.

You keep dodging this:

In your "belief", you are not addressing these facts: just months after Republicans unified to stop campaign finance reform in opposition to a Democratic party that was just as unified to reform campaign finances, Republican gained seats and majority status in both houses of Congress. It was a huge defeat for Democrats. Same too with support for Obamacare. Same too for voter rights. Same too for addressing climate change. None of these issues were winning ones for Democrats in the majority of states in this country. It doesn't matter what opinion polls say, just the voting polls.

Are you saying it's just because corruption? If so, can you justify this conclusion by other than your belief?

 

[Fogdog]

Right. So how do you explain the fact that over 90%of all elections in America are won by the candidate with the most finding?

citation?

 

[ttystikk]

citation?

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and/
Just the first of many. Don't you Google for yourself?

 

[ttystikk]

You keep dodging this:

In your "belief", you are not addressing these facts: just months after Republicans unified to stop campaign finance reform in opposition to a Democratic party that was just as unified to reform campaign finances, Republican gained seats and majority status in both houses of Congress. It was a huge defeat for Democrats. Same too with support for Obamacare. Same too for voter rights. Same too for addressing climate change. None of these issues were winning ones for Democrats in the majority of states in this country. It doesn't matter what opinion polls say, just the voting polls.

Are you saying it's just because corruption? If so, can you justify this conclusion by other than your belief?

Look man, now you're just being obtuse. Are you seriously suggesting that major corporations and those who own them are collectively pouring billions of dollars into political campaigns out of simple altruism? Please tell me you're not this naive.

No, the officers of many of these corporations actually say they're investments- at least in private settings and unguarded moments.

They feel like they get their money back tenfold in terms of access and influence in legislation ranging from tax breaks and subsidies to preferential treatment.

Agricultural subsidies are an excellent example; the vast majority of Ag subsidy money goes to major corporations instead of individual farmers. How do you think that happened? By accident?! No! Cargill, ADM and many others got deeply involved, and one of the ways they gain inside access is by funding candidates who were most likely to be open to their point of view. After the election, those same politicians found themselves bound to listen to and support the agenda of their major contributors- or risk losing that funding to opposition candidates in the next election. Big Ag is anything but alone in pursuing these practices.

Finally, if they do well for their corporate masters, they get rewarded with fat 'consulting' contacts, often worth millions, when they retire from public life.

Every major industry plays the same game, to the point where it's considered a standard path to wealth by current and former politicians.

It works in reverse when it comes to regulatory agencies; the practice of hiring leaders from within the regulated industry has led to regulatory capture on a vast scale. Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson, Timothy Geitner among others have been Treasury Secretary, and for some strange reason under their tenures Wall Street has benefited while middle America suffered.

The notion that all that money is somehow given without an expectation of return is laughably backwards.

 

[twostrokenut]

The notion that elastic currency hasn't a thing to do with crony capitalism is laughable. Agricultural subsidies anyone?

Anyhow, you should continue to move left so as to hit a wall and stop there soon...or continue leftward as to seemingly remain stationary.

 

[UncleBuck]

The notion that elastic currency hasn't a thing to do with crony capitalism is laughable. Agricultural subsidies anyone?

Anyhow, you should continue to move left so as to hit a wall and stop there soon...or continue leftward as to seemingly remain stationary.

freedom of religion doesn't mean you can build a mosque.

 

[ttystikk]

The notion that elastic currency hasn't a thing to do with crony capitalism is laughable. Agricultural subsidies anyone?

Anyhow, you should continue to move left so as to hit a wall and stop there soon...or continue leftward as to seemingly remain stationary.

You trying to act educated is laughable.

Go beat your head against a wall for awhile. Get a running start.

 

[twostrokenut]

You trying to act educated is laughable.

Go beat your head against a wall for awhile. Get a running start.

Oprah is incorporated and a living breathing American. You can't separate them though so essentially buck is right about this.

You're moving in the right direction by distinguishing the living breathing American from the corp though but both are individuals in law.

Elastic currency and money are both legal tender as well. Politicians inflate currency, not money. Corps know what's up and what elastic currency is, least the big one do.

Just regurgitate some of that back as an insult though like you did in the last post, that's a lot easier than thinking.

 

[ttystikk]

Oprah is incorporated and a living breathing American. You can't separate them though so essentially buck is right about this.

You're moving in the right direction by distinguishing the living breathing American from the corp though but both are individuals in law.

Elastic currency and money are both legal tender as well. Politicians inflate currency, not money. Corps know what's up and what elastic currency is, least the big one do.

Just regurgitate some of that back as an insult though like you did in the last post, that's a lot easier than thinking.

How would you know? I've seen no evidence of any actual thought from you whatsoever.

 

[twostrokenut]

How would you know? I've seen no evidence of any actual thought from you whatsoever.

Well, I thought enough to read title 31 and 12 of the uscode off of law.cornell.edu

You thought about fucking the 1% so hard you never stopped to ponder bankruptcy as a limited liability we all enjoy, what the mechanism is that enables it or where the LL comes from in llc....but yeah insults and shit.

 

[ttystikk]

Well, I thought enough to read title 31 and 12 of the uscode off of law.cornell.edu

You thought about fucking the 1% so hard you never stopped to ponder bankruptcy as a limited liability we all enjoy, what the mechanism is that enables it or where the LL comes from in llc....but yeah insults and shit.

Yet more irrelevant drivel from someone who is so clearly desperate to be taken seriously.

Have you been off your meds for awhile?