Beware GOP: Millennials Don’t Like What We’re Hearing

[Minstrel]

Righhhhhht.

Why do you want a huge military?

Well, you're chalking huge military to Bush, Obama and the next President. Which of those do you think is posting here under the moniker "Minstrel?" It's curious how your mind works.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'd love to have the teachers union be able to contribute, but it's just not fair to care out stipulations for one group. All the teachers can still have their say by donating some amount less than $1001. I doesn't say the groups can't promote their ideals, but they simply can't advertise. They could plea for their members to donate or vote one way, but they simply wouldn't be able spend millions like they do now. Neither would the oil companies. Neither would the financial industry.

In the end, maybe you get people into office doing what they think is right instead of what their donors want.

I donate $1000 to candidate X because he's for Y. But he's against Z which I am for. I don't want to dilute the message I want to get out. I'd rather give $1000 to organization that promotes Y and only Y.

I think if you want people to do what's right and not what donors want, you need term limits. Congressmen and presidents have historically done honorable things once they're lame ducks.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, you're chalking huge military to Bush, Obama and the next President. Which of those do you think is posting here under the moniker "Minstrel?" It's curious how your mind works.

None of them. I am quite sure that voting for a democrat or republican means the military is going to be huge. I'm asking why you would vote for either one. Do you want a huge military?

 

[Minstrel]

I think if you want people to do what's right and not what donors want, you need term limits. Congressmen and presidents have historically done honorable things once they're lame ducks.

Lame ducks continue to pander to the interests from which they want a high-paying lobbying job when they leave office.

 

[Denny Crane]

Lame ducks continue to pander to the interests from which they want a high-paying lobbying job when they leave office.

Well shit then. There's no way around having a bad government except starving the beast.

Make it so weak there's no power it can wield to abuse the office.

 

[Further]

Actually, on further thought, I don't see why a group (union or otherwise) couldn't pull money to support their cause as long as the total amount was less than the $1000 a person, and as long as each individual donor verified that they only gave their personal aliquot to their group and didn't also donate to other groups or to the actual candidate. This way if a group, let's say a church, that has 5000 members wants to advertise for something they believe, they could do so as long as their members agreed and didn't separately donate.

 

[Minstrel]

None of them. I am quite sure that voting for a democrat or republican means the military is going to be huge. I'm asking why you would vote for either one. Do you want a huge military?

I don't, but unfortunately you don't get a line-item veto with your vote.

There isn't ever a candidate who represents 100% of what you want and nothing you don't want. That candidate would be yourself and most of us don't have the time, inclination, infrastructure, etc, to run.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, on further thought, I don't see why a group (union or otherwise) couldn't pull money to support their cause as long as the total amount was less than the $1000 a person, and as long as each individual donor verified that they only gave their personal aliquot to their group and didn't also donate to other groups or to the actual candidate. This way if a group, let's say a church, that has 5000 members wants to advertise for something they believe, they could do so as long as their members agreed and didn't separately donate.

So a candidate will pander to the teachers' union to get all that spending on his behalf.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't, but unfortunately you don't get a line-item veto with your vote.

There isn't ever a candidate who represents 100% of what you want and nothing you don't want. That candidate would be yourself and most of us don't have the time, inclination, infrastructure, etc, to run.

There are a lot of one issue voters.

 

[Further]

I'm ok with term limits. I don't think it solves the problem, but it could help a bit.

 

[Minstrel]

There are a lot of one issue voters.

Yes, but those people are simply willing to ignore the stuff they deem less important due to one overarching issue that is of huge importance to them. There is still no candidate that is an exact match for all their beliefs.

For those of us who value a number of things, it's always going to be about making the trade-offs that maximize what we want when we vote.

 

[Further]

So a candidate will pander to the teachers' union to get all that spending on his behalf.

Perhaps, but that union/church/org represents individuals and those individuals have to sign off on only spending via that output. It makes sure we don't have individuals or companies donating millions to influence. I'm much happier having the union/church/org having a modicum of influence over corporations and zillionairs having great influence.

 

[Denny Crane]

Perhaps, but that union/church/org represents individuals and those individuals have to sign off on only spending via that output. It makes sure we don't have individuals or companies donating millions to influence. I'm much happier having the union/church/org having a modicum of influence over corporations and zillionairs having great influence.

There you go. We agree that organizations are made up of people. So corporations ARE (made up of) people. So are unions.

Why shouldn't a $zillionaire be able to spend his money trying to convince government to cure cancer?

All of the cures for this illness seem to be worse than the illness.

Give up freedom to gain... a government that restricts freedom.

 

[Further]

There you go. We agree that organizations are made up of people. So corporations ARE (made up of) people. So are unions.

Why shouldn't a $zillionaire be able to spend his money trying to convince government to cure cancer?

All of the cures for this illness seem to be worse than the illness.

Give up freedom to gain... a government that restricts freedom.

He can, up to $1000. Otherwise he can donate to all sorts of cancer causes that aren't dealing with elections. I don't see this as a problem at all.

 

[Further]

There you go. We agree that organizations are made up of people. So corporations ARE (made up of) people. So are unions.

Why shouldn't a $zillionaire be able to spend his money trying to convince government to cure cancer?

All of the cures for this illness seem to be worse than the illness.

Give up freedom to gain... a government that restricts freedom.

And yes, organizations are made up of people, but they shouldn't represent more people then they actually are. If there are ten people in the org they shouldn't be able to spend and if they had a million members.

 

[Denny Crane]

He can, up to $1000. Otherwise he can donate to all sorts of cancer causes that aren't dealing with elections. I don't see this as a problem at all.

He's a $zillionaire, but the government has orders and orders of magnitude more money to spend each year than he's collected in his lifetime. Of course he wants the government to spend the money on research because his spending becomes leveraged. For real good.

Why shouldn't a cancer cause be able to petition government? If the FDA bans some substance that is key to the cure, shouldn't they be able to speak out against those anti-stem cell bastards?

 

[Denny Crane]

And yes, organizations are made up of people, but they shouldn't represent more people then they actually are.

They represent the people who feel strongly enough to join the organization. That means quite a lot.

 

[Further]

He's a $zillionaire, but the government has orders and orders of magnitude more money to spend each year than he's collected in his lifetime. Of course he wants the government to spend the money on research because his spending becomes leveraged. For real good.

Why shouldn't a cancer cause be able to petition government? If the FDA bans some substance that is key to the cure, shouldn't they be able to speak out against those anti-stem cell bastards?

There are many ways to voice ones opinion other than via advertising.

 

[Further]

They represent the people who feel strongly enough to join the organization. That means quite a lot.

If ten people join the org but one of those members is rich as balls, those ten shouldn't be able to spend the equivalent of a million people.

 

[Denny Crane]

There are many ways to voice ones opinion other than via advertising.

Why should you decide for me if I can advertise or not? Isn't that you restricting my liberty? That's the problem. Government and rules aren't the solution.

 

[Denny Crane]

If ten people join the org but one of those members is rich as balls, those ten shouldn't be able to spend the equivalent of a million people.

The amount of money you have should not preclude you from spending it as you see fit. Especially if you're spending it to cure cancer. Or better yet, spending it to put heat on the current warmongers in office to be less warlike.

 

[Further]

Why should you decide for me if I can advertise or not? Isn't that you restricting my liberty? That's the problem. Government and rules aren't the solution.

Because we are trying to remove politicians being bought.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because we are trying to remove politicians being bought.

There is no way to remove it.

GM promises Obama a cushy 8 figure job after he leaves office if he bails them out. Wink, wink. Nod, nod.

My view is that if government is powerful enough to be worth buying, it's too big.

 

[Further]

There is no way to remove it.

GM promises Obama a cushy 8 figure job after he leaves office if he bails them out. Wink, wink. Nod, nod.

My view is that if government is powerful enough to be worth buying, it's too big.

The govt in tiny backwater nations are still bought. There is no way to make it small enough. And even if it were possible, as long as money has as much influence as it has there is no way govt would ever shrink significantly. The problem I have with pure libertarianism, communism, anarchism, capitalism or many other isms is that if there is not an answer that totally fixes everything then it's not worth doing something. But sometimes doing something is better then nothing. So I'm not going to claim there are no negatives to my proposal, just that here is a shit load better effects than negative effects. Overall, I think it would greatly divorce organizations from influencing politicians for personal gain. It's not going to fix it in all situations, but it will greatly help.

 

[Denny Crane]

The govt in tiny backwater nations are still bought. There is no way to make it small enough. And even if it were possible, as long as money has as much influence as it has there is no way govt would ever shrink significantly. The problem I have with pure libertarianism, communism, anarchism, capitalism or many other isms is that if there is not an answer that totally fixes everything then it's not worth doing something. But sometimes doing something is better then nothing. So I'm not going to claim there are no negatives to my proposal, just that here is a shit load better effects than negative effects. Overall, I think it would greatly divorce organizations from influencing politicians for personal gain. It's not going to fix it in all situations, but it will greatly help.

Libertarianism doesn't claim to fix anything. It claims to be the best we can do, though.

How about we make it so the $zillionaire has to make it public that he's spending whatever he is on whatever he is?

Then YOU can judge for yourself if you want to side with him or against him.

The problem is transparency, not that anyone's bought.

We might try going to 2-year budgets instead of restricting liberty. Then a representative couldn't vote on spending for someone that helps elect him without an election in between.

 

[Denny Crane]

BTW, further.

What was Citizens United about? Why was it brought before the Supreme Court in the first place?

 

[Further]

Libertarianism doesn't claim to fix anything. It claims to be the best we can do, though.

How about we make it so the $zillionaire has to make it public that he's spending whatever he is on whatever he is?

Then YOU can judge for yourself if you want to side with him or against him.

The problem is transparency, not that anyone's bought.

We might try going to 2-year budgets instead of restricting liberty. Then a representative couldn't vote on spending for someone that helps elect him without an election in between.

Transparency helps and I'd be all for that! But it doesn't do enough. There are tons of ways to obscure who is donating. Donate to an org that supports another org in its advertising, then instead of saying Denny crane donated x amount, it says the society for free gerbils donated. Second, the voting populous shouldn't have to study who all the hundreds of big money donors are in an election. Just remove the influence of the sacks of cash.

 

[Further]

BTW, further.

What was Citizens United about? Why was it brought before the Supreme Court in the first place?

I'm not sure anymore (I could google) but whatever the cause, the outcome could be the death knell of America over time. Not immediately, but Unless we figure things out, I believe this very well could be the action that separates the haves from the have nots to the point where a revolution is required. It's not necessarily the outcome, but we better correct this.

 

[Further]

Honestly denny please explain why you feel it's important for a wealthy person to be able to spend 100,000 times more money than another citizen?

 

[MarAzul]

I'm not sure anymore (I could google) but whatever the cause, the outcome could be the death knell of America over time. Not immediately, but Unless we figure things out, I believe this very well could be the action that separates the haves from the have nots to the point where a revolution is required. It's not necessarily the outcome, but we better correct this.

A man that does not want liberty foremost, will never be happy with what he has. It is double trouble when he defines enough by what others have.