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

[MarAzul]

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?

Why would you care?

 

[Further]

Why would you care?

The topic is specifically regarding spending that money to influence politicians. And I care because the politicians are supposed to represent all their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who may see donations as just a way to purchase stricter or looser laws to aid their business interests and hinder others.

 

[MarAzul]

The topic is specifically regarding spending that money to influence politicians. And I care because the politicians are supposed to represent all their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who may see donations as just a way to purchase stricter or looser laws to aid their business interests and hinder others.

Votes get the politician elected. Do you suppose money got Obama elected? Bill Gates ain't got that much money from my view.
Dumb ass voters are the problem not money to pay the piper.

 

[Further]

Votes get the politician elected. Do you suppose money got Obama elected? Bill Gates ain't got that much money from my view.
Dumb ass voters are the problem not money to pay the piper.

You and I fundamentally disagree then. I can't recall the source, but I saw a figure recently that 97% of winners in recent congressional and senatorial elections were from the side that raised more money. Money has huge importance. Let's remove that obstacle and then have real debates over the issues. And often, industries give enough to both sides of an election that there is nobody to represent the other side to an issue.

 

[MarAzul]

You and I fundamentally disagree then. I can't recall the source, but I saw a figure recently that 97% of winners in recent congressional and senatorial elections were from the side that raised more money. Money has huge importance. Let's remove that obstacle and then have real debates over the issues. And often, industries give enough to both sides of an election that there is nobody to represent the other side to an issue.

I believe we do fundamentally disagree and that is truly the hart of the matter. Listening to politician debate is a terrible way to learn what you need to know about issues. Most issues these days should not be issue that you want the government to be messing around.

Why do I want to hear Romney and Obama debate healthcare? Hell I want then to do what is in the Constitution on healthcare. Absolutely nothing. But now I need them to get out of it.
The same for my Senators.

Why do I want to hear any politician debate who can get married? Hell, I don't, the Oregon voters decided that it was a man and a woman several years ago. Nowhere does the Constitutions of the US or the State
give that as the business of any of them.

So you see it is a matter of the Voters not keeping these guys on track, that is the problem, not the money they spend. The libertarians do come the closest to wanting to keep the politics on track therefore free speech
should be encouraged not stifled. Any fucking around with the 1st amendment is stifling.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

You can't hide it. Someone at the Washington Post will surely follow the money.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

It was about an anti-Hillary movie that the democrats wanted to squash. It took a wealthy person to be able to afford to bankroll the movie.

It's not like Hollywood is going to fund an anti-Hillary one. But they will make "The American President" when Clinton was being impeached.

I am all in favor of free political speech. Even if it's birthers or 9/11ers for truth or aliens ate my buick.

 

[Denny Crane]

Votes get the politician elected. Do you suppose money got Obama elected? Bill Gates ain't got that much money from my view.
Dumb ass voters are the problem not money to pay the piper.

This.

It's one man one vote. Not one zillionaire one zillion votes.

If the Koch brothers are buying a politician at everyone'e expense, throw out the politician next election.

 

[Further]

It was about an anti-Hillary movie that the democrats wanted to squash. It took a wealthy person to be able to afford to bankroll the movie.

It's not like Hollywood is going to fund an anti-Hillary one. But they will make "The American President" when Clinton was being impeached.

I am all in favor of free political speech. Even if it's birthers or 9/11ers for truth or aliens ate my buick.

i hope I've made it clear in our discussion, I don't care about the individual subject matter on each of these issues. If its pro or anti Hillary, if it's Union or Church, if it's red, blue, green, yellow ..., I'm talking about the fundamental flaws in the system that allow those with tremendous capital to always keep a finger on the scale. I want these politicians, regardless of their bent, to try and vote their consciences. If that means the Dems lose, so be it. But it is my hope that once the big money gets removed and the waters grow clearer, more people with vote with a liberal leaning, but that's a hope, not my purpose for suggesting any of this.

 

[Further]

This.

It's one man one vote. Not one zillionaire one zillion votes.

If the Koch brothers are buying a politician at everyone'e expense, throw out the politician next election.

As I said to MarAzul, you and I have a fundamental disagreement here. It is this reason I am not a Libertarian. I love your stances on many topics, but this is a huge flaw in my opinion, a flaw that will lead to the end of America one way or another. Hopefully not for some time.

 

[Denny Crane]

i hope I've made it clear in our discussion, I don't care about the individual subject matter on each of these issues. If its pro or anti Hillary, if it's Union or Church, if it's red, blue, green, yellow ..., I'm talking about the fundamental flaws in the system that allow those with tremendous capital to always keep a finger on the scale. I want these politicians, regardless of their bent, to try and vote their consciences. If that means the Dems lose, so be it. But it is my hope that once the big money gets removed and the waters grow clearer, more people with vote with a liberal leaning, but that's a hope, not my purpose for suggesting any of this.

Hillary wins because the truth about her is squashed.

When govt can squash dissent, we will end up like the old USSR. That is how it all ends.

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams through the exact kind of campaigns we have today. The republic has survived.

If you really think about it, Obama spent $20T in his first four years. Spending a $billion or ten seems like a reasonable amount to pay up front to discover if he's worth it.

 

[Further]

Ya, I just totally disagree. Not much more to say.

 

[MarAzul]

Ya, I just totally disagree. Not much more to say.

Well you do know Further It is liberals that want to stifle conservatives? It should be clear. You want more people to vote for Progressive Liberal People to push a plethora of issues
Conservatives are not keen for any of them but you want to prevent them from baning together to oppose the agenda.
That is pretty one way I would say.

Conservatives would not need a dime if we all chose to live by the Constitution.
But you could be right, we might come to conflict in a time not so far off. The ignoring the Constitution does piss me off and I am ready to fix this one issue.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ya, I just totally disagree. Not much more to say.

How do you feel about the government spying on us all? Do we have any right to privacy from the government? If you think we do have that right, thank the constitution. You can't pick and choose to support some of it and ignore some of it. It is the law .

There's a follow up question. I'll wait for your response about the privacy and spying questions.

 

[Further]

How do you feel about the government spying on us all? Do we have any right to privacy from the government? If you think we do have that right, thank the constitution. You can't pick and choose to support some of it and ignore some of it. It is the law .

There's a follow up question. I'll wait for your response about the privacy and spying questions.

You can pick and choose, that's why I call for a constitutional amendment. If we couldn't choose there would still be slavery.

 

[Further]

As far as the spying stuff, mostly I'm against it, seems quite sleazy. But I'd love to actually know what is and isn't done so I could give a better answer.

 

[Further]

And we may decide a constitutional amendment is needed to strengthen our privacy rights. So far as we know, all these programs were constitutional. A lot is undecided.

 

[Denny Crane]

You can pick and choose, that's why I call for a constitutional amendment. If we couldn't choose there would still be slavery.

Good luck with your amendment. I seriously doubt it'll get 50% of the votes, let alone a supermajority.

While we are at it, how about an amendment to ban conservative ideology?

Or let's anoint a king. Or let the government summarily execute dissidents.

 

[Denny Crane]

As far as the spying stuff, mostly I'm against it, seems quite sleazy. But I'd love to actually know what is and isn't done so I could give a better answer.

So some spying on all the people all the time is ok?

Yeah, we don't want to live in the same kind if country.

 

[Denny Crane]

Those weren't the follow up question I had in mind. If you're ok with no right to privacy, there is nothing more to say.

 

[Further]

So some spying on all the people all the time is ok?

Yeah, we don't want to live in the same kind if country.

Depends on how targeted and what type of info is being amassed in agora get and what is being compiled with specifics.

 

[Further]

Those weren't the follow up question I had in mind. If you're ok with no right to privacy, there is nothing more to say.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said no right to privacy, I just said I don't know all the particulars and that as far as we know, everything that has been done so far (including stuff I think went too far) is constitutional. You can't just say xxx is unconstitutional, especially if it hasn't moved up through the courts yet and scholars on both sides proclaim different opinions on the constitutionality.

 

[MarAzul]

Depends on how targeted and what type of info is being amassed in agora get and what is being compiled with specifics.

WTF? The government doesn't have a right to keep a list of everyone you send mail to either through the Post Office or the internet. But they do and I don't give a shit for what purpose to be invented later. A recording of phone calls and phone number list the same. A warrant is need before the capture not after for what ever reason is invented.

 

[Further]

I basically agree, I just think it's more nuanced and I don't know to what extent that is being done.

 

[MarAzul]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said no right to privacy, I just said I don't know all the particulars and that as far as we know, everything that has been done so far (including stuff I think went too far) is constitutional. You can't just say xxx is unconstitutional, especially if it hasn't moved up through the courts yet and scholars on both sides proclaim different opinions on the constitutionality.

Bull shit on the scholars!! We all can read the Constitution and so should the President. It is not that difficult to read what it says. It only becomes difficult if you don't like what it says.

 

[Denny Crane]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said no right to privacy, I just said I don't know all the particulars and that as far as we know, everything that has been done so far (including stuff I think went too far) is constitutional. You can't just say xxx is unconstitutional, especially if it hasn't moved up through the courts yet and scholars on both sides proclaim different opinions on the constitutionality.

Spying on everyone. All the time. Without a warrant.

Isn't that enough information?

And isn't it a contradiction to gripe about money is speech ruling while waiting for the same court to rule on something this obvious?

 

[Denny Crane]

No offense but you describe a society like the one in the movie Brazil. Seen it?

How about 1984?

Or THX 1138.

Fiction, of course, but inspired by political philosophies all the same.

 

[Further]

Spying on everyone. All the time. Without a warrant.

Isn't that enough information?

And isn't it a contradiction to gripe about money is speech ruling while waiting for the same court to rule on something this obvious?

As I said, I think you are correct, but the govt has claimed it's not doing all that but only compiling without searching. I think I'm still against that, but the constitutionality of that is more plausible. If you go back into other threads, I have excoriated Obama, Bush and their administrations for doing this, I've just gotten all the facts and claimed jumbled in my head. I don't recall what we think we know and what we know. Until I know better I just can't give a well flushed out position on all this.

 

[Denny Crane]

As I said, I think you are correct, but the govt has claimed it's not doing all that but only compiling without searching. I think I'm still against that, but the constitutionality of that is more plausible. If you go back into other threads, I have excoriated Obama, Bush and their administrations for doing this, I've just gotten all the facts and claimed jumbled in my head. I don't recall what we think we know and what we know. Until I know better I just can't give a well flushed out position on all this.

The data warehouse they are building to keep track of all this information gained by spying on us WITHOUT A WARRANT is huge. They're also illegally hacking into Google and Yahoo! and other providers' networks to gather information.

Enhanced ability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...1d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html

NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...overnment-threaten-yahoo-with-fines/15466441/

(USA Today for the win, again!)

U.S. threatened Yahoo with daily $250K fines over user data

 

[Further]

The data warehouse they are building to keep track of all this information gained by spying on us WITHOUT A WARRANT is huge. They're also illegally hacking into Google and Yahoo! and other providers' networks to gather information.

Enhanced ability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...1d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html

NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...overnment-threaten-yahoo-with-fines/15466441/

(USA Today for the win, again!)

U.S. threatened Yahoo with daily $250K fines over user data

So really I just started arguing a point and got caught. The truth is, I think it's full on shitty! It bugs me and is the one biggest reason I am disappointed in the Dems (and Repubs) including Obama. But admitting this ruins some other argument I was making a zillion posts ago.