U.S. Presidential Debates & Election

[August]

It's still racist when you are using racist terms to describe your own race.

In any case the right decision was made in the Citizens United case. It is not the purview of the US Supreme Court to re-write the law. If you don't like it then get Congress off their butts and pass legislation ending the practice.

Here's a good example of what happens when the courts "legislate from the bench".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_busing_crisis

[Penguin]

Another Libertarian/Green here, too bad that due to silly winner-takes-it-all laws we won't see many votes for them :



The questions are not weighted, as I noticed Neal's comment about a 3rd choice after I took the test. In Opera this option was not shown, just as the importance-sliders on the left. So use another bowser for this test, Opera-folks!

Rocky Anderson sounds like a refreshing sane guy, never heard of this guy before.

[soopaman2]

IMHO the peoples will shoud rule over all.

I know you like CU August, but I see it as an entrance for multinationals to impede in our political process, and being that money rules all, what protection does the normal citizen have?

I am not as wealthy as most, and cannot afford, nor do I think I should have to bribe my representatives.

But when some Dutch or German based comapany gets the same if not more representation than me I get peeved.

I cannot buy Obama or Romney a commercial. But thanks to citizens united, some Swiss or German company can.

See the point I am making, why I hate it?

It is not because I wear a tinfoil hat.

[CaptainHaplo]

I side with Gary Johnson on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Candidates you side with...

91%
Gary Johnson Libertarian

on foreign policy, healthcare, economic, domestic policy, and environmental issues
85%
Mitt Romney Republican

on immigration, economic, science, environmental, and domestic policy issues
77%
Virgil Goode Constitution

on foreign policy, immigration, environmental, and economic issues
33%
Rocky Anderson Justice

on foreign policy and domestic policy issues 21%
Jill Stein Green

on foreign policy and domestic policy issues7%
Barack Obama Democrat

no major issues


Parties you side with...

85% Libertarian

78% Republican

18% Green

4% Democrat

[nikimcbee]

I think Gary Johnson wrote the software.

I'm going to take the quiz again and only answer yes or no. See what happens.

[soopaman2]

Gary Johnson is a good man. Just saying.

He makes more sense than most, but lacks the $$$$ to get it done.

Sad, but I reckon other countries have the same such issues, my quiz came up with GJ too.

I consider myself an Obama supporter too. But found some of his views crap.

Honestly I feel I am choosing the lesser of 2 evils, rather than anything considered a viable candidate.

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I know you like CU August, but I see it as an entrance for multinationals to impede in our political process, and being that money rules all, what protection does the normal citizen have?

I didn't say I liked CU, I said that the court shouldn't legislate from the bench. Passing, enacting and repealing legislation is the job of Congress. They're the ones who should be doing it.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Thanks our campaign contribution system, and citizens United, allowing foreign entities to influence our elections.

Not wanting to let facts interfere with a good rant, but could you point out where in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the federal law prohibiting foreign contributions to federal elections was over turned?

[mookiemookie]

501c4's don't have to disclose the sources of their donors. What's to stop a foreign corporation from funding one in order to influence an election? What's to stop a foreign company from opening an American subsidiary and donating money to a candidate? Apparently nothing since Credit Suisse has given Romney over $600,000. Barclays over $400,000. UBS $400,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/co...p?id=N00000286

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

501c4's don't have to disclose the sources of their donors. What's to stop a foreign corporation from funding one in order to influence an election? What's to stop a foreign company from opening an American subsidiary and donating money to a candidate? Apparently nothing since Credit Suisse has given Romney over $600,000. Barclays over $400,000. UBS $400,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/co...p?id=N00000286

Credit Suisse has also donated to the Obama campaign too as did Barclays and UBS. Funny you should only mention their contributions to Romney...

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Credit Suisse has also donated to the Obama campaign too as did Barclays and UBS. Funny you should only mention their contributions to Romney...

I didn't see them on the list, so excuuuuuuuuse me.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/co...p?id=N00009638

Didn't click with me at first glance, but looking again I see that Deloitte is foreign too. So there's your fair and balanced bit. Completely irrelevant to the point I was making, but there it is anyways.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

501c4's don't have to disclose the sources of their donors. What's to stop a foreign corporation from funding one in order to influence an election? What's to stop a foreign company from opening an American subsidiary and donating money to a candidate? Apparently nothing since Credit Suisse has given Romney over $600,000. Barclays over $400,000. UBS $400,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/co...p?id=N00000286

What's to stop them? The law.

What's to stop me from committing any crime? No law can prevent anyone from deliberately committing a crime. It can only provide a venue of punishment and redress.


If you read the fine print, this website tells how entities get on the list.

1. They gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization (This is not illegal. There is a difference between donating to a PAC and to the candidate directly.)

or

2. individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Again, nothing illegal as long as the individuals are US citizens. There is a difference between tallying up individual donations and sorting them by employer and the amount the employer donates. This is one of the tricks these "monitoring" organizations do.

Consider this: If somehow it could be determined that members of the military donated megabucks to a candidate, does that mean that the DoD donated megabucks to the candidate? Of course not.

Donations from a corporation to a PAC need to be counted separately than donations from individual employees of that corporation. Like counting coconuts and cinder blocks.

To lump them together, gives an inaccurate picture.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Platapus

What's to stop them? The law.

What's to stop me from committing any crime? No law can prevent anyone from deliberately committing a crime. It can only provide a venue of punishment and redress.


If you read the fine print, this website tells how entities get on the list.

1. They gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization (This is not illegal. There is a difference between donating to a PAC and to the candidate directly.)

or

2. individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Again, nothing illegal as long as the individuals are US citizens. There is a difference between tallying up individual donations and sorting them by employer and the amount the employer donates. This is one of the tricks these "monitoring" organizations do.

Consider this: If somehow it could be determined that members of the military donated megabucks to a candidate, does that mean that the DoD donated megabucks to the candidate? Of course not.

Donations from a corporation to a PAC need to be counted separately than donations from individual employees of that corporation. Like counting coconuts and cinder blocks.

To lump them together, gives an inaccurate picture.

Brings up one of my pet ideas - no more corporate/PAC campaign financing. Make it so only individuals can contribute to a political campaign. Of course there's a snowball's chance of it ever happening, but I think it would ease my mind, at least, that only U.S. citizens are the ones influencing elections.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Brings up one of my pet ideas - no more corporate/PAC campaign financing. Make it so only individuals can contribute to a political campaign. Of course there's a snowball's chance of it ever happening, but I think it would ease my mind, at least, that only U.S. citizens are the ones influencing elections.

I got your back on this one Mookie - if you can't go in and pull a lever (does anyone actually DO that anymore?) - then you should not be able to give to a campaign.

With that said - that would mean corporations - and unions - would both be out in the cold. Just think - so many lobbyists out of work because they couldn't bring money to the table....

Of course - there should also be a $1000 personal contribution limit in my view as well - so one side or the other doesn't "buy" the election. But that would "infringe free speech" according to the courts...

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I got your back on this one Mookie - if you can't go in and pull a lever (does anyone actually DO that anymore?) - then you should not be able to give to a campaign.

With that said - that would mean corporations - and unions - would both be out in the cold. Just think - so many lobbyists out of work because they couldn't bring money to the table....

Of course - there should also be a $1000 personal contribution limit in my view as well - so one side or the other doesn't "buy" the election. But that would "infringe free speech" according to the courts...

My company had hired a lobbyist to get an esoteric part of some financial regulation changed. I actually agreed with what we wanted to see changed, as it would have benefited small business as well as the financial markets.

We were told by upper management, in their plea for donations to the PAC we set up, that to get a Congressperson's ear you have to either take them out to an expensive (talking $1000's of dollars expensive) dinner or donate to their campaign directly. Otherwise you get a staffer who may or may not relay your request to the Congressperson.

Absolutely ridiculous.