Urban planning community

Poll results: What do you think the outcome of tomorrow's presidential election will be?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama wins electoral and popular vote

    20 76.92%
  • Romney wins electoral and popular vote

    2 7.69%
  • Gary Johnson wins electoral and popular vote :thumb:

    0 0%
  • Obama wins electoral vote, Romney wins popular vote

    4 15.38%
  • Romney wins electoral vote, Obama wins popular vote

    0 0%
  • Obama and Romney tie in the electoral vote

    0 0%
+ Reply to thread
Page 3 of 69 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 13 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 1725

Thread: The First 2012 Presidential Election Thread

  1. #51
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,420
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    I beg to differ on that, as under the now shot-down rules, you were pretty much shut out of running an effective campaign for office unless you had a personal fortune that was big enough to allow for you to 'self-finance'. THUS, we got the likes of John Corzine, the Kennedys and our own unaccountable (because NOBODY could ever hope to legitimately raise enough cash to effectively run against his own personal fortune) USSenator Herb Kohl.

    Mike
    I'd rather that see that happen, as opposed to politicians beholden to the desires of corporate America.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  2. #52
    Cyburbian kalimotxo's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally posted by rcgplanner View post
    I will agree that the healthcare bill that is more than likely DOA was a turd. The thing that kills me is hearing members of the GOP looking at healthcare and other issues as a political football. Many in the GOP would rather see Obama fail than to give any real input into the issues. Obama tried to reach across the aisle, only to see the Republicans slam the door in his face. It's sad that many in the GOP are using this strategy instead of holding true political discourse. When you have members of Congress saying they will oppose anything the Dems propose instead of trying to offer real solutions and work out a compromise, that is just pathetic.
    Amen.

    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Sorry, but to me, that's a Republican. Except for a few things, he is largely a conservative Republican.
    I hate to burst your bubble, but... http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...epublican.html
    Process and dismissal. Shelter and location. Everybody wants somewhere.

  3. #53
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    I'd rather that see that happen, as opposed to politicians beholden to the desires of corporate America.
    Quote Originally posted by CJC View post
    Sure, but there have probably been an order of magnitude more policies beneficial to corporate interests passed in the last 30 years than in the entire 200 before that (from both D's and R's).
    If there have been more policies beneficial to corporate interest passed in the last 30 years than in the entire 200 before that, and if major enforceable legislation that limits and/or prohibits corporate campaign contributions was not enacted until the 1970's, doesn't that completely negate CJC's and btrage's precept that the government will be more influenced by corporations now?

  4. #54
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    I beg to differ on that, as under the now shot-down rules, you were pretty much shut out of running an effective campaign for office unless you had a personal fortune that was big enough to allow for you to 'self-finance'. THUS, we got the likes of John Corzine, the Kennedys and our own unaccountable (because NOBODY could ever hope to legitimately raise enough cash to effectively run against his own personal fortune) USSenator Herb Kohl.

    Mike
    Yes the political influence that money can buy has always been a problem. But with corporations making billions in profits- do you honestly think that they won't be able to use their money to get whoever they want elected? A single giant corporation has the financial ability to spend more that was spent on the entire last presidential campaign combined. Who will stand up to corporations now?

    Oppose price gouging by big pharma? You aren't going to get elected.
    For food safety regulations to make sure the food we eat is safe? You aren't going to get elected.
    Wanting to go after Exxon Mobil for dumping oil in the Ocean? Good luck with that.

    I know the conservative blogs are all lit up with how great this will be for conservative candidates- but that is the wrong attitude to have. This is larger than health care, cap and trade, etc., this effectively eliminates your say in goverment. The effect may not be immediately apparent, but government will very soon do only what the corporations want.

    Additionally, there is nothing stopping multi-national corporations from spending as much as they want in political races now. Who doesn't think that if a Chinese owned corporation tells a senator that they will spend 100 million dollars on his reelection campaign if he votes to do what they want that he/she won't hesitate to bend over for them?
    Last edited by imaplanner; 21 Jan 2010 at 2:00 PM.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  5. #55
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by kalimotxo View post
    I hate to burst your bubble, but... http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...epublican.html
    Sorry, but just because somebody with a website says he is liberal, doesn't make it so.

    But if you want to go that route. Here's an article entitled "How conservative is Scott Brown? More conservative than you might think": http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-82177227.html
    Last edited by illinoisplanner; 21 Jan 2010 at 1:26 PM.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  6. #56
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,420
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    If there have been more policies beneficial to corporate interest passed in the last 30 years than in the entire 200 before that, and if major enforceable legislation that limits and/or prohibits corporate campaign contributions was not enacted until the 1970's, doesn't that completely negate CJC's and btrage's precept that the government will be more influenced by corporations now?
    Capitalism has created these corporations, which are much more powerful and influential in our global society than they were 30, 75, 150 years ago.

    The United States realized the growing power of corporate America, which is why we saw the campaign finance reform of the 1970s.

    Corporations are great and wonderful things, but they need to be checked.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  7. #57
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    If there have been more policies beneficial to corporate interest passed in the last 30 years than in the entire 200 before that, and if major enforceable legislation that limits and/or prohibits corporate campaign contributions was not enacted until the 1970's, doesn't that completely negate CJC's and btrage's precept that the government will be more influenced by corporations now?
    How so? If I pass twenty laws beneficial to you, that's likely going to bring out someone else looking to make a name, that might be able to pass two that are not beneficial to you. Still means you're up by a net of 18 beneficial laws.

    Just a note - I'm not at all anti-corporation, I just have a problem with many of the policies of the last 30-40 years that put too much power in the hands of corporations, without the necessary laws increasing the power of shareholders, etc.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  8. #58
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    Capitalism has created these corporations, which are much more powerful and influential in our global society than they were 30, 75, 150 years ago.

    The United States realized the growing power of corporate America, which is why we saw the campaign finance reform of the 1970s.

    Corporations are great and wonderful things, but they need to be checked.
    Quote Originally posted by CJC View post
    How so? If I pass twenty laws beneficial to you, that's likely going to bring out someone else looking to make a name, that might be able to pass two that are not beneficial to you. Still means you're up by a net of 18 beneficial laws.

    Just a note - I'm not at all anti-corporation, I just have a problem with many of the policies of the last 30-40 years that put too much power in the hands of corporations, without the necessary laws increasing the power of shareholders, etc.
    I wholeheartedly agree and admit that corporations have benefited substantially, both from natural market evolution and by public policy. My point was that policies favoring corporate interests significantly increased, assuming I'm reading CJC's analysis correctly, in the time period after Congress passed limitations on corporate campaign financing, and that is what negated y'all's initial analysis. Again, assuming I am interpreting them accurately.

  9. #59
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    It's not an empty promise. He cut taxes, which stimulated the economy, and created jobs, giving our country some of the lowest unemployment numbers we've ever seen. Bush's problem was that he didn't cut spending to counter that and nobody did anything about subprime lending. Additionally, once liberals took over Congress in 2006, it made it harder for Bush to continue that economic progress, a stalemate which led to the economic disaster we now have.
    Well, I won't even get into the "some of the lowest unemployment rates we've ever seen part," but think about this - you're claiming that Bush stimulated the economy and created jobs, and that the only problem was that he didn't cut spending to counter that - you do realize that cutting spending would have cut jobs, right? That spending goes somewhere, whether it's directly to government employees, to government contractors, or wherever else. Government spending trickles around the economy just like any other money - cutting spending would have certainly meant higher unemployment, at least in the short term.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  10. #60
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by CJC View post
    Well, I won't even get into the "some of the lowest unemployment rates we've ever seen part," but think about this - you're claiming that Bush stimulated the economy and created jobs, and that the only problem was that he didn't cut spending to counter that - you do realize that cutting spending would have cut jobs, right? That spending goes somewhere, whether it's directly to government employees, to government contractors, or wherever else. Government spending trickles around the economy just like any other money - cutting spending would have certainly meant higher unemployment, at least in the short term.
    Which is probably why he didn't do it. But it probably would have been wise to do in the long term, or at least privatize many of the government agencies which exist.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  11. #61
    Cyburbian rcgplanner's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Back in SE Texas
    Posts
    1,680
    I am dismayed about today's Supreme Court ruling. This is bad news for everyone in this Country. I know many on the right are praising this, including Senate Minority Leader McConnell who is no fan of McCain/Feingold.

    McConnell has been quoted in reaction to today's ruling:
    “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day. By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers. Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all.” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-82260742.html

    IMO, this is wrong in so many ways, a corporation or an interest group is not an individual, it is a collection of individuals. These groups don't vote so why should they be protected? This just seems to spell bad news for anything that is outside the status quo.

    Healthcare- Big Pharma and Insurance Companies will throw so much money into this to make any change worthless
    Food Safety- Agribusiness
    Mileage Standards- Automakers, Oil Companies
    A comprehensive transportation solution (Cars, Transit. Rail, Biking/Pedestrian)- Automakers

    Maybe it won't be this bad, but it seems like this is bad news for the American people and will make it ever harder for the public to sort through all the noise to find the truth.

  12. #62
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    I wholeheartedly agree and admit that corporations have benefited substantially, both from natural market evolution and by public policy. My point was that policies favoring corporate interests significantly increased, assuming I'm reading CJC's analysis correctly, in the time period after Congress passed limitations on corporate campaign financing, and that is what negated y'all's initial analysis. Again, assuming I am interpreting them accurately.
    I think there were several other factors at play that caused the initial corporate finance reform laws to happen at about the same time that major policies tended to start drifting in the direction of the corporate interests. The late 60's/early 70's was a time when much was changing regarding the basic political leanings of the US.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  13. #63
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    6,079
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Which is probably why he didn't do it. But it probably would have been wise to do in the long term, or at least privatize many of the government agencies which exist.
    Ahem-I'm originally from Indiana, the king of privatization. It does not work. It turns into a fiasco. The basketcase that is Indianapolis is living proof of this. Further, there is way too much room for corruption. Government cannot be run by corporations. Government is not profit oriented. Corporations do not give a flying fig in a windstorm about issues such as fairness, individual rights, environmental protection, etc. Privatization is a conservative, self-serving, delusional fantasy ( I could use another term, but that would get me red carded). Sorry illinoisplanner, but there is no amount of water carrying for conservatives that even make this idea plausible.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  14. #64
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    Ahem-I'm originally from Indiana, the king of privatization. It does not work. It turns into a fiasco. The basketcase that is Indianapolis is living proof of this. Further, there is way too much room for corruption. Government cannot be run by corporations. Government is not profit oriented. Corporations do not give a flying fig in a windstorm about issues such as fairness, individual rights, environmental protection, etc. Privatization is a conservative, self-serving, delusional fantasy ( I could use another term, but that would get me red carded). Sorry illinoisplanner, but there is no amount of water carrying for conservatives that even make this idea plausible.
    Most of the things that are run by the federal government don't need to be run by the federal government in the first place. Much of it is bereaucratic waste. The federal government sucks at running things. The government needs to stick to what the Constitution says it should stick to: printing money, fighting wars, and leaving the rest up to the states.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  15. #65
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Most of the things that are run by the federal government don't need to be run by the federal government in the first place. Much of it is bereaucratic waste. The federal government sucks at running things. The government needs to stick to what the Constitution says it should stick to: printing money, fighting wars, and leaving the rest up to the states.
    Yeah. What an awesome country that would be
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  16. #66
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,420
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    The federal government sucks at running things. The government needs to stick to what the Constitution says it should stick to: printing money, fighting wars, and leaving the rest up to the states.
    In case you haven't noticed, this is 2010, not 1787. The constitution used to count slaves as three-fifths of a person as well, but we realized that was bullshit and corrected it. It's not about what the Constitution says, it's about what's right and best for the country.

    Back on topic. What's the chance Obama gets seriously challenged in the 2012 primaries? When was the last time a sitting president faced a serious primary battle? GHWB went up against Pat Buchanan in 1992, but after New Hampshire, it wasn't really a contest.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  17. #67
    Cyburbian rcgplanner's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Back in SE Texas
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Most of the things that are run by the federal government don't need to be run by the federal government in the first place. Much of it is bereaucratic waste. The federal government sucks at running things. The government needs to stick to what the Constitution says it should stick to: printing money, fighting wars, and leaving the rest up to the states.
    Sounds like a plan except:

    Who would ensure medicines would be safe for consumption? - FDA
    Who would have built the Interstate Highway System? US Department of Transportation
    Who would protect the Country's natural treasures?- National Park Service
    Who would protect you from losing everything if your bank collapsed? - FDIC
    Who makes sure handicapped people have access to buildings? Department of Justice (Enforcing ADA)
    Who made it so most of us on here could pursue a college education without the exorbitant interest rates most loans have? - Department of Education

    While I agree there is a lot of overlap between some of the agencies at the Federal level. This country would be a lot less prosperous if the federal government was as limited as you would like. Who would do most of the things listed above? The states? You really think the states have the ability to fund most of the programs!?

    We had that it was called the Articles of Confederation and it created a splintered clusterf*$k. Could you imagine if the state's didn't receive any federal money for transportation how much worse of transportation system would be. Sure states with more residents and higher tax revenues would have great roads, but a lot of the smaller less-populated states would have crappy roads. A situation like that would grind commerce to a stop in this country.

    Back on topic. I am not sure I see Obama being seriously challenged by another Dem in 2012 btrage. Sure there is some discontent among the Dems now, but most still stand behind Obama, especially if the alternate is a messy campaign with another Dem, when they should be focused on the GOP. Of course this is speaking 2 years before the Iowa Caucus. If Obama completely implodes in the Summer of 2011 you may see the tide change.
    Last edited by rcgplanner; 21 Jan 2010 at 4:03 PM.

  18. #68
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,765
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by rcgplanner View post
    Sounds like a plan except:

    Who would ensure medicines would be safe for consumption? - FDA
    Who would have built the Interstate Highway System? US Department of Transportation
    Who would protect the Country's natural treasures?- National Park Service
    Who would protect you from losing everything if your bank collapsed? - FDIC
    Who makes sure handicapped people have access to buildings? Department of Justice (Enforcing ADA)
    Who made it so most of us on here could pursue a college education without the exorbitant interest rates most loans have? - Department of Education
    All of these things can - and should - be taken care of by individual states with their own agencies. The U.S. is a collection of states, not one all-powerful nation.

    While I agree there is a lot of overlap between some of the agencies at the Federal level. This country would be a lot less prosperous if the federal government was as limited as you would like. Who would do most of the things listed above? The states? You really think the states have the ability to fund most of the programs!?
    Yes, the states would. The tax money can simply be re-allocated towards the states and local governments, who are more effective at handling things. You might pay higher state and local taxes, but your federal taxes would go way down, and you'd know that problems would be taken care of, because it's easier to govern a state and take care of the unique problems for only 2, 5, 10, 30 million people than it is for a nation of 300 million.

    We had that it was called the Articles of Confederation and it created a splintered clusterf*$k. Could you imagine if the state's didn't receive any federal money for transportation how much worse of transportation system would be. Sure states with more residents and higher tax revenues would have great roads, but a lot of the smaller less-populated states would have crappy roads. A situation like that would grind commerce to a stop in this country.
    No, because you don't need federal transportation dollars, because they would be re-allocated towards the states. You pay higher taxes in the states but lower taxes to the feds and you can get the same transportation projects. And the people in states with crappy roads would likely demand better roads for the reasons you mentioned. That's why there are elections for governor and other offices, so you can throw the bums out. Additionally, we already have a situation in this country in which some states have good roads and some have crappy roads (KS vs. MO, anyone?) and commerce has not come to a screeching halt.

    Back on topic. I am not sure I see Obama being seriously challenged by another Dem in 2012 btrage. Sure there is some discontent among the Dems now, but most still stand behind Obama, especially if the alternate is a messy campaign with another Dem, when they should be focused on the GOP. Of course this is speaking 2 years before the Iowa Caucus. If Obama completely implodes in the Summer of 2011 you may see the tide change.
    I don't think he will see a serious challenger in his own party either. But you never know.

    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner
    Yeah. What an awesome country that would be
    Yes, yes it would. Freedom from the federal government stealing our money and controlling our lives.

    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    In case you haven't noticed, this is 2010, not 1787. The constitution used to count slaves as three-fifths of a person as well, but we realized that was bullshit and corrected it. It's not about what the Constitution says, it's about what's right and best for the country.
    Oh really? Because that is the foundation for our nation and the only governing document our country has that really matters as it is what secures our freedom. But you think we should just throw it out the window in favor of what some politician thinks? The Constitution is there to protect the people because our politicians certainly aren't looking out for our best interests.
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 21 Jan 2010 at 5:29 PM. Reason: double reply
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  19. #69
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Never mind.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  20. #70
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Most of the things that are run by the federal government don't need to be run by the federal government in the first place. Much of it is bereaucratic waste. The federal government sucks at running things. The government needs to stick to what the Constitution says it should stick to: printing money, fighting wars, and leaving the rest up to the states.
    Bureaucratic waste is caused by any large organization where there are established interests with "rights" to those interests. You'll find just as much crazy bureaucratic waste at any large, old, and profitable (or at least protected) corporation. The only things that make large, old organizations deal with such bureaucracy is either breaking them into more autonomous pieces that have great leaders (almost impossible to maintain long term, which is what leads to bureaucracy being put into place to at least maintain some base level of performance), introducing some type of competitive pressure, or a bankruptcy/liquidation type situation.

    You should really see how ridiculous some of the bureaucratic waste is, at say, Boeing, PG&E, or Microsoft (I've got friends working at all three and hear constant stories). It's off the charts. You're probably okay with that, because they're "private" companies. However, that's merely something that you can justify based on your political beliefs - it doesn't mean that Boeing is less wasteful than the DMV, it just means that you don't care because you're okay with private waste. What we need are policies that promote as little waste and as much competition as possible in all areas - public, private, whatever. Shifting too much to the corporatist side will eventually lead to just as much waste as shifting everything to a central government (part of the basis behind the original antitrust laws).

    I don't have any faith whatsoever that the state governments can run most of things that the feds do now any better. They'd still be without competition (unless you're talking about things that could convince people to move from one state to another) and would still be very large organizations looking to get ever bigger. Part of the reasoning for some things being done at the federal level is to keep the states from competing for a race to the bottom (ie - we'll let you dump that here for X dollars, we'll let you sell that here for X dollars, we'll let you test that here for X dollars, etc).
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  21. #71
    Cyburbian Emeritus Bear Up North's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Northwestern Ohio
    Posts
    9,327

    Hold On.....

    This Bear is not a MODERATORMAN. However, if I was I would be asking the contributors to this particular thread to stay closer to the original topic. Many of the posts are somewhat related to the topic but constant disagreement on how conservative Ronald Ray-Gunz was is not very relevant.
    _____

    Onward to Mordor!

    Bear
    Occupy Cyburbia!

  22. #72
    Cyburbian rcgplanner's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Back in SE Texas
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    All of these things can - and should - be taken care of by individual states with their own agencies. The U.S. is a collection of states, not one all-powerful nation.
    How did the focus switch from the government needs to be prioritized to well it's okay if states do it? The federal government is there to distribute the taxes to prevent the smaller states from being completely left out and as CJC stated to prevent the states from running a race to the bottom.

    Back to the transportation analogy, how in the world would a state like Wyoming with its population 532,000 be able to maintain its 900 miles of interstate highway by just relying on state taxes? Shifting even the amount of federal taxes residents of Wyoming back to the state wouldn't even come close to meeting the needs of the state if they were expected to provide the same services as the federal government. Especially if you take into account that 21% of the 2009 U.S. Federal Budget was for defense, which you admit the Federal government would still be in charge of. (approx 651 billion dollars [DoD and the War on Terror] of the 3.1 trillion dollar Federal Budget) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget.

    Continuing the road analogy: Sure as things stand now, there are differences in road conditions between states. If the government was set up how you wished, most of the states would have dirt roads.

    Back on Topic:

    It will be interesting what noticeable difference today's Supreme Court ruling will have on the 2010 and especially 2012 elections. As I stated on another thread, this is bad news for democracy in this Country. The voting public is going to have to weed through even more crap to find useful information on candidates.

  23. #73
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    He himself said he will impose term limits on himself. He doesn't want to stay there very long.
    Yeah, I've heard that one before...

    I am also disturbed by what today's supreme court ruling could mean for our future political landscape. What really kills me is all the talk about "free speech" and how this enables corporations, organizations, etc. to now throw money around with impunity. They say "speech" but they really mean "money."

    What I find galling is that the ruling states specifically that now corporations are able to speak with a louder voice to represent their shareholders on key issues. This all hinges on the legal definition of a corporation being considered as a legal "body" (thus the name - corpo -ration) akin to an individual citizen. This enables corporations to enjoy many of the same rights protected for individual citizens under the constitution. But, I disagree with that definition because it allows the corporations to exercise far more influence than I as an individual ever could.

    Furthermore, will GE or AT&T or any number of health care companies who I may (I don't, but let's pretend) own stock in going to consult me before writing a check to a particular candidate? Or will they just make the decision that will result in the largest future profits. They assume, of course, that this is the exclusive nature of my interest. But that may not be true and, in doing so, they have created the impression that a larger number of people support a particular candidate when, in fact, they may not. The reality of why people own particular stocks is not in line with peoples' political preferences, I would argue. Allowing those corporations to represent those peoples' opinions, then, is suspect to me.

    But what is really troubling is the impact this all could have on judicial elections:

    In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, Justice Kennedy recognized the potential for bias of a judge whose election victory was helped by a $3 million independent contribution favoring the judge. He wrote the contributions created a “risk of actual bias” so “substantial” that due process required setting aside the court’s decision.

    Today’s decision casts all that aside, engaging in the fiction that candidates do not feel beholden to those who engage in large, independent spending favoring the candidates (or bashing their opponents).

    This is a bad enough fiction to apply to elections for accountable elected officials; it is much worse to apply to judicial elections, where we count on the impartiality and fairness of the judges hearing our cases. Justice Kennedy backed away from Caperton today, leading Justice Stevens to note in dissent that Citizens United “unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in [judicial] races.”
    You can read the rest of this and others' weighing on both sides here.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  24. #74
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Back on topic- I think that the supreme court ruling todsay has drastically changed the 2012 political landscape. Sarah Palin, or any other candidate who would do what corporations want has a great chance now. All Exxon Mobil needs to do is spend a couple billion dollars of its record profits and dominate the media during the election runup. I think after today Palin is probably the frontrunner - as big business would LOVE to have her in the white house.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  25. #75
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,392
    The more Palin flops around like a fish in the bottom of a boat, the worse she looks. I have to laugh that Seth MacFarlane, using a cartoon, got her to jump up and down like an idiot. I think idiot is still okay to say in this over PC world, but if you intend to ban "retarded", prepare for idiot to go, as well feeble-minded, moron, imbecile, and a few others all used at one time or another to describe those low on the I.Q. scale.

    But this is way to amusing to pass up...

    From Palin's own Facebook page (February 1, 2010)
    I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts. Yes, Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic.

    The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, “F---ing retarded,” according to several participants, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

    Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.
    So, the guy who said the "r" word... just typing that makes me feel like a child... should be fired.

    Next we have Rush Limbaugh, using the same word repeatedly, with a different spin from Palin (February 7, 2010)

    They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire ... I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there.
    Now cometh Family Guy. And if this show doesn't epitomize Horatian satire, I don't know what does. In the show, the son dates a girl with Down's Syndrome, who notes her mother as "the former governor of Alaska." Funny stuff to me. Again, from Facebook (February 15, 2010):

    People are asking me to comment on yesterday’s Fox show that felt like another kick in the gut.
    Now watch Palin, who obviously knows where her bread is buttered, shy away from condemning the FOX network as a whole by 1) calling it "Fox Hollywood" as opposed to say, FOX News, which is an actual division of FOX, and 2) having her daughter Bristol write the glurge instead of doing it herself.

    I think before we are tempted to call something retarded, they best set up a "Retarded Sarah Hotline" so we can check if we're just happy-go-lucky Limbaughesque satirist, or dark evil haters of learning disabled children, or simply satirists with whom she disagrees. Wait, you know what? That's just a retarded idea. And really, can't an idea be retarded, idiotic, moronic, foolish, dumb, or any other similar words in our lexicon without it being an attack on children who are learning disabled? I know there are plenty of people who dislike the word, but I don't have to change how I speak because I might offend you. And trust me... it would never be an attack on your kid.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

+ Reply to thread
Page 3 of 69 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 13 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 75
    Last post: 19 Mar 2014, 10:50 AM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last post: 17 Jun 2011, 4:41 PM
  3. Replies: 1638
    Last post: 17 Nov 2008, 1:33 PM
  4. Replies: 62
    Last post: 05 Mar 2008, 3:44 PM