In response to Mac 1958 s thread regarding partisanship.

[healthmyths]

Well lets replace the word "rich" with the more descriptive "groups or individuals with the means to buy influence over political figures".

Very good replacement.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Of course. You do too, you just don't realize it.

Say you want to have blue widgets outlawed and you write a bill to make it so. You have to get some quantity of people to vote with you to pass the bill, and some or all of those people want something too. What do you do to get them to agree to outlawing blue widgets? You may not give them cash, but you give them something. Call it bartering. Call it buying; call it something else. I don't care what you call it; it's still exchanging one thing for another to influence people to concur with you, to give you their approbation, thus what you want -- blue widgets outlawed.

The example above is among the most simplistic, but make no mistake, simple or complex, the core principle is the same. People exchange what they have to offer in order to influence the actions of others. They buy influence and they have no problem doing so. They'd have it no other way. You, I, and everyone else must either be lying or ignorant/naive to seriously suggest otherwise.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should. I don't at all question that it happens, and it will continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime and probably many lifetimes beyond, but that doesn't mean I consider it the best way for things to get done. I'd rather political influence were not bought, that political decisions and laws written were based on convictions. I realize it is not the reality.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should.

Okay. You want to address the normative side of the matter. Fine.

I'm a democratic capitalist, and so is "Mark". I purchase services from Supplier A and I donate money to Charity B. "Mark" is also a capitalist. He buys services from Supplier A and contributes to Charity B. Our expenditures are as follows:

• Xelor
  • Supplier A --> $632K/year
  • Charity B --> $230K/year
• "Mark"
  • Supplier A --> $6K/year
  • Charity B --> $200/year

Lest you think the sums noted are outlandish, see this: Here's What the Average American Pays in Federal Income Taxes

If Supplier A or Charity B announces a change in their policy, assortment of offerings, or something else (doesn't matter what changes). Assuming A and B are wiling to receive input from stakeholders,

1. Should I expect to have more influence than Mark? Should it be the other way round?
2. Should A or B place more weight on my or Mark's opinion about their future course of action?

I don't think I need to tell you what my answers are to the two questions above, but just in case:

1. Yes, I should expect to have more influence.
2. A or B should place more weight on my opinion than Mark's.

Now consider that A is going to provide the very same services whether Mark or I pay for them; thus my and Mark's only real options are (1) pay for A's services, (2) suffer the consequences for receiving A's services but not paying for them, or (3) move to a locale where A doesn't provide services. Looking at the same two question, my answers are the same.

Government is not a business, nor a charity.

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Yes. Of course. I thought that was clear from the final paragraph of the post to which you responded.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth, or that someone would so openly disparage the concept of one person, one vote.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth, or that someone would so openly disparage the concept of one person, one vote.

Whoa, nelly! Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say a damn thing about "one person, one vote." That concept, in the U.S.' democratic republic, applies to individuals in a voting booth. I didn't say or intimate that a wealthy person should have more than one vote when they vote.

Our elected representatives must necessarily vote based on their assessment of merits of any given piece of legislation. To the extent that a piece of legislation's economic provisions will adversely affect some, benefit others and have no material impact on yet another group, representatives must weigh how to vote in accordance with their assessment of what economic outcome (or mix thereof) best suits their district.

In the tally of economic impacts, it may happen that a deleterious impact on one or a few may outstrip the downsides many would experience were the contrary vote given. In these days of expressed desire for economically sage and frugal decision making, does it really make sense to prefer the choice that yields the less economically desirable outcome? I say no.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth

In spite of your (presumed) attempt to do otherwise, you've conflated the consequence and incidence of what I wrote. You've read into what I said and inferred that which was not there. Hopefully, however, the clarification given above abates your misunderstanding. Please accept my apologies for not having been sufficiently explicative the first time round.

My candor is perhaps more unambiguous than was the same concept as concurred upon and codified in our Constitution.

 

[Montrovant]

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should. I don't at all question that it happens, and it will continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime and probably many lifetimes beyond, but that doesn't mean I consider it the best way for things to get done. I'd rather political influence were not bought, that political decisions and laws written were based on convictions. I realize it is not the reality.

The question isn't whether that sort of bartering or outright buying for votes happens, but whether it should.

Okay. You want to address the normative side of the matter. Fine.

I'm a democratic capitalist, and so is "Mark". I purchase services from Supplier A and I donate money to Charity B. "Mark" is also a capitalist. He buys services from Supplier A and contributes to Charity B. Our expenditures are as follows:

• Xelor
  • Supplier A --> $632K/year
  • Charity B --> $230K/year
• "Mark"
  • Supplier A --> $6K/year
  • Charity B --> $200/year

Lest you think the sums noted are outlandish, see this: Here's What the Average American Pays in Federal Income Taxes

If Supplier A or Charity B announces a change in their policy, assortment of offerings, or something else (doesn't matter what changes). Assuming A and B are wiling to receive input from stakeholders,

1. Should I expect to have more influence than Mark? Should it be the other way round?
2. Should A or B place more weight on my or Mark's opinion about their future course of action?

I don't think I need to tell you what my answers are to the two questions above, but just in case:

1. Yes, I should expect to have more influence.
2. A or B should place more weight on my opinion than Mark's.

Now consider that A is going to provide the very same services whether Mark or I pay for them; thus my and Mark's only real options are (1) pay for A's services, (2) suffer the consequences for receiving A's services but not paying for them, or (3) move to a locale where A doesn't provide services. Looking at the same two question, my answers are the same.

Government is not a business, nor a charity.

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Yes. Of course. I thought that was clear from the final paragraph of the post to which you responded.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth, or that someone would so openly disparage the concept of one person, one vote.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth, or that someone would so openly disparage the concept of one person, one vote.

Whoa, nelly! Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say a damn thing about "one person, one vote." That concept, in the U.S.' democratic republic, applies to individuals in a voting booth. I didn't say or intimate that a wealthy person should have more than one vote when they vote.

Our elected representatives must necessarily vote based on their assessment of merits of any given piece of legislation. To the extent that a piece of legislation's economic provisions will adversely affect some, benefit others and have no material impact on yet another group, representatives must weigh how to vote in accordance with their assessment of what economic outcome (or mix thereof) best suits their district.

In the tally of economic impacts, it may happen that a deleterious impact on one or a few may outstrip the downsides many would experience were the contrary vote given. In these days of expressed desire for economically sage and frugal decision making, does it really make sense to prefer the choice that yields the less economically desirable outcome? I say no.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth

In spite of your (presumed) attempt to do otherwise, you've conflated the consequence and incidence of what I what I wrote. You've read into what I said and inferred that which was not there. Hopefully, however, the clarification given above abates your misunderstanding. Please accept my apologies for not having been sufficiently explicative the first time round.

My candor is perhaps more unambiguous than was the same concept as concurred upon and codified in our Constitution.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, this began for me as a discussion about buying votes.

However, the idea that paying more taxes should grant one a greater say in governance is still not an idea I can agree with, at least not without reservation or greater specificity of circumstance.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Okay. You want to address the normative side of the matter. Fine.

I'm a democratic capitalist, and so is "Mark". I purchase services from Supplier A and I donate money to Charity B. "Mark" is also a capitalist. He buys services from Supplier A and contributes to Charity B. Our expenditures are as follows:

• Xelor
  • Supplier A --> $632K/year
  • Charity B --> $230K/year
• "Mark"
  • Supplier A --> $6K/year
  • Charity B --> $200/year

Lest you think the sums noted are outlandish, see this: Here's What the Average American Pays in Federal Income Taxes

If Supplier A or Charity B announces a change in their policy, assortment of offerings, or something else (doesn't matter what changes). Assuming A and B are wiling to receive input from stakeholders,

1. Should I expect to have more influence than Mark? Should it be the other way round?
2. Should A or B place more weight on my or Mark's opinion about their future course of action?

I don't think I need to tell you what my answers are to the two questions above, but just in case:

1. Yes, I should expect to have more influence.
2. A or B should place more weight on my opinion than Mark's.

Now consider that A is going to provide the very same services whether Mark or I pay for them; thus my and Mark's only real options are (1) pay for A's services, (2) suffer the consequences for receiving A's services but not paying for them, or (3) move to a locale where A doesn't provide services. Looking at the same two question, my answers are the same.

Government is not a business, nor a charity.

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Would you say that paying more in taxes should give someone more say in governance?

Yes. Of course. I thought that was clear from the final paragraph of the post to which you responded.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth, or that someone would so openly disparage the concept of one person, one vote.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth, or that someone would so openly disparage the concept of one person, one vote.

Whoa, nelly! Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say a damn thing about "one person, one vote." That concept, in the U.S.' democratic republic, applies to individuals in a voting booth. I didn't say or intimate that a wealthy person should have more than one vote when they vote.

Our elected representatives must necessarily vote based on their assessment of merits of any given piece of legislation. To the extent that a piece of legislation's economic provisions will adversely affect some, benefit others and have no material impact on yet another group, representatives must weigh how to vote in accordance with their assessment of what economic outcome (or mix thereof) best suits their district.

In the tally of economic impacts, it may happen that a deleterious impact on one or a few may outstrip the downsides many would experience were the contrary vote given. In these days of expressed desire for economically sage and frugal decision making, does it really make sense to prefer the choice that yields the less economically desirable outcome? I say no.

I suppose I'm just surprised that someone would so clearly indicate they are happy with the idea of the wealthy being in control of the nation based on their wealth

In spite of your (presumed) attempt to do otherwise, you've conflated the consequence and incidence of what I what I wrote. You've read into what I said and inferred that which was not there. Hopefully, however, the clarification given above abates your misunderstanding. Please accept my apologies for not having been sufficiently explicative the first time round.

My candor is perhaps more unambiguous than was the same concept as concurred upon and codified in our Constitution.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, this began for me as a discussion about buying votes.

However, the idea that paying more taxes should grant one a greater say in governance is still not an idea I can agree with, at least not without reservation or greater specificity of circumstance.

the idea that paying more taxes should grant one a greater say in governance is still not an idea I can agree with, at least not without reservation or greater specificity of circumstance.

I understand. That's perfectly reasonable. Let me know if there's a specific circumstance you'd like to discuss. It appears our conversation and positions at the general level are clearly understood, so moving to specific situations is thus possible.

Sorry for the misunderstanding

NP. We understand and respect each other. That's what matters most.

 

[Billo_Really]

My God, you are deluded.

YOu live in a culture dominated by your lefty nonsense and you think that the small amount of opposing view that gets broadcast in the problem.

"...in the problem."

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus?

 

[JoeB131]

It doesnt have to be like that.
The alternative is what we have now. The rich an buy a party and the pay off is approved legislation. I would rather see a parade of idiots than be cheated as we are today.

Here's the thing, we only cheat our selves. If money were the deciding factor, we'd be in the beginning of the Third Bush Presidency right now. (Which quite honestly, sounds a lot better than what we have now.)

Instead, we had the media networks give Biffenfuhrer a shitload of free airtime - more than Bush could ever hope to buy - because he was good for ratings.

Who wants to listen to boring old Jeb Bush talk about common core when the funny guy from the Apprentice is going to get up there and call Mexicans rapists?

Hardy-har-har...

I think the media needs to clean up their act before we start tapping the taxpayers for "Welfare for politicians."

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.

If you grew up in the 1970's, that's exactly what you had. If Channel 5 had an editorial, any campus leftist asshole could insist on "equal time" to do a rebuttal.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Poor Poor Rubes ...they made one mistake...they trusted a Freak Orange Faker with 4000 law suits, 6 Bankruptcies and a newly minted $25 million dollar pay out to victims of his Fake University


Despite Trump promotion -- Caterpillar will close plant in Aurora, Illinois, that employs 800

 

[Rustic]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)

I'm not actually a Democrat, but folks here insist I'm a liberal

Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

Yes,thats the one.

What's the one area you'd want to see a limit of government. If there's more please divulge

I would like to cut the cord between business and the parties.You should not be able to buy influence. I would like tighter controls on politicians going on to work for corporations/lobby groups.
I would like to see a limit on other jobs that elected MPs could take.
Im not bothered about term limitations. In fact that might prove counter productive. What we find very often is that the politicians get led by the civil service because they have more experience. Thats not how it should work.
I would like the devolved governments to have more powers so that issues could be solved locally.

Just off the top of my head.

There should be a single term limits, there's nothing more damaging to this country than career politicians...

 

[Rustic]

Mac is actually one of the most partisan members of this board, if you apply the actual definition:

1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Mac's 'cause' is his contempt for anyone who happens by virtue of their own opinions to fall strongly on the left or right.

...and yes, he has a 'biased, emotional allegiance' to that cause.

He is what he condemns, but doesn't realize it.

Holy crap, you REALLY need to get me out of your head.

Maybe answer the freaking question. Wow.
.

See? That is EXACTLY what I've been referring to. You don't dare debate me one on one on the issues. Your only motive is to troll like a child.

And you still haven't addressed the question in the thread. You're crazed.


get

me

out

of

your

head
.

You are the topic of the thread.

You accuse people of being mindlessly partisan. You accuse me of being mindlessly partisan.

My response is this. Show me ONE TIME that I have taken an indefensibly wrong position merely because I was siding with Democrats, or with the left, or with any other partisan delineation you wish to point out.

ONE is all I ask,

or, as an alternative, you can respond with something mindlessly childish.

The "left" is always wrong on everything

 

[Correll]

My God, you are deluded.

YOu live in a culture dominated by your lefty nonsense and you think that the small amount of opposing view that gets broadcast in the problem.

"...in the problem."

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus?

You mention Fox news, but fail to mention the BIg Three Networks, CNN, or BBC, all dominated by your fellow travelers.

 

[JoeB131]

You mention Fox news, but fail to mention the BIg Three Networks, CNN, or BBC, all dominated by your fellow travelers.

Dun der, Cleetus, you are just to dumb to realize that except for the BBC, all them dun der networks you are talking about are owned by the big corporations that are screwing you rubes in Jesusland.

But none of them thought the country would fuck up so bad as to actually elect Cheeto Jesus.

 

[Billo_Really]

You mention Fox news, but fail to mention the BIg Three Networks, CNN, or BBC, all dominated by your fellow travelers.

Because the topic of the thread is to "...list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with."

For me, it's how the right has been able to network their message across all forms of media to reach the maximum number of people around the globe and you are living proof of how vast that infrastructure has become. It's amazing to see how the right has been able to recruit (and organize) so many mentally (and socially) incapable idiots thinking they have what it takes to run this country.

People like you, who can't say a nice thing about the opposition if your life depended on it, thinking people in this country actually want someone like you running it? To think that we would want a leader, who doesn't get along with anyone, is just absurd. To think we would want people who lie, burn bridges and put themselves ahead of our country as our leaders, is nuts!

Look in the mirror, because what you see, is the last person in the world we want running this government.

 

[Billo_Really]

Dun der, Cleetus, you are just to dumb to realize that except for the BBC, all them dun der networks you are talking about are owned by the big corporations that are screwing you rubes in Jesusland.

But none of them thought the country would fuck up so bad as to actually elect Cheeto Jesus.

Oh God, for one fleeting moment there, I thought you were going to say, "Jesus Camp!"

 

[Unkotare]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience...

What nation's experience?

 

[Unkotare]

... As a leading opinion former on here .....

Who bestowed that title on you? The Queen?

 

[sakinago]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.
.

Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.

I believe he's referring to the fairness doctrine.

"Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced."

This meant you had to either speak on both sides of the argument, or have someone from each side speak to their respective arguments. Very clear violation of the first amendment.

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.

If you grew up in the 1970's, that's exactly what you had. If Channel 5 had an editorial, any campus leftist asshole could insist on "equal time" to do a rebuttal.

Again --- BULLSHIT.

Broadcasting is my career. I know this stuff inside and out. I had to know, and supervise, compliance with these laws. You might be conflating your foggy memory with the Fairness Doctrine but that didn't work that way either.

The Equal Time rule applies to political candidates. If channel 5 gives time to Candidate A, then it must make the same time available to Candidate B if B requests it, at the same price. Not some editorial.

And it's got nothing to do with the 1970s --- it's still the law. This came up as recently as last Fall.

 

[Pogo]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.
.

Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.

I believe he's referring to the fairness doctrine.

"Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced."

This meant you had to either speak on both sides of the argument, or have someone from each side speak to their respective arguments. Very clear violation of the first amendment.

Nope. Also wrong, didn't work that way. It required that licensees present a diversity of viewpoints, which had wide latitude which was open to the broadcasters' interpretation. And it required that if a broadcast was a personal attack or criticism, then the attacked party could have air time to respond. The Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans concerned over the influence FDR was having with his "fireside chats". Although it was rarely invoked, one time it was was in 1954 after Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" broadcast its scathing exposé of Joe McCarthy. The Wisconsin Senator requested air time to respond and CBS gave it to him -- the whole hour.

The Fairness Doctrine was based on the limited nature of the airwaves, which at the time of its inception consisted of basically 106 AM channels and twelve TV (and far fewer than those in any single broadcast area). The vast majority of people cannot have a radio or TV station, ergo an open diversity and some degree of public service programming was required on individual stations. Again, loosely defined by the broadcaster themselves. Which is why they would broadcast the TV Farm Market Report at 5AM, when the audience was minimal, so that at license renewal time they count up all those hours and say "here's X number of hours of Farm Reports / News / City Council meeetings, whatever" to show they're providing a service "in the public interest, convenience and necessity" which is the basic criterion for being granted a license.

It certainly did not mean you had to present both sides of a single argument. That has never been the case. I worked in broadcasting both during the Fairness Doctrine and after it was abolished. The difference in my stations' operations before versus after was ----- absolutely nothing.

Moreover even if it had required a single argument to be presented on all sides there's no "violation of the First Amendment" therein. The 1A ensures that a view can't be silenced by the government. Does not apply. If you're presenting all views ------- then obviously none of them is "silenced".

 

[sakinago]

Imagine how publicly-funded elections would completely change the money-in-politics issue.

Yeah, for the worst.

I remember when we used to have 'Equal Time" rules, which meant that every news cast, some Marxist nutcase in his 20th year at university was mumbling incoherently for five minutes because, you know, equal time.
.

Bullshit. No such thing ever existed.

I believe he's referring to the fairness doctrine.

"Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced."

This meant you had to either speak on both sides of the argument, or have someone from each side speak to their respective arguments. Very clear violation of the first amendment.

Nope. Also wrong, didn't work that way. It required that licensees present a diversity of viewpoints, which had wide latitude which was open to the broadcasters' interpretation. And it required that if a broadcast was a personal attack or criticism, then the attacked party could have air time to respond. The Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans concerned over the influence FDR was having with his "fireside chats". Although it was rarely invoked, one time it was was in 1954 after Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" broadcast its scathing exposé of Joe McCarthy. The Wisconsin Senator requested air time to respond and CBS gave it to him -- the whole hour.

I worked in broadcasting both during the Fairness Doctrine and after it was abolished. The difference in my stations' operation was ----- absolutely nothing.

Thanks for clearing that up, I still see it as unconstitutional, in violation of the 1st amendment, which is pretty clear.