Jump to content

Why The American Dream Could Come To An End


Recommended Posts

Yeah all those billionaires with no power love CU. I don't think proof means what you think it means. All those poor billionaires on the outside looking in finally get a chance to have a voice. Lol. How about some non-crazy logic. CU allowed 22 people to make about 100 million plus dollars worth of ad buys. Therefore, those 22 people and the candidates they support like CU. People who don't think 22 people should get to wield that kind of power don't like CU.I'm still laughing at the assertion that Ron Paul was completely unknown in 2008. Thank god Shelden Adelsen is allowed to spend 20 million dollars on anti-Romney ads for Newt. Without that ability, no one would know who Ron Paul is!
How is 22 people having a voice worse than 2 or 3 media moguls having a voice?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

More Ron Paul thoughts. He did not achieve some noteriety because of CU. He achieved it through persistence. He runs for the White House every time. He sends newsletters. He travels the country. He sticks to his guns. I like Ron Paul even though I disagree with him on some things strongly.His chances of being President pre-CU were still 0.0% and post-CU they are still 0.0%. People say they want drastic change but most of them are full of it. Now, Ron Paul doesn't just have to deal with a media (both conservative and liberal by the way) that actively ignores him; he also has to deal with a campaign finance environment where status quo candidates like Obama and Romney can spend him into oblivion. I just can't wrap my head around you, a strident opponent of crony capitalism (and rightfully so), supporting a judicial ruling that gives MORE advantages to kiss-ass politicians and the very rich. Acting like the people who are taking advantage of CU (the uber-rich) were "outsiders in 2008" is silly.....especially since you have argued on MANY occasions that Obama has "rewarded" his big contributors when possible. You think that Shelden Adelsen won't have Newt's ear if he pulls the upset and wins the Presidency. C'mon, man!
CU doesn't just affect billionaires. A few years ago when I was richer, I wanted to give money to various political causes. I couldn't because of the limits on free speech. So all that campaign finance regulation does is limit those who wish to obey the laws. Your choices are 1) a few media billionaires control everything or 2) a few media billionaires plus lots of millionaires working together, or 3) a few media billionaires plus lots of millionaires plus any ideas that can attract lots of people willing to donate a few thousand. I'd prefer the 3rd. How can anyone say 1 and 2 are better?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Newt Gingrich begs to differ.Also, CU has little to do with free speech.Imagine there's a group of people in a warehouse who are trying to have a discussion. A handful of those people have microphones that are so loud that they drown out the voices of everyone else. Are we limiting free speech by telling them they have to talk using the same voice as everyone else?
Are you suggesting that national candidates should not be allowed to run ads? That is the implication of your objection. Because for a national candidate, *someone* will have a megaphone. It can be the media; it can be rich candidates, or it can be everyone. Which do you prefer?
Link to post
Share on other sites
We are talking about career politicians, there is more negative stuff to say about them by virtue of them being politicians.And to pretend that the American voter is too stupid to think for themselves and instead will vote based on what an ad tells them...means you CAN'T have a 'thoughtful' voter anyway. Either have a test to determine if a person is qualified to vote, or accept that the voters get what they deserve.Might as well pump a couple billion dollars into the economy in the mean time.
This would explain why leftists are so against CU -- it will make them think. And once that starts happening, the whole Democratic party goes away.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not, but you have to understand that the more kooky and deluded of the Libertarian lot (most of them) are so disconnected from reality that essentially all forms of regulation are viewed as some horrible infringement of a fundamental right. When the basis of your entire belief system is seeing just how far you can stretch ideology without it appearing immediately absurd, everything then becomes liable to your own imaginary scenarios, which in turn detaches everything from the real world, which in turn makes everything a theoretical proposition. After living in this ****ing lala land long enough, the Libertarian completely loses touch with reason and starts to think it's perfectly reasonable that everything to be phrased in the context of the most extreme scenario a team of Hollywood writers could dream up. The 20% where Libertarians are right (in the face of everyone else who is wrong) is totally overwhelmed by the 80% of the time when they're just ideologue retards.Ask hblask about how Libertarians approach persons who are denied insurance in his free market utopia. It's a 'complicated issue', he babbles some talking points, talks the standard book then pretends it doesn't exist. His reply to your question will be much the same.How does a tiny handful of mega-wealthy plutocrats commandeering the dialog benefit free market interests? It doesn't, but to the libertoon, the ideological basis behind the act of allowing them to do so is far more important than the drastic negative consequence of allowing them to do it.
That's a lot of lovely insults that are designed to totally sidestep the issue of why a few media moguls should be allowed to control the election rather than anyone who wants to contribute to a cause.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting that national candidates should not be allowed to run ads? That is the implication of your objection. Because for a national candidate, *someone* will have a megaphone. It can be the media; it can be rich candidates, or it can be everyone. Which do you prefer?
He should be allowed to run ads if he raises the money to do so, through the reasonably sized donations from many people. If many people don't support him enough to collectively give him money, he can no longer run ads.The national media has a loud megaphone, but at some level that megaphone is in check by demanding that people listen to it (watch the shows, listen to the radio) or it goes out of business and goes silent. The rogue billionaire has no such check. The amount of money he spends is unrelated to the support of his belief, and so it can end up very poorly representing the country. The fact that it can be done anonymously is even worse.
Link to post
Share on other sites
He should be allowed to run ads if he raises the money to do so, through the reasonably sized donations from many people. If many people don't support him enough to collectively give him money, he can no longer run ads.The national media has a loud megaphone, but at some level that megaphone is in check by demanding that people listen to it (watch the shows, listen to the radio) or it goes out of business and goes silent. The rogue billionaire has no such check. The amount of money he spends is unrelated to the support of his belief, and so it can end up very poorly representing the country. The fact that it can be done anonymously is even worse.
So you don't think billionaire candidates should be able to spend their own money on their campaign? And what is a "reasonable sized donation"? Is it enough to be heard over the voices of the billionaire media moguls?Why is a non-media billionaire adding his voice to an election worse than having media billionaires control it? Do media billionaires somehow have special powers of goodness and wisdom? I don't buy that the viewers control the media that much; you can see that in the Ron Paul thing, too. The data on that is now overwhelming. Compare Google searches on the various candidates vs MSM mentions of the various candidates, and it is clear that the MSM has an agenda, and it is nowhere close to representing the interests of the American public. This is why the MSM is so anit-CU; they know they will have to change if opposing voices are raised.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you don't think billionaire candidates should be able to spend their own money on their campaign? And what is a "reasonable sized donation"? Is it enough to be heard over the voices of the billionaire media moguls?Why is a non-media billionaire adding his voice to an election worse than having media billionaires control it? Do media billionaires somehow have special powers of goodness and wisdom? I don't buy that the viewers control the media that much; you can see that in the Ron Paul thing, too. The data on that is now overwhelming. Compare Google searches on the various candidates vs MSM mentions of the various candidates, and it is clear that the MSM has an agenda, and it is nowhere close to representing the interests of the American public. This is why the MSM is so anit-CU; they know they will have to change if opposing voices are raised.
Yea, I'm not 100% how I feel about it, but billionaire candidates probably shouldn't be allowed to spend their own money.A reasonable sized donation has been established for a while as, what, $5000 per year or something. The inability to find a "perfect" amount doesn't mean that we shouldn't even try (which is what a lot of your arguments boil down to. It would be worse if you could claim that the $5000 number was decided by a bureaucrat).As I said, at least in theory, there is some relationship between content put out by a media network and support of that network by the people. It's often a merky one, though.And I think you're overstating RP's support. I think there's a large sample bias in your assessment.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, voters are too smart to be swayed by Super PAC money ads (according to BG) but not smart enough to filter the things that come from the all-powerful media (according to Henry while somehow agreeing with BG)? Ok, sure. CU is just another way for the rich and powerful to shape the debate and that will only end up helping candidates who appease the rich and powerful. Congrats! Now, you can give $5000 instead of $2000 Henry! That's totally going to "give you a voice" now against 22 people spending 150,000,000 dollars. Totally. You had more of a voice by far under the old system where you could make a blog decrying the media's handling of Ron Paul and a handful of rich people couldn't control everyone's TV during election season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, voters are too smart to be swayed by Super PAC money ads (according to BG) but not smart enough to filter the things that come from the all-powerful media (according to Henry while somehow agreeing with BG)?
"People" are definitely not smart enough to filter anything and can easily be swayed by any argument. This is why this "advertising" fad is still so popular.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"People" are definitely not smart enough to filter anything and can easily be swayed by any argument. This is why this "advertising" fad is still so popular.
I agree with you and so did the FL Primary.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you and so did the FL Primary.
If the average voter will vote based on negative ads based on lies, then why do you expect the average voter to vote 'better' if he's not told those 'lies'Put it this way. Could I spend enough money to make you vote republican across the board?Could "America is the best country in the world" SuperPAC convince democrats to vote for the best interest of America?Of course not.Most people vote based on hair, speech delivery, and looks. Money hasn't changed that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to go back to basics here.To get information out about a national campaign requires at least a billion dollars right now. That billion dollars WILL be spent, one way or another, because it's important and people want to know. The choices of who spends it are:1. MSM2. The candidates3. Millionaires and billionaires supporting or opposing candidates on their own.4. Groups of people banded together to support or oppose candidates.The CU decision just made the last one legal. All the others were legal before that and still areHow is adding #4 to the list of voices a bad thing? Why is having only the first three better than including #4? That is the central question, and nobody seems to be able to give a sensible answer.Instead, people skip right to the "magical fairy land" perspective. It's like the gun control debate, where people start with the premise "well, if we'd just get rid of all guns...." The campaign finance equivalent seems to be "well if we just give everyone an equal voice..." or "if we just get all money out of politics...". Well, how about if we have magical unicorns wave their magical tails and fart fairy dust on everyone? The truth is, no, not all 300,000,000 will be heard equally. That's impossible, for a very practical reason: a lot of them are just plain nuts, and even if they weren't, 300,000,000 voices would quickly become white noise.So the real world choice is some combination of 1-4 above. It seems like 4 is the most preferable, not the one to be made illegal. I'd be much happier getting rid of the first three than number 4 (although in reality I support ALL speech).If you really want to get the money out of politics, get rid of the thing they are buying: influence and power. If there is nothing to buy, the money goes somewhere else. It's funny how the people who always want more power and influence moved to Washington are always the ones who complain the most loudly about money in politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To get information out about a national campaign requires at least a billion dollars right now. That billion dollars WILL be spent, one way or another, because it's important and people want to know.
Wait just a minute. To get information out costs very, very little right now. I can throw up a web site that provides as much information as I want for about $35 per year. Getting information to people who "want to know" is the cheapest it has ever been. It basically costs nothing. What costs a billion dollars is a massive propaganda campaign to influence the public. I'm fine with supporting the right of propagandists to do their work, but lets not obscure the issue with language. This is clearly not about the cost of "getting information to people who want it".
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait just a minute. To get information out costs very, very little right now. I can throw up a web site that provides as much information as I want for about $35 per year.
And reach about 35 people. Unless you have a couple million to promote it.
What costs a billion dollars is a massive propaganda campaign to influence the public. I'm fine with supporting the right of propagandists to do their work, but lets not obscure the issue with language. This is clearly not about the cost of "getting information to people who want it".
You can't hide the fact that it still costs millions and millions of dollars to reach a national audience by calling that information 'propaganda'.There is one shortcut that costs little, it's called 'going viral'. In the case of political candidates, that's usually not a good thing. (Ask Rick "oops" Perry).Most information still comes through the extremely biased and narrow-minded MSM. The choice is to give them total control, or let other people spend enough to have an equal voice with the MSM.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait just a minute. To get information out costs very, very little right now. I can throw up a web site that provides as much information as I want for about $35 per year. Getting information to people who "want to know" is the cheapest it has ever been. It basically costs nothing. What costs a billion dollars is a massive propaganda campaign to influence the public. I'm fine with supporting the right of propagandists to do their work, but lets not obscure the issue with language. This is clearly not about the cost of "getting information to people who want it".
Did you know that the ribbon cutting for the New Day realty is scheduled for Thursday the 16th of February in Bend Oregon?I mean, it's on the web.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And reach about 35 people. Unless you have a couple million to promote it.
So even if I don't argue this point the price has dropped from a billion down to 2 million.
You can't hide the fact that it still costs millions and millions of dollars to reach a national audience by calling that information 'propaganda'.
I can't think of a better example of propaganda than a modern political campaign. Can you? If what these guys do is not propaganda, what is?
Did you know that the ribbon cutting for the New Day realty is scheduled for Thursday the 16th of February in Bend Oregon?I mean, it's on the web.
He said getting information out to the people who want it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So even if I don't argue this point the price has dropped from a billion down to 2 million.
No, that's the price to get one website noticed by any measurable number of people. You also have to get in newspapers, on TV, on the radio, etc. And you have to hire staff for that. And lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers. And there is travel costs. And that's just one candidate. Total spending for all candidates plus the value of all media covering the candidates is well over a billion dollars.From Wiki:> One source reported that if the costs for both Democratic and Republican campaigns were added together (for the presidential primary election, general election, and the political conventions), the costs have more than doubled in only eight years ($448.9 million in 1996, $649.5 million in 2000, and $1.01 billion in 2004).Again, that's just the candidates spending, and doesn't count the value/cost of all the coverage nationwide and all the private individuals buying signs, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that's the price to get one website noticed by any measurable number of people. You also have to get in newspapers, on TV, on the radio, etc. And you have to hire staff for that. And lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers. And there is travel costs. And that's just one candidate. Total spending for all candidates plus the value of all media covering the candidates is well over a billion dollars.
No, to "get information to those who want it" you don't need to do any of that.
From Wiki:> One source reported that if the costs for both Democratic and Republican campaigns were added together (for the presidential primary election, general election, and the political conventions), the costs have more than doubled in only eight years ($448.9 million in 1996, $649.5 million in 2000, and $1.01 billion in 2004).Again, that's just the candidates spending, and doesn't count the value/cost of all the coverage nationwide and all the private individuals buying signs, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.
I'm aware of how much is spent on political campaigns. That's exactly the point, that a political campaign is about much more than providing information, which is actually very cheap.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, to "get information to those who want it" you don't need to do any of that. I'm aware of how much is spent on political campaigns. That's exactly the point, that a political campaign is about much more than providing information, which is actually very cheap.
You are making no sense any more. Try starting a national news network, and see how "cheap" it is. Try starting a national campaign, and see how cheap it s. These things are not cheap. I don't know if you think magic fairies spread information or what, but I can tell you, it's really a massive infrastructure that costs mountains of money. If it was cheap, anyone who wanted to just spend a few dollars and get their message out to everyone.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just no way you are naive enough to believe that all that cost is about providing information. Providing information to billions of people who are seeking it is exceedingly cheap. What is expensive is controlling information. Controling what information is available is the goal of a propagandist and it is not an action that is friendly to free speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

VB, I think you GREATLY are exaggerating the number of people who want accurate information during an election cycle.Look at the recent Susan Komen whatever cancer thingy.They make an announcement that they are going to stop giving money to planned parenthood because they have a clear policy that they do not give money to any organization that is under a federal investigation. The money they gave to PP just went to them referring women at risk of cancer to appropriate doctors. PP doesn't do anything except abortion.Out comes the leftist propaganda wing screaming abortion rights.About people giving money to breast cancer research not being politically correct for daring to ignore their internal policies, a policy that makes perfect sense.All the information was out there, but the story was not understood, and the truth was drowned out by the PC garbage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

VB, I think you GREATLY are exaggerating the number of people who want accurate information during an election cycle.Look at the recent Susan Komen whatever cancer thingy.They make an announcement that they are going to stop giving money to planned parenthood because they have a clear policy that they do not give money to any organization that is under a federal investigation. The money they gave to PP just went to them referring women at risk of cancer to appropriate doctors. PP doesn't do anything except abortion.Out comes the leftist propaganda wing screaming abortion rights.About people giving money to breast cancer research not being politically correct for daring to ignore their internal policies, a policy that makes perfect sense.All the information was out there, but the story was not understood, and the truth was drowned out by the PC garbage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's just no way you are naive enough to believe that all that cost is about providing information. Providing information to billions of people who are seeking it is exceedingly cheap. What is expensive is controlling information. Controling what information is available is the goal of a propagandist and it is not an action that is friendly to free speech.
That makes no sense. Providing is controlling and vice versa, unless you believe in magical information fairies that provide equal justice to all.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...