No Sane Person should really be able to argue against this - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-11-2019, 08:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
hbar's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2007
Vehicle: '74 & '78 450 SEL
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,910
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Quoted: 2045 Post(s)
Now lets examine some of the points made in the video because, unlike the comments from the peanut gallery, they actually make sense.

1) The two main parties are too entrenched to allow meaningful reform to a system that empowers them both. They will fight each other on nearly every issue, but any proposed changes to the political system at the federal level has them fully united in maintaining the status quo. Real success can only happen by making changes at the state and local level, starting with the rules for elections and how ballots are counted. There are numerous tried and true methods that promote competition among alternative parties and independent candidates. If enough states enact these reforms, it makes it far more likely that change will eventually reach the national level.

A couple of other points are more difficult to envision happening unless and until public attitude toward politics experiences sone radical change. Liberals and conservatives are now so outraged at each other that rational thinking isn't really possible. I don't know what would take to cause both sides to agree to start working toward reasonable compromise on common ground, bit I don't see it happening anytime soon.

And as far as persuading the American public to dedicate themselves to taking an active part in a movement like this, with enough of the population on board to reach a critical mass . . . well, let's just say it could happen if something triggers it. Maybe the international embarrassment that the United States is currently experiencing because of the ongoing words and actions of the orangutan-in-chief is enough to push us over the edge and demand real change to a broken system. I really do hope so.
hbar is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-11-2019, 08:21 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
GreenT's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2013
Vehicle: 1995 S500 - 1986 420SEL
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 60,703
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Quoted: 10519 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbar View Post
Comments on the points of the post:

1) Repeal "Citizens United". That would be nothing more than a minor inconvenience for profit based corporations, while it would be a serious impediment for individual citizens to exercise their right to free political speech. Ordinary Americans would be limited in their ability to effectively criticize and comment on politicians by how loudly they could yell standing in the public square or by how many fliers they could print up at Kinkos using only the disposable income in their bank accounts. "Citizens United" made it possible for like minded individuals to solicit donations to raise funds that are to be used collectively to make their political ideas known to the public via advertising. Grassroots organizations that want to participate in the political process are required to register as 501c corporations, and repealing "Citizens United" would effectively prohibit them from spending any money to make their ideas available to the public.

Without getting into the weeds, CU was a decision that affected unions and corporations. I disagree with the concept that groups are equivalent to individuals (people) and should have the same fist amendment rights. It has resulted in the unleashing of hundreds of millions in election influence with no accountability and the emergence of dark money from organizations that are not required to identify the source of it.

As it stand, this system is the polar opposite to anything resembling having individual expressing their opinion because they are being drowned in a sea of cash spent by corporations and wealthy PACs or super PACs.

If you or anyone else sees no problem with this current structure we should stop any further discussion on campaign reform. There's a reason why it was my first point.


Quote:
2) Return control of all debates to LOWV. Seriously? How are you going to make this happen? And if you could, what's to stop vested interests from influencing the LOWV?

Don't like the League? Pick a group or any other organization as long as the GOP and DNC (as corporations ffs) don't have absolute control of the debates.


Quote:
3) Remove made up requirements for parties participate in debates. Yeah, that will be useful. We'd need to move the debates to the field of a soccer stadium in order to accommodate the hundreds of candidates that would participate in an event with no "made up requirements" for admission.

You missed the Party part, individuals are not political parties. I'll be more specific... national political parties like the Greens, Libertarian, constitutional, etc. Actual living/breathing parties


Quote:
4) Institute public campaign financing so every candidate shares the same budget. Okay, how does one qualify for the funds? What's to keep every barking moonbat with a political blog from declaring himself a candidate and demanding the millions of dollars he needs to effectively advertise a political campaign? Also, how do you prevent rich people like Trump from spending their own money and overwhelming the public funds of other candidates?

See above on who qualifies.

As to the rich, they would not be allowed. One pot, split evenly.
GreenT is online now  
post #23 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-11-2019, 08:29 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
GreenT's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2013
Vehicle: 1995 S500 - 1986 420SEL
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 60,703
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Quoted: 10519 Post(s)
A system founded on the principle of individuals giving limited, disclosed contributions directly to candidates, parties and PACs has morphed into a system that allows individuals and organizations to give hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars, to groups to spend in elections, some of whom are closely aligned with candidates and parties, without disclosure.

During the 2016 election cycle, the top 20 individual donors (whose contributions were disclosed) gave more than $500 million combined to political organizations. The 20 largest organizational donors also gave a total of more than $500 million, and more than $1 billion came from the top 40 donors.

At a time when Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were confirming that large numbers of people donating small amounts could fund successful campaigns, the extraordinary role being played by the very few donors who give the most may be the most important element in this new era.
GreenT is online now  
post #24 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-11-2019, 09:01 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: May 2016
Vehicle: 2000 S430, 2003 S430, 2003 S600 TT, and 2005 E320 CDI
Location: USA
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 169 Post(s)
Quoted: 962 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakter View Post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hillary lost because she was too corrupt but not corrupt enough to lose the popular vote?

The constant barrage from the media starting off every story about Sec. Clinton with "Hillary Clinton's E-mail scandal" was enough to push voters who vote sensationalized headlines and bumper sticker's to not vote, or not vote for her.
Actually, I was thinking more of what she and her DNC supporters did to Sen. Sanders, and the fact that all that actually got exposed, as it should've been. But since you did bring it up, it was also important to report on the email scandal; you and I would be in jail for what she did. She got off *very* easy for that.

In our current system, as specified by the Constitution, you win by winning the Electoral College, so this "she won the popular vote!" bit is a canard. She lost the election, pure and simple. We talk about campaign finance reform, the levels of tribal hostility between "Liberals" and "Conservatives", the uniting of the D's and R's in power to keep the political status quo, all that. And all of that is important. The establishment punks in power unite like that to "divide and conquer" Us, The People so that they stay in power. And we keep letting them succeed, as long as we're entertained.

Another part of all that is who they "allow" to run for office--fellow establishment punks. And that's our fault as voters, in the general sense, for letting the establishment punks tell us who to vote for. In the Republican case, the RPE got their asses handed to them by the voters in 2016. *That*, folks, is what scares both the DPE and the RPE. Pelosi is a great example of this problem; she will welcome "new ideas", only as long as it keeps her the leader of the Dems in the House, and no further. Why San Franciscans continue to vote for her in the Primary Elections, I do not understand. As a San Franciscan myself, she's the antithesis of what we stand for; there are better options.
The Proctologist likes this.

2000 S430 (Dad's car, used for special occasions)
2000 S500 (wife's DD: my first W220 project car)
2003 S600 ("sex on wheels"--second w220 project car)
2003 S430 (one of two current DD's--third W220 project car)
2005 E320 CDI (the other current DD--first W211 project car)
cowboyt is offline  
post #25 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-12-2019, 12:30 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
hbar's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2007
Vehicle: '74 & '78 450 SEL
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,910
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Quoted: 2045 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenT View Post
I disagree with the concept that groups are equivalent to individuals (people) and should have the same fist amendment rights. It has resulted in the unleashing of hundreds of millions in election influence with no accountability and the emergence of dark money from organizations that are not required to identify the source of it.
If you really believed that, then you should be in favor of a law that prohibited the news media from reporting any political news.

1) All major news sources are corporations that exist to make a profit.

2) Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is a 1st Amendment right. It is also meaningless to say that it only applies to individuals as it clearly applies to a collective group - specifically the company that makes money selling the news.

3) The press has more influence on politics than any other industry. They also enjoy a broad exemption to disclose their sources and the 1st Amendment makes them virtually immune from accountability. The government is prohibited from regulating the industry.

Quote:
As it stand, this system is the polar opposite to anything resembling having individual expressing their opinion because they are being drowned in a sea of cash spent by corporations and wealthy PACs or super PACs.
I guess you skipped over the part where I described exactly how overturning CU would effectively prevent grassroots organizations from being able to use donations from like minded individuals to get their message out the public. This isn't hypothetical, it's already happened. In 2005, before the CU decision, the FEC arbitrarily decided that several grassroots organizations violated campaign finance law by running radio ads critical of political candidates before a Federal election. The groups were fined out of existence and threatened with criminal prosecution if they contested the decision.

Quote:
If you or anyone else sees no problem with this current structure we should stop any further discussion on campaign reform. There's a reason why it was my first point.
That's a strikingly ignorant statement to make in a thread that exists for the sole purpose of discussing the need for election reform. And especially arrogant when you've made a point to ignore the specific suggestions presented by the OP and discussed by other members and inserted your own suggestions as if they were equally viable, or even reasonable. Every one of them lacks basic common sense but you insist on pretending that valid criticism simply doesn't exist.





Quote:
Don't like the League? Pick a group or any other organization as long as the GOP and DNC (as corporations ffs) don't have absolute control of the debates.
Pick a group? Is that really going to be up to me? Really, I'm flattered, but it should be obvious that there aren't (and can't be) any legal mandates on who gets to host political debates. The way it works is that debate hosting and format rules are decided by a kind of negotiation process among the various candidates and news organizations. You can't really change that process.





Quote:
You missed the Party part, individuals are not political parties. I'll be more specific... national political parties like the Greens, Libertarian, constitutional, etc. Actual living/breathing parties
Get a handful of goofs together and they call themselves a political party. Who is to arbitrarily decide they don't qualify? What if a bunch of these toothless idiots who make up some of these white supremacist organizations got their act together long enough to register as a party? How could you keep them out considering your idea is based on the concept of not having "made up requirements" for participating in debates? Sounds like you want it both ways.





Quote:
See above on who qualifies.

As to the rich, they would not be allowed. One pot, split evenly.
I'm astounded that you believe this could possibly work in the real world.



So, how about you provide a comment or two on the video that is the topic here. You said you watched it. Perhaps you can demonstrate your ability to contribute to a meaningful discussion on an important issue without making it all about yourself.
Shane and BNZ like this.

Last edited by hbar; 03-12-2019 at 12:37 AM.
hbar is offline  
post #26 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-12-2019, 04:58 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,446
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 377 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyt View Post
Actually, I was thinking more of what she and her DNC supporters did to Sen. Sanders, and the fact that all that actually got exposed, as it should've been. But since you did bring it up, it was also important to report on the email scandal; you and I would be in jail for what she did. She got off *very* easy for that.

In our current system, as specified by the Constitution, you win by winning the Electoral College, so this "she won the popular vote!" bit is a canard. She lost the election, pure and simple. We talk about campaign finance reform, the levels of tribal hostility between "Liberals" and "Conservatives", the uniting of the D's and R's in power to keep the political status quo, all that. And all of that is important. The establishment punks in power unite like that to "divide and conquer" Us, The People so that they stay in power. And we keep letting them succeed, as long as we're entertained.

Another part of all that is who they "allow" to run for office--fellow establishment punks. And that's our fault as voters, in the general sense, for letting the establishment punks tell us who to vote for. In the Republican case, the RPE got their asses handed to them by the voters in 2016. *That*, folks, is what scares both the DPE and the RPE. Pelosi is a great example of this problem; she will welcome "new ideas", only as long as it keeps her the leader of the Dems in the House, and no further. Why San Franciscans continue to vote for her in the Primary Elections, I do not understand. As a San Franciscan myself, she's the antithesis of what we stand for; there are better options.
You claimed she was a corrupt candidate and I pointed out she received more votes than trump, that is not a canard, that is a fact.

When the presidential election came about there were two real candidates, trump and Sec. Clinton. If the Bernie supporters refused to put their "big boy/girl pants" on and vote for Sec. Clinton then they are also part of the reason why we have this imbecile in the White House today.

I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and Sec. Clinton in the general because as a Democrat/liberal/progressive there was no other choice.

I didn't pout and refuse to vote or not vote for Sec. Clinton because I didn't get my first choice.

Give it up on the E-mails because all you're doing is spewing right-wing propaganda.
With the republicans having two years of total control of the White house, house, senate , DOJ and stacking the courts, if there was ANYTHING to the E-mail slander do you really believe the republicans would have turned their backs on a chance to convict a Clinton?

To the folks on the left who wouldn't vote for Sec. Clinton, boy you showed her alright. LOL
stockdill likes this.

2nd. Amendment:
Solely responsible for more deaths on American soil, by Americans, than any hostile nation or terrorist organization in our history.

Last edited by Jakter; 03-12-2019 at 05:12 AM.
Jakter is offline  
post #27 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-12-2019, 06:03 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
hbar's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2007
Vehicle: '74 & '78 450 SEL
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,910
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Quoted: 2045 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakter View Post
You claimed she was a corrupt candidate and I pointed out she received more votes than trump, that is not a canard, that is a fact.
That fact perfectly illustrates her incompetence. She won the popular vote with a margin of almost 3 million and still managed to lose the election because she failed to understand the importance of battleground states.

It's just basic strategy for every presidential candidate to concentrate money and time in the purple states. Clinton foolishly decided to waste resources in Democratic strongholds like California, New York, and Illinois, I can only assume because she felt more comfortable giving speeches in front of larger, more enthusiastic crowds.

So, too bad that cost her the election. But if you're not competent enough to run an effective campaign, then you aren't really qualified to be president.

Quote:
When the presidential election came about there were two real candidates, trump and Sec. Clinton.
That is the real point of this thread. The fact that our modern, American political system resulted in those two piece of shit individuals being the only viable choices is clear evidence the system is broken. [quote]

Quote:
I didn't pout and refuse to vote or not vote for Sec. Clinton because I didn't get my first choice.
No, you held your nose and voted for a piece of shit candidate because you believe it's better to play along with a broken system than make an effort to speak against it.

Quote:
Give it up on the E-mails because all you're doing is spewing right-wing propaganda.
Anyone who believes the Clinton email scandal is just right wing propaganda is delusional. Her deliberate choice to use a private server for official Sec'y of State communications, including classified information, is clear evidence of gross negligence and incompetence, at the very least, and almost certainly, criminal intent to avoid FOI law and personal accountability. Either way, in any sane world, it would be an automatic disqualification for being president.


Quote:
To the folks on the left who wouldn't vote for Sec. Clinton, boy you showed her alright. LOL
So not only do you prefer to accept, without protest, the piece of shit candidate the DNC shoves down your throat, but you mock those who have the courage to demand a system that provides better choices.

Again, that's what this discussion is about. There is a fledgling movement to try to fix the system so that voters do have more choice and our politicians actually care about our opinions.

Do you want to address the points made along these lines in the video or are you here just to rant about how poor Hillary got mistreated.
The Proctologist likes this.
hbar is offline  
post #28 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-12-2019, 08:08 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: May 2016
Vehicle: 2000 S430, 2003 S430, 2003 S600 TT, and 2005 E320 CDI
Location: USA
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 169 Post(s)
Quoted: 962 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakter View Post
You claimed she was a corrupt candidate and I pointed out she received more votes than trump, that is not a canard, that is a fact.
She lost the election. Period. That is a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakter View Post
When the presidential election came about there were two real candidates, trump and Sec. Clinton. If the Bernie supporters refused to put their "big boy/girl pants" on and vote for Sec. Clinton then they are also part of the reason why we have this imbecile in the White House today.
Ah, I see, so voting for someone corrupt is somehow putting on one's "big boy/girl pants", eh? Apparently a lot of voters out there don't agree with that assessment. And guess what? That's America; that's their right, too, and I back that right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakter View Post
I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and Sec. Clinton in the general because as a Democrat/liberal/progressive there was no other choice.
Only because you let yourself be convinced by the Powers That Be that there was no other choice. And that's really the major point of this thread, now, isn't it? Something in our political system is severely broken if you really thought that. Seriously, don't vote for someone just because that person's a Democrat, but rather because that person actually has demonstrated good policy choices. Hillary has demonstrated the opposite, in quite a few ways. Here are just a few.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hi...peoples-votes/
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/op...112633448.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/11/why-...ommentary.html

We really do need to choose better candidates during these Primary elections. Good on you for voting for Bernie in the Primary, in my view. It sounds like Dr. Jill Stein would've been a better choice for your vote during the General Election, given your stated beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakter View Post
I didn't pout and refuse to vote or not vote for Sec. Clinton because I didn't get my first choice.
No, you're pouting now because Hillary lost, much like the "Hillary voters" were pouting after Barack Obama beat her in 2008 in the Dem Primary. The reaction I'm seeing from the Hillary voters today is very similar to then as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakter View Post
Give it up on the E-mails because all you're doing is spewing right-wing propaganda.
With the republicans having two years of total control of the White house, house, senate , DOJ and stacking the courts, if there was ANYTHING to the E-mail slander do you really believe the republicans would have turned their backs on a chance to convict a Clinton?
Given that you brought up the emails in this thread, I find that part of your comment especially amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakter View Post
To the folks on the left who wouldn't vote for Sec. Clinton, boy you showed her alright. LOL
Yeah...they did. :-) And they are likely to continue, because as AOC's election has shown, establishment punks like Hillary did not, and do not, represent what they believe in. And again, that's one of the major points of this thread. I'm glad to see this kind of discussion happening, because it's important.
The Proctologist likes this.

2000 S430 (Dad's car, used for special occasions)
2000 S500 (wife's DD: my first W220 project car)
2003 S600 ("sex on wheels"--second w220 project car)
2003 S430 (one of two current DD's--third W220 project car)
2005 E320 CDI (the other current DD--first W211 project car)
cowboyt is offline  
post #29 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-12-2019, 10:08 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,446
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 377 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyt View Post
She lost the election. Period. That is a fact.



Ah, I see, so voting for someone corrupt is somehow putting on one's "big boy/girl pants", eh? Apparently a lot of voters out there don't agree with that assessment. And guess what? That's America; that's their right, too, and I back that right.



Only because you let yourself be convinced by the Powers That Be that there was no other choice. And that's really the major point of this thread, now, isn't it? Something in our political system is severely broken if you really thought that. Seriously, don't vote for someone just because that person's a Democrat, but rather because that person actually has demonstrated good policy choices. Hillary has demonstrated the opposite, in quite a few ways. Here are just a few.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hi...peoples-votes/
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/op...112633448.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/11/why-...ommentary.html

We really do need to choose better candidates during these Primary elections. Good on you for voting for Bernie in the Primary, in my view. It sounds like Dr. Jill Stein would've been a better choice for your vote during the General Election, given your stated beliefs.



No, you're pouting now because Hillary lost, much like the "Hillary voters" were pouting after Barack Obama beat her in 2008 in the Dem Primary. The reaction I'm seeing from the Hillary voters today is very similar to then as well.



Given that you brought up the emails in this thread, I find that part of your comment especially amusing.



Yeah...they did. :-) And they are likely to continue, because as AOC's election has shown, establishment punks like Hillary did not, and do not, represent what they believe in. And again, that's one of the major points of this thread. I'm glad to see this kind of discussion happening, because it's important.
So how did that work out for you?

How do you feel about a conservative supreme court for at least a generation?

How many progressive judges has the senate appointed?

How much progressive legislation has been passed in the last two years?

Sec. Clinton will make more in one speech than you will make in 1,2 or 5 years.

Sec. Clinton will enjoy all the perks that come with being a First Lady, Senator, Sec. of State.

Sec. Clinton can sit back now and smile knowing she warned this country.


Keep repeating the right-wing propaganda, you sure showed her. LOL

2nd. Amendment:
Solely responsible for more deaths on American soil, by Americans, than any hostile nation or terrorist organization in our history.
Jakter is offline  
post #30 of 111 (permalink) Old 03-12-2019, 12:24 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
GreenT's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2013
Vehicle: 1995 S500 - 1986 420SEL
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 60,703
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Quoted: 10519 Post(s)
Takes someone special to defend HRC.
cowboyt likes this.
GreenT is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
Person claiming to be pastor leaves waiter note: I give God 10%. Why do you get 18? isthisdave Off-Topic 52 03-06-2013 11:05 PM
TIME, person of the year 420 SE Off-Topic 13 12-20-2012 04:04 AM
Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest GeeS Off-Topic 24 04-21-2008 04:43 PM
Putin named 'Person of the Year' Teutone Off-Topic 12 12-20-2007 10:09 PM
Best way to take a second person for factory collection sjones R171 SLK-Class 6 02-28-2006 12:25 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 

Title goes here

close
video goes here
description goes here. Read Full Story
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome