OT - State of the Union Address

[HopefulFuture]

Anecdotal evidence does not count, it boils down to "because I say so". Is there an actual study you can point to?

 

I think popularity, especially in the primaries, and money raising ability have a pretty strong correlation coefficient. And why is the ability to raise money bad?

Because, quite frankly, money should NEVER have been introduced into politics. It sways the decisions a candidate will make if they are elected to office as they have to "pay the debt" to the donor for getting elected.

You want examples?

Re: See the Unities States of America today.

 

If you cannot see that, take the blinders off man.

[5th line wingnutt]

Because, quite frankly, money should NEVER have been introduced into politics. It sways the decisions a candidate will make if they are elected to office as they have to "pay the debt" to the donor for getting elected.

You want examples?

Re: See the Unities States of America today.

 

If you cannot see that, take the blinders off man.

 

In a democratic republic you have elections. How do run a campaign without money?

 

You need to read a little history. There has always been money in electoral politics. Always will be. Has nothing to do with blinders.

[LastPommerFan]

In a democratic republic you have elections. How do run a campaign without money?

 

You need to read a little history. There has always been money in electoral politics. Always will be. Has nothing to do with blinders.

 

This is true, but there are countries with much more stringent campaign finance laws, some that even have full public financing of campaigns. I'm pretty sure he was referencing the unlimited and disproportionate money involved in our politics. I think Citizens United was the right decision by the supreme court. Money in this country is very closely related to speech, especially in politics, and the constitution is very clear on government interference with and restrictions on speech. That said, I am in favor in the short term of tighter disclosure laws (no secret donors) as there is no constitutional protection that requires speech be private or secret. In the longer term I would like to see a well developed campaign finance policy work its way into law as a Constitutional Amendment. It's gonna take both parties having popular candidates getting beat by big money, and a significant Populist movement to make that happen, but that's what I'd like to see.

[5th line wingnutt]

This is true, but there are countries with much more stringent campaign finance laws, some that even have full public financing of campaigns. I'm pretty sure he was referencing the unlimited and disproportionate money involved in our politics. I think Citizens United was the right decision by the supreme court. Money in this country is very closely related to speech, especially in politics, and the constitution is very clear on government interference with and restrictions on speech. That said, I am in favor in the short term of tighter disclosure laws (no secret donors) as there is no constitutional protection that requires speech be private or secret. In the longer term I would like to see a well developed campaign finance policy work its way into law as a Constitutional Amendment. It's gonna take both parties having popular candidates getting beat by big money, and a significant Populist movement to make that happen, but that's what I'd like to see.

 

There are already limits on how much you can give. As for disclosure, if you give $200 or more the candidate is required to report your donation. Do you think you can buy influence for $200? Public financing? I have to pay a tax to support political speech I disagree with?

 

There is more than one issue here. One is the issue of buying influence. The other is about money buying elections.

 

I do not think that money buys elections because the Dems and Repubs both have lots of bucks. If the money is roughly even, then other factors become the deciding ones.

 

I am more concerned with influence buying. I think the root cause is the federal government spending $3 trillion a year. Everybody wants a slice and even a very small slice is a lot of money. Unions, corporations, and individuals all find it easier to vote themselves a slice of the pie than to actually go out and earn it.

[Weave]

I do not think that money buys elections because the Dems and Repubs both have lots of bucks. If the money is roughly even, then other factors become the deciding ones.

 

This is true only if you limit the idea of buying an election to the final vote. Money (or more precisely the ability to attract donors) sure does determine which candidate you get to vote for, and in that sense it very much does buy elections. Someone without obvious financial backing won't even get considered by county or state Rep or Dem committees and therefore we never get a chance to decide if we want them to represent us. We are left with choosing between candidates that are chosen for their ability to attract campaign funds or people wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns. The first choice is bought and paid for by the interests that donate, the other, frankly, really doesn't represent 90% of us.

[fan2456]

This is true only if you limit the idea of buying an election to the final vote. Money (or more precisely the ability to attract donors) sure does determine which candidate you get to vote for, and in that sense it very much does buy elections. Someone without obvious financial backing won't even get considered by county or state Rep or Dem committees and therefore we never get a chance to decide if we want them to represent us. We are left with choosing between candidates that are chosen for their ability to attract campaign funds or people wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns. The first choice is bought and paid for by the interests that donate, the other, frankly, really doesn't represent 90% of us.

 

Well said and probably closer to 100% of us.

[5th line wingnutt]

This is true only if you limit the idea of buying an election to the final vote. Money (or more precisely the ability to attract donors) sure does determine which candidate you get to vote for, and in that sense it very much does buy elections. Someone without obvious financial backing won't even get considered by county or state Rep or Dem committees and therefore we never get a chance to decide if we want them to represent us. We are left with choosing between candidates that are chosen for their ability to attract campaign funds or people wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns. The first choice is bought and paid for by the interests that donate, the other, frankly, really doesn't represent 90% of us.

 

In the 2010 congressional races a whole bunch of tea party types won primaries without much money, and also against the wishes of the Repub party old guard. Some of them won the general election without much party support. In my very own congressional district (NC-02) a conservative women won the primary and beat a Dem incumbent without much party support and about half the money. The rise of social media on the net has changed the game a lot. Political parties are still gatekeepers but not nearly to as large an extent as in the past. Big media is not as important either. The net lets like minded people find each other and self organize. The electorate is getting more net savvy every day.

[LastPommerFan]

In the 2010 congressional races a whole bunch of tea party types won primaries without much money, and also against the wishes of the Repub party old guard. Some of them won the general election without much party support. In my very own congressional district (NC-02) a conservative women won the primary and beat a Dem incumbent without much party support and about half the money. The rise of social media on the net has changed the game a lot. Political parties are still gatekeepers but not nearly to as large an extent as in the past. Big media is not as important either. The net lets like minded people find each other and self organize. The electorate is getting more net savvy every day.

There are already limits on how much you can give. As for disclosure, if you give $200 or more the candidate is required to report your donation. Do you think you can buy influence for $200? Public financing? I have to pay a tax to support political speech I disagree with?

 

There is more than one issue here. One is the issue of buying influence. The other is about money buying elections.

 

I do not think that money buys elections because the Dems and Repubs both have lots of bucks. If the money is roughly even, then other factors become the deciding ones.

 

I am more concerned with influence buying. I think the root cause is the federal government spending $3 trillion a year. Everybody wants a slice and even a very small slice is a lot of money. Unions, corporations, and individuals all find it easier to vote themselves a slice of the pie than to actually go out and earn it.

 

Public financing and general election money is only half the battle. Weave is right in his assessment ofthe primary elections. ultimately the "access" question is the final answer, and the money plays a big role.

[spndnchz]

Comerica will have the alumni game on New Years Eve

 

Thomas is at it again...

 

[spndnchz]

I'm not sure what he's "at" there. What is this fight for religious freedom? I thought we were doing pretty well on that topic in the US.

 

I'll defend his right to say it but I have no idea what he's trying to say.

[Eleven]

I'll defend his right to say it but I have no idea what he's trying to say.

 

Maybe he's trying to start a Lutheran trade union.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I'm not sure what he's "at" there. What is this fight for religious freedom? I thought we were doing pretty well on that topic in the US.

 

I'll defend his right to say it but I have no idea what he's trying to say.

 

Just a guess, but I would think it has something to do with this ...

 

http://www.dailymail...holic-vote.html

 

and this ...

 

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm

[TrueBlueGED]

Thomas is talking about the new federal rule requiring health insurance plans to cover the costs of contraceptives, even plans offered by Catholic institutions. The argument is this infringes on the religious freedom of those institutions, given the Catholic Church's stance on birth control.

 

Edit: Sabres Fan beat me to it.

[SwampD]

I'll defend his right to say it but I have no idea what he's trying to say.

I don't know why, but now I really want him run tonight. When he's recovering in his hospital bed he can snuggle up to a nice copy of Atlas Shrugged.

[Eleven]

Just a guess, but I would think it has something to do with this ...

 

http://www.dailymail...holic-vote.html

 

and this ...

 

http://www.usccb.org...ction/index.cfm

Thomas is talking about the new federal rule requiring health insurance plans to cover the costs of contraceptives, even plans offered by Catholic institutions. The argument is this infringes on the religious freedom of those institutions, given the Catholic Church's stance on birth control.

 

Edit: Sabres Fan beat me to it.

 

Ah. Well, I can bet on how that dispute is going to end, but it doesn't really make sense to do so here. And it's going to go on for years before the Supreme Court hears it, anyway.

 

I don't know why, but now I really want him run tonight. When he's recovering in his hospital bed he can snuggle up to a nice copy of Atlas Shrugged.

 

Gonna have to score 4 or 5 on Rask (or run him) first.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Thomas is talking about the new federal rule requiring health insurance plans to cover the costs of contraceptives, even plans offered by Catholic institutions. The argument is this infringes on the religious freedom of those institutions, given the Catholic Church's stance on birth control.

 

Edit: Sabres Fan beat me to it.

 

It's not a race.

[bunomatic]

Its refreshing to see a pro hockey player express his opinion on something other than hockey regardless of the message. Big shock these shinny players are human and can form opinions. It seems like he's using his position as a public figure to ramp up his campaign against Obama and his policies leading up to the election. I don't support nor do I condemn him for his views. Its his right.

[Who Else?]

Its refreshing to see a pro hockey player express his opinion on something other than hockey regardless of the message. Big shock these shinny players are human and can form opinions. It seems like he's using his position as a public figure to ramp up his campaign against Obama and his policies leading up to the election. I don't support nor do I condemn him for his views. Its his right.

 

+1 It's nice to know someone else likes nhl players to be more than cliche spouting robots.

[Samson's Flow]

+1 It's nice to know someone else likes nhl players to be more than cliche spouting robots.

I for one can't stand when athletes spout out the old "we gave a solid effort", "the bounces didn't go our way", etc. after a game. While I may not agree with everything Thomas says, at least he says something.

[darksabre]

Good for Tim Thomas. I couldn't care less.

[RazielSabre]

Good for Tim Thomas. I couldn't care less.

 

Thank you! Why do most Americans say 'I could care less'?! That means you actually care! Oh dear lord thats annoyed me in the past.

 

And relax...

[Who Else?]

Thank you! Why do most Americans say 'I could care less'?! That means you actually care! Oh dear lord thats annoyed me in the past.

 

And relax...

 

Cause we're lazy and put the n't in is harder to say.

[...]

Its refreshing to see a pro hockey player express his opinion on something other than hockey regardless of the message. Big shock these shinny players are human and can form opinions. It seems like he's using his position as a public figure to ramp up his campaign against Obama and his policies leading up to the election. I don't support nor do I condemn him for his views. Its his right.

 

I'm loving that he's giving people fits. The fact that there are people who have no idea what he was talking about is...sad. Very sad. And then to be so negative towards him for a view he clearly has put thought into, when, in many cases the criticizer has barely a grasp of what's going on strikes me as...uh...alarming.

 

I'm glad TT is using his celebrity to raise awareness of conservative issues. It's no different than some idiot actor shedding tears over polar bears on Conan.

[shrader]

I'm loving that he's giving people fits. The fact that there are people who have no idea what he was talking about is...sad. Very sad. And then to be so negative towards him for a view he clearly has put thought into, when, in many cases the criticizer has barely a grasp of what's going on strikes me as...uh...alarming.

 

I'm glad TT is using his celebrity to raise awareness of conservative issues. It's no different than some idiot actor shedding tears over polar bears on Conan.

 

I'm wondering why he decided to suddenly flip this switch now though. Is he posturing for a future run at politics?

[...]

I'm wondering why he decided to suddenly flip this switch now though. Is he posturing for a future run at politics?

 

I thought of that as a joke, and I suppose anything is possible, but I doubt that's the reason. My guess is that he feels the situation in the country has come to the point where, if anyone can do anything to help, this is what he can do. As I mentioned in the one political thread, I think a lot of people who don't keep up with the news do not have a complete picture of what is going on in the country. The North East is especially insulated because a majority of the people are stubbornly democrat, and are trained to ignore, discard, and confuse anything that challenges the perspective that gets handed down generation to generation.

 

The simple fact is that Obama has violated the tenants of the Declaration of Independence, and, indeed, has violated the Constitution. But you may as well say that an alien mothership is hovering over the F'N Arena, because people will be just as inclined to deny it outright without any investigation into the facts. Obama is directing this country toward a wholly early 20th century European fate, but in some cases you're better off showing a dog a card trick than to try and have a reasonable discussion on what the Obama administration is doing.

 

I guarantee you Thomas sees it as I do, and since he has some celebrity, he's using that to try and raise awareness, especially in this election year.