*law

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by MrFisk.

Interesting points, but saying how bad $170k is then for Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...

The Dem's are just as corrupt as the Republicans, look what happened when they had senate majority.... nothing.

>> ^ghark:

Interesting points, but saying how bad $170k is then for Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...
The Dem's are just as corrupt as the Republicans, look what happened when they had senate majority.... nothing.


Yeah! So we should elect people who will increase the income gap by lobbying for tax cuts for the rich individuals and the even richer businesses! "Trickle down" baby!

Hold on, I have to help Milton Friedman find his pants so he can go back to the psycho ward.

>> ^ghark:
Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...

Okay, so let me get this straight. You think Rachel should be shocked that the actual candidate for national office, would spend more in an entire campaign season, then some shadowy front group spent in two weeks? Sure half a mil is a chunk of changes, but at this rate, this unidentified front group will have outspent either of the candidates by election day.

The amount of money itself is not the salient issue. When the candidate spends money, he has a history, connections, historical funders, you can look into where his money came from. When an organization that has existed for less than a month is spending faster then either candidate, and you can't tell where the money is coming from, then how do you assess the motivations, or the ulterior motives of the message?

Yeah, this is going to get crazy. Money laundering through non-existent organization to pretend its not Exxon bankrolling Tom 'Fuck-the-Environment' Conservative.


Wow, she really draws this stuff out. Couldn't edit the writing down a little tighter?...

Nope, never said she should be shocked, my point is that neither candidate should be in a position where $500,000 worth of expenses for this kind of campaign should be considered normal.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^ghark:
Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...
Okay, so let me get this straight. You think Rachel should be shocked that the actual candidate for national office, would spend more in an entire campaign season, then some shadowy front group spent in two weeks? Sure half a mil is a chunk of changes, but at this rate, this unidentified front group will have outspent either of the candidates by election day.
The amount of money itself is not the salient issue. When the candidate spends money, he has a history, connections, historical funders, you can look into where his money came from. When an organization that has existed for less than a month is spending faster then either candidate, and you can't tell where the money is coming from, then how do you assess the motivations, or the ulterior motives of the message?

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^ghark:
Interesting points, but saying how bad $170k is then for Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...
The Dem's are just as corrupt as the Republicans, look what happened when they had senate majority.... nothing.

Yeah! So we should elect people who will increase the income gap by lobbying for tax cuts for the rich individuals and the even richer businesses! "Trickle down" baby!
Hold on, I have to help Milton Friedman find his pants so he can go back to the psycho ward.


No, I never said the fix was to vote Republican, please read more carefully, I said they were both corrupt - the fix is to stop the flow of cash from business to politician - full stop.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^Truckchase:
Yeah! So we should elect people who will increase the income gap by lobbying for tax cuts for the rich individuals and the even richer businesses! "Trickle down" baby!
Hold on, I have to help Milton Friedman find his pants so he can go back to the psycho ward.

No, I never said the fix was to vote Republican, please read more carefully, I said they were both corrupt - the fix is to stop the flow of cash from business to politician - full stop.
Agreed, over.

While I might be able to agree with that in the abstract, getting there is a thorny problem, and citizens united is the worst of it on steroids.

Your incredulity strikes me as a lack of scale. The problem that the citizens united precedent creates is an order of magnitude worse than the one created by the existing high cost of campaigning, conflating the two suggests you missed the point.

>> ^ghark:

Nope, never said she should be shocked, my point is that neither candidate should be in a position where $500,000 worth of expenses for this kind of campaign should be considered normal.

>> ^dgandhi:

While I might be able to agree with that in the abstract, getting there is a thorny problem, and citizens united is the worst of it on steroids.
Your incredulity strikes me as a lack of scale. The problem that the citizens united precedent creates is an order of magnitude worse than the one created by the existing high cost of campaigning, conflating the two suggests you missed the point.
>> ^ghark:
Nope, never said she should be shocked, my point is that neither candidate should be in a position where $500,000 worth of expenses for this kind of campaign should be considered normal.



Oh ya I completely agree, it's terrible, but to be honest, I think everyone expected exactly this as soon as the citizens united case was decided, hell, even the president announced that it would happen (and I'm pretty sure he was smiling inside at the time). The problem really is that instead of making progress, and limiting inflow of cash to these politicians through laws and policy changes, it seems to be going in the opposite direction, it just boggles my already befuddled, barely bemused brain beyond belief (lots of b's).

>> ^ghark:

I think everyone expected exactly this as soon as the citizens united case was decided, hell, even the president announced that it would happen (and I'm pretty sure he was smiling inside at the time). The problem really is that instead of making progress, and limiting inflow of cash to these politicians through laws and policy changes, it seems to be going in the opposite direction, it just boggles my already befuddled, barely bemused brain beyond belief (lots of b's).


There was a bill that came before the Senate not too long ago called DISCLOSE, which was an attempt to plug some of the major loopholes opened by Citizen's United.

The vote on it was 59 for, 41 against, and since we're in the era of permanent filibuster, that means it didn't pass.

Now, would it change your attitude to learn that the President's party provided all 59 votes for, and the other party provided all the No votes, plus the filibuster that raised the requirement to 60 to pass?

Would it surprise you to learn that so far, the spending enabled by Citizen's United has favored Republicans by a 7 to 1 ratio?

To me, it seems like the facts indicate that Democrats want to change the game so corporate money doesn't drive elections, both for ideological and self-serving reasons, while Republicans are pretty clearly a party whose main purpose is to represent corporate interests.