View Poll Results: Is Citizen's United et al ruling compatible with democracy?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    29 65.91%
  • no

    15 34.09%
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 154

Thread: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

  1. #91
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    No, I said that he could show where Americans do hate corporations but that really doesn't matter. Rights do not rest upon how much we like those excercising them.



    You'll need to read a little closer to even attempt that.
    No need to try to save face, it's all there.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Again, this is based on the perspective/opinion that because they don't have upfront benefits, and don't get votes right away or in discrete quantities, it is negligible. That logic is completely and totally fallacious, and fundamentally flawed.
    Let's also note, it's also the opinion of the USSC.

    People did buy from Soros, he just didn't get enough to buy it, because he didn't use his money in the most efficient manner. If 2 quantities of money are used for equal relative efficiency, the larger quantity will have the larger effect.

    Corporations' wishes by and large are muffled by the voices of the largest corporations, such as Goldman Sachs, which want less govt. regulation, and thus less government. There is nothing equal or balanced in the current contribution system, and these fundamental imbalances result with its incompatibility with democracy. Again, the principle of 1 man, 1 vote is not true with the system as it is.
    You nor anyone else gets to decide what is "balanced". Unfortunately, those who lose always thinks it's because something wasn't "fair". No, it's because more disagreed with you than agreed with you. People do not by and large disagree with you because someone else told them to. This type of elitist thinking is pretty disgusting actually.

    "I can see the facts but others can't because corporations are spending too much money" Hog wash.

    I do also have complaints about the effect of this money on politicians, but that is an entirely different topic then the one at hand.
    O.K.

    Just because people choose to be hypocritical, doesn't mean they don't have a point. Thats one of the problems with the entire political world right now. One group points out a problem, and then an oppossing group prevents any progress towards fixing the problem, because the first group has a similar problem. You can't fix everything at the same time, you have to take it one step at a time, and blaming the other group for hypocrisy, and using that as an excuse to altogether prevent progress is unacceptable.
    You can never fix a problem until one elects someone willing to fix it. We can not change ones right to Free Speech without a Constitutional Adm and that aint going to happen.

    You would agree would you not that each individual has a COnstitutional right to free speech. Right?

    Do you agree that if 50 people are around you, they all have that right also?

    Now how does this right dissapear simply because they all decide to say the same thing at the same time?

    As an aside, it does not matter whether what they say is good, helpful or positive. They have a right to say something you deem wrong also.

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    It doesn't. All the money in the world does not gaurantee you a single vote.
    Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

    A corporation that has millions of dollars to (directly or indirectly) fund politicians, ads, biased media outlets and campaigns has significantly more influence over politics than a regular person who makes $50,000/year.

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

    A corporation that has millions of dollars to (directly or indirectly) fund politicians, ads, biased media outlets and campaigns has significantly more influence over politics than a regular person who makes $50,000/year.
    No and I provided an example. John Kerry spent how many millions upon millions of dollars and a guy with a decades old beef with him, brought him down.

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    No need to try to save face, it's all there.
    Indeed. Post #13.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Of course you can find examples of antipathy and even outright hate of a corporation. That is really irrelevant to anything.
    Apology accepted.

  6. #96
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Not only does the influence matter, but so do loyalties. You give a guy 5 dollars to do something, and someone else gives him 10 dollars to do the exact opposite. What is that guy going to do? This is evident in politics with things like being taken on "special retreats" to get "advice" on how to "handle the public." This cuts both ways, both right and left.
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  7. #97
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Let's also note, it's also the opinion of the USSC.
    So was Plessy v. Ferguson.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You nor anyone else gets to decide what is "balanced". Unfortunately, those who lose always thinks it's because something wasn't "fair". No, it's because more disagreed with you than agreed with you. People do not by and large disagree with you because someone else told them to. This type of elitist thinking is pretty disgusting actually.
    And while you're busy fighting the right to determine what's balanced, the corporations are making sure everything is imbalanced. And as NGNM85 already pointed out to you, rather explicitly, Americans disagree with you. They don't corporations, and the power they have over the political system. If you want a link, ask NGNM85, I'm sure he'd be happy to provide it for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    "I can see the facts but others can't because corporations are spending too much money" Hog wash.
    What you quoted is hogwash, but I never said that, explicitly or implicitly

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You can never fix a problem until one elects someone willing to fix it. We can not change ones right to Free Speech without a Constitutional Adm and that aint going to happen.
    I'm not trying to change the right to Free Speech, I would however like to reverse the SC decision in Citizens United.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You would agree would you not that each individual has a COnstitutional right to free speech. Right?
    Yes, an individual. A corporation, which is a compilation of thousands of people's greed is not an individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Do you agree that if 50 people are around you, they all have that right also?
    As you said, yes on an individual basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Now how does this right dissapear simply because they all decide to say the same thing at the same time?
    That doesn't dissappear, the distortion caused by magnification of their right through a corporation should.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    As an aside, it does not matter whether what they say is good, helpful or positive. They have a right to say something you deem wrong also.
    Absolutely, but allowing them to the level of control and influence they have through corporations fundamentally flaws the system.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  8. #98
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Indeed. Post #13.



    Apology accepted.
    I'm sorry, all I see is you doing some CYA after you were showed wrong. Since you want to keep this up, let me actually show you.

    Post # 5
    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Corporations are monolithic, illegitimate institutions, which enrich themselves through theft, and, are, fundamentally, antithetical to democracy.
    Post # 6
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    The cool thing is that the above opinions never gain any sort of traction.
    Post # 11
    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    I can cite several historical examples. Are the majority of Americans (real) Libertarians? No, most Americans don't approach these issues in such a systemic way; they aren't reading Chomsky, or Kropotkin, or whatever. However, the basic principles are widely held. There are ample statistics revealing substantial antipathy towards corporations among the American people, and justifiably so. Most Americans don't read Marx, either, however, most of them regard his famous quote; 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' to be be such an obvious truism, as to be taken for granted.
    Post # 13
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Of course you can find examples of antipathy and even outright hate of a corporation. That is really irrelevant to anything.
    I could abide if you challenegd his claims, or if you brought up something that counters his facts, but no. You acted dishonorably.

    You. Fail.
    Last edited by repeter; 07-03-11 at 09:32 PM.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  9. #99
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    No and I provided an example. John Kerry spent how many millions upon millions of dollars and a guy with a decades old beef with him, brought him down.
    1. Kerry lost the election for several reasons, most of which were his fault, so the idea that one guy "brought him down" is silly.

    2. To answer your example: Barack Obama raised millions upon millions of dollars and won, Scott Walker was backed by corporate giants the Koch brothers and he's changed his state and perhaps the country significantly, many of the most influential lobbyists in Washington are funded by corporations and many politicians at every level of government have "special" relationships with corporations which is why their corporate friends end up getting contracts with government over others and sometimes to detriment of the public.

    In other words, your one or two examples do not affect the general rule. Of course money and power don't always lead to political influence, but it's pretty evident that it leads to such influence more often than not. I know that I couldn't fund a campaign like Koch brothers or get certain contracts in Chicago like Rahm Emmanuel's friends.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 07-03-11 at 09:31 PM.

  10. #100
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    1. Kerry lost the election for several reasons, most of which were his fault, so the idea that one guy "brought him down" is silly.

    2. To answer your example: Barack Obama raised millions upon millions of dollars and won, Scott Walker was backed by corporate giants the Koch brothers and he's changed his state and perhaps the country significantly, many of the most influential lobbyists in Washington are funded by corporations and many politicians at every level of government have "special" relationships with corporations which is why their corporate friends end up getting contracts with government over others and sometimes to detriment of the public.

    In other words, your one or two examples do not affect the general rule. Of course money and power don't always lead to political influence, but it's pretty evident that it leads to such influence more often than not. I know that I couldn't fund a campaign like Koch brothers or get certain contracts in Chicago like Rahm Emmanuel's friends.
    Here are my thoughts:

    1) I realize that many liberals do tend to overstate the influence of money in politics

    2) However, that doesn't mean that the influence isn't still there, or that it isn't significant

    3) Aside from the argument that people with money have an undue influence in politics, the idea of corporate personhood is questionable in and of itself.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •