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 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 154

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

  1. #61
    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
    This is a statement based upon my opinion. In those cases most of those types do not care about whatever is being pushed anyway so it doesn't matter. There are a ton of claims and statements made that I have no desire to research.

    If it's relevant to them, I'd guess many. Especially with the internet now available to them. Few of them smply take an ad at face value. It doesn't take long at all to get other opinions on the internet. If they have no need to buy a car, those statements go in one ear and out the other. Before the internet this was largely done by word of mouth from people they trusted. A neighbor would tell you that they had a good or bad experience.

    IMO that means they don't care, not as you note, they have been programmed to believe that way. As an example. I have a cell phone provider. It suits my purpose. There may be ones with better and cheaper plans but eh, mine is good enough for me to not want to bother.
    First, to the highlighted part, I noted that I don't think "programmed" is an accurate term, so that's not my position. Second, I agree that people don't examine things that they don't care about - that's simply another way of stating my original position - that people are too lazy to examine issues and information critically. It seems to me that people are most willing to examine things that cost them a lot of money or things having to do with their children (car prices, mortgages, school districts, etc.) in addition to their hobbies (sports, celebrities,etc.).

    However, most people do not care enough (as you put it) or are too lazy (in my own words) about large scale policy, corporate or political (in general) issues. Most people don't understand the economy and don't take the time to examine candidates' different economic plans. They don't know much about foreign policy or the different ways of examining it. They don't know, understand or examine education policy or how a corporation works or avoids taxes. They don't know, understand or examine much of anything which is why political candidates have to dumb down their positions to buzz words and why people are either thrilled or outraged about the state of union without being able to explain the causation that they think underlies the correlation of the United States' domestic and international condition. What if...? is right. People do not, at all, do much critical thinking.

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Completely compatible.
    A corporation is merely a collective of people lobbying government.

    Democracy tends to end itself because it is the belief that all people have valid opinions in the operation of government.
    Basically, an appeal to the majority.
    Yes, but that "collection" of people welds so much financial clout "collectively" IF you consider their corporate Board of Directors to speak for everyone at that company. This is where the check-card issue comes into play.

    If Boards are to speak for everyone in their company in one loud voice, does it not make sense that a powerful corporation would seek to hire only those individuals whose opinions on certain moral of political issues would mirror their own? If you don't know what my moral or political views are as an employee, you can neither lock me out of employment based solely on my views nor can you manipulate me into thinking as you - the Corporation - does. After all, aren't we all as American citizens:

    ...endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    ...

    That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
    Seems to me all the Citizen's United case ultimately does is allow big Corporations to use their great wealth to buy the airwaves and the truth, thereby drowning out the voices of the people. Do you really think that ordinary citizens who Republicans claim are the real power by virtue of their vote can amass the capital necessary to put forward a counter message to big corporations who are behind powerful politicians? It's insane to think so.

    Form a political action committee (PAC) themselves you say? Good luck with getting off the ground without the wealth and influence of wealthy individuals to start with. The little man has virtually no chance except to hope to find a decent enough politician who they believe has their best interest at heart.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-02-11 at 06:13 PM.

  3. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    First, to the highlighted part, I noted that I don't think "programmed" is an accurate term, so that's not my position. Second, I agree that people don't examine things that they don't care about - that's simply another way of stating my original position - that people are too lazy to examine issues and information critically. It seems to me that people are most willing to examine things that cost them a lot of money or things having to do with their children (car prices, mortgages, school districts, etc.) in addition to their hobbies (sports, celebrities,etc.).

    However, most people do not care enough (as you put it) or are too lazy (in my own words) about large scale policy, corporate or political (in general) issues. Most people don't understand the economy and don't take the time to examine candidates' different economic plans. They don't know much about foreign policy or the different ways of examining it. They don't know, understand or examine education policy or how a corporation works or avoids taxes. They don't know, understand or examine much of anything which is why political candidates have to dumb down their positions to buzz words and why people are either thrilled or outraged about the state of union without being able to explain the causation that they think underlies the correlation of the United States' domestic and international condition. What if...? is right. People do not, at all, do much critical thinking.
    Only thing I can say to this is, "Reading is fundamental", and there are two very powerful tools at nearly every man, woman and child's disposal at their leisure: library and the internet. Both carry a wealth of knowledge on the issues that are before us today, as well as the history behind how we got to this point.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-02-11 at 06:08 PM.

  4. #64
    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
    First, to the highlighted part, I noted that I don't think "programmed" is an accurate term, so that's not my position. Second, I agree that people don't examine things that they don't care about - that's simply another way of stating my original position - that people are too lazy to examine issues and information critically. It seems to me that people are most willing to examine things that cost them a lot of money or things having to do with their children (car prices, mortgages, school districts, etc.) in addition to their hobbies (sports, celebrities,etc.).
    If they have no interest in something they are not being lazy in not researching it. I have no interest in soccer. I don't know anything outside of the basics. It's because I'm not interested that I don't know more, not because I'm lazy.

    However, most people do not care enough (as you put it) or are too lazy (in my own words) about large scale policy, corporate or political (in general) issues. Most people don't understand the economy and don't take the time to examine candidates' different economic plans. They don't know much about foreign policy or the different ways of examining it. They don't know, understand or examine education policy or how a corporation works or avoids taxes. They don't know, understand or examine much of anything which is why political candidates have to dumb down their positions to buzz words and why people are either thrilled or outraged about the state of union without being able to explain the causation that they think underlies the correlation of the United States' domestic and international condition. What if...? is right. People do not, at all, do much critical thinking.
    IMO most politicians do not "dumb down" their positions. They lie about them. That they do is why people don't bother to research their positions. They can't be trusted to do what they claim their positions are in the first place. How is Obama's position about banning those who were previously lobbyists or worked for the industry they are to oversee coming along?

  5. #65
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    IMO most politicians do not "dumb down" their positions. They lie about them. That they do is why people don't bother to research their positions. They can't be trusted to do what they claim their positions are in the first place. How is Obama's position about banning those who were previously lobbyists or worked for the industry they are to oversee coming along?
    Obama has viewer former lobbyist as part of his Administration than the last four presidents before him.

    From the book, "The Promise: President Obama, Year ONE," top of page 47:

    Even before he had decided his own fate, Rahm Emanuel was at work staffing the White House. Because he couldn't hire lobbyists - whatever the qualities, they were too toxic - it sometimes seemed as if Obama was staffing his administration through a single Washington think thank, the Center for American Progress, founded and run by John Podesta. Eventually more than fifty people from CAP would join the administration.
    I'll say it again...

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Only thing I can say to this is, "Reading is fundamental"...
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-02-11 at 06:20 PM.

  6. #66
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Seems to me all the Citizen's United case ultimately does is allow big Corporations to use their great wealth to buy the airwaves and the truth, thereby drowning out the voices of the people. Do you really think that ordinary citizens who Republicans claim are the real power by virtue of their vote can amass the capital necessary to put forward a counter message to big corporations who are behind powerful politicians? It's insane to think so.
    Your argument is what makes CFR a first amendment violation. Congress is strictly prohibited from regulating speech in order to equalize it. The only CFR laws that have ever been upheld are based upon the idea that congress has some interest in preventing impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    CFR???

  8. #68
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Completely compatible.
    A corporation is merely a collective of people lobbying government.

    Democracy tends to end itself because it is the belief that all people have valid opinions in the operation of government.
    Basically, an appeal to the majority.
    I disagree with the bold part.

    A corporation is merely a collective of a few persons at the top lobbying government for the good of the corporation but may not be the views of the majority of its share holders.

    I have held stock in many corps and not once have any ever asked my opinion on political matters. The few times I have received correspondence in a political manner from companies I have owned stock in it has been to inform my on how I should vote to better insure the businesses interests and may or may not be better for the country.

    It is a means for the rich and powerful to influence government in the name of "collective interests".

  9. #69
    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
    If they have no interest in something they are not being lazy in not researching it. I have no interest in soccer. I don't know anything outside of the basics. It's because I'm not interested that I don't know more, not because I'm lazy.
    Right, but that's not my point. People do care about the economy, foreign policy, education, corporate influence and so on, but they are too lazy to do anything about. This is the part you don't address - the fact that people do not "critically think" in regards to politics. Like I said, most people know nothing about policy, general politics and other important things that they care about and choose candidates by.

    IMO most politicians do not "dumb down" their positions. They lie about them. That they do is why people don't bother to research their positions. They can't be trusted to do what they claim their positions are in the first place. How is Obama's position about banning those who were previously lobbyists or worked for the industry they are to oversee coming along?
    Politicians definitely dumb down their positions whether they're lying or not. The average citizen could not understand economics and foreign policy strategy. Ask your average conservative what they think of Obama and they'll say, "He and his policies hurt the economy and caused unemployment to rise." Ask them about the mechanisms by which his policies did these things and they won't be able to explain. Ask your average about Clinton and they'll say, "Clinton improved the economy greatly." Ask them about the mechanisms by which his policies did this and they won't be able to explain. Most people do not critically think.

  10. #70
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    You are talking about encouraging it by requiring disclosure. Your argument is akin to a state law that requires you to disclose your sexual preference and makes the data easily accessible. While SOME libertarians might believe that people should be free to discriminate in commercial activities, none of them would support the state encouraging it by forcing people to disclose their private information. Your argument fails, miserably.
    The difference between your counter example and the one we are talking about is that you being gay has no affect on me, you contributing money to a candidate does.



    There is no law that cannot be violated. That's just a worthless point.
    That was never the point. The point was enforcement was virtually impossible.

    Yeah, nobody thinks for themselves, except you.
    That wasn't my contention and you should know better than to say it was. I was simply saying that propaganda, mostly half truths, require a healthy level of skepticism and intellect to not let it affect you. Most people simply do not have the time to do the requisite research to protect themselves from propaganda.
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •