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 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 154

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

  1. #81
    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?

    His reply did not address my statement. I noted that his votes trumps the corporations as they do not have a vote.

    That they have pooled their resources together with others does not negate that.

    Soros spent a ton of money and failed miserably. Swiftboaters spent very little but helped bring Kerry down.

  2. #82
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Right, you are irrelevant. Why you think your opinion matters here is beyond me.
    Well if you read the thread you would know he's the OP, so his opinion matters HERE at LEAST as much as anyone elses.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  3. #83
    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
    His reply did not address my statement. I noted that his votes trumps the corporations as they do not have a vote.
    Yet you clearly failed to note that this point nullifies your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    That they have pooled their resources together with others does not negate that.
    Since the argument is that corporations have the ability to effect a much larger number of elections then a single voter, this more then negates that, it crushes it. Which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Soros spent a ton of money and failed miserably. Swiftboaters spent very little but helped bring Kerry down.
    It takes money to get on TV, to broadcast, and advertise, etc. That this worked means that Soros used his money inefficiently, whereas money was used against him more efficiently. Just throwing money at a problem is never the solution, but effectively throwing money is. And because of that fact, this example is pointless.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  4. #84
    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
    Of course you can find examples of antipathy and even outright hate of a corporation. That is really irrelevant to anything.
    This is hilarious. You said that Americans don't hate corporations. NGNM85 destroyed that argument, and then you went, "but it doesn't really matter...."

    Just felt like highlighting your lack of substance for all to see.
    Last edited by repeter; 07-03-11 at 07:03 PM.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  5. #85
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It's "the people" vs. "the people."
    This is not the case. It is, "the people" vs. "the people with extremely limited liability, and billions in funds that don't necessarily belong to them."

    Money causes great imbalances. If it was equally easy for the average joe to secure 30 seconds of airtime on a channel, and for a corporation to do so, I would be much more content with the situation. But the fact of the matter is, a few thousand stockholders can outweigh the effect of hundreds of thousands of people. That is inherently imbalanced, and inequal.

    Heck, there's even an argument that allowing corporations to contribute at all is unconstitutional. 1 man, 1 vote. Corporations can secure thousands of votes, much more than the stockholders could secure individually.

    If they want to be involved in politics so bad, fine. I'd redefine corporations as people in the following way: take away their unlimited contribution ability, give every corporation in America 1 vote. They can figure out who to vote for on their own. This should have been the result of Citizen's United States.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  6. #86
    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 What if...? View Post
    Well if you read the thread you would know he's the OP, so his opinion matters HERE at LEAST as much as anyone elses.
    Sorry, I do not think I explained myself here very well. I was speaking about the idea that holding a handful of a corporations stock means your opinion is worth much.

  7. #87
    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
    Yet you clearly failed to note that this point nullifies your argument.
    It doesn't. All the money in the world does not gaurantee you a single vote.

    Since the argument is that corporations have the ability to effect a much larger number of elections then a single voter, this more then negates that, it crushes it. Which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.
    They do not.

    It takes money to get on TV, to broadcast, and advertise, etc. That this worked means that Soros used his money inefficiently, whereas money was used against him more efficiently. Just throwing money at a problem is never the solution, but effectively throwing money is. And because of that fact, this example is pointless.
    No, people didn't buy what Soros was selling. Corporations by and large would be for more and more and more government spending. That idea was dismissed despite all the money they may have spent in the last elections. Now does all of this money have an effect on the individual politician? That's a much better arguement but your complaint should be with the politician not with free speech.

    I've seen little in the way of complaints concerning the incestous relationship Obama had with Immelt.

  8. #88
    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
    It doesn't. All the money in the world does not gaurantee you a single vote.
    It does. You choose to ignore the reality of the situation because there is no upfront benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    They do not.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    No, people didn't buy what Soros was selling. Corporations by and large would be for more and more and more government spending. That idea was dismissed despite all the money they may have spent in the last elections. Now does all of this money have an effect on the individual politician? That's a much better arguement but your complaint should be with the politician not with free speech.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I've seen little in the way of complaints concerning the incestous relationship Obama had with Immelt.
    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.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  9. #89
    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
    Sorry, I do not think I explained myself here very well. I was speaking about the idea that holding a handful of a corporations stock means your opinion is worth much.
    People can essentially buy influence in the political system? That seems to be an admission of incompatibility, if I'm not mistaken.

    And I would agree that people who hold stocks, and use the accompanying leverage are entitled to "more" of an opinion than those without an equivalent number of stocks. That is the problem!
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  10. #90
    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
    This is hilarious. You said that Americans don't hate corporations. NGNM85 destroyed that argument, and then you went, "but it doesn't really matter...."
    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.

    Just felt like highlighting your lack of substance for all to see.
    You'll need to read a little closer to even attempt that.

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •