Is Billionare Republican Sheldon Adelson Too Powerful?

sawdust said:

And you don't think Obama has Soros goop on his chin? Democrats have more mega wealthy donors than Republicans. Start a thread about that.

Click to expand...

That is also of concern so you should provide us some source material to demonstrate that this is so.

Your Star said:

They won't have any more power than the already do; also unions wouldn't be able to donate to political campaigns either, so their power would be greatly reduced.

The greatest power would be returned to the people, the politicians would have to directly talk to us, they would have to serve our needs and not the needs of large corporations and multi-billionaire donors. This is the way a republic is supposed to work, not this ****ed up system we have now.

Click to expand...

disagree-unions will have the ability of advocating their members vote a certain way and MSM-which was essentially part of the BHO campaign in 2008 and 2012 won't have to worry about contra messages

MildSteel said:

It is human greed that makes government NECESSARY in the first place. And intelligent, responsible people should first of all recognize that there is a need for government. Furthermore they also have the responsibility to make sure that the greed, anger, and envy of the wealthy do not have an influence on government.

Both things need to be there.

Click to expand...

Government serves many purposes but distilling it to greed is short sighted. Government maintains domestic tranquility, provides for secure borders supposidly, provides consumer protection and provides infrastructure for the common good, like post roads. The problem with government is that the people in it fall in love with power. I am conflicted as to wether the quest for power is associated with greed but one thing is certain. Big government increases power and that is generally harmful to liberty and freedom.

radcen said:

The voters could take that power back at any time. They just won't.

Click to expand...

It's difficult when these campaigns that have so much money spend that money ads that muddy the waters, that don't let the real issues shine through when we are at the polls.

Also, it's more about who the politicians are thinking about when they are in office and how they decide to vote. No politician will risk losing the backing of a multi-billion dollar corporation by voting for a bill that would be against their interest, but in the interest of the people. That is the much bigger problem, IMO. We need to have the politicians obligated to the people and not other forces, and taking money out of politics is the best way to achieve that goal.

MildSteel said:

That is also of concern so you should provide us some source material to demonstrate that this is so.

Click to expand...

What do you want, material about wealthy donors to Democrats or goop. If you are interested you can easily research it. Here's a start:

Start with Congress itself. Who are the wealthiest members? Well, there are 269 millionaires among Congress' 535 members. And most of them are Democrats.

And contrary to the hand-wringing on the left about the Supreme Court's 5-4 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling Wednesday, Democrats far outspend Republicans on elections. It isn't even close.

According to OpenSecrets.org, from 1989 to 2014 rich donors gave Democrats $1.15 billion — $416 million more than the $736 million given to the GOP. Among the top 10 donors to both parties, Democrat supporters outspent Republican supporters 2-to-1.

But what about the villainous Koch brothers, those conservative plutocrats supposedly seeking to control American politics? They rank 59th on the list of big givers — behind 18 unions and No. 1 Act Blue, the massive left-wing fund raiser that gives only to Democrats.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: It's A Myth That GOP Is Party Of The Wealthy - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Click to expand...

TacticalEvilDan said:

No. Sheldon Adelson is an individual with a lot of money and connections, that's all.

Money is too powerful in American politics. It needs to be taken out or minimized as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Although I think he is too powerful, I think you have correctly pointed out that Adelson is a specific case of a more general problem. Good point.

TurtleDude said:

disagree-unions will have the ability of advocating their members vote a certain way and MSM-which was essentially part of the BHO campaign in 2008 and 2012 won't have to worry about contra messages

Click to expand...

First off, Fox News is part of the MSM, so yeah.

And the unions will not have gained any power, they can already do that now, but the main power would be with the people.

Also, in my scenario, the internet would be the best place to reach the people. It's cheap, widespread, and you can get your message out there without any interference.

Your Star said:

First off, Fox News is part of the MSM, so yeah.

And the unions will not have gained any power, they can already do that now, but the main power would be with the people.

Also, in my scenario, the internet would be the best place to reach the people. It's cheap, widespread, and you can get your message out there without any interference.

Click to expand...

what is power for the people? most people cannot even tell you who their two senators are

TurtleDude said:

what is power for the people? most people cannot even tell you who their two senators are

Click to expand...

The vote and having our politicians being obligated to us instead of their monetary backers.

MildSteel said:

It is human greed that makes government NECESSARY in the first place. Intelligent, responsible people should first of all recognize that there is a need for government. Furthermore they also have the responsibility to make sure that the greed, anger, and envy of the wealthy do not have an influence on government.

Both things need to be there.

Click to expand...

To say you will have a government without greed is like saying you will have a donut that is high in nutritional value. As long as the government has the domain of force it will always attract those people that desire to be rich and powerful. Sure, there is exceptions to the rule much like there is with anything, but throughout history we are talking about less than a dozen men. People that think they can compete with the rich for government power or to shut them out of government are complete morons.

Your Star said:

The vote and having our politicians being obligated to us instead of their monetary backers.

Click to expand...

but what DO We want? nice words-sort of unrealistic IMHO

BBL

TurtleDude said:

but what DO We want? nice words-sort of unrealistic IMHO

BBL

Click to expand...

I'd rather have the people of this country decide the direction we should go instead of huge corporations. The motivations of people are varied but generally lead to the common good in most instances, we have checks and balances to check the scenarios where it isn't, while corporations only have, profit.

sawdust said:

Government serves many purposes but distilling it to greed is short sighted. Government maintains domestic tranquility, provides for secure borders supposidly, provides consumer protection and provides infrastructure for the common good, like post roads. The problem with government is that the people in it fall in love with power. I am conflicted as to wether the quest for power is associated with greed but one thing is certain. Big government increases power and that is generally harmful to liberty and freedom.

Click to expand...

I think that what has you conflicted is that the quest for power is the more fundamental urge. The problem is that sometimes this urge becomes so strong that it causes one to contemplate destructive means to fulfill ones desires. At that time it becomes harmful to others and one's own self, and the urge for power in that state is known as greed. So I think it's correct to say that greed is the urge for power in a destructive, possibly uncontrolled state.

That being said, I think that an increase in government power can be harmful to liberty and freedom, although I don't think that is necessarily the case depending on how you define liberty and freedom.

And so we should restrict his ability to share his point of view? Really? You want to live in an Iranian like state?

The first amendment is aimed to protect the speech that needs protecting; not that which we want to hear. The majority (not you) that dislike this man's point of view love G. Soro's and he's not even a US Citizen. The many who hate this man's point of view have no trouble with a union forming, gathering dues, and using it to buy elected officials that give them a favorable contract.

Helix said:

All Sheldon Adelson wants | Opinion | The Seattle Times




one person should not be able to buy legislation because he has more money than the other 330,000,000. this guy is trying to do that.

Click to expand...

Fletch said:

No. The real problem is that the political system has to much power and influence over our lives, activities and private enterprise. If politicians lacked the power to peddle influence and grant favors, there would be no reason for anyone to attempt to influence them.

Click to expand...

Considering the percentage we spend on defense, I would question the validity of that meme.

Move power to the states and the money will.follow.

And money already controls. So how do you get to the state of near anarchy you want?

Money talks and it likes it that way. How do you propose to convince them to allow the changes you want?

Henrin said:

To say you will have a government without greed is like saying you will have a donut that is high in nutritional value. As long as the government has the domain of force it will always attract those people that desire to be rich and powerful. Sure, there is exceptions to the rule much like there is with anything, but throughout history we are talking about less than a dozen men. People that think they can compete with the rich for government power or to shut them out of government are complete morons.

Click to expand...

While it is not practical to have a government without greed, it is possible to have one in which the effects of greed are minimized. This can be done if intelligent people, who have sufficient compassion and love of humanity, are able to first of all identify when the effects of greed have reached a level such that the situation requires rectification. The next thing is having effective mechanisms in place such that once identified, the problem can be corrected. Sometimes it may require violent coercion to correct the situation. That's why some sort of police force is necessary.

I think that the notion that it's impossible to curb the influence of the rich and powerful on government is foolish. That's part of what democracy is supposed to be about. It's about the sharing of government power amongst those who are governed, not about the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

sawdust said:

What do you want, material about wealthy donors to Democrats or goop. If you are interested you can easily research it. Here's a start:

Click to expand...

Ok, that's a start. Do you know if that counts money given to PACs and independent ads?

TurtleDude said:

opinion noted, not shared. The rich are not a monolithic force and for every rich conservative there are at least two wealthy liberals are contributing to what they want-welfare socialism and crony capitalism

Click to expand...

While I agree the rich are not monolithic, I don't think your one to two ratio is accurate. But I think you are just accenting a point, so fair enough.

MildSteel said:

While it is not practical to have a government without greed, it is possible to have one in which the effects of greed are minimized. This can be done if intelligent people, who have sufficient compassion and love of humanity, are able to first of all identify when the effects of greed have reached a level such that the situation requires rectification. The next thing is having effective mechanisms in place such that once identified, the problem can be corrected. Sometimes it may require violent coercion to correct the situation. That's why some sort of police force is necessary.

Click to expand...

The government is an organization of the predatory process and totalitarian control by political means over a given territorial area, and until that changes nothing about the organization will ever be anything but entirely based on greed. One such reason that this underlining nature of government is a plague on humanity is that those that desire to govern are almost always those men that desire to rule over their fellow men, but find very little value in their fellow human beings; while those that deserve to govern have no inclination to rule over their fellow man and find no pleasure in the task. If a society found itself to have sufficient compassion and love for humanity like those that have no inclination to govern, than more than likely there would be no good arguments to be found to as to why governance was necessary.

I think that the notion that it's impossible to curb the influence of the rich and powerful on government is foolish. That's part of what democracy is supposed to be about. It's about the sharing of government power amongst those who are governed, not about the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

Click to expand...

The government encourages the people to challenge each other as only one party can ever win any dispute that government ever has a hand in, and therefore, everyone has an interest to influence those making policy decisions, so as they can obtain victory on a given issue over their fellow citizens. The problem with all government action is that they remove freedom and give the government the sole authority on how things will be done and seen as acceptable. If people are going to fight to retain their freedom or win on a given issue they will inevitably be pitted against their fellow man. The rich have just as much interest in government as anyone else and since the politicians will always be greedy there is little doubt they will always accept the rich mans money.

CalGun said:

And so we should restrict his ability to share his point of view? Really? You want to live in an Iranian like state?

Click to expand...

from now on, when you end a point with hyperbole, i will not respond to it.

yes, i think that we should get money out of politics. it isn't speech. he should not be granted more speech than you or i just because he has enough money to buy politicians. there should be contribution limits, and everything should be on the public record.

CalGun said:

The first amendment is aimed to protect the speech that needs protecting; not that which we want to hear.

Click to expand...

the purchase of politicians is not speech. if so, then those without the money to speak are being denied their first amendment rights.

CalGun said:

The majority (not you) that dislike this man's point of view love G. Soro's and he's not even a US Citizen.

Click to expand...

i don't GAF about either of them. if Soros could buy single payer, which is one of my top issues, i would not support doing it that way.

CalGun said:

The many who hate this man's point of view have no trouble with a union forming, gathering dues, and using it to buy elected officials that give them a favorable contract.

Click to expand...

conservatives support states rights, and he's trying to purchase a revocation of rights to the states. why would you carry his water? he gives zero ****s about you or anyone else.

MildSteel said:

Ok, that's a start. Do you know if that counts money given to PACs and independent ads?

Click to expand...

No clue but I'm sure you can find out if you are really interested.

Your Star said:

It's difficult when these campaigns that have so much money spend that money ads that muddy the waters, that don't let the real issues shine through when we are at the polls.

Also, it's more about who the politicians are thinking about when they are in office and how they decide to vote. No politician will risk losing the backing of a multi-billion dollar corporation by voting for a bill that would be against their interest, but in the interest of the people. That is the much bigger problem, IMO. We need to have the politicians obligated to the people and not other forces, and taking money out of politics is the best way to achieve that goal.

Click to expand...

It's only difficult when we keep insisting on searching for the ever-elusive easy answer instead of taking the time and doing our own due diligence before we vote. We don't want to be bothered with having to actually commit some of our own time. Instead, we want easy "solutions" like cutting off money and term limits, and other things that really do nothing but make us feel good in the short term.

All it would take to get politicians to start taking the average voter seriously would be for the re-election rate to decrease from the current 90%+ to 50% or less. If they knew the chances of them not even being a politician anymore were very real, they'd treat us far differently. Right now our threats are empty, they know it, and they treat us accordingly.

Henrin said:

The government is an organization of the predatory process and totalitarian control by political means over a given territorial area, and until that changes nothing about the organization will ever be anything but entirely based on greed. One such reason that this underlining nature of government is a plague on humanity is that those that desire to govern are almost always those men that desire to rule over their fellow men, but find very little value in their fellow human beings; while those that deserve to govern have no inclination to rule over their fellow man and find no pleasure in the task. If a society found itself to have sufficient compassion and love for humanity like those that have no inclination to govern, than more than likely there would be no good arguments to be found to as to why governance was necessary.

Click to expand...

Here I think you have made some excellent observations. Of particular interest is the observation that those who deserve to govern have no interest in ruling over their fellow man and this is certainly true. And although it is difficult to implement a system of government that is not based on greed, it is possible and your observation is the key. The most difficult task in creating a such a system is to create a class of highly intelligent individuals who are devoted to truth, that practice self control, and that practically demonstrate their love of humanity through exhibiting the qualities of tolerance and mercy. Indeed it is these individuals who should be held in the highest esteem by human society as opposed to people that exhibit the qualities of ignorance, cruelty, hubris and arrogance. Once this class of individuals is established, those individuals who have a tendency to want to rule should be placed under their control. In this way, those who want to rule will do so under the guidance and control of those who are fit to rule. So that is two classes, an intelligent class and a ruling class. The next essential class of those who feel a natural inclination to make money. They are important because they provide employment, the wealth that is needed to facilitate the operation of government, and the things that society needs for it's sustenance such as food, clothing, etc. Government should let this class engage in the pursuit of profit as they see fit as long as it is done in a fair and constructive manner. Everyone else should facilitate the activities of these three essential classes. In this way, a government that is not based on greed can be implemented. However, the most difficult part is the creation and maintenance of the intelligent class. But it is possible if there is a will to do it.

Henrin said:

The government encourages the people to challenge each other as only one party can ever win any dispute that government ever has a hand in, and therefore, everyone has an interest to influence those making policy decisions, so as they can obtain victory on a given issue over their fellow citizens. The problem with all government action is that they remove freedom and give the government the sole authority on how things will be done and seen as acceptable. If people are going to fight to retain their freedom or win on a given issue they will inevitably be pitted against their fellow man. The rich have just as much interest in government as anyone else and since the politicians will always be greedy there is little doubt they will always accept the rich mans money.

Click to expand...

I think we have established that people with enormous amounts of wealth have extraordinary influence on our political system and therefore our government. These people have determined that winner take all, adversarial competition amongst the underclasses for access to the levers of wealth and power is the best way to maintain and increase their status. As a result, as you have so astutely observed, we have a government that encourages winner take all, adversarial competition. If however, we implement a government as I described above, the problems that you have noted will be minimized and eradicated.

And you don't want to talk about hyperbole? It isn't speech - guess what - YES IT IS. For you can spew all you want all over your bloody forum but until you BUY a presentation to make it heard its not SPEECH its hyperbole. What an ignorant statement. You'd make the mullahs proud acting just like them.

Helix said:

from now on, when you end a point with hyperbole, i will not respond to it.

yes, i think that we should get money out of politics. it isn't speech. he should not be granted more speech than you or i just because he has enough money to buy politicians. there should be contribution limits, and everything should be on the public record.



the purchase of politicians is not speech. if so, then those without the money to speak are being denied their first amendment rights.



i don't GAF about either of them. if Soros could buy single payer, which is one of my top issues, i would not support doing it that way.



conservatives support states rights, and he's trying to purchase a revocation of rights to the states. why would you carry his water? he gives zero ****s about you or anyone else.

Click to expand...

You forgot the "Who?" option on the poll.