Very perceptive of you Clete, create a crisis with bluster, talk tough, solve it for a zero sum game and take credit for it. The noise from the peanut gallery bears that out.
|
Very perceptive of you Clete, create a crisis with bluster, talk tough, solve it for a zero sum game and take credit for it. The noise from the peanut gallery bears that out.
Yes Tal it seems to be the way politics is played in your land, but consider, term limits, no Pelosi, etc and maybe no crisisQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
There has been a lot of talk about term limits. Are they used anywhere else? If so, what has that experience been like? They do hold a certain appeal.Quote:
consider, term limits
Less bluster more debate, and better cooperation would help. Also eliminate all this campaigning and the money to do it, could improve things I think.
I'm with you there and I think it could apply to many placesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Haven't courts already ruled that unconstitutional?Quote:
Also eliminate all this campaigning and the money to do it, could improve things I think.
I begin to wonder whether any action in your country is constitutional. who is in charge? The ghosts of the founders or the elected officialsQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Who is in charge? It's this little thing called "the law". God help us if that ever ceases to be the case.Quote:
who is in charge?
I don't think he will help you. I doubt rebellion was his ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Thankfully, God is not controlled by what you think.Quote:
I don't think he will help you. I doubt rebellion was his idea
Thankfully he is not controlled by any human agencyQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Despite the alleged utter stupidity of humans, some are very good at adapting ways to get around the law, and even stretch it to the limits. Then there is the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling which guaranteed rich guys could spend whatever they wanted on whomever they wanted. So the notion of what's legal and illegal is still up in the air because there are always loopholes abound, and smart humans to exploit them to the max.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That won't stop humans from invoking his name to further their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
No, it didn't. There are limits on what an individual or business can give to a political campaign. The Citizens United case had more to do with political advocacy groups and was a freedom of speech issue.Quote:
Then there is the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling which guaranteed rich guys could spend whatever they wanted on whomever they wanted.
Your hero, President Obama, had the usual "speaking out of both sides of his mouth" response to this decision.
President Obama leveled perhaps the most vocal criticism of the Citizens United decision by directly taking on the Supreme Court, saying the five majority justices “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists.”
Obama lashed out at the ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said during his address to a joint session of Congress.
"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people," the president said. "And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."
In the 2012 presidential contest, however, Obama softened his stance on super PACs and encouraged his fundraisers to bring in contributions to a super PAC that was supporting his candidacy.
If you can't beat 'em join 'em! Be foolish to go into a political campaign with handcuffs on now wouldn't it.
Looks like MO"MONEY to me!
The answer to all of that would be to have a truly fact loving, adversarial, unbiased national news media, which is exactly what we don't have.
We have one but many don't know how to use it or recognize FACTS. I can specify that right wing loonies will dismiss the FACTS much preferring validation over truth. That's pretty hard core and extreme in many regards and ignores over half the country. FACT is the right wing is not the majority of people in this country. To be fair, neither repubs or dems are either.
We do? Which one??? CNN, the network that provided HC with debate questions prior to the event to give her an advantage over rivals???Quote:
We have one but many don't know how to use it or recognize FACTS.
Take media as a whole and do your own homework for a change and let me know what you get. Nitpicking talking points is not something that helps you because you even screw that up.
Oh those stubborn facts!
FACTS aren't stubborn, people are.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:54 PM. |