Originally Posted by New Era
Then why bring up the red herring of George Soros and attempting to directly connect him to the happenings in Ferguson, knowing full well that he is not even remotely close to being the largest funder of political interests in the United States? Why bring it up? You complained that liberals always bring up the spectre of the Koch brothers, but you were the one that injected the money aspect into this discussion. Don't cry when you get pummeled with your own point.
See, there's the thing. You haven't provided any ying to the yang. You trotted out an example based on a bad narrative and got crushed. The worst example of what you find so detestable has been proven to be a relatively minor player in the grand scheme of political givings. Soros is #23 on the list of top benefactors, a list that does not include the Koch brothers because of how they hide their donations. To make matters worse, that list shows just how imbalanced political donations are in the United States.
I haven't commented on this at all. I've just been beating you over the head with your Soros strawman argument. My position on campaign financing and political givings is pretty straight forward. There should be no corporate givings (corporations are not people), and donations should be capped at $50 per donation. Democracy was founded on the concept of one man, one vote. That same concept should extend to political givings, where the entire playing field is leveled and the poor have just as much say as the rich.
Frankly, the whole system has been set up for the rich to assume control of the political mechanism. As soon as the courts made a mockery of the 14th amendment and corporations were granted personhood by Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, and then Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, we have been on a slippery slope to a plutocracy. With the recent ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, the flood gates have been opened and democracy has been pounded to a pulp. Now, one man, one vote, is a bit of a joke. When uber-rich benefactors can direct their corporate interests to fund campaigns we find ourselves existing in an illiberal democracy. The only way to fix politics is to get money out of it.
I have not picked a side. I've picked your argument to pieces. My personal point of view is way too complex to distill into a right versus left discussion. I don't buy into the BS of political parties and instead focus on issues, where both of the current parties in the United States are cut from the same cloth. Many of the big issues are not decided at the federal level, but are instead controlled at the state level. The big things for people to understand is that the President of the United States has little power when laws get passed at the state level. When enough states pass similar laws, they become defacto standards and are impervious to any direction or writ from any President. There are many groups out there that recognize this, which is why ALEC is the most powerful and important lobby in existence today. The real power in the United States is not found in the Oval Office. It is in special interests that control congress and state legislatures. Understanding these goings on gives you better idea of where the country is headed.
Please don't bring up the concept of double think. Do yourself that service. You have stepped into that cow pie twice now. You brought up the Soros line of thought, a tired and well worn narrative about a liberal billionaire ruining our democracy. That has been proven to be patently false as his givings are dwarfed by those on the conservative side of the ledger. You then brought up the fallacious Petroleo Brasileiro story, which really blew up in your face when it was discovered to be approved by conservatives, not who you thought it was. These two stories you accepted as fact, because of your particular political indoctrination, have drawn you directly into that double think scenario.
Already did.
Irrelevant to the discussion. I could easily inject into the conversation that conservative money and doctrine is causing a human rights situation in Africa with the systematic purge of rights and kills of homosexuals, but that is irrelevant to the conversation. It is a very important issue, but irrelevant to what is being discussed.
That's what you got out of reading that Snopes article? You should never use the term double think in one of your posts again. Your picture is now forever placed along side the definition of that term.
Uninformed. Irrational. Unfocused. Incoherent. Try and stay focused and on track. You're all over the place and your argument is coming down itself. Don't bring up an issue if you don't want to get slapped around with it. Don't cry foul when that argument is not what you think it is.
Answered above.
And why is it hilarious? Soros is much more transparent in his givings. In a complex system where dollars are the new ballot, I think we need as much transparency as possible. When people start hiding behind their foundations and 501(c) interests, we lose track of who is really influencing the system.
|