Considering it is generally the left that want criminals to be able to vote, why shouldn't the left also want them to be allowed to participate in other political activities?
Just being black and having a similar name to a felon doesn't make you a felon...a common Republican misconception as we saw in Florida in 2000.
Speaking of criminals, billionaire currency speculator George Soros is a convicted felon. Do you have a problem with him participating when he gives vast amounts of money to influence elections?
I have a problem with money corrupting the entire system.
And the U.S. government is the 4th largest polluter. Can we work from big to small and stop the government before we get down to the Kochs at number 10? Or does the government get the same pass you give to George Soros?
With the revolving door between the private and public sector there is no real difference between the government and the wealthy...which is the real problem.
I guess it's my fault for thinking members of this forum wouldn't resort to special pleading or that their hatred would be so blinding.
Stating that destroying the very things that makes life possibly for everybody including the wealthy isn't resorting to special pleading, it's pointing out the obvious. And as I'm using my own words and not spending hundreds of millions of dollars in complex advertising campaigns on advocating my personal agenda, I find it absurd to present my very limited actions as being anything more than fair comment.
As for hatred, I guess if that's the perspective you approach the world from then other's fair comments are going to appear as hatred when they're in conflict with your own. I'm motivated by the incredible diversity and beauty of the world around me, advocating for the continued existence of that world isn't based in hatred in my opinion, it's based in love.
First I would figure out why no matter who is elected, once they get to D.C. they are changed by the ruling system.
"Deliberately manipulating our ability to stop their power quest, federal officials have used techniques that systematically increase people's personal costs of resistance...The results are no accident. But the political strategies described in this book do not entail conspiratorial plans made in any monolithic or aggregate way. Rather this book describes actions taken by individuals pursuing their own separate agendas, trying to get their way in policy and politics. Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that if we just prevented certain elite groups from working their will on the rest of us, all would be well. The actual problem is much more complex and difficult to remedy. The strategies described in this book simply work in politics, so they are used over and over again, creating an institutional structure now highly resistant to change. We will see that people who 'do politics well' use these strategies repeatedly, not because someone tell them to, but because these techniques enable them to obtain more of what they want in (and from) the American polity."
--Charlotte A. Twight, from the book Dependent on D.C.
... We will see that people who 'do politics well' use these strategies repeatedly, not because someone tell them to, but because these techniques enable them to obtain more of what they want in (and from) the American polity."
--Charlotte A. Twight, from the book Dependent on D.C.
Right. And, necessarily, a primary thing that "people who do politics" want is to get elected or re-elected. This requires money. So billionaires and corporations who spend a lot of money in lobbying and influencing elections (e.g., those with energy related investments) have an inordinate impact on what elected officials do (and on the thinking of the average quasi-apathetic voters).
Hence, when the interest of the rich and powerful is primarily in making more money, as it so often is, they can successfully undermine more critical interests of the society at large, (e.g., global warming continues unabated).
I guess it's my fault for thinking members of this forum wouldn't resort to special pleading or that their hatred would be so blinding.
Please don’t think that, I do agree with you. Good data you supplied. We have those who cannot see the forest because to many trees are in the way.
Everyone’s thoughts have merit, until you try and fit those individual thoughts into the whole picture of what is happening in the world.
When all the problems in America are blamed upon a few rich people for realizing the American Dream is really very silly to us old timers.
When people think that problems will be solved by passing laws of greed that take from those that have and give to those that have not. Pumping 85B a month into the system has shown that even the Dawes Plan will not work when over regulated. So the whole idea of going after the rich has been proven not to work.
Some of the thinking on this site seems to be driven by saving the world. Yet it is these same groups that have stopped the progress that can help cut energy use. Geothermal drilling was stopped because it created earthquakes – untrue. The big increase of the use of coal happened because nuclear was unsafe – now the government want to return to nuclear. Projects across the nation have not moved forward because of these groups. Now look at the wind and solar projects. There is now a problem with the birds. It will not be long until it will take seven to eight years to get a wind permit.
All I hear is I don’t like this and I don’t like that. I have never once heard that we should work together and fix the problems. We should work with people who can get things done, people like the Koch Brothers and Walmart to see if we cannot get moving forward on our problems.
Where to start.
First I would figure out why no matter who is elected, once they get to D.C. they are changed by the ruling system. We need that stopped and full disclosure and we need to get rid of secret judges, laws and courts. Next we need to reduce the power or make the government departments legally liable for their actions.
We should get rid of the EPA completely. Not that it is not needed. It is just the government cannot manage the departments it is already operating. Once the departmental mess is cleaned up, then reopen departments like the EPA.
Point being the departments like to create laws (regulations). And these laws are Federal laws. We need to keep a balance between State and Federal powers. These department’s law making ability upset the balance and it is against the Constitution for the departments to create laws. Just another form of, "It ain't a tax, it is just a fee." "It ain't a law, it is just a regulation."
The Supreme Court system is to keep the system Constitutionally balanced. But the Supreme Court is not able to do its job. For example, Supreme Court system has buried their head in the sand while not hearing drug laws on Marijuana that has kept power with the Federal Government instead of the States. During this time millions of jail hours have been done by the inaction of the Supreme Courts. Thousands of families have been broken up. Yet it takes a peoples movement to start the change in the system.
We should be asking ourselves why in over 35 years the Supreme Court would not hear a marijuana case. We know that would have hurt “The War on Drugs". So, the question is, “Who is in control of the Supreme Court system?" Not, how rich are the Koch Brothers. Real power is being able to control the Federal Courts and to have secret courts. Is it those who control the courts that are controlling the economy or the other way around.
How would you fix these problems? Change the Constitution? Good luck with that!
Lois
How would you fix these problems? Change the Constitution? Good luck with that!
Lois
Congress would first have to close down the secret courts. Congress could fix the problem by assigning a Congressional investigation with bipartisan support into the powers and actions of the secret departments. Congress should controls the funds for these departments even if they are secret.
Lois, I was really shocked when I tried to figure out the employment system of the secret departments. To have a secret department you cannot have your employees paid as government workers. If you did then all anyone would have to do is follow the financial information, like house loans or car loans and any country could figure out if the person is really who they say they are.
And it sort of works this way. Once you get higher up in the departments you can sort of retire. You will be given the management of a new startup company or take over an existing company that will supply computer equipment or consulting to the secrets departments. This startup company will be funded by other companies that are operated by the secret departments. Your starting pay as a CEO or president of these startup is usually 1M/y. You can find this information on the incorporation filings.
These companies move office about every two years. Most locations are in secure government buildings with guards. I would say about 30% of these companies are located in the public office spaces. It all depends on what the product or service is.
There are thousands of these companies supplying the secret departments that are located in government builings. And I was also surprised to find that at least one out of four had foreign management. To me this shows the scope of the secret departments is a worldwide operation.
In the news today, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a big heavy weight in congress was complaining when she found out the secret departments would lie and cover up data. Then the secret departments went to the Justice Department to have Feinstein shut down when she complained. And I might add that she is a congressional overseer of some of the secret departments. And she is finding out that the departments feel they are more powerful than congress.
And maybe they are. We do not know what powers congress has given to these departments. After all was it not the secret departments that decided that they could kill Americans without having a trial? And that people who are kill in their own country that were call collateral damage. Do the secret departments care about the Fifth Amendment and due process?
How would you fix these problems? Change the Constitution? Good luck with that!
Lois
Congress would first have to close down the secret courts. Congress could fix the problem by assigning a Congressional investigation with bipartisan support into the powers and actions of the secret departments. Congress should controls the funds for these departments even if they are secret.
Lois, I was really shocked when I tried to figure out the employment system of the secret departments. To have a secret department you cannot have your employees paid as government workers. If you did then all anyone would have to do is follow the financial information, like house loans or car loans and any country could figure out if the person is really who they say they are.
And it sort of works this way. Once you get higher up in the departments you can sort of retire. You will be given the management of a new startup company or take over an existing company that will supply computer equipment or consulting to the secrets departments. This startup company will be funded by other companies that are operated by the secret departments. Your starting pay as a CEO or president of these startup is usually 1M/y. You can find this information on the incorporation filings.
These companies move office about every two years. Most locations are in secure government buildings with guards. I would say about 30% of these companies are located in the public office spaces. It all depends on what the product or service is.
There are thousands of these companies supplying the secret departments that are located in government builings. And I was also surprised to find that at least one out of four had foreign management. To me this shows the scope of the secret departments is a worldwide operation.
In the news today, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a big heavy weight in congress was complaining when she found out the secret departments would lie and cover up data. Then the secret departments went to the Justice Department to have Feinstein shut down when she complained. And I might add that she is a congressional overseer of some of the secret departments. And she is finding out that the departments feel they are more powerful than congress.
And maybe they are. We do not know what powers congress has given to these departments. After all was it not the secret departments that decided that they could kill Americans without having a trial? And that people who are kill in their own country that were call collateral damage. Do the secret departments care about the Fifth Amendment and due process?
But you haven't said how you would go about fixing this state of affairs.
Lois
And, necessarily, a primary thing that "people who do politics" want is to get elected or re-elected. This requires money. So billionaires and corporations who spend a lot of money in lobbying and influencing elections (e.g., those with energy related investments) have an inordinate impact on what elected officials do (and on the thinking of the average quasi-apathetic voters).
But in the end it all comes down to the voters. They keep voting the same idiots in over and over again. The re-election of incumbents has always been incredibly high. Look at the title of this thread: The Koch Brothers. Yes they have lots of money. Yes they pour lots of that money into politics. Yet who won the White House twice? Obama. You can't blame Obama on the Koch Brothers. The blame falls squarely with the voters. Despite all the nutjob conspiracy theories about "the wealthy deciding political races" it still always falls back to the voters. And that goes for either Democrats or Republicans. George Soros and unions throw hundreds of millions of dollars behind Democrats. The Koch Brothers and others throw a similar amount behind Republicans. Soros, Unions, the Kochs, etc. have that right. Claiming that money is the problem ignores the true problems: politicians first and foremost and the idiot voters who vote them in and keep voting them in. Only a fool would have voted for Obama the first time. Only and idiot would have voted for him the second time, regardless of how many hundreds of millions of dollars Soros and the unions gave Obama. Politicians, fools & idiots are the problems, not money.
But you haven't said how you would go about fixing this state of affairs.
Lois
I hear you. Sometimes I feel like it is the next generations problem, but then I think of what we are passing on to my grandchildren and my great grandchildren and I would like to be able to help fix the problems. The first step is to identify the problem.
The problem is with congress. Either congress has to fix it or we will end up in a revolution. We are in sort of a revolution today with 40% of the workforce not working. The question is how many of those do not want to work in this type of government controlled environment and have just given up.
Should Americans need a lawyer and psychiatrist to be able to survive in today work environment? The Hollywood movies writers seem to think so.
Just maybe we need some strong Americans like the Koch Brothers to expose the government for what it is.
We are getting close to being in sort of the same situation the German people were in when the Nazi’s took over the government, then took over the country.
These secret departments have done tremendous good for the people and the world. Yet, somehow the bad evil side ends up in control. Maybe this is just how human nature works.
But you haven't said how you would go about fixing this state of affairs.
Lois
I hear you. Sometimes I feel like it is the next genUerations problem, but then I think of what we are passing on to my grandchildren and my great grandchildren and I would like to be able to help fix the problems. The first step is to identify the problem.
The problem is with congress. Either congress has to fix it or we will end up in a revolution. We are in sort of a revolution today with 40% of the workforce not working. The question is how many of those do not want to work in this type of government controlled environment and have just given up.
Should Americans need a lawyer and psychiatrist to be able to survive in today work environment? The Hollywood movies writers seem to think so.
Just maybe we need some strong Americans like the Koch Brothers to expose the government for what it is.
We are getting close to being in sort of the same situation the German people were in when the Nazi’s took over the government, then took over the country.
These secret departments have done tremendous good for the people and the world. Yet, somehow the bad evil side ends up in control. Maybe this is just how human nature works.
That's probably true. It is very hard and maybe impossible to stop something like secret activities. I don't have any answers either.
It appears that we are doomed to have corruption all around us, no matter what we do. Corruption is inherent in humans, IMO. There is no system that doesn't become corrupt sooner or later.
Lois
But in the end it all comes down to the voters. They keep voting the same idiots in over and over again. The re-election of incumbents has always been incredibly high. Look at the title of this thread: The Koch Brothers. Yes they have lots of money. Yes they pour lots of that money into politics. Yet who won the White House twice? Obama. You can't blame Obama on the Koch Brothers. The blame falls squarely with the voters. Despite all the nutjob conspiracy theories about "the wealthy deciding political races" it still always falls back to the voters. And that goes for either Democrats or Republicans. George Soros and unions throw hundreds of millions of dollars behind Democrats. The Koch Brothers and others throw a similar amount behind Republicans. Soros, Unions, the Kochs, etc. have that right. Claiming that money is the problem ignores the true problems: politicians first and foremost and the idiot voters who vote them in and keep voting them in. Only a fool would have voted for Obama the first time. Only and idiot would have voted for him the second time, regardless of how many hundreds of millions of dollars Soros and the unions gave Obama. Politicians, fools & idiots are the problems, not money.
I think Obama is pretty good proof that there is still some intelligence on the part of America voters when many Republican candidates come across as borderline or outright nuts. The fact that many Republicans spend so much time trying to prove he's a Kenyan born, socialist, Muslim terrorist says much about the current state of discourse in that party.
And considering that it takes millions to run a successful House race, tens of millions for the Senate and hundreds of millions for the Presidency then it's obvious that wealth is a major deciding factor in today's media rich political environment. The ideal of critical evaluation of a candidates qualities for office have been replaced by meaningless popularity contests that do allow a much more significant manipulation of the electorate. Things like the Swiftboaters protesting that a Vietnam vet wasn't wounded enough to qualify for the medals he received while he was running against two men who dodged the draft altogether in that same war.
Astro-turfing has been turned into a science by the far right, including the Tea Party which the Kochs helped create and which put into Congress a lot of members who are trying to tear the system apart instead of making it work. It's the billionaire version of a temper tantrum, "If you don't let me have my way then I'm going to take MY Earth and go home. Keep in mind that the Kochs alone have invested over $50 million to distort the science on climate change in a campaign that holds the potential of being the worst catastrophe in human history.
BTW Obama wasn't just backed by far left millionaires and unions, Washington has become a closed shop to a great deal with many corporations backing candidates from both sides, for instance in 2008 Goldman Sachs was Obama's second highest campaign contributor and McCain's fourth highest. That way whoever wins owes the same people same, until this system that requires so much money to run successful campaigns is changed then little real change is going to take place in America.
And meanwhile people like the Kochs are going to be spending their millions on slick campaigns that could not only disenfranchise millions of Americans, but leave them in a country too devastated to support them.
You also have to question the ethical foundation of a fortune that traces its roots back to Joseph Stalin.
This extended litigation effectively put Winkler-Koch out of business in the U.S. for several years. Koch turned his focus to foreign markets, including the Soviet Union, where Winkler-Koch built 15 cracking units between 1929 and 1932. The company also built installations in countries throughout Europe, the Middle East and Asia.[1] In the early 1930s, Winkler-Koch hosted Soviet technicians for training.[
And, necessarily, a primary thing that "people who do politics" want is to get elected or re-elected. This requires money. So billionaires and corporations who spend a lot of money in lobbying and influencing elections (e.g., those with energy related investments) have an inordinate impact on what elected officials do (and on the thinking of the average quasi-apathetic voters).
But in the end it all comes down to the voters. They keep voting the same idiots in over and over again. The re-election of incumbents has always been incredibly high. Look at the title of this thread: The Koch Brothers. Yes they have lots of money. Yes they pour lots of that money into politics. Yet who won the White House twice? Obama. You can't blame Obama on the Koch Brothers. The blame falls squarely with the voters. Despite all the nutjob conspiracy theories about "the wealthy deciding political races" it still always falls back to the voters. And that goes for either Democrats or Republicans. George Soros and unions throw hundreds of millions of dollars behind Democrats. The Koch Brothers and others throw a similar amount behind Republicans. Soros, Unions, the Kochs, etc. have that right. Claiming that money is the problem ignores the true problems: politicians first and foremost and the idiot voters who vote them in and keep voting them in. Only a fool would have voted for Obama the first time. Only and idiot would have voted for him the second time, regardless of how many hundreds of millions of dollars Soros and the unions gave Obama. Politicians, fools & idiots are the problems, not money.
Our perspectives are juxtaposed. You (perhaps inadvertently) called me a fool and an idiot. I would vote for Obama a third time if it were constitutionally viable. (I wonder if you think we would be better off now, with a President McCain or Romney.)
You say that "fools" and "idiots" and "politicians" are the problem, and deny that money has significant influence on what those "fools" and "idiots" and "politicians" do.
But in the end it all comes down to the voters.... The Koch Brothers. Yes they have lots of money. Yes they pour lots of that money into politics.
If it all comes down to the voters then why do Koch Bros. and Soros and Unions pour lots of money into elections?
Why would they pour tons of money into politics, including election campaign contributions?
If it all comes down to voters then why bother?
Because it all comes down to who the voters have to choose from and more importantly, what voters are given as information to make their decisions in the ballot box.
Both of these factors take lot's of $$money$$!
I would vote for Obama a third time if it were constitutionally viable.
Since when has violating the Constitution ever been a problem for Obama? He does it all the time. I wouldn't doubt if the megalomaniac hasn't already floated the idea of him running for a third term. I guess there are still some rights and civil liberties he hasn't violated enough in his first two terms.
If it all comes down to the voters then why do Koch Bros. and Soros and Unions pour lots of money into elections?
Why would they pour tons of money into politics, including election campaign contributions?
If it all comes down to voters then why bother?
They bother in an attempt to get out their base to the polls and to sway the undecided voters in an effort to tilt the election the way each side would like.
I would vote for Obama a third time if it were constitutionally viable.
Since when has violating the Constitution ever been a problem for Obama? He does it all the time. I wouldn't doubt if the megalomaniac hasn't already floated the idea of him running for a third term. I guess there are still some rights and civil liberties he hasn't violated enough in his first two terms.
And where did much of that start.
It was Bush and Cheney who introduced the Patriot act, cut loose the security services to do pretty much what they liked, started a war that had no legal justification in Iraq and so much more.
Democrats certainly aren't perfect, but few have the impressive blinders that many die-hard Republicans on the far right seem to have.
Oh come on, Rocinante. There’s no way Obama would desire to run for a third term when it would be far better to have Hillary win the presidency and appoint him to the Supreme Court. :lol:
Occam
And where did much of that start.
It was Bush and Cheney who introduced the Patriot act, cut loose the security services to do pretty much what they liked, started a war that had no legal justification in Iraq and so much more.
Your tu quoque logical fallacy aside, you conveniently ignore the fact that Obama extended the Patriot Act when he could have killed it. You also ignore that Bush got Congressional approval before going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama did not get Congressional approval before going to war in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan, not to mention his deploying Special Ops to 134 countries - compared to 60 under Bush. The Obama Administration also holds the record for the most censoring of government files and outright denying Freedom of Information Act requests. Obama is also worse on Civil Liberties than Bush according to the ACLU.
So, nice try, but you and America loses when it comes to Obama.
Oh come on, Rocinante. There's no way Obama would desire to run for a third term when it would be far better to have Hillary win the presidency and appoint him to the Supreme Court. :lol:
Yes, because some sort of dual family dynasty of the Clintons and Obamas "leading" this country for decades is just what we need. :roll: It was bad enough with two Bushes. Now you want to continue with the Clintons and keep that filthy fascist Obama in a position for life? Getting every Bush, Clinton and Obama out of office as soon as possible would be the best thing for this country.