• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ted Cruz: Sell our democracy to the highest bidders!

Keep in mind, this is only the stuff we are aware of.............

Both parties are the same. Well, one party proudly proclaims that money is free speech but the other one thinks the same and you can tell by their actions. Well except for the action of voting against all the legislation allowing more money into the process...but I know what they're really thinking and it's the same.
 
I think he's correct. I'd add a caveat that while "money = speech" that also means you have the obligation to own your speech and not make it anonymous. If for example Kock Brothers want to donate $500 million to Ted Cruz for President then I'm fine, but it has to be disclosed in real time to voters who can draw their own conclusions about what influence that $500MM would buy the candidate who accepted it.

I'm honestly of the opinion that money in politics is reaching the point of diminishing returns anyway. Unless you start propping open the eyelids of voters with toothpicks as in Clockwork Orange I don't see how they can see any more politial ads then they already do. Add a 25th hour to the day so folks can see a few dozen more TV spots daily flogging Candidate X?
 
I think he's correct. I'd add a caveat that while "money = speech" that also means you have the obligation to own your speech and not make it anonymous. If for example Kock Brothers want to donate $500 million to Ted Cruz for President then I'm fine, but it has to be disclosed in real time to voters who can draw their own conclusions about what influence that $500MM would buy the candidate who accepted it.

I'm honestly of the opinion that money in politics is reaching the point of diminishing returns anyway. Unless you start propping open the eyelids of voters with toothpicks as in Clockwork Orange I don't see how they can see any more politial ads then they already do. Add a 25th hour to the day so folks can see a few dozen more TV spots daily flogging Candidate X?

It might be reaching the point of diminishing returns, but that seems to be more because their influence is so huge already anyway:

http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.
 
re: Sell our democracy to the highest bidders!

It really is "Sell our Republic to the highest bidders".


Although most people seem to be clueless, "it's a done deal" and has been so now for a number of years (started with establishment of the federal reserve, then seriously after WWII along with Kennedy assassination (remember what Eisenhower warned).

As Ben Franklin stated, "They have a Republic, if they can keep it."
======================================
Typical:

In the first half, author and conspiracy researcher Donald Jeffries discussed such topics as the JFK assassination, the death Of JFK Jr., 9-11, and Bohemian Grove. Certainly the "organized corruption" began before the Kennedy assassination, but since "November 22, 1963, you can see how things have grown progressively worse-- corruption has been ratcheted up to the point where we can be attacking American citizens with drones and bragging about it," he remarked. As one of the anomalies in the JFK shooting, Jeffries cited "the magic bullet" that was found in almost perfect condition and was claimed to cause seven wounds in Gov. Connally and Pres. Kennedy. "We know that's an impossibility-- no bullet has ever done that."

We saw the same kind of "calling card" during 9-11 when one of the alleged hijacker's passports was found on a pile of rubble, when everything else around it was obliterated, he commented. Post 9-11, we've been in an endless war with an enemy that is unidentifiable, and citizens' rights have been whittled away by the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and the NDAA, he continued. The official cause behind the death of John Kennedy Jr. was said to be related to his reckless flying, but suspiciously, eyewitnesses in the case later said they were mistaken about what they saw, Jeffries reported, adding that he believes JFK Jr. was taken out because of his interest in politics, and possibly being a future presidential candidate.


In the first half, author and investment advisor, Catherine Austin Fitts, shared her unique perspective on how to navigate the opportunities and risks in the global financial system and political economy, and protect one's personal assets. In the last 20 years we've been through a "financial coup d'etat," and a lot of people have been hurt by this hidden system of finance, and black budget expenditures, she said. Right now, there's a big discrepancy in what we earn in our savings, and what we pay to borrow, "and that's part of what's destroying the middle class in this country," Fitts continued.

One of the biggest trends we're seeing is a re-balancing of the global economy-- the GDP in India per person is around $5,000, while in the US it's around $53,000-- "we are going through a process where someday those numbers will be the same," plus by 2020, 80% of the world population will have a smart phone and that will lead to revolutionary changes, she remarked. Currently, the US dollar's rise in value is putting pressure on newly advanced economies such as the BRIC nations, and could cause them to have slowdowns, as their debt is based in dollars, she explained. Fitts also expressed concern about the rising gap between the haves and have nots-- "we have literally financed a breakaway civilization," an ultra wealthy group that operates outside the laws of sovereign nations".
 
I think he's correct. I'd add a caveat that while "money = speech" that also means you have the obligation to own your speech and not make it anonymous. If for example Kock Brothers want to donate $500 million to Ted Cruz for President then I'm fine, but it has to be disclosed in real time to voters who can draw their own conclusions about what influence that $500MM would buy the candidate who accepted it.

I'm honestly of the opinion that money in politics is reaching the point of diminishing returns anyway. Unless you start propping open the eyelids of voters with toothpicks as in Clockwork Orange I don't see how they can see any more politial ads then they already do. Add a 25th hour to the day so folks can see a few dozen more TV spots daily flogging Candidate X?

Agreed about the first paragraph. That's really what the whole Teahad/IRS flap was about- the IRS attempting to infringe on the ability to do that & not having to pay taxes on it, either.
 
The fact that somebody like Ted Cruz could become a senator of an American state is an indication of how far gone America is.
 
Corporations are people, my friend, but don't you dare ask them to pay taxes on their foreign earnings, like American people do.
 
You do realize that false thread titles and hyperbole like this only make you look stupid, right?

I used no false thread title, hence why I did not put it in quotes. Had I indicated it was a quote, that would be false. I simply indicated what he was saying paraphrased. And there is absolutely no hyperbole, he's one of the worst human beings to ever be an elected official at the national level.

And I definitely have a long way to go in looking stupid if I want to even come close to the low bar you've already set. Seriously though, for your to say other posters look stupid ... have you literally never read ANY of your own posts?
 
I used no false thread title, hence why I did not put it in quotes. Had I indicated it was a quote, that would be false. I simply indicated what he was saying paraphrased. And there is absolutely no hyperbole, he's one of the worst human beings to ever be an elected official at the national level.

And I definitely have a long way to go in looking stupid if I want to even come close to the low bar you've already set. Seriously though, for your to say other posters look stupid ... have you literally never read ANY of your own posts?

I can't read 🙁




:awe:
 
I used no false thread title, hence why I did not put it in quotes. Had I indicated it was a quote, that would be false. I simply indicated what he was saying paraphrased. And there is absolutely no hyperbole, he's one of the worst human beings to ever be an elected official at the national level.

Ted Cruz: Sell our democracy to the highest bidders!
You deliberately used that title.:colbert:

That is not paraphrasing; the word SELL is not in the article at all. Neither is the word Democracy. Nor is bidders

Three key words in your title and none are in the article:thumbsdown:

Seems like McOwenism at work D:
 
You deliberately used that title.:colbert:

That is not paraphrasing; the word SELL is not in the article at all. Neither is the word Democracy. Nor is bidders

Three key words in your title and none are in the article:thumbsdown:

Seems like McOwenism at work D:

Did the title hit your sore spot? You know the saying "TRUTH HURTS"?
 
The pendulum swings.

If he was elected; consider how bad the people considered the opponent.😡
It was probably more like how GOOD the opponent was. This is Texas that elected him afterall, the state that prides itself on executing innocent people rather than admitting they screwed up. (see the thread about that).
You deliberately used that title.:colbert:

That is not paraphrasing; the word SELL is not in the article at all. Neither is the word Democracy. Nor is bidders

Three key words in your title and none are in the article:thumbsdown:

Seems like McOwenism at work D:

Just because someone doesn't use specific words doesn't mean their meaning isn't still very clear. Racists generally avoid blatant use of racial epithets in public, but then they replace them with "thug" or "skittle". Doesn't make it any less obvious what their meaning is. And it's beyond obvious that Ted Cruz believes we should eliminate the few remaining limits that would let the rich just outright buy our democracy. He's a cartoon villain.
 
How hard is it to simply find a candidate who makes clear pledges. Here's an example of how easy it is:

"I will go to the BLS and set up an official nationwide online employment survey. Any citizen will be able to log their employment status. There will be no more guessing games as to who wants a job and who doesnt. Then we will finally know how many of those 92 million unemployed americans that the BLS doesnt count actually do want jobs."
 
How hard is it to simply find a candidate who makes clear pledges. Here's an example of how easy it is:

"I will go to the BLS and set up an official nationwide online employment survey. Any citizen will be able to log their employment status. There will be no more guessing games as to who wants a job and who doesnt. Then we will finally know how many of those 92 million unemployed americans that the BLS doesnt count actually do want jobs."

And here's why simple pledges like that are a terrible idea. The nationwide online employment survey you mention would have a massive selection bias, demographic bias, etc, etc.

So basically the survey your candidate would be promising would be worse than useless, it would be actively disinformative. Sure you still want simple pledges?
 
Back
Top