Journal Bill Dog's Journal: x is bad for x? 11
I saw on another tech news site the following:
"Despite the obvious corrupting effects of money in political campaigns,
Huh? That's saying "despite the obvious corrupting effect of political speech on political speech,
How is that obviously corrupting? Is grass roots organizing corrupting campaigns too? Do debates corrupt them as well?
I thought a political campaign was a candidate getting his/her message out. Getting your message to as many ears as possible requires, like most things in life, time and money.
With money you can buy mailers and slots on the airwaves. With time you can canvas. Contributions of money let you buy more distributions of your message, and contributions of time let other people call and canvas for you. In campaigns, donated time and money are multipliers.
Maybe the poster meant opposition money. That's doubtful because that's mainly a tactic of the Left (to funnel money in from all over the country, to squash a local candidate or proposition), and most people who speak up, well, anywhere, are Lefties.
But even so, unless debates are corruption, then opposing messages are just as valid in the arena of ideas.
Even attack/smear messages are valid. I don't like deceptive tactics, but if there's stuff that's true about a candidate that also reflects poorly on him/her, then it's fair game. I want to know if a candidate recently flip-flopped on an issue, or has a history of it, such that they might not really be passionate about a certain position.
I want to know if they groped women or diddled interns. What the Left does in timing revelations about such things, for maximum impact, is distasteful. The truth should be disclosed when it's known. But Leftists are distasteful. (Because gaining power to them is infinitely more important than acting tastefully. Shame, embarassment, bald-faced lying, none of these are anywhere near enough of a deterrent, as is constantly seen. Power at any and all costs is so important because the issues are so important to them.)
I don't need to know so much who's supporting a candidate, because that only matters if I already know that they don't have solid beliefs themselves and are primarily just doing what their supporters want. Because if they don't have principles they stick to, they're already disqualified in my mind, so who's pulling their strings is immaterial at that point.
A principled candidate is naturally going to attract support from like-minded causes. This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, except the Left has probably convinced most people that no politician would be for something if there wasn't the demonized "special interest"* backing for it.
If I was in political office and the NRA for example supported me, that wouldn't make me bought and paid for, I already believe in gun rights, and would vote that way anyways. Same for abortion and a whole host of other issues.
I suppose there are things I don't really care about, or that I think don't make a difference either way, like the minimum wage, that I could potentially be bought off on. But then that's up to the voters, to decide if they want to elect someone who really cares about a, b, and c, and not so much x, y, and z.
But if one side or campaign raises more money, or more volunteers, or writes a smarter big data program suite, this is not corruption. It's by definition the process.
So what it's really saying is that one doesn't like and would like to radically transform or throw out and replace the process. Not liking certain kinds of political speech means you don't like a political process which speech has a significant say over. You'd prefer a much less, or completely un-, democratic process. Which does afterall jibe with the Left's view that people are too stupid to make the right decisions, in general.
So that's what's meant by things like the quote above; the translation of that (dishonest) Leftie speak is "there really shouldn't be any speech involved in the political process". (Dictators are best. (Which is true, just not by humans/in this life.))
And that's why, despite popular belief, it's not safe to vote Democrat. It's often times not a safe vote to vote for the Republican, as they often are detrimental to the country. But it's basically never safe to vote for a Democrat, because they're almost all Lefties, and Leftism is an opposition to the main things that distinguish Americanism. Like democracy and free speech.
*Calling special interests bad is calling freedom of association bad. If I have a right of political speech, and a right to group together with like-minded people, but then I lose the right to speak as a member of that group, then I don't really have those two rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, you are blaming the object for man's desire for it. It doesn't work that way. In fact that is how the authoritarians maintain their power, with prohibitions, which only increase the desire, making the authoritarian even more powerful, since all the prohibited objects are under his control. The corruption is strictly within the man himself. That is the only thing to address. Everything else is bullshit.
And yes, he is right about the democratic party, but he won't acknowledge that the republican faction
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone on planet Earth can donate to a political campaign?
Re: (Score:1)
Of course! What's the big deal? Are you so unable to tune out and go find people worth listening to? Does everything have to be spoon fed? If you want the system to work for you as well as it does for them, you have to work it day in and day out like they do. They don't just show up every two years for the voting ritual. This is how it was designed. There is nothing "wrong" with it.
Re: Corporations (Score:2)
Why are you turning this into an attack against me, because I disagree with you?
It makes no sense to allow foreigners to affect the voting process in another country, no matter who does it.
If you can't legally vote in the election, you shouldn't be part of the process. Look up the word "integrity."
Same with corporations. They're money gives yhrm influence over a group of people who are not supposed to favor one group over another because of a political donation. If you believe in the cause, great. Being swa
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, your entire argument is bogus. If money doesn't influence me, why should it influence you or anybody else? You vote for the people you like. Pay no attention to the people trying to influence them with their damn money, no matter where they come from. It is totally irrelevant. Just watch who takes it. They are the traitors. And if you vote for them, then you are too..
Just me, fartin' into the wind with you... (Score:1)
I will check your donor list list. If I don't like them, you would never get my vote. Pretty damn simple. If you want power/authority, you must make yourself completely transparent. You will either represent your donors, if you want them to keep financing your spiel, or you will represent the people who actually vote for you. Many times you will find those two things in conflict. Make your choice as to which you will serve.
And of course, I shall always mock your use of the term 'lefty'... It's unfortunate w
Who doesn't (Score:2)
I don't need to know so much who's supporting a candidate, because that only matters if I already know that they don't have solid beliefs themselves and are primarily just doing what their supporters want.
What politician has solid beliefs?
Re: (Score:1)
I think Rand Paul has some solid beliefs. Probably also Ron Wyden. There's a local guy here who was on our city council, who voted no on all the other stuff the rest of the schmucks voted in favor of. He's tried for a couple of other offices, but he sticks to his positions, even though they're mostly unpopular. Rudy Giuliani downplayed but didn't flip-flop on his abortion position when he ran for the GOP presidential nomination one year.
A better question might be how long can you be a politician (or Sup
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Wyden I see as giving in quite quickly. He ran on the idea of being a Hatfield type conservative, bucking the party that endorsed him, and then morphed into yet another party hack after he was elected, paying back those who pay for his campaigns.
Same with Rand Paul, he's just got a different set of donors than most Republicans, which can appear to be solid beliefs when they really aren't.
The flip side of corporate political campaigns, is that good businessmen don't spend money without a significant ret
Re: (Score:1)
One could argue that a good politician gets things done, and to get things done requires being able to compromise some, I think. Until we've spent time in a major legislative body, it might be out of ignorance that we dismiss all of them as spineless. Can't bargaining room, if pressed, on some positions theoretically be considered compromising, without going so far as crossing over into the territory of only possibly being called corruption?
It's not fun to think about, the making of sausage, but if say I