Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

AOC and Dark Politics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AOC and Dark Politics

    I have to admit, I've been seeing AOC as an upstart that is naive and has little true idea of "how things work."

    Due to this 5 minute segment, I think I've changed my mind. AOC exposes the dark underbelly of politics brilliantly.

    Note that this is not left-leaning or right-leaning - we should ALL be concerned about this state of affairs, IMO.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  • #2
    Welcome to the world of true concerns about growing governments.

    You are starting to see the issues that have been on my mind but I wasn't sure how to wake you up to it.

    Thanks, AOC.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      I have to admit, I've been seeing AOC as an upstart that is naive and has little true idea of "how things work."

      Due to this 5 minute segment, I think I've changed my mind. AOC exposes the dark underbelly of politics brilliantly.

      Note that this is not left-leaning or right-leaning - we should ALL be concerned about this state of affairs, IMO.
      Interesting.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
        Welcome to the world of true concerns about growing governments.

        You are starting to see the issues that have been on my mind but I wasn't sure how to wake you up to it.

        Thanks, AOC.
        Wake ME up to it? Are you under the illusion that I have not been aware of it?

        I have known of this for a long, long, time. And I believe the so-called Citizen's United ruling was one of the worst decisions in terms of cleaning up our political system.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Wake ME up to it? Are you under the illusion that I have not been aware of it?

          I have known of this for a long, long, time. And I believe the so-called Citizen's United ruling was one of the worst decisions in terms of cleaning up our political system.
          Do you even understand what Citizen's United case was about?

          In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President.

          The federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the United States Constitution.

          The court upheld requirements, however, for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
          Do you agree that a group of people should not have the right to air a film critical of a politician because it reached over 50,000 people, and fell within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election? That seems rather unamerican to me
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Do you even understand what Citizen's United case was about?
            Yes

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Do you agree that a group of people should not have the right to air a film critical of a politician because it reached over 50,000 people, and fell within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election? That seems rather unamerican to me
            What the ruling did was to opened the election process to an enormous amount of dark money. Now - any group with adequate funds can air anything they wish as often as possible and, as long as they are not directly coordinating with the candidate, there is no limit whatsoever. It effectively turned money into speech. Now, to compete with a single wealthy donor or corporation - which can move quickly and decisively, a poor individual would have to form a group/corporation and gather the resources of thousands of people (or find a wealthy donor) to even be able to air an ad. And given that the top 1% owns 43% of the wealth, and the top 20% owns 97% of the wealth, leaving the bottom 80% to share 3% of the wealth in the U.S., Citizens United gave the wealthy and corporations a disproportionate voice.

            Indeed, a single corporation could fund an entire candidate's ad campaign and - as long as they do not directly coordinate with the campaign or donate the funds to them - there is no need for disclosure.

            Bad, IMO. VERY bad.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              What the ruling did was to opened the election process to an enormous amount of dark money. Now - any group with adequate funds can air anything they wish as often as possible and, as long as they are not directly coordinating with the candidate, there is no limit whatsoever. It effectively turned money into speech. Now, to compete with a single wealthy donor or corporation - which can move quickly and decisively, a poor individual would have to form a group/corporation and gather the resources of thousands of people (or find a wealthy donor) to even be able to air an ad. And given that the top 1% owns 43% of the wealth, and the top 20% owns 97% of the wealth, leaving the bottom 80% to share 3% of the wealth in the U.S., Citizens United gave the wealthy and corporations a disproportionate voice.
              See, so what you want to do is limit speech. Plain and simple. As the Majority opinion stated: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." But that is exactly what you support Carp. It is a free speech question Carp, and always will be.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                See, so what you want to do is limit speech. Plain and simple.
                No. Absolutely not. But I don't think that one group/person should have a bigger megaphone for their speech than another simply because they are wealthy.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                As the Majority opinion stated: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." But that is exactly what you support Carp. It is a free speech question Carp, and always will be.
                No. The limit is not on what they can say - so it is not a free speech issue. The limit is on the tools they can purchase by which to say it. No one is being jailed for saying "This is what I think." They were being fined for leveraging their wealth and the media world to blast what they think in a way not available to others.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #9
                  "Now that I've used these same loopholes and 'dirty money' to get myself elected, I'm going to complain about how corrupt the system is."
                  -Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

                  OK, that wasn't nice. She makes a good point even if she is a hypocrite.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    No. Absolutely not. But I don't think that one group/person should have a bigger megaphone for their speech than another simply because they are wealthy.
                    That is the way life works Carp, not all things are equal. And trying to make it equal in this case steps on the free speech of many. And you don't have to be wealthy, I support certain religious legal and pro-life lobbying groups, and we are not rich, so we pool our funds. Besides, In think all of this was legal before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

                    No.The limit is not on what they can say - so it is not a free speech issue. The limit is on the tools they can purchase by which to say it. No one is being jailed for saying "This is what I think." They were being fined for leveraging their wealth and the media world to blast what they think in a way not available to others.
                    Of course it is a free speech issue, restricting the time and place, or be fined or jailed, as the Supreme Court found. Never mind that they used the law selectively, stopping Citizen United but not Michael Moore:

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize...FEC#Background
                    Last edited by seer; 02-08-2019, 12:52 PM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      That is the way life works Carp, not all things are equal.
                      Which has nothing to do with this issue, nor did I say "all things have to be equal." But we live in a land where speech is valued, and our political system depends on the contributions of the electorate. Citizen's United gave a disproportionate voice to the wealthy - which is the very opposite of what our political system is supposed to be about. The first amendment guarantees everyone the right to speak what they think without being penalized for its content. It was interpreted by SCOTUS to ALSO mean "by any means and with any amount of money." The founders had no way of foreseeing the impact of mass media in 2019 - and the way "free speech" could become a weapon the wealthy use to over-rule the less wealthy.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And trying to make it equal in this case steps on the free speech of many.
                      No - it's doesn't. They can speak anything they wish to. They simply have to use the same tools/vehicles available to everyone and at the same level.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And you don't have to be wealthy, I support certain religious legal and pro-life lobbying groups, and we are not rich, so we pool our funds.
                      I spoke to this. Yes - people can pool their funds. However, you could have all lower 80% of the population "pool" all of their funds (which is the money they need to actually live) and it would not be the equivalent of what ONE person or company could put together and do with a single decision and in a matter of days. And they would be doing it out of their excess - not out of what they need to live.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Besides, In think all of this was legal before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
                      Which makes not one whit of difference to me. What was is not a dictator of what should be.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Of course it is a free speech issue, restricting the time and place,
                      No one is being restricted as to time/space.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      or be fined or jailed,
                      Fining or jailing would not be based on the content of the speech, or the time or place of it - it would be based on exceeding limits and/or refusing disclosure of funding sources used to make messaging possible.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      as the Supreme Court found.
                      incorrectly, IMO. And with significant harm to our republic.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Never mind that they used the law selectively, stopping Citizen United but not Michael Moore:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize...FEC#Background
                      Therein lies the true issue: is the advertising about an individual politician - or about the issue.

                      The fact is, I am aware that I am basically raging against the machine. Place limits in one place and the wealthy will find ways to get the money in via another. However, if the laws were such that it was as difficult/complex for the wealthy to do that as it is for the poor to "bond together," we might have some progress. Until then, the wealthy will continue to own our government. This is a place where I part company decidedly with Republicans, who seem to be 100% in favor of the wealthy owning the political system. Democrats are only slightly better. It is the democratic socialists (Sanders, AOC) who have nailed this one and I agree with them.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        "Now that I've used these same loopholes and 'dirty money' to get myself elected, I'm going to complain about how corrupt the system is."
                        -Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

                        OK, that wasn't nice. She makes a good point even if she is a hypocrite.
                        It is the sad truth that, unless people play the game as it is written, they simply cannot get elected (or their chances are substantially less). I do not see it as hypocrisy. I see it as pragmatism. And I have no problem with them trying to get inside so they can promote change from inside. They have not acted illegally or immorally. They simply played within the confines of the game - and then advocated for changing the rules once they got in.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Which has nothing to do with this issue, nor did I say "all things have to be equal." But we live in a land where speech is valued, and our political system depends on the contributions of the electorate. Citizen's United gave a disproportionate voice to the wealthy - which is the very opposite of what our political system is supposed to be about. The first amendment guarantees everyone the right to speak what they think without being penalized for its content. It was interpreted by SCOTUS to ALSO mean "by any means and with any amount of money." The founders had no way of foreseeing the impact of mass media in 2019 - and the way "free speech" could become a weapon the wealthy use to over-rule the less wealthy.
                          Are not the wealthy citizens? Do not Unions have a say? Can I not partner with other like minded people and address the government. And you are trying to make all things equal.


                          Therein lies the true issue: is the advertising about an individual politician - or about the issue.

                          The fact is, I am aware that I am basically raging against the machine. Place limits in one place and the wealthy will find ways to get the money in via another. However, if the laws were such that it was as difficult/complex for the wealthy to do that as it is for the poor to "bond together," we might have some progress. Until then, the wealthy will continue to own our government. This is a place where I part company decidedly with Republicans, who seem to be 100% in favor of the wealthy owning the political system. Democrats are only slightly better. It is the democratic socialists (Sanders, AOC) who have nailed this one and I agree with them.
                          So Michael Moore, the Washington Post, New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC etc... (corporations all) get to attack politicians up to election day, but me and my pro-life friends don't? That is exactly why I don't want you or the government in control of this.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            It is the sad truth that, unless people play the game as it is written, they simply cannot get elected (or their chances are substantially less). I do not see it as hypocrisy. I see it as pragmatism. And I have no problem with them trying to get inside so they can promote change from inside. They have not acted illegally or immorally. They simply played within the confines of the game - and then advocated for changing the rules once they got in.
                            So the ends justify the means.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well the crooked politician would need to get their law through the house and senate in order to benefit from it. They don't just make up personal laws and get rich.

                              But yeah this is pretty much one of the bad parts of politics: greedy politicians in the pockets of PACs. It's not news. AOC is acting like she just figured this out.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              6 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              42 responses
                              231 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              24 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              32 responses
                              176 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              73 responses
                              309 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X