The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

A more reasonable liberal, Kepler, responded the way you would if you weren't blinded by partisanship.

Ahhh, so I'm an unreasonable liberal. Care to back that up with...anything?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

A more reasonable liberal, Kepler, responded the way you would if you weren't blinded by partisanship.

That's unfair. GrinCDXX was posting a link to the very case I was referencing, when I made an original post mentioning just the Kochs but then doubled back a few minutes later after rereading and thought that also adding Soros strengthened the argument by removing the tinge of partisanship. We are each making the same point so if you want to impugn him you should impugn us both.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Ahhh, so I'm an unreasonable liberal. Care to back that up with...anything?

Your last few posts do fine.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Not at all. You are responding to something I didn't say. I'm just saying it people complain about the issue regarding one party, they should apply the same critical view to the same thing going on in their party of choice.

But if one party would like to restrict those donations but can't, and one party wants unlimited donations and is using their power to make that happen, why shouldn't we call them on it? That doesn't make sense. In the meantime, its reasonable for everybody to operate under the rules as they are now.

I'm sure you and your party (and don't try to say you're an independent) would love it if the Dems decided to take no big bucks money, and therefore were outspent 10 -1 in every race, but as I often tell you you're not dealing with the Dems of the past anymore. There aren't any Russ Feingold's left who foolishly assume they'll be rewarded for abiding by voluntary campaign finance rules that they're opponents are laughing at.

One party voted to reverse Citizens United. The other party blocked the bill. Its not any more complicated than that.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I've always thought that one way to better control the influence of $$$ in politics would be to tax it. Set up a progressive tax on any money donated and/or spent on elections/issues. The more you donate/spend the greater the tax. Give $50 and pay zero. Give $500 and pay 20%. Put out a commercial for $200K and pay 50% tax. Hit em with a tax when it's donated and charge em again when they spend it. It'll never happen since the idiots who would make the law would be the ones hurt by it but it might help and would also bring in some income.

Wow. That is a fantastic idea I have never heard mention anywhere else. My understanding of current Court rulings is its impossible because money equals speech (which is BS) and political speech deserves special protection under the Constitution (which is vital to a free society).

I'd prefer to ban bribes outright, though. It's not like the plaintiff has to pay a tax on the money he slips to his judge -- he's just banned from doing it entirely.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

That's unfair. GrinCDXX was posting a link to the very case I was referencing, when I made an original post mentioning just the Kochs but then doubled back a few minutes later after rereading and thought that also adding Soros strengthened the argument by removing the tinge of partisanship. We are each making the same point so if you want to impugn him you should impugn us both.

When he said my complaint is delusion? I don't think so. It's fact that there are big money folks on both sides of the aisle, and we see lots of folks constantly complaining about Koch, but not Soros. For GrinCDXX to say that's delusional is laughable. Sadly most liberals don't concede issues on their side of things nearly as well as you do.

 

[joecct]

But if one party would like to restrict those donations but can't, and one party wants unlimited donations and is using their power to make that happen, why shouldn't we call them on it? That doesn't make sense. In the meantime, its reasonable for everybody to operate under the rules as they are now.

I'm sure you and your party (and don't try to say you're an independent) would love it if the Dems decided to take no big bucks money, and therefore were outspent 10 -1 in every race, but as I often tell you you're not dealing with the Dems of the past anymore. There aren't any Russ Feingold's left who foolishly assume they'll be rewarded for abiding by voluntary campaign finance rules that they're opponents are laughing at.

One party voted to reverse Citizens United. The other party blocked the bill. Its not any more complicated than that.

Quit being naive. They're all on the take in DC.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

one party voted to reverse citizens united. The other party blocked the bill. Its not any more complicated than that.

Exactly so.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

But if one party would like to restrict those donations but can't, and one party wants unlimited donations and is using their power to make that happen, why shouldn't we call them on it? That doesn't make sense. In the meantime, its reasonable for everybody to operate under the rules as they are now.

I'm sure you and your party (and don't try to say you're an independent) would love it if the Dems decided to take no big bucks money, and therefore were outspent 10 -1 in every race, but as I often tell you you're not dealing with the Dems of the past anymore. There aren't any Russ Feingold's left who foolishly assume they'll be rewarded for abiding by voluntary campaign finance rules that they're opponents are laughing at.

One party voted to reverse Citizens United. The other party blocked the bill. Its not any more complicated than that.

You are arguing an issue with me that I haven't said a word about. Personally I don't like the big money that pours into campaigns and the influence that can result, but I also am leery about limiting the ability of folks to have their say. I'm rather middle of the road on this issue (though as I noted that's not what my posts were about that got Grin all worked up).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

When he said my complaint is delusion? I don't think so. It's fact that there are big money folks on both sides of the aisle, and we see lots of folks constantly complaining about Koch, but not Soros. For GrinCDXX to say that's delusional is laughable. Sadly most liberals don't concede issues on their side of things nearly as well as you do.

Now hold on. Your OP said "nary a word." Grin referenced a word. You responded that if that was the best he could do he proved your point. That made no sense -- he had specifically rebutted what you had written; challenge accepted and won. He was quite correct, and your response didn't acknowledge it. On the merits, he was in fact right and you were in fact wrong, and your refusal to note this was... well, kinda sorta and the politest possible way you understand... a little bit delusional.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Sadly most liberals don't concede issues on their side of things nearly as well as you do.

So you think inability to concede on issues is a liberal trait, not simply a partisan trait?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Now hold on. Your OP said "nary a word." Grin referenced a word. You responded that if that was the best he could do he proved your point. That made no sense -- he has specifically rebutted what you had written; challenge accepted and won. He was quite correct, and your response didn't acknowledge it. On the merits, he was in fact right and you were in fact wrong, and your refusal to note this was... well, kinda sorta and the politest possible way you understand... a little bit delusional.

You, and he, know full well what I meant. In hindsight I should have said barely a word, as I occasionally forget that people around here would rather nit-pick at wording than respond to substance. But, if we want to nit-pick, I was referencing the national media of course, so his reference to you doesn't count. See, that's a stupid argument that doesn't talk to substance, but we can both be silly that way if we want to.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

So you think inability to concede on issues is a liberal trait, not simply a partisan trait?

No, I'd say people on both sides of the aisle don't concede issues nearly as well as they should. I just referenced liberals, as that's what applies here.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You are arguing an issue with me that I haven't said a word about. Personally I don't like the big money that pours into campaigns and the influence that can result, but I also am leery about limiting the ability of folks to have their say. I'm rather middle of the road on this issue (though as I noted that's not what my posts were about that got Grin all worked up).

I'm genuinely curious about whether you believe there is no difference between the parties on the issue of campaign contributions other than the strategic attempt to preserve their sources while eliminating their opponents'. My position is that while obviously big money infects both sides, the GOP is far more of a bigger culprit since its central project is about breaking down barriers for the concentration of wealth by both private individuals and corporations.

Liberals, at least, try to reverse the concentration of wealth which we regard as a grave danger to democracy. Conservatives* have no such reservations. So it stands to reason that there is a fundamental difference in the economic outcomes favored by each side. Do you disagree with this?

* Contemporary American conservatives, that is. Historically, conservatives viewed the concentration of wealth as morally and politically dangerous, since it provided leverage to upset traditional institutions and values. The great irony about Republicans is they have completely reversed field on the view of large corporations and corporate power from the views of the Founders who they otherwise so promote.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You, and he, know full well what I meant. In hindsight I should have said barely a word, as I occasionally forget that people around here would rather nit-pick at wording than respond to substance. But, if we want to nit-pick, I was referencing the national media of course, so his reference to you doesn't count. See, that's a stupid argument that doesn't talk to substance, but we can both be silly that way if we want to.

So... if somebody references a national media source using both the Kochs and Soros, you will admit defeat...?

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You, and he, know full well what I meant.

I thought you meant that you don't see anyone complaining about the Koch Brothers without including George Soros. I don't why I thought that

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I've always thought that one way to better control the influence of $$$ in politics would be to tax it. Set up a progressive tax on any money donated and/or spent on elections/issues. The more you donate/spend the greater the tax. Give $50 and pay zero. Give $500 and pay 20%. Put out a commercial for $200K and pay 50% tax. Hit em with a tax when it's donated and charge em again when they spend it. It'll never happen since the idiots who would make the law would be the ones hurt by it but it might help and would also bring in some income.

You don't even need to go nearly that far, you can merely remove the current tax deduction one gets for contributions.

While ingenious, I don't think your proposed tax would pass muster with the SCOTUS. Removing the tax deduction on the other hand would not be problematic for them.

What really creeps me out is proposals from the New York Times and others that the government should license who has free speech rights and who doesn't, and this whole "movement" to modify the First Amendment.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

So... if somebody reference a national media source using both the Kochs and Soros, you will admit defeat...?

You apparently missed what I actually said in the post (as did Grin) when I said that to be precisely clear, I should have said barely. I know, it's funner nit-picking (though as I regularly say, you're a lot better than some of the hard lefties around here).

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I just referenced liberals, as that's what applies here.

Ok, so it wasn't because of the very type of bias you're taking issue with regarding big money contributors, got it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You apparently missed what I actually said in the post (as did Grin) when I said that to be precisely clear, I should have said barely. I know, it's funner nit-picking (though as I regularly say, you're a lot better than some of the hard lefties around here).

Just don't bring up "how many angels on the head of a pin." Frederick Copleston and I have some very blunt thoughts concerning that.