benjipwns
Banned
Exactly. Nobody cares what a newspaper or cable news channel says, but 30 second political advertisements instantly brainwash people. Just ask Governor Whitman.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Weekly Jobless Claims Fall To Lowest Level In Six Weeks
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/weekly-jobless-claims-fall-to-lowest-level-in
The Librarian
Banned
What? Are you trying to equate the Raleigh News and Observer to Sheldon Adelson giving $15 million to Newt Gringrich's Super PAC? The effect of an endorsement from a newspaper will have over a politician is different from the effect of giving money to his Super PAC or showcasing anonymous advertisements for someone.
benjipwns
Banned
Sir, I'll have you know that President Gingrich was one of our greatest presidents!
The Librarian
Banned
If you're going to keep doing this I'll stop engaging with you, but he's also given $10 million to Mitt Romney.
So your problem seems to be with the amount of money, which gets to Kennedy's argument:
So what limit should we put on media companies in how much they can spend, or alternatively, accept in the form of advertisements for one candidate or another?
benjipwns
Banned
The only effect a newspaper or 24/7 news channel has is through once a cycle endorsements?
Strange, I thought their status implied they also did regular news coverage and editorializing.
At least they don't have the power of an advertisement. Which all people instantly trust as simple fact.
Nationalize them. It's the only way The People can ensure they do as we wish.
What about the effect Fox News/MSNBC has? Or all of the Gannett newspapers?
The days of a single city/town newspaper are just about over.
The Librarian
Banned
Right. It's a lot easier to start up and maintain a newspaper or television station, keep it going for years, in order to have whatever effect it wants, than to simply have its CEO give whatever amount of money to the candidate's super PAC or bombard airwaves with anonymous advertisements.
Do the CEO's of newspapers and television stations not accept millions in political advertising?
benjipwns
Banned
But yet we know that Sheldon Adelson gave $25 milion to Romney and Gingrich? And News Corp spends how much? And Governor Whitman spent how much? Same with President Gannett, President Kerry and soon to be President Romney?
I agree, it's much better to have the government decide who is allowed to opine on politics.
To protect the democracy of course.
electricpirate
Member
There a couple of points in this. First is that symantic hair splitting over is a tax is not a tax is completely unimportant. People's feelings on Obacare are already set, and calling this a tax isn't changing anything. What may have some effect though, is how the candidates present themselves on the issue when people are listening. For Obama that's easy, he gets to call it hair splitting, say that he still believes it's a penalty not a tax, and even if it's a tax it's still the right thing to do. But for Romney, he's trying to use it as a cudgel that only hits his opponent, he's trying to say, "Hey I did it right in MA, but it's wrong nationally." So he gets into these logical twisters, that don't hold up under any kind of sustained questioning.
Come time of the debates, it's easy to see how he get's framed as an unprincipled political oppurtunist who can't give people hard answers. Right now this basically plays into the political story of Romney that the Obama campaign wants to push, and at the debates, they have a chance to push it even harder.
All that being said, all this political story making is still a very very small piece of the election pie. I do look forward to seeing Mitt Squirm though.
This is basically what Romney said. If he was smart (and he now seems to be doing that), Romney should embrace it as a tax.
You give the American electorate far too much credit in their ability to decipher what are hard answers and what are just vapid rhetoric. Obama won an election on the very thing you seem to be arguing against.
What are you even tryin to argue. Do you not think that money buys power and influence?
benjipwns
Banned
Why would I think otherwise?
That's why prevent the state from putting its outsized thumb on one side.
So the state should have no say in preventing corruption?
90% of Obama. 89% With Jill Stein and 16% with Romney. About right.
electricpirate
Member
The TPM article describes him trying to call the massachusets version a "fee" not a tax, while saying the words "Tax tax tax, obamacare, tax tax tax." It's pretty weasly. Moreso, that kind of political story isn't driven by individual decisions about a candidate, but by the media, which I'm sure will eat this shit up, as he already has a record as a flip flopper.
Also, Obama's 2008 campaign is as vague as Romney's? L-O-L. Here's KFF's summary of Obama's plan, which, looks exactly like obamacare + public option - individual mandate (with some very rosy cost predictions...) . http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Obama_Health_Care_Reform_Proposal.pdf
Also, don't rememer the primaries, where we had an extended debate between the candidates about the a private vs. employer mandate?
Compare that to Romney's policy page, http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
Or how about Obama's 2008 tax proposals, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm Look at those, specific numbers, specific loopholes closed (and new ones opened).
Here's Romney admitting that his tax plan can't be scored since he's punting to congress http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...says-impact-of-tax-plan-cant-be-measured?lite
The Librarian
Banned
What influence does MSNBC, through its reporting of news and protection afforded by the first amendment in freedom of the press, have over Jeff Merkley? Tom Harkin? Fox News over Marco Rubio or Mitch McConnell? Surely less than whatever Adelson will have over Mitt Romney from his millions. If companies or particular individuals can give to a candidate's Super PAC, which whose concerns will be at the forefront of the candidate's mind? You guys are all saying that an endorsement from a newspaper has no greater affect on a candidate's thinking than giving money to his campaign. That is ridiculous.
Obama was against a mandate.
Forget about their "news" reporting for a second. MSNBC and Fox News accept MILLIONS in ad revenue - you don't think those ad purchases influence coverage, let alone the influence of the ads themselves?
The Librarian
Banned
So you're saying because companies can influence TV stations through ad revenue – affecting what certain news will be told, or how much of it will be told – then it's okay to let corporations and single individuals donate to a candidate's Super PAC in the hopes to gain influence over that candidate? And that the former method is less effective in getting one candidate to support certain policies than the other?
That doesn't make any sense.
Edit: Why would a candidate or corporation NOT donate to a candidate if it didn't believe it had something to gain out of it? This is money, not endorsements.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I was thinking yesterday, while I was watching the celebration of America via colorful explosions, that, while most Americans believe intently that America is the greatest country to ever grace this blue marble of ours, they still have this irrational fear of the government. The disconnect for me is astounding, especially seeing as how supposedly "worse" countries like Canada, Great Britain, and so on have implemented true Universal Healthcare and it has gone very well. They somehow seem to think the government of, by, and for the people will somehow ALWAYS bungle whatever they are doing, despite the fact that social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc are all run with incredible efficiency and LOW administrative costs.
Regardless, love me some America. Happy Late B-Day
Regardless, love me some America. Happy Late B-Day
eBay Huckster
Member
90% with Jill Stein, 89% with Kent Mesplay and Obama, 78% with Fred Karger, 18% with Romney... sounds about right.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, that seems like a "fight fire with fire" strategy: at the end of the day, everything is just scorched.
empty vessel
Member
"Human beings may decide to organize themselves as a corporation and exercise state power through it..."
Of course it can.
No, it doesn't. Corporations are state entities. They cannot have any rights consistent with popular sovereignty. We had a non-corporate press before we had corporate proliferation. The corporation is merely one form an enterprise may take. I'd be happy to see the corporate media go by the wayside.
So, I guess, fuck Slate for endorsing a judicial decision that undermines the American revolution.
benjipwns
Banned
Why would the state prevent corruption?
Stop it, you're killing me.
So only certain corporations should be allowed to speak?
I just don't think the government can manage this fairly. But I know I have a minority view here.
electricpirate
Member
Okay? I said as much in my response, so I'm not even sure why you are posting this.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Did I say something funny?
Buying ads (i.e. giving media outlets piles of cash) buys influence - you're arguing both sides of the same coin. If you think money would buy the influence of a candidate (Obama, and every President, for that matter, is a prime example this is true) why would you also argue that money, especially political money, would not buy influence with a media outlet to support one candidate?
Just guessing, but I assume we won't see many pro-Romney commercials on MSNBC and we won't see many pro-Obama commercials on Fox News this year.
You don't see the absurdity of trying to pin Romney's semantics on the tax/penalty when, on the same issue, you have Obama against the mandate before he was for it; Insisting the penalty was not a tax, before embracing the SC decision which calls it a tax.
This is a non-issue.
These corporations hold a huge stick over the heads of any legislator if they threaten to vote in a way they don't agree with. Ask Olympia Snowe how much influence they hold.
MSNBC/FOX or these huge newspaper conglomerates have the ability to sway/influence any issue they want (in real time).
Adelson's total contribution is going to equal 1-2 percent of Romney's total take in the end.
"Influence" is a very loaded term that doesn't really have a defined way of measuring it.
This is an issue less about influence and more about equating money to speech. It's an issue seen from the macro not the micro. If you limit the speech (ie. money) of a handful of corporate entities, then you need to limit it for all. Obviously, that is not currently constitutional.
benjipwns
Banned
99%?!? I only got 96%! (With every issue set as max)
This should be a no-brainer. Not only is a corporation not a person, it is in some ways, the opposite of a society. A society (Government) is run as a non profit venture to benefit its constituents. Any profit should be invested back into infrastructure and the growth or sustainment of that society.
A corporation is designed, logically, to profit at the expense of its competitors and its consumers. It is ultimately designed to do fiscal harm to everyone else except its shareholders. Now, it can provide benefits and do good within that definition, but that's what it is supposed to do. An amoral, occasionally unethical beast that amplifies the voices and philosophies of its controlling individuals, ultimately giving those people 2 (to the power x) forms of political influence. So it's not only logically not a person, it is obviously a mutation that shouldn't be allowed to participate in a truly democratic process. It can only subvert and damage the institutions around it.
Citizens United is an abdication of morality, democracy and the single most venal decision in the history of US jurisprudence. Any time I hear a person who claims to believe in democracy defend Citizens United, I can immediately dismiss their opinion as pure partisanship with zero logical or moral grounding. Societies CANNOT be amoral. They must try to do good, or at least do no harm.
I thought the gold standard question would surely push me to Ron Paul, but he only ended up 96%.
Truly a shocking result
Get off Johnson's Johnson already.
Just did it, got 97% Jill Stein. Was hoping for The Rent Is Too Damn High guy.
benjipwns
Banned
No idea, I didn't tinker with the "how important is this issue" thing. And I had nothing in the "disagree" category.
Oh, I guess I did make abortion least important or something and made economic most important.
Because the private sector is going to balance itself out? Rofl. It should be the governments job to manage it.
benjipwns
Banned
Some of us don't consider society and government to be the same thing.
And while we may want to take a machete to the monopoly or equivalent that government grants coporations or any entity we'd never want to destroy free speech in a march to restrict the power of certain entities that live in favor of the state.
"Corporations" don't act any differently than voters in the electoral process. They seek to gain.
That's why you limit what the entity which has a monopoly on violent force can do.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Truly a shocking result
What a coincidence.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
74%
Barack Obama
on economic, healthcare, foreign policy, and environmental issues.
73%
Jill Stein
on healthcare, economic, foreign policy, and immigration issues.
72%
Mitt Romney
on social, science, domestic policy, and environmental issues.
44%
Ron Paul
on domestic policy and environmental issues.
Not surprised by any of these results. Always been social right/economic left
Barack Obama
on economic, healthcare, foreign policy, and environmental issues.
73%
Jill Stein
on healthcare, economic, foreign policy, and immigration issues.
72%
Mitt Romney
on social, science, domestic policy, and environmental issues.
44%
Ron Paul
on domestic policy and environmental issues.
Not surprised by any of these results. Always been social right/economic left
Are you implying that I am, in fact, Gary Johnson?
Who is Jill Stein? There were a few people that I didn't at all recognize.
lol, yeah, such a huge difference between the two parties
benjipwns
Banned
Jill Stein is the Green Party nominee.
Virgil Goode is the Constitution Party nominee.
Karger is still running for the GOP nod. (EDIT: Guess he just ended it least week.) No idea what McMillan is doing.
empty vessel
Member
A corporation is the state. So, apparently, you very much want to empower the state over its citizens.
The electoral process is for citizens, who are intended to be sovereign, to decide how they will govern. Corporations are not citizens but state-created entities. I don't care if they act differently or the same. They get no say, period.
You are advocating the exact opposite: empowering the entity with a monopoly on violent force at the expense of citizens.
benjipwns
Banned
She lost. Badly.
You assume I want state created entities.
So we should empower the state to crush entities the state favors? Yes, I see this working well.
- Status