Jump to content

Photo

Lets talk 2012.


  • Please log in to reply
389 replies to this topic

#361 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,132 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:55 AM

What bothers me about all this is the length, I hate how we are constantly in election cycles. I would prefer 9/6/3 year terms for senate/pres/house but not allow politicians to run consecutive terms and to put limits on advertising / marketing to 2-3 months before the election, and primary stuff the 2-3 before that. That's a pipe dream though that would require a constitutional amendment.


Most Senate and House seats are never in play so perpetual election cycles are, for the most part, not issues there. (Notice how you very rarely see ads for New Jersey congressional races). You could have a six year term for President and it wouldn't change that, or at the very most at the margins. The office is way too powerful (too much so I would argue), so people will dump as much of their resources as they can, and as early and often as possible.

I also categorically reject limits on political advertising or marketing. You would have to start carving out exceptions to the First Amendment, which has served this country pretty well. Just think through the consequences. Think it's allright for the FEC to say monitor political blogs or newspaper editorials that have nice or bad things to say about politicians? That type of in-kind "advertising" or "marketing" doesn't come free. The only campaign financing laws that I could support would be limits on direct contributions to politicians running for office, which are designed, not to balance the playing field (if that is at all possible), but to curb quid pro quo type of corruption.

Really, the biggest sin of spending on political campaigns is how annoying the tv ads are. However, the Constitution does not require that my television watching experience be more enjoyable.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#362 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,726 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:59 AM

The only campaign financing laws that I could support would be limits on direct contributions to politicians running for office, which are designed, not to balance the playing field (if that is at all possible), but to curb quid pro quo type of corruption.

Did you change your mind on this recently? I thought you were opposed to those kinds of restrictions too.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#363 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,132 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:16 AM

Did you change your mind on this recently? I thought you were opposed to those kinds of restrictions too.


I don't think so. What I said was that I rejected the idea of placing limits or abolishing contributions to so-called Super PACs, which are independent of the actual political campaigns. That is, if a corporation or a rich guy wants to endorse and spend money on buying ads that say vote for this guy and vote against that guy, it has every right to do so (the same as a media corporation has every right to control its content, whether you like that content or not). Even the dissenters in Citizens United justified restrictions on that type of thing in that they "level the playing field" rather than combating corruption or the appearance of corruption, which is only a significant enough problem when a campaign receives direct funding.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#364 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:47 AM

Most Senate and House seats are never in play so perpetual election cycles are, for the most part, not issues there. (Notice how you very rarely see ads for New Jersey congressional races). You could have a six year term for President and it wouldn't change that, or at the very most at the margins. The office is way too powerful (too much so I would argue), so people will dump as much of their resources as they can, and as early and often as possible.

I think all politicians, especially those in the house are quick to throw a wrench in the works to make a populist stand rather then do what they think is right for the country. I didn't arbitrarily increase the term limits, they go hand in hand with not allowing consecutive terms so that once elected your only obligation is do what you think is best for your constituents. Because you can't get re-elected there is no reason to drum up and grand stand over minor issues.

I also categorically reject limits on political advertising or marketing. You would have to start carving out exceptions to the First Amendment, which has served this country pretty well. Just think through the consequences. Think it's allright for the FEC to say monitor political blogs or newspaper editorials that have nice or bad things to say about politicians? That type of in-kind "advertising" or "marketing" doesn't come free. The only campaign financing laws that I could support would be limits on direct contributions to politicians running for office, which are designed, not to balance the playing field (if that is at all possible), but to curb quid pro quo type of corruption.

We would just disagree here, the first amendment is constantly regulated in other ways that most of us consider safe and sound practices. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded room, you can't call 911 just to chit chat, you cant say "fvck" on television, etc etc. Is this one more thing to regulate? sure but it doesn't mean that it's not for the greater good overall. If you can't have campaign advertising X number of time before an election you can't have the ever increasing campaign lengths. By having 20+ month long campaigns you force the current politicians to be on the defensive about everything they are doing rather then focusing on the governing. I would prefer not to tinker with the first amendment, but there is precedent there and I don't really see how you could shorten campaign season any other way (if there was I would support it though).

Really, the biggest sin of spending on political campaigns is how annoying the tv ads are. However, the Constitution does not require that my television watching experience be more enjoyable.

We really disagree here. I don't want a president who runs around at fundraisers and stump speeches during his last year because he needs to keep pace with his opponent. I want them to govern, and I think the best way to do that is give them nothing else to focus on.

Edited by squishyx, 16 April 2012 - 11:48 AM.

  • 0

#365 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,132 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:59 AM

We would just disagree here, the first amendment is constantly regulated in other ways that most of us consider safe and sound practices. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded room, you can't call 911 just to chit chat, you cant say "fvck" on television, etc etc. Is this one more thing to regulate? sure but it doesn't mean that it's not for the greater good overall. If you can't have campaign advertising X number of time before an election you can't have the ever increasing campaign lengths. By having 20+ month long campaigns you force the current politicians to be on the defensive about everything they are doing rather then focusing on the governing. I would prefer not to tinker with the first amendment, but there is precedent there and I don't really see how you could shorten campaign season any other way (if there was I would support it though).



I'm not really a Constitutional originalist (or at least I am, except when I'm not), but the types of things you're talking about are traditional limitations ("fighting words", obsenity, or say publishing the D-Day invasion plans a week before) that have always existed. Campaign spending limitations are a direct limitation on political speech, which, is a special category of speech if there ever was one. If you're ever going to weigh into that territory, you have to have a very, very good reason to do so that can't be accomplished by any other means. In my view, simply wanting to do away with perpetual campaigning is not good enough, and not by a long shot.

Like I say, the New York Times, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, the Nation, National Review are all media corporations (some of which have billions and billions of dollars in cash) that express political views, and all, in effect, publish things that say vote for this guy or don't vote for that guy. Yet it would be unthinkable for the government to fine them for doing so, or to tell them how much they can pay opinion writers. That they're "journalists" does not entitle them to special protections.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#366 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:07 PM

I'm not really a Constitutional originalist (or at least I am, except when I'm not), but the types of things you're talking about are traditional limitations ("fighting words", obsenity, or say publishing the D-Day invasion plans a week before) that have always existed. Campaign spending limitations are a direct limitation on political speech, which, is a special category of speech if there ever was one. If you're ever going to weigh into that territory, you have to have a very, very good reason to do so that can't be accomplished by any other means. In my view, simply wanting to do away with perpetual campaigning is not good enough, and not by a long shot.

Like I say, the New York Times, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, the Nation, National Review are all media corporations (some of which have billions and billions of dollars in cash) that express political views, and all, in effect, publish things that say vote for this guy or don't vote for that guy. Yet it would be unthinkable for the government to fine them for doing so, or to tell them how much they can pay opinion writers. That they're "journalists" does not entitle them to special protections.

I didn't suggest limiting campaign spending nor was I suggesting regulating the political coverage of media outlets and their staff. Some simple rules that regulate when political ads (ie. I'm XXX and I approved this message" or "XXX in 2012") can be placed on public airwaves or domains is not really not as egregious as you are trying to make it out to be.
  • 0

#367 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 09:52 AM

lol i got fshnookered!

Edited by squishyx, 20 April 2012 - 09:55 AM.

  • 0

#368 moustic

moustic

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,572 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:46 AM

I dunno about your 2012... But our is finished...
(and we won ; ) )

Posted Image

Vive la France ; )
  • 0

#369 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,132 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:24 AM

I dunno about your 2012... But our is finished...
(and we won ; ) )


Vive la France ; )


So are you happy with the results or just that well-endowed females participate in the political process in your land?
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#370 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,132 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:34 AM

I didn't suggest limiting campaign spending nor was I suggesting regulating the political coverage of media outlets and their staff. Some simple rules that regulate when political ads (ie. I'm XXX and I approved this message" or "XXX in 2012") can be placed on public airwaves or domains is not really not as egregious as you are trying to make it out to be.


I think what you're proposing goes beyond "simple rules that regulate." I have no problem with forcing a candidate's campaign ads to come with a disclaimer, "I'm X and I approve this message." You get into a gray area when you start forcing third-parties to do the same, although I'll admit there's some wiggle room. I don't want to have a situation where, say, the FEC can serve a subpoena seeking disclosure of the author of an anonymous political blog on the grounds that information is needed to determine whether the blogger receives funding from a George Soros or Koch brothers supported entity.

The special rules for "public airways" serve no purpose anymore, except as a legal formality. Virtually everyone in this country has access to cable, satellite and/or the internet. I don't see why a special exemption to the First Amendment should be given to "public airways."
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#371 moustic

moustic

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,572 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:00 AM

So are you happy with the results or just that well-endowed females participate in the political process in your land?


Come on ! Boobs are secondary...
I'm french... i'm over this !
oh wait...

But all together.. i'm happy about the result of course.
  • 0

#372 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,891 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:47 AM

Francois Hollande = disaster.

Austerity doesn't care about elections, and the French people will find that out.
  • 0

#373 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 08:06 AM

I will watch what happens in France with interest.

Time will tell if this is the right move for them.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#374 Devils Dose

Devils Dose

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 12:03 PM

I wonder if we had had a Republican government if we would have followed the austerity route that Europe took. And if we had, would we be building toward some sort of socialistic backlash like France just had?
  • 0
Season Ticket Holder since Jan.2009
Section 226 Row 2 Seats 15-16

#375 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 12:22 PM

Facebook is kind of driving me INSANE! Obama came out personally supporting game marriage because he was about to go on a fund raising tour in Hollywood. I mean REALLY!

And who give a rats ass about Romney's prep school pranks? And I even believe he doesn't remember them. How much sh!t are you flabbergasted your old high school friends don't remember?

They both have the same agenda - there will be no change in the balance of power if either is in office. I wish people would STFU and read what they post. If Obama said what Romney did he'd be brilliant and vice versa depending on which political party the whiner thinks best represents his side -- but wake up for goodness sake! They're both on the SAME side and it's not first and foremost ours.

Ok -- vent over :evil:

Nice rack, mous!

Edited by Pepperkorn, 11 May 2012 - 12:23 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#376 moustic

moustic

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,572 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 12:27 PM

Francois Hollande = disaster.


it's funny.. you seems to know him so well ; )
Let's give him so time before say such a thing...

Even French that are 100% in the middle of election & french stuff like that ... don't have a clue of what will happen... So an american that have learn about him 2 weeks ago... Gimme a break ; )
  • 0

#377 moustic

moustic

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,572 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 12:44 PM

Nice rack, mous!


Thanks... result of lot of sport.
Happy that you notice !
  • 0

#378 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,891 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 04:45 PM

it's funny.. you seems to know him so well ; )
Let's give him so time before say such a thing...

Even French that are 100% in the middle of election & french stuff like that ... don't have a clue of what will happen... So an american that have learn about him 2 weeks ago... Gimme a break ; )


I just go by what Hollande has said publicly ... touting a 75% tax on 1 million euro earners, the anti-wealth rhetoric and the promise to create thousands of government jobs. He's not only misguided, he's dangerous.

It's gonna be fun to see how Germany deals with France.
  • 0

#379 moustic

moustic

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,572 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 06:14 PM

I have no problem with 75% of everything that is above 1 millions (and not 75% of 1 million.. slight difference), i have no problem with control of wealth to a better balance (no one is "anti-wealth" here... but i guess... this is rhetorical)... and i never hear anything about "create thousand of governement jobs"... but take care of education system by a better thinking system.

He is dangerous from your point of view because he doesn't think like you. He is misguided from your point of view... coz it's not.. your point of view.

And this type of politic was effective before for our Country... And Germany knows that already. the way of working of Sarkozy was the mistake. Thanks he is out of the game now.
  • 0

#380 ghdi

ghdi

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,344 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 11:51 AM

I just go by what Hollande has said publicly ... touting a 75% tax on 1 million euro earners, the anti-wealth rhetoric and the promise to create thousands of government jobs. He's not only misguided, he's dangerous.

It's gonna be fun to see how Germany deals with France.


Don't apply what Hollande says to the US. Just because it doesn't float here doesnt mean it won't float in Europe. Most Europeans are left of center and their center is closer to what is considered our far left, especially in France.

We dont want a German takeover of the entire EU (economic control) which is what could happen, and something had to be tried differently there (France).

Its kinda ironic though how Germany may end up controlling Europe after all, but economically rather than Nazi-ly.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users