Author Topic: Sisyphus' Boulder - The Uphill Battle of Third Party Solutions (Exclusive)  (Read 2912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AbaraXas

  • ?? ??????? ?????
  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,294
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 12:16:40 AM by AbaraXas »

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Excellent analysis, AB

Offline AbaraXas

  • ?? ??????? ?????
  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,294
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I hope this can start a discussion, not just on the option that could be best, but more importantly, on the how- especially the how in regards to what we as the grassroots can do.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
I hope this can start a discussion, not just on the option that could be best, but more importantly, on the how- especially the how in regards to what we as the grassroots can do.

We stop this "hands off" thing and start voting Republicans who have been in office too long out in the primaries. We replace from within the party and then clean out the people at the RNC.

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
We stop this "hands off" thing and start voting Republicans who have been in office too long out in the primaries. We replace from within the party and then clean out the people at the RNC.

The new ones will be corrupted by money, same as the old ones. Same goes for the left.

Offline AbaraXas

  • ?? ??????? ?????
  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,294
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 01:11:10 AM by AbaraXas »

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest


I believe the power is far more corrupting.

Money is power.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Money is power.

You are still hung up on Citizens United. You really need to start thinking deeper here.  BTW it hasn't gone unnoticed that even when asked directly you always refuse to apply the same derision at the unions, environmental lobby and other Democrat special interest groups - rather you are hung on CU which actually helped level the playing field with the Democrats.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 01:15:57 AM by Rapunzel »

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
BTW it hasn't gone unnoticed that even when asked directly you always refuse to apply the same derision at the unions, environmental lobby and other Democrat special interest groups

That is completely and utterly false. Every single time somebody has brought that up I have said that I also support removing big money funding from the democrats. I am against all money in politics, not just the money that helps the right.

Offline AbaraXas

  • ?? ??????? ?????
  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,294
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Money is power.

Not all power is bad- corrupting power that causes one to loot instead of create is. Power earned through one's own creation and work is good power. Power for the sake of power is corrupt. Power rightly earned isn't.

As I was saying in my full paragraph there, not the few words you pulled out- it is power for power's sake that is what is corrupt. When one doesn't earn it and when money is no longer the exchange mode of goods and services, is when you have corrupt power.

The money is just a means of exchange.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
That is completely and utterly false. Every single time somebody has brought that up I have said that I also support removing big money funding from the democrats. I am against all money in politics, not just the money that helps the right.


As long as the field is level it doesn't really matter - as long as the money is legal and comes from the USA.   

Offline AbaraXas

  • ?? ??????? ?????
  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,294
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I am against all money in politics....

That's an interesting thought.

So, if one is in politics and, for example, wants to get their message out, how do they do that? Let's make it tangible. Let's say they wanted to get their supporters yard signs. How would they go about that without money in politics?

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
Not all power is bad- corrupting power that causes one to loot instead of create is. Power earned through one's own creation and work is good power. Power for the sake of power is corrupt. Power rightly earned isn't.

As I was saying in my full paragraph there, not the few words you pulled out- it is power for power's sake that is what is corrupt. When one doesn't earn it and when money is no longer the exchange mode of goods and services, is when you have corrupt power.

The money is just a means of exchange.

I did read your whole post. Sorry if my plucking seemed like I was ignoring it. I just wanted to point out my thought that I felt completely contradicted what you are saying. I agree that power for the sake of power corrupts, but I disagree with your assertion that just the money isn't enough to corrupt.

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
That's an interesting thought.

So, if one is in politics and, for example, wants to get their message out, how do they do that? Let's make it tangible. Let's say they wanted to get their supporters yard signs. How would they go about that without money in politics?

As far as getting a message out, I feel politicians should have lots of open and thorough debates on public TV so citizens can really get an idea of what each candidate stands for. I feel spending millions and millions of dollars on smear campaigns to try to manipulate voters is vile. I understand what you're saying here, that SOME money would be necessary. That's fine, just as an idea I'm throwing out there, maybe both candidates could have access to an equal and very limited amount of money that comes from a neutral source. I also think this money and its use should be heavily monitored.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 01:33:21 AM by Liberal_Spy »

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
As far as getting a message out, I feel politicians should have lots of open and thorough debates on public TV so citizens can really get an idea of what each candidate stands for. I feel spending millions and millions of dollars on smear campaigns to try to manipulate voters is vile. I understand what you're saying here, that SOME money would be necessary. That's fine, just as an idea I'm throwing out there, maybe both candidates could have access to an equal and very limited amount of money that comes from a neutral source.


Did you forget this is what Obama "conned" McCain into accepting in 2008 and then once McCain had committed Obama said - oops changed my mind and proceeded to raise millions and millions more money than McCain and there was not a thing McCain could do about it??? 

Another thing, I am not necessarily a fan of what McCain did - public financing.  Why should we tax payers foot the bill for a campaign.

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest

Did you forget this is what Obama "conned" McCain into accepting in 2008 and then once McCain had committed Obama said - oops changed my mind and proceeded to raise millions and millions more money than McCain and there was not a thing McCain could do about it??? 

Another thing, I am not necessarily a fan of what McCain did - public financing.  Why should we tax payers foot the bill for a campaign.

I'm honestly not familiar with that particular issue. If that happened, and that is actually how it happened, I think that is shameful and deceitful. I think if these rules were set, they should be set in stone, and all parties should be forced to obey the rules.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
I'm honestly not familiar with that particular issue. If that happened, and that is actually how it happened, I think that is shameful and deceitful. I think if these rules were set, they should be set in stone, and all parties should be forced to obey the rules.

It would be true.  Obama had announced he was going to strictly take public funding, then he pressed McCain to agree, McCain did and basically signed on the dotted line (however they do those things) and then Obama said -- oops!  I changed my mind.  At the time we didn't have Citizens United ruling and McCain was pretty well SOL.. the unions, ACORN, etc., all went out in force for Obama and all McCain had was Sarah Palin.  He had no momentum until he named her... BTW he was actually ahead of Obama in the polls until the TARP thing happened and there again Obama fooled him.. McCain suspended his campaign after talking to Obama on the phone and getting feedback indicating Obama would, too... only then after McCain returned to DC and stopped campaigning Obama announced he was not suspending his campaign and he went for the kill. If McCain was this great poker player he claimed to be, he was really pwned by Obama from the start.

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
It would be true.  Obama had announced he was going to strictly take public funding, then he pressed McCain to agree, McCain did and basically signed on the dotted line (however they do those things) and then Obama said -- oops!  I changed my mind.  At the time we didn't have Citizens United ruling and McCain was pretty well SOL.. the unions, ACORN, etc., all went out in force for Obama and all McCain had was Sarah Palin.  He had no momentum until he named her... BTW he was actually ahead of Obama in the polls until the TARP thing happened and there again Obama fooled him.. McCain suspended his campaign after talking to Obama on the phone and getting feedback indicating Obama would, too... only then after McCain returned to DC and stopped campaigning Obama announced he was not suspending his campaign and he went for the kill. If McCain was this great poker player he claimed to be, he was really pwned by Obama from the start.

I guess it's a good thing I don't support Obama or the Democrats, otherwise I might be second guessing myself right now. :P By the way, I'm impressed by your use of hip internet slang.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 01:51:12 AM by Liberal_Spy »

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
If that happened, and that is actually how it happened

It did and it did.
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
What a remarkably clever and accurate picture of the Conservative experience time after time.

Quote
Conservatives election after election, feel like they are rolling the boulder uphill but never reaching the top, only to start at the bottom again every few years. Except, in this epic, Conservatives are bearing the Sisyphus' punishment for Republican deception. Every time this boulder rolls back, more Conservatives peel off of this task, no longer willing to bear the punishment the Republican Party has wrought on them- yet they end up still, at the bottom of the hill. Over and over, the same debate rages, should they throw off the burden of the Republican Party and start the trek uphill on their own or should they reject those who brought the punishment upon them and take back the Republican party, following Sisyphus' path but without his punishment?
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
I guess it's a good thing I don't support Obama or the Democrats, otherwise I might be second guessing myself right now. :P By the way, I'm impressed by your use of hip internet slang.

~LOL~ some of us may be a lot older than you, but we're pretty internet savy...

It will be interesting if you stay around here how your thinking process changes over time.  I suspect it will be dramatic.

Offline AbaraXas

  • ?? ??????? ?????
  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,294
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
As far as getting a message out, I feel politicians should have lots of open and thorough debates on public TV so citizens can really get an idea of what each candidate stands for. I feel spending millions and millions of dollars on smear campaigns to try to manipulate voters is vile. I understand what you're saying here, that SOME money would be necessary. That's fine, just as an idea I'm throwing out there, maybe both candidates could have access to an equal and very limited amount of money that comes from a neutral source.

If the money is 'equal' and comes from some mythical neutral source, then the determining factor is either subterfuge or power. If you think there is 'smear' with money in politics, what do you think it will be like without it? 

The money in politics works both ways (or at least, it should). It allows the candidate to buy the airtime and other modes of communication, but, more importantly, it buys the people a voice, either through supporting a candidate or a cause to try to influence candidates to the will of the people. As I said earlier, it is the great equalizer. Otherwise, in your scenario, it is just the candidates preaching, not representing.

Going back to my question, let's put it in your scenario now. Both candidates have equal money and are provided free airtime to debate. If one candidate finds he needs to get a message out in a certain area on a certain issue, and let's say he wants to get the simple yard sign created- without money how does he compel the person making the yard sign to make it? 

He could promise a quid-pro-quo exchange if he is elected, threaten, or cheat. In all cases, corrupt power. If, however, he exchanges money, then it is a fair exchange of currency for service. The money is an indirect statement by the people through the politician. Which is least corrupt?

One other factor in your scenario is the unfair advantage of those who control the airwaves- the media. Without money in politics (or with a limited, equal share), then the influence the media has over the process increases exponentially.  They could then use that influence to push the candidate they personally want for their own interest, or push the candidate who used corrupt power to 'buy' their influence.

In all of those cases, you end up with extreme version of the problems we have in politics now. They are more extreme because removing the money removes the average citizen from the equation. The money is how the citizens buy a voice above those who can use corrupt power to have a voice. They buy a voice in a PAC saying what issues are important to them. They buy a voice by donating to a candidate, helping that candidate buy methods to get their message out- even if the media is hostile to them.

Case in point, Sarah Palin. This isn't about if you like her or hate her, but on how she became governor. She was not rich in the least. She was a stay-at home mom who saw some corruption in a school board and ran for that board. Then the same thing as mayor of an extremely small town. She had no power, she had no media influence, she had no name recognition. What she had when she ran for governor, was person by person getting the word out and the people in turn, said they supported her and donated to her, helping her raise enough money to travel the state and spread her message more, and so on and so on. The people, by donating to her, bypassed the media not giving her attention and the established power brokers blowing her off...  and the rest is history. Removing money from the equation means that lone citizen like her never would stand a chance. She would just be at the mercy of the power brokers who determine if she is worthy to have the media report on her or sit at the debate table and have an equal share of that small pool of political money. (for our friend on the Left, Ralph Nader is a similar story).

As I said, money is the great equalizer. Without it, all you have is established power brokers who peddle in power and favors.


Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
I suspect it will be dramatic.

I might disappoint you. :P

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
If the money is 'equal' and comes from some mythical neutral source, then the determining factor is either subterfuge or power. If you think there is 'smear' with money in politics, what do you think it will be like without it? 

The money in politics works both ways (or at least, it should). It allows the candidate to buy the airtime and other modes of communication, but, more importantly, it buys the people a voice, either through supporting a candidate or a cause to try to influence candidates to the will of the people. As I said earlier, it is the great equalizer. Otherwise, in your scenario, it is just the candidates preaching, not representing.

Going back to my question, let's put it in your scenario now. Both candidates have equal money and are provided free airtime to debate. If one candidate finds he needs to get a message out in a certain area on a certain issue, and let's say he wants to get the simple yard sign created- without money how does he compel the person making the yard sign to make it? 

He could promise a quid-pro-quo exchange if he is elected, threaten, or cheat. In all cases, corrupt power. If, however, he exchanges money, then it is a fair exchange of currency for service. The money is an indirect statement by the people through the politician. Which is least corrupt?

One other factor in your scenario is the unfair advantage of those who control the airwaves- the media. Without money in politics (or with a limited, equal share), then the influence the media has over the process increases exponentially.  They could then use that influence to push the candidate they personally want for their own interest, or push the candidate who used corrupt power to 'buy' their influence.

In all of those cases, you end up with extreme version of the problems we have in politics now. They are more extreme because removing the money removes the average citizen from the equation. The money is how the citizens buy a voice above those who can use corrupt power to have a voice. They buy a voice in a PAC saying what issues are important to them. They buy a voice by donating to a candidate, helping that candidate buy methods to get their message out- even if the media is hostile to them.

Case in point, Sarah Palin. This isn't about if you like her or hate her, but on how she became governor. She was not rich in the least. She was a stay-at home mom who saw some corruption in a school board and ran for that board. Then the same thing as mayor of an extremely small town. She had no power, she had no media influence, she had no name recognition. What she had when she ran for governor, was person by person getting the word out and the people in turn, said they supported her and donated to her, helping her raise enough money to travel the state and spread her message more, and so on and so on. The people, by donating to her, bypassed the media not giving her attention and the established power brokers blowing her off...  and the rest is history. Removing money from the equation means that lone citizen like her never would stand a chance. She would just be at the mercy of the power brokers who determine if she is worthy to have the media report on her or sit at the debate table and have an equal share of that small pool of political money. (for our friend on the Left, Ralph Nader is a similar story).

As I said, money is the great equalizer. Without it, all you have is established power brokers who peddle in power and favors.

Like I said before, basic funding for things like signs/posters/whatever would come from the neutral money source. It's also just a random idea I had (the neutral money source); this could be done differently. I could go through this paragraph by paragraph and highlight all the reasons I disagree with you, but in the end it just comes down to me disagreeing with you about the role money plays in politics. It's also really late, and I'm too lazy right now.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 02:05:48 AM by Liberal_Spy »

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
I might disappoint you. :P

If you truly pay attention to what we discuss and approach with an open mind, I guarantee you in six months you will look back at where you are and how you got there.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf