Author Topic: Sisyphus' Boulder - The Uphill Battle of Third Party Solutions (Exclusive)  (Read 2663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AbaraXas

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,869
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a king who came under the wrath of Zeus for cruelty and deception of his people. Zeus punished him by requiring him to be chained to a boulder in which he had to push up a hill. Every time he reached near the top of the hill, the weight  of the boulder became too great and rolled back, requiring Sisyphus to start over, every day, for all eternity.

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?  Third party or take back the Republican party, the debate once again rages. The question isn't why it is happening or if it needs to happen, but how.

The reasons against creating a new third-party.

Ask any member of the Libertarian Party, Green Party, American Independent Party, or any of the other thousand or so third, fourth, or fifth tier parties about the struggle for national prominence and they will all claim the same thing- the two party system has a strangle-hold on elections in this country.  While I do acknowledge the difficult challenge these parties face and that there are many roadblocks, I have found that the structural roadblocks that truly stop any of these parties come down to two factors:

1. Human nature- people work best when given two options and naturally two main options always rise. Coke versus Pepsi. McDonald's versus Burger King. West coast versus East coast rap. Apple versus Windows.  Almost every choice you can think of in the commercial world comes down to two major choices with many minor choices that rarely break into those top tiers. It is simply how the mind works best. If we had 100 political parties all on equal footing, within a decade, two parties would rise as the two primary options. It happens in almost every political system around the world.

2. Political Party Inc. Political parties are not just about the movement behind the party, they are a big business- one to rival any Fortune 25 company both in structure and financials. To successfully operate a political party, you can't just have a good belief system. You need:
o   Lawyers specializing in election laws- especially state by state ballot access.
o   Lawyers specializing in campaign finance laws, both on the national level as well as on the State level.
o   Teams and teams of marketing professionals representing all aspects of the advertising world, from television, to radio, to print, to grassroots. Each one is a specialty in itself.
o   Lawyers to manage the marketing professionals to ensure they follow every FEC regulation regarding the advertising they produce.
o   'Franchises' in every single voting district in the country. In other words, local parties that ensure your brand is properly represented and sold in each district.
o   Fund-raising firms and call centers. (and lawyers to manage those).
o   'Employees' in every district. In other words, local candidates. All politics are local and people will be most likely to vote a national candidate if they are also following a local candidate of the same national party. Party-line voting represents a vast majority of ballots cast.
o   MONEY!!!  All of this costs massive amounts of money. In the presidential election alone, during the last election over $300 Million was spent by each candidate with the next election projected to cost a half billion to a billion dollars for each national candidate. This does not even include every single local candidate.

This only scratches the surface in what is involved in creating a new third party that can actually compete on the national level. It is why to many fighting to retake the Republican party by Conservative citizens seems to be the most efficient path to the top of that hill.  Creating a new third party that could achieve all of this before much more damage is done to this country would be creating a new Microsoft in your garage in a few years.

Is there really a chance to create a third-party?

It seems like an impossible task, just like creating a Microsoft in your garage- but it happens. It is just a matter of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right 'product'.  Some could argue that we are in the right place, at the right time, and with the right product.  The RNC has become tainted with establishment politicians who work for the system first and don't even try to give lip service to the voters any longer. Congressman Peter King (R) said today: "..we just can’t have national Republicans criticizing the system” in response to Congressman Ted Cruz having the audacity to fight for the people who elected him instead of a political party or establishment system.  Our government has moved away from being a Republic representing the people, or even pretending to represent them. They now openly mock the people and place themselves on pedestals of power with protective walls they create for themselves.

Many in the Republican Party or in the new media are seeing this and are quickly abandoning the thought of being able to re-take the Republican party.  The old kings and lords won't abdicate their throne and they are attacking anyone in the kingdom who challenges their rule.
This attitude and corruption has turned the stomach of many political professionals. This is creating what many is seeing as a right place/right time situation.  A large portion of the 'business' side of the Republican Party is joining the chorus of citizens who have had enough of the establishment. A new political party may no longer be an unorganized fringe but has the potential to bleed off much of the business talent of the Republican Party as well. If the right people in the business side of the party join in the movement as well as charismatic new-media leaders, there could potentially be an avalanche effect, ever growing both in intensity and speed. As the avalanche grows, it will pick up more and more of those business aspects of the Republican party that have evaded other third parties in the past.

Of course, this has the greatest risk- to create a self-defeating schism in the Right that the Left capitalizes on to entrench their power for decades.  It is going to take the Right, in a mass movement, unifying against the establishment, to ensure either change works.

What do we do with Sisyphus' boulder? 

« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 12:16:40 AM by AbaraXas »

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Excellent analysis, AB
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline AbaraXas

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,869
  • 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.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

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

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,869
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The new ones will be corrupted by money, same as the old ones. Same goes for the left.

Money doesn't corrupt politicians, politicians corrupt money. (completely stolen from someone here).

I believe the power is far more corrupting. Money is almost a side issue in the halls of power in DC now because it is no longer necessary to 'buy' the things they want. In DC halls of power, you no longer need money to get the luxuries associated with power, you just vote them or negotiate them your way.  Money is only vital when you step away from DC- which is those in DC crave power more- the power to remain in power because few have the means to produce outside of the power game they play.  They can't create wealth as the product of their mind but out of the looting of others. That can only be done with power. 

I believe, unlike popular opinion, money is a great equalizer in politics. Yes, some people have more individually, but people in mass can stand together and over-come the individual with a lot. It is why I don't fear PACs but instead embrace them. They are a way for many small voices to come together. A PAC of a million small voices is more powerful than on big voice.  (on the converse of that, the one big voice (the rich) shouldn't have his voice diminished simply because he is rich).   One of my favorite literary speeches (long but worth reading every word):

Quote
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’

“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich–will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt–and of his life, as he deserves.

“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’

“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.

“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood–money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves–slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers–as industrialists.

“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money–and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being–the self-made man–the American industrialist.

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.

“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide– as, I think, he will.

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”





« 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 »
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

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

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,869
  • 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.   
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline AbaraXas

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,869
  • 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.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

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.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

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.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline AbaraXas

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,869
  • 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.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf