FireChan Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Snark aside, how could you ever support anyone with that kind of record of abusing power to the detriment of the country? These are facts. By willfully ignoring it, and therefore, condoning it.
Azalin Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) More because they hold the power and control the process. Like, who gets in debates and who doesn't. Or all the rules in Congress where the majority party gets committee Sears etc. One thing DS and RS can agree on is to keep everyone else out. They're not doing a very good job of preventing people like Sanders (I), Fiorina (private sector), Cruz (TEA Party), or Trump (private sector) from debating. In fact, three of the four are still in the race. edit: I forgot to include Carson among the private sector candidates. Edited March 11, 2016 by Azalin
reddogblitz Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 They're not doing a very good job of preventing people like Sanders (I), Fiorina (private sector), Cruz (TEA Party), or Trump (private sector) from debating. In fact, three of the four are still in the race. edit: I forgot to include Carson among the private sector candidates. They're not running as independents though. They're running as Ds and Rs. Otherwise they have to buy a ticket to Get in.
Azalin Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) They're not running as independents though. They're running as Ds and Rs. Otherwise they have to buy a ticket to Get in. Of course they're not running as independents (except for Sanders), but that's not what you said: "More because they hold the power and control the process. Like, who gets in debates and who doesn't. Or all the rules in Congress where the majority party gets committee Sears etc. One thing DS and RS can agree on is to keep everyone else out." I'm pointing out that the presence of Sanders, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, and Trump throughout this process is proof that the two parties have less control than that which you ascribe to them. Edited March 12, 2016 by Azalin
Tiberius Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Of course they're not running as independents (except for Sanders), but that's not what you said: "More because they hold the power and control the process. Like, who gets in debates and who doesn't. Or all the rules in Congress where the majority party gets committee Sears etc. One thing DS and RS can agree on is to keep everyone else out." I'm pointing out that the presence of Sanders, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, and Trump throughout this process is proof that the two parties have less control than that which you ascribe to them. I agree. The internet, talk radio and cable tv have allowed the people greater access to candidates than use to be the case ---ming
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 I agree. The internet, talk radio and cable tv have allowed the people greater access to candidates than use to be the case ---ming And unfortunately better access to schmucks like you too.
boyst Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Prosperity is necessarily the first theme of a political campaign.-Bernie Sanders. Feel the Bern, eh?
reddogblitz Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Of course they're not running as independents (except for Sanders), but that's not what you said: "More because they hold the power and control the process. Like, who gets in debates and who doesn't. Or all the rules in Congress where the majority party gets committee Sears etc. One thing DS and RS can agree on is to keep everyone else out." I'm pointing out that the presence of Sanders, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, and Trump throughout this process is proof that the two parties have less control than that which you ascribe to them. You make some good points. However, Bernie is running as a Democrat because he knows he has ZERO chance of even being noticed as an Independent. How many Independents are in Congress besides Bernie? How many governors? How many Independant presidents have we had? Why wasn't Gary Johnson allowed to be in the 2012 Presidential Debates? The fact that political parties appear to be losing some control this presidential cycle in no way means that Democrats and Republicans don't continue to have a strangle hold on the election process and government.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 You make some good points. However, Bernie is running as a Democrat because he knows he has ZERO chance of even being noticed as an Independent. How many Independents are in Congress besides Bernie? How many governors? How many Independant presidents have we had? Why wasn't Gary Johnson allowed to be in the 2012 Presidential Debates? The fact that political parties appear to be losing some control this presidential cycle in no way means that Democrats and Republicans don't continue to have a strangle hold on the election process and government. Both parties dance to the tune of the same owners. The parties aren't the ones with the strangle hold on government or the electoral process -- their benefactors are.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 You make some good points. However, Bernie is running as a Democrat because he knows he has ZERO chance of even being noticed as an Independent. How many Independents are in Congress besides Bernie? How many governors? How many Independant presidents have we had? Why wasn't Gary Johnson allowed to be in the 2012 Presidential Debates? The fact that political parties appear to be losing some control this presidential cycle in no way means that Democrats and Republicans don't continue to have a strangle hold on the election process and government. Gary Johnson wasn't allowed into the 2012 debate because it didn't benefit the people hosting the debate.
reddogblitz Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Both parties dance to the tune of the same owners. The parties aren't the ones with the strangle hold on government or the electoral process -- their benefactors are. BINGO. Gary Johnson wasn't allowed into the 2012 debate because it didn't benefit the people hosting the debate. Double BINGO.
GG Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 Both parties dance to the tune of the same owners. The parties aren't the ones with the strangle hold on government or the electoral process -- their benefactors are. You have very little understanding of why the two parties are dominant. It's not because of the donors.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 You have very little understanding of why the two parties are dominant. It's not because of the donors. My argument is that the parties are not dominant. At least not since 2010.
GG Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 My argument is that the parties are not dominant. At least not since 2010. They are dominant because they control the local governments.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 They are dominant because they control the local governments. I don't dispute that. But again, 2010 changed everything in terms of how candidates raise money on the federal level. Senators have to raise over $3,300 a day for 6 years and Congressmen have to raise $1,800 every day for two. They simply do not have time to listen to small donors, which means federal legislators get a very narrow view of the issues facing the people of the country and that impacts how they govern.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83tnWFojtcY
B-Man Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) Both parties dance to the tune of the same owners. The parties aren't the ones with the strangle hold on government or the electoral process -- their benefactors are. ROGER SIMON: Election 2016: Billionaires Battle For America’s Soul. Donald Trump isn’t the only billionaire in the eye of a seemingly treacherous Florida hurricane that threatens to destroy us all or at least change our world as we know it. Three others – one or more of them far richer than Trump – are singing “Bye, bye, Miss American Pie.” Only it’s not a Chevy they are taking to the levee. It’s a Tesla. They are Peter B. Lewis of Progressive Corp., Linda Pritzker of Hyatt Hotels, and, of course, George Soros of practically everything. These three billionaires are the principal backers of MoveOn.org, an organization whose devotion to our constitutional republic, specifically its first amendment, is somewhere between suspect and non-existent. It is MoveOn that has instigated many of the demonstrations against Trump and may be inspiring “lone wolves,” one of whom may sooner or later do what “lone wolves” are prone to do. I’m so old I can remember when money in politics was supposed to be bad. Plus: These supporting billionaires are fueled by a moral narcissism that knows no bounds, so convinced are they that they are “right” on practically everything. They have enabled the (most often) young people at MoveOn who undoubtedly believe that they too are “right” and have the “right” to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. They behave as if they think it their noble duty. This is the not-so-royal road to totalitarianism and is the tragic consequence of the miseducation of our young for which those billionaires are also, in part, culpable. This is not to exonerate Trump, whose language has been, to say the least, challenging. But this is no normal election and we are not in a normal time. Our country has to decide whether it seeks to be like Europe or like America. Although I have lived several wonderful years altogether in Europe and love many things about it, the decline of Europe is evident and on the cusp of irreversible. It is also evident that the Democratic Party, in varying degrees, wishes to take us in that direction. Soros, Lewis and Pritzker are accelerating that process. Whether they are overt supporters or not, they could aptly be called “Billionaires for Sanders.” The irony is palpable – I’ve got mine but none of you will ever get yours. Edited March 13, 2016 by B-Man
Recommended Posts