Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Term limits

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
    BTW, for those who believe in term limits...or at least that it be an option for the states to impose, you have the following Justices to thank for denying the people of each state the right to impose them: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

    Had Thomas, Renquist, O'Connor, and Scalia prevailed, states would be free to impose term limits.
    I think in the fall we may how a functioning democracy can clean house without term limits as kid killing republicans are swept out of office by an energized anti -gun block of voters, not to mention all the women who are tired of being groped and battered.Of course the Russians will have the final say.I wouldn't mind seeing term limits for guys like Thomas and Renquist

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
      BTW, for those who believe in term limits...or at least that it be an option for the states to impose, you have the following Justices to thank for denying the people of each state the right to impose them: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

      Had Thomas, Renquist, O'Connor, and Scalia prevailed, states would be free to impose term limits.
      This is not surprising information.

      But having read the previous posts, #'s 43 & 44, it's hard to decide. You make good arguments that there is little or no corruption of our politicians, then you make good arguments that it's a regular occurrence - which, I think today is the case. The power to manipulate other people and grow wealthy so easily are corrupting forces. I think you've said as much.

      We may disagree on details about how routinely people may be bought, about how often it happens. We have laws against it you say ? I'll just remind us that politicians are very creative about how laws are followed in their circles. Laws are followed and applied very differently to these people, we see this regularly.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        This is not surprising information.

        But having read the previous posts, #'s 43 & 44, it's hard to decide. You make good arguments that there is little or no corruption of our politicians, then you make good arguments that it's a regular occurrence - which, I think today is the case. The power to manipulate other people and grow wealthy so easily are corrupting forces. I think you've said as much.

        We may disagree on details about how routinely people may be bought, about how often it happens. We have laws against it you say ? I'll just remind us that politicians are very creative about how laws are followed in their circles. Laws are followed and applied very differently to these people, we see this regularly.
        I don't think politics corrupts people I think by the time they are pretty far down the road of corruption. If they were not in politics they could be corrupt real estate tycoons, or corrupt physical education teachers. The scum has a way of rising to the top in every endeavor.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Originally posted by redrover View Post
          I don't think politics corrupts people I think by the time they are pretty far down the road of corruption. If they were not in politics they could be corrupt real estate tycoons, or corrupt physical education teachers. The scum has a way of rising to the top in every endeavor.
          This is true.

          Yet you argue for the top scums, the scum elite, to rule us, to tell us what to do, to tell us how to live, to tell us what we can and can't say ! ??? You argue that only the best of the scum brigade are to be armed and able to defend themselves, are able to submit us lesser people to their grand scummy "authority."

          Which takes us back to how the founders of America set up our republic to try to keep our corrupt nature in check. But some of us want to "fundamentally transform" our country into a place where scum rules and can't be challenged !

          How does it make sense for only the worst scum to have complete power over all others ?

          It doesn't.

          That's why we need to keep our constitutional republic conformed to the design it was intended from it's beginning and not allow certain corrupt forces to reform it so that only they have a concentration of power & authority.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            This is not surprising information.

            But having read the previous posts, #'s 43 & 44, it's hard to decide. You make good arguments that there is little or no corruption of our politicians, then you make good arguments that it's a regular occurrence - which, I think today is the case. The power to manipulate other people and grow wealthy so easily are corrupting forces. I think you've said as much.

            We may disagree on details about how routinely people may be bought, about how often it happens. We have laws against it you say ? I'll just remind us that politicians are very creative about how laws are followed in their circles. Laws are followed and applied very differently to these people, we see this regularly.
            My point vis-a-vis corruption is that what is referred to by people who use the term "corrupting influence" of money in politics is no such thing, it is simply people unhappy with the political results of other citizens (in many cases through collective action) spend money to persuade their fellow citizens to vote in a way that the person lamenting the "corrupting influence" disagrees.

            Think of it this way, why do politicians want campaign funds? Is the money itself power? No, it is useless in and of itself. It is only coveted for its ultimate utility. In politics, the only use of money that is ultimately to the benefit of a politician is to persuade voters whether or how to vote. Explain to me how that is not the essence of freedom of speech/press embodied in the First Amendment, the primary purpose of which was to protect the very act of trying to persuade our fellow citizens of matters of common interest?

            Once you dispense with the silly notion that the policy positions of elected officials are routinely swayed by campaign contributions, or independent expenditures on their behalf, as opposed to their own ideological views, partisan loyalty, or the interest of their direct constituents who they represent and depend upon for votes), the "corrupting influence" is exposed as nothing less, and nothing more than the freedom to try and persuade people to vote (or not) in a particular manner. Sometimes people are pleased with the outcome, other times not. But it is the essence of freedom of speech in a free, representative republic and do decry it as "corrupt" is to fundamentally not believe in open and free discourse.

            What you refer to as the power to "manipulate" is really just the power to persuade. That you believe that spending lots of money on persuasion is so dispositive in electoral outcomes is just demonstrating that you continue to buy into the fallacy that money buys elections. Again, the fact that the candidate/side that spends the most usually wins indicates a causal relationship (spending more causes victory), confuses causation with correlation (the side that wins generally wins for the same reason it has more to spend--broader, deeper, more passionate/intense support).

            Now, to be competitive in politics, there is a minimum level of money that is generally required in a particular race or area to be competitive, but the marginal utility of additional political dollars spent declines steeply and once both sides have a certain minimum threshold, large disparities in resources really tend to make a difference only at the margins.

            Consider how vastly Trump was outspent in both the primaries and the general election (even once outside groups' spending is tallied in). If money bought electoral outcomes, he should never have been the nominee, let alone President.

            What I find ironic, is that the very people whose ideological support for campaign finance restrictions and otherwise limiting the "corrupting influence" of political spending based on the purported belief that spending vast sums of money is determinative of election outcomes, have bought into the idiotic notion that Russian "interference" in our election, spending amounts that would not even be rounding errors in the total amount of money spent trying to persuade the American voters altered the outcome of the election. That is called cognitive dissonance.


            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Originally posted by redrover View Post

              I think in the fall we may how a functioning democracy can clean house without term limits as kid killing republicans are swept out of office by an energized anti -gun block of voters, not to mention all the women who are tired of being groped and battered.Of course the Russians will have the final say.I wouldn't mind seeing term limits for guys like Thomas and Renquist
              Don't kid yourself, at the end of the day, even with a "wave" that changes party control, you are still likely to see a disgustingly high level of incumbent re-election.

              And, I am not necessarily arguing for or against term limits for federal offices, merely that it was bad Constitutional jurisprudence to deny each state the ability to impose them. By the courts reasoning (that it represents a restriction on eligibility beyond those laid out in the Constitution) could be equally applied to any requirements to get on a ballot other than showing up and asking to have your name put on it (how is the requirement that you submit a petition signed by X number of registered voters to get on the ballot any less an additional requirement for eligibility to run than not having served x number of years already?)

              I NEVER confuse what is Constitutionally permissable/proscribed with my personal policy preferences. For example, I am generally pro-Life, but I would not support any Judge or Justice who ruled that there was a constitutional right to life for the unborn any more than I support those who made up the non-existent right to choose.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Originally posted by redrover View Post

                I don't think politics corrupts people I think by the time they are pretty far down the road of corruption. If they were not in politics they could be corrupt real estate tycoons, or corrupt physical education teachers. The scum has a way of rising to the top in every endeavor.
                Any position of power, as you see in gov't, is under pressure to be corrupted. The position itself is a target for corruption, and it has always happened. Shakespeare and others wrote of it. That is just how common it is, and probably even has an archetype. All that is needed then is human nature. The nature found in certain people who seek great power for reasons of personality. Not all people in some positions will be corrupted. And it varies in percentages over time, and the values of society and culture play some role in it. The higher the position of power, the greater effects upon a population subjected to that corruption.

                Personally, in more modern times, I think has seen a higher percentage of sociopaths represented in the ruling elite than in the general population. For you can have a system which favors such dysfunctional personalities, and I think ours does. Lacking a conscience perhaps can make you go a long way in modern politics. Lacking a basic moral compass is condusive as well to political success, from the standpoint of the individual politician. As long as you can do it covertly, hiding it, as you fool your voters. But the current partisanship would even accept the lack of a moral compass, in their elected official, if the lack of a compass aided in really "giving it" to the opposition party. Especially if his name is trump.

                No doubt if you have an immoral and sick society, your leaders will be drawn from this pool. And the corruption of the leader then reflects the people who elected him. And one reason someone once said that in a democratic form of gov't the voters get the gov't that they truly deserve. Since Princeton a few years ago evidenced the People are no longer being represented in DC, and have not been for decades, as most americans apparently are too partisan to notice, these people got the gov't that they truly deserve. One who does not and will not represent them, as their tribalism has taken away their ability to even notice.

                Given the fact that most of the citizens here get zero representation, in a form of gov't where their representative are supposed to be bound to do that, clearly the corruption is prolific in DC, involving perhaps all 3 branches of gov''t, and including our media, MSM. An absence of a free press. The ultimate corruption is when a republic is not a working republic. And this kind of corruption is the worst kind of corruption.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                  Any position of power, as you see in gov't, is under pressure to be corrupted. The position itself is a target for corruption, and it has always happened. Shakespeare and others wrote of it. That is just how common it is, and probably even has an archetype. All that is needed then is human nature. The nature found in certain people who seek great power for reasons of personality. Not all people in some positions will be corrupted. And it varies in percentages over time, and the values of society and culture play some role in it. The higher the position of power, the greater effects upon a population subjected to that corruption.

                  Personally, in more modern times, I think has seen a higher percentage of sociopaths represented in the ruling elite than in the general population. For you can have a system which favors such dysfunctional personalities, and I think ours does. Lacking a conscience perhaps can make you go a long way in modern politics. Lacking a basic moral compass is condusive as well to political success, from the standpoint of the individual politician. As long as you can do it covertly, hiding it, as you fool your voters. But the current partisanship would even accept the lack of a moral compass, in their elected official, if the lack of a compass aided in really "giving it" to the opposition party. Especially if his name is trump.

                  No doubt if you have an immoral and sick society, your leaders will be drawn from this pool. And the corruption of the leader then reflects the people who elected him. And one reason someone once said that in a democratic form of gov't the voters get the gov't that they truly deserve. Since Princeton a few years ago evidenced the People are no longer being represented in DC, and have not been for decades, as most americans apparently are too partisan to notice, these people got the gov't that they truly deserve. One who does not and will not represent them, as their tribalism has taken away their ability to even notice.

                  Given the fact that most of the citizens here get zero representation, in a form of gov't where their representative are supposed to be bound to do that, clearly the corruption is prolific in DC, involving perhaps all 3 branches of gov''t, and including our media, MSM. An absence of a free press. The ultimate corruption is when a republic is not a working republic. And this kind of corruption is the worst kind of corruption.
                  Of all the institutions you cite I have the the most confidence in MSM are you still a devotee of Wikileaks?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                    My point vis-a-vis corruption is that what is referred to by people who use the term "corrupting influence" of money in politics is no such thing, it is simply people unhappy with the political results of other citizens (in many cases through collective action) spend money to persuade their fellow citizens to vote in a way that the person lamenting the "corrupting influence" disagrees.

                    Think of it this way, why do politicians want campaign funds? Is the money itself power? No, it is useless in and of itself. It is only coveted for its ultimate utility. In politics, the only use of money that is ultimately to the benefit of a politician is to persuade voters whether or how to vote. Explain to me how that is not the essence of freedom of speech/press embodied in the First Amendment, the primary purpose of which was to protect the very act of trying to persuade our fellow citizens of matters of common interest?

                    Once you dispense with the silly notion that the policy positions of elected officials are routinely swayed by campaign contributions, or independent expenditures on their behalf, as opposed to their own ideological views, partisan loyalty, or the interest of their direct constituents who they represent and depend upon for votes), the "corrupting influence" is exposed as nothing less, and nothing more than the freedom to try and persuade people to vote (or not) in a particular manner. Sometimes people are pleased with the outcome, other times not. But it is the essence of freedom of speech in a free, representative republic and do decry it as "corrupt" is to fundamentally not believe in open and free discourse.

                    What you refer to as the power to "manipulate" is really just the power to persuade. That you believe that spending lots of money on persuasion is so dispositive in electoral outcomes is just demonstrating that you continue to buy into the fallacy that money buys elections. Again, the fact that the candidate/side that spends the most usually wins indicates a causal relationship (spending more causes victory), confuses causation with correlation (the side that wins generally wins for the same reason it has more to spend--broader, deeper, more passionate/intense support).

                    Now, to be competitive in politics, there is a minimum level of money that is generally required in a particular race or area to be competitive, but the marginal utility of additional political dollars spent declines steeply and once both sides have a certain minimum threshold, large disparities in resources really tend to make a difference only at the margins.

                    Consider how vastly Trump was outspent in both the primaries and the general election (even once outside groups' spending is tallied in). If money bought electoral outcomes, he should never have been the nominee, let alone President.
                    It's a good argument you make.

                    It might be interesting to see how people who hate guns would react to it concerning the NRA and it's donations to politicians. Currently, there's a movement of people who want to place the blame for school shootings on the NRA and the politicians they "bought."

                    Of course any cause they support, .... these same NRA blaming politicians who benefit from other donations, is not a topic they wish to discuss.

                    They just want to blame the NRA for school shootings and point at politicians who got donations from the NRA

                    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                    What I find ironic, is that the very people whose ideological support for campaign finance restrictions and otherwise limiting the "corrupting influence" of political spending based on the purported belief that spending vast sums of money is determinative of election outcomes, have bought into the idiotic notion that Russian "interference" in our election, spending amounts that would not even be rounding errors in the total amount of money spent trying to persuade the American voters altered the outcome of the election. That is called cognitive dissonance.
                    I disagree.

                    It's more than idiotic, it's comedic ! These folks .. I find it difficult to see just how they're so dumb to make fools of themselves like this, but they do it ?

                    They're giving us a free comedy show that's even funnier when they get upset when they get the laughs ! LOL

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      It's a good argument you make.

                      It might be interesting to see how people who hate guns would react to it concerning the NRA and it's donations to politicians. Currently, there's a movement of people who want to place the blame for school shootings on the NRA and the politicians they "bought."

                      Of course any cause they support, .... these same NRA blaming politicians who benefit from other donations, is not a topic they wish to discuss.

                      They just want to blame the NRA for school shootings and point at politicians who got donations from the NRA



                      I disagree.

                      It's more than idiotic, it's comedic ! These folks .. I find it difficult to see just how they're so dumb to make fools of themselves like this, but they do it ?

                      They're giving us a free comedy show that's even funnier when they get upset when they get the laughs ! LOL
                      The NRA doesn't "buy" politicians or elections, it's members, who are disproportionately "likely voters" and are very passionate on this particular issue ELECT politicians. They are not the victims of manipulation, all the money the NRA has for "buying" elections and office holders is money the get from dues paying members and other voluntary contributors who ALREADY believe in the cause, and already VOTE accordingly.

                      That is why conservatives have no fear of Michael Bloomberg's money he has pledged to spend against 2nd Amendment supporting candidates, because all the money he is spending represents the interest of ONE voter (himself), the money the NRA spends represents MILLIONS of voters (it is not the money, it is the VOTERS which has the so-called "corrupting influence".

                      The only value money has in politics is as a means to convey messages designed to persuade voters whether or how to vote...in other words, to support freedom of speech in a representative democracy.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                        The NRA doesn't "buy" politicians or elections, it's members, who are disproportionately "likely voters" and are very passionate on this particular issue ELECT politicians. They are not the victims of manipulation, all the money the NRA has for "buying" elections and office holders is money the get from dues paying members and other voluntary contributors who ALREADY believe in the cause, and already VOTE accordingly.

                        That is why conservatives have no fear of Michael Bloomberg's money he has pledged to spend against 2nd Amendment supporting candidates, because all the money he is spending represents the interest of ONE voter (himself), the money the NRA spends represents MILLIONS of voters (it is not the money, it is the VOTERS which has the so-called "corrupting influence".

                        The only value money has in politics is as a means to convey messages designed to persuade voters whether or how to vote...in other words, to support freedom of speech in a representative democracy.
                        I agree the NRA doesn't buy votes. It buys politicians who will fight against any kind of gun control, even the most common sense solutions. Wow right now I'm watching Florida representative Brian Mast a guy who didn't get bone spurs say he is in favor of banning the AR-15 and not in favor of arming teachers.I know there aren't many but I guess there might be some decent republicans out there..

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post
                          I agree the NRA doesn't buy votes. It buys politicians who will fight against any kind of gun control, even the most common sense solutions. Wow right now I'm watching Florida representative Brian Mast a guy who didn't get bone spurs say he is in favor of banning the AR-15 and not in favor of arming teachers.I know there aren't many but I guess there might be some decent republicans out there..
                          If arming some number of instructors in schools would save the lives of children, would you be for that, or against that ?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                            The NRA doesn't "buy" politicians or elections, it's members, who are disproportionately "likely voters" and are very passionate on this particular issue ELECT politicians. They are not the victims of manipulation, all the money the NRA has for "buying" elections and office holders is money the get from dues paying members and other voluntary contributors who ALREADY believe in the cause, and already VOTE accordingly.

                            That is why conservatives have no fear of Michael Bloomberg's money he has pledged to spend against 2nd Amendment supporting candidates, because all the money he is spending represents the interest of ONE voter (himself), the money the NRA spends represents MILLIONS of voters (it is not the money, it is the VOTERS which has the so-called "corrupting influence".

                            The only value money has in politics is as a means to convey messages designed to persuade voters whether or how to vote...in other words, to support freedom of speech in a representative democracy.
                            Maybe money isn't as influential as we're told it is so much.

                            And maybe the media isn't either ?

                            But we do see a lot of both being "spent" to argue amongst ourselves in so many negative ways these days.

                            Everybody is "mad as hell" and "not gonna take it," whatever "it" is, "anymore."

                            I think people get so riled up and pissed off, they start forgetting what they were mad about to begin with - hate overtakes them, it becomes only about hate, the poison.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              I agree the NRA doesn't buy votes. It buys politicians who will fight against any kind of gun control, even the most common sense solutions. Wow right now I'm watching Florida representative Brian Mast a guy who didn't get bone spurs say he is in favor of banning the AR-15 and not in favor of arming teachers.I know there aren't many but I guess there might be some decent republicans out there..
                              How does it buy politicians? Again, to the extent politicians are 'bought' by anything (rather than their positions being a reflection of them sticking to their own ideological and policy views) it is not the NRA's money politicians are "bought" by, it is fear of the NRA's dedicated MEMBERS (aka VOTERS).

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                                Maybe money isn't as influential as we're told it is so much.

                                And maybe the media isn't either ?

                                But we do see a lot of both being "spent" to argue amongst ourselves in so many negative ways these days.

                                Everybody is "mad as hell" and "not gonna take it," whatever "it" is, "anymore."

                                I think people get so riled up and pissed off, they start forgetting what they were mad about to begin with - hate overtakes them, it becomes only about hate, the poison.
                                The "influence" of money in politics is complex, what I have tried to explain is that the only "influence" money ultimately has in politics is as a resource to sway voters in one of two ways, how to vote, or whether to vote. To refer to this as a "corrupting" influence is to simply decry freedom of speech in a representative democracy.

                                As for the premises that money is highly dispositive in election outcomes, or the policy positions of individual office holders, they are demonstrably false and rather silly if you apply even a modicum of basic reasoning and logic to them.

                                While it is true that in most instances, a candidate must have a certain minimal level of financial resources to be competitive in a particular race, once candidates meet that floor, the marginal utility of outspending the opponent is generally dwarfed by other, non-financial factors, including incumbency, ideological slant of the voters, personal likability, and many other factors. While spending disparity can make a difference in otherwise marginal races, so could any number of other factors (since the races were going to be close anyway), but even in those cases, you can generally point to strategy choice (how each side spent) that were just as, if not more, dispositive to the outcome (i.e., Hillary vastly outspent Trump...but ignored key states in the last couple of months of the election that she could have won, because she simply assumed they were in the bag).

                                Also, ask yourself this question, if an obscenely rich candidate ran for President (willing to spend 10 times what all the other candidates combined would spend) on a platform of legalizing cannibalism, do you think they would ever get more than a rounding error of the vote, no matter how vastly they outspend others?

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X