Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

I think Talent's account has been hacked by liney...

[iam416]

That's uncalled for.

[THE_WIZARD_]

sorry...liney

[Wild Hoss]

LOL

[lineygoblue]

Apology accepted

[lineygoblue]

And I think Jeff is the one who has hacked Talent ...

[Hannibal]

Moreover, I'm not convinced that money in politics is a problem. The US has enacted a number of major pieces of legislation that are directly contrary to corporate interests -- from environmental laws to workplace safety regulations to hiring practices (and attendant litigation and costs) and so on. Corporations win some times and they lose some times.

I wish that my industry won some times. We all have tire tracks on our backs from getting bulldozed in just about every legislative battle. Regulations have done nothing but get tighter.

Money in politics will always be a factor because the ultimate money in politics is the ability to buy votes.

[iam416]

Yeah, I haven't done any empirical study or anything...heh...but my guess is that the corporate voice can fight off legislation for awhile, but they usually lose.

But I'm getting at the whole notion that "money in politics" is an awful thing. I mean, when you say "the ultimate money in politics is the ability to buy votes" I actually disagree with your use of the word "ultimate." I think the ultimate end is policy and legislation. It matters not if your person is elected if they don't do shit for you. Corruption or those things akin to corruption require the governmental favor.

To that end, my point about corporations losing a lot is germane.

[hack]

At some point in time people are going to realize that money isn't ever coming out of politics. Ever. Pass whatever legislation you want. It's going to be there in a form largely similar to what we have now. Deal with it.

IMO, "getting money out of politics" as a solution is akin to passing more drug laws to combat the drug problem.

Moreover, I'm not convinced that money in politics is a problem. The US has enacted a number of major pieces of legislation that are directly contrary to corporate interests -- from environmental laws to workplace safety regulations to hiring practices (and attendant litigation and costs) and so on. Corporations win some times and they lose some times. Welcome to a fucking constitutional republic.

So you're saying money is either in politics or out of it? It's an on/off switch with no possibility of striking a balance between competing forces?

[hack]

As for fossil fuels, if you can replace them with a cost-effective alternative, then more power to you.

Literally and figuratively. Once that NM solar plant is built it will be the cheapest source on a per-kwH basis. Until the next solar plant comes along, with lower costs still, and surpasses it. But, again, it's not about what's cost effective now. That's a fraction of the discussion, and arguably a small one. Oil is wrapped up in geopolitics, and as we have noted the US is willing to suffer significantly in order to maintain a relationship with the Saudis, who in turn assert US supremacy in several ways, such as ensuring the oil trade is in dollars. Here's an example of the economic power the US has as a result of oil being traded in dollars, and is not likely to just give up until it's just a last few rent-seeking dinosaurs holding back the economy as a whole:

This means foreign ships are needed for Iran's plans for a big export push to Europe and elsewhere, to meet its target of reaching pre-sanctions sales levels this year. But many owners, who are not short of business in a booming tanker market, are unwilling to take Iranian cargoes. The main reason is that some U.S. restrictions on Tehran remain in place and prohibit any trade in dollars or the involvement of U.S. firms including banks — a major hurdle for the oil and tanker trades, which are priced in dollars.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-iran-struggles-to-find-enough-ships-for-oil-exports-2016-4

[Da Geezer]

I think Talent's account has been hacked by liney...

good pun

[Da Geezer]

Money in politics is always a matter of free speech. Increasingly the left in this country rails against money because corporations were given the same rights as unions in Citizen's United. For all of my lifetime, ideologues on the left have had an unlimited propaganda machine which we call "the media". To be consistent, those who want to limit money/speech should love the way Trump is ostensibly handling his campaign. I see no substantive difference between large, unknown donors to Cruz and Hannity devoting one hour each weeknight to spread pro-Trump bilge.

Money, speech, and media are almost totally fungible and it is folly to try to control any one of them. Those who want to limit money in politics also want to limit speech.

[WingsFan]

I had to laugh at Ted Cruz, he wanted Iowa so bad he made the gaf with the 'New York Falues' comment. Then found out the hard way New Yorkers don't forgive and forget, got run out of town (literally) and didn't even win not one delegate . Couldn't even come close to distance second place Kasich (who won 3 delegates). Then was all over the place talking in Pennsylvania last night, even comparing himself to Bernie Sanders. Dude is a mess.


Trump should win big next week too, with the 5 states, might even sweep. Though Pennsylvania allots 71 delegates, but 54 of which are unbound, that leaves 17 for the winner. Pennsylvania (for the first time?) now could be the key to who gets the nomination.

The 54 delegates have strongly stated they will vote for the party front runner. If they hold to that it will be Trump, and if he's close to 1237 it could be the difference.

[iam416]

The real issue in Citizens United isn't that corporations have First Amendment rights. That's glaringly obvious to most except for the socialist progressives. The issue is "dark money" and the ability of the Government to regulate individual, independent expenditures as opposed to campaign contributions.

It so happened that the 60-day bar was applied to corporations and unions so the Court first had to make the obvious finding that corporations have First Amendment rights. Then the question was the whether the law met applicable scrutiny. Stevens spent most of his dissent arguing that the law served a number of good policy purposes.

Personally, I think the statute was hugely overbroad -- it prohibited "a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions." When I say overbroad (or vague) I'm getting at the "mentioning a candidate" prong.

In any event, corporations and unions can now, along with individuals, spend their own money in support of whatever political issue they want.

[iam416]

It should also be noted that the parade of horrors predicted by those opposed to Citizens United have yet to come to fruition. I don't think corporations aren't spending much more money. Rather, the bulk of Super PAC funding still comes from wealthy individuals.