Comcast has donated to *every* Senator examining its merger

[kuromusha]

Politicians should be forced to wear their sponsors' logos like NASCAR drivers or professional athletes.

I agree with this.

 

[fighterforlife]

Isn't the irony comical? You hear all the wailing about "activist judges" from the far-right loons, but the biggest, most glaring example of judges overstepping their authority was the batshit Roberts court and the Citizens United case in 2010. "Corporations are people" my ass.

= Psychological projection

 

[fighterforlife]

Politicians should be forced to wear their sponsors' logos like NASCAR drivers or professional athletes.

And list publicly the senator's rate sheet.

 

[pinger]

Your system is completely broken

 

[Michaelangelo]

And no limit to their donations. Get those Super Pacs filled.

 

[Madmick]

And no limit to their donations. Get those Super Pacs filled.

Who needs a Super PAC? Didn't you hear? Campaign donations are analogous to free speech. Since a corporation is a person...oh well, I guess that doesn't harm political discourse or destabilize the integrity of the system.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Who needs a Super PAC? Didn't you hear? Campaign donations are analogous to free speech. Since a corporation is a person...oh well, I guess that doesn't harm political discourse or destabilize the integrity of the system.

Well, I wanted to give them the opportunity for money laundering.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

They're opening the nipple flaps on their shirts and rubbing them right in front of us. We should be paying attention.

I'll say. I don't even know what a nipple flap is.

Who needs a Super PAC? Didn't you hear? Campaign donations are analogous to free speech. Since a corporation is a person...oh well, I guess that doesn't harm political discourse or destabilize the integrity of the system.

Integrity of the system? All these corporations fund our two party system which means you don't have to pay to get your "either or" candidate elected. Take the bad with the good. :icon_chee

 

[Madmick]

I'll say. I don't even know what a nipple flap is.

[YT]HAo5GgaJmsA[/YT]

 

[Fronk]

Your system is completely broken

Isn't it hilarious when you take a step back and actually ponder on how their political system actually works? This thread needs more Orwell quotes :icon_chee

But then again most threads about the obvoius corruption in their two-party system ends up in nonensical bickering between republicans and democrats(even after war room mods banned 90% of republican posters). So I guess they do deserve it.

 

[IDL]

Isn't it hilarious when you take a step back and actually ponder on how their political system actually works? This thread needs more Orwell quotes :icon_chee

But then again most threads about the obvoius corruption in their two-party system ends up in nonensical bickering between republicans and democrats(even after war room mods banned 90% of republican posters). So I guess they do deserve it.

All Democracies are controlled by the private banking cartels who create and lend money, so don't be so smug Sweden!

 

[Madmick]

Isn't it hilarious when you take a step back and actually ponder on how their political system actually works? This thread needs more Orwell quotes :icon_chee

But then again most threads about the obvoius corruption in their two-party system ends up in nonensical bickering between republicans and democrats(even after war room mods banned 90% of republican posters). So I guess they do deserve it.

Yet in European party systems the fringe third parties rise to power when their fanatic minorities maintain greater uniformity than multiple bickering mainstream parties with far more substantial numbers. I will never forget Hader's rise to power in Austria.

You simply aren't qualified or educated enough to address this incredibly complex issue intelligently. I doubt that anyone on Sherdog is prepared for a meaningful debate on this topic. I'm certainly not, but I'm not so stupid to believe that I'm smarter than the stewards of the best arguments for one system or the other.

All Democracies are controlled by the private banking cartels who create and lend money, so don't be so smug Sweden!

No.

 

[IDL]

No.

Yes.

Governments going to private institutions to borrow fiat that is created from nothing. Who wears the pants in that relationship.. Everything else is largely a distraction.

 

[Wolveswithkeys]

All Democracies are controlled by the private banking cartels who create and lend money, so don't be so smug Sweden!

Stop.

 

[IDL]

Stop.

Stop pointing out the obvious?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

[YT]HAo5GgaJmsA[/YT]

Thank you. I very much enjoyed that.

 

[Lead]

I think a huge problem with our country today is how large and powerful multiple industries are getting. Back when there was Rockefeller, you only had oil, steel, and rail dominating the economy with a few firms pioneering everything. Today, you have countless giant firms in different industries so specialized now that I'm unsure our government is even capable of coming up with reasonable answers like they did with anti-trusts in the past.

Also, another debate come to mind when you consider anti-trust legislation on giant firms. Does doing such an action hurt our us in the world economy by making all our firms too small to compete internationally?

The problem today seems to be that we need our firms to be large enough to compete on a global scale but still have the governance of a single nation. The result has been strain on our political system and it's possible decay. Citizens united didn't help

 

[Lead]

[YT]HAo5GgaJmsA[/YT]

South park has satire for everything at this point. They've done it better than the Simpsons imo too.

 

[Fronk]

Yet in European party systems the fringe third parties rise to power when their fanatic minorities maintain greater uniformity than multiple bickering mainstream parties with far more substantial numbers. I will never forget Hader's rise to power in Austria.

You simply aren't qualified or educated enough to address this incredibly complex issue intelligently. I doubt that anyone on Sherdog is prepared for a meaningful debate on this topic. I'm certainly not, but I'm not so stupid to believe that I'm smarter than the stewards of the best arguments for one system or the other.

Yeah its not like the two-party system in the US are spared from radical far-right groups either. Tea Party nutjobs had it going on for awhile. It would even make sense to argue that movements like these can do even bigger harm when they rise to the top from within one of the main parties. In a pluralistic system where more options are natural they would just form their own parties and get marginalised by the rest. Like in Sweden for example.

But that wasn't even my point, I think the two-party system in itself isn't the worst thing in the world. Most nations political landscapes are formed by main parties and "blocs" anyway. I just think the democrat and republican rivalry seems to be getting in the way of the bigger picture and the facts at hand most of the time(and no I'm not wandering out in IDL territory here).

My main gripe is with the way large companies holds influence over politics and legislation through donations aka bribes. In the US this seems to be done so extreme and flauntingly in the open that it step by step stop being an actual huge deal.

 

[panamaican]

I wonder what would happen to me if I gave $$ to a judges campaign while he was preceding over a case I was involved with?

There's a fine line between bribery and "support." If one give $$ to all politicians that are involved with a law that affects them, that's a bribe clear as day. It's clear because, they aren't donating to a few people based upon PAST behavior or principals, they are donating to EVERYONE in order to sway FUTURE behavior. They're basically saying: "here's the $$ we will give ANYONE if they vote the way we want, and if you don't vote that way, we will stop giving it to you."

Nothing would happen to you. Nothing would happen to the judge.

The judge should voluntarily recuse himself but he wouldn't have to. Your opponent could ask for him to be recused and that might be granted.

And Congress doesn't approve/reject the type of deals in question. The FCC does and the head of the FCC is appointed by the President, not Congress.