Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in a purple state. Bloomberg is blanketing the airwaves. Steyer is right behind Bloomberg. Their ads are pertinent and aimed at Trump. In my opinion, Bloomberg's are some of the best political ads that I've ever seen.
And Trump lies in response. One of Bloomberg's ads was talking about pre-existing conditions and Trump tweets saying he is the one protecting pre-existing conditions. The lie was so blatant it was covered on local news, explaining, no, it was Obamacare that gave us pre-existing conditions coverage and Trump is trying to end it. And don't forget, the case they are using to try to end it, they are trying to delay until after the election. This is all about money.
This question is really more for those on the right - who have prayed to the ultimate dollar (billionaires, etc.) and worked for decades to make sure campaign finance was finally scuttled (SCOTUS CU).
Up until now, it can be said that the Right has wanted and used that (Kochs, Mercers, Mellon-Scaife, Adelson and many many more) to take control of political matters.
However, the question is - if things change and most billionaires are Centrists or more "New Age" as opposed to the ancient Oil and Gambling and Amway money, will the Right then take perhaps the last issues they believe in...and reverse course?
The Scenario, roughly speaking, is this. If Bloomberg - and, in the future, other forces such as Bezos and many in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, become willing to put 10's of billions of dollars into all the efforts that Republicans legalized (unlimited money, astroturf, non-disclosure of donors) to beat the pants off (or even beat a bunch) of Republicans, will the Right then turn around and try to take the big money out of politics and stop with the "corporations are people".
And so, I worded the question as best I can to keep it relatively simple.....4 choices
1. I lean right of center and support unlimited money (as it is now) like the Kochs, Adelson, etc. in Politics because it helped us win.....BUT, I would also support it if I worked against my politics. In other words, I'm not a hypocrite.
2. I lean right of center and have accepted all the money in politics because, frankly, it allowed us to win more stuff....but I'm likely to change my mind if it turns out the those left of center obtain a vast advantage with the same type of Big Money that we had used.
3. I lean left of center and support unlimited money in politics because the only way to play the game is to use the rules established into law by the SCOTUS. While I might wish things were different, they are not.
4. I lean left of center and would support strict campaign financing even in Republicans are pushing it. I support this despite the Right has already gained the benefit of decades of such money....no "catch up" by the left or center is needed and I'm willing to take the knocks for the benefit of the country.
The polls questions will be shorter, but this is what I am getting at. Is it just all good for the goose and good for the gander or do the rules (like holding up a SCOTUS nominee, spending vast sums on ads, etc.) apply only when for MY (or your) benefit.
Hillary Clinton spent 3X what Trump Spent and lost Bigly..
Beto O'Rourke spent $80,000,000 more than 2x and lost to lyin' Ted Cruz
Joe Biden is out wooing Wall Street as we speak for $10s of Millions.
Apparently the OP seems to think that Hillary got her landslide 500million or so donation advantage over Trump by things like $1 donations from orphans saving their lunch money...and not from billionaires and corporations like they whined about the republicans doing?
Either that or they're inadvertently admitting to what moderates have always known, both parties are deep in bed with the rich and the corporations.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
And Trump lies in response. One of Bloomberg's ads was talking about pre-existing conditions and Trump tweets saying he is the one protecting pre-existing conditions. The lie was so blatant it was covered on local news, explaining, no, it was Obamacare that gave us pre-existing conditions coverage and Trump is trying to end it. And don't forget, the case they are using to try to end it, they are trying to delay until after the election. This is all about money.
And this is where Bloomberg's and Steyer's money are important in making Trump's lies known.
I've seen countless ads from Bloomberg and Steyer. Not one was aimed at another Democrat. They are directly aimed at Trump.
I'm waiting to see which one will focus on preexisting conditions. Bloomberg has been focusing on healthcare in general. It's just a matter of time. Bloomberg has already said that with or without the nomination his money is staying in.
Bloomberg knows the broadcasting business. He knows the best agencies. His ads show that.
Bloomberg and Steyer both earned their own money and haven't declared bankruptcy multiple times.
Not enough results yet but does interest me....because.....
In life (in general), I have found that those on the side of "win-lose" types of scenarios (business and otherwise) don't end up as well as those who are win-tin.
BUT, Politics is an exception to that rule...perhaps the only one. This is what has destroyed the center and the left in this country - which together represent the largest bloc, yet have zero power.
Since we could say that "one side has already cheated big time for 20-30 years" (Delay and Armey and many more even indicted for it or caught), they have - with both the politics, laws and judges, etc - gained an advantage that would have been completely impossible in a "fair game".
Yet many centrists seem to be saying "Well, that's OK - they can have all their ill-gotten gains, as long as we...at some point....reform the system".
This is somewhat hard for me to understand in the game of politics due to the time periods involved and the effects of that. Simple examples are the forever wars, 30+ years of failing to truly reform health care (needs constant reformation - not a step forward and then one back) and the Unlimited Money in politics itself.
And so, based on "one side" wanting to be friendly and have serious campaign finance...the results would simply be that ANOTHER method of "cheating" might be legalized and then we'd be discussing that 20 or 30 years after it happens.
Put into one sentence - many centrist don't believe in Hardball and while that is a great way to be in life and business and personal relationships, it means losing in political matters. IMHO.
I hate money in bed with our politics - nothing right about it.
It's been that way since Day One. Money financed the Revolution....we wouldn't have won without it. Then it started being used by Jefferson to buy the "right" newspapers to denigrate George Washington.....which worked (TJ became POTUS).....
And so it has been since.
There are a lot of things I/we may dislike but hiding our heads, individually or collectively, in the sand does not fix them.
The even easier version of this is "would you bring a knife to a gun fight even if you don't like guns?".
Grassroots Right wing beliefs are intentionally caricatured and therefore mostly hidden from less sophisticated people by the Press.
Which is a situation that is complicated by the fact that most Left Wing believers are either ignorant about politics or malevolent (looking to harm people with their beliefs so that they are weaker competition for their special interest group).
Meaning that the Left often takes corporate explanations of the Right on their face or has an interest in promoting them in order to create an asymmetrical political battlefield where even the rules of the game and the goals of the participants are hidden (how can you play chess when you can't see the board or don't know the rules?).
What this means is that framing the ostensible Right's interest in "big money in politics" as anything but a corporatized and possibly false caricature of what being on the "Right" entails, is probably a false construct.
In my opinion, its a false construct. I hold that the presented choices don't reflect the reality of the views and interests of the Right or even the Left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
