Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party - - Part 17

[Victarion]

Why does a certain subsection of the RP get stuck on George Soros?

 

[SV Fan]

Why does a certain subsection of the RP get stuck on George Soros?

I think for many it's because you point out how much the Koch's spend on elections, that is their response. personally I find it a false equivalency argument because one spends hundreds of millions and the other only 10s of millions.

All that being said it's a fair argument to put Soros on the level of lower Republican megadonors who spend 10s of millions

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think for many it's because you point out how much the Koch's spend on elections, that is their response. personally I find it a false equivalency argument because one spends hundreds of millions and the other only 10s of millions.

All that being said it's a fair argument to put Soros on the level of lower Republican megadonors who spend 10s of millions

For me personally, I just find it hypocritical that Democrats are completely willing to attack the Koch Brothers and big money, but are completely willing to look the other way when you have people like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Hollywood actors, and Tom Steyer doing the exact same thing. And in some years, Democratic and progressive groups receive more money than their GOP and conservative counterparts. It's not a false equivalency, it's the exact same thing. You're right that they haven't given as much as the Kochs, but it's still the exact same thing.

Jon Stewart kind of sums it up perfectly "Corruption a billionaire who spends money on **** you don't like! Free speech is a billionaire who spends money on **** you do like!"

 

[TheBat812]

People don't object to big money on principle, they care about how that money is used. The difference is in how their influence affect things - in general the people you mentioned aren't trying to rig systems/destroy things for their own personal gain (while hurting others), but to help others. Philanthropic endeavors are pretty different than spending to corrupt a system to be in your favor or to destroy the planet for your own personal gain. It's like with religion - believe/spend on what you want as it doesn't negatively affect the lives of others. It's kind of a big difference.

 

[regwec]

Not when you reflect that almost everyone thinks that their own political aims are broadly beneficial.

 

[TheBat812]

Right, that's called perspective, but objectively, there is a difference in how it affects the political/economic landscape.

 

[SV Fan]

For me personally, I just find it hypocritical that Democrats are completely willing to attack the Koch Brothers and big money, but are completely willing to look the other way when you have people like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Hollywood actors, and Tom Steyer doing the exact same thing. And in some years, Democratic and progressive groups receive more money than their GOP and conservative counterparts. It's not a false equivalency, it's the exact same thing. You're right that they haven't given as much as the Kochs, but it's still the exact same thing.

I think distinctions should be made to people who spend 1M dollars to 10M to 100M. I also think people spend money so they can personally benefit financially from it should be distinguished from people who are giving because they feel strongly about 1 issue but get no personal benefit from it financially. Basically giving money because you want tougher gun laws is not equivalent to giving money because you want the country to reduce taxes or regulations that may positively help your business.

 

[regwec]

It depends on the causes and outcomes that you believe are objectively evidenced as being worthy of priority. It is simplistic to imply that there is never a choice, or that the choice is always easy. And yet this is what the virtue-signalling celebrities who HH cites do all the time. It seems that you do not object to them lobbying for or funding their political beliefs because you happen to share those beliefs.

 

[SV Fan]

It depends on the causes and outcomes that you believe are objectively evidenced as being worthy of priority. It is simplistic to imply that there is never a choice, or that the choice is always easy. And yet this is what the virtue-signalling celebrities who HH cites do all the time. It seems that you do not object to them lobbying for or funding their political beliefs because you happen to share those beliefs.

I think their is a difference though when people give money because they feel they will personally benefit from it someway financially, then giving money because you strongly believe in a cause but aren't going to benefit off it financially.

I would point fingers more at Wall Street money Democrats get for instance then Hollywood money as bad, I am guessing most of that Wall Street cash isn't giving it to the Democrats out of good will hoping for peace and joy throughout the world, where as most of that hollywood money is more a case of fighting the good fight on some social issues but not something you will benefit financially from

 

[regwec]

Consider though that self-promotion and the added exposure that results is predictably a key motivation behind the half-baked interventions of celebrities into political debates.

 

[TheBat812]

I think their is a difference though when people give money because they feel they will personally benefit from it someway financially, then giving money because you strongly believe in a cause but aren't going to benefit off it financially.

I would point fingers more at Wall Street money Democrats get for instance then Hollywood money as bad

Exactly.

I do agree and take your (regwec) point that pretty much anything comes down to perspective, but you also have to acknowledge that there is when the actions of using big money either wreck the economy, or acts without thought to negative consequences, one is (essentially) objectively more useful/less destructive than the other to societies as a whole.

Consider though that self-promotion and the added exposure that results is predictably a key motivation behind the half-baked interventions of celebrities into political debates.

Sure, there's a side benefit. But does that attention/self-promotion have negative consequences on societies? If anything it promotes philanthropic ideas. I just don't find them to be actually that similar beyond in a purely philosophical sense of 'anybody's opinion is valid' - the tangible effect is incredibly different. It's like the difference between science and religion - sure you're allowed to believe what you want - but the evidence shows such and such, so by way of the scientific method, it is more provably beneficial than the other: ie, Please, believe the earth is 6000 years old if you want, but that's just empirically falsse.

 

[SV Fan]

Consider though that self-promotion and the added exposure that results is predictably a key motivation behind the half-baked interventions of celebrities into political debates.

So do you believe Steven Spielberg pumping in 1M to a race is somehow on par with the Kochs pumping in hundreds of millions? What issue is that 1M going to get Spielberg? Maybe they might side with him on copyright issues heaven forbid.

 

[regwec]

I'm not sure objectivity should be purported in this context. Your implication appears to be that lobbying is "objectively" less harmful if the lobbyist earnestly holds the beliefs promoted and that his personal gain is at least suspended or indirect. But experience teaches us differently: it is at least arguable that earnestly held and rigorously pursued beliefs such as unilateral disarmament or the legalization of narcotics could be very harmful. Which leaves us with the supposition that the profit motive is the differentiating factor, and that the profit motive is inherently malignant. That is itself a highly political view.

 

[SV Fan]

Your implication appears to be that lobbying is "objectively" less harmful if the lobbyist earnestly holds the beliefs promoted and that his personal gain is at least suspended or indirect.

I do think that there is a difference depending on motive. Now if somebody donates money because they truly believe tough crime laws will benefit the country and reduce criminal activity, more power to them but if it's a case I have alot of money tied into private jails and stand to benefit from more people occupying those jails then I question that persons motives.

 

[TheBat812]

I'm not sure objectivity should be purported in this context. Your implication appears to be that lobbying is "objectively" less harmful if the lobbyist earnestly holds the beliefs promoted and that his personal gain is at least suspended or indirect. But experience teaches us differently: it is at least arguable that earnestly held and rigorously pursued beliefs such as unilateral disarmament or the legalization of narcotics could be very harmful. Which leaves us with the supposition that the profit motive is the differentiating factor, and that the profit motive is inherently malignant. That is itself a highly political view.

Do any of the people we were discussing try to do that? I thought we were discussing the people we were mentioning?

But ya, like I said, philosophically you're totally right and I'm right along with you - in terms of the people we were addressing, I still think the factors, as SV Fan has pointed out, do allow for nuance to be taken into account. Even if the Koch brothers were doing what they were doing because deep down they truly believed what they were doing was the best thing for the American economy, I'd say, "well I'm glad they're following their hearts, but pretty much all of history begs to differ, the two huge American repressions notwithstanding."

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think distinctions should be made to people who spend 1M dollars to 10M to 100M.

Not really, either way, those amounts are still way more than either you or I will see in our lifetimes. And it's not like these donations are going to the campaigns themselves. Super PACs cannot keep the lights on in a campaign and look at how well that $100 million did for Jeb Bush.

The problem isn't the amount of money, the problem is transparency. Transparency is a very important part of democracy. When we're not seeing who is donating to these Super PACs, that is the big problem IMO.

I also think people spend money so they can personally benefit financially from it should be distinguished from people who are giving because they feel strongly about 1 issue but get no personal benefit from it financially. Basically giving money because you want tougher gun laws is not equivalent to giving money because you want the country to reduce taxes or regulations that may positively help your business.

I think you're trying to justify the hypocrisy by trying to make one side look bad while the other side that does the same thing is not. I don't think that people like the Kochs, or Google, and the NRA, etc. are doing it so that they can personally benefit. I think the Kochs genuinely want to make libertarian principles part of the mainstream and see that their organizations are key to doing that. Companies such as Google want to make a regulatory environment that is favorable to tech companies that would allow them to progress with the advancement of society. Or even though they are bat**** crazy loco and completely wrong, I do think the gun lobby is genuine in their radical beliefs on the Second Amendment.

 

[SV Fan]

Not really, either way, those amounts are still way more than either you or I will see in our lifetimes. And it's not like these donations are going to the campaigns themselves. Super PACs cannot keep the lights on in a campaign and look at how well that $100 million did for Jeb Bush.

I am sorry but the political influence 1M or 100M buys you is somewhat different. I am guessing for instance people don't go personally visit a guy donating 1M like they do for Sheldon Adelson. Isn't it amazing all the politicians who deal with Sheldon for instance all of a sudden have it out for online gambling. Think that's a coincidence?

And while lots of money doesn't guarantee you winning, it makes your odds a whole lot better.

Beyond that say I stole 10 dollars, and another guy stole 10,000 dollars, do you think we both committed an equal crime?

The problem isn't the amount of money, the problem is transparency. Transparency is a very important part of democracy. When we're not seeing who is donating to these Super PACs, that is the big problem IMO.

I can sort of agree with this, when somebody donates large sums of money a spotlight should be put on them to know what they expect for that cash

I think you're trying to justify the hypocrisy by trying to make one side look bad while the other side that does the same thing is not. I don't think that people like the Kochs, or Google, and the NRA, etc. are doing it so that they can personally benefit. I think the Kochs genuinely want to make libertarian principles part of the mainstream and see that their organizations are key to doing that. Companies such as Google want to make a regulatory environment that is favorable to tech companies that would allow them to progress with the advancement of society. Or even though they are bat**** crazy loco and completely wrong, I do think the gun lobby is genuine in their radical beliefs on the Second Amendment.

How is it hippocratic to say that if you personally benefit off of your giving cash it's worse then if you just pushing an issue you believe in but you stand to gain no benefit from it financially. I would yes Google is just as bad as the Koch for giving money and pushing to get legislation that benefits them personally(well I would say they are a certain percentage as bad depending on how much both sides gave because yes a 1M donation is only 1% as bad as a 100M donation).

In terms of your gun lobby argument if Person A gives 1M to the NRA and doesn't stand to benefit himself financially more power to him, but if Personal B owns a Gun Manufacturer and gives the NRA 1M are you telling me that is no different?

 

[SV Fan]

Don't you just love republican family values

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/u...accused-of-affair-by-fired-official.html?_r=0

Alabama Governor, Robert Bentley, Denies Having Affair With Aide

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Gov. Robert Bentley of Alabama acknowledged Wednesday that he had made inappropriate and sexually charged remarks to one of his closest aides, but he denied an accusation that he and the woman had pursued a physical relationship.

“At times in the past, have I said things that I should not have said? Absolutely, that’s what I’m saying today,” Mr. Bentley said at a State Capitol news conference, when he said he had apologized for “any conversations and behavior that was inappropriate.” He insisted that he had broken no laws during his friendship and professional partnership with his senior political adviser, Rebekah Caldwell Mason, who holds such power in Alabama that Spencer Collier, a former state law enforcement secretary, on Wednesday referred to her as the “de facto governor.”

Mr. Bentley’s public demonstration of remorse came nearly seven months after Dianne Bentley, to whom the Republican governor was married for 50 years, sought a divorce, and just hours after Mr. Collier, the recently ousted leader of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, described what he saw as a history of improper conduct between the governor and Ms. Mason. Mr. Collier said that Mr. Bentley had, in 2014, effectively acknowledged an affair, and that it appeared to be continuing as recently as last month.

Nothing more beautiful then the sanctity of traditional marriage. The union of 1 woman, 1 man and his mistress. How dare gay people try and step all over that

 

[Thundercrack85]

Eh, he's still not as bad as Brownback. Or whoever let all those people be poisoned in Michigan.

 

[Lily Adler]

The bar has been set so high for most vile Governor.

 

[Marvolo]

North Carolina Governor Signs Bill Banning Cities From Protecting LGBT People

North Carolina’s bill is unprecedented in its scope.

In addition to blocking anti-discrimination protections across the state and imposing standards for single-sex bathrooms, the bill also prevents cities and counties from raising the minimum wage.

The bill would also end anti-discrimination protections for veterans. At least two North Carolina jurisdictions — Greensboro and Orange County — have anti-discrimination ordinances in place banning bias based on military or veteran status. Under the new measure, cities and counties would be prohibited from passing protections for veterans or service members.

Stephen Peters, the Human Rights Campaign’s national press secretary and a Marine Corps veteran, criticized this consequence of the bill.

“Thousands of LGBT veterans have fought to secure our freedom, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the North Carolina legislature’s willingness to wipe protections for local veterans off the books,” he said in a statement. “Gov. McCrory must take a stand for fairness and equality for all and veto any bill that would increase the risk of discrimination.”

During debate, state Rep. Grier Martin (D) introduced an amendment that would add protections for veteran status, sexual orientation and gender identity to the bill. Rep. Paul Stam (R), a veteran, argued he doesn’t think it’s necessary to protect veterans from discrimination — despite reports to the contrary. The assembly voted to table the amendment.

HB 2 drew immediate rebuke from North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D), who is challenging McCrory in the fall.

“North Carolina is better than this,” Cooper said in a video statement. “Discrimination is wrong, period. That North Carolina is putting discrimination into the law is shameful.”

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination_us_56f2b7dbe4b0c3ef5217676c

My state and its governor is a ****ing embarrassment.

 

[Thundercrack85]

McCrory sounds terrible - and he is- , but when you see the crazy **** he's vetoed coming out of North Carolina's Republican controlled state congress he may actually be the sanest Republican in the state.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

McCrory sounds terrible - and he is- , but when you see the crazy **** he's vetoed coming out of North Carolina's Republican controlled state congress he may actually be the sanest Republican in the state.

Maybe that why he's in charge but as Trump and Cruz's popularity shows, you can't keep ignorance bottled forever.

 

[Marvolo]

Businesses Are Joining The Fight Against North Carolina’s Anti-LGBT Law

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/businesses-nc-anti-lgbt-law_us_56f42b8ee4b0c3ef52184903

 

[Marvolo]

Trans Man Demolishes NC Gov’s Insanely Bigoted Logic With Just One Tweet

A transgender man in Georgia summed up his thoughts on North Carolina’s controversial House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, which blocks cities from allowing trans people to use public restrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

James Parker Sheffield, 36, sent a clear and direct message to North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory with a snapshot and a simply-worded tweet on March 23.

@PatMcCroryNC It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife. #HB2 #trans #NorthCarolina #shameonNC

https://mobile.twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144

The Decatur, Georgia resident told The Huffington Post that his “heart broke” for North Carolina’s LGBT community after McCrory signed what has been described as the “most extreme anti-LGBT bill“ in the nation, which also restricts cities from passing non-discrimination laws, on Wednesday night.

“Just like cisgender people, trans folks fall all over a spectrum of masculinity and femininity, regardless of how we personally identify,” Sheffield, who is the director of organizational development for The Health Initiative, which is focused on LGBT health and wellness in his home state, said.

Although he lives in Georgia, Sheffield said he’ll now fear for his safety if he visits North Carolina under the new legislation. House Bill 2, he said, could pose a very literal threat for transgender people who visit or reside in the state.

“Besides the obvious misconception that trans people are in a public restroom to do anything other than use the restroom, I think most people neglect to see the personal safety issues connected to these poorly conceived legislative moves,” he said. With North Carolina being a “stand your ground” state, he added, individuals are allowed to use self-defense against perceived threat, which could create further issues.

“Imagine me following the law and walking into a women’s room at a gas station or fast food place,” he said. “Will someone in that restroom feel threatened by a grown man with a beard walking in?”

Sheffield’s tweet quickly caught the eye of North Carolina resident Avery Wild, who also identifies as transgender. The 31-year-old followed Sheffield’s lead and responded with a similar tweet.

@JayShef @PatMcCroryNC me too. in the bathroom with the wife.
Also mad jealous of your beard.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lust4apples/status/712872922059300864

Wild, who works in retail management, told HuffPost that he felt “angry and powerless” after hearing the news that House Bill 2 had been signed, and said he “can’t wait to vote” McCrory out of office this November.

“Even before this law, I have had to be careful about the use of public restrooms,” he said. Noting that most of his colleagues will likely stand by him in his right to use the appropriate restroom, he added, “Take the time to get to know us, and you may find we are just like everyone else. Being transgender is the least interesting thing about me.”

Whether or not the backlash will impact McCrory has yet to be seen. The governor defended his bigoted logic in signing the bill, tweeting:

Ordinance defied common sense, allowing men to use women’s bathroom/locker room for instance. That’s why I signed bipartisan bill to stop it

https://mobile.twitter.com/PatMcCroryNC/status/712825502772269056?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Bravo to folks like James and Avery who are putting a face, literally, to the struggles that will now be exacerbated in the wake of the new legislation.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/north-carolina-transgender-tweet_us_56f3f787e4b04c4c3761652b

God, I hope this law backfires spectacularly on McCrory. And that no transgender people in NC are hurt by anyone before it gets overturned.