When money rules, where is democracy?

When money rules, where is democracy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

egern -> When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 4:30:21 AM)
Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash "Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists" "The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause." Dan Roberts in Washington The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators "When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby." Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money. Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it??

DesideriScuri -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 5:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash "Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists" "The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause." Dan Roberts in Washington The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators "When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby." Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money. Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it?? Here's a question for you... why did the Senators vote 'no' on the bill? Was it simply because they were bought and paid for, or was it because there was something in the bill they didn't want? Making the claim that 90% want increased gun control is all well and good, but what gun control do 90% want? If the bill was written to strip everyone except government to have any type of projectile weapon, would the 90% stat still apply? If you can't show that 90% of Americans wanted the gun controls written in the bill, you have no idea if 90% of Americans would have supported that bill. Of the Senators that voted 'no,' how many of them have majority support from their constituents for that vote?

leonine -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 5:45:26 AM)
"He's an honest politician: when you buy him, he stays bought." Most Americans are unaware that the majority of mature democracies have legal limits on things like campaign spending and party contributions, precisely because of the risks of this sort of legalised bribery. In the UK, there is ongoing pressure to tighten the rules a lot. The main reason it's stalled is that the two biggest parties get their support in very different ways, one from a few millionaires, the other from millions of union dues: so they each want the rules changed to penalise the other. But it will happen, there is too much public anger to be stopped forever.

egern -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 5:53:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash "Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists" "The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause." Dan Roberts in Washington The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators "When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby." Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money. Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it?? quote: Here's a question for you... why did the Senators vote 'no' on the bill? Was it simply because they were bought and paid for, or was it because there was something in the bill they didn't want? And one for you: If they disagreed with the bill, why was it necessary to bribe them? quote: Making the claim that 90% want increased gun control is all well and good, but what gun control do 90% want? If the bill was written to strip everyone except government to have any type of projectile weapon, would the 90% stat still apply? But it wasn't. quote: If you can't show that 90% of Americans wanted the gun controls written in the bill, you have no idea if 90% of Americans would have supported that bill. "But the outrage was not that a majority of the Senate had defeated the overwhelming majority of the American people who embraced background checks; it was that a 45 member minority had defeated the 55 member (substantial) majority that had actually "passed" the legislation -- if majority rule had been in effect. The Senate agreed with the American majority: both went down to defeat at the hands of a rabid, deeply undemocratic minority abusing Senate rules." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/gun-bill-filibuster_b_3111692.html?utm_hp_ref=politics quote: Of the Senators that voted 'no,' how many of them have majority support from their constituents for that vote? What does it matter to the senators, if said constituents cannot pay them for the voting as they wish?

LizDeluxe -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:04:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it?? Vote them out of office. If that's truly what 90% of the people want then it shouldn't be too hard. It happened in 1994.

DesideriScuri -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:16:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: egern Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash "Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists" "The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause." Dan Roberts in Washington The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators "When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby." Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money. Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it?? quote: Here's a question for you... why did the Senators vote 'no' on the bill? Was it simply because they were bought and paid for, or was it because there was something in the bill they didn't want? And one for you: If they disagreed with the bill, why was it necessary to bribe them? I don't know why they voted against the bill. I'm not making any claims though. What proof do you have that the bribery is why they voted 'no?' quote: quote: Making the claim that 90% want increased gun control is all well and good, but what gun control do 90% want? If the bill was written to strip everyone except government to have any type of projectile weapon, would the 90% stat still apply? But it wasn't. Nice dance around the question. I do think that indicates the answer anyway. quote: quote: If you can't show that 90% of Americans wanted the gun controls written in the bill, you have no idea if 90% of Americans would have supported that bill. "But the outrage was not that a majority of the Senate had defeated the overwhelming majority of the American people who embraced background checks; it was that a 45 member minority had defeated the 55 member (substantial) majority that had actually "passed" the legislation -- if majority rule had been in effect. The Senate agreed with the American majority: both went down to defeat at the hands of a rabid, deeply undemocratic minority abusing Senate rules." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/gun-bill-filibuster_b_3111692.html?utm_hp_ref=politics Abusing Senate rules?!? WTF are the rules in the Senate for if you can't use them?!? You are, once again, claiming that an overwhelming majority of the American people supported the bill that was in front of the Senators. Where is your proof? quote: quote: Of the Senators that voted 'no,' how many of them have majority support from their constituents for that vote? What does it matter to the senators, if said constituents cannot pay them for the voting as they wish? We have these little things called, "elections," yanno?

DomKen -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:25:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: egern Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash "Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists" "The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause." Dan Roberts in Washington The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators "When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby." Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money. Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it?? Here's a question for you... why did the Senators vote 'no' on the bill? Was it simply because they were bought and paid for, or was it because there was something in the bill they didn't want? Making the claim that 90% want increased gun control is all well and good, but what gun control do 90% want? If the bill was written to strip everyone except government to have any type of projectile weapon, would the 90% stat still apply? If you can't show that 90% of Americans wanted the gun controls written in the bill, you have no idea if 90% of Americans would have supported that bill. Of the Senators that voted 'no,' how many of them have majority support from their constituents for that vote? Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it. No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote.

DesideriScuri -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:26:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it. No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote. No links?

DomKen -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:30:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it. No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote. No links? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

subrob1967 -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:34:25 AM)
The problem with this so called 90% figure is, it comes from an uncontrolled informal online opinion poll. I believe President Obama said it best... "We won, you lost." The gun control legislation is dead, stop beating a dead horse, will ya?

tweakabelle -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:36:07 AM)
Come on DS. How many times have you complained on these boards about how your Govt had been bought by big business? It's obvious to a blind person that ordinary Americans wanted something done in the wake of recent tragedies. Yet the Senate refused to take any action. Is it a coincidence that the proposal was voted down by Senators who accept gun lobby $? This is a clear cut example of your complaint being accurate and justified, yet you are still not happy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:42:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it. No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote. No links? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/ You are making a claim that "Universal" background checks are supported by about 90%. According to your link, that's a fair assessment. Is the bill that was voted on consistent with those questions? Was there anything else in that bill that may have been the reason Senators voted 'no?" Any proof that no Senator has majority support for a 'no' vote?

DomKen -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:53:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it. No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote. No links? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/ You are making a claim that "Universal" background checks are supported by about 90%. According to your link, that's a fair assessment. Is the bill that was voted on consistent with those questions? Was there anything else in that bill that may have been the reason Senators voted 'no?" Any proof that no Senator has majority support for a 'no' vote? Text of the bill http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968 Looks like all it does is expand background checks and setup a commission to study mass shootings. if 90% of the nation supports universal background checks it is pretty clear no Senator has majority support fo the no vote. You are of course welcome to try and find some state where the question does not poll at at least 50% but I'm not wasting my time with such nonsense.

DomKen -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 6:54:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 The problem with this so called 90% figure is, it comes from an uncontrolled informal online opinion poll. I believe President Obama said it best... "We won, you lost." The gun control legislation is dead, stop beating a dead horse, will ya? Actually there are several polls, none of which were informal or online, that all hit that number. Please don't just toss out the FNC talking points without doing the research.

cloudboy -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 8:26:40 AM)
The Supreme CT has ruled that money is free speech protected by the 1st Amendment. On the upside, I take some heart that a small minority of Americans can stonewall the US government. ------ Gun nuts are not easy to deal with. They don't listen and they know everything. There's a strong bias and paranoia about them. They have a strong belief that guns "protect them from something." They can be one-issue voters, who if crossed will work hard in the next election to oust a sitting politician who dared vote for gun control. On a personal side of the equation: Two of my female clients have seen their marriages go off the rails and carom toward divorce because their men were jealous, secretive, frustrated, and armed. One guy secretly kept guns under the bed. Another guy used the guns to threaten suicide if the woman left him. When I hear these stories, I fear for the lives of the women and children involved. I see protective orders and domestic violence convictions around the corner -- all for what? One of my clients who came from a rough part of the inner city said he used to own a gun, but that he did not like the way it made him feel. So he got rid of it. It's pretty weird to be a gun enthusiast. I would have my empathy for the reluctantly armed, someone who had a gun but wished he didn't need it. None of this relates to hunters. But hunting is not the issue at hand here.

DesideriScuri -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 8:39:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Any proof that no Senator has majority support for a 'no' vote? if 90% of the nation supports universal background checks it is pretty clear no Senator has majority support fo the no vote. You are of course welcome to try and find some state where the question does not poll at at least 50% but I'm not wasting my time with such nonsense. Did 100% of Americans vote in this poll? Of course you aren't going to "waste time with such nonsense." You wouldn't want the lack of support for your claim to be exposed. quote: Text of the bill http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968 Looks like all it does is expand background checks and setup a commission to study mass shootings. Section 112 Article 3A sure might be unConstitutional the same way the SCOTUS found the Medicaid expansion rules in the ACA unConstitutional (loss of current and future funds if the State didn't expand Medicaid as outlined). Maybe the HIPPA rules exemption was unsavory? That's just a first blush look at it, without pulling up all the US Codes mentioned.

DomKen -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 8:49:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Any proof that no Senator has majority support for a 'no' vote? if 90% of the nation supports universal background checks it is pretty clear no Senator has majority support fo the no vote. You are of course welcome to try and find some state where the question does not poll at at least 50% but I'm not wasting my time with such nonsense. Did 100% of Americans vote in this poll? Of course you aren't going to "waste time with such nonsense." You wouldn't want the lack of support for your claim to be exposed. Poll samples of the size presented above are statistically reliable approximations of the entire populace. If you are so sure that some state doesn't support background checks then present your data. I am not required to do your research for you. quote: quote: Text of the bill http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968 Looks like all it does is expand background checks and setup a commission to study mass shootings. Section 112 Article 3A sure might be unConstitutional the same way the SCOTUS found the Medicaid expansion rules in the ACA unConstitutional (loss of current and future funds if the State didn't expand Medicaid as outlined). Maybe the HIPPA rules exemption was unsavory? That's just a first blush look at it, without pulling up all the US Codes mentioned. SD v Dole is still the precedent for this sort of punishment since it is not loss of all funds (your article even points this out) so it is definitely constitutional in that regard. If you don't exempt the reporting requiremnt from HIPAA how could a mental health report be made legally? If you don't want insane people buying guns you have to have some way to report them into the system.

DesideriScuri -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 9:02:01 AM)
Do you have any proof of why any of the Senators voted 'no?' IF not, then you don't really know, do you?

DomKen -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 9:05:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do you have any proof of why any of the Senators voted 'no?' IF not, then you don't really know, do you? How about their own statements? http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/17/mitch-mcconnell-and-his-facebook-meme-fail/

Owner59 -> RE: When money rules, where is democracy? (4/23/2013 9:15:53 AM)
Well,mittens tried to buy the election and even with spending more than a billion dollars and having an entire TV network reinvent him every couple of days,was unable to.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375