Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Vote for Clinton because she's more "Electable"?
I Read This
May 27, 2018, 05:50:57 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: Vote for Clinton because she's more "Electable"?  (Read 11819 times)
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2008, 12:16:35 EDT »

it would be administered by bureaucrats who would have their own agendas.

bureaucrats are Beta types personalities who agenda are "making thing run* and kudos come form making thing run well.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2008, 13:07:48 EDT »

it would be administered by bureaucrats who would have their own agendas.

bureaucrats are Beta types personalities who agenda are "making thing run* and kudos come form making thing run well.
Beta type personalities? What is one of those?
Logged
purplecat
Mad Scientist
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2008, 16:44:40 EDT »

Beta type personalities? What is one of those?

This.

Hence this joke.
Logged

Purplecat: Keeper of the political compass thread. Want to be on the graph? post your results here

Me: (No, seriously, this entire forum has the attention span of an..... oooh! shiny!)
agharo
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2008, 19:42:21 EDT »

The problem with state funding is guarding against corruption.  The current administration run the government, what is to stop them from ensuring the funds always get to their parties.  Even if the current government were prevented from interferring in the process, which is almost impossible, it would be administered by bureaucrats who would have their own agendas.

Funding by donation from private individuals is far superior.

However, as we have seen, private donations come less from the will of the people and more from the ability of the candidate in question to attract lobbyists and wealthy friends. The private donation system is corrupt as well, and if the law were to specify that all candidates receive equal funding, there would be no room for interference by the government. The sheer amount of media attention surrounding the race would ensure that corruption was not a factor, as any allegation of unfair distribution of wealth would be quickly circulated through multiple channels. That sort of obvious election 'fixing' draws reporters like moths to a flame.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2008, 20:33:08 EDT »

Problem: there's a distinction between "soft" and "hard" ads in US election advertising. This really needs to be eliminated first, because "soft" ads would fall outside the proposed amendments here.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2008, 23:50:59 EDT »

Problem: there's a distinction between "soft" and "hard" ads in US election advertising. This really needs to be eliminated first, because "soft" ads would fall outside the proposed amendments here.

And soft can not be stopped. But Soft can be control though liable and conspires to defraud laws so it not that big of an issue. as long as the candidates [and his campain staff] have not connection to soft money adds.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
agharo
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2008, 13:14:32 EDT »

Quote
Problem: there's a distinction between "soft" and "hard" ads in US election advertising. This really needs to be eliminated first, because "soft" ads would fall outside the proposed amendments here.

Soft ads are sort of a tricky subject, because you can't do much about them without curbing free speech and media. If there was a law banning campaign ads from outside the campaigner's funds, people (or at least lobbyists and lawyers) would cry foul, because people have a right to present their views as long as they have the means to do so. It would also be hard to do that and not end up destroying editorial television programming.

What could be done, though, is restrict the amount of money that can be given to an outside organization which assists a campaign. Tighter restrictions on 527 groups would be the obvious choice here, such as by placing them under the jurisdiction of the FEC where they overlap at all with an election campaign.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2008, 12:55:33 EDT »

Beta type personalities? What is one of those?

This.

Hence this joke.
Ah, I see.

it would be administered by bureaucrats who would have their own agendas.

bureaucrats are Beta types personalities who agenda are "making thing run* and kudos come form making thing run well.
Well, I'm rather suspicious of that sort of thing.  Is there really any type of scientific basis for Type A and Type B personalities?  Assuming there is, is there research to show that bureaucrats are type B personalities.  Even assuming they are does that necessarily mean they will not have an agenda?  In my experience most people have agendas of some sort.

Lastly, if bureaucrats are given this power who is to say that they will remain the same type of people they are now?
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2008, 20:18:20 EDT »

Type A and B personalities are very broad categorisations, and it basically runs along the lines of "highly strung people like to clean up after themselves. More easy-going people tend to be messier." There are a few other fairly common sense things in it.

It's... not greatly useful. But it is part of the psychological arsenal.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!