Corruption is legal in America
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
56 comments displayed.
#14
-
loganmadder (08/03/2015) [-] "No matter what the people want, it only has about a 30% chance of passing"
>Links us to a site about telling the government what we want
I see some flaws
>Links us to a site about telling the government what we want
I see some flaws
#53 to #52
-
loganmadder (08/03/2015) [-] I say we shoot politicians until they stop.
If we win, we're heroes, if we lose, we're terrorists.
If we win, we're heroes, if we lose, we're terrorists.
#15
-
dragondust (08/03/2015) [-] This is why I'm supporting Trump.
The only reason guys like Jeb Bush are so have so much support is that they're part of the establishment of lobbyists you see in the video.
Trump isn't taking money from anyone, nor is he abiding by what others tell him to say and what not to say in order to win.
The only reason guys like Jeb Bush are so have so much support is that they're part of the establishment of lobbyists you see in the video.
Trump isn't taking money from anyone, nor is he abiding by what others tell him to say and what not to say in order to win.
#32 to #15
-
capps [OP](08/03/2015) [-] Does anyone have a website where you can see what Bernie and Trump politically believes in. I mean they're both against lobbying which is awesome but what are their stances on other questions? Bernie's website had some stuff but Trumps looked more like a resume and not about his stances. Would like to see the difference between the two
#48 to #15
-
themabymaby (08/03/2015) [-] Bernie Sanders wants money OUT of politics.
Tump is a closxe second
Tump is a closxe second
#18 to #15
-
pleebnutbubber (08/03/2015) [-] The problem is, that's the only good thing about him, except maybe his success in business.
The dude is absolutely clueless (or just plain wrong) about rape, immigration, and numerous other issues that I would not want my president to be ignorant about
The dude is absolutely clueless (or just plain wrong) about rape, immigration, and numerous other issues that I would not want my president to be ignorant about
#23 to #18
-
anon (08/03/2015) [-]
Lel, no he's not, around 30% of the prisoners in our prison systems are illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes, and that's not even all of them because many are able to get out quickly and easily thanks to the policies in sanctuary cities. Trump is a show boating blow hard with an ego the size of Jupiter, but he's not wrong about illegal immigrants being the main problem in the US. If immigration was controlled we would solve a large number of problems ranging from health care to social security.
It's like you people want to be ignorant about the world and what's actually happening.
It's like you people want to be ignorant about the world and what's actually happening.
#16 to #15
-
snuffleuphagus (08/03/2015) [-] "this is why im supporting trump"
how to get anyone to stop reading and laugh immediately
how to get anyone to stop reading and laugh immediately
#29 to #16
-
feindmachines (08/03/2015) [-] well picking the polar opposite of the last president is a bold strategy but let's see if it works out, cotton.
#54 to #29
-
snuffleuphagus (08/03/2015) [-] except we arent going to see if it works out because he stands no chance of actually winning
#56 to #54
-
feindmachines (08/04/2015) [-] well with our imagination we can, i just don't want Hillary to win even though it looks like it might happen.
#24
-
mcroflskates (08/03/2015) [-] I still don't understand how their plan would fix anything. So you make it illegal for companies to buy their way into congress over the table, what stops them from simply reaching under it?
#36 to #24
-
KBD (08/03/2015) [-] The idea is that if we discover that companies are buying their support after we make it illegal to corrupt/lobby, then we can drop the hammer on their ass and punish them for it, as well as impose sanctions on the person who's accepted the corruption.
It's a long term ideal, but it's more or less a filtering project to try and reach the democratic ideal without dollar bills blinding the government as much as it has been recently from sources that should keep their wallets to themselves.
It's a long term ideal, but it's more or less a filtering project to try and reach the democratic ideal without dollar bills blinding the government as much as it has been recently from sources that should keep their wallets to themselves.
#34 to #30
-
nytor (08/03/2015) [-]
That could backfire horribly. Yes, that would prevent unscrupulous tactics to ensure re-election, but that also removes literally the only thing that makes sure they give even a single **** about public opinion. If their political career is coming to a guaranteed end they're a hell of a lot more likely to do some horribly corrupt **** that'll make everyone hate them.
#4
-
voltkills (08/02/2015) [-] OP said he wanted discussion so now he gets it, im going to argue FOR lobbying, oh boy here we go. plz no red thumbs im doing this for the sake of discussion A case, can infact be made in favor of lobbying. Politicians are, in general, stupid, thats pretty accepted right? They work most of their life in finance or other high earning professions, then they work for years to get into office. Now, how much would an average politicians know about say, the internet, the environment, ******* videogame. The answer is **** all, really, they can read up about it but really they wont know much, this is where lobbying comes in, it provides expert industry knowledge to the politicians, and yes its incredibly biased, however the argument relies on countervailing forces, this means, for every lobbyist trying to get people to go one way, theres another arguing the opposite, EG. Big oil vs. environmentalists, NRA vs. that Brady **** . In theory this is actually pretty good, the politicians get expert advice, that should be pretty balanced on the whole. In practice, this has gotten ****** , unfortunately, but lobbying still provides this rather vital service to congress. Another argument in favor of lobbying is pressure or "interest" groups, often thrown around as negative groups fighting for big companies, many are groups with millions of members across the US, and most of their influence in congress comes from lobbying. For example the AARP has over 30 millions members, and are very influential, mainly thanks to lobbying, yes their membership size gives them power but they money they raise goes on lobbyists that help them get their view into congress. SO while lobbying is used by big companies to force bills that help them through, its also used to provide expert views to politicians who would otherwise not have access to it.
ID like to end by saying I do not support lobbying in its current state, the revolving door syndrome it has produced is just what the video states, legalized corruption, but I do believe lobbying in some form is crucial to a good democracy, it provides pressure groups and therefore the people, another access point into government, other than voting, which is vital for a good democracy.
ID like to end by saying I do not support lobbying in its current state, the revolving door syndrome it has produced is just what the video states, legalized corruption, but I do believe lobbying in some form is crucial to a good democracy, it provides pressure groups and therefore the people, another access point into government, other than voting, which is vital for a good democracy.
#50 to #4
-
ompalomper ONLINE (08/03/2015) [-] just wanna say that i agree. people who know **** all shouldn't be forced to make decisions about things they know **** all about, it's unfair on everyone. i think all policies should to at least some degree be researched by experts which is why i like my swedish system better where the process is more like this: can this be done? > research how it can be done. > present suggestion to group of judges from the supreme court to see if it's leagal. > government votes yes or no.
it's not perfect as you eventually get to the point where 300+ political representatives who, as we have stated, know **** all but what their political views of the suggestion is BUT you are almost guaranteed that the suggestions are sound since the research done is fairly neutral
it's not perfect as you eventually get to the point where 300+ political representatives who, as we have stated, know **** all but what their political views of the suggestion is BUT you are almost guaranteed that the suggestions are sound since the research done is fairly neutral
#7 to #5
-
fatminion ONLINE (08/02/2015) [-] but why can only rich people lobby for causes they care about? Shouldn't we, the people, have influence? Does anything really get accomplished if we call our governor or sign a petition? Not when Company X pledges 2.5 million in campaign contributions for the next 10 years (tax-free, btw)
#10 to #9
-
fatminion ONLINE (08/02/2015) [-] seems to be. Although he said mostly big US companies (facebook, MSFT, Apple, google) are the ones lobbying. EU law is way different than US law, and the big US companies are always trying to find loopholes to increase revenue and keep it tax-free in Europe. But the EU has always kept citizens' well-being in mind and don't bend so easily to big corporations, so it's not sooo bad. Like for instance they don't let US companies sell in the EU unless they adhere to the same rules as EU companies. That is why facebook et. al. have their headquarters in Ireland, because they still allow a second HQ to be in a tax haven, like Cayman Islands ( www.quora.com/Why-are-big-tech-companies-European-headquarters-mostly-located-in-Dublin-and-not-for-example-in-London ). Capitalism at its finest. It just sucks for us normies who don't have a billion to invest and earn 10% tax-free for literally doing NOTHING.
How do we fight this system? We don't. We vote for people who want to remove tax loopholes for big corporations and don't buy products from them (if we can - I unfortunately had to break down and buy a few used Apple items for testing purposes in my line of work), and we just enjoy our lives. If corporate greed makes those faggots happy, then let them be. I'm just happy with a moderate income, good friends, good beer and music.
How do we fight this system? We don't. We vote for people who want to remove tax loopholes for big corporations and don't buy products from them (if we can - I unfortunately had to break down and buy a few used Apple items for testing purposes in my line of work), and we just enjoy our lives. If corporate greed makes those faggots happy, then let them be. I'm just happy with a moderate income, good friends, good beer and music.
#38 to #4
-
anon (08/03/2015) [-]
This is completely pointless. Lobbyists are completely unnecessary for the reason that you described. Why? Because all Congress needs to do is look at public opinion. Think back to the initial graph. if 80 percent of americans want something, it should have an 80 percent chance of being passed. That's what a democracy is. Politicians don't need training from experts, they don't even really need to understand the issues. They just need to be the voice and will of the people. That's their job.
#40 to #38
-
voltkills (08/03/2015) [-] What you just described is called direct democracy, its horrifically inneficaint and incredibly costly. "all congress needs to do is look to the will of the people" well that requires extensive polls and surveys, from all groups from all over the US, to bee perfect you would need a nation-wide vote on everything, you simply cant do that in a country of 300 million people. Even doing small polls would prove ineffective, and would be incredibly easy to rig or to influence to skew the results massively.
#46 to #44
-
voltkills (08/03/2015) [-] No idea what you think they are but they are just groups of congressmen, who are assigned to commites on an almost random basis, and certainly nothing to do with knowledge on the subject, yes they are assigned a specific topic to work on but the congressmen themselves still dont know **** about it, hence why they need outside help, infact committees are one of the most common places for lobbyists to lobby, as it is where the professional industry advice is most needed.
#6 to #4
-
fatminion ONLINE (08/02/2015) [-] instead of lobbying couldn't we just have independent research presented to them so politicians can make informed decisions? Like, instead of the AARP (who largely consists of right-wing cranky old people) or the NRA or Google/MSFT lobbying for laws which will 100% help them out, couldn't we have independent research that shows the pros and cons and cost vs. benefit of the proposed bills? I just think it's kinda scary that big corporations and big groups of people have the power to purchase lobbyists but the common man does not.
My friend actually is a lobbying consultant for the EU parliament, and the stories he has are sometimes scary. He's working on some traffic law **** right now, and it's being paid for by some big trucking companies. Their interest in is reducing fines and costs for their drivers - like if they speed in Germany but originate in Spain, then they want to pay the Spain fine (which is considerably less) and they want to abolish speed limits after a certain hour and allow oversized trucks to drive at night and allow drivers to drive more than 8 hours at a time. These are serious health risks - driving too long and at fast night where visibility is bad is proven to increase accident frequency. And allowing lower fees basically ***** over the country where the infringement occurs and can actually encourage speeding. But of course he has to write the proposal/study based on finance **** : allowing 2 extra hours a day of driving would mean 25% increase in profit and bla-bla. And because my friend is paid by the trucking companies, my friend couldn't present his findings in an objective way. He gets paid to do the bidding of the companies and not the people of the EU. If these proposals go through, trucking companies might save money, but will our highways be any safer? Probably not.
So THAT, my friend, is why lobbying (the way it is) is not good.
What do you think about my independent research lobbying? Like, an extra layer between - companies (and even individuals or small independent groups) can write proposals and give them all to a "plausability team" or something. The ones that make it through (are legitimate and not super absurd, like "jew tax" or something) go on to be tested and analyzed by teams of researchers, and the good ones presented to congress without bias. Probably the research teams would have to be government-funded, so that there are no conflicting interests - just the best for the people - but they need to be good at what they do. PhD students, retirees from the industry with tons of experience.
My friend actually is a lobbying consultant for the EU parliament, and the stories he has are sometimes scary. He's working on some traffic law **** right now, and it's being paid for by some big trucking companies. Their interest in is reducing fines and costs for their drivers - like if they speed in Germany but originate in Spain, then they want to pay the Spain fine (which is considerably less) and they want to abolish speed limits after a certain hour and allow oversized trucks to drive at night and allow drivers to drive more than 8 hours at a time. These are serious health risks - driving too long and at fast night where visibility is bad is proven to increase accident frequency. And allowing lower fees basically ***** over the country where the infringement occurs and can actually encourage speeding. But of course he has to write the proposal/study based on finance **** : allowing 2 extra hours a day of driving would mean 25% increase in profit and bla-bla. And because my friend is paid by the trucking companies, my friend couldn't present his findings in an objective way. He gets paid to do the bidding of the companies and not the people of the EU. If these proposals go through, trucking companies might save money, but will our highways be any safer? Probably not.
So THAT, my friend, is why lobbying (the way it is) is not good.
What do you think about my independent research lobbying? Like, an extra layer between - companies (and even individuals or small independent groups) can write proposals and give them all to a "plausability team" or something. The ones that make it through (are legitimate and not super absurd, like "jew tax" or something) go on to be tested and analyzed by teams of researchers, and the good ones presented to congress without bias. Probably the research teams would have to be government-funded, so that there are no conflicting interests - just the best for the people - but they need to be good at what they do. PhD students, retirees from the industry with tons of experience.
#35
-
anon (08/03/2015) [-]
Simple solution: Limit what the government can do. This limits what private interests could lobby for.
#1
-
anon (08/02/2015) [-]
Nnnoooooo. See, there was a day when SLAVERY was 100% popular... you can get massive support from voters today for the banning of hydrogen dioxide.
Government is supposed to be more than mob rule and popularity contests.
Government is supposed to be more than mob rule and popularity contests.
#20
-
secondlawprevails (08/03/2015) [-] Engineering to the rescue! Professional engineers have a code of ethics they operate by, that I think federal elected officials could learn something from.
"Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters."
"Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters."
#21 to #20
-
secondlawprevails (08/03/2015) [-] **** wrong section.
Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.
Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.
Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice.
Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.
Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.
Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.
Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice.
Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.
#22 to #21
-
secondlawprevails (08/03/2015) [-] Tldr; be honest and avoid conflicts of interest. Where conflict of interest is unavoidable, you should either excuse yourself, or make said conflict known in a clear and obvious way.
