CNN Article for the Left

[CivilDiscourse]

Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
   "his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"

[shunyadragon]

Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
   "his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"

You are an expert of this fine practice.

[CivilDiscourse]

You are an expert of this fine practice.

Have you figured out how i've addressed your question like 3 times yet? Or are you still failing to grasp analogies very well.

[shunyadragon]

Have you figured out how i've addressed your question like 3 times yet? Or are you still failing to grasp analogies very well.

Address the subject and not shadows. You have addressed to without severe bias. As far as I am concerned both parties simply follow the laws as is. Demo crates proposed a solution, and the Republicans rejected it, and not propose an alternative.

[CivilDiscourse]

Address the subject and not shadows.

I'll take that as a No. Re-state your question and I'll address it plainly for you. Then you can claim I haven't addressed it again.

[shunyadragon]

I'll take that as a No. Re-state your question and I'll address it plainly for you. Then you can claim I haven't addressed it again.

Questions stand as presented, and you have failed to respond.

[Starlight]

Dictators with unbridled power are great when they are benevolent dictators, anything they want to do for the people they can do, and nobody can hamper those efforts. But, checks and balances (i.e. inefficency) aren't put in place to stop benevolent dictators, its to stop the ones that aren't so nice.

I agree that's the motivation for people putting checks and balances in place.

It's my observation that those checks and balances don't actually work to prevent malevolent dictators. Historically lots of countries copied the US system, especially in Latin America. Every one of them eventually collapsed into dictatorship. The US hasn't done that, but with the various government shutdowns due to congressional grid-lock, no one could exactly say the system is working well.

Whereas having no checks and balances has worked well for my country our entire history. So I'm very skeptical that checks and balances achieve anything at all other than to annoy the populace with regard to the inefficiencies of government. Instead my observation is that if the government is benevolent you want to give them as much power to be benevolent as possible and make them as efficient as possible, and if the democratic government is malevolent something has gone horribly horribly wrong in your society and your culture that is far more fundamentally broken than what a few checks and balances in government could ever hope to be a bulwark against.

[CivilDiscourse]

Questions stand as presented, and you have failed to respond.

Just copy/paste the question, so I know which one you want an answer to and I'll address it. I don't feel like going back through the posts to find exactly which one you are claiming I haven't answered. Or, you can not, and we'll agree you don't really want an answer.

[shunyadragon]

Just copy/paste the question, so I know which one you want an answer to and I'll address it. I don't feel like going back through the posts to find exactly which one you are claiming I haven't answered. Or, you can not, and we'll agree you don't really want an answer.

Already asked, no need to ask again.

[rogue06]

True. but I have the right to object to introducing moon landings in the topic.

You aren't merely objecting you are trying to tell people what they can and cannot do.

[CivilDiscourse]

Already asked, no need to ask again.

Then you aren't really concerned. I believe I answered your questions, you are claiming I have not, yet refuse to re-post the question to make sure that you and I are both sure which question you think I haven't answered. So, I'll leave the ball in your court. If you think it needs to be addressed, you'll repost. Otherwise, you don't want an answer.

I'll respond when you re-post the question.

[Stoic]

Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
   "his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"

The argument that dark money should not be legal doesn't necessarily have anything to do with moral standards or beliefs. One can argue on the basis of potential negative effects for our country, such as foreign interference in our elections. (Nothing immoral about foreign interference in our elections, as long as we're willing to put up with it.) So there is nothing hypocritical about the person making the argument accepting dark money, as long as it is legal.

[rogue06]

The argument that dark money should not be legal doesn't necessarily have anything to do with moral standards or beliefs. One can argue on the basis of potential negative effects for our country, such as foreign interference in our elections. (Nothing immoral about foreign interference in our elections, as long as we're willing to put up with it.) So there is nothing hypocritical about the person making the argument accepting dark money, as long as it is legal.

FWIU, dark money is not the same thing as corporations donating money, rather it's when nonprofit organizations, which are not required to disclose their donors, make contributions.

[CivilDiscourse]

The argument that dark money should not be legal doesn't necessarily have anything to do with moral standards or beliefs. One can argue on the basis of potential negative effects for our country, such as foreign interference in our elections. (Nothing immoral about foreign interference in our elections, as long as we're willing to put up with it.) So there is nothing hypocritical about the person making the argument accepting dark money, as long as it is legal.

And yet, democrats rail against the corrupting influence of dark money. I guess a little corruption isn't so bad.

[Watermelon]

And yet, democrats rail against the corrupting influence of dark money. I guess a little corruption isn't so bad.

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison for issues that provide a competitive advantage. Like if an athlete was against a legal performance enhancing drug but had to take it to remain competitive.