Top Priorities

[Foxfyre]

Everyone who wants to run should be able to run and on the ballot.

They are.

But, they are excluded from nationally televised debates.

Good luck finding their names associated with one of the levers you get to pull on the voting machines.

That's because they don't all obtain all the necessary signatures they need to get on the ballot in all 50 states. So we might get to vote on a candidate here in New Mexico that won't be on the ballot on your state. The GOP and Democratic Party is well organized in all 50 states and each state organization makes sure the national candidate gets on the ballot.

 

[Spoonman]

They have to be showing at least 15% support in national polls.

Why not 5%? or 10%

How do they gain NATIONAL support if they are not allowed to NATIONALLY televise themselves and their ideas?

Obviously, fucking EVERYONE cannot be on national TV, but why not simply put the Top 10? For christssakes, if American Idol can do it, why can't Presidential Candidates?

It's easy. They sell their souls to a corporate sponsor like the rest of the already elected officials have.

 

[Samson]

They have to be showing at least 15% support in national polls.

Why not 5%? or 10%

How do they gain NATIONAL support if they are not allowed to NATIONALLY televise themselves and their ideas?

Obviously, fucking EVERYONE cannot be on national TV, but why not simply put the Top 10? For christssakes, if American Idol can do it, why can't Presidential Candidates?

It's easy. They sell their souls to a corporate sponsor like the rest of the already elected officials have.

I didn't see the Nike ad during the Presidential Debates, or the Budwieser Logo on the back of McCain's Sport's Jacket.

 

[Avorysuds]

2 wars and a possible third, illegal immigration being one of the passionate issues for most Americans and yet these 2 issues are not even on this list.

Now, if it were Bush was still in office I’m sure these 2 issues would be on this list haha.

Also, is it really that had for the POTUS to focus on more than a single issue at a time?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why not 5%? or 10%

How do they gain NATIONAL support if they are not allowed to NATIONALLY televise themselves and their ideas?

Obviously, fucking EVERYONE cannot be on national TV, but why not simply put the Top 10? For christssakes, if American Idol can do it, why can't Presidential Candidates?

It's easy. They sell their souls to a corporate sponsor like the rest of the already elected officials have.

I didn't see the Nike ad during the Presidential Debates, or the Budwieser Logo on the back of McCain's Sport's Jacket.

I don't buy the corporate sponsor theory either. I think all Presidential candidates are based on ideology. One exception was Ross Perot who had the charisma and intrigue to generate national interest and then literally built a poltiical party from the grass roots to support him. He challenged his supporters to put him on the ballot in all 50 states and then he would agree to run and they did. He had such universal support the GOP and Democrats had to include him in the debates where he did very well.

Had he not wigged out and gone nuts, I think he very well might have been elected but he shot himself in the foot by quitting and then trying to get back in. Evenso Clinton who was elected only got 43% of the vote.

But most of the more obscure candidates are raised up by the more obscure political parties such as the Greens and Libertarians, or they find a small obscure political party to take them on as a candidate.

 

[Spoonman]

Why not 5%? or 10%

How do they gain NATIONAL support if they are not allowed to NATIONALLY televise themselves and their ideas?

Obviously, fucking EVERYONE cannot be on national TV, but why not simply put the Top 10? For christssakes, if American Idol can do it, why can't Presidential Candidates?

It's easy. They sell their souls to a corporate sponsor like the rest of the already elected officials have.

I didn't see the Nike ad during the Presidential Debates, or the Budwieser Logo on the back of McCain's Sport's Jacket.

Favorable legislation pays a better return on investment than advertising.

 

[Samson]

It's easy. They sell their souls to a corporate sponsor like the rest of the already elected officials have.

I didn't see the Nike ad during the Presidential Debates, or the Budwieser Logo on the back of McCain's Sport's Jacket.

Favorable legislation pays a better return on investment than advertising.

Look, BOTH CANDIDATES were COMMITTED to campaign finance reform!!

And its gonna happen as a result of.....

BIPARTISAN EFFORT!!

any fuckin' day now.....


just wait.


Maybe tomorrow....

or, the next day....


or the day after.

 

[Spoonman]

I didn't see the Nike ad during the Presidential Debates, or the Budwieser Logo on the back of McCain's Sport's Jacket.

Favorable legislation pays a better return on investment than advertising.

Look, BOTH CANDIDATES were COMMITTED to campaign finance reform!!

And its gonna happen as a result of.....

BIPARTISAN EFFORT!!

any fuckin' day now.....


just wait.


Maybe tomorrow....

or, the next day....


or the day after.

Obama should be commited. Wait, this isn't the coffee thread is it? As long as it is legal for politicians to gain from legislation they pass we are doomed. There's a word for it and for the life of me I can't think of it right now. They are in bed with teir financers. They profit from legislation they past. The best, the yahoos they put to oversee the Toyota issues. The congressman who convinced Toyota to build their assembly plant in his state and another Congresswoman who's husband's company supplied the stereos to Toyota for their cars. I mean WTF?

 

[Foxfyre]

As long as it is legal for politicians to gain from legislation they pass we are doomed.

Ah, a soul brother!!!!!

This is the drum I've been beating for years now. As long as our fearless leaders are able to increase their own power, prestige, influence, longegivity, and/or personal fortunes via the legislation that they pass, we are not going to see any of the problems seriously addressed, much less fixed.

The only way to remedy that is to pull the plug and make it illegal for Congress or the President to distribute favors or benefits to ANY special group. That would require returning the duties of Congress to what they were prior to Teddy Roosevelt and making sure they don't overstep those bounds again.

 

[Spoonman]

As long as it is legal for politicians to gain from legislation they pass we are doomed.

Ah, a soul brother!!!!!

This is the drum I've been beating for years now. As long as our fearless leaders are able to increase their own power, prestige, influence, longegivity, and/or personal fortunes via the legislation that they pass, we are not going to see any of the problems seriously addressed, much less fixed.

The only way to remedy that is to pull the plug and make it illegal for Congress or the President to distribute favors or benefits to ANY special group. That would require returning the duties of Congress to what they were prior to Teddy Roosevelt and making sure they don't overstep those bounds again.

Collusion, that's the word. What members of Congress do would land you or I in jail if we did it on our jobs. They are above the law because they make the law. There is no check and balance, only watching each others backs. How does a guy like Charlie Rangle not end up in jail. Think you or I would be walking free? And this bastard is running for relection AND getting support from his partners in crime in Congress.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

They don't include 3rd party candicates unless they acquire a certain percentage of votes in the primaries.

No.

Each party has its own primary: How could a 3rd party candidate acquire ANY % of the votes in a Democrat or Republican Primary?

They can't really can they.

 

[antagon]

i think the role of industry and its wealth should be welcomed in our government. without it, a class of elitist lawyers would be running the country. we'd be done for.

 

[Foxfyre]

They don't include 3rd party candicates unless they acquire a certain percentage of votes in the primaries.

No.

Each party has its own primary: How could a 3rd party candidate acquire ANY % of the votes in a Democrat or Republican Primary?

They can't really can they.

Nope. And they have a hell of a time getting any traction in the debates or other similar exposure because the viable candidates, both GOP and Democrat, do their damndest to make sure nobody else becomes viable.

 

[Paulie]

My choice isn't in the list.

I'm going with the mosque as the top priority. I just don't see anything else going on right now that's even remotely as important as that.

 

[lizzie]

As long as it is legal for politicians to gain from legislation they pass we are doomed. There's a word for it and for the life of me I can't think of it right now.

As long as it is legal for corporations and individuals to gain from legislation passed by legislators, we are doomed. The word for it is corruption. It starts at the bottom and goes all the way to the top.

 

[Spoonman]

As long as it is legal for politicians to gain from legislation they pass we are doomed. There's a word for it and for the life of me I can't think of it right now.

As long as it is legal for corporations and individuals to gain from legislation passed by legislators, we are doomed. The word for it is corruption. It starts at the bottom and goes all the way to the top.

You know I remembered the word before and now I forgot it again. Corruption fits. This is why every piece of legislation should be voted on based on it's own merrits. No more bundling of bills so congessman can say well I was only voting to support the troops when I gave Corp XYZ a free pass on taxes for the next 20 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

My vote of course was for No. 1 up there as the ONLY #1 priority; however, it covers so many other things that it is almost cheating to check just that one.

For instance, let's hope we get enough conservatives/moderates whether GOP or Democrat into Congress in 2010 to stop healthcare reform before we are so completely screwed and/or it is so convoluted that it will be almost impossible to untangle.

For instance, I just became aware of:

Private insurance is going up already to the tune of 20% to 28% per year and will continue to do so in advance of the much heavier risk and cost to insurance companies once all the provisions of the healthcare reform kick in. That of course will likely provide incentive to implement the public option in a way that private insurance will be crowded out and we will have 100% socialized medicine. Some of you no doubt want that outcome. A lot of us do not.

And, there is the Avastin controversy. The FDA approved this drug a few years ago and it is now prescribed every year to around 18,000 women who have breast cancer. It has critics and also those who swear by it. It is an option to help breast cancer patients while not a cure as such. But though Medicare only covers about 40% of the cost, it is very expensive.

The administration does not wish to include that cost in Medicare when the 'reforms' fully kick in but it has pledged not to reduce any benefits.

So. . . .it is looking to have the FDA DISAPPROVE the drug so that nobody can get it. That way they don't have to deny benefits. Won't bother anybody except breast cancer patients who are benefitting from the drug.

That is a probable red flag of how it is going to be in a lot of areas.

 

[Greenbeard]

And, there is the Avastin controversy. The FDA approved this drug a few years ago and it is now prescribed every year to around 18,000 women who have breast cancer. It has critics and also those who swear by it. It is an option to help breast cancer patients while not a cure as such. But though Medicare only covers about 40% of the cost, it is very expensive.

The administration does not wish to include that cost in Medicare when the 'reforms' fully kick in but it has pledged not to reduce any benefits.

So. . . .it is looking to have the FDA DISAPPROVE the drug so that nobody can get it. That way they don't have to deny benefits. Won't bother anybody except breast cancer patients who are benefitting from the drug.

The follow-up studies showing little evidence of effectiveness were sponsored by the drug's manufacturer, Roche. Are you suggesting the administration somehow tampered with the drug manufacturer's clinical trials?

 

[lizzie]

The administration does not wish to include that cost in Medicare when the 'reforms' fully kick in but it has pledged not to reduce any benefits.

So. . . .it is looking to have the FDA DISAPPROVE the drug so that nobody can get it. That way they don't have to deny benefits. Won't bother anybody except breast cancer patients who are benefitting from the drug.

That is a probable red flag of how it is going to be in a lot of areas.

Wow- this is the first I've heard about, and this is what I call sleazy. No surprise to me, but it's pretty crappy of them to do it.

 

[Foxfyre]

And, there is the Avastin controversy. The FDA approved this drug a few years ago and it is now prescribed every year to around 18,000 women who have breast cancer. It has critics and also those who swear by it. It is an option to help breast cancer patients while not a cure as such. But though Medicare only covers about 40% of the cost, it is very expensive.

The administration does not wish to include that cost in Medicare when the 'reforms' fully kick in but it has pledged not to reduce any benefits.

So. . . .it is looking to have the FDA DISAPPROVE the drug so that nobody can get it. That way they don't have to deny benefits. Won't bother anybody except breast cancer patients who are benefitting from the drug.

The follow-up studies showing little evidence of effectiveness were sponsored by the drug's manufacturer, Roche. Are you suggesting the administration somehow tampered with the drug manufacturer's clinical trials?

The evidence is still out on this drug but there are many both doctors and patients who believe the drug to be beneficial. Others are more doubtful. If you read my full post you would have seen that. And would have been perhaps more ethical in your response.

I am saying that the Administration is putting pressure on the FDA to unapprove the drug. That doesn't require tampering. That just requires abuse of power for unethical motives.