2012 U.S. Presidency

DeletedUser

Well, I hope what you asked was what exactly makes lobbyists serve the American people best. And the answer is they don't, that's the job of a politician elected by his constituents. However, many politicians either don't have the knowledge or are ignorant and for better or for worse lobbyists fill the gap. The lobbyists reminds the politician about his constituents' concerns and gets him to act in their favor. If there are multiple lobbyists arguing different viewpoints the politician picks the one with the best merit.
 

DeletedUser

I do not "ask", that is what you are implying!
Quote lafittejean
"If there are multiple lobbyists arguing different viewpoints the politician picks the one with the best merit."
Have you been living under a rock???
 

DeletedUser16008

mmmm do you honestly think it even matters anymore ? the one with the most campaign money is my bet, probably both sides have the same sponsors anyway..

Sorry guy n gals but every 4 years i see this crap about the US presidency come up y'all wave the flag a bit and act like it makes any difference you elect someone and they do absolutely nothing other than shuffle the same old faces around a bit, make promises they have no intention of keeping and start making plans for the future coming multi million dollar kickbacks they can get ...rigged both sides by the same backers who gives a rats who wins nothing changes.

American elections I hate with a passion.

Sad thing is the moment a candidate comes up thats worthy and willing to do whats required rather than whats popular they will be assassinated same as always....
 

DeletedUser

lafittejean said:
Well, I hope what you asked was what exactly makes lobbyists serve the American people best. And the answer is they don't, that's the job of a politician elected by his constituents. However, many politicians either don't have the knowledge or are ignorant and for better or for worse lobbyists fill the gap. The lobbyists reminds the politician about his constituents' concerns and gets him to act in their favor. If there are multiple lobbyists arguing different viewpoints the politician picks the one with the best merit.
Click to expand...
Going to have to agree with Sweede here. Lafitte, "have you been living under a rock!?!"

As Victor indicated, while lobbyists are limited in their ability to provide "gifts," they can and do offer promises of campaign financing. Those lobbyists who fail to deliver, ultimately fail to be heard. It's not even remotely so simple and pristine as, "lobbyists reminding the politician about his constituents' concerns."
 

DeletedUser

what a way to have a career, eh? you start off very idealistic and then get slammed with the need the win campaigns.......and there's the devil waiting in the corner ready to make a deal with you......
 

DeletedUser

Well, I certainly have not been living under a rock. It bothers me a little, yes there are lobbyists who are manipulative. But, does it come down to, we hear about all the bad things and never the good things? After all, is there any proof that lobbyists who play dirty are the biggest, most influential, and most common of lobbying organizations? Perhaps we only hear about the ones that play dirty because they get caught playing dirty while the ones who get things done legally and and are effectively doing their jobs get no attention because they're boring.
 

DeletedUser

just look up the numbers of lobbyists from all of the different groups out there. guess who are the most numerous and onerous? that's right, big corps just trying to make an extra $5B profit......
 

DeletedUser

Please provide proof, I know it might seem like a whiny card but show me the lobbyist database you found that proves your argument.
 

DeletedUser

lafittejean said:
Well, I certainly have not been living under a rock. It bothers me a little, yes there are lobbyists who are manipulative. But, does it come down to, we hear about all the bad things and never the good things? After all, is there any proof that lobbyists who play dirty are the biggest, most influential, and most common of lobbying organizations? Perhaps we only hear about the ones that play dirty because they get caught playing dirty while the ones who get things done legally and and are effectively doing their jobs get no attention because they're boring.
Click to expand...
Lafitte, you assume they're playing dirty, they're not. It's all legal.
 

DeletedUser

rice farmer said:
just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not dirty.
Click to expand...
That was not Lafitte's assertion.

He stated, "Perhaps we only hear about the ones that play dirty because they get caught playing dirty while the ones who get things done legally and and are effectively doing their jobs get no attention because they're boring."

If it's legal, it's legal. But to argue "dirty" is an argument on moral perspectives, which has no bearing on Lafitte's assertions (and, frankly, little to do with this debate). Hmm, let me put it this way...

/critical thinking course on

Lafitte is repeatedly presenting false premises to create erroneous argumentative foundations, which he subsequently uses to make a series of invalid assertions. It's a common logical fallacy, but it is a greater fallacy to argue those very same invalid assertions. Far more practical to point out the false premises and/or erroneous foundations.

/critical thinking course off
 

DeletedUser

/critical thinking hw on

none of this has anything to do w/ 2012 us presidency.....

/critical thinking hw off
 

DeletedUser

Which is yet another example of fallacious reasoning, by posing tangential arguments, thereby causing a debate to go off topic. But this particular examination of the fallacies of these arguments, in and of itself, serves as a tangent and thus a distraction.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
Which is yet another example of fallacious reasoning, by posing tangential arguments, thereby causing a debate to go off topic. But this particular examination of the fallacies of these arguments, in and of itself, serves as a tangent and thus a distraction.
Click to expand...
so is this.......moving on, will obama run for a second term or not?
 

DeletedUser

What if a Mack truck runs you over tomorrow? What if there is no tomorrow? What if Batman is real?

What is the point in speculating that "what if," particularly when it's pretty dang obvious he's going to go a second term.
 

DeletedUser

You, never know. Things after all are never certain until they're done. Well, except for the fact that everyone dies. Taxes too maybe, but people can ignore them provided they can run fast enough. So I suppose the 2012 election could go to either party. After all, I think the conservatives and Republicans haven't acted as firmly on their "mandate" in November than they sounded like they would. The situation overall is still the same. On the other hand the President of the United States has only manage to invade another country in that time and little else has improved. 2012, what we need is a Ouija board!
 

DeletedUser

Romney will win the primary and fail miserably in the actual election.I am rooting for Ron Paul.Only his foreign policy makes sense!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top