The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: Dexter on November 30, 2018, 05:14:35 pm
-
Surely they couldn't be more corrupt than our current ones, right? To be clear publicly funded elections would mean kicking all of the monied interests out of the funding of political campaigns. That means no more unions and no more Koch Brothers pushing for a one world government by funding their favorite politicians. We need to get money out of politics. That's how you get more politicians that will fight for Americans rather than the rich international assholes that hired them.
-
Surely they couldn't be more corrupt than our current ones, right? To be clear publicly funded elections would mean kicking all of the monied interests out of the funding of political campaigns. That means no more unions and no more Koch Brothers pushing for a one world government by funding their favorite politicians. We need to get money out of politics. That's how you get more politicians that will fight for Americans rather than the rich international assholes that hired them.
Astounding. After 2 years of this publicly funded Mueller Crap and you're calling for MORE of it?
-
Astounding. After 2 years of this publicly funded Mueller Crap and you're calling for MORE of it?
The internationalists are the ones making life harder for Americans. It's a similar problem to our federal government imposing itself on the states. We have to stop these people. They are creating the one world government.
-
Surely they couldn't be more corrupt than our current ones, right? To be clear publicly funded elections would mean kicking all of the monied interests out of the funding of political campaigns. That means no more unions and no more Koch Brothers pushing for a one world government by funding their favorite politicians. We need to get money out of politics. That's how you get more politicians that will fight for Americans rather than the rich international assholes that hired them.
What’s your definition of “corrupt�
As far as I’m concerned, recent elections haven’t been particularly corrupt, but they have been infested with fraud coming predominantly, if not exclusively, from the democrats and the left.
And having government fund elections is simply the prequel to having government control elections, and he who controls the elections, controls the results.
Very bad idea.
-
What’s your definition of “corrupt�
As far as I’m concerned, recent elections haven’t been particularly corrupt, but they have been infested with fraud coming predominantly, if not exclusively, from the democrats and the left.
And having government fund elections is simply the prequel to having government control elections, and he who controls the elections, controls the results.
Very bad idea.
Your vote is worth dick when rich corporations are writing checks to politicians on both sides of the aisle.
-
Your vote is worth dick when rich corporations are writing checks to politicians on both sides of the aisle.
What in the hell are you putting on your Cheerios in the morning?
-
Your vote is worth dick when rich corporations are writing checks to politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Two problems with your thesis (at least):
1. Why do you think publicly funded elections will make buying politicians go out of style? The quid pro quo will simply shift elsewhere, including back to the tried-and-true of cash in brown envelopes.
2. My vote generally isn’t work whatever, except in certain local elections, because I live in a very liberal state where my vote is simply overmatched by the votes of left-wing idiots (but I repeat myself).
Publicly funded elections won’t take the corruption out of elections, it will make it a permanent state of affairs, since it will be the government who gets to choose who gets to run.
There are, of course, plenty of other problems with your position, including the fact that it takes as a given premise what is really a conclusion in need of proof: that private political contributions necessarily corrupt the politicians who receive them.
-
What in the hell are you putting your Cheerios in the morning?
Whatever it was, it sounds like it started with “d†and ended with “ickâ€.
-
1. Why do you think publicly funded elections will make buying politicians go out of style?
It might not entirely. I find it hard to believe we can't make powerful safeguards that go a long way towards preventing outside influence. Politicians should represent the people that voted for them as a whole, not some billionaire that is funding their reelection.
2. My vote generally isn’t work whatever, except in certain local elections, because I live in a very liberal state where my vote is simply overmatched by the votes of left-wing idiots (but I repeat myself).
This is exactly why the electoral college needs to go away. A lot more people would vote if their vote actually mattered. How many Republicans in New York and California don't even bother? Americans need to be in control of their government.
-
In my opinion, wealthy interest that fund campaigns are not the problem.
It is public apathy.
By law, it is disclosed who give what money to whoever.
FEC.gov, and other sites have easy lookups for the campaigns.
It is up to the citizens to "follow the money", to see if the rhetoric and voting records of the candidates match their constituents or their donors.
It can be both.
Of course, it may not be, either.
The key is an engaged citizenry, to hold politicians accountable.
But, no, I believe publicly funded elections would have similar consequences, unless the citizens pay attention, it would make no difference.
Influence peddling would still going, and may be more well hidden than it is now.
Now, it hides in plain sight, should one bother to look, due to FEC regulations and laws.
-
It might not entirely. I find it hard to believe we can't make powerful safeguards that go a long way towards preventing outside influence. Politicians should represent the people that voted for them as a whole, not some billionaire that is funding their reelection.
This is exactly why the electoral college needs to go away. A lot more people would vote if their vote actually mattered. How many Republicans in New York and California don't even bother? Americans need to be in control of their government.
Oh, no, the Electoral College needs to stay.
Imagine a country that one would need only to repeatedly campaign in the most populous cities, and ignore the rest of the country.
No presidential campaign would ever go to Iowa or New Hampshire or probably 38 more states, ever again.
The campaigns (along with winning, it's following governance) would be all about the needs of the urban areas, and only that.
And why not?
That's where the population centers, the votes, are.
-
Surely they couldn't be more corrupt than our current ones, right? To be clear publicly funded elections would mean kicking all of the monied interests out of the funding of political campaigns. That means no more unions and no more Koch Brothers pushing for a one world government by funding their favorite politicians. We need to get money out of politics. That's how you get more politicians that will fight for Americans rather than the rich international assholes that hired them.
So ... you've got another PoliSci paper due, haven't you?
-
What about the media, and in particular the owners of media? People like Bezos (who owns the Washington Post) would have enormously more power if they were the only people with money who were allowed to have a megaphone around election time.
Also, would you ban all political speech? Couldn't an outside group such as a labor union voice its opinion for or against particular candidates during an election? If so, then you are just inviting candidates to circumvent the law by enlisting outside groups to do their campaigning for them.
Like most prog ideas, it sounds good until you look at the implications, most of which severely restrict fundamental freedoms.
-
What about the media, and in particular the owners of media? People like Bezos (who owns the Washington Post) would have enormously more power if they were the only people with money who were allowed to have a megaphone around election time.
Also, would you ban all political speech? Couldn't an outside group such as a labor union voice its opinion for or against particular candidates during an election? If so, then you are just inviting candidates to circumvent the law by enlisting outside groups to do their campaigning for them.
These are things to be discussed in detail, but I don't see how we go forward as a nation when internationalists are seizing politics. These people don't give a damn about the needs of Americans. They are taking over the world. We are watching the creation of the one world government.
-
Nope.
-
No, for the reasons detailed above by TBR's many fine posters.
-
These are things to be discussed in detail, but I don't see how we go forward as a nation when internationalists are seizing politics. These people don't give a damn about the needs of Americans. They are taking over the world. We are watching the creation of the one world government.
Based on what I am seeing in Britain, France, the USA and other places around the world I don't think the internationalists are winning. They would be the first to support public financing of campaigns.
-
They would be the first to support public financing of campaigns.
I'm pretty sure Britain and France have publicly funded elections. Why would big businesses trying to take over politics prefer it that way?
-
I'm pretty sure Britain and France have publicly funded elections. Why would big businesses trying to take over politics prefer it that way?
Put Down the Crack Pipe, Please!
Public Funding means Public/GOVT Administered.
Big Business would Love to be able to have That much Power in so few hands.
They could buy and sell them for peanuts.
-
What do you mean by "publicly funded elections"? As far as I know all elections are publicly funded now...the local county elections offices. If you mean taxpayer money for political ads, forget it...not raising our taxes to get Goebbels type propaganda!!
-
Put Down the Crack Pipe, Please!
Public Funding means Public/GOVT Administered.
Big Business would Love to be able to have That much Power in so few hands.
They could buy and sell them for peanuts.
Would strict oversight not be possible? Billion dollar ad campaigns are insane man. When that's the game Joe American doesn't stand a chance of competing.
-
What do you mean by "publicly funded elections"? As far as I know all elections are publicly funded now...the local county elections offices. If you mean taxpayer money for political ads, forget it...not raising our taxes to get Goebbels type propaganda!!
No not taxpayer money for a ridiculous amount of ads. I think shitty, dishonest 20 second smear ads should be illegal. I think there should be way less ads and bullshit and WAY more public debate.
And the public debate needs to stop being scripted. We have to stop letting them be prepared with all of their answers. Debates need to be more unregulated so we can force them to answer things and think on their toes.
-
Would strict oversight not be possible? Billion dollar ad campaigns are insane man. When that's the game Joe American doesn't stand a chance of competing.
Oversight?????
By yet Another Mueller?
Look at all the 'oversight' investigations Congress blows their cork about.
And What happens to them?
Nothing, as the investigators go chasing off after the next bright shiny piece of News Face Time.
-
Oversight?????
By yet Another Mueller?
Look at all the 'oversight' investigations Congress blows their cork about.
And What happens to them?
Nothing, as the investigators go chasing off after the next bright shiny piece of News Face Time.
There has to be a way to make everyday Americans more competitive in politics. The barrier to entry is too high.
-
There has to be a way to make everyday Americans more competitive in politics. The barrier to entry is too high.
The obvious way is to de-tune the value of the campaigns. If people quit listening to the bullshit they sling on the stump and actually vote on their records (as real conservatives are already wont to do).
Then the campaigning would do little to spin the debate, politicians would have a hard time winning, and statesmen could rise.
The money don't count for crap. It's you believing what the money pays for that is the problem.
-
It's you believing what the money pays for that is the problem.
Why do they spend billions of dollars if the money doesn't pay for that?
-
There has to be a way to make everyday Americans more competitive in politics. The barrier to entry is too high.
So? Overturn Citizens United? For starters?
Not so easy to answer with a simple yes or no, is it?
-
So? Overturn Citizens United? For starters?
Not so easy to answer with a simple yes or no, is it?
I would get rid of that bullshit in a heartbeat. It needs to go a lot further than that. Money needs to influence politics as little as possible. Your success in politics should not be dependent on how many rich people you can convince to endorse you.
-
I don't want tax money stolen from me to be spent backing candidates with whom I disagree. Simple as that. There's a Thomas Jefferson quote about that.
-
Why do they spend billions of dollars if the money doesn't pay for that?
It DOES pay... But only because stupid people don't look at records.
I really mean it - I will glance at the general agendas, but that don't mean a thing if you can't trust those that are pushing it - Why people get all verklempt over pie-in-the-sky bullshit is entirely beyond me.
-
It DOES pay... But only because stupid people don't look at records.
I really mean it - I will glance at the general agendas, but that don't mean a thing if you can't trust those that are pushing it - Why people get all verklempt over pie-in-the-sky bullshit is entirely beyond me.
It's just not realistic to expect everybody to do that. It won't happen so that's not a solution.
-
It's just not realistic to expect everybody to do that. It won't happen so that's not a solution.
It used to be. And it can be again.
-
It used to be. And it can be again.
You think?
In a country where nobody even Saw this coming?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-03/not-lovin-it-researchers-find-feces-every-mcdonalds-touchscreen-tested (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-03/not-lovin-it-researchers-find-feces-every-mcdonalds-touchscreen-tested)
-
Surely they couldn't be more corrupt than our current ones, right? To be clear publicly funded elections would mean kicking all of the monied interests out of the funding of political campaigns. That means no more unions and no more Koch Brothers pushing for a one world government by funding their favorite politicians. We need to get money out of politics. That's how you get more politicians that will fight for Americans rather than the rich international assholes that hired them.
Beto would be a senator and Hillary would be President if money could buy elections.
You are opposed to the 1st amendment.
I'll keep it thank you.
-
You think?
In a country where nobody even Saw this coming?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-03/not-lovin-it-researchers-find-feces-every-mcdonalds-touchscreen-tested (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-03/not-lovin-it-researchers-find-feces-every-mcdonalds-touchscreen-tested)
YES. If the lie is exposed, the truth becomes viral.
-
That's why we have immune systems.
There's shit everywhere.