Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
About that transparency issue in political advertising; there are people and businesses that have been targeted by opposition groups for supporting a candidate or party, to the point where they withdrew their support. Why should a business or person not have the right to free speech with privacy, same as your right to vote in private?
Why should they be able to tempt politicians in private? They're only human! Take the temptation away and support public financing. It'll cost us less in the long run.
Not seeing the solution here as working. What're you saying, a PAC or supper PAC could no longer fund and run political ads? Freedom of speech dude, doesn't sound constitutional to me.
They're going to tempt the pols in private anyway, and besides, I have a problem with using my tax dollars on political ads.
In the 70's and 80's Americans wages stayed stagnated but since Americans could no longer afford to live comfortably like their parents this strange new thing happened called "credit cards". So that you can live beyond your means since your means have been in a free fall.
Now the average american has more debt than income. Yea Credit!
Average credit card debt is about $3500 per household. I'd hardly call that living beyond your means.
I would. What interest rate is being paid on that average credit card debt? How much is that debt increasing every month? Living beyond your means is when you spend more than you take in; the occasional splurge is okay if you can pay it back fairly quickly, but if you're making permanent monthly interest payments then you ain't living within your means.
Why should they be able to tempt politicians in private? They're only human! Take the temptation away and support public financing. It'll cost us less in the long run.
Not seeing the solution here as working. What're you saying, a PAC or supper PAC could no longer fund and run political ads? Freedom of speech dude, doesn't sound constitutional to me.
They're going to tempt the pols in private anyway, and besides, I have a problem with using my tax dollars on political ads.
A Constitutional amendment wouldn't be constitutional? Nobody's abridging anyone's speech, just where they're getting the money
What would they tempt them with? If they take a bribe, they're risking jail.
You'd oppose using tax dollars, even if it saved money in the long run? I don't see where the problem lies, since your candidate would have the same opportunity as anyone else.
Average credit card debt is about $3500 per household. I'd hardly call that living beyond your means.
I would. What interest rate is being paid on that average credit card debt? How much is that debt increasing every month? Living beyond your means is when you spend more than you take in; the occasional splurge is okay if you can pay it back fairly quickly, but if you're making permanent monthly interest payments then you ain't living within your means.
I have no idea. But no one think $3500 in debt is outrageous.
Needs are irrelevant and entirely subjective.Platitudinous non sequitur.I see. Then, since in 1800, we had no FAA, we don't need anybody making sure the planes are flying safely? And there was not Interstate highway system then, either. So let's just let that decay? It ain't 1800 anymore. Things have changed a bit in the last two hundred years.
What does the date in time have to do with anything?
A very great deal. We are hardly the same nation or society that we were in 1800, 1850, or 1900, for that matter. Our individual needs, and those of society are very differant.
Why should they be able to tempt politicians in private? They're only human! Take the temptation away and support public financing. It'll cost us less in the long run.
Not seeing the solution here as working. What're you saying, a PAC or supper PAC could no longer fund and run political ads? Freedom of speech dude, doesn't sound constitutional to me.
They're going to tempt the pols in private anyway, and besides, I have a problem with using my tax dollars on political ads.
A Constitutional amendment wouldn't be constitutional? Nobody's abridging anyone's speech, just where they're getting the money
Step 1 in any lasting stability in our economy is fair and simple taxes. Addressing government spending before we settle on a fair way to collect government revenues is a waste of time and resources.
Step 1.1 is transparency in politics - it's time that responsibility for ALL political advertising be assumed by a living human or board of living humans as it is aired. There's nothing wrong with unlimited spending in politics, as long as all ads are signed by their promoters.
Discuss.
Or post a new political topic.Just remember not to call another member an idiot or a liar simply because they disagree with you.
Uh oh, could be a short thread!
Step 1- I agree, tax reform is overdue. We can't decide what we can spend until we know what we're getting.
Step 1.1- Disagree. I'd like to see public financing of elections. The signing of ads presumes people are going to pay attention. I'd prefer a system in which politicians would have fewer expensive promises to keep in order to get campaign contributions.
How is it possible for a free people to be restricted in how much they can spend on politics? The only answer is for those spending the money to be accountable by name, and not allowed to hide behind corporate paper. Restricting the resources one can spend on speech is tantamount to restricting speech outright.
Uh oh, could be a short thread!
Step 1- I agree, tax reform is overdue. We can't decide what we can spend until we know what we're getting.
Step 1.1- Disagree. I'd like to see public financing of elections. The signing of ads presumes people are going to pay attention. I'd prefer a system in which politicians would have fewer expensive promises to keep in order to get campaign contributions.
How is it possible for a free people to be restricted in how much they can spend on politics? The only answer is for those spending the money to be accountable by name, and not allowed to hide behind corporate paper. Restricting the resources one can spend on speech is tantamount to restricting speech outright.
Well over 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money.
Unless you can make an argument that there is no cause and effect in there, you have to acknowledge that those who possess the most money have wildly disproportionate power in our government.
What we end up with in place of a democratic system is a wealth-based hierarchy.
The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd.
How is it possible for a free people to be restricted in how much they can spend on politics? The only answer is for those spending the money to be accountable by name, and not allowed to hide behind corporate paper. Restricting the resources one can spend on speech is tantamount to restricting speech outright.
Well over 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money.
Unless you can make an argument that there is no cause and effect in there, you have to acknowledge that those who possess the most money have wildly disproportionate power in our government.
What we end up with in place of a democratic system is a wealth-based hierarchy.
The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd.
The Constitution does not make life fair.
" The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd. "
If you don't have free speech, you don't have a democracy.
I dont think most people can't pay their credit card bill. If that were the case card issuers would quit doing it.
Thats funny
Not seeing the solution here as working. What're you saying, a PAC or supper PAC could no longer fund and run political ads? Freedom of speech dude, doesn't sound constitutional to me.
They're going to tempt the pols in private anyway, and besides, I have a problem with using my tax dollars on political ads.
A Constitutional amendment wouldn't be constitutional? Nobody's abridging anyone's speech, just where they're getting the money
A Constitutional amendment would be constitutional. Until then, Congress shall make no laws abridging speech.
And you are dead wrong about money not being speech, at least in terms of trying to use 'backdoor' laws to squash speech you don't like by defunding it.
Buckley v. Valeo
Well over 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money.
Unless you can make an argument that there is no cause and effect in there, you have to acknowledge that those who possess the most money have wildly disproportionate power in our government.
What we end up with in place of a democratic system is a wealth-based hierarchy.
The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd.
The Constitution does not make life fair.
No, but it can eliinate inequality in the system itself without taking away a single freedom from anybody.
All we need is a constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress or anybody in the federal government from passing any law or using the people's money to benefit any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not equally benefit everybody else regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or demographics. With that simple action:
1. You take career politicans out of the equation and reinstall true public servants.
2. You take corporate money out of elections because government can no longer repay corporations.
3. You take most of the lobbyists out of the system.
4. You rein in the unions who won't be able to use the government to keep them in power.
5. And you take ability to buy votes out of the system so that the people have incentive to elect those who will do the right things for the country again instead of just voting for those who will keep the freebies coming.
Well over 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money.
Unless you can make an argument that there is no cause and effect in there, you have to acknowledge that those who possess the most money have wildly disproportionate power in our government.
What we end up with in place of a democratic system is a wealth-based hierarchy.
The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd.
The Constitution does not make life fair.
No, but it can eliinate inequality in the system itself without taking away a single freedom from anybody.
All we need is a constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress or anybody in the federal government from passing any law or using the people's money to benefit any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not equally benefit everybody else regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or demographics. With that simple action:
1. You take career politicans out of the equation and reinstall true public servants.
2. You take corporate money out of elections because government can no longer repay corporations.
3. You take most of the lobbyists out of the system.
4. You rein in the unions who won't be able to use the government to keep them in power.
5. And you take ability to buy votes out of the system so that the people have incentive to elect those who will do the right things for the country again instead of just voting for those who will keep the freebies coming.
Not seeing the solution here as working. What're you saying, a PAC or supper PAC could no longer fund and run political ads? Freedom of speech dude, doesn't sound constitutional to me.
They're going to tempt the pols in private anyway, and besides, I have a problem with using my tax dollars on political ads.
A Constitutional amendment wouldn't be constitutional? Nobody's abridging anyone's speech, just where they're getting the money
What would they tempt them with? If they take a bribe, they're risking jail.
You'd oppose using tax dollars, even if it saved money in the long run? I don't see where the problem lies, since your candidate would have the same opportunity as anyone else.
I am not understanding your argument at all. What're you saying, you would ban private campaign donations or super PACs? Even if you could get it through Congress, I suspect the SCOTUS would throw it out, 9-0. They've already said individuals and corps have the right to contribute money to the candidate or party of their choice, or form super PACS and run independent political ads under the 1st amendment. You wanna take away that right? I don't think so, money is speech according to the SCOTUS.
You're gonna have to explain to me how your idea saves any money. Ain't saving any of my money, I don't give squat to any of 'em.
What a crock of shit.A Constitutional amendment wouldn't be constitutional? Nobody's abridging anyone's speech, just where they're getting the money
What would they tempt them with? If they take a bribe, they're risking jail.
You'd oppose using tax dollars, even if it saved money in the long run? I don't see where the problem lies, since your candidate would have the same opportunity as anyone else.
I am not understanding your argument at all. What're you saying, you would ban private campaign donations or super PACs? Even if you could get it through Congress, I suspect the SCOTUS would throw it out, 9-0. They've already said individuals and corps have the right to contribute money to the candidate or party of their choice, or form super PACS and run independent political ads under the 1st amendment. You wanna take away that right? I don't think so, money is speech according to the SCOTUS.
You're gonna have to explain to me how your idea saves any money. Ain't saving any of my money, I don't give squat to any of 'em.
Do you keep bleeping over CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?!?1
It would save you money, because politicians wouldn't be making backdoor deals that raise the budget and taxes.
I am not understanding your argument at all. What're you saying, you would ban private campaign donations or super PACs? Even if you could get it through Congress, I suspect the SCOTUS would throw it out, 9-0. They've already said individuals and corps have the right to contribute money to the candidate or party of their choice, or form super PACS and run independent political ads under the 1st amendment. You wanna take away that right? I don't think so, money is speech according to the SCOTUS.
You're gonna have to explain to me how your idea saves any money. Ain't saving any of my money, I don't give squat to any of 'em.
Do you keep bleeping over CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?!?1
It would save you money, because politicians wouldn't be making backdoor deals that raise the budget and taxes.
What a crock of shit.
Name just on thing that the feds have ever taken over that has ever saved a dime.
