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.
A government that can be bought by the country's money interests can pretty much steal anything it wants.
Thats free speech....I am smart enough to make up my own mind and dont need commercials to show me what to think.
Is passing out Hustler magazines to children free speech?
Total crap.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 primary purpose of the Constitution is to make life as fair as possible.
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 primary purpose of the Constitution is to make life as fair as possible.
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.
Shaddap and name it.
Oh yeah....There ain't one.
You cant be a free nation when you wish to censor people by denying them the ability to support their candidate.
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?!?!
It would save you money, because politicians wouldn't be making backdoor deals that raise the budget and taxes.
Wouldn't it be great if that were true. But it ain't. Deals are going to get made one way or another, even if private campaign donations and PACs were illegal.
I'm kind of glossing over the CA, cuz it just ain't going to happen. There's no way the pols in DC, both sides, are ever going to pass that. And even if they did the SCOTUS would declare it to be unconstitutional. You don't think somebody is not going to challenge it? They ruled in Citizens v United that money is speech. Get over it.
You cant be a free nation when you wish to censor people by denying them the ability to support their candidate.
Nobody's censoring anybody. Your candidate would be able to say whatever he/she wanted. I don't see the problem.
Just as I figured...You cannot name any because there are none....Speaking of over your head.Shaddap and name it.
Oh yeah....There ain't one.
NO, not playing your little games. What don't you understand about being civil? Your question was off-topic anyway. Nice try but you're going to have to find your own level. you're apparently over your head here!
" 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.
You don't have a democracy if the rich can control or heavily influence the outcome of elections.
Free speech has never been unlimited, btw.
We are not a democracy we are a republic.
You cant be a free nation when you wish to censor people by denying them the ability to support their candidate.
Nobody's censoring anybody. Your candidate would be able to say whatever he/she wanted. I don't see the problem.
But restrictions on expenditures is close to restriction of freedom of expression.
The onus is on you to come up with the example, pal.
You made the claim, now back it up.
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.
1. We have a tax code in place. If we wait till it is deemed fair before we address spending what's the point since we will never agree on "fair"
2. Agreed
What you're talking about is restricting free speech and access to the ballots.Nobody's censoring anybody. Your candidate would be able to say whatever he/she wanted. I don't see the problem.
But restrictions on expenditures is close to restriction of freedom of expression.
What restrictions on expenditures? This is about restricting, actually eliminating, private contributions.
Wrong...You made the absurd claim, now back it up.The onus is on you to come up with the example, pal.
You made the claim, now back it up.
You first. You made the claim that no money could be saved by my idea. I don't really see it. If politicians have fewer expensive promises to keep, how can that not save money?
What you're talking about is restricting free speech and access to the ballots.But restrictions on expenditures is close to restriction of freedom of expression.
What restrictions on expenditures? This is about restricting, actually eliminating, private contributions.
If you think that the ruling class (D)&(R) political duopoly is going to make it easier for other political parties to compete for what they see as rightfully theirs, you are incomprehensibly naïve.
Wrong...You made the absurd claim, now back it up.The onus is on you to come up with the example, pal.
You made the claim, now back it up.
You first. You made the claim that no money could be saved by my idea. I don't really see it. If politicians have fewer expensive promises to keep, how can that not save money?
