Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 35,378
- 20,137
- 1,915
Nor the Democrats. That would be morally reprehensible.They can't donate to the GOP. That would be just plain wrong.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nor the Democrats. That would be morally reprehensible.They can't donate to the GOP. That would be just plain wrong.
Speech that costs money isn't free.Wow!!! What happened to free speech?
Supreme Court says Google can contribute to anyone they wishCorporations are people too.
Speech that costs money isn't free.Wow!!! What happened to free speech?
That is called free speech. What has it to do with contributions to political campaigns?It makes a lot of sense I have the power to control what you put on the internet If it agrees with my political view I will allow it.That makes no sense to draw that line.Actually, I believe no one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign that works for any entity that controls the flow of information.Corporations are people too.
Supreme Court says Google can contribute to anyone they wishCorporations are people too.
Free speech? and depriving those of free speech for views I don't like?That is called free speech. What has it to do with contributions to political campaigns?It makes a lot of sense I have the power to control what you put on the internet If it agrees with my political view I will allow it.That makes no sense to draw that line.Actually, I believe no one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign that works for any entity that controls the flow of information.Corporations are people too.
It's called private property. Right wingers generally promote the freedom of the individual to do what one wants with it, without government interference. Does this no longer apply across the board? Did right wingers suddenly find the concept of relativism to their liking?Free speech? and depriving those of free speech for views I don't like?That is called free speech. What has it to do with contributions to political campaigns?It makes a lot of sense I have the power to control what you put on the internet If it agrees with my political view I will allow it.That makes no sense to draw that line.Actually, I believe no one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign that works for any entity that controls the flow of information.Corporations are people too.
so it's ok for a political party to control all information on the internet in your opinion?It's called private property. Right wingers generally promote the freedom of the individual to do what one wants with it without government interference. Does this no longer apply across the board? Did right wingers suddenly find the concept of relativism to their liking?Free speech? and depriving those of free speech for views I don't like?That is called free speech. What has it to do with contributions to political campaigns?It makes a lot of sense I have the power to control what you put on the internet If it agrees with my political view I will allow it.That makes no sense to draw that line.Actually, I believe no one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign that works for any entity that controls the flow of information.
As long as we're going to allow money to pollute & distort politics, and as long as we refuse to require term limits, this is going to happen.
We can bitch and moan about it all we want, but we're ignoring the bigger picture. We're certainly good at that.
As long as we're going to allow money to pollute & distort politics, and as long as we refuse to require term limits, this is going to happen.
We can bitch and moan about it all we want, but we're ignoring the bigger picture. We're certainly good at that.
I strongly disagree with you on term limits, Mac. You need people with experience on how the government works to get things done. Term limits throw those people out as soon as they get to the point where they could get anything done.
If you get the money out of politics with both spending limits on candidates, as well as donation limits on individuals and banning PAC's altogether, you won't need term limits. It's the obscene amounts of money needed to run for public office that are poisoning the well, and keeping politicians beholding to the biggest donors.
Citizen's United needs to be legislated out of existence, but political lobbying and fundraising is now a big bucks industry with its own lobbyists. Any time you have billionaires spending $50 million dollars funding one party, it's not healthy at all. How much more is it worth to these people to make these kinds of investments? What are these people getting in return for their money? Is it any wonder that the working people of America have been consistently screwed over since Republicans took control of the economy under Ronald Reagan?
In Canada, we had a system whereby our taxes funded the election campaigns. About $2 per person. The parties received the election money according to the number of votes received. Of when the Conservatives won the election, they cancelled this funding, and sadly, the Liberals haven't reinstated it. But it was VERY effective keeping votes from being bought by moneyed interests. Once Conservatives killed the program, wages stagnated and the wealth gap increased.
I understand that argument. As with any big change, term limits would certainly have their down side, so it's a matter weighing the good against the bad. I'm just not convinced that these people are going to change their behaviors unless we change the system in which they operate. The current system is fully weighed in the incumbents' favor, which is probably why they win a vast majority of elections. They have time to buy votes and increase their power base.As long as we're going to allow money to pollute & distort politics, and as long as we refuse to require term limits, this is going to happen.
We can bitch and moan about it all we want, but we're ignoring the bigger picture. We're certainly good at that.
I strongly disagree with you on term limits, Mac. You need people with experience on how the government works to get things done. Term limits throw those people out as soon as they get to the point where they could get anything done.
If you get the money out of politics with both spending limits on candidates, as well as donation limits on individuals and banning PAC's altogether, you won't need term limits. It's the obscene amounts of money needed to run for public office that are poisoning the well, and keeping politicians beholding to the biggest donors.
Citizen's United needs to be legislated out of existence, but political lobbying and fundraising is now a big bucks industry with its own lobbyists. Any time you have billionaires spending $50 million dollars funding one party, it's not healthy at all. How much more is it worth to these people to make these kinds of investments? What are these people getting in return for their money? Is it any wonder that the working people of America have been consistently screwed over since Republicans took control of the economy under Ronald Reagan?
In Canada, we had a system whereby our taxes funded the election campaigns. About $2 per person. The parties received the election money according to the number of votes received. Of when the Conservatives won the election, they cancelled this funding, and sadly, the Liberals haven't reinstated it. But it was VERY effective keeping votes from being bought by moneyed interests. Once Conservatives killed the program, wages stagnated and the wealth gap increased.
Political parties don't control the flow of information on the internet.so it's ok for a political party to control all information on the internet in your opinion?It's called private property. Right wingers generally promote the freedom of the individual to do what one wants with it without government interference. Does this no longer apply across the board? Did right wingers suddenly find the concept of relativism to their liking?Free speech? and depriving those of free speech for views I don't like?That is called free speech. What has it to do with contributions to political campaigns?It makes a lot of sense I have the power to control what you put on the internet If it agrees with my political view I will allow it.That makes no sense to draw that line.
I was talking about MONEY. How has that become "speech?"I don't know what term limits would solve, but I agree 100% that the best way to get representatives that don't work only for themselves is to take the money out of politics. It would be so simple. Candidates get a certain amount of money to spend from a nonpartisan pool--all get the same--and a certain amount of free media airtime. No more.Yes, under current law, of course. Our billionaires and corporations can spread as much money around as they want to get their way politically.What about Microsoft? or any internet entity that has control of the information on the internet?As long as we're going to allow money to pollute & distort politics, and as long as we refuse to require term limits, this is going to happen. We can bitch and moan about it all we want, but we're ignoring the bigger picture. We're certainly good at that.
Do I like it? No, of course not.
But that's the way it is, unless and until we stop allowing money to control our politics.
.
I think it's obscene that organizations can go to Washington and buy people's votes, but it happens every day. It's one thing to have people there trying to persuade them and another to be writing them huge checks.
Wow!!!
What happened to free speech?
You would not allow a candidate to spend his/her own money?
You would limit the content of ads?
You want the government to control campaigns?
You know the primary speech acknowledged by the first amendment is political speech.
This is why you leftists need your own country.
Yes or no.
Yes, it does when their supporters and contributors control the flow. And you wonder why we call fake news fake news.Political parties don't control the flow of information on the internet.so it's ok for a political party to control all information on the internet in your opinion?It's called private property. Right wingers generally promote the freedom of the individual to do what one wants with it without government interference. Does this no longer apply across the board? Did right wingers suddenly find the concept of relativism to their liking?Free speech? and depriving those of free speech for views I don't like?That is called free speech. What has it to do with contributions to political campaigns?It makes a lot of sense I have the power to control what you put on the internet If it agrees with my political view I will allow it.
Actually, I believe no one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign that works for any entity that controls the flow of information.Corporations are people too.
Slavery was legal at one timeYes or no.
Legally yes it is. That is all the really matters.
Not when it is abused no I am not and how is that free speech?Actually, I believe no one should be allowed to contribute to any campaign that works for any entity that controls the flow of information.Corporations are people too.
Not a big fan of the 1st Amendment I see.