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.
Without having any say in how their funds are distributed. Each candidate receiving funds would receive an equal amount of money; it's similar to how Bill de Blasio won his race in New York:Explaining how politicians aren't going to vote against the people that feed them would be fun. I said that the rich pay most of the taxes so it is they who would be funding the campaigns
So government funded candidates got a quarter of the voters to turn out and elected a big government candidate. Thanks for proving my point.Without having any say in how their funds are distributed. Each candidate receiving funds would receive an equal amount of money; it's similar to how Bill de Blasio won his race in New York:Explaining how politicians aren't going to vote against the people that feed them would be fun. I said that the rich pay most of the taxes so it is they who would be funding the campaigns
It still doesn't make any sense. They're not getting the money directly from the rich and the politicians are the ones that decide what level taxes will be. I can see that could be a problem in getting the plan passed in the first place, but once in place, no, the rich wouldn't have any more influence than anyone else. If anything it would distribute power to the middle class where it belongs.Explaining how politicians aren't going to vote against the people that feed them would be fun. I said that the rich pay most of the taxes so it is they who would be funding the campaigns. I can't break it down any smaller for you.
Where did I say the government would have ubiquitous power? That's YOUR strawman. The power to delegate funds would come from the people voting in preliminary elections after a series of publicly-sponsored open mikes and televised debates. The biggest fairy tale is your notion that politicians would drastically reduce the size of the government. How is that possible when monied interests will do everything to make sure it doesn't happen? The only way it could happen is if the politicians are forced to listen to the general public instead of special interests.Strawman, where did I ever say I was "giving up?"Your solution is to give government ubiquitous power then try to keep people with money from controlling it and you believe then politicians will act in the common man's interest instead of the rich. Naivete on top of naivete. Politicians are in this for power, not to help you. They want careers after politics. To think that removing direct money will either make them care about you or act in your interested is just a fairy tale.
My solution is to dramatically reduce the size and power of government, That will dramatically reduce that which government is capable of controlling.
They aren't going to pass laws that reduced the flow of money. You don't get it and I can't understand it for you.It still doesn't make any sense. They're not getting the money directly from the rich and the politicians are the ones that decide what level taxes will be. I can see that could be a problem in getting the plan passed in the first place, but once in place, no, the rich wouldn't have any more influence than anyone else. If anything it would distribute power to the middle class where it belongs.Explaining how politicians aren't going to vote against the people that feed them would be fun. I said that the rich pay most of the taxes so it is they who would be funding the campaigns. I can't break it down any smaller for you.
[
My solution is to dramatically reduce the size and power of government, That will dramatically reduce that which government is capable of controlling.
.
Where did I say the government would have ubiquitous power? That's YOUR strawman.
The power to delegate funds would come from the people voting in preliminary elections after a series of publicly-sponsored open mikes and televised debates. The biggest fairy tale is your notion that politicians would drastically reduce the size of the government. How is that possible when monied interests will do everything to make sure it doesn't happen? The only way it could happen is if the politicians are forced to listen to the general public instead of special interests.
Do you mean neo-liberal government?My alma mater noticed that a liberal government is doing something wrong?
Obama is a neo-liberal?
I have never heard that before.Is this a new term from the intelligentsia?
.
So, you are not about open and fair elections at all. In fact, I would venture to say that you are only against money in politics because your side cannot out-raise the other side.The rich pay most of the taxes. How is that going to get money out of politics? You think politicians are going to cut off their cash flow? That would make it far worse.
I don't see how who pays the taxes effects what I have to say. I'm talking about money being given out evenly to candidates meeting a certain threshold of votes in preliminary elections. Candidates would get their positions out through publicly sponsored open-mike events and televised debates . All of this may take several rounds of votes, but would eliminate the need to go hat-in-hand to make expensive promises to special interests, whether they be business, labor, racial, ethnic, etc.
That's a classic liberal, what they used to be. Or in modern terms, Libertarian.DEFINITION OF 'NEOLIBERALISM'
An approach to economics and social studies in which control of economic factors is shifted from the public sector to the private sector. Drawing upon principles of neoclassical economics, neoliberalism suggests that governments reduce deficit spending, limit subsidies, reform tax law to broaden the tax base, remove fixed exchange rates, open up markets to trade by limiting protectionism, privatize state-run businesses, allow private property and back deregulation.
You're an idiot. You're getting the government you deserve, shortbus.So, you are not about open and fair elections at all. In fact, I would venture to say that you are only against money in politics because your side cannot out-raise the other side.The rich pay most of the taxes. How is that going to get money out of politics? You think politicians are going to cut off their cash flow? That would make it far worse.
I don't see how who pays the taxes effects what I have to say. I'm talking about money being given out evenly to candidates meeting a certain threshold of votes in preliminary elections. Candidates would get their positions out through publicly sponsored open-mike events and televised debates . All of this may take several rounds of votes, but would eliminate the need to go hat-in-hand to make expensive promises to special interests, whether they be business, labor, racial, ethnic, etc.
This is a government of, for, and by the people.
The ONLY restriction on who can run for office should be citizenship. NO OTHERS!
Nice response. Showcases your IQ.....well done.You're an idiot. You're getting the government you deserve, shortbus.So, you are not about open and fair elections at all. In fact, I would venture to say that you are only against money in politics because your side cannot out-raise the other side.The rich pay most of the taxes. How is that going to get money out of politics? You think politicians are going to cut off their cash flow? That would make it far worse.
I don't see how who pays the taxes effects what I have to say. I'm talking about money being given out evenly to candidates meeting a certain threshold of votes in preliminary elections. Candidates would get their positions out through publicly sponsored open-mike events and televised debates . All of this may take several rounds of votes, but would eliminate the need to go hat-in-hand to make expensive promises to special interests, whether they be business, labor, racial, ethnic, etc.
This is a government of, for, and by the people.
The ONLY restriction on who can run for office should be citizenship. NO OTHERS!
You're making things up. I never said anything about growing the government. The point is to make politicians listen to the general public, not special interests.Dude, think about what you just said. I say we need to reduce the side of government. If you are right, that is the most powerful argument how ridiculous your idea is that we let it grow and then control it..
Nice response. Showcases your IQ.....well done.You're an idiot. You're getting the government you deserve, shortbus.So, you are not about open and fair elections at all. In fact, I would venture to say that you are only against money in politics because your side cannot out-raise the other side.The rich pay most of the taxes. How is that going to get money out of politics? You think politicians are going to cut off their cash flow? That would make it far worse.
I don't see how who pays the taxes effects what I have to say. I'm talking about money being given out evenly to candidates meeting a certain threshold of votes in preliminary elections. Candidates would get their positions out through publicly sponsored open-mike events and televised debates . All of this may take several rounds of votes, but would eliminate the need to go hat-in-hand to make expensive promises to special interests, whether they be business, labor, racial, ethnic, etc.
This is a government of, for, and by the people.
The ONLY restriction on who can run for office should be citizenship. NO OTHERS!
Cambridge Journals Online - Perspectives on Politics - Abstract - Testing Theories of American Politics Elites Interest Groups and Average Citizens
Many people understand it, but not many people actually label it.
But everything is clear enough. Politicians trade votes for money, and their policy shows that. Policy is now written with only the rich in mind, not the people and the country's best interests.
They do, that's why they run on campaign promises. Your thinking goes against it since government funded candidates don't even really need the people, just their money.You're making things up. I never said anything about growing the government. The point is to make politicians listen to the general public, not special interests.Dude, think about what you just said. I say we need to reduce the side of government. If you are right, that is the most powerful argument how ridiculous your idea is that we let it grow and then control it..
They need their votes. I also never said government-funded. I said publicly-funded. It's an important distinction. Candidates would be forced to listen to the public, instead of going hat-in-hand to the special interests that control the government now.They do, that's why they run on campaign promises. Your thinking goes against it since government funded candidates don't even really need the people, just their money.
Government funded is publicly funded, there is no distinction. People can vote politicians out of office, look at the results earlier this month. Since the people aren't selecting the candidates for the campaigns, who do you think would?They need their votes. I also never said government-funded. I said publicly-funded. It's an important distinction. Candidates would be forced to listen to the public, instead of going hat-in-hand to the special interests that control the government now.They do, that's why they run on campaign promises. Your thinking goes against it since government funded candidates don't even really need the people, just their money.
The point is to make politicians listen to the general public, not special interests.Dude, think about what you just said. I say we need to reduce the side of government. If you are right, that is the most powerful argument how ridiculous your idea is that we let it grow and then control it..
Cambridge Journals Online - Perspectives on Politics - Abstract - Testing Theories of American Politics Elites Interest Groups and Average Citizens
Many people understand it, but not many people actually label it.
But everything is clear enough. Politicians trade votes for money, and their policy shows that. Policy is now written with only the rich in mind, not the people and the country's best interests.
