AVG-JOE's Thread on Politics - Check your insult arsenal at the door before entering.

[Oddball]

What restrictions on expenditures? This is about restricting, actually eliminating, private contributions.

What you're talking about is restricting free speech and access to the ballots.

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.

How is it restricting free speech? The candidates would be able to do and say what they liked with the money with regard to the campaign.

With the ruling class making the decisions on who is and isn't "suitable" to be a candidate.

If the law was in effect whoever got a pre-determined % of the vote in sub-primaries would get money to move forward. How are the parties supposed to be able to effect that?

Who makes that determination?...The ruling class...DUH!

It seems your only argument is that it couldn't possibly happen. It doesn't seem like you have any evidence that it would be a bad idea.

My arguments are that monopoly is the worst way to do anything and that you have no evidence to suggest that one in this instance would do what you claim it would....In fact, all evidence suggests that it would make matters even worse.

 

[SniperFire]

What restrictions on expenditures? This is about restricting, actually eliminating, private contributions.

What you're talking about is restricting free speech and access to the ballots.

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.

How is it restricting free speech?

In bold.

 

[konradv]

....In fact, all evidence suggests that it would make matters even worse.

Could I have a cite to that evidence? You made the claim. Please back it up.

 

[konradv]

What you're talking about is restricting free speech and access to the ballots.

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.

How is it restricting free speech?

In bold.

How would the candidates be effected with regard to their speech? They'd have the money to get their message out. We seem to be going around in circles. Constant claims about restricting free speech, but no evidence of how a candidate's speech would be restricted.

 

[Oddball]

....In fact, all evidence suggests that it would make matters even worse.

Could I have a cite to that evidence? You made the claim. Please back it up.

One word: Monopoly.

Now, when are you going to back up any one of your fantasy land claims?

 

[SniperFire]

How is it restricting free speech?

In bold.

How would the candidates be effected with regard to their speech?

By restricting free speech as you prescribed.

You want equality by restricting speech. The First Amendment says no can do.

 

[Oddball]

How is it restricting free speech?

In bold.

How would the candidates be effected with regard to their speech? They'd have the money to get their message out. We seem to be going around in circles. Constant claims about restricting free speech, but no evidence of how a candidate's speech would be restricted.

It would be restricted by the people controlling the money, who are the same people making the determination on what % of support for opposition candidates is "acceptable" -and if you think that number won't be subject to shenanigans I have a bridge to sell you- and what is not.

Seriously...Your naïveté truly astonishing.

 

[Wiseacre]

" 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're not talking about unlimited free speech, we're talking about defending it. Any citizen, or group of citizens, including a company or corporation should have the right to support and candidate or party, and that includes financial support.

About the rich controlling or heavily influencing the outcomes, if that were true then how did Obama and the Dems win with a filibuster proof Senate in 2008?

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

I agree, also believe that names must be public. Too much corporate, PAC, 'SuperPAC', big 'organization', and foreign dollars in US campaigns. At least voters will know the the money behind the candidates.

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?

Our problems with governance and campaign financing are not going to be solved by limiting free speech or by outing who supports who, either individuals or companies. We need a better informed and more involved public, that is the real answer.

 

[Care4all]

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.

I agree, also believe that names must be public. Too much corporate, PAC, 'SuperPAC', big 'organization', and foreign dollars in US campaigns. At least voters will know the the money behind the candidates.

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?

Our problems with governance and campaign financing are not going to be solved by limiting free speech or by outing who supports who, either individuals or companies. We need a better informed and more involved public, that is the real answer.

i disagree, it should be transparent for all to see and know. We have every right to know who financially supports the candidates....and is paying for the candidate's campaign. If they only want a private vote, then don't give millions to the candidate, money talks and we have a right to know who may be funding the candidate's run and what they expect in return so we can be well informed and know how to vote.

 

[onecut39]

If I am running a business or my household, or anything else that deals with cash flow, I must properly manage that cash flow - regardless of what I would like that cash flow to be some day - else my operation goes broke.


It is simply common sense.

Cash flow has two components, income and outgo.

Correct. And since you don't have the money, you can't just borrow it to buy that new car because you can't pay the bill.

Like I said, common sense.

Without credit there is no economy, not for individuals, not for corporations, not for government.

 

[SniperFire]

I agree, also believe that names must be public. Too much corporate, PAC, 'SuperPAC', big 'organization', and foreign dollars in US campaigns. At least voters will know the the money behind the candidates.

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?

Our problems with governance and campaign financing are not going to be solved by limiting free speech or by outing who supports who, either individuals or companies. We need a better informed and more involved public, that is the real answer.

i disagree, it should be transparent for all to see and know. We have every right to know who financially supports the candidates....and is paying for the candidate's campaign. If they only want a private vote, then don't give millions to the candidate, money talks and we have a right to know who may be funding the candidate's run and what they expect in return so we can be well informed and know how to vote.

Where would that 'right' be in the Constitution?

 

[Wiseacre]

I agree, also believe that names must be public. Too much corporate, PAC, 'SuperPAC', big 'organization', and foreign dollars in US campaigns. At least voters will know the the money behind the candidates.

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?

Our problems with governance and campaign financing are not going to be solved by limiting free speech or by outing who supports who, either individuals or companies. We need a better informed and more involved public, that is the real answer.

i disagree, it should be transparent for all to see and know. We have every right to know who financially supports the candidates....and is paying for the candidate's campaign. If they only want a private vote, then don't give millions to the candidate, money talks and we have a right to know who may be funding the candidate's run and what they expect in return so we can be well informed and know how to vote.

So your right to know trumps my right to privacy. How do you feel about union votes where your decision is made public? What do you think about cases where people or companies are harassed and intimidated based on their support for a candidate, party, or PAC? There are cases of companies withdrawing their support due to retaliation by the other side. You okay with that? Whre does your right to know stop? Where does my right to privacy end? It's a slippery slope I think.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In bold.

How would the candidates be effected with regard to their speech?

By restricting free speech as you prescribed.

You want equality by restricting speech. The First Amendment says no can do.

You can restrict free speech just like you can restrict gun rights. Protected rights are not unlimited.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Where does it say freedom of expression can't be restricted?? You can't show your home porno movies to your kids,

no matter how expressive you might think they are.

 

[Wiseacre]

" You can restrict free speech just like you can restrict gun rights. Protected rights are not unlimited. "

" Where does it say freedom of expression can't be restricted?? "


No one is saying freedom of speech can't be restricted, the question is when it should be done and under what circumstances.

 

[Care4all]

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?

Our problems with governance and campaign financing are not going to be solved by limiting free speech or by outing who supports who, either individuals or companies. We need a better informed and more involved public, that is the real answer.

i disagree, it should be transparent for all to see and know. We have every right to know who financially supports the candidates....and is paying for the candidate's campaign. If they only want a private vote, then don't give millions to the candidate, money talks and we have a right to know who may be funding the candidate's run and what they expect in return so we can be well informed and know how to vote.

So your right to know trumps my right to privacy. How do you feel about union votes where your decision is made public? What do you think about cases where people or companies are harassed and intimidated based on their support for a candidate, party, or PAC? There are cases of companies withdrawing their support due to retaliation by the other side. You okay with that? Whre does your right to know stop? Where does my right to privacy end? It's a slippery slope I think.

no one knows how anyone votes but in the person voting....i can say and support obama if i wanted to, but then vote for romney behind the curtain....so ones vote is private, and always will be.

I personally do not believe the supreme court made the right decision on equating money with free speech...

Does that mean that those without any money do not have any free speech?

or does that mean those with money can be heard MORE than those without money, and is this really =equality or does it represent equality in choosing representation of government? I dunno? I'm leaning towards it not....

 

[BDBoop]

If the thread works, can we have an insult-free folder?

 

[SniperFire]

How would the candidates be effected with regard to their speech?

By restricting free speech as you prescribed.

You want equality by restricting speech. The First Amendment says no can do.

You can restrict free speech just like you can restrict gun rights.

You would be of the failed minority opinion.

 

[SniperFire]

You can't show your home porno movies to your kids,

And you can't shout FIRE in a crowded movie theatre.

Everyone knows your rights end when they are a true danger and menace to others.

For purposes of this issue and thread, it is a juvenile argument.