Some are more equal than others...

[ginwilly]

That is exactly the problem. Soros money, Koch money, ALL MONEY influencing elections is the problem. The only thing that should decide who wins an election is American votes.

On this we agree, but we have differing opinions on how to bring about change.

One thing history has shown is that more laws make more criminals. I don't think it can be stopped so transparency is a better tool. We can limit the power the central planners have and then their scruples and principles are worth much less.

I can be bought, don't know what my price would be, but I'm sure I'm not the lone ranger. If a bill came across my desk that didn't matter two shits to me how the vote came out and someone "donated" 10 Million to my campaign, I might care a bit more.

As we have it now, a Billion Chinese can donate 10 bucks a piece to an American candidate and nobody would know where it came from.

I agree that we need reform, can you agree that your focus lies mostly on the boogeymen of MSNBC? Your posts certainly bare that out. Your focus on the big donors of the right comes through loud and clear.

 

[UncleBuck]

On this we agree

no you don't, you are all for citizens united, you have a meltdown every time pada bumps this thread.

...more laws make more criminals...central planners...the boogeymen of MSNBC...

reported as spam.

 

[ginwilly]

Nothing says RIU politics more than having your alert box blown up constantly by a creepy stalker loser who is reminded weekly his opinion means nothing and he'll never get a serious reply from me.

Yet he still keeps following me around replying to posts like it's his job. Weird dude. It's been months man, nothing has changed. In your case, nothing has changed for years I take it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Nothing says RIU politics more than having your alert box blown up constantly by a creepy stalker loser who is reminded weekly his opinion means nothing and he'll never get a serious reply from me.

Yet he still keeps following me around replying to posts like it's his job. Weird dude. It's been months man, nothing has changed. In your case, nothing has changed for years I take it.

and there's the meltdown.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I don't think it can be stopped

That's where we disagree

We can limit the power the central planners have

How?

I agree that we need reform, can you agree that your focus lies mostly on the boogeymen of MSNBC?

No, because my gripe is with all money influencing politics, left or right. The reason I focus so much on the right here is because my political beliefs line up more with a more liberal governmental policy, don't confuse that with me believing "my team" is right and I agree with their money influencing politics, no money should influence politics. I would rather a vote I disagree with get passed legitimately than one I agree with get passed because of corporate/union money.

96% of the country agrees with campaign finance reform, democrats and republicans alike. This is one of the few things we all agree on, as Americans. I don't see a legitimate way to decrease the power public officials hold, so I disagree with your premise that that is the solution to this problem. Enacting a 28th amendment would reverse Citizens United and ensure the amount of money donated by corporate interests cannot influence public elections, just like the the 14th amendment guaranteed everyone equal protection under the law. An amendment is what is required to rein in corporate influence.

 

[ginwilly]

That's where we disagree

How?

No, because my gripe is with all money influencing politics, left or right. The reason I focus so much on the right here is because my political beliefs line up more with a more liberal governmental policy, don't confuse that with me believing "my team" is right and I agree with their money influencing politics, no money should influence politics. I would rather a vote I disagree with get passed legitimately than one I agree with get passed because of corporate/union money.

96% of the country agrees with campaign finance reform, democrats and republicans alike. This is one of the few things we all agree on, as Americans. I don't see a legitimate way to decrease the power public officials hold, so I disagree with your premise that that is the solution to this problem. Enacting a 28th amendment would reverse Citizens United and ensure the amount of money donated by corporate interests cannot influence public elections, just like the the 14th amendment guaranteed everyone equal protection under the law. An amendment is what is required to rein in corporate influence.

Pad I agree when you are rational like this, but within the next few posts you will slip up again and say "corporate" money or post pictures of the evil Kochs and your true feelings are on display for all.

 

[UncleBuck]

Pad I agree when you are rational like this, but within the next few posts you will slip up again and say "corporate" money or post pictures of the evil Kochs and your true feelings are on display for all.

central planners. public unions. collectivists. nanny state.

meltdown.

 

[schuylaar]

That's where we disagree

How?

No, because my gripe is with all money influencing politics, left or right. The reason I focus so much on the right here is because my political beliefs line up more with a more liberal governmental policy, don't confuse that with me believing "my team" is right and I agree with their money influencing politics, no money should influence politics. I would rather a vote I disagree with get passed legitimately than one I agree with get passed because of corporate/union money.

96% of the country agrees with campaign finance reform, democrats and republicans alike. This is one of the few things we all agree on, as Americans. I don't see a legitimate way to decrease the power public officials hold, so I disagree with your premise that that is the solution to this problem. Enacting a 28th amendment would reverse Citizens United and ensure the amount of money donated by corporate interests cannot influence public elections, just like the the 14th amendment guaranteed everyone equal protection under the law. An amendment is what is required to rein in corporate influence.

96% of the country agrees..that leaves 4%..who do you think those 4% are? those with the money who want to continue to buy votes.

wash, rinse and repeat.

 

[schuylaar]

Pad I agree when you are rational like this, but within the next few posts you will slip up again and say "corporate" money or post pictures of the evil Kochs and your true feelings are on display for all.

it's because the GOP are the biggest offenders of this practice, so they get extra play time.

 

[NoDrama]

it's because the GOP are the biggest offenders of this practice, so they get extra play time.

Except you must have heard this from one of your friends and believed it. Because you are gullible and never actually check facts.

Fact: Obama Garnered almost DOUBLE the donations that McCain did in 2008 election $670 Million vs $370 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Fact:Obama got nearly TWENTY TIMES the donations that Perry did in the 2012 election. $441 Million Vs $21 Million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry_presidential_campaign,_2012

Out of the top 10 richest members of Congress, 70% are Democrats. http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html

So there's that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Except you must have heard this from one of your friends and believed it. Because you are gullible and never actually check facts.

Fact: Obama Garnered almost DOUBLE the donations that McCain did in 2008 election $670 Million vs $370 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Fact:Obama got nearly TWENTY TIMES the donations that Perry did in the 2012 election. $441 Million Vs $21 Million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry_presidential_campaign,_2012

Out of the top 10 richest members of Congress, 70% are Democrats. http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html

So there's that.

Interesting, you seem to be implying there's a positive correlation between campaign finance and the outcome of public elections...

 

[Padawanbater2]

Pad I agree when you are rational like this, but within the next few posts you will slip up again and say "corporate" money or post pictures of the evil Kochs and your true feelings are on display for all.

Outline your solution. You say you want to reduce the power of government, so how would you do it? How would you ensure the same thing doesn't happen again after a couple generations?

 

[ginwilly]

Outline your solution. You say you want to reduce the power of government, so how would you do it? How would you ensure the same thing doesn't happen again after a couple generations?

Term limits is where i'd start. When politics is the family businesses, we all lose. Term limits would limit the need to get re-elected which would help.

I like your ideas too though pad. That link I posted of commoncause had some very sensible ideas too.

It's not going to be a simple solution or a one sized fits all solution, but at least both sides are talking about it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Term limits is where i'd start. When politics is the family businesses, we all lose.

says the guy who salutes lifelong representative and his senator son.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Term limits is where i'd start. When politics is the family businesses, we all lose. Term limits would limit the need to get re-elected which would help.

I like your ideas too though pad. That link I posted of commoncause had some very sensible ideas too.

It's not going to be a simple solution or a one sized fits all solution, but at least both sides are talking about it.

Can you explain how term limits would limit the power politicians have? We have 2 year term limits on congress, 6 year limits on senators and an 8 year limit on the president, the only office without a limit is the supreme court. Does that mean you think the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government?

I agree there should be term limits, but I don't see how they apply to the issue of money influencing politics. A paycheck is worth the same regardless of how long your term is. Economic inequality is a problem that seems to be a natural consequence of the financial policy our government has implemented the past half century, while the policy itself was very much implemented by design..

The only thing we can do is make it so that a corporation with the ability to outspend the majority of voters all combined can't effectively buy an election. 95% of national elections, the candidate who spends more wins, so clearly we need to make spending equal and publicly funded in order to have an actual equal playing field where the ideas and opinions of the candidate are what win elections, not the amount of money they spend buying ads and pushing propaganda.

 

[NoDrama]

Interesting, you seem to be implying there's a positive correlation between campaign finance and the outcome of public elections...

Mostly just proving the little princess wrong, but you caught the undertone.

 

[ginwilly]

Can you explain how term limits would limit the power politicians have? We have 2 year term limits on congress, 6 year limits on senators and an 8 year limit on the president, the only office without a limit is the supreme court. Does that mean you think the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government?

I agree there should be term limits, but I don't see how they apply to the issue of money influencing politics. A paycheck is worth the same regardless of how long your term is. Economic inequality is a problem that seems to be a natural consequence of the financial policy our government has implemented the past half century, while the policy itself was very much implemented by design..

The only thing we can do is make it so that a corporation with the ability to outspend the majority of voters all combined can't effectively buy an election. 95% of national elections, the candidate who spends more wins, so clearly we need to make spending equal and publicly funded in order to have an actual equal playing field where the ideas and opinions of the candidate are what win elections, not the amount of money they spend buying ads and pushing propaganda.

When a person has no campaign coming up, campaign contributions become a moot point wouldn't you say? I know it won't stop things, but it will curtail things.

It's not a simple one step solution, I was just giving one example of what will help.

 

[Rob Roy]

That is exactly the problem. Soros money, Koch money, ALL MONEY influencing elections is the problem. The only thing that should decide who wins an election is American votes.

I like where you might be headed with that thought.

...then extrapolating that kind of idea out just a bit more leads me to think....

...the only person that decides if you will belong to something or not....is you.



In other words how is it any different if Soros or Koch (tyranny of the majority money) or a tyranny of a majority of voters decides for you things that should be yours alone to decide?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I like where you might be headed with that thought.

...then extrapolating that kind of idea out just a bit more leads me to think....

...the only person that decides if you will belong to something or not....is you.



In other words how is it any different if Soros or Koch (tyranny of the majority money) or a tyranny of a majority of voters decides for you things that should be yours alone to decide?

You live in a society, with that comes rules you have to follow. Those rules are supposed to be dictated by all of us. While this is the case you still have the opportunity to oppose said rules and live wherever you want outside of US jurisdiction

The majority is supposed to dictate the rules, not Soros or the Koch's

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

I think the maximum number of terms a representative can serve the congress should be three terms.

President, I like as is.