Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a traditional conservative but not necessarily a Republicrat what I am about to suggest is pie-in-the sky, it will never happen, but I wish it would. Each candidate receives X amount of tax money for campaigning (all the same) that they can spend however they want. But that is it. There is a ceiling and it is all the same. And the "attack ads have to be at a minimum if even allowed. Instead they have to explain/outline/frame THEY'RE OWN policies and what they will do if elected. And they can't changed their views on existing at election topics once elected or they face impeachment. In todays Washington this would be considered incredibly naive' and would not stand a chance of going over.
I have no desire to give them a penny nor should I be forced to.
I was just reading about the Supreme Court removing the limits to political donations
I've heard some Republican politicians say that "It's freedom of speech" to be able to donate money to politicians.
A comedian put it very well by saying "Money talks"
Simple question...
Do Republicans (people) support this?
Can they not see that it opens the door to corruption?
In the late 1970s a Congressman from Philadelphia was sent to jail for saying this simple truth. " Money Talks, Bull**** Walks. " Does anyone remember the ABSCAM sting operation ?
I guess you didn't read it properly or have a bad interpretation. Please work on that. It does not allow for unlimited political donations.
But it's justification for removing the limit on the number of candidates an individual can contribute to lays the groundwork for unlimited political donations. If you support this SCOTUS decision, then you have to support a future SCOTUS decision removing any limits on political donations.
Generally, right-wingers see such SCOTUS actions as part of the path toward application of financial power to further corrupt our economy in favor of the rich, who would thereby be less dependent on the sycophants they've duped into supporting their efforts to double economic inequality for the second time in as many generations.
No We Dont, period! I am a staunch conservative, but not registered as such, and I wont' any more, but I do not support donating to political elections and resent you saying that b/c it is not true....we don't all think alike, and it just goes to show how ridiculous some people think....
As a traditional conservative but not necessarily a Republicrat what I am about to suggest is pie-in-the sky, it will never happen, but I wish it would. Each candidate receives X amount of tax money for campaigning (all the same) that they can spend however they want. But that is it. There is a ceiling and it is all the same. And the "attack ads have to be at a minimum if even allowed. Instead they have to explain/outline/frame THEY'RE OWN policies and what they will do if elected. And they can't changed their views on existing at election topics once elected or they face impeachment. In todays Washington this would be considered incredibly naive' and would not stand a chance of going over.
wonderful Idea!
that is how it should be, instead of being able to buy your candidate....
I was just reading about the Supreme Court removing the limits to political donations
I've heard some Republican politicians say that "It's freedom of speech" to be able to donate money to politicians.
A comedian put it very well by saying "Money talks"
Simple question...
Do Republicans (people) support this?
Can they not see that it opens the door to corruption?
Simple, don't vote for corrupt politicians!
Unfortunately, too many people are uninformed voters. That is the problem with wanting as many people voting as possible? The more ignorant, uninformed masses, who vote, the more their votes will swamp the informed voter and render the electorate into a group easily fooled, easily propagandized blob, and this breeds corruption.
Even if you take money out of politics, a corrupt, lying assed politician will still win, because of the ignorant, uniformed voters. BTW, take money out of politics, and then only the wealthy will be able to afford to run in a campaign.
Unfortunately, too many people are uninformed voters. That is the problem with wanting as many people voting as possible? The more ignorant, uninformed masses, who vote, the more their votes will swamp the informed voter and render the electorate into a group easily fooled, easily propagandized blob, and this breeds corruption.
Even if you take money out of politics, a corrupt, lying assed politician will still win, because of the ignorant, uniformed voters. BTW, take money out of politics, and then only the wealthy will be able to afford to run in a campaign.
no, it isn't that simple, period. They don't give us any one worth voting for...never have....
as soon as a decent man comes along and runs, they sabatoge him...you have to be corrupt any more to run.
and when you people get that both sides are corrupt, maybe this country will change.
I'm right in there with you, however, until people stop the corrupt crime, nothing will change....
Unfortunately, too many people are uninformed voters. That is the problem with wanting as many people voting as possible? The more ignorant, uninformed masses, who vote, the more their votes will swamp the informed voter and render the electorate into a group easily fooled, easily propagandized blob, and this breeds corruption.
Even if you take money out of politics, a corrupt, lying assed politician will still win, because of the ignorant, uniformed voters. BTW, take money out of politics, and then only the wealthy will be able to afford to run in a campaign.
Who do you think is running in campaigns now? The wealthy, or people who've already sold their souls to wealthy contributors, large corporations, and lobby groups. Take money out of politics. Or embrace strategies that take some of the leverage out of it. For instance Peter Schweizer has proposed laws that prevent politicians from accepting contributions while legislation is pending. It's been done on the state level in some states. It could be done on the federal level. While politicians might not want to do this, I do not see a down side to this measure. Do you?
If you belong to any trade unions, clubs, associations.....investments.
Do you have any type of insurance???
Do you take any medication??
If you want to link people in this way if one tried hard enough you could probably be linked to pedophilia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
