Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-30-2010, 10:47 AM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,024,486 times
Reputation: 1916

Advertisements

Excellent article.

"The amount of money pushed into politics already makes a mockery of the 'one person, one vote' contract implicit in a democratic system.

We must alter elections from privately-funded popularity contests to publicly-financed issue-based contests open to all. This would transform the democratic system currently in place, where dollars are more powerful than votes and those who have the most money inevitably have the most influence. Prohibiting all private financing would additionally hamstring corporate influence without violating corporate free speech."

 
Old 03-30-2010, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
"Who owns Washington? The lobbyists, or us? It's up to you. Please help."

Banksters and other fat cats will continue running things unless we have public campaign finance reform, make it an amendment.


So how to you feel about the Obama campaign modifying their website to accept campaign contributions from anonymous donors in foreign countries with pre-paid debit cards?



Which is worse, the campaign contributions the BO campaign received from Credit Swisse, JP Morgan, UBS, and New York Life Insurance Goldman-Sacks and Citigroup or the ones he apparently received from foreign governments?


CBS News Mobile Auditing President Obama

Controversy Over Obama's Small Donors - Newsweek.com

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
 
Old 03-30-2010, 11:36 AM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,024,486 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
So how to you feel about the Obama campaign modifying their website to accept campaign contributions from anonymous donors in foreign countries with pre-paid debit cards?



Which is worse, the campaign contributions the BO campaign received from Credit Swisse, JP Morgan, UBS, and New York Life Insurance Goldman-Sacks and Citigroup or the ones he apparently received from foreign governments?


CBS News Mobile Auditing President Obama

Controversy Over Obama's Small Donors - Newsweek.com

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
Obviously the topic went completely over your head and understanding.

Since you have so much trouble in comprehending, I'll spell things out for you.

This thread is about the excessive influence big business plays in determining how the government is run.

Politicians have to spend more time raising ever increasing millions in order to win elections year after year.

This is a situation that the Founding Fathers would not have approved of.

Comprehende?
 
Old 03-30-2010, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
"Who owns Washington? The lobbyists, or us? It's up to you. Please help."

Banksters and other fat cats will continue running things unless we have public campaign finance reform, make it an amendment.



Which is worse, the contributions the Obama campaign received (after modifying their website to accept them) from foreign donors using the same pre-paid credit cards over and over to make contributions in the names of different ficticious people or the contributions from Goldman-Sacks, Chase and Citigroup (banksters)?

While both are heinous, I think allowing a foreign government to buy our president is worse than allowing banks to buy him. What say you?
 
Old 03-30-2010, 01:55 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,024,486 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Which is worse, the contributions the Obama campaign received (after modifying their website to accept them) from foreign donors using the same pre-paid credit cards over and over to make contributions in the names of different ficticious people or the contributions from Goldman-Sacks, Chase and Citigroup (banksters)?

While both are heinous, I think allowing a foreign government to buy our president is worse than allowing banks to buy him. What say you?
I say that someone has a repetitive disorder in addition to a comprehension one.
 
Old 03-30-2010, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Obviously the topic went completely over your head and understanding.

Since you have so much trouble in comprehending, I'll spell things out for you.

This thread is about the excessive influence big business plays in determining how the government is run.

Politicians have to spend more time raising ever increasing millions in order to win elections year after year.

This is a situation that the Founding Fathers would not have approved of.

Comprehende?

Right, and you don't get the connection between campaign contributions and favorable treatment like public bail-outs that result in these same "banksters" walking away with millions instead of being held accountable for their actions?
 
Old 03-30-2010, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
I say that someone has a repetitive disorder in addition to a comprehension one.

Perhaps now that you're done with the all too predictable liberal personal attack you would like to answer the question. Which is worse?
 
Old 03-30-2010, 02:14 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,024,486 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Right, and you don't get the connection between campaign contributions and favorable treatment like public bail-outs that result in these same "banksters" walking away with millions instead of being held accountable for their actions?
Well, now that your level of understanding has been established, at least this is something you'll be able to understand.

I hope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
I agree.

Through campaign contributions and lobbyists, the banksters are able to write their own rules.

The only way to change this scenario is through public campaign finance reform.
 
Old 03-30-2010, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Well, now that your level of understanding has been established, at least this is something you'll be able to understand.

I hope.

So, we're going to hang a bell around the cat's neck. What an excellent idea.
 
Old 03-30-2010, 02:33 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,024,486 times
Reputation: 1916
Moving on, in content relevant to the thread.

"Critics say the new nuclear power subsidies should not come as a surprise. Over the last decade, the nuclear industry has spent more than $600 million lobbying Washington and another $63 million in campaign contributions, according to the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University."
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top