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.
"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."
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
"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.