Mayors want feds to drop pot from the list

Status
Not open for further replies.
tekkychick said:
I wouldn't mind publicly funded elections. And a much shorter election season. Something more like England's system. Not sure how we get there given our free speech protections. Might have to be a constitutional amendment.

As far as elected official not rotating to the private sector post-office - they do have to earn money somehow; but keeping them from going to lobbyists would be good. Open to ideas around this.
Click to expand...

Is there no freedom you do not hate?
 
Kel-Tec PMR-30 said:
Is there no freedom you do not hate?
Click to expand...

If you see no differences, then I really hope you don't vote. Because the candidates I listed DID have differences; and saying there are none means either you aren't paying attention (which I doubt) or you are just refusing to see the differences (most likely) in which case I don't want you weighing in on the vote.

In terms of freedom - Yes, I hate the "freedom" rich people have to control our elections. I hate the "freedom" which leads candidates to have to start fundraising as soon as they take office. I hate the "freedom" which means the last 2 years of a presidents' term in office is useless because they have to go on the campaign trail.
 
tekkychick said:
If you see no differences, then I really hope you don't vote. Because the candidates I listed DID have differences; and saying there are none means either you aren't paying attention (which I doubt) or you are just refusing to see the differences (most likely) in which case I don't want you weighing in on the vote.

In terms of freedom - Yes, I hate the "freedom" rich people have to control our elections. I hate the "freedom" which leads candidates to have to start fundraising as soon as they take office. I hate the "freedom" which means the last 2 years of a presidents' term in office is useless because they have to go on the campaign trail.
Click to expand...

A simple 'no' would have sufficed.

So please, since those examples were SO different, why don't you explain how?
 
Kel-Tec PMR-30 said:
A simple 'no' would have sufficed.

So please, since those examples were SO different, why don't you explain how?
Click to expand...

Why would I bother? do your own research. Anything I post you'll just disparage. If you can't see the differences between Warren and Brown or Obama and McCain (HELLO! we'd be in Syria already with McCain) then really, anything I post you'll just blow off, ignore, put down, or tell me I don't know how to debate.

So why should I bother? life is too short.
 
tekkychick said:
Why would I bother? do your own research.
Click to expand...
I did. It's what lead me to my statements.
Anything I post you'll just disparage.
Click to expand...
If you don't actually have evidence to support your claim, just say so.
If you can't see the differences between Warren and Brown or Obama and McCain (HELLO! we'd be in Syria already with McCain)
Click to expand...
Counter-factual.
then really, anything I post you'll just blow off, ignore, put down, or tell me I don't know how to debate.

So why should I bother? life is too short.
Click to expand...
I'll remember that.
 
Steelplate said:
The voters do the vetting in the primaries....they have debates...just like they do now.

Incumbents have greater media access? No shit....but their voting record and their stances on the issues are still public record and there for everyone to see. It's called accountability. If the incumbent is doing a good job for his/her constituents....why SHOULDN'T he/she be re-elected? If he/she is not....then let his her PUBLIC record be their downfall.


What we have now is bullshit lies and half truths spewed every fucking 10 minutes on TV by anonymous douchebags with shady fucking names like "Americans for Prosperity" or Citizens for Progress"(to make it even). It's like Jerry Springer is running everyone's campaign.

To your last point? Because.....it will eliminate the stranglehold that monied interests have on our political process....and yes, I am talking left wing interests too. It will reduce corruption(I'm not sure you can ever eliminate it), and put people in office that actually WANT to SERVE this country and it's people.
Click to expand...

Money isn't the only impact, or Adelson could have put Romney in office.

My personal opinion is that all campaign finance laws be abolished. Lift all spending caps and allow any individual or corporation to donate as much as they want.
 
I Love America said:
Money isn't the only impact, or Adelson could have put Romney in office.

My personal opinion is that all campaign finance laws be abolished. Lift all spending caps and allow any individual or corporation to donate as much as they want.
Click to expand...

Then....once again....only the rich and powerful will be heard...or at least their agendas....the voters would be misinformed....only hearing one side of the story. No Offense, but I know your position....that's the way you think it should be.....sorry, I have to disagree...Joe Schmoe is every bit of a citizen as Mitt Romney...and deserves to vote in HIS best interest and should have equal access to information and an equal voice in our legislature.
 
Steelplate said:
Then....once again....only the rich and powerful will be heard...or at least their agendas....the voters would be misinformed....only hearing one side of the story. No Offense, but I know your position....that's the way you think it should be.....sorry, I have to disagree...Joe Schmoe is every bit of a citizen as Mitt Romney...and deserves to vote in HIS best interest and should have equal access to information and an equal voice in our legislature.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unlimited spending? well, it's bad enough what we have now and we're getting close to unlimited spending. Until we get a constitutional amendment, disclosure laws are the best we can hope for.
 
Damocles said:
In politics it would be necessary to follow the money to find out why. Who owns large portions of CXA that contributed to Obama, for instance?
Click to expand...

If this is actually the first post of a "Right Winger" following the money we know there is progress. I'll assume this person only followed the money when it was convenient to their argument.

If you actually learn to follow the money, you will learn LOTS about politics and start ignoring party and media bs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top