- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31,926
- Reaction score
- 29,390
- Location
- Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com
In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass [/FONT][/COLOR]
But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.
Does the New York Times have more free speech than I do?If you cant purchase it thats your problem. More money=more power to buy things and services. So are we saying that our elected officials are for sale?
But simple question. Since money is considered free speech does that mean that the rich have more free speech?
Does the New York Times have more free speech than I do?
its the democrats running around going, OMG, OMG about citizens united, not the republicans.
That doesn't bother me, and yes they are hypocrites for doing so since over the last couple of election cycles the Democrats has received far more money from corporations, Wall street, lobbyists, special interests etc.
But I do think it is high time to get those out of the business of funding campaigns and having all of our elected leaders, both parties owing those moneyed folks big time for their election.
Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com
In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass [/FONT][/COLOR]
they are throwing money toward the ignorant easily manipulative voter.
Yeah, you would probably be surprised at how many people make up their mind whom they will vote for on a slogan, talking point or something like that. My wife votes for the man who looks the most presidential. But I think in the end, most of the money is spent on trying to get the voter to hate the other more than they hate you. When was the last time you seen a campaign ad spell out a candidate's vision for the future? Almost all of them are of the "My opponent is a dirty rotten rat," He did such and such 50 years ago and that makes him unfit for the job as your elected leader. It is all about throwing as much mud at your opponent as you can and hope some of it sticks.
No one talks issues, ideas, solutions and visions anymore, just muck raking. For this they spend a billion dollars. What a waste. But it works or they wouldn't do it.
:agree: At least your wife has a reason why she votes the way she does, and it has little to do with disliking them less than the other guy, which is all muckraking does - make the other guy unappealing. Maybe I should try that approach ...vote for the one that looks the most presidential! It worked for Ike and a few others! On the other hand, there are some others that I wouldn't have voted for as our local dogcatcher in a million years! :mrgreen:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
That didnt answer my question. If money is considered speech and spending money is considered speech. Do the rich have more free speech because they have more money?
Yes. And to restrict their speech would be no different then demanding a poor person not publish a $20 web site.
So infact our rights under the Constitution apply to more than others... Hmmmm
Just ask DiFi's hubby how our right$ have been extended to him, by her
Then who do you vote for if neither look presidential? Of course which of the two candidates look more presidential is all in one's mind anyway. who is to say what a president should look like? Actually Ike and Stevenson looked pretty much the same, I went with the General. JFK in my opinion looked more presidential than Nixon, but I backed Nixon in 1960, although I was still too young to vote. So who knows?
So you are in favor of money purchasing constitutional rights. Sounds like an oligarchy.
I favor no restrictions and instant reporting.
Personally, I would look at body language, since that can't be faked for long - if "presidential looking" is the only criteria. Who seems more self assured and still relaxed, and who looks like they can work with other people and not get flustered and angry - because the famous 0300 phone call could arrive on their watch. I admit this is not foolproof, but it beats listening to what they say in a debate, because they usually have been coached on the possible questions they may be asked.
So you should report your speech to an agency? How is that "free" then?
Speech doesn't need to be reported. By it's very nature it is a report that any agency can see.
They sure have been coached in the debates. Besides all the candidates say and promise what they think the people want to hear.
Yup, this. They are interviewing for the job and every word they utter is because they believe will sell the masses on them as the right man/woman for the job. Pandering for votes has been around as long as prostitution.
So the "instant reporting" thing you dont believe in now?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?