- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
When you have to compete with billionaires for a "chance," most of the time you're going to lose.
this is about the 2016 election, or peanut butter. How did it become about the president?
Right, and I didn't say they were wealthy. Very confused..... :doh
Billionaires make their own chances. But by that logic if I make $100K/yr I get more chances than someone making $10K/yr.So why don't we just go straight to communism where everyone makes $10K/yr, right?
Okay let's look at it this way, we have the biggest govt in history right now in DC, and you complain about wealth distribution. It really kills your argument.
Wtf?No one is stopping them from doing that, but they will not be able to buy the White House. :roll:
Wait and see. They aren't the only people in the USA with some cash.
why would public financing be the answer?
and how would it be structured to prevent abuse?
Are you under the impression that this example properly addresses the concerns people have about money and its influence on politics?
One thing that might be a step in the right direction is that candidates have 30 days to campaign. Of course, the same problems crop up, but at least the bulk of the spending is limited to those 30 days.
The greater question is how to remove the special interest groups from pushing the greater agenda? Annenberg Trust, a member of the Progressive Machine, has access to our nations public schools through it's Annenberg Learner program. The NEA, the national teachers union, has it's Director as the head of the mighty Democracy Alliance, which is the central core of the Progressive Machine.
AFSCME is another massive public union spender pushing Progressive agenda's and backing liberal/progressive candidates. The SEIU is also similarly spending and affiliated. While their dues may be collected from the individual government employees, it's the taxpayers who are providing the money. How does this spending get accounted for?
How do these ongoing enterprises get removed from equation?
The Koch brothers aren't looking to take away any of my rights that I'm aware of. What rights of yours are they looking to take away or even impede?
Simple.
When you have a crappy product that no one likes, you have to spend a lot of extra money on marketing to sell i.
What Conservatives are holding the bullhorn in DC today? What Conservatives are getting what they want passed into law? Who was the strong Conservative voice that successfully opposed the passing of the ACA and Dodd-Frank?
Groups whose money is made up of many voluntary contributions are different from those of wealthy single individuals and corporations.
They just are. Its just more "democratic". The voice of the many instead of the few.
That said, I would like to see public financing.
The Koch Brothers have a lot of cash and they can buy a lot of things with that cash.
But there are a few things that they can't buy - like your vote and my vote.
That's what dooms their plans to failure.
The next occupant of the White House will be a Democrat.
Wait and see.
Not at all - delusions of oppression are for the weak and the left. Conservatives are self-actualizing. That's why they're proactively going out and trying to create what they want rather than sitting back and bemoaning what others are doing.
Actually, the US Supreme Court rightly believes that the act of spending money is a form of free speech - very democratic.
You do realize that the same could be said every year of Reagan's administration also don't you?
We have the biggest government every year. Our population keeps growing.
The difference between Communism and Socialism is that under Communism, 'everyone wearing glasses gets their heads smashed in with rifle butts' and under Socialism, 'drinks and smokes are on the middle class'. :roll:
Which do you prefer?
Power goes back and forth. The conservatives held it between 2000 and 2008 in the White House and look what "good" that did us. I am not defending Democratic policies,only laughing at the notion that conservatives are somehow underrepresented in DC.
Power goes back and forth. The conservatives held it between 2000 and 2008 in the White House and look what "good" that did us. I am not defending Democratic policies, only laughing at the notion that conservatives are somehow underrepresented in DC.
Maybe I should run for office so I canbe able to buy that second house I've always wantedmake a difference! :2razz:
Viva America!
A POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission covering the 2014 cycle found that 33 PACs that court small donors with tea party-oriented email and direct-mail appeals raised $43 million — 74 percent of which came from small donors. The PACs spent only $3 million on ads and contributions to boost the long-shot candidates often touted in the appeals, compared to $39.5 million on operating expenses, including $6 million to firms owned or managed by the operatives who run the PACs.
The rise of 'scam PACs' - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO
If you're referring to George W. Bush, he wasn't a conservative.
If you're referring to the leaders of the House & Senate who were in control during those years? They are not conservatives.
Today is 2015 and there are still not many conservatives representing us.
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?