• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the campain finance act be repealed?

Should the campain finance act be repealed?


  • Total voters
    7
?? None are interested in campain finance reform?
 
Just take away the government power that allows it to favor certain business and entangle itself in business and campaign finance won't matter.
 
Just take away the government power that allows it to favor certain business and entangle itself in business and campaign finance won't matter.

So anonymous adds posted in the media can't be tracked .. ? The regulation on campaign finance should be stringent. The only thing at hand with politics should be the polices presented.. not who can put on the best show with flashing lights and fireworks most often.
 
Last edited:
So anonymous adds posted in the media can't be tracked .. ? The regulation on campaign finance should be stringent. The only thing at hand with politics should be the polices presented.. not who can put on the best show with flashing lights and fireworks most often.

If the government has basically nothing to do with business, then there would be no reason for companies to try to coax it to do what they want. The only reason that companies involve themselves in government is because government concerns itself so much with business.
 
So anonymous adds posted in the media can't be tracked .. ? The regulation on campaign finance should be stringent. The only thing at hand with politics should be the polices presented.. not who can put on the best show with flashing lights and fireworks most often.

Why can't I vote for whoever puts on the best show with flashing lights and fireworks most often?
 
If the government has basically nothing to do with business, then there would be no reason for companies to try to coax it to do what they want. The only reason that companies involve themselves in government is because government concerns itself so much with business.

What magical fantasy world allows a free economy to operate without government?
 
Why can't I vote for whoever puts on the best show with flashing lights and fireworks most often?

heh.. thats the problem. Instead of voters being concerned with the policy they get entranced by the media coverage.. usually the one who gets the most coverage. It really is silly to argue that policy is secondary to the amount of media exposure a politician can buy. Why would you want people to be focused on whomever gets the most exposure in the media over what they are actually planning to do?
 
A modest proposal ...

We should also prohibit candidates from showing ads with their likenesses, since some people may vote for one candidate or another based upon his physical appearance and not the issues.

Also, we should prohibit candidates from using their names, since that can tell voters about that person's sex and possibly about their race and/or nationality. There's all kinds of people who vote based on those criteria and not on policies.
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

We should also prohibit candidates from showing ads with their likenesses, since some people may vote for one candidate or another based upon his physical appearance and not the issues.

Also, we should prohibit candidates from using their names, since that can tell voters about that person's sex and possibly about their race and/or nationality. There's all kinds of people who vote based on those criteria and not on policies.

dear lord man... Well if libertarians get their way with the system it won't matter anyhow really would it? It's half way owned by corporations as it is ... might as well just dump the democracy in their hands.
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

dear lord man... Well if libertarians get their way with the system it won't matter anyhow really would it? It's half way owned by corporations as it is ... might as well just dump the democracy in their hands.
And that has what to do with what I posted?
 
What magical fantasy world allows a free economy to operate without government?

Capitalism? I'm not saying that the government should be completely out of it, they should still prosecute crimes, but the level that they involve themselves in business now lends itself to corruption.
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

And that has what to do with what I posted?

Well I understand it's complicated but I just presented a situation where you are right. The post you made was nothing but sarcasm anyhow.
 
heh.. thats the problem. Instead of voters being concerned with the policy they get entranced by the media coverage.. usually the one who gets the most coverage. It really is silly to argue that policy is secondary to the amount of media exposure a politician can buy. Why would you want people to be focused on whomever gets the most exposure in the media over what they are actually planning to do?

Umm, face time alone is not going to do it for you. Meg Whitman is outspending Jerry Brown by orders of magnitude and the two of them are still neck and neck in the race.
 
Capitalism? I'm not saying that the government should be completely out of it, they should still prosecute crimes, but the level that they involve themselves in business now lends itself to corruption.

Depends where you stand. You are referring to an ethereal realm of theory where economists cannot agree as to whether institutions in the economy serve the interests of the people, parties, politics itself, or merely the raw interests of businesses at the expense of the people.
 
Depends where you stand. You are referring to an ethereal realm of theory where economists cannot agree as to whether institutions in the economy serve the interests of the people, parties, politics itself, or merely the raw interests of businesses at the expense of the people.

Rarely will you find all economists agreeing on a subject. Farm subsidies and protectionism are about the only two areas that have a good majority of economists in agreement.
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

Well I understand it's complicated but I just presented a situation where you are right. The post you made was nothing but sarcasm anyhow.
The post I made was the continuation in your line of thinking. All but one or two presidents have been over six feet tall, therefore appearance obviously plays a huge role in the selection. In the famous Kennedy-Nixon debate, nobody knows or cares what either candidate said; all that mattered is that JFK looked young and full of energy, while Nixon looked like a cadaver.
 
Umm, face time alone is not going to do it for you. Meg Whitman is outspending Jerry Brown by orders of magnitude and the two of them are still neck and neck in the race.

Well they should be neck and neck.. I mean money doesn't buy all the votes but it can buy ignorance. Anyone who actually thinks the tea party libertarians are an acceptable alternative based on the bull**** they say has been completely duped or are lacking in personal intellectual discourse. ... "hrm shiny"
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

The post I made was the continuation in your line of thinking. All but one or two presidents have been over six feet tall, therefore appearance obviously plays a huge role in the selection. In the famous Kennedy-Nixon debate, nobody knows or cares what either candidate said; all that mattered is that JFK looked young and full of energy, while Nixon looked like a cadaver.

No all you did was make an extreme sarcastic example that is completely ridiculous.. However I countered with a completely acceptable outcome to libertarians anti regulation scheme.. where the corporations take over the rest of your democracy.
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

No all you did was make an extreme sarcastic example that is completely ridiculous.. However I countered with a completely acceptable outcome to libertarians anti regulation scheme.. where the corporations take over the rest of your democracy.
:roll: I don't know why I even bother talking to you ...
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

:roll: I don't know why I even bother talking to you ...

Ironically I responded to your completely rediculous suggestion.
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

Ironically I responded to your completely rediculous suggestion.
Try thinking before responding next time.
 
Well they should be neck and neck.. I mean money doesn't buy all the votes but it can buy ignorance. Anyone who actually thinks the tea party libertarians are an acceptable alternative based on the bull**** they say has been completely duped or are lacking in personal intellectual discourse. ... "hrm shiny"

What? This election has nothing to do with the Tea Party as Meg Whitman is far from a tea party candidate.
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

Try thinking before responding next time.

right.. all you did was make a silly suggestion about politicians making their names unknown etc.. which is a retarded suggestion and an exaggeration beyond all reality and I'm the one who has to think about it? I mean if regulatory powers are removed from government and the government public services are made private how valuable to do you think a vote will be? If you want more political apathy then you make your government useless.
 
Re: A modest proposal ...

Btw, for the sake of everyone, it's spelled "campaign," not "campain."
 
Back
Top Bottom