• 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!

Suspicions confirmed

People, or groups of people, can spend their money however they like.

So you believe that the right to buy politicians is Constitutional?

The plain and simple fact, demonstrated not only by Justice Stephen Breyer’s compelling dissenting opinion in McCutcheon, but also by the fact that the federal campaign finance regulations invalidated in case after case by these five justices were enacted by bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by several different presidents, including Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, is that these laws serve important and, indeed, compelling government interests.
Yes, such laws limit the ability of the wealthiest among us to control our government. But the public officials who enacted these laws—Republicans and Democrats alike—did so because they understood that such restrictions are necessary to preserve the most fundamental values of a well-functioning democracy. As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed almost seventy-five years ago, “a fundamental principle of our constitutional system” is the “maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government be responsive to the will of the people.” The will of the wealthiest Americans is most emphatically not “the will of the people.” At a time when billionaires are more and more determined to hand-pick and to control our elected public officials, these regulations are essential to the integrity and legitimacy of American democracy.
The First Amendment Doesn?t Protect the Right to Buy the American Government - The Daily Beast
 
Last edited:
To be an American Leftie is to be for ever bigger, ever more intrusive, ever more powerful Government.

Yet I see Lefties on this thread smirking about how they already KNEW that Government is completely corrupt and money-seeking...

Well, that would imply, that the Lefties making such comments, Accept and Approve of the Bigger Corrupt Government, and how it is dominated by GREED and POWER, and not the interests of the common people...

In other words, the Lefties words saying how they're for the common man, are nothing but LIES for POWER and Money.



....Well....


I am Not Surprised to learn that the Leftie Posters here are corrupt to the core.

-
 
So dark money in politics is a tenet of capitalism like our antiquated and inefficient health care system? Why do we need to fight off so many disadvantages? Is capitalism that fragile?

We aren't fighting off disadvantages. We designed the system to work in a certain manner, and it will take as much time to change things as it did to institute them, and probably more, given that entities of all stripes derive serious income from the system as it stands. Trump and Clinton will likely spend a billion each on their campaigns. Making all funding public funding won't eliminate the purchase of favors or influence. It might slow it down, but other avenues will be exploited instead. It's the nature of the beast.
 
When poster on a forum is consistent in stating that they want Limited, Constitutional, Smaller Government, I know that's a poster I can trust.


Those here, or anywhere, who consistently want Bigger Government, or a "Living Constitution", are Manipulative, Corrupt, Greedy, Scum!

-
 
I treasure my cynicism and I'll not permit this guy to ruin it. I'd prefer to leave my imagination in tact. Anytime someone in Congress tells us that they're worse than we think it's obvious they're out of touch. They couldn't possibly be worse than we think.

Well, Congress' approval ratings sometimes do soar clear into the double digits.
 
We aren't fighting off disadvantages. We designed the system to work in a certain manner, and it will take as much time to change things as it did to institute them, and probably more, given that entities of all stripes derive serious income from the system as it stands. Trump and Clinton will likely spend a billion each on their campaigns. Making all funding public funding won't eliminate the purchase of favors or influence. It might slow it down, but other avenues will be exploited instead. It's the nature of the beast.

Corruption is a distinct disadvantage to good governing and the idea that we need to accept it because "capitalism" is incredibly stupid. Taking the raising of money out of politics would go a long way to reducing corruption.
 
Obama and Crew Tops the List of Greedy, Corrupt Scum!

Hillary Supporters are not far behind.... In a dozen ways.

-
 
I don't view those events as seminal in any respect. Who cares what color the president is? I don't, and I never did. Same with gay marriage. I can't say such a change couldn't happen, but it would be a significant change, and not likely to happen with the folks running our government at present. Could it change? Sure. I'm not holding my breath though. Actual changes in the way business is conducted in DC only evolve very slowly.

Taking your word for the bolded statements above, that's a great example of projection, of assuming that the rest of the nation does - or should - feel as you do. But if a poll had been taken at the time, the very notion of the election of a black guy with a middle name of "Hussein" to have his finger on the nuclear button would have been laughed at...and so would gay marriage being legal nationwide. What you PERSONALLY think means very little - what the people as a whole think means far, far more.
 
So you are saying that it is not under our control? We can never elect someone who has our interests in mind? I think you are just trying to keep a perceived advantage for your side but at what cost?

Like it or not, our government is only marginally under our control. You don't have to convince me. You have to convince everybody who has made a donation to their preferred candidate. Good luck in talking them out of it.
 
Well, Congress' approval ratings sometimes do soar clear into the double digits.

...when they're out of session. I would've been a little hurt had some of my job performance characteristics improved when I was on vacation. Silly me.
 
Corruption is a distinct disadvantage to good governing and the idea that we need to accept it because "capitalism" is incredibly stupid. Taking the raising of money out of politics would go a long way to reducing corruption.

I didn't say it's a great idea, but it's the one we're stuck with right now. It's simply not possible to take all the money out of politics. Rather than a transfer of funds, transfers of other fungible things would occur, and occur in ways difficult to prevent. In truth, what we're really looking for are politicians who aren't willing to sell their souls for power and money.
 
I didn't say it's a great idea, but it's the one we're stuck with right now. It's simply not possible to take all the money out of politics. Rather than a transfer of funds, transfers of other fungible things would occur, and occur in ways difficult to prevent. In truth, what we're really looking for are politicians who aren't willing to sell their souls for power and money.

These "other fungible things" will pay for campaigns? Because now that is the most important job a Congressman has, to get the money to fund his re-election. Those that don't "sell their souls" are quickly replaced with ones who will. It has to stop and it is not that difficult.
 
Taking your word for the bolded statements above, that's a great example of projection, of assuming that the rest of the nation does - or should - feel as you do. But if a poll had been taken at the time, the very notion of the election of a black guy with a middle name of "Hussein" to have his finger on the nuclear button would have been laughed at...and so would gay marriage being legal nationwide. What you PERSONALLY think means very little - what the people as a whole think means far, far more.

By the looks of the GOP as a party and it's supporters, they did not adjust too well to all those things did they? They appear to have left the rails to me. The fact is that they are looking to Trump to change them all back, like that would ever happen.
 
These "other fungible things" will pay for campaigns? Because now that is the most important job a Congressman has, to get the money to fund his re-election. Those that don't "sell their souls" are quickly replaced with ones who will.
It has to stop and it is not that difficult.
It'd be wonderful if it stopped. If you think it's not difficult, go ahead and take a whack at it. Let me know how it goes. Understand, you will be dealing with a large group of people who have gathered money and power, and the money they have is used to purchase more power, which gets them more money, and on and on it goes. Believe it or not, not everybody who happens to be a recipient of some of that money will forego it simply because you say the country would benefit.
 
These "other fungible things" will pay for campaigns? Because now that is the most important job a Congressman has, to get the money to fund his re-election. Those that don't "sell their souls" are quickly replaced with ones who will.
It'd be wonderful if it stopped. If you think it's not difficult, go ahead and take a whack at it. Let me know how it goes. Understand, you will be dealing with a large group of people who have gathered money and power, and the money they have is used to purchase more power, which gets them more money, and on and on it goes. Believe it or not, not everybody who happens to be a recipient of some of that money will forego it simply because you say the country would benefit.

Public funding of campaigns is done everyday around the world and for good reasons. You have not given any reason it would not work here too.
 
These "other fungible things" will pay for campaigns? Because now that is the most important job a Congressman has, to get the money to fund his re-election. Those that don't "sell their souls" are quickly replaced with ones who will.

Public funding of campaigns is done everyday around the world and for good reasons. You have not given any reason it would not work here too.

You have not provided any reason it would, except that it'd be nice.
 
What we need to do:

We need members of Congress who haven't been purchased, and who don't have to spend most of their time raising money.
The way to do that is to hire them the same way we hire any other public servant, whether it's a cop or the fire chief.

If someone wants to be a cop,they don't go out and raise money and then campaign for the job, do they?

No, they submit a resume and letters of recommendation, which are reviewed by a board. Then, they are interviewed.

We need to hire congressmen the same way: Let them submit a resume and letters of recommendation to a committee of citizens, chosen in much the same way as we choose grand juries. That committee would then pick out a half dozen or so candidates who have the necessary qualifications, and interview them. Following the interview, which would be televised of course, we'd have a primary election.

The two top vote getters would then stage a debate, once again, televised. After that, the general election would determine the winner.

That's it. No parties, no fund raising, no campaign rhetoric and promises, no BS at all in fact.

We'd have public servants who have not been purchased and who are qualified for the job.

When they make me dictator, I'm going to first disband Congress, then re hire congresspeople by the above method.

Once Congress that actually serves the people is in place, I'll retire as dictator (after decreeing myself a fat pension, of course).
 
What we need to do:

We need members of Congress who haven't been purchased, and who don't have to spend most of their time raising money.
The way to do that is to hire them the same way we hire any other public servant, whether it's a cop or the fire chief.

If someone wants to be a cop,they don't go out and raise money and then campaign for the job, do they?

No, they submit a resume and letters of recommendation, which are reviewed by a board. Then, they are interviewed.

We need to hire congressmen the same way: Let them submit a resume and letters of recommendation to a committee of citizens, chosen in much the same way as we choose grand juries. That committee would then pick out a half dozen or so candidates who have the necessary qualifications, and interview them. Following the interview, which would be televised of course, we'd have a primary election.

The two top vote getters would then stage a debate, once again, televised. After that, the general election would determine the winner.

That's it. No parties, no fund raising, no campaign rhetoric and promises, no BS at all in fact.

We'd have public servants who have not been purchased and who are qualified for the job.

When they make me dictator, I'm going to first disband Congress, then re hire congresspeople by the above method.

Once Congress that actually serves the people is in place, I'll retire as dictator (after decreeing myself a fat pension, of course).

No. Public financing at this stage of the disease of Establishment Progressive-Fascism will only accelerate the concentration of power and corruption.

What we need is an outsider to be elected at the executive, with very, very long coat tails.

In short, we, the American Voters, need to elect Trump, and reject ALL of the incumbents for the next several elections and CLEAN HOUSE.

Furthermore, We need to reject ANY Leftie who runs office!

-
 
No. Public financing at this stage of the disease of Establishment Progressive-Fascism will only accelerate the concentration of power and corruption.

What we need is an outsider to be elected at the executive, with very, very long coat tails.

In short, we, the American Voters, need to elect Trump, and reject ALL of the incumbents for the next several elections and CLEAN HOUSE.

Furthermore, We need to reject ANY Leftie who runs office!

-

Anthropomorphic Republican Talking Duck #3
 
No. Public financing at this stage of the disease of Establishment Progressive-Fascism will only accelerate the concentration of power and corruption.

What we need is an outsider to be elected at the executive, with very, very long coat tails.

In short, we, the American Voters, need to elect Trump, and reject ALL of the incumbents for the next several elections and CLEAN HOUSE.

Furthermore, We need to reject ANY Leftie who runs office!

-

All hail Trump, savior of the nation! Riding to the rescue of the lost sheep on his white stallion... I mean private jet, the mighty hero will make America great again by walling us off from Mexico and making the giant corporations bring jobs back to America! If they don't do what he says, he'll fire them! He'll probably fire Vicente Fox and Enrique Pena Nieto as well. Then, if Congress doesn't fall in line, they too will feel the wrath of the firer in chief! All Hail!
 
Back
Top Bottom