you keep banking on meaningless polls.... i'll keep banking on 200+ years of historical fact.
we'll meet up after the elections and see who fared better... deal?
do you realize the number one reason an incumbent leaves office is ..retirement?
running for reelection and losing is not common whatsoever.
how do you know we can't limit the politicians themselves?.. it's never been attempted by any congress... ever.
lots of attempts at limiting the private money though... every single attempt has been a failure.
i'm assuming that your idea of starting on level ground has something to do with public financing...
there are lots of problems with that as well... mostly i balk at the idea because i do not want my money going to candidates i do not support...i don't care if it's the name of equality or some such nonsense... it's wrong.
It should tell you something, that you could not come up with a single thing the GOP has done since 2010 that a great majority of the American public approves of.
Im talking limiting the candidates and politicians when running for office...and leveling the playing field...everyone has the same amount of everything....Now they have the untasteful necessity to actually run on ideas to STAND OUT...not merely stand out because they have the most money to flood their district with ads...
yes, it tells me i'm not interested in entertaining your red herrings.
whatever the GOP ( or Democrats for that matter) has done or not done is irreverent to my argument.
there comes a time in life when peoples political idealism is slaughtered upon altar of stark reality... sadly, your time is coming .. and it's fine that you refuse to even entertain that as a possibility , let alone an inevitability... that's your choice to make
ya mean like limiting candidate expenditures?... i'm cool with that.
so far all we have ever done is try to limit constituent contributions, and i'm not cool with that.
not sure how you are going to guarantee equal airtime though.... not sure you should even try.
The fact that the GOP has not done a single thing since 2010 that a great majority of Americans approve of, is a red herring in a discussion of possible election results?
That is certainly a unique reality you've got going there.
Thats exactly what im saying....you cant stop people from giving money to them...we have to make it so everyone can spend the same amount.
Every candidate gets the same amount of airtime...they get the same amount to spend on ads etc...all taxpayer funded...may the best person win...NOT THE RICHEST PERSON...it ends the influence of the George Soros and Koch brothers of the world and gives it to all the voters...
I'm a Libertarian, i'll trumpet the Libertarian Party, not any other party.. if that's ok with you.
Hey, whatever floats your boat! Aren't Libertarians opposed to an election process that excludes them because of the private funding for the main parties?
private funding of the main parties does not exclude us from the election process....we advocate for trusting people to fund who they want, with however much they want to give... to do otherwise would be against the stated principles of the party.
we oppose limits on free speech and we oppose our incumbency protection acts .. (better known as campaign finance reform act, McCain Fiengold)
we find that the citizens united decision, while certainly a step in the right direction, didn't go far enough in releasing the grip the major parties/incumbents have on our system.
ya mean like limiting candidate expenditures?... i'm cool with that.
Thats exactly what im saying....you cant stop people from giving money to them...we have to make it so everyone can spend the same amount.
Every candidate gets the same amount of airtime...they get the same amount to spend on ads etc...all taxpayer funded...may the best person win...NOT THE RICHEST PERSON...it ends the influence of the George Soros and Koch brothers of the world and gives it to all the voters...
how do you know we can't limit the politicians themselves?.. it's never been attempted by any congress... ever.
The Libertarian platform on campaign finance reform may help explain this:
Libertarian share of the votes in the 2008 presidential election - 0.4%
I'm Thrilla... glad to meetcha!Why?
Who are you to say a candidate has said enough?
I'm Thrilla... glad to meetcha!
why, you ask..... well,because I don't have a problem with limiting the rights of government agents or government agents to-be.
admittedly,it's not a very consistent position of mine,taking my ideology into consideration, but it's one I hold nonetheless.
An organization or a social entity in the way that you are talking about usually has one common goal directed at something specific, usually some sort of ideology or cause. Like La Raza, or anti-abortion/pro-choice or some such. In such cases everyone that is a part of those organizations agree on one basic principle. Why? Because each member of those types of organizations joined that organization for that specific purpose. As such it is logical that one or a few people speak for the whole.
A corporation however has no such common goals. The ones that control the corporation does not ask Joe Blow that works in the mail department what ideas he may have or what politician he supports and no corporation requires any of thier employees to follow any specific credo. The only reason that people are a part of any corporation is to make money, not to be supporters or non-supporters to an ideaology.
As such comparing the two is like comparing a human to a rock.
Freedom of speech means you can't decide that someone has too much speech.
ooooh an appeal to popularity... that always works out well.
there was a time when most everybody believed the world was flat... do you feel the few that believed it was spherical were wrong?
had you ever taken the time to do your homework, you'd know that there is no Libertarian party platform concerning campaign finance reform....
why haven't you taken the time to inform yourself?
private funding of the main parties does not exclude us from the election process....we advocate for trusting people to fund who they want, with however much they want to give... to do otherwise would be against the stated principles of the party.
we oppose limits on free speech and we oppose our incumbency protection acts .. (better known as campaign finance reform act, McCain Fiengold)
we find that the citizens united decision, while certainly a step in the right direction, didn't go far enough in releasing the grip the major parties/incumbents have on our system.
Damn right, the more money you've got, the more speech you get.
Do people think speech is supposed to be free or something???
Catawba is right. the current situation means that those few with the most money can speak over the majority.
The little people can (and do) join their money together to magnify their voices (in non-human groups that still have free speech rights, btw).
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?
Why or why not?
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?