The topic is specifically regarding spending that money to influence politicians. And I care because the politicians are supposed to represent all their constituents, not just the wealthy ones who may see donations as just a way to purchase stricter or looser laws to aid their business interests and hinder others.
Votes get the politician elected. Do you suppose money got Obama elected? Bill Gates ain't got that much money from my view. Dumb ass voters are the problem not money to pay the piper.
You and I fundamentally disagree then. I can't recall the source, but I saw a figure recently that 97% of winners in recent congressional and senatorial elections were from the side that raised more money. Money has huge importance. Let's remove that obstacle and then have real debates over the issues. And often, industries give enough to both sides of an election that there is nobody to represent the other side to an issue.
I believe we do fundamentally disagree and that is truly the hart of the matter. Listening to politician debate is a terrible way to learn what you need to know about issues. Most issues these days should not be issue that you want the government to be messing around. Why do I want to hear Romney and Obama debate healthcare? Hell I want then to do what is in the Constitution on healthcare. Absolutely nothing. But now I need them to get out of it. The same for my Senators. Why do I want to hear any politician debate who can get married? Hell, I don't, the Oregon voters decided that it was a man and a woman several years ago. Nowhere does the Constitutions of the US or the State give that as the business of any of them. So you see it is a matter of the Voters not keeping these guys on track, that is the problem, not the money they spend. The libertarians do come the closest to wanting to keep the politics on track therefore free speech should be encouraged not stifled. Any fucking around with the 1st amendment is stifling.
It was about an anti-Hillary movie that the democrats wanted to squash. It took a wealthy person to be able to afford to bankroll the movie. It's not like Hollywood is going to fund an anti-Hillary one. But they will make "The American President" when Clinton was being impeached. I am all in favor of free political speech. Even if it's birthers or 9/11ers for truth or aliens ate my buick.
This. It's one man one vote. Not one zillionaire one zillion votes. If the Koch brothers are buying a politician at everyone'e expense, throw out the politician next election.
i hope I've made it clear in our discussion, I don't care about the individual subject matter on each of these issues. If its pro or anti Hillary, if it's Union or Church, if it's red, blue, green, yellow ..., I'm talking about the fundamental flaws in the system that allow those with tremendous capital to always keep a finger on the scale. I want these politicians, regardless of their bent, to try and vote their consciences. If that means the Dems lose, so be it. But it is my hope that once the big money gets removed and the waters grow clearer, more people with vote with a liberal leaning, but that's a hope, not my purpose for suggesting any of this.
As I said to MarAzul, you and I have a fundamental disagreement here. It is this reason I am not a Libertarian. I love your stances on many topics, but this is a huge flaw in my opinion, a flaw that will lead to the end of America one way or another. Hopefully not for some time.
Hillary wins because the truth about her is squashed. When govt can squash dissent, we will end up like the old USSR. That is how it all ends. Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams through the exact kind of campaigns we have today. The republic has survived. If you really think about it, Obama spent $20T in his first four years. Spending a $billion or ten seems like a reasonable amount to pay up front to discover if he's worth it.
Well you do know Further It is liberals that want to stifle conservatives? It should be clear. You want more people to vote for Progressive Liberal People to push a plethora of issues Conservatives are not keen for any of them but you want to prevent them from baning together to oppose the agenda. That is pretty one way I would say. Conservatives would not need a dime if we all chose to live by the Constitution. But you could be right, we might come to conflict in a time not so far off. The ignoring the Constitution does piss me off and I am ready to fix this one issue.
How do you feel about the government spying on us all? Do we have any right to privacy from the government? If you think we do have that right, thank the constitution. You can't pick and choose to support some of it and ignore some of it. It is the law . There's a follow up question. I'll wait for your response about the privacy and spying questions.
You can pick and choose, that's why I call for a constitutional amendment. If we couldn't choose there would still be slavery.
As far as the spying stuff, mostly I'm against it, seems quite sleazy. But I'd love to actually know what is and isn't done so I could give a better answer.
And we may decide a constitutional amendment is needed to strengthen our privacy rights. So far as we know, all these programs were constitutional. A lot is undecided.
Good luck with your amendment. I seriously doubt it'll get 50% of the votes, let alone a supermajority. While we are at it, how about an amendment to ban conservative ideology? Or let's anoint a king. Or let the government summarily execute dissidents.
So some spying on all the people all the time is ok? Yeah, we don't want to live in the same kind if country.
Those weren't the follow up question I had in mind. If you're ok with no right to privacy, there is nothing more to say.
