cm husker Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 There's no way in hell that if I send $100 to my politician of choice, I should be forced to spend part of that on David duke. What happens if there are 100 candidates to begin with. Each gets a dollar? The entire rub of your proposal is letting someone "dictate who does and doesn't get access to the money." Link to comment
ZRod Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Your money goes to him in some way or another right now. The entire point of my rub was so that you don't have 100 candidates. Establish some kond of guideline. I've really never seen you make a proposal in this forum. So let's hear one. Link to comment
cm husker Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 A campaign finance proposal? I'm not very knowledgeable on the topic, but generally I wouldn't change any of it. I think it'd be a useless and costly exercise. People's issues with campaign finance and campaigning are a red herring for the deeper issue, which is we do a terrible job of setting up incentives to draw top talent to politics. Link to comment
cm husker Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I answered your question directly. But I appreciate a good gif. Link to comment
ZRod Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 So no proposal... dodge, duck, dip, dodge! Link to comment
cm husker Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 So no proposal... dodge, duck, dip, dodge! My proposal is that we shouldn't waste our time trying to come up with elaborate rules to cut out something that's going to happen no matter what. We absolutely definitely should not make it a system where we have to give money to all looney politicians equally, and I'm curious how I'm currently supporting David Duke, as you stated above. As to my proposal re: addressing the underlying problem of changing incentives around who we get into politics, I've written about that many times in other threads. I'll sum up: we should pay our politicians a lot more to do a lot less. Link to comment
ZRod Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Yes! We got something!!! You pay social security? Taxes? Medicare? That money supports everyone in this country in some way, shape, or form. Link to comment
cm husker Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Yes! We got something!!! You pay social security? Taxes? Medicare? That money supports everyone in this country in some way, shape, or form. It's not my fault if you haven't read other threads, ZRod. And you can't be seriously equating the paying of taxes as the same kind of support that your proposing would come from a general campaign fund. Link to comment
ZRod Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I'm sorry I didn't pick up your proposal in you plethora of posts breaking down other peoples. Money's money man... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Personally, I wish we had a system where you didn't feel like you needed to send $100 to your favorite candidate to support them. Instead, if you so choose to support a system where we have good options to choose from, you can send in your $100 to support the system. Link to comment
cm husker Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I'm sorry I didn't pick up your proposal in you plethora of posts breaking down other peoples. Money's money man... This can't be a serious argument, unless you're now saying we shouldn't pay taxes that support anyone in anything - which would be the opposite of your position on HSI to rural residents. Link to comment
ZRod Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I'm sorry I didn't pick up your proposal in you plethora of posts breaking down other peoples. Money's money man... This can't be a serious argument, unless you're now saying we shouldn't pay taxes that support anyone in anything - which would be the opposite of your position on HSI to rural residents. I don't see why it's a big deal, other than the stigma of that's not how we do it. Make it illegal for hate speech to be in the campaign then, there's always a way. Link to comment
cm husker Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 "Make it illegal for hate speech to be in the campaign." Obviously there are First Amendment problems with any such law, not to mention the practicality of it. For example, does Trump engage in hate speech? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted August 17, 2016 Author Share Posted August 17, 2016 Somewhere right now, Bernie Sanders is turning green and ripping through a very reasonably starched Oxford shirt. His favorite thing to demonize is the extremely wealthy trying to buy elections. Well, that article sure makes it seem like those people are trying to purchase Trump's campaign. And he's just the type of guy that would let it happen, for the right price. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts