Thread Rating:

Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
July 25th, 2018 at 8:51:03 PM permalink
Quote: RS

I think the donations thing is kind of a difficult subject, to put it lightly. I think we know the downside, which is basically bribery. The not-often-talked-about upside is that there are people and companies that want to donate to someone with no ill-will intentions. Not to mention, it’d be incredibly difficult to be competitive in a campaign if you aren’t already “mega rich” and willing to throw millions upon millions at your campaign costs without donations.

One idea (that’s probably no good) might be to limit how much people can spend on a campaign and/or limit the amount someone can contribute to someone running.



Honestly, I don't really care if they bribe the politicians, because they're going to do that anyway. If they're not going to do it with donations on direct, then they'll do it with Super PAC's, but the difference is we don't always know who's pumping into Super PAC's until the election is over.

I would much rather you can give a candidate as much as you want, but it has to be on the basis of an individual person or a corporation. If the campaign accepts the donation (they wouldn't have to, obviously) then that must be made public record within 24 hours. It's so easy to put that up on the campaign website. No excuse that it couldn't be done in 24 hours.

We could pick some arbitrarily low amount, say $50, that the donation would have to be reported, but not who it came from. However, people would not be allowed to make multiple $50 donations to circumvent the public disclosure.

Anyway, I support no limits on campaign contributions, but full disclosure (other than donations of $50 or less) of where the money is coming from. If I see Comcast greasing the palms of a bunch of Republicans in Senate races I can say, "Oh, crap, Comcast is trying to buy a, 'Net Neutrality,' bill, I'd better encourage everyone to vote against these guys." Stuff like that.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146beachbumbabs
July 25th, 2018 at 9:02:56 PM permalink
Quote: 777

Such action certainly had created a very bad optic. But handing out $300,000 to 2,000 people in a very limited geographical area is nothing when compare to distributing $12 billion to hundred of thousands of farmers in order to will influence the house and senate races in this upcoming mid-term election.

The racist, sexist, rapist, liars, con-artist, incompetent Trump will spend $12 billion tax payer money to buy votes for the Nov mid-term election:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/us/politics/farmers-aid-trade-war.html


Politicians spending taxpayer money to try to get reelected? It never happens!!!

I forgot my sarcasm tag. What disgusts me the most about the GOP this term is the open checkbook and their willingness to ignore their own balance sheet while they were complete misers during the Obama terms. The latest Treasury reports show a projected deficit of $830 B this year and $985 billion next FY.

Conservatives have the opportunity to focus on economics, reduce government waste, and focus on programs to reduce the deficit. And none of that is happening. Instead they have a tax cut and the feds are raising the cost of borrowing which will make servicing that deficit all the more expensive.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
dogqck
dogqck
Joined: Jun 22, 2018
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 94
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 25th, 2018 at 9:27:58 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

If she would just make up lies about the voting results she would earn your support

"I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally"

"The biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan"



\ Yeah, but he is the President. And will be re-elected if the Democratic party is represented by candidates like Alexandriaq and other Socialists
dogqck
dogqck
Joined: Jun 22, 2018
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 94
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 25th, 2018 at 9:30:34 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Honestly, I don't really care if they bribe the politicians, because they're going to do that anyway. If they're not going to do it with donations on direct, then they'll do it with Super PAC's, but the difference is we don't always know who's pumping into Super PAC's until the election is over.

I would much rather you can give a candidate as much as you want, but it has to be on the basis of an individual person or a corporation. If the campaign accepts the donation (they wouldn't have to, obviously) then that must be made public record within 24 hours. It's so easy to put that up on the campaign website. No excuse that it couldn't be done in 24 hours.

We could pick some arbitrarily low amount, say $50, that the donation would have to be reported, but not who it came from. However, people would not be allowed to make multiple $50 donations to circumvent the public disclosure.

Anyway, I support no limits on campaign contributions, but full disclosure (other than donations of $50 or less) of where the money is coming from. If I see Comcast greasing the palms of a bunch of Republicans in Senate races I can say, "Oh, crap, Comcast is trying to buy a, 'Net Neutrality,' bill, I'd better encourage everyone to vote against these guys." Stuff like that.




Yeah, like voters are gonna do that. LOL
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
July 25th, 2018 at 9:46:58 PM permalink
Quote: dogqck

Yeah, like voters are gonna do that. LOL



I imagine that the sources of the donations will be mentioned in many campaign ads, so the voters won't necessarily have to look it up for themselves.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 205
  • Posts: 4717
Thanks for this post from:
beachbumbabsMission146
July 26th, 2018 at 3:53:46 AM permalink
got to give Fox News credit for this one. after the White House barred a CNN reporter from a Trump rose garden event the President of Fox News, Jay Wallace said this:

"We stand in strong solidarity with CNN for the right to full access for our journalists as part of a free and unfettered press."


there is a limit to how much Trump can try to delegitimize the press even for Fox News.


https://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-president-declares-strong-solidarity-with-cnn-after-wh-bars-kaitlan-collins-from-event/
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe
ams288
ams288
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 5645
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 26th, 2018 at 5:59:25 AM permalink
Quote: Maverick17

As if we freedom loving American's had not had enough winning today the House finally gets off its rear-end (would hate to offend with any questionable language on such a WINNING day) and....

sets up a path to impeach rosenstein.



11 members of the GOP are publicly supporting this. There is a mundane House rule that would allow them to go around Speaker Ryan and schedule an Impeachment vote TODAY.

They need 218 votes. They don't have them.

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt to excite the viewers of Fox News. And based on your post, I'd say it worked.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 5556
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146beachbumbabs
July 26th, 2018 at 8:17:00 AM permalink
I think it's pretty laughable that everyone is just 'okay' with lobbyists and their 'contributions' to senators/congressmen/etc. I think I'll finally make my other thread about how to literally solve all of this, really easily. I don't want to detract from the dumpster fire that is trump, and his never ending string of failures and lies.

1) no trumper seemed to want to talk about trumps BAILOUT to farmers after HIS idiotic trade war put them in a poor spot.
2) no trumper wants to talk about him attempting to buy votes by bailing out the farmers around midterms.
3) no trumper wants to talk about the michael cohen tapes where trump openly discusses paying off his affairs... but, but, what about when trump REPEATEDLY denied knowing anything about it and that it wasn't true??? Can we yet admit he's a flat out LIAR?

#NotMyPresident
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2383
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 26th, 2018 at 8:45:08 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

Okay...so here is a fact...

A candidate for Mayor in Chicago handed out $300,000 total to 2,000 on Sunday at church.



Yet when Trump gives money to people he lies about it, then his supporters insist that the lies are the truth. And that is the vision they have for our country.

-----

On the issues this brought up: I strongly believe I should be able to sell my vote. I would be better off by $3 (or whatever market value is) and no one would be worse off. I am a single issue voter on this. I will support any candidate who believes in making this legal. If no candidate believes in this, then I sell my vote illegally.

Voting is just like sex. We can give it away for free, but as soon as we start buying and selling it, people get offended.

The other option that would make people less squeamish is to allow everyone one vote for free, then we have the option to buy more. But the cost for extra votes would grow as a cube. Your first extra vote costs $1, second extra vote costs $8, third extra vote costs $27, fourth costs $64, fifth costs $125, 10th extra vote costs $100, and 100th extra vote costs $1 million. Then all the money collected from this gets divided equally and paid back to everyone who voted in that election. Instead of rich people giving money to candidates so they can buy TV ads and fly around the country, rich people use that money to pay poorer people to vote. Who would ever be against that idea?
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 217
  • Posts: 13347
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 26th, 2018 at 9:35:39 AM permalink
Buying votes is an American tradition. Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who first handed out cell phones to potential voters.
You people act like it's a bad thing.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.

  • Jump to: