Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: RSI 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.
Quote: 777Such 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.
Quote: TomGIf 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
Quote: Mission146Honestly, 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
Quote: dogqckYeah, 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.
"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/
Quote: Maverick17As 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.
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
Quote: RonCOkay...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?
You people act like it's a bad thing.
