Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reclaim our Republic

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:49:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It was never our Republic. It was a Republic for slaveowning aristocrats who imposed the government on the rest of society through violence. We should be reclaiming our freedom by abolishing the Republic, not putting ourselves in shackles.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:50:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:49:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It was never our Republic. It was a Republic for slaveowning aristocrats who imposed the government on the rest of society through violence. We should be reclaiming our freedom by abolishing the Republic, not putting ourselves in shackles.

I recall there was this whole thing were large majority kinda went all out for the idea, and fought for it, but maybe thats just me.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:55:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

Basically the problem with any democracy/republic system.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:57:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Did you guys (mostly gals) even watch the video? Or are you responding just to the title?

In the vid the professor clarifies that it's a republic of representative democracy.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:59:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I agree with this too... there seems to be a problem with majority vote (evidenced by DDO votes ;-)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:02:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:59:09 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I agree with this too... there seems to be a problem with majority vote (evidenced by DDO votes ;-)

Democracy is overrated ;)
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:16:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:50:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I recall there was this whole thing were large majority kinda went all out for the idea, and fought for it, but maybe thats just me.

Mainly because the American Revolution was backed by the French government who was at war with Great Britain at the time.

And then the people tried to rebel against the new Republic, known as the whiskey rebellion, but then George Washington sent 17,000 men to end it.

So basically some people were fought a government that raised taxes, and won. Then a new government formed, imposed a tax on the people, then people tried to resist it and failed.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:34:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?


Thanks but I just couldn't take that video- too pop.. I meant if there were any articles or journals on the matter.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:35:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:32:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:50:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I recall there was this whole thing were large majority kinda went all out for the idea, and fought for it, but maybe thats just me.

Mainly because the American Revolution was backed by the French government who was at war with Great Britain at the time.

And then the people tried to rebel against the new Republic, known as the whiskey rebellion, but then George Washington sent 17,000 men to end it.

So basically some people were fought a government that raised taxes, and won. Then a new government formed, imposed a tax on the people, then people tried to resist it and failed.

son of a b!tch
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:40:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:34:13 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?


Thanks but I just couldn't take that video- too pop.. I meant if there were any articles or journals on the matter.

This sums it up nicely: http://aceproject.org...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:47:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:48:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.ted.com...

... I'm not very educated on politics, but this makes sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?

It really does make u question some of the conspiracy narrative really is true when such a small fraction of the population can have such a large influence.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:02:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:47:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:48:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.ted.com...

... I'm not very educated on politics, but this makes sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?

It really does make u question some of the conspiracy narrative really is true when such a small fraction of the population can have such a large influence.

Yea, it kinda does... crap-
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:02:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:40:43 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:34:13 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:11:49 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:02:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:59:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:53:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing about 'campaign finance reform' is that it consists of giving the power to decide what sort of political speech is permitted to, you guessed it, politicians. Not a very good idea.

The problem with American politics isn't corporate money. The problem with American politics is American people.They aren't overall very informed, interested, or even all that intelligent. The campaign finance reform spiel is populist drivel which allows pundits to avoid talking about the real issue, which is politically toxic.

I really like your idea about requiring people to know the name of the politician they are voting for when filling out a ballot.

Yep. IRV with write-in ballots would fix more than campaign reform ever would. Which is why nobody talks bout it.

What does that mean and where can I find more info?


Thanks but I just couldn't take that video- too pop.. I meant if there were any articles or journals on the matter.

This sums it up nicely: http://aceproject.org...

Thanka
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:03:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:57:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Did you guys (mostly gals) even watch the video? Or are you responding just to the title?

In the vid the professor clarifies that it's a republic of representative democracy.

I guarentee royal didn't watch it.

I'm about to watch it.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:17:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:48:18 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.ted.com...

... I'm not very educated on politics, but this makes sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?

Descriptively 99% true. Mildly misrepresents Citizens United but mostly for rhetorical purposes than substantial ones.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:38:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.

Thus, Lessig's presentation about how just a few people fund 60% of the SuperPacs. And those people aren't blowing their life savings.

Do you believe there should be any limit on campaign contributions from individuals and companies?

Do you believe a corporation has the same first amendment rights as an individual when it pertains to Superpac spending?

Just curious which of the dissents you're leaning for. This'll answer it.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:42:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:38:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.

Thus, Lessig's presentation about how just a few people fund 60% of the SuperPacs. And those people aren't blowing their life savings.

Do you believe there should be any limit on campaign contributions from individuals and companies?

Do you believe a corporation has the same first amendment rights as an individual when it pertains to Superpac spending?

Just curious which of the dissents you're leaning for. This'll answer it.

I believe that companies and organizations (PACs included) should have a limit but individuals should not.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:50:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:42:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:38:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.

Thus, Lessig's presentation about how just a few people fund 60% of the SuperPacs. And those people aren't blowing their life savings.

Do you believe there should be any limit on campaign contributions from individuals and companies?

Do you believe a corporation has the same first amendment rights as an individual when it pertains to Superpac spending?

Just curious which of the dissents you're leaning for. This'll answer it.

I believe that companies and organizations (PACs included) should have a limit but individuals should not.

Why limit restrict direct funding for company/organizations but not individuals? Justice Thomas argued all forms of restrictions on campaign contributions is as unconstitutional as third party expenditures.

Again, this is more me trying to gauge where you're coming from than an interrogation or argument.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:57:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:50:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:42:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:38:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:31:48 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:28:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Unfortunately, his normative ideas are a bit off. Thanks to cases like Citizens United, it is constitutionally impossible to stop certain forms of campaign funding.

The McCain-Feingold was an attempt to do what he's saying. However, a major loophole existed which Citizens United codified. That is, Citizens United didn't, as Democrats claim, "open the floodgates to donor money."

But Citizens United did say "You can't close those floodgates without violating the first amendment." It became known as a "Superpac."

While it is possible to limit the amount of money GIVEN TO a candidate, there is NO LIMIT on the amount of money that can be spent to "independently" cheerleader for a candidate.

I put quotes around "independent" since, as Colbert amusingly demonstrated on live television using his superpac, you can quite easily horse-trade and coordinate with the "independent" group.

As it shouldn't. If I want to blow my entire life savings running posters and ads for a political campaign, that's within my rights to do so. That's why Citizen United passed.

Thus, Lessig's presentation about how just a few people fund 60% of the SuperPacs. And those people aren't blowing their life savings.

Do you believe there should be any limit on campaign contributions from individuals and companies?

Do you believe a corporation has the same first amendment rights as an individual when it pertains to Superpac spending?

Just curious which of the dissents you're leaning for. This'll answer it.

I believe that companies and organizations (PACs included) should have a limit but individuals should not.

Why limit restrict direct funding for company/organizations but not individuals? Justice Thomas argued all forms of restrictions on campaign contributions is as unconstitutional as third party expenditures.

Again, this is more me trying to gauge where you're coming from than an interrogation or argument.

I'm coming from the position that people should be able to spend their personal money how they will. I'm not defending PACs, I'm defending the right of people to spend their money on say, posters or internet ads for candidates on their own because I think the government should not restrict people's right to spend their own money on things.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 2:16:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:49:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It was never our Republic. It was a Republic for slaveowning aristocrats who imposed the government on the rest of society through violence. We should be reclaiming our freedom by abolishing the Republic, not putting ourselves in shackles.

Why is it that you stick your nose in everywhere to make snide political comments when nobody seems to appreciate them? I just clicked on this random thread and here you are, whining away and contributing nothing.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 2:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would think a voter mandated law that eliminates consecutive terms in all levels of government followed by a mandate to shrink the power of the government which invites bribery (cough cough "campaign funds")... would eliminate all and every need for campaign finance reform.