Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

  1. #61
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    You can keep ignoring it, but it won't stop being true as I've already shown. We do not all have the same volume to our voice, nor is it roughly the same.

    The only way you can "make things equal", which is your constant theme, is to ban verbal and non-verbal political speech.
    The year was 2081, and finally everyone was equal...

  2. #62
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,038

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    This will help all of the Hollywood elite, unions and Wall Street donors who will no doubt finance his opponent's campaign.
    I have no idea what reaction you expected your post to elicit from me.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Let's focus on two:

    Here you stated:



    This is logically coherent. If Money (M) = Speech (S), then Unequal M = Unequal S

    Yet then you state that unequal money doesn't mean unequal speech if there is an arbitrary cap on it.

    Suddenly Unequal M =/= Unequal S. A=B and B=C but A=/=C?


    Either Money equals Speech, meaning that unequal money means unequal speech, or it does not.
    I also said this, which you (not so) surprisingly ignored:

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    The point is to make it affordable for everyone to have a roughly equal opportunity to monetarily engage in political discourse (if we entertain the rather absurd notion that money = speech).
    This was the point all along, not the asinine straw man you chose to built out of unrealistic expectations. But it's good to see you have no qualms about dishonestly taking a reasonable position to extremes, just to try and knock down a straw man.

    Bravo, just so. I have the right to spend millions of dollars on speech if I wish to. The existence of the right is independent of the exercise of it.

    Yet then you state that people are currently denied the opportunity to spend money on speech because they don't spend millions, while others do.
    No, once more you lie about what I said. Here's what I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    The ability of a right is not removed if a person chooses not to use it. It IS removed it they are denied using it. And being able to only spend $500 compared to $20 million is, in essence, being denied from using it.
    The point is simple and obvious, even if you choose to dishonestly ignore it. Most people don't have $20 million and those who do are able to prevent those who don't from having a voice in government. Once you limit the level down to the point where everyone can have a meaningful say, then we make things far more equal and fair to all.

    That is argument is dependent upon the notion that the Existence of the right IS dependent on the Exercise of it.
    It's not to anyone who is honest about what I said.

    Either Rights exist independent of their Exercise, or they do not.
    Nonsense. When black people were threatened with violence if they tried to vote, they were effectively denied from exercising their vote. And when one poor person can't contribute more than .00000025% of what their rich neighbor can, they are effectively being denied the right to have their voice heard.

    Ironic, coming from the man who refuses to even fully quote the individual he is responding to, much less actually respond to him.
    I quoted and responded to you until it was blatantly obvious you were deliberately being dishonest about what I said, much like you've done many times before. I've caught you, on numerous occasions, continually posting lies you KNEW were lies and I had proven to you were lies. So when someone with a history like yours begins to fall into old patterns of dishonest posting, I tend to just ignore that person until they show some semblance of desire for honest discussion.

    So this is your chance to redeem yourself. You, once more, posted lies about what I said and I have, once more, corrected them into what I actually said. Let's see if you have the decency to respond to what I actually have said and not the lies you pretended I said. It's your move.

  4. #64
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,834

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Boom.

    If you want to reduce the power of money, reduce the money that can be gained from power.
    Do we throw coins into the fountain, make wishes upon stars? And while we're at it, why not just wish into existence honest politicians who serve their common constituents instead of mostly the wealthy?

    Sheesh, the point is unlimited contributions benefits those with (effectively) unlimited amounts to contribute to the political process. You support this, then wish for a system that doesn't exercise power in favor of the wealthy who can spend unlimited funds to elect politicians who will predictably exercise power in favor of their sugar daddies.

    It makes no sense to me. Please explain how unlimited donations reduce the likelihood politicians will serve those with unlimited funds.....

  5. #65
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,834

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    This will help all of the Hollywood elite, unions and Wall Street donors who will no doubt finance his opponent's campaign.
    Yeah, that Ted Cruz - he's a real anti-Wall Street warrior. The top three industries for Cruz are, in order, oil and gas ($1,086K), lawyers ($996k), and Wall Street (878k)....

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Do we throw coins into the fountain, make wishes upon stars? And while we're at it, why not just wish into existence honest politicians who serve their common constituents instead of mostly the wealthy?

    Sheesh, the point is unlimited contributions benefits those with (effectively) unlimited amounts to contribute to the political process. You support this, then wish for a system that doesn't exercise power in favor of the wealthy who can spend unlimited funds to elect politicians who will predictably exercise power in favor of their sugar daddies.

    It makes no sense to me. Please explain how unlimited donations reduce the likelihood politicians will serve those with unlimited funds.....
    allowing for unlimited contributions does not inherently mean allowing for unlimited spending by candidates....or even allowing candidates to know where their money came from.

    there are reforms we can make that allow for maximum freedoms of the citizenry while simultaneously addressing valid concerns of "too much money in politics" and the corrupting factors it most certainly has.
    for examples, we can allow for unlimited contributions, but restrict campaign expenditures by candidates..we can even make reforms that hides the identity of the contributor( so the candidate doesn't know whom is bribing him/her)... we can forbid collusion between campaigns and external entities whom would campaign on their behalf.
    we can improve ,strengthen ,and enforce "truth in advertising" laws when it comes to political ads ( and hopefully impose hefty fines on dishonest ads).
    we can provide for a mechanism that takes contributions, in excess of limits imposed on specific campaigns, and moves them directly into the general fund.
    ( for example.. if we say " a presidential campaign can spend 200 million".. but the candidate , and his official pacs, received 500 million... we then throw the other 300 million into the general fund and call it a day.)

    there's an endless list of reforms we can enact that do no include screwing with the citizens right to their speech
    ....and it basically comes down to restricting the actions of candidates and office holders rather than restricting the actions of the populace.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •