Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 77

Thread: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If politicians are too worried about getting money to get reelected, I think there is a better solution: Impose term limits on senators and congressmen.
    We should just limit voting to net tax-payers. That would really clean the system out, and keep it clean.

  2. #52
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    We should just limit voting to net tax-payers. That would really clean the system out, and keep it clean.
    If you're comfortable abandoning representative governance...

    How exactly would this clean out the system anyway? Net taxpayers - not tax recipients - are typically the ones spending millions of dollars to nudge candidates/office-holders toward whatever policy is important to them
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-29-09 at 03:08 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If you're comfortable abandoning representative governance...
    Excluding net tax-consumers from voting does nothing to undermine the integrity of representative governance.

    How exactly would this clean out the system anyway? Net taxpayers aren't typically the ones spending millions of dollars to nudge candidates/office-holders toward whatever policy is important to them.
    Once the net tax-consumers (Re: Dumb People) are excluded from voting the special interests and politicians will have to trick the net tax-payers (Re: Less Dumb People) into supporting their agendas.

    An informed citizenry is the best guard against bad government and special interests; net tax-consumers dilute the intelligence of the American voting bloc, therefore they should be excluded from voting.

  4. #54
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Excluding net tax-consumers from voting does nothing to undermine the integrity of representative governance.
    Of course it does. If more than half of adults do not have the right to vote, the government does not represent the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Once the net tax-consumers (Re: Dumb People) are excluded from voting
    Wow, and I thought *I* was an elitist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    the special interests and politicians will have to trick the net tax-payers (Re: Less Dumb People) into supporting their agendas.
    Or - more likely - the net taxpayers will have to trick the politicians into supporting THEIR agenda. Just as they do now through campaign contributions, which would not change at all under your plan. So how exactly is this relevant to the subject at hand? How would it eliminate the corrupting influence of money on politics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    An informed citizenry is the best guard against bad government and special interests; net tax-consumers dilute the intelligence of the American voting bloc, therefore they should be excluded from voting.
    Then why not just have a civics test instead of assuming that the average pro baseball player is more intelligent than the average nurse, based on their salaries?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-29-09 at 03:28 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #55
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then why not just have a civics test instead of assuming that the average pro baseball player is more intelligent than the average nurse, based on their salaries?
    You say this like it would be a bad thing.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Of course it does. If more than half of adults do not have the right to vote, the government does not represent the people.
    Becoming a net tax-consumer is a choice. If voting is that important to someone they should simply refrain from taking more money than they contribute.

    Wow, and I thought *I* was an elitist.
    1. You are...

    2. Are you disputing the factuality of my statement?

    Or - more likely - the net taxpayers will have to trick the politicians into supporting THEIR agenda. Just as they do now through campaign contributions, which would not change at all under your plan. So how exactly is this relevant to the subject at hand? How would it eliminate the corrupting influence of money on politics?
    You can't eliminate the corrupting influence of money on anything, let alone politics. I'm just basing my position off the fact that smart people are typically better than dumb people at making decisions.

    Then why not just have a civics test instead of assuming that the average pro baseball player is more intelligent than the average nurse, based on their salaries?
    I've thought of that before but such a test would be prone to manipulation by politicians. Also, this has nothing to do with a person's salary. It has to do with the amount of tax dollars they consume directly.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    We should just limit voting to net tax-payers. That would really clean the system out, and keep it clean.
    WRONG.

    Elitism is lame.

    Every American who is 18 gets to vote. If you don't like it, you are free to leave the country and move to Russia.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    WRONG.

    Elitism is lame.

    Every American who is 18 gets to vote. If you don't like it, you are free to leave the country and move to Russia.
    I wondered how long it would take for the populist whining to begin...

  9. #59
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Becoming a net tax-consumer is a choice. If voting is that important to someone they should simply refrain from taking more money than they contribute.
    Then I propose we only allow people who agree with me on all the issues to vote. It's a choice. If voting is that important to you, you can simply refrain from disagreeing with me on anything.

    Why the tax payer/consumer distinction? What's so special about THAT distinction as opposed to any of the other infinite number of distinctions you could make?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    1. You are...

    2. Are you disputing the factuality of my statement?
    That net tax consumers are inherently dumb because of their lower salaries? Yes, I am disputing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    You can't eliminate the corrupting influence of money on anything, let alone politics. I'm just basing my position off the fact that smart people are typically better than dumb people at making decisions.
    Then it isn't really relevant to the subject of this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I've thought of that before but such a test would be prone to manipulation by politicians. Also, this has nothing to do with a person's salary. It has to do with the amount of tax dollars they consume directly.
    And how exactly do you propose to measure that?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then I propose we only allow people who agree with me on all the issues to vote. It's a choice. If voting is that important to you, you can simply refrain from disagreeing with me on anything.
    Clever but not analogous. This would force people into voting for a specific candidate or agenda, whereas my requirement would not. That's an important distinction.

    Why the tax payer/consumer distinction? What's so special about THAT distinction as opposed to any of the other infinite number of distinctions you could make?
    Because self-sufficient individuals are usually more intelligent than people who are reliant upon the government.

    That net tax consumers are inherently dumb because of their lower salaries? Yes, I am disputing that.
    It has nothing to do with their salary. A person could pay $1,000 in taxes for a year and still vote so long as they accepted no more than $1,000 in taxes for that same year.

    Then it isn't really relevant to the subject of this thread.
    Well, gee, then we better stop discussing it...

    And how exactly do you propose to measure that?
    A calculator.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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