• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economic downturn took a detour at Capitol Hill

haymarket said:
Who is advocating that?
Click to expand...

You are, right here.

haymarket said:
So you ant to be able to exercise your political rights in the dead of a dark night underneath a hood of anonymity so to speak without having to explain anything to your fellow citizens?

Why would you need that sort of protection?
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
We are under no obligation to explain anything to my fellow citizens, regarding my political beliefs, nor how I excercise them.

What you want next? Open ballots, so we know who voted for who?

You cats can't be for real! :rofl
Click to expand...

Nobody said you had to explain your political beliefs. believe what you want to believe and take it to the grave with you. Nobody is telling you otherwise.
 
apdst said:
We are under no obligation to explain anything to my fellow citizens, regarding my political beliefs, nor how I excercise them.

What you want next? Open ballots, so we know who voted for who?

You cats can't be for real! :rofl
Click to expand...

It's about transparency in government. Do you really think it would be a viable system if anyone could anonymously give any amount of cash to public employees? That's basically how it worked around the turn of the 20th century, and they changed the rules for very good reasons.
 
AdamT said:
It's about transparency in government. Do you really think it would be a viable system if anyone could anonymously give any amount of cash to public employees? That's basically how it worked around the turn of the 20th century, and they changed the rules for very good reasons.
Click to expand...

The word BRIBE comes to mind.
 
apdst said:
What you want next? Open ballots, so we know who voted for who?
Click to expand...

Crazy idea, right? So I guess you don't realize that we actually used to have open ballots in this country? Know why they did away with it? Was it to protect free speech rights? No, it wasn't. They instituted the secret ballot because open ballots made it too easy to sell votes. In other words, secret ballots were adopted to avoid corruption, which is the same reason we need transparency in political donations.

We're entitled to free speech -- not secret speech.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
It's about transparency in government. Do you really think it would be a viable system if anyone could anonymously give any amount of cash to public employees? That's basically how it worked around the turn of the 20th century, and they changed the rules for very good reasons.
Click to expand...

Transparency in the government is fine. Transparency in my private life isn't.
 
haymarket said:
So you ant to be able to exercise your political rights in the dead of a dark night underneath a hood of anonymity so to speak without having to explain anything to your fellow citizens?

Why would you need that sort of protection?
Click to expand...

To keep from being threatened and and intimidated for holding a view contrary to what others think I should hold.
 
apdst said:
Transparency in the government is fine. Transparency in my private life isn't.
Click to expand...

There is an intersection where your private life and your involvement in the peoples government meet and overlap and what is what is being discussed here.

Of course, one could well understand how a person may want their own political actions kept secret from their neighbors. Years ago we had secret societies established for just those purposes. The members were so concerned about protecting their own anonymity that they ever went to the extremes of donning hoods and covering their clothing in robes all in an effort to be able to do what they wanted politically but to keep those activities secret.
 
AdamT said:
Crazy idea, right? So I guess you don't realize that we actually used to have open ballots in this country? Know why they did away with it? Was it to protect free speech rights? No, it wasn't. They instituted the secret ballot because open ballots made it too easy to sell votes. In other words, secret ballots were adopted to avoid corruption, which is the same reason we need transparency in political donations.

[We're entitled to free speech -- not secret speech.
Click to expand...

Wow!!! That almost sounds like you're saying that the government can listen in on my private conversations without a warrant.

Libbos blow me away! They really do!!

We don't have the right to secret speech! :lamo
 
haymarket said:
There is an intersection where your private life and your involvement in the peoples government meet and overlap and what is what is being discussed here.

Of course, one could well understand how a person may want their own political actions kept secret from their neighbors. Years ago we had secret societies established for just those purposes. The members were so concerned about protecting their own anonymity that they ever went to the extremes of donning hoods and covering their clothing in robes all in an effort to be able to do what they wanted politically but to keep those activities secret.
Click to expand...

No it was to hide the identities of the people that committed crimes. Not to hide the activities which were very very VERY public.
 
haymarket said:
There is an intersection where your private life and your involvement in the peoples government meet and overlap and what is what is being discussed here.

Of course, one could well understand how a person may want their own political actions kept secret from their neighbors. Years ago we had secret societies established for just those purposes. The members were so concerned about protecting their own anonymity that they ever went to the extremes of donning hoods and covering their clothing in robes all in an effort to be able to do what they wanted politically but to keep those activities secret.
Click to expand...

They donned those outfits, so they could intimidate people into voting their way, or not voting at all.
 
I agree that change needs to happen regarding campaigns. But the point of this thread was suppose to be mainly about how things should happen after the campaigns stop. After the politician is elected. And before the next campaign to get re-elected.

People are always going on about campaign contributions, campaign this and campaign that. Don't you all think that we need to address the WHOLE problem? Not just when they are campaigning? We have an article in the OP which shows that politicians are making the most money while they are in office. Lets address that.
 
apdst said:
They donned those outfits, so they could intimidate people into voting their way, or not voting at all.
Click to expand...

And all this time I thought it was to protect their nice clean suits when they castrated uppity Blacks who dared to think they actually had some rights in the white southerners world. . ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
No it was to hide the identities of the people that committed crimes. Not to hide the activities which were very very VERY public.
Click to expand...

You seem to distinguish between their political activities and their criminal activities which were one and the same. That is exactly what apdst wants to do is protect his identity when he does his political activities.

We are under no obligation to explain anything to my fellow citizens, regarding my political beliefs, nor how I excercise them.
Click to expand...

I guess certain cultural traditions do not die but live on over time.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Wow!!! That almost sounds like you're saying that the government can listen in on my private conversations without a warrant.

Libbos blow me away! They really do!!

We don't have the right to secret speech! :lamo
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but that has been happening for years and years already. I am hardly endorsing it (as it quite maddening) but it is already happening.
 
haymarket said:
You seem to distinguish between their political activities and their criminal activities which were one and the same. That is exactly what apdst wants to do is protect his identity when he does his political activities.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is here. As far as I can tell me and apdst are in complete agreement...just saying things differently is all.

haymarket said:
I guess certain cultural traditions do not die but live on over time.
Click to expand...

While I didn't write this you are correct. Some never do die. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. ;)
 
apdst said:
Wow!!! That almost sounds like you're saying that the government can listen in on my private conversations without a warrant.

Libbos blow me away! They really do!!

We don't have the right to secret speech! :lamo
Click to expand...

Giving money to a politician is hardly the same thing has having a private conversation. You know, because you're giving money to a PUBLIC servant.
 
AdamT said:
Giving money to a politician is hardly the same thing has having a private conversation. You know, because you're giving money to a PUBLIC servant.
Click to expand...

Um, no...I'm making a donation to the campaign of an elected official, not a public servant.
 
Ban political advertising of any kind on TV. Problem mostly solved.

Oh and make it illegal for congressmen/women to do insider trading. That way being a congressman/woman aint the gravy train it once was.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
Ban political advertising of any kind on TV. Problem mostly solved.
Click to expand...

So much for the 1st Amendment.

Why is it that everytime a Libbo comes up with a way to fix something, someone's rights get the axe in the process?
 
apdst said:
So much for the 1st Amendment.

Why is it that everytime a Libbo comes up with a way to fix something, someone's rights get the axe in the process?
Click to expand...

Has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment. Anyone is free to take out flyers, radio broadcasts, newspaper adds, and so on. Plus there should of course be X minutes of air time per candidate to present his/her political agenda on TV.. party political broadcasts is what they call them over here. So candidates wont be totally cut off from TV, but you will limit the amount of money needed to run a campaign and of course prevent 524s or whatever they are call to use TV as well.. which is only a bonus. Aint you one of those Soros haters after all?
 
PeteEU said:
Has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment. Anyone is free to take out flyers, radio broadcasts, newspaper adds, and so on. Plus there should of course be X minutes of air time per candidate to present his/her political agenda on TV.. party political broadcasts is what they call them over here. So candidates wont be totally cut off from TV, but you will limit the amount of money needed to run a campaign and of course prevent 524s or whatever they are call to use TV as well.. which is only a bonus. Aint you one of those Soros haters after all?
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the 1st Amendment. Political candidates are private citizens. If they have the money to pay the going rate for a TV spot and the TV station agrees to run the ad, it would be un-constitutional for the government to make that illegal.

Yeah, I'm a Soros hater, but I'm not willing to flush the Constitution down the toilet, just to handicap my political opponents.
 
apdst said:
It has everything to do with the 1st Amendment. Political candidates are private citizens. If they have the money to pay the going rate for a TV spot and the TV station agrees to run the ad, it would be un-constitutional for the government to make that illegal.

Yeah, I'm a Soros hater, but I'm not willing to flush the Constitution down the toilet, just to handicap my political opponents.
Click to expand...
T

here is a problem with that. If candidate a can afford x amount of time and candidate b can only afford z amount one has more free speech via the dollar.

Essentially cutting the others right to free speech on a equal footing.
 
winston53660 said:
T

here is a problem with that. If candidate a can afford x amount of time and candidate b can only afford z amount one has more free speech via the dollar.

Essentially cutting the others right to free speech on a equal footing.
Click to expand...

Exactly one of the main problems with TV advertisement and political campaigns. That is why we banned them from TV in most of Europe, because it skewed the political process towards the big rich parties/people, and left the rest in the dust. Now everyone has a much more even footing to compete free and fair on. No one is impeding their free speech. In fact I would claim that it makes the candidate give a damn about his constituents, since he is forced to actually meet and discuss with them more, rather than just throw out a tv commercial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom