• 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!

Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment

Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass [/FONT][/COLOR]:(



But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.

Blatant issue manipulation...

Economy? Nope, we can't win on that.

Minimum wage? Oops, failed in congress.

Amnesty? Ah, er, um....yeah kind of regretting that "enemies" boast.

Health care? :2rofll:


So, lets create a new one, a wedges issue on a narrow and patently misleading "hoping to paint them..." is fraud, FFS, about campaign financing.

AHh, Senator Reid? You've had a good many years to play this hand, including when you owned both houses there for two years...so about this Democrats saying Republicans are "playing politics" with the IRS scandal, Benghazi, etc., it is clearly and openly a fact now, that the reverse is and has been true...and you are now fighting for your own life there in liberal Nevada.


These, progressives are slippery vermin. We have been hunting them in the Canadian wild for many decades. It they were as brave as wolf or as unrelenting as beaver they would be a force. Fortunately they are lazy.
 
Last edited:
If you cant purchase it thats your problem. More money=more power to buy things and services. So are we saying that our elected officials are for sale?
But simple question. Since money is considered free speech does that mean that the rich have more free speech?
Does the New York Times have more free speech than I do?
 
its the democrats running around going, OMG, OMG about citizens united, not the republicans.

That doesn't bother me, and yes they are hypocrites for doing so since over the last couple of election cycles the Democrats has received far more money from corporations, Wall street, lobbyists, special interests etc.

But I do think it is high time to get those out of the business of funding campaigns and having all of our elected leaders, both parties owing those moneyed folks big time for their election.
 
That doesn't bother me, and yes they are hypocrites for doing so since over the last couple of election cycles the Democrats has received far more money from corporations, Wall street, lobbyists, special interests etc.

But I do think it is high time to get those out of the business of funding campaigns and having all of our elected leaders, both parties owing those moneyed folks big time for their election.

they are throwing money toward the ignorant easily manipulative voter.
 
Read more: Harry Reid backs campaign spending amendment - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

In my opinion one of the most important bills to reach the Senate floor. Its clear that we are becoming more and more an oligarchy (if we arent already there) and that money is buying our elections and our representatives. Unfortunately this is not likely to pass [/FONT][/COLOR]:(


Harry Reid talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue.
He's been blasting the Koch brothers and took their money along with other Democrats,
while being in bed with the Steyer Brothers, Tom and Jim Steyer.
 
they are throwing money toward the ignorant easily manipulative voter.

Yeah, you would probably be surprised at how many people make up their mind whom they will vote for on a slogan, talking point or something like that. My wife votes for the man who looks the most presidential. But I think in the end, most of the money is spent on trying to get the voter to hate the other more than they hate you. When was the last time you seen a campaign ad spell out a candidate's vision for the future? Almost all of them are of the "My opponent is a dirty rotten rat," He did such and such 50 years ago and that makes him unfit for the job as your elected leader. It is all about throwing as much mud at your opponent as you can and hope some of it sticks.

No one talks issues, ideas, solutions and visions anymore, just muck raking. For this they spend a billion dollars. What a waste. But it works or they wouldn't do it.
 
Yeah, you would probably be surprised at how many people make up their mind whom they will vote for on a slogan, talking point or something like that. My wife votes for the man who looks the most presidential. But I think in the end, most of the money is spent on trying to get the voter to hate the other more than they hate you. When was the last time you seen a campaign ad spell out a candidate's vision for the future? Almost all of them are of the "My opponent is a dirty rotten rat," He did such and such 50 years ago and that makes him unfit for the job as your elected leader. It is all about throwing as much mud at your opponent as you can and hope some of it sticks.

No one talks issues, ideas, solutions and visions anymore, just muck raking. For this they spend a billion dollars. What a waste. But it works or they wouldn't do it.

:agree: At least your wife has a reason why she votes the way she does, and it has little to do with disliking them less than the other guy, which is all muckraking does - make the other guy unappealing. Maybe I should try that approach ...vote for the one that looks the most presidential! It worked for Ike and a few others! On the other hand, there are some others that I wouldn't have voted for as our local dogcatcher in a million years! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
 
:agree: At least your wife has a reason why she votes the way she does, and it has little to do with disliking them less than the other guy, which is all muckraking does - make the other guy unappealing. Maybe I should try that approach ...vote for the one that looks the most presidential! It worked for Ike and a few others! On the other hand, there are some others that I wouldn't have voted for as our local dogcatcher in a million years! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Then who do you vote for if neither look presidential? Of course which of the two candidates look more presidential is all in one's mind anyway. who is to say what a president should look like? Actually Ike and Stevenson looked pretty much the same, I went with the General. JFK in my opinion looked more presidential than Nixon, but I backed Nixon in 1960, although I was still too young to vote. So who knows?
 
Yes. And to restrict their speech would be no different then demanding a poor person not publish a $20 web site.


That didnt answer my question. If money is considered speech and spending money is considered speech. Do the rich have more free speech because they have more money?
 
Yes. And to restrict their speech would be no different then demanding a poor person not publish a $20 web site.

So infact our rights under the Constitution apply to more than others... Hmmmm
 
Just ask DiFi's hubby how our right$ have been extended to him, by her

So you are in favor of money purchasing constitutional rights. Sounds like an oligarchy.
 
Then who do you vote for if neither look presidential? Of course which of the two candidates look more presidential is all in one's mind anyway. who is to say what a president should look like? Actually Ike and Stevenson looked pretty much the same, I went with the General. JFK in my opinion looked more presidential than Nixon, but I backed Nixon in 1960, although I was still too young to vote. So who knows?

Personally, I would look at body language, since that can't be faked for long - if "presidential looking" is the only criteria. Who seems more self assured and still relaxed, and who looks like they can work with other people and not get flustered and angry - because the famous 0300 phone call could arrive on their watch. I admit this is not foolproof, but it beats listening to what they say in a debate, because they usually have been coached on the possible questions they may be asked.
 
Personally, I would look at body language, since that can't be faked for long - if "presidential looking" is the only criteria. Who seems more self assured and still relaxed, and who looks like they can work with other people and not get flustered and angry - because the famous 0300 phone call could arrive on their watch. I admit this is not foolproof, but it beats listening to what they say in a debate, because they usually have been coached on the possible questions they may be asked.


They sure have been coached in the debates. Besides all the candidates say and promise what they think the people want to hear.
 
Speech doesn't need to be reported. By it's very nature it is a report that any agency can see.

So the "instant reporting" thing you dont believe in now?
 
They sure have been coached in the debates. Besides all the candidates say and promise what they think the people want to hear.

Yup, this. They are interviewing for the job and every word they utter is because they believe will sell the masses on them as the right man/woman for the job. Pandering for votes has been around as long as prostitution.
 
Yup, this. They are interviewing for the job and every word they utter is because they believe will sell the masses on them as the right man/woman for the job. Pandering for votes has been around as long as prostitution.

I think I like prostitution better. At least I am the one doing the screwing instead of getting screwed.
 
If its financially donated or expended yes - I do. You referenced reporting the "speech" to which I think is bluntly obvious since its spoken (presented) there is no need for reporting.

So the "instant reporting" thing you dont believe in now?
 
Back
Top Bottom