• 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!

A question for conservatives...

D_NATURED

D_NATURED

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
7,450
Reaction score
4,473
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...

I've got a question for you, if money is the key to purchasing political success then how is it that Hillary managed to raise nearly $1.2 BILLION dollars for her campaign and still lost to a guy that raised roughly $650 Million ($66 Million of which was his own money)?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...

Lutherf said:
I've got a question for you, if money is the key to purchasing political success then how is it that Hillary managed to raise nearly $1.2 BILLION dollars for her campaign and still lost to a guy that raised roughly $650 Million ($66 Million of which was his own money)?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Click to expand...
>Luther :applaud


..and why is it that CU provides far benefit for Dem. candidates through protesting union $$?? Of course, that just simple facts that you shouldn't allow to cloud your mind any further.
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a question for you, if money is the key to purchasing political success then how is it that Hillary managed to raise nearly $1.2 BILLION dollars for her campaign and still lost to a guy that raised roughly $650 Million ($66 Million of which was his own money)?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Click to expand...

Because obviously money is a powerful, but not absolute force in electoral politics; a force multiplier coupled with a 0 like Hillary works out to 0.

Beyond that, money ingratiates politicians and buys sway and influence, even if the candidate with the most money doesn't win an election outright; it is democratically toxic on multiple levels. Both Hillary and Trump have their donors to appease.

A Princeton academic study of the undue influence money and lobbying have in terms of politics and policy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a question for you, if money is the key to purchasing political success then how is it that Hillary managed to raise nearly $1.2 BILLION dollars for her campaign and still lost to a guy that raised roughly $650 Million ($66 Million of which was his own money)?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Click to expand...

Not to give the OP's ridiculous analogy in credence, but I think most would agree that money has gigantic diminishing returns at some point. And in Trump's case he got a ton of free advertising just by saying provocative things that got him tons of coverage.

But the OP's analogy between religious freedom and speech is still exceptionally poor.
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...
I'm not a "conservative", but I can't even define this question.
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a question for you, if money is the key to purchasing political success then how is it that Hillary managed to raise nearly $1.2 BILLION dollars for her campaign and still lost to a guy that raised roughly $650 Million ($66 Million of which was his own money)?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Click to expand...

Around 90% of non-presidential elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money. Presidential elections are an outlier due to all the free press the candidates get.

Oh, and I am responding to you rather than the OP because I actually understood what you were trying to say. :)
 
Anagram said:
Not to give the OP's ridiculous analogy in credence, but I think most would agree that money has gigantic diminishing returns at some point. And in Trump's case he got a ton of free advertising just by saying provocative things that got him tons of coverage.

But the OP's analogy between religious freedom and speech is still exceptionally poor.
Click to expand...
Michael Huffington, anybody?
 
Surrealistik said:
Because obviously money is a powerful, but not absolute force in electoral politics; a force multiplier coupled with a 0 like Hillary works out to 0.

Beyond that, money ingratiates politicians and buys sway and influence, even if the candidate with the most money doesn't win an election outright; it is democratically toxic on multiple levels. Both Hillary and Trump have their donors to appease.

A Princeton academic study of the undue influence money and lobbying have in terms of politics and policy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Click to expand...

I can't for the life of me understand why this is such a difficult concept for so many people....Money is a tool. The amount of money is WAY less important than what is done with it. If you're Hillary Clinton and you piss away your campaign money on handouts to "friends and family" while they pat you on the back for being wonderful and the other guy spends his money on the street getting to know his constituents he's FAR more likely to win the election. The reason he'll win is because he used his money to build relationships while you used your money to buy (and maintain) relationships.
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...

i would prefer absolutely NO money allowed in politics other than the following

any individual can give up 3k to any politician they want anonymously...the money has to flow through some firm(i prefer non governmental) and the firm cuts checks to the politicians without releasing names of donors

no companies, no organizations, no PACS or superpacs, no unions, no one other than an individual can give....and it MUST be anonymous

we take the money out of politics....i know a wet dream....but that is what i want to see

maybe, just maybe it would get the idiots out of the way, and put some common sense back in style

a pipe dream? maybe....but many of my friends and associates would love to see the same thing

isnt that how we change things....good ideas, becoming reality when enough of us say that is the way we want it
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech",
Click to expand...

Money buys ads which is speech.Money buys bumper stickers which is speech.To argue for limits on political spending is indeed a limit on speech.



would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...

Are you asking if conservatives think its okay if rich people attend a rich people only church or be part of a rich only religion?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Around 90% of non-presidential elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money. Presidential elections are an outlier due to all the free press the candidates get.

Oh, and I am responding to you rather than the OP because I actually understood what you were trying to say. :)
Click to expand...

Name recognition plays a huge role in winning elections. That wasn't a factor in Trump v Clinton as both were equally well known but it probably did factor into Trump v the rest of the GOP field. Money can facilitate name recognition but, ultimately, the relationship the candidate is able to make with the electorate is what wins elections. People are more likely to remember "that guy who knocked on my door to say he was running for city council" than they are "the one with all the signs but I have no idea who he is".
 
Lutherf said:
I can't for the life of me understand why this is such a difficult concept for so many people....Money is a tool. The amount of money is WAY less important than what is done with it. If you're Hillary Clinton and you piss away your campaign money on handouts to "friends and family" while they pat you on the back for being wonderful and the other guy spends his money on the street getting to know his constituents he's FAR more likely to win the election. The reason he'll win is because he used his money to build relationships while you used your money to buy (and maintain) relationships.
Click to expand...

Yes, money is a tool, and it can be squandered; I am aware. This doesn't obviate the fact that it can be an extremely powerful advantage and determinant of political contests if well-leveraged with a candidate who actually has some appeal in the first place, nor does this obviate the fact that money is routinely and successfully used to ingratiate politicians and purchase sway and influence. The academic research on this is pretty conclusive and damning per the link I provided you.
 
Lutherf said:
Name recognition plays a huge role in winning elections. That wasn't a factor in Trump v Clinton as both were equally well known but it probably did factor into Trump v the rest of the GOP field. Money can facilitate name recognition but, ultimately, the relationship the candidate is able to make with the electorate is what wins elections. People are more likely to remember "that guy who knocked on my door to say he was running for city council" than they are "the one with all the signs but I have no idea who he is".
Click to expand...

Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

Great points: I never thought of it that way, but you're right. I get lots of what I call "junk mail" from candidates that I had never heard of before, but the one who holds a rally at one of our parks, and tells us what his qualifications are for the job he would like to have is usually the one who wins in this area. Not only does he save the cost of printing all those brightly colored pictures of himself, we get to see him in person and listen to what he has to say. It's not fool-proof, but it works around here, and we haven't had to fire anyone yet! :thumbs:
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...

Im not conservative, but it seems obvious the answer is YES, I support the wealthy's ability to build churches, hold ceremonies, have religious television shows, etc, equal to their ability to afford it. Same as using their money to fund their speech. Poor people are hardly taped though, you may have any seen millions of them in various marches over time. No ones mouth is taped except where the govt deems it, and that affects the rich as well as the poor (for example inciting violence).

No need for name calling, but to answer your rhetorical question, its not a contemptible position because its in line with the belief that all are equally free to use their time or money or property to pursue happiness or exercise their rights in whatever way they choose, and to the extent they choose, so long as it does not infringe on others same rights.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Around 90% of non-presidential elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money. Presidential elections are an outlier due to all the free press the candidates get.

Oh, and I am responding to you rather than the OP because I actually understood what you were trying to say. :)
Click to expand...

That may be a thing of the past after this election. The more money that was poured into the Republican primaries the more people voted against it. The more money that was poured into the general, people voted against it.
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...

I can't answer your question because it's LOADED QUESTION DEBATE FALLACY LOGIC trap.
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a question for you, if money is the key to purchasing political success then how is it that Hillary managed to raise nearly $1.2 BILLION dollars for her campaign and still lost to a guy that raised roughly $650 Million ($66 Million of which was his own money)?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Click to expand...

What an incredibly irrelevant response. Are you including the Russians' expenses or are you ignorant of how money works?
 
Anagram said:
Not to give the OP's ridiculous analogy in credence, but I think most would agree that money has gigantic diminishing returns at some point. And in Trump's case he got a ton of free advertising just by saying provocative things that got him tons of coverage.

But the OP's analogy between religious freedom and speech is still exceptionally poor.
Click to expand...

I'd argue the reason the analogy appears "exceptionally poor" is that it is absolutely absurd to confuse money with speech.
 
JamesBY said:
Because the election was fraudulently rigged.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Democrat primary or the general? If the former then I agree with you. If the latter I think you're way, way off base.
 
Moderate Right said:
That may be a thing of the past after this election. The more money that was poured into the Republican primaries the more people voted against it. The more money that was poured into the general, people voted against it.
Click to expand...
Time will tell if that was a fluke or the beginning of a trend, but it was nice to see.

Money's influence, I mean.
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a question for you, if money is the key to purchasing political success then how is it that Hillary managed to raise nearly $1.2 BILLION dollars for her campaign and still lost to a guy that raised roughly $650 Million ($66 Million of which was his own money)?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Click to expand...

Because the guy that raised roughly 650 million got a ton more in "free" advertising, advertising that only worked because (a) he got constant coverage by being an awful human, (b) his supporters didn't care that he was an awful human.

Never has "no press is bad press" been more true than with Trump, for Trump.




When your team wants a dumpster fire, you're not going to have a problem keeping all eyes on you.
 
Surrealistik said:
Because obviously money is a powerful, but not absolute force in electoral politics; a force multiplier coupled with a 0 like Hillary works out to 0.

Beyond that, money ingratiates politicians and buys sway and influence, even if the candidate with the most money doesn't win an election outright; it is democratically toxic on multiple levels. Both Hillary and Trump have their donors to appease.

A Princeton academic study of the undue influence money and lobbying have in terms of politics and policy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Click to expand...

And there's that.

Hillary, for her part, was a bad candidate. She still managed to get 3 million more popular votes, but she was a bad candidate who ALSO ran a terrible campaign. She ignored three states she needed on an assumption, and lost them by a slim margin. Had she campaigned there, we'd probably be hearing about Benghazi 24/7, since she would've won.

But she just plain sucked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom