• 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!

What's your Hot Button ?

E

Easy Rider

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
38
Reaction score
18
Location
NW Georgia USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Short of armed revolution, voting is really the only way that we citizens can effect change in our Government. Assuming that the choice of candidates have expressed their positions with at least some degree of truthfullness (sure, Wilbur..), which single statement stated to be at or near the TOP of a candidate's agenda would be most likely to convince you to vote for that person?
 
Single payer healthcare and term limits for all elected offices - local, state and federal.
 
Easy Rider said:
Short of armed revolution, voting is really the only way that we citizens can effect change in our Government. Assuming that the choice of candidates have expressed their positions with at least some degree of truthfullness (sure, Wilbur..), which single statement stated to be at or near the TOP of a candidate's agenda would be most likely to convince you to vote for that person?
Click to expand...

I am unable to see the poll from here, but I though I would comment on something in the body of the post.

You can do far more than voting to effect change in public policy and the lifestyles of citizens, you know. One of those options is lobbying. Lobbying isn't only for the rich and powerful.
 
Last edited:
reform the entire electoral system - at the very least, find a way to un-**** the districting and re-districting process.

reduce the influence of money in elections.
 
Easy Rider said:
Short of armed revolution, voting is really the only way that we citizens can effect change in our Government. Assuming that the choice of candidates have expressed their positions with at least some degree of truthfullness (sure, Wilbur..), which single statement stated to be at or near the TOP of a candidate's agenda would be most likely to convince you to vote for that person?
Click to expand...

No nation building, non-interventionist foreign policy.
 
top tier priorities : fair trade, infrastructure development, long term domestic energy technology development, an end to interventionism, and a restructuring of our health care system.

or, basically, jobs, and fixing our house.
 
StillBallin75 said:
reform the entire electoral system - at the very least, find a way to un-**** the districting and re-districting process.
Click to expand...

I think switching to a system like Instant Runoff Voting would honestly help

StillBallin75 said:
reduce the influence of money in elections.
Click to expand...

Repeal the whole of McCain/Fiengold, return debates to the League of Women Voters as they did a damned fine job when they ran it over the government.
 
taking the money out of politics
we now have the best government money can buy

how it should be done:
- only registered voters can donate
- each donor has a defined maximum which can be contributed to each candidate
- that candidate must appear on the voter/donor's ballot (if a primary election, that candidate must be found on the voter/donor's ballot if the candidate prevails in the primary election)
- ALL contributions must be posted on a singular internet site (where all donations can be found for all candidates)
- ANY contribution made which does not appear on that web site within five days of its being made will be found to be an illegal bribe

the benefit of adopting such a plan:
- corporations, unions, PACs, foreign countries will be unable to buy political interest as they cannot be registered voters/donors
- voters/donors from outside the area represented by a candidate cannot contribute to a politician who will not appear on that voter/donor's ballot. the wealthy can no longer buy elections in poor areas in which they do not have their primary residence
- candidates will have to campaign on a budget. this is an excellent way to find out which candidates are good at getting the most impact for a dollar spent
- politicians will no longer be representing monied interests
 
StillBallin75 said:
reform the entire electoral system - at the very least, find a way to un-**** the districting and re-districting process.

reduce the influence of money in elections.
Click to expand...

On the second part: pipe dream. I think we had reached a comparative wall decades ago in terms of what we have been able to do. Campaign finance reform has been heavily loaded with loopholes and unintended consequences since the Democrats played with it post-68. Then there is small Internet donations. As soon as that happened, the level of talk about more reforms went down the tubes. Many people were quite happy with contributing their small sums when they saw the numbers resulting from it.
 
Fiddytree said:
On the second part: pipe dream. I think we had reached a comparative wall decades ago in terms of what we have been able to do. Campaign finance reform has been heavily loaded with loopholes and unintended consequences since the Democrats played with it post-68. Then there is small Internet donations. As soon as that happened, the level of talk about more reforms went down the tubes. Many people were quite happy with contributing their small sums when they saw the numbers resuming from it.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was plausible, but if it could be done somehow that would be a priority for me.
 
The main thing I want in a presidential candidate is someone who will fight for the working class of this nation against right wing efforts to repeal much of the last 100 years of gains. I am not sure that ANY statement can convince me. We have someone in there today who said lots of great things and makes lots of terrific statements only to cave in to the interests of the rich and corporations when push comes to shove.
 
Easy Rider said:
....voting is really the only way that we citizens can effect change in our Government.
Click to expand...

Our Republic is doomed. It's just a matter of time.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Click to expand...
 
StillBallin75 said:
Didn't say it was plausible, but if it could be done somehow that would be a priority for me.
Click to expand...

Eh, I am not convinced anymore. Essentially, a new form of organization balloons each time legislation passes, and then there is an uproar to fix it. We do, and then a different forms starts up again, repeat.
 
Fiddytree said:
Eh, I am not convinced anymore. Essentially, a new form of organization balloons each time legislation passes, and then there is an uproar to fix it. We do, and then a different forms starts up again, repeat.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A new organization/structure never forms. Only lip service is paid to reform, while the underlying structures still exist.

Remember when the Tea Party said they'd make everyone do away with earmarks? Yeah, until earmarks found their way into authorization and appropriations bills...with at least some if not most of the Tea Party caucus members themselves as culprits.
 
StillBallin75 said:
where is that quote from?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's sure. Library of Congress says:

"Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified."
Click to expand...

The Truth About Tytler

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee (15 October 1747 - 5 January 1813) was a Scottish-born British lawyer, writer, and professor. Tytler was also a historian, and for some years was Professor of Universal History, and Greek and Roman Antiquities, in the University of Edinburgh.[1] Tytler's other titles included Senator of the College of Justice, and George Commissioner of Justiciary in Scotland
Click to expand...

Alexander Fraser Tytler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I would like a candidate that says, "I don't know what is going on in D.C., but I will find out, tell you about it, and try to fix it."
 
A good plan for the minimization of corporate influence in the election process would be a big one for me. This would require some extreme reform though, and I'm afraid the Supreme Court may have put an end to any hope of campaign finance reform in the foreseeable future.
 
Geez... I go out for a sammich... come back... and my Poll has disappeared and the accompanied text abbreviated... What's with that?????
 
Easy Rider said:
Geez... I go out for a sammich... come back... and my Poll has disappeared and the accompanied text abbreviated... What's with that?????
Click to expand...

We like surprise parties for the newbies.
 
People thinking that raising taxes on the rich is "unfair" and is going to cause some melt down. And people not knowing or understanding socialism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom