• 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!

Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 75.7%
  • No

    Votes: 17 24.3%

  • Total voters
    70
And these primary candidates campaign for a year with no money................ :roll:
Really? How do they do that? I would think it would take some money just to show up at the debates and townhall meetings.

.
 
Really? How do they do that? I would think it would take some money just to show up at the debates and townhall meetings.

.

You'll have to ask TOJ, he claims money plays no part in elections.
 
You'll have to ask TOJ, he claims money plays no part in elections.
Where and when did I make that claim? You must really be confused.

You are the one that said
Catawba said:
And these primary candidates campaign for a year with no money

.
 
So we have the "right" to vote for whichever of the two corporate sponsored candidates they choose for us, eh? That's your idea of what the founders intended?

Um, no, did we not just cover the fact that the voters choose the candidates in the primary elections too?
 
And these primary candidates campaign for a year with no money................ :roll:

Anyone can get on the ballot. Therefore, the voters can choose any one of them. Their choices are not the least bit limited. Candidates don't need money to get on the ballot in a primary election, and voters don't need to have money spent by a candidate to vote for him or her. So you were completely wrong.

Here's the bottom line - votes are freely choosing the guy who spends the most money. I don't know why, and I don't care why. That's their choice. To say they don't have a choice is bull. It's relieving the voters of responsibility for their actions. It's like blaming McDonald's spending money on TV ads for your extra fat, when you freely choose to go to a McDonald's, buy a Big Mac, and eat it.
 
Last edited:
Where and when did I make that claim? You must really be confused.

You are the one that said

.

Just for future reference, the smiley with the rolling eyes indicates sarcasm.
 
Just for future reference, the smiley with the rolling eyes indicates sarcasm.
So then you was just lying about me claiming money plays no part in an election. I guess that should not be surprising coming from your kind.

.
 
So then you was just lying about me claiming money plays no part in an election. I guess that should not be surprising coming from your kind.

.

You didn't claim money cannot influence elections?


And what do you mean by "your kind"?
 
You didn't claim money cannot influence elections?

And what do you mean by "your kind"?
If you where not just lying, please point out where I made that claim.


.
 
Right here:



So again, what do you mean by "my kind"?
Right where?

Sweetie, English is not my first language, but you said:
Catawba said:
You'll have to ask TOJ, he claims money plays no part in elections.
That seems pretty clear that you said I claim money plays no part in elections.

OK now, I will type this real slow, so maybe, hopefully, you can understand.
Where and when have I claimed money plays no part in elections?

Unless you were just lying, point out a quote of mine where I have made that claim.

.
 
Right where?

Sweetie, English is not my first language, but you said:That seems pretty clear that you said I claim money plays no part in elections.

OK now, I will type this real slow, so maybe, hopefully, you can understand.
Where and when have I claimed money plays no part in elections?

Unless you were just lying, point out a quote of mine where I have made that claim.

.

Why do you care what someone of "my kind" would think?
 
Why do you care what someone of "my kind" would think?
I don't give two-hoots-in-hell what you think, Sweetie. That is not the issue. You said I claimed money plays no part in elections and that was just a lie.

Your last few posts in this thread have shown everyone exactly what knd you are. ;)

.
 
Im really surprised that the vote results...I wouldve thought most people would view corporate and union money more negatively.
In my mind they are the apex of lobbiest influence...and some of the same people that voted for the influx of union and corporate money to influence politics would be against lobbiests buying politicians...
 
Im really surprised that the vote results...I wouldve thought most people would view corporate and union money more negatively.
In my mind they are the apex of lobbiest influence...and some of the same people that voted for the influx of union and corporate money to influence politics would be against lobbiests buying politicians...

people can view the corporate an union money negatively ....and still not support an amendment barring it.

I view it somewhat negatively, but I don't find most of the "solutions" to be viable or proper whatsoever...
 
Im really surprised that the vote results...I wouldve thought most people would view corporate and union money more negatively.
In my mind they are the apex of lobbiest influence...and some of the same people that voted for the influx of union and corporate money to influence politics would be against lobbiests buying politicians...

Perhaps they understand the situation at a higher level than you do.
 
Yes, corporates and unions. The reason for corporations is obvious. They exist as for profit non-human money machines.

Unions? Certainly in states without right to work laws. Otherwise in fact a condition of employment is ultimately contributing to candidates you may intensely oppose - literally laboring to given your money to who you oppose in an election, just contrary to your fundamental democratic right - to give money only to candidates you want to.
 
Yes, corporates and unions. The reason for corporations is obvious. They exist as for profit non-human money machines.

So?

Unions? Certainly in states without right to work laws. Otherwise in fact a condition of employment is ultimately contributing to candidates you may intensely oppose - literally laboring to given your money to who you oppose in an election, just contrary to your fundamental democratic right - to give money only to candidates you want to.

Union dues cannot be used for political donations. That is already banned. The entire poll has a faulty premise. (Same goes for corporations. Unions and corporations can only sponsor PACs that don't use their money).

However, unions can spend money on other political activities, like messages to its members, or the public, in support of a certain candidate. And in the case you describe, where someone was require to pay a fee to the union (instead of joining it) as a condition of employment, they have the right to request reimbursement for the portion of the fee that went to political activity: Communications Workers of America v. Beck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom