Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I would need to see more details on this, but publishers, media companies, and interest groups have a first amendment right to comment on candidates
And evidently the right to use anonymous, out-sized donations to tilt the tables of justice in their favor.
It’s 571 pages. Are there a specific few pages to focus on?Guys...there's no need to guess....I gave you the link to the actual proposed bill. I don't know what other information you want
As I read the bill, it doesn't seem to infringe on ability to comment on candidates. It addresses money coming from foreign governments/influence. It addresses the transparency of where funds are coming from. I think there's a difference in "getting money out of politics" and "getting dark money out of politics".
I'm having trouble finding a descent summary of the bill. The Washington Post article almost immediately jumps off this legislation and on to House rules (which I think I like). Even advocacy groups are skimpy on details. The best I've found to date is this one but I needed to redact it a bit to make it less of an attack.I think Trump and his yahoos broke good dialogue around here
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”Guys...there's no need to guess....I gave you the link to the actual proposed bill. I don't know what other information you want
It's not thousands of pages. It took about 30 minutes out of my day to read the parts of interest to me. I didn't realize that was so hard“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
I thought we had to pass it to find out whats in it,
Dark money should be gone..but there is still too much clean money in politics as well.
Perhaps...and I am open to that argument. I think I tend to agree with you. I don't see any reason why we can't cap what PACs and Super PACs contribute like we do individuals. Seems only right since they are people too!
I just don`t like when someone gets elected because they spent 10 times more than their opponent.
I did read your post, I just don't typically post an "I'm in, let's do it" type response. This seems like a no-brainer.Boy...this thread died quickly. I thought it would be a good thread to have, but there's one thing that's become crystal clear to me over the last two years, people really don't want to talk about the actual legislation and what it says. They LOVE LOVE LOVE to talk about the spun version spoonfed them by our media complex, but there is not a faster way of shutting down exchanges than by providing the text of the bills. It kills things immediately most of the time.
Third parties are a pretty obvious place to start. They have tools at their disposal, algorithms and the like that have shown to do very well over time keeping representation pretty in line with how the populus votes. This is one of the least concerning aspects. But politicians won't give that power up, so the next best approach is "you draw, I pick" which takes your question completely out of the picture.
Can you give me a clif bar notes here? Are veterans not eligible for health care before a certain age?
It’s important because the VA has messing around for more than ten years, denying claims from Veterans who were exposed serving in Afghanistan & Iraq. Kept saying
It was a run....
the moops said:
Millions of toxic-exposed veterans await access to health care benefits.joffer said:
And that other bill is to reduce the cost of prescription drugs if I'm not mistaken.
So they didn't vote on this before? I'm confused and sadly, I haven't paid much attention to this issue...that's my bad
There was a vote already that passed overwhelmingly 84-14. It was sent to the House, but there was some procedural issue or something, the House corrected it and it was sent back to the Senate.So they didn't vote on this before? I'm confused and sadly, I haven't paid much attention to this issue...that's my bad
