This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Tim the latter example is already illegal right now, again showing there is no reason for reform. That kind of thing is rare too, not common at all unless you can cite more than one example of it. That example is already provided for and addressed by law. You need to find an example justifying a change in the law.
If only somebody like Bernie Sanders could find a way to get his voice heard . . .
You want me to have to prove wrongdoing in order to justify my belief in campaign finance reform. I am for that reform not because of wrongdoing, not because "the system is corrupt" as Bernie says: I disagree with him; I don't think it's inherently corrupt; but I do think it's unfair. That's why I'm at least theoretically in favor of changing it.
I'm not sure the unfairness I'm discussing applies to Presidential campaigns anymore, as Bernie has aptly demonstrated. But I think it does still apply to all sorts of other elections.
Tim you don't even explain how it's unfair. Bernie is competing right now, he's even outgathering and outspending Hillary in some places. And you won't even concede that Hillary prioritizes corporate interests over her duties to her citizen constituents, so as you've explained it there is no unfairness. You've shown zero real life harm or need here.
Right, Jeb is the walking, talking example of how money does not equate to unfair advantage.
Wow ok that's progress. There's no unfairness or corruption in the presidential election system, the biggest of all. Good. Where does it exist? Example?
This is like a company claiming its hiring policy isn't racist by pointing out all the white guys that didn't get hired. I know you like to point at Bernie as the exception but that's all he is. The exception. When you can point at all the candidates that weren't backed by the oligarchs you might have a point.
Tim I realize that, I'm just saying you have no justification for your point beyond a feeling of some sort and that supporting both Hillary - in the way that you do - and campaign finance reform is completely illogical. I'm happy if I've proved my point here.
You haven't proven your point to me. You have proven it, apparently, to others. I don't think it's illogical at all. Hillary herself is for campaign finance reform and has been for decades.
Just to return to this point- I'm not sure that Shoet Corner isn't right and that Bernie is the exception to the rule (Trump as well).
And Trump is a walking talking example of how disproportionate media coverage can provide a huge boost in lieu of spending money....
It's a gaffe. But she was trying to make a distinction between Libya and Iraq, in which we committed military forces. Technically she's correct, because the Benghazi attack happened well AFTER the overthrow of Gaddafi, which she was referring to.
The article says she was referencing the civil war in Syria and only you would think she was technically correct. You just continue to prove your blind support for her.
I don't want to do this in this thread. If you want to have a discussion/ debate about what we've done in Libya and Hillary's role in that, I'm up for that. But I'm not interested in gotchas and gaffes.
Because record, policies and credibility are not campaign issues, right?
No all of those items are important. But are gaffes? I think we all know what Hillary meant here.
I want to expand on this.
Tim, those are not gaffes by Donald, that's who he is. Same goes for Hillary, though with Hillary she said those things in a serious townhall setting, it's so bad it's almost insane because it's so deluded. Ignore for a moment what happened at the mission/annex, Libya is divided in three with Isis and AQIM dominated the eastern portion of the country. Even her argument that we did not lose anyone if taken to mean soldiers in an invasion is like saying, 'Hey look we created just as much of a disaster in Libya that we did in Iraq, just with less blood and treasure lost! Isn't that great?!"
I imagine money will be his biggest issue. Does he have enough to continue through the entire race?
Wouldn't it be better to prevent the abortion by teaching people to use contraception (and the more of that the bettter)
Was the Bush brand really thought to be that strong?
Good question, my first thought is the Bush brand approval rating may have been much higher among the donor class than among the general populace. Anyone could see (I believe) that throwing the name "Bush" into this climate last summer was just gas on the fire.
OK, let's work with these definitions. In terms of campaign finance reform, I think we can ignore what you're defined as illegitimate money, seeing as that type of payment is already illegal. I assume you agree with that? We don't need to change any laws in order to rid ourselves of what you've deem illegitimate payments. Maybe we need to investigate and enforce the existing laws better, but that's another story altogether.
Rich I haven't offered a specific proposal because I'm not sure what would be best. I'm not adverse to your idea, but I don't think that by itself it would have too much of an impact. How many voters would actually take the time to go on a website and look? Those that would are probably pretty well-informed anyhow.
If you can get this list to Trump and somehow arrange that he is speaking only to you, he will agree with you on 100% of this.
You have data to back that assertion up? If so, post it, with references. Otherwise knock this kind of stuff off.
I don't have any data. But honestly it's my very strong impression. So why should I knock it off if it's central to what I believe about this candidate?
Because you have no idea whether it's true or not. You're engaging in behavior patterns you find unacceptable in Trump the candidate and some of his supporters. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, you need to stop making stuff up and then arguing about it as if it were fact.
All right, good point.
I know you hate it, but "stupid people" get to vote Tim. What are you doing to help people be less "stupid?" Is what the candidate you support proposes the best solution for elevating more people out of "stupidity?" Calling people stupid isn't really helping things much.
At this point, all it tells me is that the 100 college educated adults either had families wealthy enough to sponsor them though to graduation, or they're saddled with some serious debt. Neither of those things indicates any particular level of intelligence to me. O.k., a few of them may have been bright enough to get academic scholarships - those people probably are intelligent.
