$15.00
$5.00
$30.00
$20.00
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb

The majority of Americans want to get money out of politics. If third parties are ever going to be up on that debate stage, this is essential. For the preservation of our democracy, what's left of it, it's essential.

Congress will never legislate it, they were put there by money in the first place! So the people's best hope is the SCOTUS. And Clinton's nominees have the best chance of overturning the Citizen's United decision, as well as making other decisions that would remove money from politics.

This is a bipartisan issue. Many Republicans want the money out as well.

Unfortunately, people like Johnson are committing political suicide by supporting the CU decision. The 1% will never chance their money on a third party. The Koch brothers are Libertarians, where do they spend their money?

Think about the long game. If you want to do more than protest, if you want to actually compete, you need to even the playing field. And Clinton is your best hope of that.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Just so I am clear, we are supposed to believe that an ex-congressperson who benefited from the CU atrocity is going to put up a nominee, that would need to be confirmed by a gaggle of congresspeople who all benefit from CU, who would actually be open to making decisions to get money out of politics? I'm not quite sure I am on board with your assumptions.

I think the long game should be making real consequences for the two parties so they are convinced that this is an issue that they have to address and not just pay lip service to up until they actually take their oath.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Yeah, get money out of politics by supporting a politician who is wholly bought and paid for by special interests! That's the ticket!

All of them are.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Just so I am clear, we are supposed to believe that an ex-congressperson who benefited from the CU atrocity is going to put up a nominee, that would need to be confirmed by a gaggle of congresspeople who all benefit from CU, who would actually be open to making decisions to get money out of politics? I'm not quite sure I am on board with your assumptions.

I think the long game should be making real consequences for the two parties so they are convinced that this is an issue that they have to address and not just pay lip service to up until they actually take their oath.


Do you know how the CU vote broke down? What ideology supported it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Yeah, get money out of politics by supporting a politician who is wholly bought and paid for by special interests! That's the ticket!



And your other option is continue to spin your wheels accomplishing nothing.

Do you think America will ever nominate two options worse than Clinton/Trump? If the masses were ever going to rise up and vote third party, this would be the election. And they can't even break 10%.

Clinton IS your best chance to change the playing field, whether you admit it or not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
Do you know how the CU vote broke down? What ideology supported it?
I know what judges supported it and didn't. I am pretty sure that their views on finance reform was not a deal breaker for their confirmations since CU wasn't a concern yet and elements of the law it struck down seemed to be good to go. Now that the horses are out of the barn, will Hillary nominate a cowboy or two? Is it in her and both parties best interest to not round up the horses.

Do you think that if this was something they want to do she wouldn't be plastering the airwaves with it? They talk about a liberal SCOTUS as being important, but I only ever hear desperate democrats at the grass roots level bring up CU. It might be just my perception. They are very careful not to make any promises they have no intention on keeping. They aren't stupid like Trump.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:

And your other option is continue to spin your wheels accomplishing nothing.

Do you think America will ever nominate two options worse than Clinton/Trump? If the masses were ever going to rise up and vote third party, this would be the election. And they can't even break 10%.

Clinton IS your best chance to change the playing field, whether you admit it or not.
The goal is never to "rise up and vote third party" to elect third party, it's to get enough 3rd party voters to be a danger to sway an election. Then voices and concerns are heard that aren't beltway job protectionists.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:

The majority of Americans want to get money out of politics. If third parties are ever going to be up on that debate stage, this is essential. For the preservation of our democracy, what's left of it, it's essential.

Congress will never legislate it, they were put there by money in the first place! So the people's best hope is the SCOTUS. And Clinton's nominees have the best chance of overturning the Citizen's United decision, as well as making other decisions that would remove money from politics.

This is a bipartisan issue. Many Republicans want the money out as well.

Unfortunately, people like Johnson are committing political suicide by supporting the CU decision. The 1% will never chance their money on a third party. The Koch brothers are Libertarians, where do they spend their money?

Think about the long game. If you want to do more than protest, if you want to actually compete, you need to even the playing field. And Clinton is your best hope of that.


It is painful to see how far you will twist yourself to try to say Hillary is the only choice without actually supporting Hillary because you like pretending that you are disappointed with Hillary too. She is the embodiment of monied politics. Trying to say that she should be supported to get money out of politics is....

.... I don't know what it is. But I have a visual in mind of a horse headbutting a pencil sharpener in hopes of becoming a unicorn.
4 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Do you know how the CU vote broke down? What ideology supported it?
I know what judges supported it and didn't. I am pretty sure that their views on finance reform was not a deal breaker for their confirmations since CU wasn't a concern yet and elements of the law it struck down seemed to be good to go. Now that the horses are out of the barn, will Hillary nominate a cowboy or two? Is it in her and both parties best interest to not round up the horses.

Do you think that if this was something they want to do she wouldn't be plastering the airwaves with it? They talk about a liberal SCOTUS as being important, but I only ever hear desperate democrats at the grass roots level bring up CU. It might be just my perception. They are very careful not to make any promises they have no intention on keeping. They aren't stupid like Trump.


It's possible she won't put the right judges in place. But it's a better chance than any other possible outcome.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
I have a visual in mind of a horse headbutting a pencil sharpener in hopes of becoming a unicorn.


That's a great analogy for a third party voter. Every election, doing the same thing hoping something will change, but nothing does.

Enjoy the 5% Libertarians will pull this election with the perfect storm of two repugnant candidates (and no, I've never been pro-Hillary despite what you think in your twisted, biased mind). I doubt you'll ever see it that high again. What "success"!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
Thanks for the rent-free space in your head. Would have been nice if you'd cleaned it up a bit before you rented it out, though.
badge
I control your mind.
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
Do you know how the CU vote broke down? What ideology supported it?


I know that it was all about making it illegal to criticize Hillary. I guess we know what your ideology is, and it's not one that favors free speech.

But the authoritarian impulses of the left always reveal themselves.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
I know that it was all about making it illegal to criticize Hillary. I guess we know what your ideology is, and it's not one that favors free speech.

But the authoritarian impulses of the left always reveal themselves.
To be fair though, no one really cares about the details of that case anymore, what is really important is what parts of the campaign finance bill were struck down and what the consequences were/are for our democratic republic. It placed a barrier of money between us and our representatives and that needs to be addressed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rekinom
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
The majority of Americans want to get money out of politics. If third parties are ever going to be up on that debate stage, this is essential. For the preservation of our democracy, what's left of it, it's essential.


The reason why third parties aren't on the debate stage is because the Democrats and Republicans run the Commission for Presidential Debates. Corporate sponsors are able to make tax deductible donations to the CPD, and therefore the two parties, without having those donations count as political contributions because the CPD is considered a non-profit.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
rekinom wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
The majority of Americans want to get money out of politics. If third parties are ever going to be up on that debate stage, this is essential. For the preservation of our democracy, what's left of it, it's essential.


The reason why third parties aren't on the debate stage is because the Democrats and Republicans run the Commission for Presidential Debates. Corporate sponsors are able to make tax deductible donations to the CPD, and therefore the two parties, without having those donations count as political contributions because the CPD is considered a non-profit.


Yes we all know this. But money in politics is why no third party will ever have a chance to compete, not because of some debate commission.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
rekinom wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
The majority of Americans want to get money out of politics. If third parties are ever going to be up on that debate stage, this is essential. For the preservation of our democracy, what's left of it, it's essential.


The reason why third parties aren't on the debate stage is because the Democrats and Republicans run the Commission for Presidential Debates. Corporate sponsors are able to make tax deductible donations to the CPD, and therefore the two parties, without having those donations count as political contributions because the CPD is considered a non-profit.


Yes we all know this. But money in politics is why no third party will ever have a chance to compete, not because of some debate commission.


Yeah, and all the money in politics is why Jeb Bush won the Republican nomination hands down. No one who doesn't spend any money could possibly gain traction.


I'm not sure the 2016 candidates are really making your argument like you think they are, buddy.

The Dems put up probably the best connected possible candidate, and one of their wealthiest. The GOP candidate is a billionaire (maybe) with no political experience whatsoever.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mb
rekinom wrote:
The reason why third parties aren't on the debate stage is because the Democrats and Republicans run the Commission for Presidential Debates. Corporate sponsors are able to make tax deductible donations to the CPD, and therefore the two parties, without having those donations count as political contributions because the CPD is considered a non-profit.
How much $$$$ have these SPENT/WASTED so far upon your upcoming VOTE? M-O-R-E is yet then "presumed"!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
I know that it was all about making it illegal to criticize Hillary. I guess we know what your ideology is, and it's not one that favors free speech.

But the authoritarian impulses of the left always reveal themselves.


Yep, that's one thing we can count on from Hillary. She is ardently anti free speech.

Trump is the one campaigning on restricting free speech.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
nothing like watching conservatives simultaneously whine that Hillary is the candidate of the monied classes AND that liberals who favour campaign finance regulations are restricting speech because speech is money

"money is speech and that's good! except when Hillary gets money and that's bad! because the people giving her the money are bad! but the money itself is good!"

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
Money doesn't affect elections that much -- the author of Freakonomics wrote an interesting paper on this awhile ago. Flawed methodology, but actually pretty cool and smart.

http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-ele...

Money doesn't buy elections. It doesn't get you elected. Money gets your donors favors.

Said another way -- money doesn't help candidates, money helps the people giving it away.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
This is about as stupid as saying that freedom of speech sucks because those Westboro loony toons do what they do.


That's a digression into hate speech law but that's a topic for another time.

Quote:
People being able to spend money to support political causes they believe in is a very good thing and quite necessary for a functional democracy.


This is true, but the money is not speech, and therein lies the issue of campaign finance. Money is not speech and the spending of money is not an act of expression, no more than me buying a hamburger is speech about how much I love hamburgers. The money is property which enables speech; by opposing campaign finance reform, you are stating, without equivocation, that people who have more property should accordingly be allowed to affect the democratic process more greatly than those without. Which is basically the recipe for political corruption in the first place.

That's what you're for. You might as well own it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Money doesn't affect elections that much -- the author of Freakonomics wrote an interesting paper on this awhile ago. Flawed methodology, but actually pretty cool and smart.

http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-ele...

Money doesn't buy elections. It doesn't get you elected. Money gets your donors favors.

Said another way -- money doesn't help candidates, money helps the people giving it away.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/th...

How does that reconcile with this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rekinom
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
rekinom wrote:
The reason why third parties aren't on the debate stage is because the Democrats and Republicans run the Commission for Presidential Debates. Corporate sponsors are able to make tax deductible donations to the CPD, and therefore the two parties, without having those donations count as political contributions because the CPD is considered a non-profit.


Yes we all know this. But money in politics is why no third party will ever have a chance to compete, not because of some debate commission.


In 1998, reform party candidate Jesse Ventura went from 10% in the polls to 37% in the general election and won the governorship of Minnesota. He says this was possible because he was allowed to debate the other candidates. His campaign only spent $300,000. (That he was already famous probably didn't hurt either.)

But, it is not just getting into debates that is a problem.

Another problem is ballot access laws. Third parties need to get signatures to get on the ballot and the Democrats and Republicans will use lawyers to challenge those signatures. Of course, these requirements don't apply to the two major parties. The laws are written such that their prior successes provides them with an exemption.

And then there is gerrymandering and that our system is "winner take all" instead of run-off or preferential voting.

Let's say we had public funding of campaigns. Hey! We already do. That hasn't worked out for third parties either. To get public funding, you have to get 5% of the vote in the previous presidential election. Last time, Johnson and the Libertarian Party got 1% of the vote, so he can't get public funding for this election. In 2020, the LP might have access to public funding, but only because they would have had some modicum of success this year, assuming they get 5% of the vote.

If we take the money of politics, the two major parties will just continue to use high barriers for public funding against the third parties to keep them in the margins.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.