What the "Others" Want

[rogue06]

So I have been following with interest the progress of a progressive group called Justice Democrats...

A group put together by Young Turks and Secular Talk. This will go well.

I see that 7 of their 79 endorsed candidates won.

[Cow Poke]

Unfortunately, yes, the US has a huge problem with corruption, with the Republican party being ~100% corrupt, and the Dem's being ~70% corrupt.

[carpedm9587]

Which is what I saw in Sparko's post, and I said so in my response to you.

Of course...you removed the REST of my post...which explains why the use of hyperbole has changed in the age of Trump.

[carpedm9587]

As with a number of these laws I won't be surprised if Pelosi and her businesses are exempt.

A politician influencing law to be beneficial to themselves? Oh my!

Can you say "tax cut?"

[carpedm9587]

Other than the percentages - the general statement is one I agree with: the U.S. has a big problem with corruption in politics. I don't see significant difference on THAT front between Dems and Reps.

[Cow Poke]

Other than the percentages - the general statement is one I agree with: the U.S. has a big problem with corruption in politics. I don't see significant difference on THAT front between Dems and Reps.

Oh, I agree 99.44% I was laughing at the percentages - I think both parties stink out loud, which is why I think term limits are necessary. It gives them less time to entrench themselves and build their kingdoms.

[Cerebrum123]

Oh, I agree 99.44% I was laughing at the percentages - I think both parties stink out loud, which is why I think term limits are necessary. It gives them less time to entrench themselves and build their kingdoms.

I think Mark Twain said it best. "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often, and for the same reason".

[Cow Poke]

I think Mark Twain said it best. "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often, and for the same reason".

EGGzackly!

[carpedm9587]

Oh, I agree 99.44% I was laughing at the percentages - I think both parties stink out loud, which is why I think term limits are necessary. It gives them less time to entrench themselves and build their kingdoms.

Getting big money out of politics would also help. Personally, I think every person and business in America should be limited to a $100 per candidate donation, and ALL political adds should require the politician of note to publicly approve the ad. Put that together with term limits, and a significant amount of the swamp would be cleaned up.

[Cow Poke]

Getting big money out of politics would also help. Personally, I think every person and business in America should be limited to a $100 per candidate donation, and ALL political adds should require the politician of note to publicly approve the ad. Put that together with term limits, and a significant amount of the swamp would be cleaned up.

I don't think this anticipates the dishonesty of people who really want a certain candidate in office - we've seen it before - when the donation per contributor is limited, they find creative ways to 'spread' their donation to employees, friends, family.... This would probably take a whole 'nuther government agency to enforce it. Or maybe require a significant spooling up of the IRS.

Besides, SCOTUS already struck down, in 2014, limiting campaign contributions.

[carpedm9587]

I don't think this anticipates the dishonesty of people who really want a certain candidate in office - we've seen it before - when the donation per contributor is limited, they find creative ways to 'spread' their donation to employees, friends, family.... This would probably take a whole 'nuther government agency to enforce it. Or maybe require a significant spooling up of the IRS.

Besides, SCOTUS already struck down, in 2014, limiting campaign contributions.

Yes - I know - and in so doing they gave a proportionately larger microphone to those with more money - and it's been a mess since. There will always be those striving to game the system, but it's a lot easier to "game the system" when gaming isn't even necessary because the laws let you do what you want. In this election cycle, $1.5 B of the money spent came from 100 people. Now tell me that those 100 people didn't have a proportionately bigger microphone than anyone else...and so a disproportionate influence on our political system.

P.S. We don't usually refuse to implement a law because some people won't follow it. If we used that mentality, we wouldn't have any laws, because someone somewhere is always trying to break them.

[Cow Poke]

Yes - I know - and in so doing they gave a proportionately larger microphone to those with more money - and it's been a mess since. There will always be those striving to game the system, but it's a lot easier to "game the system" when gaming isn't even necessary because the laws let you do what you want. In this election cycle, $1.5 B of the money spent came from 100 people. Now tell me that those 100 people didn't have a proportionately bigger microphone than anyone else...and so a disproportionate influence on our political system.

P.S. We don't usually refuse to implement a law because some people won't follow it. If we used that mentality, we wouldn't have any laws, because someone somewhere is always trying to break them.

Nor do we usually implement a law knowing it has a snowball's chance of being enforced. Oh, WAIT!!!! We do that with gun laws!!!!


Seriously, your PS, in my opinion, is flawed.... when laws are crafted, there is most certainly an element of "is this enforceable" and "at what cost". "Having that mentality" does NOT keep us from having "any laws". That's WAY too generalized.

[carpedm9587]

Nor do we usually implement a law knowing it has a snowball's chance of being enforced. Oh, WAIT!!!! We do that with gun laws!!!!

Seriously, your PS, in my opinion, is flawed.... when laws are crafted, there is most certainly an element of "is this enforceable" and "at what cost". "Having that mentality" does NOT keep us from having "any laws". That's WAY too generalized.

In this age of electronic everything, do you REALLY think it would not be possible to enforce a spending cap? All we have to do is make it a requirement that political campaigns run open books with all donors identified. And what if the "big" players tried to game the system by turning to friends/family, etc.? Who cares? If I gift someone $100 - they can do whatever they want with it. If I want to give $1,000 and give $100 to ten friends, so be it. Those 10 friends have now eaten up their donation - end of story. But those top 100 people would have have to find 15 million people to "give" $100 to in order to donate the same amount of money they freely pumped into the 2018 campaign. Do you really think that would happen?

Sorry, CP, but spending caps across the board - personal and business - gets my vote. What SCOTUS did to the American political process is a travesty.

[Cow Poke]

In this age of electronic everything, do you REALLY think it would not be possible to enforce a spending cap? All we have to do is make it a requirement that political campaigns run open books with all donors identified. And what if the "big" players tried to game the system by turning to friends/family, etc.? Who cares? If I gift someone $100 - they can do whatever they want with it. If I want to give $1,000 and give $100 to ten friends, so be it. Those 10 friends have now eaten up their donation - end of story. But those top 100 people would have have to find 15 million people to "give" $100 to in order to donate the same amount of money they freely pumped into the 2018 campaign. Do you really think that would happen?

Sorry, CP, but spending caps across the board - personal and business - gets my vote. What SCOTUS did to the American political process is a travesty.

You're right, Carpe. Even when you're not right, you're right. And if you're ever really not right, you're even righter.

[carpedm9587]

You're right, Carpe. Even when you're not right, you're right. And if you're ever really not right, you're even righter.

It's about time you realized that...