Democrat Convention Thread

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2016, 03:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't care how elections are funded.  If you want to run for office, then you live by the rules they pass, what I do care about is limiting my ability to support the person I want by the means I want.  If I want to buy 1000 hours of tv time to support someone, then that's between me and whoever I am purchasing time from.  

I don't think elections should be something that can be bought by the people with the most money.

[Belsnickel]

(07-28-2016, 03:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't care how elections are funded.  If you want to run for office, then you live by the rules they pass, what I do care about is limiting my ability to support the person I want by the means I want.  If I want to buy 1000 hours of tv time to support someone, then that's between me and whoever I am purchasing time from.  

(07-28-2016, 04:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think elections should be something that can be bought by the people with the most money.

I just want to expand here on what Fred is saying. If you make elections publicly funded but allow other people to spend cash, limited or limitless, you are negating the very thing you were trying to correct with publicly funded elections. So your efforts are now wasted. I don't know if Fred was saying this with his comment or not, but that is what would happen would that sort of situation occur.

[Benton]

(07-28-2016, 03:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't care how elections are funded.  If you want to run for office, then you live by the rules they pass, what I do care about is limiting my ability to support the person I want by the means I want.  If I want to buy 1000 hours of tv time to support someone, then that's between me and whoever I am purchasing time from.  

I take the same approach at healthcare.

I don't want someone I don't like operating on me. So I find someone I like, someone I trust, then I dump hundreds of thousands making sure they become a doctor. Who cares if they're a really crappy doctor and other people get really bad medical service, I got the doctor I wanted.

And food.

I don't want someone I don't like cooking my food. So I find someone who will probably be ok and then put them in the kitchen. Sometimes I get botulism, sometimes I get a decent meal. But at least I like the guy.



Our current system allows for advancement (mostly) of either the best fundraiser or the easiest to manipulate (i.e., big spenders invest a lot because they want favorable legislation). An individual's money is their own and they have a right to spend it how they want. But buying legislation seems like a pretty bad way to govern.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-28-2016, 04:30 PM)Benton Wrote: I take the same approach at healthcare.

I don't want someone I don't like operating on me. So I find someone I like, someone I trust, then I dump hundreds of thousands making sure they become a doctor. Who cares if they're a really crappy doctor and other people get really bad medical service, I got the doctor I wanted.

And food.

I don't want someone I don't like cooking my food. So I find someone who will probably be ok and then put them in the kitchen. Sometimes I get botulism, sometimes I get a decent meal. But at least I like the guy.



Our current system allows for advancement (mostly) of either the best fundraiser or the easiest to manipulate (i.e., big spenders invest a lot because they want favorable legislation). An individual's money is their own and they have a right to spend it how they want. But buying legislation seems like a pretty bad way to govern.

Fundraising has nothing to do with it.  I'm not talking about what the candidates raise, I'm talking about me being allowed to spend my money on ads or signs or what have you however I want whenever I want.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-28-2016, 04:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to expand here on what Fred is saying. If you make elections publicly funded but allow other people to spend cash, limited or limitless, you are negating the very thing you were trying to correct with publicly funded elections. So your efforts are now wasted. I don't know if Fred was saying this with his comment or not, but that is what would happen would that sort of situation occur.

Personally I don't care if elections are publicly funded or not.  If it would be made moot, then I guess don't waste your time.

[CageTheBengal]

.. Biden, Bloomberg and Obama all nailed it last night. Trump is a fear-monger who is preying on Americans emotions during one of the most turbulent times our world has ever known. He offers no real solutions and runs his campaign on empty promises. How else can a man who is nothing short of a con-artist get people to back him? A handful of prominent Republicans have been instilling fear and a distrust of the media into their followers for years now and Trump is the result. As soon as a candidate showed up who was more extreme then any of the establishment Republicans that candidate caught fire. Probably because he was more out there then any establishment politician ever thought of being and Republicans have been convinced these outrageous measures are what is required to make America "great" again. It all stems from fear. Fear of immigrants, fear of LGBT, Fear of a 2nd amendment breach and the list goes on and on. The wedge between those who will bow down to fear and hate and those who adamantly resist it is only going grow wider when Trump loses this election. Anyone who can't get over the Republican vs Democrat aspect needs to grasp the bigger picture because it's way beyond that at this point. This isn't the Bengals vs Steelers this is real life.

On a side note...What I find really comical about the Trump movement as a whole though is all of the people who were enthralled by the fact he was an outsider are turning a blind eye while he transforms his character into a politician the Republicans can stand to swallow.

[*michaelsean*]

Let me add. You guys have a preference for how you want elections run, but it's just that. A preference. To step on people's right of free speech, you have to have some sort of empirical evidence that your way is in fact better. Believe it or not, there are millions of people who believe that Hillary is the best person and there are millions of people who believe that Trump is the best person. The system works just fine for them. Tens of millions of people thought and think Obama is great. The system worked just fine for them.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-28-2016, 05:10 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: .. Biden, Bloomberg and Obama all nailed it last night. Trump is a fear-monger who is preying on Americans emotions during one of the most turbulent times our world has ever known. He offers no real solutions and runs his campaign on empty promises. How else can a man who is nothing short of a con-artist get people to back him? A handful of prominent Republicans have been instilling fear and a distrust of the media into their followers for years now and Trump is the result. As soon as a candidate showed up who was more extreme then any of the establishment Republicans that candidate caught fire. Probably because he was more out there then any establishment politician ever thought of being and Republicans have been convinced these outrageous measures are what is required to make America "great" again. It all stems from fear. Fear of immigrants, fear of LGBT, Fear of a 2nd amendment breach and the list goes on and on. The wedge between those who will bow down to fear and hate and those who adamantly resist it is only going grow wider when Trump loses this election. Anyone who can't get over the Republican vs Democrat aspect needs to grasp the bigger picture because it's way beyond that at this point. This isn't the Bengals vs Steelers this is real life.

On a side note...What I find really comical about the Trump movement as a whole though is all of the people who were enthralled by the fact he was an outsider are turning a blind eye while he transforms his character into a politician the Republicans can stand to swallow.

Hate to be the one that breaks this to you, but scaring the public is NOT the sole province of the Republicans.

[Millhouse]

(07-28-2016, 05:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Let me add.  You guys have a preference for how you want elections run, but it's just that.  A preference.  To step on people's right of free speech, you have to have some sort of empirical evidence that your way is in fact better.  Believe it or not, there are millions of people who believe that Hillary is the best person and there are millions of people who believe that Trump is the best person.  The system works just fine for them.  Tens of millions of people thought and think Obama is great.  The  system worked just fine for them.

What you referred to earlier is basically pacs & superpacs. The issue with superpacs is they can take any amount of money and use it for or against a candidate, as long as they are not directly involved with the campaign itself. And the issue of that is this where big money from corporate murica, oil, alcohol, tobacco, guns, unions, billionaires, millionaires, to whatever can have unlimited amount of influence on an election. 

You mentioned you will vote for Garys Johnson, but these superpacs would bury him with their ads & influence if he ever became a legitimate threat to their big money interests. And if he cant get any superpacs of his own, he will never stand a chance on the modern presidential election stage. I dont know about you, but I dont think this current system as of today is fair to him or anyone else who might actually be the best choice. 

[CageTheBengal]

(07-28-2016, 05:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hate to be the one that breaks this to you, but scaring the public is NOT the sole province of the Republicans.

You're right the Democrats have spent time warning the world about the hate-monger running for office. As has much of the country.

The Republicans have been scaring the public with the concept that their way of life is going to be stripped from them the more the Democrats take office. So the more they lose the more that fear grows. Now it has reached a boiling point and crossed into a place that is totally irrational. You ever notice that every time there is a mass shooting gun sales spike? It's because a bunch of gun nuts are worried the Democrats are gonna lay down the law and ban the purchase of guns. That's a choice influenced by a baseless fear instilled from the Republicans.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-28-2016, 05:25 PM)Millhouse Wrote: What you referred to earlier is basically pacs & superpacs. The issue with superpacs is they can take any amount of money and use it for or against a candidate, as long as they are not directly involved with the campaign itself. And the issue of that is this where big money from corporate murica, oil, alcohol, tobacco, guns, unions, billionaires, millionaires, to whatever can have unlimited amount of influence on an election. 

You mentioned you will vote for Garys Johnson, but these superpacs would bury him with their ads & influence if he ever became a legitimate threat to their big money interests. And if he cant get any superpacs of his own, he will never stand a chance on the modern presidential election stage. I dont know about you, but I dont think this current system as of today is fair to him or anyone else who might actually be the best choice. 

Take the NRA since they are huge.  There isn't some rich guy throwing around money.  It's millions of people's money collected in one place.  There are plenty of superpacs that would support Gary Johnson, and plenty that would support Jill Stein.  My hope is this election gives some of these candidates some traction to bring some of these PACs in. 

For me, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that you have to spend money on something does not negate your free speech rights.  I can stand on a corner and denounce Hillary all I want, but I can't pay money to denounce her on TV in a commercial spot that is for sale?

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2016, 05:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  Believe it or not, there are millions of people who believe that Hillary is the best person and there are millions of people who believe that Trump is the best person.  The system works just fine for them. 

Tens of millions of people think both Hillary and Trump are bad choices.

The system failed them because it is all rigged to make sure that only one of the two top parties will win.  No third party candidate can compete with the funds of the two major parties.  Sanders was not really a Democrat and Trump was not really a Republican, but they were forced to run on one of the two major party tickets because no one else can win.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-28-2016, 05:40 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: You're right the Democrats have spent time warning the world about the hate-monger running for office. As has much of the country.

The Republicans have been scaring the public with the concept that their way of life is going to be stripped from them the more the Democrats take office. So the more they lose the more that fear grows. Now it has reached a boiling point and crossed into a place that is totally irrational. You ever notice that every time there is a mass shooting gun sales spike? It's because a bunch of gun nuts are worried the Democrats are gonna lay down the law and ban the purchase of guns. That's a choice influenced by a baseless fear instilled from the Republicans.

Democrats have lost not gained federal and state.   So....

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2016, 05:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  There are plenty of superpacs that would support Gary Johnson, and plenty that would support Jill Stein. 

No there are not.

[Belsnickel]

(07-28-2016, 05:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Take the NRA since they are huge.  There isn't some rich guy throwing around money.  It's millions of people's money collected in one place.  There are plenty of superpacs that would support Gary Johnson, and plenty that would support Jill Stein.  My hope is this election gives some of these candidates some traction to bring some of these PACs in. 

Let's take the NRA, then. Most of the money they throw around isn't from their members, it's from the industry. It's from firearms manufacturers. These companies are the interests the NRA is serving through a system of legal bribery resulting in self-serving legislation that may be counter to the public opinion of the constituency. Universal background checks, for instance, is something the majority of the population is behind, but because the firearms industry and the NRA are against it, we see large amounts of push back on it as elected officials ignore their constituents.

Money in politics causes elected officials to ignore the people they have been elected to serve in favor of a minority with deep pockets.

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2016, 05:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: For me, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that you have to spend money on something does not negate your free speech rights.  I can stand on a corner and denounce Hillary all I want, but I can't pay money to denounce her on TV in a commercial spot that is for sale?

What about bribery?  Do you consider that to be "free speech".  

If you were going to court against Exxon would you have any problem with Exxon pledging $10 million to the judge's re-election campaign fund if he ruled in their favor?

Or how about a big private business that wanted the government to take your property through eminent domain for their benefit?  Would you have any problem with that company offering a legislator $10 million in campaign finance funds in order to rule in their favor?

Is that "free speech" or bribery?

[CageTheBengal]

(07-28-2016, 05:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Democrats have lost not gained federal and state.   So....

...What's your point? Fear sways voters?

[JustWinBaby]

(07-28-2016, 05:25 PM)Millhouse Wrote: What you referred to earlier is basically pacs & superpacs. The issue with superpacs is they can take any amount of money and use it for or against a candidate, as long as they are not directly involved with the campaign itself. And the issue of that is this where big money from corporate murica, oil, alcohol, tobacco, guns, unions, billionaires, millionaires, to whatever can have unlimited amount of influence on an election. 

Plenty of candidates have pacs & superpacs, but I agree not everyone can get that kind of support.

But IMO the main reason Dems oppose Citizens United is because without it, there's really nothing to counter the unions, which vote overwhelmingly Democrat.  Democrat opposition to CU is more about tilting the game their way than making the game more fair.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-28-2016, 05:40 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: You're right the Democrats have spent time warning the world about the hate-monger running for office. As has much of the country.

The Republicans have been scaring the public with the concept that their way of life is going to be stripped from them the more the Democrats take office. So the more they lose the more that fear grows. Now it has reached a boiling point and crossed into a place that is totally irrational. You ever notice that every time there is a mass shooting gun sales spike? It's because a bunch of gun nuts are worried the Democrats are gonna lay down the law and ban the purchase of guns. That's a choice influenced by a baseless fear instilled from the Republicans.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Oh man. I can't catch my brea-hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Oh, thanks, man, thanks for that laugh. I needed that.

[b Wrote:CageTheBengal][/b]The Republicans have been scaring the public with the concept that their way of life is going to be stripped from them the more the Democrats take office.

And so have the Democrats in regards to the Republicans ("Republicans want to take your social security, grandma" would be just one of the myriad of examples.)

I may be a registered Republican, but I know my party isn't the cleancut wholesome saints that you obviously think the Democrats are. The sooner you realize the Dems and Repubs differ ONLY in ideology and not methods, the better off you'll be.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-28-2016, 06:47 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: ...What's your point? Fear sways voters?

No.  You are the one who said the Republicans use  more and more fear as they lose more seats and it has reached a boiling point.