Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

In the old days, the Founding Fathers-who were basically all rich-would buy people booze to secure their votes. The scale has changed, but this is just the American way.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

In the old days, the Founding Fathers-who were basically all rich-would buy people booze to secure their votes. The scale has changed, but this is just the American way.

 

It may be the"The American Way,"  but that's not relevant to my point, which is that it must be eliminated.

Edited by Horn Under a Bad Sign
Posted
9 hours ago, formermav43 said:

In the old days, the Founding Fathers-who were basically all rich-would buy people booze to secure their votes. The scale has changed, but this is just the American way.

Not much of a justification 

Posted

Maybe a candidate wouldn't need so much money to run a presidential campaign (and by default, be beholden to donors) if our country wasn't so big and our primary season lasted 16 months.  

Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The rich will continue to corrupt our politics as long as the Supreme Court considers spending money to be speech.

If compulsory paycheck withholdings going to union dues which went to bundled candidate and party contributions totaling in the billions over the last several decades can count as “free speech”, a straight and transparent check for a few million can count as well.  Either we have all this bullshit or none of it.  
 

unions and pacs are just monopolies by different names.  

Posted
13 minutes ago, Lobo said:

If compulsory paycheck withholdings going to union dues which went to bundled candidate and party contributions totaling in the billions over the last several decades can count as “free speech”, a straight and transparent check for a few million can count as well.  Either we have all this bullshit or none of it.  
 

unions and pacs are just monopolies by different names.  

That'd be a compromise I'd be willing to make.

Posted
On 11/9/2019 at 3:41 PM, formermav43 said:

In the old days, the Founding Fathers-who were basically all rich-would buy people booze to secure their votes. The scale has changed, but this is just the American way.

bunch of guys, many of whom owned other human beings as their personal property, thought buying votes was ok, so it should still be ok.  film at 11.

Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

bunch of guys, many of whom owned other human beings as their personal property, thought buying votes was ok, so it should still be ok.  film at 11.

Does the film have where I said it was ok? Because the quote doesn’t.

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Does the film have where I said it was ok? Because the quote doesn’t.

please point out where i said 'formermav43 thinks buying votes is ok'

Edited by elfenix
Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

please point out where i said 'formermav43 thinks buying votes is ok'

Well that implication seemed to be the most reasonable interpretation. But if it was just a completely irrelevant non sequitur, that’s fine.

Posted
8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Well that implication seemed to be the most reasonable interpretation. But if it was just a completely irrelevant non sequitur, that’s fine.

i'm not sure if this is touche or not.

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is possible, just possible, that the First Amendment, that is, talking about this and making it a campaign issue, relentlessly, solves the problem.

So you want the very people who benefit from this nice little fund, to take action to get rid of it's influence ?



×
×
  • Create New...