RE: Publicly financed elections.
November 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2014 at 4:24 pm by Ryantology.)
(November 21, 2014 at 3:50 pm)Heywood Wrote: Campaigns are not people then either. They are just pieces of paper filed with the FEC. What you are doing by advocating publicly financed elections is granting candidates the right to use money that is not theirs, personally, to make their own personal political influence stronger than yours or mine. You are suggesting that candidates deserve more of a say in politics than the average voter, who cannot afford to do such things.
What sort of dressing do you suggest goes best with this word salad? There's nothing about any of this that makes any rational sense at all. Candidates have to use some money, so they should all be using the same amount of it, from the same impartial source. Do you really not get how that is different from using corporate money? Do I have to spell that out for you?
Quote:Can you see how silly your position is when we change "corporation" to "campaign"?
Given that there is no basis for comparison whatsoever, I have to go with "no".
Quote:Campaigns are tools used by an assembly of people to speak. Corporations are tools used by an assembly of people to speak. If you don't like what a candidate is saying....leave their campaign. If you don't like what a corporation is saying....sell your stock.
What a fantastic idea! We can all make our voices heard by selling the stock the vast majority of people don't have and can't afford! Heywood, you're a perfect example of why people shouldn't formulate political ideas under the influence of drugs and alcohol, even if you're not and you just don't understand anything you're talking about.
Seriously, this is Hall of Shame material. This is just criminally stupid shit you just came up with.
