Proposal for cleaning up Presidential Politics

#1
S

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
51,188
Likes
51,258
#1
Outlaw tv ads and replace them with weekly debates using varying formats. At least some of these debates should be based on questions that are not known in advance. Some should be the candidates questioning each other.

If we want substance rather than whoever can "run the best campaign" or the slickest marketing program... then this would work.
 
#2
#2
How does it work?

Obama basically campaigned on being a far left clown and his record supported it, yet he won in a walkover.
 
#3
#3
how about we just let the Electoral College do the job it was meant to do and take the popular election aspect out of the equation.
 
#5
#5
Screw elections. Just let Oprah pick. She picked the current guy and that's working out great.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
Couldn't agree more. Honest, open debate on real issues has been replaced with pandering and dodging for personal promotion. Could be the result of a disinformed, apathetic electorate. Could be the dominance of special interests over the interests of the majority. Whatever the reason, I agree.
 
#7
#7
sjt18 said:
Outlaw tv ads and replace them with weekly debates using varying formats. At least some of these debates should be based on questions that are not known in advance. Some should be the candidates questioning each other.

If we want substance rather than whoever can "run the best campaign" or the slickest marketing program... then this would work.
Click to expand...


Theoretically I'm for it.

But Supreme Court isn't about to allow unchecked anonymous corporate or special interest group financing of the GOP and then turn around and take that tool away.
 
#8
#8
lawgator1 said:
Theoretically I'm for it.

But Supreme Court isn't about to allow unchecked anonymous corporate or special interest group financing of the GOP and then turn around and take that tool away.
Click to expand...

so, only the GOP will benefit from the SC's ruling?
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Theoretically I'm for it.

But Supreme Court isn't about to allow unchecked anonymous corporate or special interest group financing of the GOP and then turn around and take that tool away.
Click to expand...

are you trying to be ridiculous?
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
Theoretically I'm for it.

But Supreme Court isn't about to allow unchecked anonymous corporate or special interest group financing of the GOP and then turn around and take that tool away.
Click to expand...

Much less the same characters who support the Dems plus labor unions who got special exemptions. Or I guess we could talk about the numerous left wing organizations who take gov't money then turn around and donate to Dems almost exclusively like various environmental groups, feminist groups, abortion groups, education groups, etc.
 
#11
#11
MG1968 said:
so, only the GOP will benefit from the SC's ruling?
Click to expand...


Its not the GOP that benefits. What it allows is large corporate donors or well-heeled special interest groups to mask their jaw-dropping donations to the GOP so that the quid pro quo is not as obvious.

The Dems will get a taste, but the giving to them is much more transparent than will be the case in terms of the GOP given this ruling.
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
Theoretically I'm for it.

But Supreme Court isn't about to allow unchecked anonymous corporate or special interest group financing of the GOP and then turn around and take that tool away.
Click to expand...

oh yes, and those unions don't donate a penny. dude that is truly an ignorant statement.

how much did wallstreet donate to hussein? more than they did the gop. you read too much moveon.org.

what about GE? GE had benefited more in two years from this regime than haliburton did all 8years from Bush (if you believe all the haliburt BS) yet you libs don't say a word about them. such hypocrites.
 
#13
#13
ummmm dems took more corporate donations than republicans during obama's election.

NA-BI034_POLMON_NS_20100920195618.gif


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503933125159928.html
 
#14
#14
sjt18 said:
Much less the same characters who support the Dems plus labor unions who got special exemptions. Or I guess we could talk about the numerous left wing organizations who take gov't money then turn around and donate to Dems almost exclusively like various environmental groups, feminist groups, abortion groups, education groups, etc.
Click to expand...

that doesn't happen at all just ask laygaytor. it's only with companies that do not deal with the government.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
Its not the GOP that benefits. What it allows is large corporate donors or well-heeled special interest groups to mask their jaw-dropping donations to the GOP so that the quid pro quo is not as obvious.
Click to expand...
But it was fine to exclude unions from McCain-Feingold, right? You have no problem with Planned Parenthood getting federal money then turning around and contributing heavily to Dems, right? Sure... they don't use "that" money to donate, right?

The Dems will get a taste, but the giving to them is much more transparent than will be the case in terms of the GOP given this ruling.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Corporations give heavily to Dems too. The hedge their bets by buying politicians in both parties.

But fwiw, the ruling was absolutely correct. Private individuals have a right to express their opinions through financial donations. At least these businesses are actually donating their own money rather than Politicians filtering tax dollars back to their campaigns through special interest groups.

Which is worse- corporations giving their own money to politicians or Dems stealing tax dollars to run their campaigns?
 
#17
#17
Contrary to what LG chooses to believe, many corporations like big gov't and like regulation. Big gov't means they can get big deals through political favor rather than by competition. Regulation is an entry barrier to start up companies.
 
#19
#19
Back to the topic at hand. Who thinks the gov't wouldn't be run better if someone had to actually state and defend their ideals in a real debate?
 
#20
#20
Remove corporate ties from politics all together. I would love to see the weekly debates rather than commercials, but the public is too lazy to watch them.
 
#21
#21
If you want better presidents, then educate the voting population more so they quit voting for such awful presidents.
 
#23
#23
sjt18 said:
Contrary to what LG chooses to believe, many corporations like big gov't and like regulation. Big gov't means they can get big deals through political favor rather than by competition. Regulation is an entry barrier to start up companies.
Click to expand...

Your not suppose to understand that. Your suppose to "think" the banks gave more money to MCCain and were hoping Obama wouldn't get in. You just went somewhere most liberals, who aren't in power, don't even understand.

Great post.
 
#25
#25
VOLatile said:
Too many people are unwilling to be educated. Luckily, most of those people are too lazy to vote.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. How about you have to pass a political aptitude test or you can't vote?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top