Merged Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder

Newtons Bit said:
So a guy who a large number of people love and will donate to should get no money because his opponent gets none?
Click to expand...

Uh, no? if Guy_Y has lots of donators he'll hit the ceiling fast, but can't spend more on campaigns than the ceiling limit. If Guy_X has no donators at all, he'll have to dip into his own cash, but still no more than the ceiling limit.
Guy_Z may have a few donators and may reach the ceiling. Or not.
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
Not that this is a thread about WalMart but I bet most of the poor people there are happy a Walmart is there.
Click to expand...
That the Walton larvae abandoned their father's policy of buying American-made goods is part of why some of them are poor.

They're being had, made to think that the worthlless drongos from Arkansas are their firends.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
Does you law stop me from buying ads supporting a candidate if I do not contribute to them directly?
Click to expand...
Of course not, that's clearly unconstitutional.

NoZed Avenger said:
Does it stop me from getting together with my friends in local Steamfitters #309 to jointly buy an ad?
Click to expand...
Nope, same reason.

NoZed Avenger said:
What if I, the owner of a national magazine , decide to start my "Elect Ron Paul and Sarah Palin's Love Child" editorials and use copious space in my magazine to spearhead a campaign to get the spawn elected and to trash any other candidate. I spend no money to do so, except indirectly. Does your law stop me?
Click to expand...
Nope, same reason.

NoZed Avenger said:
If it doesn't, then I don't see much difference. If it does, then I do see some Constitutional problems.
Click to expand...
The difference is politicians aren't beholden to those groups that can't buy them directly. The politicians/party cannot control the content of such ads, and these ads can be more harmful than good for the candidate. There's no fundraisers where the rich and powerful can rub elbows with the pols and ask for favors.
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
I personally have no problem with it. Better yet, use public funds to provide each candidate with equal amounts of money to campaign.
Click to expand...
Horrible idea, now you have entrenched politicians who belong to a party picking winners and losers for these funds.

Or do you propose that the Libertarian party get the same funding as the Dems and GOP? The Green Party? What about the Nazis Party, do they get the same funding also?
 
Bri said:
I personally have no problem with it. Better yet, use public funds to provide each candidate with equal amounts of money to campaign. That might entirely remove any conflict of interest inherent in voting on issues that might affect those to whom you're dependent for re-election.

Your comment doesn't have much to do with what I said, however. Some in this thread have been making fun of protesters for using the bathroom at McDonald's and buying products made by large corporations, presumably insinuating that they're all protesting corporations or capitalism in general.

I suspect that's not the case.

-Bri
Click to expand...

Indeed, only some people there were protesting corporations or capitalism in general.

There was one incident that sticks out. Another one of the few things most people seemed to agree on is the idea that U.S. money should be backed by something, whether it's gold or something else. A few people were discussing this, as well as discussing using gold and silver as alternate forms of currency. One guy pulled out a silver coin and mentioned he buys these coins in bulk for $17 each but sells them online individually for $32. Another protestor said to him, "Hey, can I buy that off of you? I don't have $32, but I have $20 I can give you." to which the guy replied, "Hey man, I'm a capitalist. And it's worth $32."
 
Last edited:
Schrodinger's Cat said:
There was one incident that sticks out. Another one of the few things most people seemed to agree on is the idea that U.S. money should be backed by something, whether it's gold or something else.
Click to expand...
"Something" means a physical object? Why do they think that? What's the point?
 
Here's another idea: make anyone who ever held an elected office be ineligible to serve on a corporate board or act as a lobbyist for a minimum of 15 years after leavig office.

I'd like this to apply to spouses too, but that may not be doable.
 
WildCat said:
Horrible idea, now you have entrenched politicians who belong to a party picking winners and losers for these funds.
Click to expand...

?

Or do you propose that the Libertarian party get the same funding as the Dems and GOP? The Green Party? What about the Nazis Party, do they get the same funding also?
Click to expand...

Of course. Anyone who qualifies to run for office would get the same amount of money to campaign.

-Bri
 
WildCat said:
"Something" means a physical object? Why do they think that? What's the point?
Click to expand...

Depends on the person making the argument. Although multiple people made it, they had various reasons. Some people just said it was more economically stable to have a currency backed by something physical, but I got a whole bunch of reasons.

The oathkeepers there let me know that taking America off the gold standard was the first step of the Illunati establishing a single world wide currency for the New World Order.
 
WildCat said:
Here's another idea: make anyone who ever held an elected office be ineligible to serve on a corporate board or act as a lobbyist for a minimum of 15 years after leavig office.

I'd like this to apply to spouses too, but that may not be doable.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea.
 
WildCat said:
Here's another idea: make anyone who ever held an elected office be ineligible to serve on a corporate board or act as a lobbyist for a minimum of 15 years after leavig office.

I'd like this to apply to spouses too, but that may not be doable.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind this -- or we can combine it with the tax idea and have a 75% (to maybe 90%) tax on any income derived from anyone leaving public office or a job with the government for all income received for the next 10 years over $200,000.
 
WildCat said:
The difference is politicians aren't beholden to those groups that can't buy them directly. The politicians/party cannot control the content of such ads, and these ads can be more harmful than good for the candidate. There's no fundraisers where the rich and powerful can rub elbows with the pols and ask for favors.
Click to expand...


Stopping coordination between groups would be a nightmare, as would any decision to echo or repeat points made by another group, even without official collusion. It would also increase the power of the mainstream press even further, by having them effectively unfettered.

I'd have to think a bit before implementing such a sweeping change. There are a lot of potential pitfalls I'd want to look at before signing on.
 
NoahFence said:
No, actually it's not. Those laptops and smartphones are beginning to - or already are - vital in this day and age. Its almost to the point where you need them to function.
Click to expand...
This "day and age" meaning the age of capitalism? That produced the corporations and free trade agreements that made all that cheap clothing and electronics possible?

I'm confused, do you or don't you want cheap electronic gadgets and $5 t-shirts?
 
Bri said:
They do that now. I still don't understand your point.

-Bri
Click to expand...
Yes, they do that now and we can see how they use the system to stifle 3rd parties and other candidates the leaders of the Dems and GOP would rather not run for office. Now you also introduce a means to deny them the funds with which to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom