Anybody watching the debates?

The real absurdity is that there needs to be such a thing as a campaign fund. IMO any and all paid political advertising should be illegal, and we should be concerning ourselves not with how much money our candidates have to spend, but their merits as leaders. But that's never going to happen when the current system is so lucrative for everyone involved.

The only way to take money out of political campaigns is to take the power out of the government. As long as we allow 'our' government to exert so much power over everything the money will find its way to influence and control the outcomes of our elections.

Will you guys gimme' some cash to run for office?

N Sperlo wrote: Will you guys gimme' some cash to run for office?

I have given small amounts to other campaigns in the past. I would easily give you more than them.

Salanis wrote: It's been about 5 years since I read them, so I can't remember. I want to say 5 or 12, but I'm probably totally wrong on those. I might also be mistaking the ideas for something else I read in government class. Generally referring to the idea of factions, and how every faction generally believes they know what is best, and so will try to inflict their will upon the populace. That a strong federal government is there to draw in so many factions that it is very difficult for any one faction to gain significant enough leverage to really enact their will strongly. And no, our two major parties are *not* really factions in the sense the Federalist Papers were talking about. They are groups composed of many different factions. Edit: Looks like Federalist 9-10 are the ones about Factions.

T.J. wrote: The only way to take money out of political campaigns is to take the power out of the government. As long as we allow 'our' government to exert so much power over everything the money will find its way to influence and control the outcomes of our elections.

Disagree. Many democratic countries do not have the ridiculous amount of expenditures that happen like the US does in its campaigns. One could even say that if the process was GOVERNMENT funded, the process would be perfectly fair for everyone as no one would be getting additional funding/exposure over another person.

We have laws here that don't allow campaigning for more than a month before elections. Definitely keeps costs down vs the two years (I can't even fathom this, it is beyond ridiculous) out of every four you guys do...

With so many groups willing to smear and all the ways they can, TV, billboards, internet. Control over campaign advertisement is unrealistic at best. Tuna will be funding my smear campaign.

It will be the true epitome of a "grassroots campaign."

Osterkraut wrote:

Yeah, shame on me for not being able to remember what section the information I was thinking about was in in a collection of papers I haven't read for 5 years.

Federalist 9-10 are about the dangers of factions wanting to exert their will, and how a federal government is a good system for limiting the ability for factions to gain enough power to do so.

Guess what, I can't remember what act or scene Hamlet's "To be, or not to be..." speech is in either. I even forget which play "All the world's a stage..." is from too. Doesn't mean I don't remember what they say.

So... What are everyone's thoughts on the possibility of Chris Christie joining the mix?

mtn wrote: So... What are everyone's thoughts on the possibility of Chris Christie joining the mix?

It don't mean squat until he officially enters.

Salanis wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Yeah, shame on me for not being able to remember what section the information I was thinking about was in in a collection of papers I haven't read for 5 years. Federalist 9-10 are about the dangers of factions wanting to exert their will, and how a federal government is a good system for limiting the ability for factions to gain enough power to do so. Guess what, I can't remember what act or scene Hamlet's "To be, or not to be..." speech is in either. I even forget which play "All the world's a stage..." is from too. Doesn't mean I don't remember what they say.

When you call people out, you best know your E36 M3.

Salanis wrote: ... Guess what, I can't remember what act or scene Hamlet's "To be, or not to be..." speech...

aircooled wrote:

Salanis wrote: ... Guess what, I can't remember what act or scene Hamlet's "To be, or not to be..." speech...

Awesome.

Not sure if it's been brought up or not, but any thoughts on Herman Cain taking the straw poll in FL the other day? Did he go the hot-dog throater route and have them bussed in? I hope not. I'd vote for him over anyone but RP.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: President who's screaming "PASS THIS BILL. DON'T READ IT. DON'T QUESTION IT. JUST PASS IT,"

The one that's been posted on the internet for almost two weeks? The one they're running commercials for asking people to read it? The one that Boehner and Cantor are picking to pieces point by point every time they see a TV camera? They sure seem to know what's in it. It's only like 400 pages. Even those guys can read that fast. Pelosi helps them with the big words. Here ya go, if you're interested. http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobsact#overview Did you read the Ryan budget? Dunno. Fine with me if you don't like Obama. There's plenty to criticize about him. Don't really need to make things up. Did you know he uses a teleprompter... like every other President in the last 40 years?

So what I'm hearing is "I don't disagree with anything else you wrote, but I did find this one thing that I disagree with, so you're a liar." BRILLIANT!

Did you listen to the speech he gave on his "jobs" bill? If you did, you know what the berkeley I'm talking about. There's no need to act like a child. What was implied in the speech was: "If this bill doesn't pass tomorrow, it's all the fault of the Republicans because they disagreed with something in it." eg: Don't read it. Just pass it. Racist.

Also: Andy Sandberg(?)'s imression of Rick Santorum on SNL was berkeleying hilarious. The fat black guy, not so much.

poopshovel wrote: So what I'm hearing is "I don't disagree with anything else you wrote, but I did find this one thing that I disagree with, so you're a liar." BRILLIANT!

Man, you hear funny.

Well, you can put words in my mouth if you like. Don't know how I would stop you if I was inclined to. But that's not what I said at all. I addressed one point. That's all. Didn't call you a liar, nor do I think you are one.

That "nobody read the bill" nonsense was a big talking point during the health care debate. I guess a lot of people thought it was good political fodder. So all of a sudden we can hurl it at whatever bill we like. But it's ironic to try to sling it at this particular bill when they're running so many (admitedly BS) ads telling everyone to read this relatively short bill. If any of them haven't read it, well, they should.

poopshovel wrote: Not sure if it's been brought up or not, but any thoughts on Herman Cain taking the straw poll in FL the other day? Did he go the hot-dog throater route and have them bussed in? I hope not. I'd vote for him over anyone but RP.

Cain has spent a lot of time campaigning in FL, canvassing the state and making speeches. It's more likely the debate support was genuine.

It's interesting that the punditry are claiming Cain's victory in the straw poll resulted from "protest votes"; votes made by people sending a message to other candidates who need to improve their performances. Not sure if I agree with that assessment.

Last call. Everyone was scared to debate Newt in ATL. Now it's clear why. Here's what I'm seeing:

Question: "How would you fix (insert problem 'X')"

Ron Paul: "IF WE'D STOP SPENDIN MONEY ON ALL O' THESE WARS, WE'D HAVE MOAR MONEY TO FIX 'x'"

Romney: "Rick Santorum voted for moar spending on 'y'"

Santorum: "Romney voted for moar spending on 'y'"

Newt: "Here's the root of the problem, and here's how I intend to fix it."

I'm not terribly excited about any of them, but I'm dumbfounded that anyone watching could vote for santorum or romney. Santorum just said "Theocratic Regime" (NOT referring to the U.S. under his rule.) I want to kick him in the scrotum.

Newt is a hell of a speaker. Like him or hate him.. you have to give him that

Speaker shmeeker, I think he's a hell of a problem solver.

poopshovel wrote: Speaker shmeeker, I think he's a hell of a problem solver.

You finally found your nemesis?

Newt was spot-on tonight.

HiTempguy wrote:

T.J. wrote: The only way to take money out of political campaigns is to take the power out of the government. As long as we allow 'our' government to exert so much power over everything the money will find its way to influence and control the outcomes of our elections.

Disagree. Many democratic countries do not have the ridiculous amount of expenditures that happen like the US does in its campaigns. One could even say that if the process was GOVERNMENT funded, the process would be perfectly fair for everyone as no one would be getting additional funding/exposure over another person. We have laws here that don't allow campaigning for more than a month before elections. Definitely keeps costs down vs the two years (I can't even fathom this, it is beyond ridiculous) out of every four you guys do...

Ok, I agree we could do away with the first amendment and not let people run ads or spend money until a certain number of months before an election. I still contend that as long as the government has the power we allow it to have, those with the money to do so will continue to use that money to influence and control the government. The folks with the money, power and influence are the ones that get to write the laws. Our "representatives" do not represent us, nor do they have our best interests at heart. Hopefully, there are some exceptions - I am speaking in general terms here.

In reply to poopshovel:

Seems to me Newt is a problem maker. Don't see the appeal, but to be fair, I have not really ever listened to the man speak. Obama is also a good speaker (at least when he is reading). Newt is a do as I say not as I do kind of guy and in that regard is no different than Romney or Santorum. Support any of those clowns if you want, but don't act surprised if one of them becomes our President and nothing changes.

This has been so entertaining.