Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

For the record, this liberal opposes campaign finance reform and supports the Citizen's United ruling.

The "but the rich will buy all the speech and drown out everyone else!" argument doesn't hold up in the internet era. Mass communication has never been easier, cheaper and more accessible to all.

 

No, everyone does not know that, Tony, and you can't even come close to supporting that assertion with actual evidence. But at least you are consistent. In your mind, every election won by a Democrat is somehow unfair and every election won by a Republican is perfectly fair. Of course, this bears no real resemblance to reality, but you never let that stop you before.

The reality of the situation is the taxpayers always had a seat at the table and the only person whining about education on this thread is you.

 

I was thinking about this last night, and it might be a half-baked idea, but follow me on this.
We can all agree that this pool of candidates sucks, right? No one is seriously enthusiastic about any of the choices. So, with that in mind, in terms of getting a "good" president in the White House is Cruz the best option?
Democrats hate him for obvious reasons. The Republican establishment hates him and would be reluctant to champion his ideas. He'd be a man without a country in political terms, unable to push his edgier proposals but also one who likely wouldn't push us toward a dictatorship like Hillary or Trump might.
So, if Cruz were to rally somehow and get elected president, he'd essentially be treading water for four years. We'd be rid of Trump and likely Sanders and Hillary as well since age would become a factor. Come 2020, the Republicans would stage an internal coup and find a replacement for Cruz and we get a reset with hopefully some better options.
Good theory? Bad theory? Insane theory? I'll hang up and listen.

 

You're right. It's half baked. If that. Dictatorship????

 

Involuntary reflex

 

I was thinking Vince Foster stiff.

 

At least she doesn't believe corporations are people.

 

If that were the case, then there wouldn't be billions of dollars spent on this election.

 

When people are donating hundreds of thousands of dollars that campaigns really don't need (both candidates spent north of a billion each in '12) - you aren't talking about funding a campaign, you're talking about collecting chits.

 

There is a difference between more effective and drowning out.

It is not the government's business to restrict speech just because it might be more effective, be it from volume or other sources.

 

Quid pro quo is already against the law

 

If you want to know what role finance plays, just donate a teeny tiny amount to a candidate, any candidate. My son worked in the Deval Patrick for Governor of Mass. campaigns in both 2006 and 2010. Naturally I contributed, like $100 each time. NOBODY on the Democratic side who runs for statewide office doesn't drive me around the bend deleting their emails and letting their phone calls ring out.
I'm a loyal Democrat and quite liberal as the current spectrum goes. But if I had a lot of money to give (and the little I have to give reflects this priority), I'd give it to Doctors Without Borders or Unicef of Amnesty International than to some pol. Let them take it from the rich and then betray them, Robin Hood style.