It's not necessary at all. We could easily have the public pay for equal access for all candidates at a certain level. The issue is that we would need to limit speech to do it and that would be hard to get done.Quote:
Originally Posted by metswon69
Printable View
It's not necessary at all. We could easily have the public pay for equal access for all candidates at a certain level. The issue is that we would need to limit speech to do it and that would be hard to get done.Quote:
Originally Posted by metswon69
Not with what it costs to run television ad time, expand your social media presence, pay for traveling, etc. Sure at a more local level its possible but not if you're running for state positions or positions at the national level. Someone who wasn't an incumbent spent on average 16 million dollars to run for a seat in the House last year. It was 24 millions dollars in the Senate. Where is that money coming from if you just have your mom and pop donations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
It still doesn't change my point about Boebert either.
By "equal access" I meant equal between the candidates, not equal to what they are doing now.Quote:
Originally Posted by metswon69
How do you ensure equal access? I get it in theory but it seems impossible to level the playing field unless you change the whole dynamic in which people can run for office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
It has been and is still part of the Democrats platform. But any efforts to pass legislation require 60 votes and will be repealed by the Supreme Court even if they magically got passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Yes, that would be the result. If people cannot spend money on their campaign and instead have government controlled access to media. It could be that each candidate for congress gets 10 minutes of air time on one major network every week, or something like that. The real killer is the free speech limitations in that to be equal it would require keeping the politicians from "speaking" outside of the government issued time, and also keep others from "speaking" for the politicians. That's the real killer of getting money out of politics. Unless you choose to limit the speech of members of the public then the public will be allowed to "speak" for politicians and that "speech" often takes the form of the public paying for that speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by metswon69
Do we know why Jason Miller got arrested in Brazil?
JD Vance vs. Josh Mandel is the perfect representation of how far gone the GOP is. Two insufferable ghouls trying to out-ghoul each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Vance in particular has to be one of the most scummy and disingenuous people in all of politics.
But ultimately, it's just so sad what "politics" means to the right now. It's almost entirely culture war nonsense. There is no interest in any real issues that are actually impacting people. We'll never have good things because of these people and the self-defeating sheep that support them.
What am I supposed to do. I don’t know!Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either way America loses. We are weakened and suffer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
Chris Christie has turned on Trump.
https://news.yahoo.com/chris-christi...161839996.html
He’s banking on a Democrat being elected in 2024 and hoping to get a patronage job out of it. He has ZERO chance to de-Trump the Republican Party and more importantly he knows that.Quote:
Originally Posted by natepro
I'm trying to picture how bad it would be for Obama if he were commentating a boxing match on the anniversary of 9/11. He would be branded a traitor and a terrorist. But Trump is totally fine to be doing that.
The cult members don’t care.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
But watching brag how he was there with first responders digging in the rubble himself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk