Something the majority can all agree on and why exactly haven't we done it yet?

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
Because the rich people own the company's that the taxpayers work for,which provides for their family,the problem is money but it would be a matter of time before that too would cause tension,as some would grow more then others,it's all about survival,the last 50 yrs the government has been taking survival skills out of the equation,people are more reliant on govt,would take a new mind set,or thinning of herd,people need to worry and take care of selves

The very act of dwindling survival skills promotes dependence on the government, it's very effective relative to where you sit on the fence.

No campaign reform for same reason no badly needed term limits. Congress will never vote themselves out of a lifetime job with benefits nor out of more money...some would, but not the entrenched “leaders” like Schumer, McConnell, McCain, Pelosi, Feinstein, etc.

a reply to: Gumerk

Issue big game tags for lobbyists. Each hunter can harvest 4 a year.

Start there, and we can move forward after that.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

And here I thought you had already pointed all that out, but you forgot to add the other perspective which I kindly added.

Don't pretend all the sh!t doesn't stink.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And here I thought you had already pointed all that out, but you forgot to add the other perspective which I kindly added.

Don't pretend all the sh!t doesn't stink.

Did you miss where I said that the dems were getting paid off too?!!?!

Have you missed the literally dozens of times I have said that Hillary Clinton is not uniquely corrupt.. she is par for the course in a VERY corrupt system.. that made corruption for politicians legal generations ago..


It’s the conservative side pretending that the democrats are the only corrupt party and your trump and savior is benevolently trying to fix it.. which is literally hilarious..




I said that EVERYONE IS GETTING PAID OFF, but ideologically the dems are against this, and it is only the conservatives who ideologically say that corporations are people and lobbyists are free speech..

a reply to: ketsuko

Unions are the people...

What is a more accurate representative for the American people????

The thousands of employees at some big corporation??

Or that big corporations CEO???

How the gop managed to convince you guys the concept of a union is evil , I have no idea..


I know why they did it..

A) to defund the opposition party..

B) because their big donors don’t want their employees to have the power that comes with collective bargaining..


Why y’all bought it is what blows my mind.. espeacially when by definition almost none of you are big wig ceo’s..

Shoot I thought this was going to be about term limits.

I'm in for campaign finance reform. For example, cases like the Democrat Virginia transgender candidate that raised 20x more than her GOP rival because LGBT groups not in Virginia basically bought her/him the political position - that's what we're talking about right? Stopping cases like this from happening? Money from outside the state/district influencing and buying the votes?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Unions stopped being the people a long time ago.

They are no more "the people" than a corporation is and for the same reason. They're organizations that focus on taking in money and power. And part of that involves lots and lots of lobbying, often to the detriment of their environment.

Let me ask you - do you think it's right that unions have become so large that we only have one or two representing most major industries/jobs that use union labor? Do you not see a conflict of interest that the same union overseas *all* auto workers regardless of the auto company? How about *all*teachers regardless of the school district?

Nope. If that were any other kind of structure, it would rightly be called a monopoly and broken up with antitrust laws because the entities working against them have *no* options or economic freedom. It's deal with them or nothing. And when you live in a state that demands union protections for those industries, you must work for them or nothing.

So, they're as much a part of the problem as the big corps in that they restrict the personal freedoms of the average person, and they buy off the politicians to keep that going.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Personally, I think groups/businesses/etc. should be allowed to have their say, but I think they shouldn't be allowed to directly say about the candidates.

If they want to buy ads discussing the issues in an election, let them. But they cannot directly endorse or send money to a candidate.

a reply to: network dude

Screw that , no tag limit.. lol

So if that is your opinion, don’t you usually make the conservative argument?!?!

Aren’t lobbiests a conservative position????


Any elected democrat you ask will say we need to lose the lobbiests.

Of course that rarely fits their actions...

But republicans are the ones defending the lobbiest system?!?!

a reply to: ketsuko

Unions vote on their leaders... if one is corrupt you just elect another...


That isn’t hard....

What do you do if the owner of the company is corrupt??

????

Nothing.. too bad so sad , I guess you have to quit..

The conservative types have used the same tired logical fallacy to demonize them as they do everything else..

Use individual examples of corruption to pretend the whole concept of a union is corrupt..

A Muslim terrorist blows people up?? The Muslim religion is evil..

This is a worst case scenerio welfare queen.. all people on welfare are welfare queens..

This random college student with no real authority has crazy beliefs.. all the left believes what that crazy college student says..

a reply to: Gumerk

Because we dont all agree.

You cant tell people how to spend or not spend their money (unless of-course its the government forcing you to buy insurance from private for-profit firms under the threat of fines and imprisonment).

But what we can and should do is address the reason WHY people/corporations are motivated to donate as much as they do.

And the reason is because the anti-Constitutional scum bags in DC have illegally and unconstitutionally hoarded power and expanded the size of government.

We need to get rid of these agencies, departments and bureaucracies.

Washington DC needs to be "disarmed", the power wrestled away from the federal government and sent to the states/the people where it lawfully belongs as the Founders intended.

The Constitution tried to limit the power of the federal government for exactly this reason.

If public servants followed the rule of law as they have sworn to do, there would be no issue.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: jjkenobi

Personally, I think groups/businesses/etc. should be allowed to have their say, but I think they shouldn't be allowed to directly say about the candidates.

If they want to buy ads discussing the issues in an election, let them. But they cannot directly endorse or send money to a candidate.

If unlimited PAC contribution and ad time from all of the world is still allowed then what's the point of campaign finance reform?

All discussion between lobbies and politicians should be public record.

But then I tend to have too much faith that people will make a change based on facts.

Count me in

a reply to: JoshuaCox

In the real world we elect our leaders, if one is corrupt, we elect another. That isn't hard.

Oops!

So why do you think it works any better for unions that it does for the rest of the country?

a reply to: jjkenobi

If they can only comment on the issues, then they aren't commenting on the candidates. They can't contribute to the candidates.

But since issues and how candidates are planning to run on them have an adverse impact on a business or group of businesses (or unions), why should they be barred from pointing that out?

What are the odds a candidate will?