Reply to Axios confirms what’s true in Wolff’s book

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Axios confirms what’s true in Wolff’s book"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Thread ending comment:

If you still support this monstrosity of a presidency you are psychologically unbalanced and an idiot.[/quote]

What if you want change?
Voting for establishment candidates, they Republicans or Democrats aren't going to get you there.[/quote]
DP... I tend to agree with you, but change for the worse is not better than what we had before, as we are seeing.   We want change for the good, not for the worse.  As a former R, I couldn't vote for Trump because I could tell he was a horrible person, and vastly unqualified to lead a country. [b]If by his own admission he claims he doesn't have to read a book because  he's got common sense [/b]doesn't make you wary of him, then either you agree with him (which makes you equally ignorant and arrogant) or you are an idiot (I don't mean "you" as in PP, but you in the general sense).

Unfortunately, a politician will almost never make it to the top unless he bows to some of the establishment because that's where the politician will get the money for the campaign. Trump didn't even want to use his own money. He lent his money to the campaign, which had to be paid back to him.

The only way to avoid this is by not allowing private donations to campaigns, and certainly not big corporate money. Unfortunately, the conservative SCOTUS struck down the campaign finance laws that the Dems tried to push forward which would've curtailed big money donors.

[b]There should be one public pot for financing campaigns, taken out of federal money. [/b]

Unfortunately, I don't see *anything* changing without campaign finance reform.  I don't think Trump is any better than the establishment.  At least the establishment doesn't pi$$ off our allies and play nuclear war chicken with NK.[/quote]

Let's take your first bolded statement. So Trump doesn't want to read this book that insults him at every turn and I should be wary of that? That DOES sound like common sense, frankly. Better to simply ignore a book where the author states straight out that he can't verify the content.

The last, you believe that the taxpayer should pay for campaigns and that money should be trusted to the Feds? You don't see a problem with this, over the people themselves deciding who they would like to support? [/quote]
First of all, Trump stated that he doesn't need to read because he has common sense. Secondly, you can bet Trump will absolutely read this one book.

As to the taxpayer financing campaigns, we already do that to some degree.  Each candidate gets something from the pot.  Have you never noticed on your tax return that there is a box at the end of the form that asks if you want to contribute to the presidential campaign.  Right now, it's voluntary, but we should just have a set aside in the budget for it.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-checkbox-on-your-tax-return-helped-kill-public-campaign-funding/
[quote]
The share of tax forms with a checked box has been declining steadily for decades.

That widespread sentiment is one of the principal reasons why the public funding of presidential campaigns, long a goal of campaign finance reform activists, is dying. Because the checkoff has provided a reduced stream of money, public financing is no longer an attractive option for the major party candidates, who now prefer to let private citizens with money pay for their campaigns.

When you agree to the $3 tax checkoff, it funds the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF), a common pool of money that matches the fundraising of eligible presidential candidates in primary and general elections, for those who choose to take it. The $3 does not come out of your taxes; it’s just $3 less the government receives in tax revenue.[/quote]

I believe many European countries do it this way, too. Very little private money in campaigning, as it should be.  If we did it this way and the conservative SCOTUS hadn't killed campaign finance reform, we wouldn't have big money in politics as much.  [/quote]

The infrastructure already exists.  So we should then expand it to cover Senate and House elections and outlaw any direct or indirect campaign funding with severe penalties for violators.

That would shift the balance back to being "by, for and of the People" rather than being completely dominated by corporations, billionaires and special interests.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics