Reply to Tucker Carlson has unhinged profane meltdown after historian calls him a Koch/Murdoch puppet

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Tucker Carlson has unhinged profane meltdown after historian calls him a Koch/Murdoch puppet"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Dutch guy told him right to his face that he took dirty money at Cato and he takes dirty money at Fox. Carlson then proceeded to sputter, gasp, melt down and finally spew profanity in his frustration.

Complete takedown. [/quote]

I wish that Dutch guy could run for US president. [/quote]
I dont.

I don't agree with what the Dutch guy supports, but that was an awesome takedown on Carlson, and Carlson's response is typical of someone who can't defend himself so he resorts cursing at you.[/quote]

I also don't need him to run for president.

But the US needs to get big money out of politics - and equally important, out of media, and out of society.  We can't have a functioning democracy at the same time we have the Koch network and the Waltons and Mercers and Wilkses and Anschutz and Singer buying and running media outlets, and thinktanks like Cato and AEI, and entire university departments like GMU Econ.  It cannot be the case that the basis of our public debate is founded on propaganda funded by billionaires.

And one important way to make headway on reducing money in politics is a wealth tax.  We need many other reforms, but that is a good start, and that's what the Dutch economist is advocating.  [/quote]

If you think money is bad, then you are free to divest yourself of it, but you are not free (at least, not in a free society) to divest other people of their money, simply because you disagree with their use of it.[/quote]

Money is not free speech.  Citizens United needs to be legislatively overturned with strict campaign finance.

To put it in speech terms, picture someone trying to speak and be heard in a normal voice.  But then someone with a 10,000 watt PA system (someone with more money) rolls up and drowns the first guy out.  It has effectively denied the first guy his free speech.

That is why money and free speech CANNOT be equated and why we need strict and serious campaign finance reforms.

I would suggest eliminating all kinds of political spending whatsoever except for direct contributions by individuals, and with a spending limit that is affordable, like $50 per candidate per cycle, and even there, the contributions should probably have to flow in through a central process so they can be fully accounted for, tied to a social security number and verified as US citizens - no corporations or other entities, and then funds get disbursed back out to the candidates.  And anyone caught trying to subvert the process would be charged with a felony with serious consequence like jail term and be barred from any kind of future political work.

If there is some specific issue or special interest that the donor wants to support they would have the option of tagging that with their contribution but that would then be their one and only contribution for that issue and that candidate allowed in that cycle.  That way there would also be a lot less out-of-state special interest money flowing into coffers, donors would be more driven to only focusing on their cause with their own representatives.[/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