Reply to Sanders can't win the general election--why are people so blind to that?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Sanders can't win the general election--why are people so blind to that?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm sorry, but it's Hillary's turn. It's women's turn. It's our turn. Fuck another white man in office, I don't care how liberal he is. Women need to be heard and we need to be on the map. It's fucking time. [/quote]

Oh my. Unless women's interests are corporate interests, I'm not buying this as an argument to vote Hillary over Sanders.  She took the performance enhancing drugs just like everyone else did in politics, and no one thought for a minute that a real life politician would show up to challenge her and "the establishment" on this point.  Because there were only a handful of people who could do it with any level of sincerity or integrity. Just about EVERYONE ELSE sold out.

Oops, Bernie announced. His pee is clean.  Plus he has progressive bona-fides.[/quote]

This isn't even English.[/quote]

Sure it is.  Think Tour de France, baseball, Red Curtain swimmers.... and now think politics, Super PACs, and corporate influence on legislation and policy.[/quote]

You do realize that a president can't take the money out of politics, need a constitutional amendment and that of course requires action by all fifty states.  Just so you are not surprised when you base your vote on something no president can deliver.[/quote]

How so?  I know some people like to portray campaign finance as free speech, but that's wrong.  Money isn't speech.  And we already have plenty of laws on the books dealing with campaign speech without having to have amended the Constitution.[/quote]

If you prohibit someone from running political ads or from contributing to organizations to help pay for running political ads, then you are restricting speech. You are not going to stop rich people from contributing to candidates, parties, and causes. It is better to make sure that all of it is disclosed and transparent and then it can be used against the recipient politically if people care enough.

Taking money out of politics is great populist red meat, but it is an unworkable and ultimately stupid idea. When we had hard contribution restrictions in place, there was an explosion of work-arounds - bundling contributions, soft money, independent expenditures, and "education and advocacy" ads that criticized officials but avoided the campaign finance rules simply by not saying explicitly to "vote for" or "vote against" or "elect" or "oppose" somebody. [/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