Random Politics & Religion #00

They usually always bring those attacks on themselves.

In a perfect world an election would be about what that candidate can and is willing to do for you but in reality it's more like a popularity contest with a political baseline. Things like religious affiliation still play a role. Personal indescretions seems to play a bigger role in taking politicians down than anything else.

You lied about not raising taxes and being able to keep any promises you made to get elected? Well I guess that's ok and we accept it as the standard for politicians and in some cases it's understandable as you have to work with a bunch of other people to get anythign done.... on the other hand stuf like "You cheated on your wife?!?!?!?!" Crucify him!

They should just host a Presidential version of The Apprentice.

They should take money out of it completely.

Problem: a candidate who isn't independently wealthy may have better viewpoints but they're unlikely to be heard because he can't buy the attention.

The two problems are intertwined.

True, but when it's one rich guy with rich donors running against another slightly more independently rich guy with rich donors, it shouldn't even be an issue.

^^ nice metapher

I'll follow the idea but change the wording a bit "If you keep bringing philosophy books to math classes you better change your courses next semester/drop out of University"

You know what Greece has going for it Baklava !
(honey filo and nuts)
There is a Greek food festival every summer near me. The food is pretty damn good.

You are going to get a correlation in that case. But it still stands to fact that the people are the one's who vote, not the dollar bills used to influence people to vote.

People keep saying that money buys votes. Where's my check?

That's not an effective control. Sure, it will bring the 200 participants down to a handful, but it still won't stem the amount per candidate spent, which is what Jassik is alluding to.

Kim Jong Un has an amazing new haircut. We have many, many questions

Oh God, where in Pyongyang are his sideburns.

Eyebrows are trimmed on both sides too, lol.

Well I just got that haircut maybe I can be a dictator !

It's just as stupid to vote for someone because they are privately wealthy and successful as it is to vote against them.

Now, *how* they went about acquiring that wealth... that's a different story.

It limits risk exposure. It also puts strict limits on how long the damn campaign goes on for.

Don't bash it till you try it !

Kim at Old Country Buffet:

Oh no Romney is rich he should have given all his money away then he would be as pure as white snow me brothers !

I'm sure Hillary will run on "the struggle" of not being able to afford mortgages own her multiple homes.

That's a fallacy, most of the people I voted for won, and in most cases, it's because they spent the most.

Elections are very much bought by interest groups funded by the ultra-rich. Campaign records are now less transparant then ever thanks to Citizens United, but the totals spent are a matter of public record and easily confirmed.


Worthless? Not at all, but if you are so worried about runaway spending in some sectors, defense being one of the largest parts of our budget should be a concern.


My response to this has 4 parts.

1. Setting a fixed budget for campaigns based on the number of people running with above a threshold of viability caps the cost.

2. Providing a limited and free amount of TV and radio advertising, similar to how PSA's are delivered, takes a significant amount of cost out of the campaign by removing primetime advertising rates from the equation. It also keeps candidates from simply hiring an army of door-knockers to get their name in people's minds. Simple name and party recognition have been shown to equate to votes a staggering amount of the time.

3. Giving a candidate a fixed budget and even-footing is something of an on-the-job interview. Give them a chance to show us what they can do with a limited amount of money and time. For all the people that have concerns about how the media vets candidates, giving them a stage to prove they can actually function as an executive should be welcomed.

4. It puts emphasis on how they utilize their exposure. Traveling from city to city to give the same stump speech with the same tired rhetoric is costly and only serves to create sound-bites. If candidates are given limited opportunities to speak in a public forum, they'll have an actual plan they can explain instead of just "poor people need help" or "wealth redistribution". They'd have to have a stance on subjects and be able to stand up to critical analysis.

And, to be clear, I'm talking about national elections, states would have the right to elect however they choose.

You can tout campaign finance reform all you want my eyes will just glaze over.

I don't care how much it costs to be President. I just want someone that will lead not blame the previous President for all their problems.

The only thing Hillary could lead are the Girl Scouts.

Let's be clear, I'm not talking about candidate's wealth, they rarely contribute any personal money toward campaigns, I'm talking about the ability of a select few ultra-wealthy citizens and their companies to contribute unlimited amounts of money to candidates secretly and drastically sway the outcomes of elections by simply out-spending candidates.

Wal Mart is giving their employees a raise those greedy pigs !

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/19/us-walmartstores-results-idUSKBN0LN1BD20150219

My boycott of Wal Mart continues that will keep them from making a profit !

I don't think 9/hr is enough should be 30 dollars an hour.

It's mostly a publicity move. Wal-Mart's pay scale is one of their more visible but hardly their biggest problem when it comes to ethics.

Those greedy fat cats how dare they raise wages. I demand more and more and more !

Time to shop somewhere they don't care about a profit like Whole Foods.

So, where's my check that was supposed to have been bought? Seriously, according to you, I'm due a check.

Wait, does that mean you are wrong? What else is new?

1)Fixed budgets are nice, but this is the government we are talking about. There are no fixed budgets associated with any agency, they are just told "Here's your budget, try not to spend more than that" but almost always goes over.

2)Why not just have the federal government take over television and other media outlets? You are basically forcing your will on them, telling them what they can or cannot show (by forcing campaign ads on them).

3)Who's going to determine if they are the right person for the job? Are you now taking that determination away from the voters and putting that power in a group of people? You know, there is a political system just exactly what you are proposing.....

4)Now you want to control how they get the message out. What's next, control who's able to run for office? Are you going to put a wealth threshold now?

Tell me, are you really Lordgrim?

Don't worry, they are going to cut hours even more so the person is actually earning less now than before.

You thought the 28 hour workweek is bad, welcome to the 24 hour workweek.

I'm sure people will *** it's the human condition. They could pay them 30 dollars an hour and people would complain.

Being and ungrateful d bag is the American way !

I'm not pro Wal Mart.

I just find it funny that the same people wanting a raise get it then *** it isn't 15 or 20 bucks an hour.