But Could He Get Elected?

[Unkotare]

It would NOT take money out of elections. It would just give an insurmountable advantage to incumbents.

If we're talking about idealism I think it could be done well. The money could be limited and allocated fairly.

Allocated by whom?

... It would be allocated by some neutral entity. ....

No such entity exists.

We could create a system that makes it work. .....

That's what insane adherents of communism keep saying.

 

[Confounding]

If we're talking about idealism I think it could be done well. The money could be limited and allocated fairly.

Allocated by whom?

... It would be allocated by some neutral entity. ....

No such entity exists.

We could create a system that makes it work. .....

That's what insane adherents of communism keep saying.

You think publicly funded elections = communism?

 

[Unkotare]

Allocated by whom?

... It would be allocated by some neutral entity. ....

No such entity exists.

We could create a system that makes it work. .....

That's what insane adherents of communism keep saying.

You think publicly funded elections = communism?

I think that some ideas are inherently flawed.

 

[Confounding]

... It would be allocated by some neutral entity. ....

No such entity exists.

We could create a system that makes it work. .....

That's what insane adherents of communism keep saying.

You think publicly funded elections = communism?

I think that some ideas are inherently flawed.

Everything is inherently flawed. We do the best we can with what we've got. I think publicly funded elections would be very healthy for this country.

 

[Unkotare]

No such entity exists.

We could create a system that makes it work. .....

That's what insane adherents of communism keep saying.

You think publicly funded elections = communism?

I think that some ideas are inherently flawed.

Everything is inherently flawed. We do the best we can with what we've got. I think publicly funded elections would be very healthy for this country.

It would be very advantageous to incumbents and particularly the executive, therefore it would be very dangerous to our republic. Don't be naive. Oh, and don't forget the 1st Amendment.

 

[Pogo]

No such entity exists.

We could create a system that makes it work. .....

That's what insane adherents of communism keep saying.

You think publicly funded elections = communism?

I think that some ideas are inherently flawed.

Everything is inherently flawed. We do the best we can with what we've got. I think publicly funded elections would be very healthy for this country.

Elections are already publicly funded. It's the advertising that kills it.

Political advertising is much like gun violence ---- you can't legislate it away, so what's needed for the public good is for cultural values to change. In the case of guns the necessary change is to quit thinking the solution to very issue is to blow it away; in the case of elections what's needed is to quit being so goddam gullible for every commercial that wants to sell you something including an idea.

 

[Confounding]

Oh, and don't forget the 1st Amendment.

This gets tricky for me. I see the argument, but at the same time money allows rich individuals to have disproportionate amounts of power over the political realm. I don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

 

[Confounding]

Elections are already publicly funded. It's the advertising that kills it.

They should be strictly publicly funded in my opinion. No more billion dollar political campaigns. That's insanity and it ensures that everyday Americans can't compete.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I don't want to give the leftists any ideas, but that Gillum is slicker than eel slime.

 

[Pogo]

Elections are already publicly funded. It's the advertising that kills it.

They should be strictly publicly funded in my opinion. No more billion dollar political campaigns. That's insanity and it ensures that everyday Americans can't compete.

You're conflating the election with the campaign. The latter is where the advertising is. See post 20. And the advertising is not only pervasive but insidious in its unrecognizable forms such as Nosebook/Tweeter and the bots on this message board.

It keeps circling back, toilet-style, to the old adage "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".

 

[Confounding]

Elections are already publicly funded. It's the advertising that kills it.

They should be strictly publicly funded in my opinion. No more billion dollar political campaigns. That's insanity and it ensures that everyday Americans can't compete.

You're conflating the election with the campaign. The latter is where the advertising is. See post 20. And the advertising is not only pervasive but insidious in its unrecognizable forms such as Nosebook/Tweeter and the bots on this message board.

The phrase publicly funded elections is frequently used to describe political campaigns funded by the government rather than private individuals and organizations.

Publicly funded elections - Wikipedia

 

[Unkotare]

Elections are already publicly funded. It's the advertising that kills it.

They should be strictly publicly funded in my opinion. No more billion dollar political campaigns. That's insanity and it ensures that everyday Americans can't compete.

Well then, just cut the tongues out of everyone making over a certain income and the poor will be heard. Right?

 

[Wyatt earp]

"The greatest of rulers is but a shadowy presence;
Next is the ruler who is loved and praised;
Next is the one who is feared;
Next is the one who is reviled.
...
(the greatest rulers) are cautious and honor words.
When their task is done and work complete,
Their people all say, "This is just how we are.""

-daodejing


Words of wisdom indeed, but in today's political climate, could an ideal ruler get elected? Is it what people want, or do we get the politicians we deserve?

the left aborted him or her along time ago



.

 

[Oddball]

F.A. Hayek called it 65 years ago....

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

 

[Pogo]

Elections are already publicly funded. It's the advertising that kills it.

They should be strictly publicly funded in my opinion. No more billion dollar political campaigns. That's insanity and it ensures that everyday Americans can't compete.

You're conflating the election with the campaign. The latter is where the advertising is. See post 20. And the advertising is not only pervasive but insidious in its unrecognizable forms such as Nosebook/Tweeter and the bots on this message board.

The phrase publicly funded elections is frequently used to describe political campaigns funded by the government rather than private individuals and organizations.

Publicly funded elections - Wikipedia

Well then that usage is simply what we call "wrong". An election is an election; an election campaign is a campaign. Why would you say one thing if you mean another?

Elections are a single and finite event with a beginning and an end. Campaigns go on forever.

Elections are funded publicly and are a democracy exercise; campaigns are funded by any kind of money that can be laundered, and are literally advertising.

And advertising, it bears repeating, is the practice of persuading mass numbers of people to buy something they don't need.

As far as some scheme to limit political campaigning to public funding, that's impossible. You'd have to literally police and control what people write on Fecesbook, Tweeter and message boards when they're paid to do so. And we can guarantee they would be paid to do so.

 

[Confounding]

Well then that usage is simply what we call "wrong".

If something is widely understood to mean one thing then it's not improper to use it that way. That's how language works. Either way I don't care to talk about it anymore. It's been made clear what I'm talking about.

 

[Confounding]

Elections are already publicly funded. It's the advertising that kills it.

They should be strictly publicly funded in my opinion. No more billion dollar political campaigns. That's insanity and it ensures that everyday Americans can't compete.

Well then, just cut the tongues out of everyone making over a certain income and the poor will be heard. Right?

Why should a rich man have incredible power over politics while a poor man does not? Their impact should be equal. One vote for every person.

 

[Unkotare]

Elections are already publicly funded. It's the advertising that kills it.

They should be strictly publicly funded in my opinion. No more billion dollar political campaigns. That's insanity and it ensures that everyday Americans can't compete.

Well then, just cut the tongues out of everyone making over a certain income and the poor will be heard. Right?

Why should a rich man have incredible power over politics while a poor man does not? Their impact should be equal. One vote for every person.

Everyone does get one vote. Except for dead democrats.

 

[Confounding]

Everyone does get one vote. Except for dead democrats.

Everybody gets one vote, but rich people also get incredible and disproportionate amounts of influence as individuals. It's not equal at all.

 

[Pogo]

Well then that usage is simply what we call "wrong".

If something is widely understood to mean one thing then it's not improper to use it that way. That's how language works. Either way I don't care to talk about it anymore. It's been made clear what I'm talking about.

Using one term to mean a different term cannot be interpreted as anything but "improper". Elections and campaigns are two different things. You're referring to campaigns, not to elections. Say what you mean the first time and you won't have to correct it.