Yard Sale

[Robert Thomas]

Good Greef Charlie Brown

 

[Richard McAlister]

Saw an interview with Michelle Obama where she encouraged people to 'max out their cards' to help re-elect her husband.

Sure, spend now and worry about it later.

 

[H D]

Why doesn't Obama just go for broke and put all of "his" money where his mouth is? Win and he'll undoubtedly get it all back. Lose, and he can move in with his destitute brother.

 

[Richard L]

I don't think anyone should be allowed to buy an election, but that's pretty much what we have with our current political system. Money coming from big business. Money coming from special interest groups and PAC's....and make no mistake, the Democratic and Republican parties are both Special Interest groups.



We really need some kind of serious campaign reform to get the money out of politics.



...Rich

 

[Les]

I'm surprised they just don't take money from their food stamps. The depth of how low, the Democrats will go to get Obama reelected, has yet to be determined.

 

[EddieS'04]

IMO, There should be a limit, to how much any politcian can spend campainging. I mean a very small amount.

Then we might start getting the middle class and less folks a chance, to make it.

Im very shure we still have supper market managers, etc. Out there, that have excellent idea's and law-makeing and manager skills.



$$ talks and *** walks. $$ dont make you smart. It just shoves the some of the better little guys out.



We also have alot of what was the little guys'. That married $$ for the sole fact of polotics. IMO, if they did they also are not to be trusted.



This is not to say that those that made it from small to big arent' good. They get caught up in the party polotics. Then they forget the freedoms that helped them get there. Catch 22..........:angry:

 

[H D]

We also have alot of what was the little guys'. That married $$ for the sole fact of polotics. IMO, if they did they also are not to be trusted.

John Heinz...I mean Kerry, anyone?

 

[Mark K 2]

I think it's a cute idea. Obama's known for nickel-and-dime fundraisers. If that's what people want to do, all the power to them.



I was reviewing some of the donors to Obama's campaign online and there are a lot of $5 and $10 donors. It's a big contrast to the $500 and $1000 donations to Romney's.

 

[Andy Chase]

I think one way we could get rid of all the excess fundraising/mud-slinging is to have each candidate write out what they want to do, want to change, want to accomplish, wont do, how they stand on hot topics (i.e. health care, taxes, Iraq/Afghanistan) and have 1 person/company compile into one packet that all voting Americans get a copy of. They also would not be allowed say anything about what the other candidates are for/are against since that persons statement would be right next to this one.



Each candidate would put the money they raised towards this publication and any excess would go to our national debt or some other budget shortages (like schools).



Then they can debate at the presidential debates and be done with the mudslinging campaign adds that already twist the truth and you dont know who to believe.



Doubt this would ever happen, but would be nice.

:btddhorse:

 

[H D]

It's a big contrast to the $500 and $1000 donations to Romney's.

These people want to desperately hire new employees. I won't say how much I've donated because it's nobody's business, but I am poor by my definition (2008 Research 1 University grad and master's student working at Home Depot) but I think this election is very important to the future of our economy. The kicker: I don't even like Romney!

I think one way we could get rid of all the excess fundraising/mud-slinging is to have each candidate write out what they want to do, want to change, want to accomplish, wont do, how they stand on hot topics (i.e. health care, taxes, Iraq/Afghanistan) and have 1 person/company compile into one packet that all voting Americans get a copy of. They also would not be allowed say anything about what the other candidates are for/are against since that persons statement would be right next to this one.

For people who actually care instead of just vote party lines, this information is already easily obtainable. For the uninitiated, they're either not voting or already decided anyway based on what their parents told them to vote. Never underestimate the laziness of modern Americans. You'd have to pay them to read the information, totally offsetting the wasted money you are wanting save. The hard working, GDP producers who WOULD read it (or COULD) already decided to vote Romney anyway.

 

[H D]

And for the record, I still may vote for Ron Paul as a protest vote for the candidate that most closely matches my worldview. I already know the red state of Georgia is going to Romney and my vote doesn't really count, so I just might have to vote conscience instead of strategy.

 

[user 64972]

John Heinz...I mean Kerry, anyone?

Yea "take America back from the privledged few" when he was one!

 

[Kevin Lang]

And for the record, I still may vote for Ron Paul as a protest vote for the candidate that most closely matches my worldview. I already know the red state of Georgia is going to Romney and my vote doesn't really count, so I just might have to vote conscience instead of strategy.

:banghead::banghead:

Please tell me you see what is wrong with this.

For people who actually care instead of just vote party lines, this information is already easily obtainable. For the uninitiated, they're either not voting or already decided anyway based on what their parents told them to vote. Never underestimate the laziness of modern Americans. You'd have to pay them to read the information, totally offsetting the wasted money you are wanting save. The hard working, GDP producers who WOULD read it (or COULD) already decided to vote Romney anyway.

Hugh, quote 1 of you does NOT, I repeat NOT, jibe with quote 2 of you herein. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the incumbent, in more ways than one :sad:

 

[Mark K 2]

My dad used to tell me how business was run in the 1950's and 1960's. Politics be damned and Cold War be damned. If there was money available to expand and hire employees, they did it. There was even a patriotic spin on doing so...for the good of the country. I understand businesses are currently sitting on $2 trillion dollars in cash. IMHO, if they're doing that to spite Obama, then they're being un-American and unpatriotic.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Then we might start getting the middle class and less folks a chance, to make it.

Im very shure we still have supper market managers, etc. Out there, that have excellent idea's and law-makeing and manager skills.

I could vote for some super market manager for County Council. I could even see voting him in as County Executive. Maybe, maybe, I could see voting him into the State Congress.



But Governor, Senator, Representative, or President? I don't think that I could do it.



Herman Cain was criticized for being "too inexperienced" to be President, despite having managed whole restaurant chains, having executive experience, and having experience working at the Federal Reserve. If he wasn't qualified to be The Pres with all that, there's no way that Joe Public the Supermarket Manager in Small Town America can be qualified.

 

[H D]

KL, you missed the point I made about Georgia's electoral college votes going to Romney, no matter what I vote. I could vote for Obama and still not help him one bit. I could sit at home and Romney will still win Georgia. Voting is totally irrational yet incredibly important. Still can't make logical sense of voting but I do feel it's my duty. That's why I'm having the dilemma of conscience between voting for the most likely to win and the most likely to reflect my values. Either way, I don't impact the election but I do have to square it with my beliefs.

 

[Kevin Lang]

KL, you missed the point I made about Georgia's electoral college votes going to Romney, no matter what I vote.

And when enough people start thinking that...



But that's not why I posted.

Voting is totally irrational yet incredibly important.

Irrational how?

That's why I'm having the dilemma of conscience between voting for the most likely to win and the most likely to reflect my values.

This is why I posted. I take your penultimate post to mean that you've researched the candidates yourself, that you have as close to the "whole story" as is possible. So then, I must ask, how does Ron Paul reflect your values?

 

[Robert Thomas]

I vote strictly for the best candidate (that is electable) that will uphold the Constitution while providing for the security and survival of the country. I owe it to those who fought for that right.



Every other issue and/or my personal gain or loss from my vote is secondary.



I could vote for the guy down the street, who would do the job better than any of the others, but "why"?

 

[H D]

The irrationality of voting could demand an entire upper level undergraduate college course. I'll spare everyone that. Basically, if you use the rational choice method or a cost benefit analysis (or a number of other decision models), you'll come to the conclusion that voting on the individual level is irrational. It's basically a sense of duty and responsibility that keep the rational thinker voting.



Ron Paul reflects my values in a number of incredibly important ways. Without elaborating on any of them, I'll just list the "subjects" on which we agree: Federal Reserve, gold standard, IRS, fiscal responsibility/balanced budget, nation building, Patriot Act, and some others. I don't want to get into a discussion of each individual issue, but these are really the most important issues of our day and only Ron Paul talks about them.



There are obviously things I disagree with him on but Congress controls legislation not the President. That's the thing many people forget when they listen to empty campaign promises from any candidate. All the president can do is set an agenda or his personal priorities. Kind of like closing Guantanamo... So, those "out there" ideas by Ron Paul, you have to know would never even get to the floor of the House.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

I understand what you are saying, however voting for a candidate that cannot possibly win as a form of protest does nothing, and nobody really sees your protest vote.



The real problem is that the two political parties control 99% of our elections and unless you are in one of those camps, you don't stand a chance. It's virtually impossible for a candidate to run as an independent and get elected.



Former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura (not a big fan of his) recently said that we should remove Democrat or Republican tags from the ballots so that people will at least have to know something about the candidate rather than simply voting all Democratic, or all Republican and have no idea what the candidate's stand is on the issues.



That may be a first step, but I would prefer that we ban political parties...No financial support from anyone, no private money used to fund any campaign and contributions can only be paid to a single fund equally divided between all the eligible candidates. Every candidate stands on their own merits and the election cannot be bought by the party or candidate who collects the most money. We need to get the money and Special Interest groups out of our political system.



The campaigns would be financed by a special government fund monitored by the candidates.



Then if we can get term limits and get rid of the Directorial College we citizens and taxpayers might be able to take back our country and reduce the political corruption.



...Rich