The 2016 GOP primary is in full swing...

The 2016 GOP primary is in full swing -- because Republicans are begging for it

There are 184 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 7, 2013, titled The 2016 GOP primary is in full swing -- because Republicans are begging for it. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

The 2016 Republican presidential primary unofficially kicked off this week - more than two years before the first votes will be cast.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#165 Nov 17, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Publically funded elections and the banning of all lobbyists will cure our ills.
Worst possible "solution" as it guarantees a dictatorship. Public funding = government funding. In essence you are suggesting that the government fund it's own reelection. Where does that leave voters who ultimately be prevented from hearing viewpoints that oppose the existing Government?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#166 Nov 17, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Worst possible "solution" as it guarantees a dictatorship. Public funding = government funding. In essence you are suggesting that the government fund it's own reelection. Where does that leave voters who ultimately be prevented from hearing viewpoints that oppose the existing Government?
You don't even begin to understand how publically funded elections work. Go polish some more Kock Bros knobs and they'll tell you how they fund the elections now.
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#168 Nov 17, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>You follow the teabag playbook of ignorance and stupidity. Stay retired. Retarded piece of frightwing dogshit.
Saul Alinsky lives!
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#169 Nov 17, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>You don't even begin to understand how publically funded elections work. Go polish some more Kock Bros knobs and they'll tell you how they fund the elections now.
Saul Alinsky lives!

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#170 Nov 17, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>You don't even begin to understand how publically funded elections work. Go polish some more Kock Bros knobs and they'll tell you how they fund the elections now.
Public funding = Government funding. You can spin anyway you like, but ultimately public funding of elections means that the existing Government would fund elections. This would guarantee the continuation of that existing Government as that Government would stifle any voice in dissension. That, my friend, is a dictatorship.

Of course, if you have the intelligence to explain it differently, you can try. But my guess is that you'll simply post another imbecilic personal attack in a feeble attempt to inflate your own ego.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#172 Nov 18, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Public funding = Government funding. You can spin anyway you like, but ultimately public funding of elections means that the existing Government would fund elections. This would guarantee the continuation of that existing Government as that Government would stifle any voice in dissension. That, my friend, is a dictatorship.
Of course, if you have the intelligence to explain it differently, you can try. But my guess is that you'll simply post another imbecilic personal attack in a feeble attempt to inflate your own ego.
Try reading something other than Palin's palm.

There is a fundamental flaw with elections in this country: big money.

Politicians need big bucks to run their campaigns and they get most of it from wealthy donors and special interests. Those contributors expect paybacks in the form of special access, favorable legislation, earmarks, government contracts, or plum government jobs. Because of this corrupting influence of money, many Americans have lost faith in politics and feel neglected by our democracy.

Ordinary citizens who want to serve in government don't have access to money and are locked out of the system, unable to afford running for office.

There is a solution: The Fair Elections Now Act would give candidates $4 for every $1 they receive in small contributions so that ordinary people, not just special interests, can fund a candidate. This would make candidates focus on their voters and the issues instead of holding $1,000-a-plate dinners with lobbyists

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx...

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#173 Nov 18, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Saul Alinsky lives!
Drivel.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#174 Nov 18, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Publically funded elections and the banning of all lobbyists will cure our ills.
I doubt it, but it sure would be a step in the right direction.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#175 Nov 18, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Try reading something other than Palin's palm.
There is a fundamental flaw with elections in this country: big money.
Politicians need big bucks to run their campaigns and they get most of it from wealthy donors and special interests. Those contributors expect paybacks in the form of special access, favorable legislation, earmarks, government contracts, or plum government jobs. Because of this corrupting influence of money, many Americans have lost faith in politics and feel neglected by our democracy.
Ordinary citizens who want to serve in government don't have access to money and are locked out of the system, unable to afford running for office.
There is a solution: The Fair Elections Now Act would give candidates $4 for every $1 they receive in small contributions so that ordinary people, not just special interests, can fund a candidate. This would make candidates focus on their voters and the issues instead of holding $1,000-a-plate dinners with lobbyists
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx...
Try using your brain to think rather parrot the party line.
What makes you believe that opposing candidates will get the funds that this proposed law says they are due? After what the IRS during the last election you still believe opposing candidates would get their funds in a timely fashion... All the funds due... Without having to resort to continuous demands?
Also, who defines who is a candidate? When? How?
And, where do these funds come from? Is this another tax? What happens to the surplus funds? What happens if the funds are exhausted before every candidate gets every penny due?
You don't believe ordinary people contribute to elections? You believe only special interests fund a candidate? That's patently untrue. Even if it were true, the solution is not to provide so much control with incumbents. What makes you believe these incumbents are not beholden to special interests today? What makes you believe that this would change merely because a law sets limits on how much an individual can donate a few months before Election Day?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#176 Nov 18, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Try using your brain to think rather parrot the party line.
What makes you believe that opposing candidates will get the funds that this proposed law says they are due? After what the IRS during the last election you still believe opposing candidates would get their funds in a timely fashion... All the funds due... Without having to resort to continuous demands?
Also, who defines who is a candidate? When? How?
And, where do these funds come from? Is this another tax? What happens to the surplus funds? What happens if the funds are exhausted before every candidate gets every penny due?
You don't believe ordinary people contribute to elections? You believe only special interests fund a candidate? That's patently untrue. Even if it were true, the solution is not to provide so much control with incumbents. What makes you believe these incumbents are not beholden to special interests today? What makes you believe that this would change merely because a law sets limits on how much an individual can donate a few months before Election Day?
So why don't you tell all of us how much influence on an election you have in relation to ALEC or the Kock Bros? If we eliminate special interests and their money, they have no influence. Moron.
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#177 Nov 18, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Drivel.
Saul Alinsky lives!
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#178 Nov 18, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>So why don't you tell all of us how much influence on an election you have in relation to ALEC or the Kock Bros? If we eliminate special interests and their money, they have no influence. Moron.
Saul Alinsky lives!

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#179 Nov 18, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>So why don't you tell all of us how much influence on an election you have in relation to ALEC or the Kock Bros? If we eliminate special interests and their money, they have no influence. Moron.
Again, what makes you believe that your proposed law would eliminate special interests? What makes you believe any law would eliminate special interests? Try thinking, genius.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#180 Nov 18, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, what makes you believe that your proposed law would eliminate special interests? What makes you believe any law would eliminate special interests? Try thinking, genius.
Are you this stupid? If no outside money from any source can go to a candidate and lobbyists are eliminated, how are special interests going to get their influential money into the election? This is the whole point. They won't and can't because it will be illegal.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#181 Nov 19, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Are you this stupid? If no outside money from any source can go to a candidate and lobbyists are eliminated, how are special interests going to get their influential money into the election? This is the whole point. They won't and can't because it will be illegal.
You really bought into this scheme haven't you? The prohibition against so subside funding would only apply for a fe months before Election Day. You think special interests are too dumb to figure out that they could donate as much as they want up until one day before the date set. Furthermore, they could donate as much as they want the day after the election. Plus, there are other ways to gain influence besides direct cash payments. You really ought to try thinking. You might like it.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#182 Nov 19, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
You really bought into this scheme haven't you? The prohibition against so subside funding would only apply for a fe months before Election Day. You think special interests are too dumb to figure out that they could donate as much as they want up until one day before the date set. Furthermore, they could donate as much as they want the day after the election. Plus, there are other ways to gain influence besides direct cash payments. You really ought to try thinking. You might like it.
Thinking is the last thing a teabagger would ever do. If outside money,contributions, and lobbyists are all banned, there would be no way for special interests to influence elections like they do now. What part of NO DONATIONS and NO MONEY for any candidate don't you get?

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#183 Nov 19, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Thinking is the last thing a teabagger would ever do. If outside money,contributions, and lobbyists are all banned, there would be no way for special interests to influence elections like they do now. What part of NO DONATIONS and NO MONEY for any candidate don't you get?
You really believe special interests will disappear.
You really believe lobbyists will disappear.
You really believe that the incumbents will deliver funding in a timely manner.
You really believe that the problem is limited to election time.
You really believe that the only way to influence is through direct cash payment.
You really believe that thinking is the last thing a reasonable person would do.
You have no ideas. You simply believe. What a wasted life.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#184 Nov 19, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Thinking is the last thing a teabagger would ever do. If outside money,contributions, and lobbyists are all banned, there would be no way for special interests to influence elections like they do now. What part of NO DONATIONS and NO MONEY for any candidate don't you get?
ummm...lobbying is the most basic foundation of our form of governance. a democratic republic cannot function without it.

the Occupy Wall Street idiots were lobbyists.(stupid, ineffectual ones, but...) the civil rights marchers were lobbyists. the suffragettes were lobbyists.

lobbyists will not...can not...be banned on this nation.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#185 Nov 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>ummm...lobbying is the most basic foundation of our form of governance. a democratic republic cannot function without it.
the Occupy Wall Street idiots were lobbyists.(stupid, ineffectual ones, but...) the civil rights marchers were lobbyists. the suffragettes were lobbyists.
lobbyists will not...can not...be banned on this nation.
You have an excellent point.... Anyone who petitions the gov't directly or indirectly is a lobbyist. If you use an expansive definition each of us here are engaged in lobbying.
If the gov't is approachable as a Democracy must be lobbying must exist.
But the real question being asked is lobbying on a tilted playing field that amplifies some voices to the extent that they drown out all other voices, a wise or a Democratic thing?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#186 Nov 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>ummm...lobbying is the most basic foundation of our form of governance. a democratic republic cannot function without it.
the Occupy Wall Street idiots were lobbyists.(stupid, ineffectual ones, but...) the civil rights marchers were lobbyists. the suffragettes were lobbyists.
lobbyists will not...can not...be banned on this nation.
What you're calling lobbyists are really protestors. Here is the definition of a lobbyist:

Someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer.

This is the shit we need to make illegal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min USAsince1680 1,420,734
News Trump backer tweets cartoon of Clinton in black... 6 min Lawrence Wolf 45
News Bernie Sanders says he'll vote for Hillary Clinton 12 min Tom Clancey 54
News Longtime aide Huma Abedin like 'second daughter... 16 min Woof 1
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 16 min Ronald 407
News Senate hopeful won't say if OK with Trump havin... 20 min SirPrize 12
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 27 min Dr Guru 222,818
More from around the web