ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 1st amendment issues , aclu

Reply
Old 10th March 2019, 10:41 AM   #81
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Of course not. Why should I?

You have not made a specific, falsifiable claim about it
You have not cited any evidence to support such a claim
You have not advanced a reasoned argument.

You thus lost your own debate by default by not getting it started properly. Again, very much like every 9/11 Truther does on Facebook these days.
actually, I did, but it is absolutely refreshing to see that you have admitted that you have come to this thread simply call names, and it is next level hilarious that your go to insult is Truther on Facebook.

Although declaring victory is absolutely the cherry on the **** sundae.

The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 10:59 AM   #82
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,521
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
actually, I did, but it is absolutely refreshing to see that you have admitted that you have come to this thread simply call names, and it is next level hilarious that your go to insult is Truther on Facebook.

Although declaring victory is absolutely the cherry on the **** sundae.


If your claim is "Democrat Party Out to Gut the 1st Amendment" then that is patently false. You have provided nothing to support it.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 11:21 AM   #83
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
If your claim is "Democrat Party Out to Gut the 1st Amendment" then that is patently false. You have provided nothing to support it.
You are lying at this point, I have shown this repeatedly and provided links to first amendment experts that agree with me.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 12:06 PM   #84
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,565
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
actually, I did, but it is absolutely refreshing to see that you have admitted that you have come to this thread simply call names, and it is next level hilarious that your go to insult is Truther on Facebook.

Although declaring victory is absolutely the cherry on the **** sundae.

Thanks for not addressing your own thread topic, for not making or clarifying any claim such that it could be properly debated, for not citing any evidence in support of any claim you may believe you have made, and for not presenting a reasoned argument related to whatever you wish to claim.

Makes it easier for us to stay on the winning side of the debate: We just don't have to do anything
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 12:10 PM   #85
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,565
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I have shown this repeatedly
No.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
and provided links to first amendment experts that agree with me.
You did not quote anything relevant from those links and failed to advance a reasoned argument to support the claim that the "Democrat Party Out to Gut the 1st Amendment", so you FAILED be default.

I naturally didn't open any of your links - you provided no reason and no motivation for us to do so - but what I hear from other posters who did, and whom I trust way more than you (because they didn't lie quite as often to me), these links led merely to right-wing opinion pieces.

So ok, there are right wingers that you get your opinions from. That's A Big Yawn.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 02:09 PM   #86
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
I ain’t debating you oystein, I am educating you.

Well, trying to, but it ain’t often that a “Skeptic” brags about not opening links, and whines about it.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 02:47 PM   #87
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,521
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I ain’t debating you oystein, I am educating you.

Well, trying to, but it ain’t often that a “Skeptic” brags about not opening links, and whines about it.
1. Make a claim.
2. Argue why you believe it.
3. Provide evidence as quotes from sources.
4. Link to those sources.
5. Refrain from extraneous verbiage that automatically initiates autoskip function for those reading your post.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 02:57 PM   #88
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
If your claim is "Democrat Party Out to Gut the 1st Amendment" then that is patently false. You have provided nothing to support it.
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
1. Make a claim.
2. Argue why you believe it.
3. Provide evidence as quotes from sources.
4. Link to those sources.
5. Refrain from extraneous verbiage that automatically initiates autoskip function for those reading your post.
Might, you know, take your own advice before harassing other posters.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 03:15 PM   #89
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,224
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You are lying at this point, I have shown this repeatedly and provided links to first amendment experts that agree with me.
You have provided links to articles about what other people say. If people are looking for information about the bill, that's not bad. If people are looking to discuss the bill, that's nothing.


For what it's worth, I read one of TBD's links, and one of the major portions of the bill is, apparently, publicly funding campaigns via matching contributions. You contribute to a politician's campaign, and the government contributes some. So says "The Hill" anyway.

That, in my humble opinion, is an incredibly stupid thing to do, and I am appalled that such a suggestion would be made by our political representatives. It's really, really bad. I have come to believe that the primary purpose of campaign funds is bribery, although it's a disguised form of bribery. I am thoroughly against any public funding of campaigns that involves giving one thin dime of taxpayer dollars directly to a politician's campaign fund. Unless "The Hill" is lying about what the bill does, it's a really bad bill.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 03:19 PM   #90
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,046
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That, in my humble opinion, is an incredibly stupid thing to do, and I am appalled that such a suggestion would be made by our political representatives. It's really, really bad. I have come to believe that the primary purpose of campaign funds is bribery, although it's a disguised form of bribery. I am thoroughly against any public funding of campaigns that involves giving one thin dime of taxpayer dollars directly to a politician's campaign fund. Unless "The Hill" is lying about what the bill does, it's a really bad bill.
Well I think it’s a good thing. Works well in Australia, and dramatically reduces what you call bribery.

1-1.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 04:21 PM   #91
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,224
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Well I think it’s a good thing. Works well in Australia, and dramatically reduces what you call bribery.

1-1.
I think the difference in Australia is the amount of money involved. From the Wikipedia article about political funding in Australia:


Quote:
Political funding in Australia deals with political donations, public funding and other forms of funding received by politician or political party in Australia to pay for an election campaign. Political parties in Australia are publicly funded, to reduce the influence of private money upon elections, and subsequently, the influence of private money upon the shaping of public policy. After each election, the Australian Electoral Commission distributes a set amount of money to each political party, per vote received. For example, after the 2013 election, political parties and candidates received $58.1 million in election funding. The Liberal Party received $23.9 million in public funds, as part of the Coalition total of $27.2 million, while the Labor Party received $20.8 million.[1]

That's peanuts. It wouldn't make a dent in a contested American congressional race.

So, you have to wonder, what does all that money do in America? What's it for? I would have assumed it's for an advertising budget, to get people informed and encouraged to vote for the party spending the money. After reading, discussing, and contemplation, I concluded that the answer is, basically bribery.

Do all those political commercials really make a difference? I started with an article in "Freakonomics", which said that careful study said, no, they didn't. So what's the point? On the other hand, favorable media coverage can make a big difference. So, how do you improve your media coverage? Is it possible that they might look more favorably on a candidate whose campaign spending involves large amounts of ad purchases? Making said politician responsible for a significant fraction of the media outlet's revenue?

Call me cynical, but it seems rather likely that all that spending might actually influence things.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 05:12 PM   #92
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,521
Call me cynical but what sort of political system requires candidates to have hundreds of millions in spare cash or the ability to obtain it?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 06:31 PM   #93
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,179
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Call me cynical but what sort of political system requires candidates to have hundreds of millions in spare cash or the ability to obtain it?
It isn't required in the US.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 07:31 PM   #94
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,591
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You have provided links to articles about what other people say. If people are looking for information about the bill, that's not bad. If people are looking to discuss the bill, that's nothing.


For what it's worth, I read one of TBD's links, and one of the major portions of the bill is, apparently, publicly funding campaigns via matching contributions. You contribute to a politician's campaign, and the government contributes some. So says "The Hill" anyway.

That, in my humble opinion, is an incredibly stupid thing to do, and I am appalled that such a suggestion would be made by our political representatives. It's really, really bad. I have come to believe that the primary purpose of campaign funds is bribery, although it's a disguised form of bribery. I am thoroughly against any public funding of campaigns that involves giving one thin dime of taxpayer dollars directly to a politician's campaign fund. Unless "The Hill" is lying about what the bill does, it's a really bad bill.
The bill proposes matching taxpayer contributions at a rate of 6 to 1 for donations less than $200.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 07:33 PM   #95
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,224
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Call me cynical but what sort of political system requires candidates to have hundreds of millions in spare cash or the ability to obtain it?
Agreed. It's messed up.


And apparently, the sponsors of H. R. 1 think that the solution to the problem of too much money in the campaign is to put more money in the campaign.



Oh......uh...….who gets to decide how to spend the extra money? Say, wouldn't that be the sponsors of H. R. 1?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 07:34 PM   #96
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,559
If corporations are people too, why isn't the Trump Organization in jail?
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 08:15 PM   #97
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,179
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
If corporations are people too, why isn't the Trump Organization in jail?
Because they are not people
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 06:09 AM   #98
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,913
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Your problem is that they did read it and found that you weren't being truthful.
We didn’t need to read it ourselves to know that TBD had not read it. He clearly had no idea what was in it, he just saw a headline that he liked and assumed that was enough because that’s how “news” works on the far right.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 06:24 AM   #99
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,591
Well, The Big Dog, if you didn’t like what the previous posters have said, you surely won’t like my question.

On a skeptic board it is always appropriate to ask for a claimant’s definition of something. What is your definition of “to gut”?
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 06:34 AM   #100
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The fact that I did not make a specific claim does not mean I did not mean I did not make any claim.
...what?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 06:37 AM   #101
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
zoinks, loss leader, gotta thing about TBD? Where the **** did you get the idea that I would never answer?

Nothing in this ******* abortion of a bill, this disgusting wreck of idiocy that panders to people that have literally no idea what they are talking about should become law, and yes, loss leader that includes all those things you think can be surgically sliced off and saved.

You pretend the pandering leftist idiots will strip off something from the bill and think that they are going to TOTALLY OWN the Republicans who will have to explain something that is literally never going to happen because the rat ******* who wrote this abomination will never ever do that. Will you call out the Democrats and demand that they strip it out? Or are you just hypothetically owning the Republicans?

Say loss leader, I answered!

Sorry the For The People Act is such a third semester abortion, although I fully understand it if that appeals to leftists.
No, that's actually not an answer. LL was correct.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 06:40 AM   #102
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I ain’t debating you oystein, I am educating you.
You lack the requisite qualities to teach anyone anything. Patience, respect, expertise, humility, consideration. None of that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 06:42 AM   #103
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
We didn’t need to read it ourselves to know that TBD had not read it. He clearly had no idea what was in it, he just saw a headline that he liked and assumed that was enough because that’s how “news” works on the far right.
That sure explains why he's so reluctant to tell us any specifics about it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 07:57 AM   #104
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
Well, The Big Dog, if you didn’t like what the previous posters have said, you surely won’t like my question.

On a skeptic board it is always appropriate to ask for a claimant’s definition of something. What is your definition of “to gut”?
Eviserate
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 07:59 AM   #105
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,369
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
zoinks, loss leader, gotta thing about TBD? Where the **** did you get the idea that I would never answer?

Nothing in this ******* abortion of a bill, this disgusting wreck of idiocy that panders to people that have literally no idea what they are talking about should become law, and yes, loss leader that includes all those things you think can be surgically sliced off and saved.

You pretend the pandering leftist idiots will strip off something from the bill and think that they are going to TOTALLY OWN the Republicans who will have to explain something that is literally never going to happen because the rat ******* who wrote this abomination will never ever do that. Will you call out the Democrats and demand that they strip it out? Or are you just hypothetically owning the Republicans?

Say loss leader, I answered!

Sorry the For The People Act is such a third semester abortion, although I fully understand it if that appeals to leftists.
Your first use of "abortion" is probably supposed to be "aberration" I'm guessing?

Then at the end, you refer to an abortion in the third (3rd) SEM-ester.

How about you stop trying to shoehorn the word "abortion" into this discussion, there's enough rampant stupidity falling out of your head without muddying the waters further.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:02 AM   #106
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Eviserate
Well, you're not teaching us English, that's for sure.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:03 AM   #107
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Your first use of "abortion" is probably supposed to be "aberration" I'm guessing?

Then at the end, you refer to an abortion in the third (3rd) SEM-ester.
Third semester abortion by evizeration.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:05 AM   #108
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Your first use of "abortion" is probably supposed to be "aberration" I'm guessing?

Then at the end, you refer to an abortion in the third (3rd) SEM-ester.

How about you stop trying to shoehorn the word "abortion" into this discussion, there's enough rampant stupidity falling out of your head without muddying the waters further.
Hi! Sometimes really smart people adopt language in interesting and intriguing ways. See if you figure out what the smart people are now using semester rather than trimester in regards to abortion enthusiasm?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:06 AM   #109
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hi! Sometimes really smart people adopt language in interesting and intriguing ways.
Right, but what about people like you?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:08 AM   #110
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,538
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hi! Sometimes really smart people adopt language in interesting and intriguing ways. See if you figure out what the smart people are now using semester rather than trimester in regards to abortion enthusiasm?
Incoherent.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:11 AM   #111
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
He's refering to "third semester" as in leftists love abortion so much they want mothers to be able to abort post-birth.

You know, the opposite of smart.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:35 AM   #112
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,481
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And apparently, the sponsors of H. R. 1 think that the solution to the problem of too much money in the campaign is to put more money in the campaign.
Some might think the problem of campaign finance isn't generally "too much money", but "a few large donors having a disproportionate influence on the politicians". And that's what this particular part of the bill is supposed to address.

The bill has the government match the donations of only small donors, so if you give $10 to the Sanders or Biden election campaign, the government would match it. If the Koch brothers donate $1 million to the Trump re-election campaign, there would be no matching donations. The idea is that the Candidate would feel less of a need to cater to the big donations if they knew they the multiple smaller donations could provide enough of an income to overcome the single big donation.
Quote:
Oh......uh...….who gets to decide how to spend the extra money? Say, wouldn't that be the sponsors of H. R. 1?
No, I assume it would be the candidates and/or the parties themselves. Donate $10 to the Republican or Democratic campaign, government matches it by providing money to the same campaign to spend on what they feel they need to spread their message.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:53 AM   #113
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
amen my man, can you imagine someone coming into a thread about the democrats eviderating the first amendment and bitterly complaining that I used the word abortion to describe it? Hoo boy.
The only thing that got eviderated here is your claim.

Teach on.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 08:55 AM   #114
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,481
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I think the difference in Australia is the amount of money involved. From the Wikipedia article about political funding in Australia:
...After each election, the Australian Electoral Commission distributes a set amount of money to each political party, per vote received. For example, after the 2013 election, political parties and candidates received $58.1 million in election funding. The Liberal Party received $23.9 million in public funds, as part of the Coalition total of $27.2 million, while the Labor Party received $20.8 million.[1]

That's peanuts. It wouldn't make a dent in a contested American congressional race.
First of all, keep in mind that the australian law (where financing is provided according to votes received) is slightly different than the proposed American law (where financing is provided according to donations received.)

Secondly, keep in mind that the U.S. has more people than Australia (more than 10 times the population.) Your ~$70 million in total political funding in australia would work out to roughly $1 billion in the U.S. If you divide that by 2 (2 main political parties), each party would get ~$500 million. Recent presidential campaigns usually cost $700-$1000 million, so small donations (with matching finance) might cover half the cost of each campaign.

Quote:
So, you have to wonder, what does all that money do in America? What's it for? I would have assumed it's for an advertising budget, to get people informed and encouraged to vote for the party spending the money.
You have TV and print ads, the cost of running various political rallies (renting a venue, providing security), transportation (tour bus/plane), office staff, private polling, research and image consultants. And that's off the top of my head.

So lots of place where money can be spent during an election campaign.
Quote:
After reading, discussing, and contemplation, I concluded that the answer is, basically bribery.
Bribery of whom? And for what?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 10:02 AM   #116
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Isn't that the same thing you linked to earlier?

And weren't you told that the ACLU is only opposed to a small part of the act?

Could you stop lying, please? That'd be grrrrrrreeeeeat.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 11:37 AM   #117
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Since you can’t tell us what you perceive the problems to be so we can discuss them, they are clearly not “obvious” to you. This leaves us little to discuss but your inability to present a coherent, logical argument.
post link containing comprehensive analysis of the Constitutional issues.

Link ignored.

Whining instead.

hoo boy.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 06:35 PM   #118
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,913
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
post link containing comprehensive analysis of the Constitutional issues.

Link ignored.
Whoever wrote that isn't here to discuss it. You are hear claiming you want to discuss something but you can't even summarize the points you think are compelling. Stop wasting our time with links when you don't even know what's they contain.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 10:52 PM   #119
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,092
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
That is one completely biased way of looking at it.

Another biased way would be that Dems have lost their minds, are complaining about everything, including things that never happened like rampant racism and a rise in white supremacy that is actually worth worrying about. Talk about fear-mongering.

The right have to deal with an increasingly hysterical left. Everything is a social crisis. Fingerpointing, name calling, physical attacks on conservatives (Berkeley a few weeks ago, never mentioned here). The left have worked themselves into a frenzy.

Note the above by the way - the attack at Berkeley a few weeks ago that nobody here mentioned. Conservatives aren't the ones starting all the OMG threads. We are mainly discussing your outrage in your threads.

I say "we" but I'm really not that conservative, I just think a lot of liberals are stupid so I disagree with them.

They want illegals to vote (yes they do, they already do in SF), and on and on and on.
You got any evidence of this oft repeated lie?

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Now you have AOC and other radicals being voted in. AOC isn't so frightening on her own, it's the fact that she and others like her got elected by Americans. That is scary to me.

The left have turned this young generation into a bunch of worthless douches that embrace socialist ideas, don't want to work or move out of their parents house.
Because none of those "blood and soil, Jews will not replace us" idiots with tiki torches were young?

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
So we can both be biased and say the other side is bad. Both sides are bad. Not sure how to end this post. People are generally equally stupid so it's hard to say which is worse. Probably neither.

Trumps election unhinged a lot of people.
Maybe I'm not following you here. It's a false equivalence that the current left and right are equally unhinged. Over history sure, but currently no way. The right put a mentally ill ignoramus in the White House.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2019, 11:19 PM   #120
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,179
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I don't think it is unfair to hold.donors responsible for every communication. But I also oppose limited liability.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.