Flash, I know what I'm talking about, you don't. Feel free to correct me, then.
Bribed by whom?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
Flash, I know what I'm talking about, you don't. Feel free to correct me, then.
Bribed by whom?
Then your claim that Democrats are somehow more moral and work in the best interests of the country and the people is a bunch of BS. Turns out they just vote that way because liberal groups are bribing them.
When did I make that claim? Cite it. Go ahead. I'll wait.
We obviously can't believe the claims they are making as they campaign because they will change those positions as soon as someone gives them money.
Now you're getting it. That is precisely what happened during Obamacare, and why we didn't get a Public Option.
AOC and Warren were probably right-wing capitalists before they were bribed to change their votes by the liberal groups. You supported them because you knew they would be bribed once they got in office to support your views.
What liberal groups bribed them?
So you seem to be saying that voting = contributing money to a campaign.
Do you really believe that?
If you were running for office or re-election which would you prefer--more money or more votes?
If Trump outspends Biden does that mean you will vote for Trump because money obviously buys votes?
Did you vote for Clinton because she spend twice the amount of Trump in 2016? Or, do you vote for those who share your political views?
If you were running for office or re-election which would you prefer--more money or more votes?
Votes.
If Drumpf outspends Biden does that mean you will vote for Drumpf because money obviously buys votes?
No, money buys legislation.
Try to keep up.
Did you vote for Clinton because she spend twice the amount of Drumpf in 2016? Or, do you vote for those who share your political views?
I voted for Clinton because Trump is a racist fascist and a total fraud who has never achieved anything on his own.
But I didn't donate to Clinton.
I've only donated to one politician: Bernie Sanders. And it was $25 back in 2016.
What liberal groups bribed them?
According to you whoever gave them money bribed them.
You said "Do they have these beliefs before they get the money, or do they have the beliefs because they got the money?"
Obviously, AOC and Warren were not liberals before they got campaign contributions from liberal groups---that is your claim, not mine.
According to you whoever gave them money bribed them.
So who gave them money?
You said "Do they have these beliefs before they get the money, or do they have the beliefs because they got the money?"
That was a rhetorical question.
Obviously, AOC and Warren were not liberals before they got campaign contributions from liberal groups---that is your claim, not mine.
How do you make that determination...and what liberal groups? You keep using that phrase ambiguously, and that's not by accident. That's your way of setting goalposts that you will undoubtedly move the farther this debate goes.
We can see who gets money from whom thanks to opensecrets.com.
So you made this claim that "liberal groups" are buying liberals...so...show your work.
Obviously, AOC and Warren were not liberals before they got campaign contributions from liberal groups---that is your claim, not mine.
Yes, now you're getting it!
Now you're starting to see the problem; we can't trust the convictions of elected politicians if they have to ask for money.
You're so, so close to the point.
Votes.....No, money buys legislation.
Exactly. But they need money to run campaigns to attract votes.
Many candidates get contributions from several sides of the same issue---which one do they let bribe them?
Why do many members regularly vote liberal or conservative--shouldn't they be voting differently each time based on who gives them the most?
You must think representative democracy is a terrible form of government since it allows the representatives to be bribed.
I've only donated to one politician: Bernie Sanders. And it was $25 back in 2016.
And for that $25 you thought if Bernie won you would access and he would agree to stick provisions in some bill you benefit you financially?
I did support my claim...MULTIPLE TIMES. You are just unwilling to acknowledge them.
Obamacare, tax cuts, Medicare Part-D, Wall Street bailouts, our entire Defense budget...
None of those things would have been possible without campaign contributions.
What do you think Eisenhower was warning about when he spoke of the military-industrial complex?
And Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, EITC, ADA, ACA, TANF, Social Security, poverty programs, college loans and grants would not have been possible without campaign contributions. Those contributions (and accompanying lobbying) don't just account for those thing you don't like but also those programs you do like.
You never supported you claim. You just made the same claims as all the right-wingers on JPP who say politicians are being bribed.
Last edited:
Yes, now you're getting it!
Now you're starting to see the problem; we can't trust the convictions of elected politicians if they have to ask for money.
You're so, so close to the point.
But nothing changes in the way they vote with public financing. Democratic and Republican presidents didn't change the way they governed with public financing and states with public financing still have the same partisan divisions with Democrats and Republicans still voting the same way.
I understand you point. I felt the same way when I was a college student, but then I learned I was just falling for simplistic populist rhetoric designed to benefit some group(s). Read the literature. The issue is much more complex than simplistic populism.
Exactly. But they need money to run campaigns to attract votes.
Right, which is why it makes sense to have a level playing field, and to strip the obligations that come with campaign contributions.
Many candidates get contributions from several sides of the same issue---which one do they let bribe them?
Not really.
Why do many members regularly vote liberal or conservative--shouldn't they be voting differently each time based on who gives them the most?
That's what they do. Opensecrets.com has all this info. So now, you need to show your work.
You must think representative democracy is a terrible form of government since it allows the representatives to be bribed.
Not all representative democracies are the same, are they? So now you're doing that shitty sophist thing where you try to broaden out your idea to fit the square peg into the round hole.
Plenty of representative democracies don't have this independent campaign financing, and don't have the problems with governance we have.
And for that $25 you thought if Bernie won you would access and he would agree to stick provisions in some bill you benefit you financially?
Yeah, like Medicare for All.
And Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, EITC, ADA, ACA, TANF, Social Security, poverty programs, college loans and grants would not have been possible without campaign contributions.
You sure about that? Back when those programs were passed, we didn't have the same campaign financing system we have today.
You never supported you claim. You just made the same claims as all the right-wingers on JPP who say politicians are being bribed.
If rich people couldn't contribute to campaigns, do you think we would ever have tax cuts?
So who gave them money?
How do you make that determination...and what liberal groups? You keep using that phrase ambiguously, and that's not by accident. That's your way of setting goalposts that you will undoubtedly move the farther this debate goes.
We can see who gets money from whom thanks to opensecrets.com.
So you made this claim that "liberal groups" are buying liberals...so...show your work.
I don't take that simplistic a view. That was based on your claim that legislators are bring bribed by campaign donations. Thus, if AOC and Warren are voting liberal they are obviously (in your world) being bribed by those groups wanting them to vote liberal (obviously liberal votes). That is your view, not mine.
My belief is that AOC and Warren are liberals and got the support of liberal groups. When they continued to vote liberal when in office the liberal groups continued to support them. But your theory says that is not true---they only vote liberal because they are being bribed by liberal groups. I don't know which group but I'm sure FEC data and Open Secrets will show they got campaign contributions from liberal groups.
You claim liberal donations are buying liberal votes, not me.
But nothing changes in the way they vote with public financing.
Sure it does! They don't have to do favors for their campaign donors anymore, and instead of competing for money, they compete for votes based on the merits of their policies. Plus, they can instead spend the 90% of their time current spent fundraising, engaging with their constituents like...hosting town halls, doing interviews, meeting with constituents in the office, attending Committee meetings, being present on the floor of the House or Senate for a debate. How many videos do we see of Committee hearings completely empty? What are the politicians doing when they should be sitting in a Committee hearing? FUNDRAISING.
I felt the same way when I was a college student, but then I learned I was just falling for simplistic populist rhetoric designed to benefit some group(s).
The irony of this statement is that you are defending a system that provides access to "some group(s)" but only if they have the money to do so.
It's gatekeeping, and it's obvious why you defend it.
What do you think they talk about at those high-dollar fundraisers? Oh wait, we don't need to ask that question because Mitt Romney spilled those beans back in 2012.
How do you make that determination...and what liberal groups? You keep using that phrase ambiguously, and that's not by accident. That's your way of setting goalposts that you will undoubtedly move the farther this debate goes.
We can see who gets money from whom thanks to opensecrets.com.
So you made this claim that "liberal groups" are buying liberals...so...show your work.
I don't take that simplistic a view. That was based on your claim that legislators are bring bribed by campaign donations. Thus, if AOC and Warren are voting liberal they are obviously (in your world) being bribed by those groups wanting them to vote liberal (obviously liberal votes). That is your view, not mine.
My belief is that AOC and Warren are liberals and got the support of liberal groups. When they continued to vote liberal when in office the liberal groups continued to support them. But your theory says that is not true---they only vote liberal because they are being bribed by liberal groups. I don't know which group but I'm sure FEC data and Open Secrets will show they got campaign contributions from
I don't take that simplistic a view. That was based on your claim that legislators are bring bribed by campaign donations. Thus, if AOC and Warren are voting liberal they are obviously (in your world) being bribed by those groups wanting them to vote liberal (obviously liberal votes). That is your view, not mine.
My belief is that AOC and Warren are liberals and got the support of liberal groups. When they continued to vote liberal when in office the liberal groups continued to support them. But your theory says that is not true---they only vote liberal because they are being bribed by liberal groups. I don't know which group but I'm sure FEC data and Open Secrets will show they got campaign contributions from liberal groups.
You claim liberal donations are buying liberal votes, not me.
So basically, you make a claim, refuse to show your work, and then say I'm simplistic?
Try again, Flash.
I don't take that simplistic a view. That was based on your claim that legislators are bring bribed by campaign donations. Thus, if AOC and Warren are voting liberal they are obviously (in your world) being bribed by those groups wanting them to vote liberal (obviously liberal votes). That is your view, not mine.
It's adorable watching you slowly get to my point; that we cannot trust elected representatives who have to beg for money.
My belief is that AOC and Warren are liberals and got the support of liberal groups. When they continued to vote liberal when in office the liberal groups continued to support them. But your theory says that is not true---they only vote liberal because they are being bribed by liberal groups. I don't know which group but I'm sure FEC data and Open Secrets will show they got campaign contributions from liberal groups.
So again, you refuse to show your work.
What ""liberal groups" are you talking about?
Here's Opensecrets.com...show your work.
Should be real easy for you to prove yourself...I've even given you the tool to do so.
So why aren't you doing that?
I don't know which group but I'm sure.
So this is your arrogance showing.
The fact that you think you're right without having to put in the effort to confirm it.
This type of laziness is what you always do. It always comes back to that in the end with you.
You make broad, vague, general statements, then refuse to hold those statements to scrutiny. But you keep making an argument, even when you admit you don't know anything about it.
You claim liberal donations are buying liberal votes, not me.
You're the one who is mentioning unnamed, ambiguous "liberal groups" buying politicians without providing any evidence.
You're such an arrogant fool.