-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Who owns our government?
- Thread starter LilAnn
- Start date
Werbung:
They could just let the pill pushers run the ads and pay for news and other programs.
Or just ban all ads that are not a statement of their platform. And JUST a statement of their platform.
That would be almost all of them.
Exactly.
Then elections are about direction and policy. Wouldn't that be nice ?
That would be a refreshing change, yes.
Ads absolutely work. In certain cases that are quite rare (such as Cantor/Brat) it simply doesn't matter - but 99% of the time, ads are quite effective.
Ban free speech in the name of "fair campaigning"? "Negative Campaigning" gets a bad rap, but why do we want to ban ads (that are true) if they paint the opponent in a negative light? That is important information that should be put out and the voter can then make their informed choice.
It is one thing if the ad is just a blatant personal attack (you don't actually see many of those), and if the ad highlights verifiable, relevant information about a candidate in the race that might be perceived by some as negative.
My goal has nothing to do with fairness nor do I care about negative ads.
All I seek to do is remove money as an influence.
I know, crazy talk.
In a better world journalists (real ones if there are such things anymore) could sell papers by scooping the other guy in showing a Pol to DO the opposite of what he says he will do. You know, like what they used to for a living.
So you get the same information without all the cash changing hands and influence peddling.
The notion of spending money being free speech is kind of silly IMO.
dustinculp
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 3
The voters do not own the goverment ! We are slaves to the elite. Come on wake up. Even if we did the agenda is the same and the elite will do what ever they have to do in order to make sure of it. This world needs a revolution for the people to own it.
dustinculp
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 3
The richest 2% of America owns 40% of its total wealth . What does that tell you? Money has corrupted our land and the rich get richer and run the world and run the rest of us into the ground. They run things and we grow poorer by the day. and the people who run things are not the people we want at all . If the world only knew . .....
So these 2% you are so concerned about don't even have controlling interest. There goes that theory.
So you want to change the dynamic away from where a few mega donors have perceived control over an election and give it to a few journalists instead - so that they instead have control over the election? I think that is ridiculous.
I would much rather make my case directly to the voters why they should vote for me rather than rely on the good graces of the editorial board at the newspaper and spend all my time winning them over rather than worrying about actual voters.
I do not think this is true. You get the information that the newspaper decides they want you to hear. Nothing more.
It is not really that "money = free speech", it is really that spending money to influence an election is free speech - something I absolutely agree with. Why is it free speech if I went door to door to promote a candidate, but suddenly not if I paid for a mailer to go to the entire neighborhood?
I think you are a slave to your own delusions.
Werbung:
Look at it this way, if campaigns are pumping money into a media outlet it's just possible that outlet will make favorable editorial decisions regarding the cash cow. If the media outlet has to make money the old fashioned way then they will need to scoop the competition whether that fits their personal biases or not.
I favor supply and demand as a means of driving business decision making.
Giving candidate x money is not the same as placing your thoughts in the hands of anyone. It just lowers your bank account and raises theirs.
