Larry is coming y'all

Macalpinerules

Banned
Banned
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
2
Finally a candidate I can support! Larry Lessig is looking to run for president on 1 issue: Campaign Finance reform. He says as soon as it gets passed he will step down as president. So essentially the Vice President will be just as important.

I truly believe that every problem we face as a country is tied to the issue of his our elections are financed. Let's get Democracy back in play again!

 
As soon as he tastes power, a ruthless dictatorship will take hold

my-precious.jpg
 
And if he cannot get campaign finance reform taken care of, is he just going to sit on his ass for 4 years? It is not exactly like he can get elected, and then change shit on his own. He still has to combat the Senate/Congress.

And what about everything else that is going on in this country? Is he just going to push that off on someone else while he focuses on this 'super important' topic?

And why the hell would I vote for anybody who is just going to quit as soon as he thinks he has accomplished his goal?
 
And if he cannot get campaign finance reform taken care of, is he just going to sit on his ass for 4 years? It is not exactly like he can get elected, and then change shit on his own. He still has to combat the Senate/Congress.

And what about everything else that is going on in this country? Is he just going to push that off on someone else while he focuses on this 'super important' topic?

And why the hell would I vote for anybody who is just going to quit as soon as he thinks he has accomplished his goal?

4 years of free rent my man..
 
And if he cannot get campaign finance reform taken care of, is he just going to sit on his ass for 4 years? It is not exactly like he can get elected, and then change shit on his own. He still has to combat the Senate/Congress.

And what about everything else that is going on in this country? Is he just going to push that off on someone else while he focuses on this 'super important' topic?

And why the hell would I vote for anybody who is just going to quit as soon as he thinks he has accomplished his goal?
obviously hes not going to step into office and press a button to initiate reform. Its implied that all his decisions are going to be influenced with this end goal in mind, so any small victories along the way will get us closer.
 
Seems like a likable guy, but I think he's wrong. Campaign finance simply isn't a significant issue, and while everyone will give him a pat on the back for saying it, no one really cares.
 
Campaign finance simply isn't a significant issue,

We're looking at the very real possibility of a Bush facing off against a Clinton for the most powerful office in humanity, out of a population of 320 million Americans to draw from, and you're saying campaign finance is not a significant issue?
 
We're looking at the very real possibility of a Bush facing off against a Clinton for the most powerful office in humanity, out of a population of 320 million Americans to draw from, and you're saying campaign finance is not an issue?

Correct.
 
It is not 'the defining issue of our generation' as Bernie likes to say. I mean it is an issue, but I just do not see how it is a big enough issue to stake your whole campaign on it.

And according to people on these boards, you cannot be for finance reform unless you decline all super pac money, so this guy literally has 0 chance.
 
It is not 'the defining issue of our generation' as Bernie likes to say. I mean it is an issue, but I just do not see how it is a big enough issue to stake your whole campaign on it.

And according to people on these boards, you cannot be for finance reform unless you decline all super pac money,so this guy literally has 0 chance.

That's what MAKES it the defining issue of our generation. The fact that it's impossible to elect anyone who thinks that lawmakers and heads of state should not be indebted to corporations and billionaires is a very serious problem. Every huge problem our society faces today, from war to ecocide to economic disparity, is due to the fact that the rich benefit from those things, and can buy off our policy makers. This is THE issue.
 
That's what MAKES it the defining issue of our generation. The fact that it's impossible to elect anyone who thinks that lawmakers and heads of state should not be indebted to corporations and billionaires is a very serious problem. Every huge problem our society faces today, from war to ecocide to economic disparity, is due to the fact that the rich benefit from those things, and can buy off our policy makers. This is THE issue.

The problem is that it really doesn't work that way. Any serious candidate will have a lot of money coming in, and it actually carries no obligation. What happens is that people donate to candidates that they agree with or otherwise support. And after a certain point, the extra money makes no difference in a candidate's chances anyway. The problems people attribute to money in campaigns really relate to the fact that there is a lot of disagreement about what the best course of action are (and even what policy goals should be).
 
One of the big problems I see here is that people assume that even if corporations could not give people money that candidates would stop doing favors for them. It is not just about money, it is about ideals. It is like Jack said, they give money with the thought that the candidate will do what they want.

Now obviously there are extreme counter examples (like the Koch brothers basically giving a billion dollars to someone) but even going back to before CU we still had the same complaints, people just had to be less obvious with their donations.

Ant btw. You can take donor money, and do absolutely nothing for them, or even go against them. It is not a contract. So when Hillary says that she is going to work on repealing CU, it does not become completely invalidated because she accepts super pac cash. The fact is, if Bernie or this dude really wanted to win, they would accept the 'filthy' money, and change things when they had power.

It is admirable to not take the money and stick with one's convictions. It is also not a viable way to win right now.
 
Ant btw. You can take donor money, and do absolutely nothing for them, or even go against them. It is not a contract. So when Hillary says that she is going to work on repealing CU, it does not become completely invalidated because she accepts super pac cash.

Yeah, it's funny that the people who normally think that people running for office are the scum of the Earth also think that they have some ironclad code of honor when it comes to donations to Super PACs. It's not like Bush will be saying, "Wait a minute, Steve. It might be what our constituents want and what we believe, but that corporation gave their hard-earned money to an unaffiliated group that was putting out ads telling people to vote for me. I have to return the favor. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night otherwise."
 
Money corrupts, otherwise people would just write letter/emails.
 
The problem is that it really doesn't work that way. Any serious candidate will have a lot of money coming in, and it actually carries no obligation. What happens is that people donate to candidates that they agree with or otherwise support. And after a certain point, the extra money makes no difference in a candidate's chances anyway. The problems people attribute to money in campaigns really relate to the fact that there is a lot of disagreement about what the best course of action are (and even what policy goals should be).

Hmm, I would have guessed you were opposed to citizen's united.

I swear the war room should have local chapters that meet once a month and have beers and laugh about the silly times here. It'd be cool to know some of you fuckers.
 
Back
Top