A reason to get to the polls and vote..

[Tripleshot]

for Al Gore. He has stated he is in support and will work for passage of the McCain/Feingold bill to end this obsene purchase of political seats all over the land. I would also emphasise his support for using the internet at a greater extent for future elections. These numbers will astound you! :|

Cashing in on the campaign

 

[IamDavid]

Only a sucker would vote for that lying, manipulative, spineless........Well you get the picture. Any man who would trade his vote on whether or not we should've gone to war with Iraq for some primetime speaking time is a weasel. How could you way lives agsinst TV time? What the hell kinda world does he live in? Certainly not mine........... Vote Nader or write in ME.

 

[Tripleshot]

Yea sure. Nader will be elected and will support passage of McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform. Moron,He doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected,and a vote for him is a vote for Bush,who absolutely will NOT support campaign finance reform of any kind.

Are you old enough to vote? You sure haven't put together a very convincing arguement. Keep trying. You'll get there someday.

 

[BoberFett]

You really believe Gore will follow through on campaign finance reform? The Republicrats have no reason to change the system, it benefits them greatly. The only ones to benefit would be third parties, and the Republicrats aren't about to change the status quo.

Somebody forgot to give Tripleshot his meds again...

 

[IamDavid]

Actually yes, I am old enough to vote and I happen to be a political science major at Brown University.. And if you are voting for someone just so the other person can't win isn't that Un-American? Or would you just be considered a sell-out? Vote your conscience not your fear..Moron?

 

[Tripleshot]

Nope Bobber,I got the meds. All I know is the article states an obsene amount of money is going into campaigns( 50% more than '96). I do not recall Bush saying he was in support of campaign finance reform,did you?


IamDavid
Why haven't you learned anything? Are you a freshman?
>>>
And if you are voting for someone just so the other person can't win isn't that Un-American?

Isn't that exactly what voting is for,including your vote for Nader? Good god,with statements like that,I know we need to do something about education in this country. We are putting out mental midgets!!

 

[SJ]

If Gore was for reform, he should stop being a hypocrit and go to court for the crimes he commited. And before someone mentions Bush, there is no proof that he has done any cocaine. While there is tons if evidence against Gore but Janet Reno won't go ahead with the case.

 

[Double Trouble]

Interesting that Gore and his cronies are pushing for this reform after they do all their little shananigans with Chinese donors etc. As the ol' "Church Lady" would say, "How conveeeenient".

If he was truly for reform, he would have come out for this long time ago (maybe when he was facing Bradley), not now when he faces someone that is equally adept at getting big bucks to back'em up.

 

[Russ]

The McCain-Feingold bill is snake oil that would never pass Constitutional muster. Pretty safe to claim you support an idea when you know it's DOA.

Bore is going to lose. Get over it.

Russ, NCNE

 

[JellyBaby]

Tripleshot,

Damn I just started a McCain/CFR thread a few minutes ago. Didn't see this one...must be getting to be your age!

<< I would also emphasise his support for using the internet at a greater extent for future elections. >>

Only trouble there is he'll tax the hell out of the internet to support a bureacracy to support this idea.

On campaign finance reform and Albert Gore...these are mutually exclusive terms. Did you not see the Clinton/Gore fundraising spree in '96 and again this time around? How many days out of the year were both at fundraisers? 200? 250? More?! Gore was at a fundraiser the night we began operations against Yugoslavia. You know where his loyalties are.

 

[IamDavid]

Can anyone please explain to me what &quot;No controlling legal authority&quot; means? Explain it and he will get my vote.. Not the legal meaning of it, the true meaning.

 

[Moonbeam]

The supreme court has determined that money is free speach and that corporations are people. As long as these insane ideas pertain, democracy will not function. Money creates the culture's opinions. The result is that people will vote for the establishment against people who institute changes that would benefit them better in the long run. Corporations will continue to insure the laws that pass benefit them. I see the possibility that the pursuit of profit rather than the common good will lead to our extinction. I don't see enough of the haves having the altruism to spend the money to get this posibility well enough established to change public opinion. It either take a third party revolution, or enough Democratic losses to convince they that they won't ever get the corporate money the Republicans will and will have to return to the people for victory. Nader knows this stuff better than any of our other choices. It's gonna be interesting to see if he costs Gore the election and what the democrats do about it. Bradley, like McCain would have been such a better choice.

 

[JellyBaby]

Moonbeam,

Nader is impressive. I caught a lot of his airtime this past weekend and he's dead-on and quite a few issues and he's sharp as a tack. I truly hope the Kings (Rs) and Queens (Ds) graciously allow the Green Party into the 2004 debates. Obviously, america should be outraged at the limited choice it now has in major parties. There would be no reform movement if it wasn't needed. Damn america wake up.

 

[Tripleshot]

I need to cut and paste this from a web page. Make your own judgement


G.W.


Bush would ban unions and corporations -- but not individuals -- from giving &quot;soft money&quot; to political parties.
He says individual donations are a constitutionally protected form of free speech, a position the Supreme Court upheld in 1976.
Bush would also bar labor unions from spending their members' dues money without their permission to support political candidates.

Bush also wants to require immediate disclosure of contributions on the Internet and to increase the limit on individual contributions to candidates (which has been $1,000 per election since 1974) to roughly $3,400 per election, adjusting the limit for inflation.


Al Gore


Gore proposes a ban on all &quot;soft money&quot; contributions to political parties and wants to create a &quot;Democracy Endowment&quot; to fund political campaigns.
He would give a 100 percent tax deduction to any individual or corporation that contributes to the endowment. The donor would not be able to designate which campaign or candidate his money would go to. Democracy Endowment funds would be parceled out to House and Senate candidates who agreed to not accept money from other sources.

Now fight amongst yourselves. It's a no brainer for me to see the one who wants those big corporate dollars is the Republikan Shrub. That sure keeps it a 2 party system, doesn't it?

 

[IamDavid]

It is impossible to ban soft money. Anyone who wants to make a add attacking the candidate they don't support may do so. Its that little thing we call the Bill of Rights. And as for the McCain/Feingold bill, its a joke. The supreme court wouldn't allow it in its current form. Anywayz, if the bill where to pass it would hurt the Rep. much more than the Dem. because the labor unions will still be able to do as they please. I don't understand the unions supporting Gore anywayz. Who passed NAFTA? They are being takin for granted and in the end will support Bush or Nader.

 

[JellyBaby]

Tripleshot,

It just ain't gonna happen under Ds or Rs. Why should they cut the hands that feed them? As devoted representatives who all swore an oath to protect our country, they ought to do what's right for america. But they're bought and paid for and won't willingly reform the flawed system they secretly embrace but openly decry.

Even Perot said this past weekend, when pressed about his new endorsement for Bush, the Rs were not likely to pass any meaningful reform. Somehow, everything he stood for in '92/'96 is out the window now. Confused little rascal, Perot. But even his head is still clear regarding campaign reform: not gonna happen with Rs and Ds in power.

The one chance was with McCain who could have so passionately pushed this issue, the Rs and Ds would have had no choice but to work on and pass legislation. But that time is past and if Bush wins McCain is out of the picture forever. Things can only get worse before they get better...and maybe that's the way it must be...

 

[Moonbeam]

Here here, Jelly

 

[Tripleshot]

Jelly

i have said it time and again and so has Al Gore. He is in support of and will push for passage the McCain/Feingold bill on Campaign finance reform. You have not heard nor will you hear that from Bush. The reason I will vote for Gore is because he has stated his position this issue and when he is elected ,we the electorate have every right to demand he uphold his campaign promise. In that vein,in 2004,I and you may get the oppurtunity to vote for a third party candidate who has equal space at the trough to feed from.

Why in the hell is that so hard for you people to understand?

 

[JellyBaby]

Tripleshot,

The difference between us is you trust Gore to deliver. I do not. Not because I hate him but because he has a proven track record of campaign finance abuse, he changes his mind too often in general and he benefits greatly from current campaign finance loopholes. You must be blind in both eyes not to see this.

If a life-long gambler suddenly declared he won't gamble anymore, yet just last week he lost $10,000 in Vegas, would you honestly believe him?

 

[Wedesdo]

al bore or george beat-around-the-bush...


humm... tough choice

 

[woodsman]

I wouldn't let Bush drive the car I was in so why would you let him run the country. Vote for GORE, the Bush high road isn't so high anymore. GORE WINS
woodsman

 

[Tripleshot]

JellyBaby

I don't TRUST any politician,Gore,Bush,Nader,any of them. What I said is he, AL Gore, is the only VIABLE candidate running who has declared PUBLICALY his support and intent to pass campaign finance reform. I posted what publicaly both have said on the issue.

Yes,I will vote for Gore because Browne hasn't got a chance in hell of getting elected. But if campaign finance reform can be implimented in the next 4 years,maybe a Browne type candidate can have a fair chance.

I'm optimistic,not fatelist like some.

 

[etech]

McCain/Feingold bill is a joke. The only reason Gore supports it is it does not ban money from unions but it does from corporations. The democrats have the unions in their back pocket. That's the only reason Gore wants it. An advantage for the democrats, not fair and honest reform.

 

[Tominator]

Gore has had 8 years to propose campaign finance laws in conjunction with Slick. If he was serious, he already would have done something.

During the debates Bush said he was for campaign finance reform as has been outlined.

Do we vote for smeone that has had 8 years and has done nothing?

It amazes me that some think it is OK to collect taxes from corporations and yet they should have no say so on how it's spent.

 

[JellyBaby]

Tominator,

Yet the fact remains large corporations have far more influence in the White House than everyday american citizens even when those citizens combine to form lobbies. The money is corrupting the system, especially during election cycles. It shuts out citizen's voices while giving corporations and unions a megaphone. Balance is needed and I'd even go so far as to support somewhat flawed reform because even flawed reform is better than no reform at all!