Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Discussion Forum
General Discussion
Talk in questions.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CaryP" data-source="post: 4314" data-attributes="member: 34"><p><strong>Talk in questions.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Could it be that you have some point here? Would it work to qualify by state? Are there an equal number of electoral college votes in each state? If not, why would a candidate bother collecting signatures in states with few electoral college votes? Would your state-by-state proposals work in a national election?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Would it be the American taxpayer in control of the elections or the federal govt. in control of the elections? Isn't the federal govt. controlled by global corporatists?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't we have enough draconian rules, regulations, laws, penalties, etc. that make you just want to puke? Wouldn't the rules have to be pretty straight forward to discourage "getting around" the rules? Wouldn't an immediate firing squad for any infractions of corporate involvement discourage attempts to buy candidates? But would it stop this activity? Wouldn't this also be unconstitutional without due process? Aren't there draconian penalties in existance for corporate fraud? Are we seeing almost record amounts of corporate fraud in the headlines for the last couple of years? Were all that many global corporatists discouraged from "getting around" the rules and regulations?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where is the connection between election regulations and the cost of living? I don't see even a remote connection, do you? Would a tax increase be necessary for what should be a $50 million expenditure (assuming 10 qualifying candidates at $5 million each) at most under a limited federal funding of the presidential election? With a $3.0 trillion spending budget, wouldn't $50 million be so inconsequential as to not even show up as a line item? Wouldn't we have to expand your program to all federal elections for House and Senate positions, seriously expanding the bureaucracy of the "Dept. of Federal Elections" (possible bureacracy name)? Could your proposal be the typical federal govt. response to all "problems" i.e. more govt., more cost, and more interference and regulation?</p><p></p><p>Why can't all elections be decided by something easy that is witnessed and easily verified? Wouldn't it be more satisfying, or at least less annoying to see elections settled by something like a fist fight, or an endurance race, or possibly a duel with single shot pistols? Aren't you tired of or maybe outraged with the whole "election" and campaign process in this country? Are you familiar with Paul Lyon's comments on the federal elections/campaign conventions? Don't you think he has some keen insight into the current state of affairs? Why are we debating here? Shouldn't we move this conversation to the 2004 elections, or are you committed to posting these questions here?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CaryP, post: 4314, member: 34"] [b]Talk in questions.[/b] Could it be that you have some point here? Would it work to qualify by state? Are there an equal number of electoral college votes in each state? If not, why would a candidate bother collecting signatures in states with few electoral college votes? Would your state-by-state proposals work in a national election? Would it be the American taxpayer in control of the elections or the federal govt. in control of the elections? Isn't the federal govt. controlled by global corporatists? Don't we have enough draconian rules, regulations, laws, penalties, etc. that make you just want to puke? Wouldn't the rules have to be pretty straight forward to discourage "getting around" the rules? Wouldn't an immediate firing squad for any infractions of corporate involvement discourage attempts to buy candidates? But would it stop this activity? Wouldn't this also be unconstitutional without due process? Aren't there draconian penalties in existance for corporate fraud? Are we seeing almost record amounts of corporate fraud in the headlines for the last couple of years? Were all that many global corporatists discouraged from "getting around" the rules and regulations? Where is the connection between election regulations and the cost of living? I don't see even a remote connection, do you? Would a tax increase be necessary for what should be a $50 million expenditure (assuming 10 qualifying candidates at $5 million each) at most under a limited federal funding of the presidential election? With a $3.0 trillion spending budget, wouldn't $50 million be so inconsequential as to not even show up as a line item? Wouldn't we have to expand your program to all federal elections for House and Senate positions, seriously expanding the bureaucracy of the "Dept. of Federal Elections" (possible bureacracy name)? Could your proposal be the typical federal govt. response to all "problems" i.e. more govt., more cost, and more interference and regulation? Why can't all elections be decided by something easy that is witnessed and easily verified? Wouldn't it be more satisfying, or at least less annoying to see elections settled by something like a fist fight, or an endurance race, or possibly a duel with single shot pistols? Aren't you tired of or maybe outraged with the whole "election" and campaign process in this country? Are you familiar with Paul Lyon's comments on the federal elections/campaign conventions? Don't you think he has some keen insight into the current state of affairs? Why are we debating here? Shouldn't we move this conversation to the 2004 elections, or are you committed to posting these questions here? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussion Forum
General Discussion
Talk in questions.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top