This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] [deleted] 2 points 16 points 18 points (+18|-2) ago (edited ago)
[–] Eku6 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
I cannot upvote this enough
[–] brother_tempus 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
exactly
[–] Crashmarik 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Funny it's always the media that gets upset about this. It's almost as if they get upset about other people getting a message out to the public.
I mean look at Hillary's press corps
http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/5ff98c4/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F5f%2F46%2F000bfad44dc2b4ffed8d153002e8%2Flede-vegas-women-journalists-politico-28-27-web.jpg
I am sure you can count on them do hard hitting probing coverage of her campaign.
[–] goodluvin 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
With unlimited contributions, politicians only have to go to a few people for financing. End result, the politician owes the major contributor because the politician will have to go back to the small group for more money later.
Hence, the few major contributors get favorable government policies that only benefit them at the expense of everyone else.
[–] cynoclast [S] 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
Er.... you have that entirely backwards...
[–] goodluvin 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
owes = indebted to another.
[–] Tevelyn 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
No shit, just look at how much speech the faggot who owns the washington post can afford. It's almost like rich people just buy news agencies and use them as mouth pieces when you limit campaign contributions. It's almost like some ass hole named hurst just about ran out country via owning the news.
[–] Tecktonik 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If you start with a false equivalence, you can prove anything.
[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The way the founding fathers wanted it. Can't let the rabble ruin democracy.
[–] fuck_communism 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I don't have a problem with that as long as donors are disclosed. The problem is donations are laundered through entities who do not have to disclose who gives them money.
[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I do have a problem with that.
Louis D. Brandeis,
Former Supreme Court Justice.
Don't believe it?
It already happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig:
America has a bought congress. The working class is being extracted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Fmb1H3TLc
[–] fuck_communism 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Brandeis was the original activist Justice.
[–] luckyguy 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
People do have a right to speech and they have a right to use money to benefit themselves or others how ever they see fit. The real question is if political speech is some form of special speech that deserves to have money associated with it be tax deductible for the donor and tax exempt by the organization. Pornography is defined as speech. Should all money spent on pornography be deductible and porn companies pay no taxes. Magazines are speech. Rights to speech is important but the first amendment only intends to ensure your speech is not inhibited, not tax deductible.
[–] NoBroken 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
So you don't see a problem with what amounts to paying a politician for favors?