Forum Post: FFE Fair Funding of Elections!
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 11:34 p.m. EST by HitGirl
(2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
OWS needs to start chanting 'FFE" and 'Get the Money Out' The government is NOT for sale. It belongs to We the People!
Chanting won't change anything.
First OWS would need to nominate candidates or at least endorse them. I will be the Green Party candidate in CT 4th district.
read more -- http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/
Vote for Steve. He loves to hurl insults! Wow, no wonder the Green Party never wins anything.
Are you saying that elections and politicians are bought and paid for and that laws (even some that are unconstitutional) get passed because our elected officials are obligated to return the favor ?
Well, I didn't say all that, but I'm willing to take the credit.
Makes you want to run right down to the poll and vote for the crook of your choice
Soooo, how do you get enough of these bought and paid for elected officials, to bite/no, cut off the hand that feeds them and eliminate limitless campaign contributions, seriously, you'd be a 1 term congreesman or senator, if thats what you proposed. Yes it needs to be done, but please tell me how ? ? ? ? ? ?
Personally, I would vote for Obama. He doesn't cater to WS.
He caters to someone, somebody dropped enough into his campaign to get him elected, so who is it, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Lehmans, Loebs, Warburgs, Schiffs, someone got him elected, who is it damnit ?
We the people voted for him!
Why did we vote for him?, did it have anything to do with campaign contributions. If a candidate doesn't use or need contributions to get elected, then why did obuma hold campaign fund raisers? What do they do with the contributions? and actually 'We the People didn't elect him, the 'Electoral College' did.
You are right that the Electoral College did, but they represented!
He just raised Campaign funds in order to finance spreading his message.
My thinking then is that the candidate with the most campaign funds can do a better job of "spreading his message" and therofore win an election. So, say the Rothschilds or Rockefellers or MegalaCorp wants their man elected, then they just out fund his opponent. Am I right ?
No, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to using funds to spread a message.. Besides, I said that is what Obama uses the funds for.. The other candidates see it as bribes.
he's not even a little bit crooked then, right?. but all of his opponents are, right? I get it now
Bingo!