Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (128546)	11/15/2000 7:35:34 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580485

Tim Re...Honest negative campaigning does provide information to votors. That canidate X has a history of supporting unpopular policy Y is somthing I might want to know and is something that canidate X is very unlikely to tell me. < Isn't that what newspapers are for, or debates or the internet. Why go to the worst possible source for honest information. Would you go to the Yahoo boards for stock tips? And why believe someone who is trying to slant something and doesn't give the other candidate the chance to respond until days later. That is what our jurisprudence system requires, that the accuser can meet and respond to the accuser. Why are you so gun ho to defend one principle and not the other? . I think negative campaigning should be kept to a minimum because it is in my opinion more important to tell votors why they should vote for you then why they should vote against your opponent but properly used it has its place. << There are two key words here; minimum and properly. Does anyone think that those two words come anywhere near describing what we have now. In the final wks before the election, I would be willing to bet 75% of Als adds were negative and 50% of GW. The coarseness and shrillness of the negative ads drown out the positive adds. It is also easier to build up mistrust and FUD, rather than trust. Most campaign money either goes to both parites to get access or goes to canidates who all ready support a certain position. Why do parties demand money for access. Isn't that his job. To listen to the will and do the will of the people without demanding money. All US rep. have pages etc. whose job it is to listen to the voters, summarize them, and represent them to the rep. Paying money lets you talk directly to the rep. and if the rep. needs to get more money for his campaigns, he responds in kind. What chance does the Average Joe Blow have of getting his will done. None, because the special interests money drowns the opposition out. If you don't think 90% of the politicians are on the take; name 30 or 40 US reps. who don't. Heck, name even 5 you can prove don't take any money from special interests. If you restrict issue advocay then you have truely abonded free speech and have taken a step toward totalitarian government. Agreed, and that is what negative campaigning does. Restricts issue advocacy by drowning it out. Issue advocacy by the way means putting out positions in support of a position; not against it. Why not do this. In any negative add, the opponent should have equal time to respond to that charge; just like they do in court. Then how many negative adds will we see? Tax funding of election campaigns amounts to extorting money from people to support political ideas and candidates that they don't agree with. What makes you think the special interests aren't extorting money from us now. Isn't that the whole purpose of special interests; to gets laws passed that normally wouldn't pass, such that they get benefits they otherwise wouldn't get. Corporations get out of taxes, or get contracts they don't deserve, and who do you think pays. You do in the form of higher taxes. The tobacco industry lobbies against regulations and against liability lawsuits, and who pays. You do in the form of more cancer and higher prices on cigarettes. I believe in the aggregate, publically financed campaigns not only would cost less, but we also would get fair and honest laws and taxation. And that is what government is all about. I think government is not quite as dirty as you seem to think it is. When the president starts renting out gov. property for his own benefit, when he participate in scams, when starts selling out the country to the Chinese or the Taiwanese; when he starts lying in court, uses state troopers to get him blow j*, etc. just what is your definition of dirty. The US reps, could easily be just as bad. We just haven't heard about it yet. I think most proposed campaign finance reform ideas are neither necessiary nor sufficient to adress the problem.** Isn't that an oxymoron. In one instance you are saying the problem is so small changes are uneccessary, and then claim that the problem is so big, the reforms are insufficient to address the problem. I would suggest it is the later.