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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (9653)	10/15/1998 4:15:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>> Would you support a national referendum process like that in the states? We already have one. (See below.) <<< You misunderstand. I mean should they people be able to vote on law directly, as they do in most of the states through the ballot initiative or referendum process. We do not have that at the national level. >>> Politicians' words can be mingled and/or misunderstood. But according to your crowd, you can tell when democrats are lying :-) I think you have tried to slip away here. If you had a court trial, you would determine in fact whether a politician has perjured him/her self before the pepple on a matter of consequence. Then the politicians of all stripes would have to clean up their act, and many benefits would flow from this. e.g. we would know the true reasons why we were going into wars, we would know how are money was being spent (in reality), we would know what a candidates true positions, if any, were. We would know what their qualifications really were. We would not have to put up with one set of politicians telling lies about another set so as to win elections. The people that have fled and no longer vote, out of disgust, would return, and so elections would be more truly the voice of the people. No more dirty tricks. Chaz

To: Bill who wrote (9653)	10/15/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Bill - "I would pay all congressmen and senators $1 per year and return meaning to the words "public service"." Wouldn't solve much - either you would have only very wealthy representatives or there would be "behind-the-scenes" arrangements where patrons keep the supposedly un-wealthy in position with promises of a highly rewarding future. "I would have all candidates fund their own campaigns (i.e., no public money) with a spending ceiling." IF a spending ceiling were considered, how would you balance it against the freedom of speech and freedom of expression constitutional guarantees? The risk is that some darling of the media (i.e., Clinton) gets "free" promotional services and a spending ceiling prohibits a challenger from evening the playing field. "I would require a fixed amount ($500 maybe) for every campaign contribution, no more no less. No soft money. No union dues confiscated to buy elections. No foriegn." [This kind of conflicts with your "candidates fund their own campaigns" suggestion, above]. IMO, the most responsible way to address the issues of publicity would be to have balanced, fair and responsible journalism to come back into vogue. But the line between news and commentary is so blurred in today's media that I don't see that happening, either. Mr. K.