That's a different subject but here, americans are vocal and aggressive about it...I've just proven those weren't my last words but I'm not really famous. In Oregon you can't drive by a courthouse without seeing a group of people protesting with signs and that's not changing Denny.
When a campaign requires the equivalent of $1B to win a presidential election, and government is funding that $1B, they're going to pick and choose who gets the money. You can say what you like because we have free speech. You can even spend your life savings to get yourself as big a megaphone as possible. But under what you think is a good idea, you would get zero chance at the bigger megaphone.
Well first, I'm not a fan of a monetary figure that defines winning an election. On the other hand, I am free to make a political speech without going to prison or gitmo..I don't know where you got that idea from but it's not something I fear
I know I rented a 3 bedroom house with a yard and garage in San Diego in 1972 for 80 bucks a month...that's changed a bit
Because government isn't controlling elections as you propose. Once they do control political speech, what are they going to do to people who "violate" the rules? They'll accuse you of being funded by Al Qaeda (who paid for your signs, the people going door to door asking for your vote, etc.) See ya in gitmo.
I think what is destined for failure is extreme ideology in any form. There are aspects of both capitalism and socialism that are valuable and destructive in a modern society. Aspects of socialism have proven to be very effective in Europe and the rest of the world, there's not much pioneering to do any more.
If you donate $20 mill to a candidate's PAC you expect and will receive influence with the candidate if he is elected. I don't see how that is a good thing. Trump and Sanders are not taking big donations. They are both against this too.
We are proof what works in France doesn't work here. $4T worth of federal government alone. All the three-letter agencies and direct payments to individuals and nobody thinks we're on the right track. More of the same isn't what you want if the same is what you don't like.
Candidates are free to take big money or not. That's the beauty of it. You are free to vote for or not vote for a candidate if he takes big money or not. That's the beauty of it. Having a choice between Putin and nobody else is no choice at all. That's effectively what we'd have if government gets to choose the candidates (who get money). If you think gerrymandering is bad...
Yep. I would say that is about spot on. By my estimate, a 1968 dollar was worth about 13 of today's dollar. So take that times the $1.60 minimum wage, that make it worth about $20 and hour compared to today. But if the government did that now, only the owners and the illegals will work. Back in 68 though, immigration was in fact controlled so wage could rise to meet demand for workers. No need today. Microsoft need to Programmers or engineers, no problem, Gates goes to congress and convinces them he can't get the job done without allowing him to import talent. Shazam! here they come. Back in those days before all the immigrants and exporting of work ( or out sourcing) the papers were full of help wanted adds for programmers, engineers, system programmer and the like. None of which was the minimum wage even discussed. Gates and PA got rich but not the Programmers nor the Engineers, thanks to the government helping them out. You raise the minimum to $20 now on the jobs that are left here and you will see some unintended changes, like MacD installing about 20 or 30 Microwaves and you get your Big Mac out of the vending machine and zap it yourself. The only employee in sight will be one big bad looking security guard that won't have clue out to get the change the machine failed to give you.
