Elections and Junk.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Giantone

JPCsr=IDIOT!

I see "G1" is getting much better at this.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I see "G1" is getting much better at this.

Unlike you I can learn.You get more ignorant everyday.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by BS Gal

And also make sure you bring up the spray painting.

Now here is some thing different.

I did not give the Washington Post my picture with me in a suit and tie but instead I sent then a reduced size of the picture on my "Local" page on my website link HERE.

I wanted my glasses in the pic because glasses show more character in men.

And I got this idea that it will look like a Washington Post pic instead of my own and it will make Hoyer look like the pretty boy that kills babies and I will be the pro life outsider.

The politics of Politicians - so say I.

[Giantone]

did not give the Washington Post my picture with me in a suit and tie but instead I sent then a reduced size of the picture on my "Local" page on my website

with a reduced brain.

I wanted my glasses in the pic because glasses show more character in men.

.............not in your case.You're not a man and you have no character.

And I got this idea that it will look like a Washington Post pic instead of my own and it will make Hoyer look like the pretty boy that kills babies and I will be the pro life outsider.

[/quote]



Pro Life ...you?You drove your ex to her death,you killed your family and any dream your son had of a normal life by running away .
You abused your own son by neglecting his needs for your own and you promote child neglect by tell other people not to pay child support.Pro Life my butt.

Hoyer does'nt kill babies , but you do promoteChild Abuse!

[This_person]

Next question:

What exactly do you think needs reformed in campaign financing, and how would you accomplish this? What would a Cusick representative provide as input to the bill?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Next question:

What exactly do you think needs reformed in campaign financing, and how would you accomplish this? What would a Cusick representative provide as input to the bill?

I do not see the way that most people present campaign financing as being of any real concern.

History has proven that huge finances do not garentee votes or election and the complaints are unfounded.

The reform I would like to see would be the the gov under the Board of Elections to give a matter-of-fact account of each candidate and make that info readily available to the general population like even at voting / polling places and that way the big money would always be outside of the official public notification.

I even much like the idea of instant voter registration in that a valid State Identification (gov Picture ID) means the right to vote on election day.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I do not see the way that most people present campaign financing as being of any real concern.

History has proven that huge finances do not garentee votes or election and the complaints are unfounded.

The reform I would like to see would be the the gov under the Board of Elections to give a matter-of-fact account of each candidate and make that info readily available to the general population like even at voting / polling places and that way the big money would always be outside of the official public notification.

I even much like the idea of instant voter registration in that a valid State Identification (gov Picture ID) means the right to vote on election day.

Unlike your rambling, pointless answer to the taxpayer funded children's health insurance, this was close to a lucid, reasoned answer. I'm impressed. Not with the substance, just with the fact that there was some substance.

So, to make sure it's clear (I'm not trying to speak for you, just to make sure I understand your answer), the Cusick input to campaign finance reform is two pronged:

1) Make all campaign contributions transparent to the voter by making an accounting of all contributions available to the public at the voting place.

Clearly, this would lead to there being no possibility of anonymous campaign contributions, and would violate the contributor's privacy by posting public record of their private contributions. Do you think that would cause any problems?

2) Make voter registration unnecessary, as any state ID would suffice for voter registration.

Now, that would require legal resident status verification for any state ID (like a driver's license, for example), as only a legal resident of an area could vote. Do you see any conflicts with this position and your stance on illegal immigration? Also, for those voters that no longer drive or have any other reason to have a state ID, would the cost of obtaining the ID be considered then a poll tax, and therefore unconstitutional?


Thank you for providing a substantive answer this time, it makes for much more interesting and enlightening conversation.

[JPC sr]

Well I do not agree with any of that interpretation by T_p , and his interpretation is far FAR from what I said.

Originally Posted by This_person

So, to make sure it's clear (I'm not trying to speak for you, just to make sure I understand your answer), the Cusick input to campaign finance reform is two pronged:

You got the two prong correct but you got nothing else clear at all.

Originally Posted by This_person

1) Make all campaign contributions transparent to the voter by making an accounting of all contributions available to the public at the voting place.

Clearly, this would lead to there being no possibility of anonymous campaign contributions, and would violate the contributor's privacy by posting public record of their private contributions. Do you think that would cause any problems?

I said to post their campaign info and their political positions and their personal info at the polling / voting places because then the voters would have a last minute of accurate info,

but not - NOT - not to put their financial info at the public voting places.

I say the financial accounting is already sufficient and putting the candidates official info at the voting places will undermine the effects of the big money over the small funds.

Originally Posted by This_person

2) Make voter registration unnecessary, as any state ID would suffice for voter registration.

Now, that would require legal resident status verification for any state ID (like a driver's license, for example), as only a legal resident of an area could vote. Do you see any conflicts with this position and your stance on illegal immigration? Also, for those voters that no longer drive or have any other reason to have a state ID, would the cost of obtaining the ID be considered then a poll tax, and therefore unconstitutional?

There could still be prior voter registration and voting by gov ID at the same time.

And if a migrant worker is given a legal ID so they can get a job then I see no reason they can not vote too.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Well I do not agree with any of that interpretation by T_p , and his interpretation is far FAR from what I said.

Thus, the comment regarding me not speaking for you, making sure your answers were clear. You'll get the hang of this, don't worry.

I said to post their campaign info and their political positions and their personal info at the polling / voting places because then the voters would have a last minute of accurate info, but not - NOT - not to put their financial info at the public voting places.

I say the financial accounting is already sufficient and putting the candidates official info at the voting places will undermine the effects of the big money over the small funds.

Okay, so - again, in the interest of making sure your point is clear - you don't actually have any problem with campaign FINANCE (which, of course, was the question that you answered you support FINANCE reform), your interest in reforming is information.

You think it's the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for flyers for the candidates, stating their position on several issues and providing that information at the polling booth. And, in doing so, this will negate the differences in amounts of money raised by the different candidates. Do I understand you correctly?

There could still be prior voter registration and voting by gov ID at the same time.

And if a migrant worker is given a legal ID so they can get a job then I see no reason they can not vote too.

Now, again, we seem to be talking about two different things. I asked about people in the United States illegally - illegal immigrants. I didn't ask about migrant workers. Certainly, people here legally, migrating around and working, would be allowed to vote - as they would be legal residents of the place they are at to vote. My question was to the people here NOT legally. You understand we have a few million of those people here now, right? We're not talking a few people, we're talking potentially on the order of tens of millions of people. That means that's significant for a representative to consider, certainly.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Thus, the comment regarding me not speaking for you, making sure your answers were clear. You'll get the hang of this, don't worry.Okay, so - again, in the interest of making sure your point is clear - you don't actually have any problem with campaign FINANCE (which, of course, was the question that you answered you support FINANCE reform), your interest in reforming is information.

You think it's the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for flyers for the candidates, stating their position on several issues and providing that information at the polling booth. And, in doing so, this will negate the differences in amounts of money raised by the different candidates. Do I understand you correctly?Now, again, we seem to be talking about two different things. I asked about people in the United States illegally - illegal immigrants. I didn't ask about migrant workers. Certainly, people here legally, migrating around and working, would be allowed to vote - as they would be legal residents of the place they are at to vote. My question was to the people here NOT legally. You understand we have a few million of those people here now, right? We're not talking a few people, we're talking potentially on the order of tens of millions of people. That means that's significant for a representative to consider, certainly.

None of this reflects what I said.

Above is incoherant and confused with no real way for me to reply.

It is true that I could give reply to each sentence but I am not here to play games with T_p as he tries to twist everything that I say.

I am still trying to answer, and still open to legitimate questions though.