Elections and Junk.

[This_person]

Yes, I like all of those.

Are you capable of elaborating? What do you like? Importing or not importing? What types of controls? What types of drugs?

Could you discuss your reasons for "liking all of" labor protections in the Marianas?

There are several plans and thoughts out there on the taxpayer funded children's health, could you provide the one you would support? And why?

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?


Thanks!

 

[~mellabella~]

Are you capable of elaborating? What do you like? Importing or not importing? What types of controls? What types of drugs?

Could you discuss your reasons for "liking all of" labor protections in the Marianas?

There are several plans and thoughts out there on the taxpayer funded children's health, could you provide the one you would support? And why?

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?


Thanks!

These are really good questions JPC, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say on them.

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

These are really good questions JPC, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say on them.

Well I am not going to write a book about those things when I said I like them.

If he (or you) ask some vague and general purpose question then a vague general purpose answer is the appropriate reply.

You all can look up the links to info and arguements on those issues as well as I can - and if you or he want to dig into it then do the work.

As a Congressman then I would be asked to agree with or to modify or to script a Bill on each or any subject and nobody knows now what such a Bill would look like or read like and so my reply that I like and support those issues is really a straight up answer.

Each of those issues listed are much like my position as saying I am pro-life and therefore I am saying that I will support a Bill that reflects pro-life.

So when I say I like those issue positions that were named then that means I will support any Bills that promote those issues.

Those are not my campaign platform but they are important anyway and so if anyone wants specifics then they need to ask specifics, and I am not going to look up the links to back up the vague questions posted by a poster that does not understand what he is asking.

I hope this helps.

 

[This_person]

Well I am not going to write a book about those things when I said I like them.

Mr. Cusick, no one asked for a book. Just a brief clarification of your answers.

If he (or you) ask some vague and general purpose question then a vague general purpose answer is the appropriate reply.

I am not sure I follow you. The questions were:

Importing or not importing prescription drugs? What types of controls? What types of drugs? {seems pretty specific to me}

Could you discuss your reasons for "liking all of" labor protections in the Marianas? {As in, what do you specifically believe needs protected, and how does that apply to the fifth district of Maryland}

There are several plans and thoughts out there on the taxpayer funded children's health, could you provide the one you would support? And why? {specifically, which one would you support - and why would you support that specific one?}

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?
{Again, seems pretty specific - nothing vague at all}​

You all can look up the links to info and arguements on those issues as well as I can - and if you or he want to dig into it then do the work.

But, we're asking for your opinions as a candidate for office. We can certainly come to our own conclusions as to our postions, we're asking for yours if you're asking for people's votes.

As a Congressman then I would be asked to agree with or to modify or to script a Bill on each or any subject and nobody knows now what such a Bill would look like or read like and so my reply that I like and support those issues is really a straight up answer.

It was a straight vague answer. We're looking to see how a candidate approaches problems. And, certainly, how much of a grasp that candidate has on the issues he/she would face once in office. Some of these issues are settled, some are not (of course, as a well-schooled candidate for office, you already know that). But, how you would have approached the one settled, or how you would handle the unsettled ones are the questions of interest to the public regarding a candidate.

When I say I like those issue positions that were named then that means I will support any Bills that promote those issues.

Positions weren't named. Positions were requested from you, the candidate. The issue was raised, we're seeking your positions on the issues.[/quote]Those are not my campaign platform but they are important anyway and so if anyone wants specifics then they need to ask specifics, and I am not going to look up the links to back up the vague questions posted by a poster that does not understand what he is asking.[/QUOTE]I have added the word specific to the questions so you can see the specificity in the question. I'll be awaiting your answers.







Probably for a long, long, loong time.

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

Mr. Cusick,

You are just not a competant question asker and there is nothing I can do about that.

You would make a terrible reporter.

Your post is mixed up and confusing and beating the same thing that I already gave answer to.

So you can put your negative garbage to this but I really am trying to deal with your stuff.

There is still time for you to register as a candidate too if you want to promote your own prefered issues and your own agenda, but you are not my campaign manager and your questioning is confused.

 

[This_person]

I really am trying to deal with your stuff.

Okay, I confused you with too many issues at once, clearly.

Let me try again, and see if you can follow. I'm sure you'll be dealing with other incompetant question askers, so this will be good practice for you.

You recently voiced support for taxpayer funded children's health care. Could you provide the public with the proposal that most fits approval? Which of the proposed plans do you support?


See, I'm trying to be specific, like you asked. I am asking specifically which plan or bill that exists you would give your support to, which one you would agree to.


Thanks!

 

[~mellabella~]

Come on JPC. I really want to know! I know where I stand on these things, but how am I going to know if you are the candidate I want to vote for if you don't answer questions on important issues. (Outside of your stance on greed growth and abortion, I know where you are on those issues)

At least answer this one, since it is a big issue right now.

Where do you stand on the taxpayer supported Children's health insurance? Do you think it should be the taxpayers responsibility?

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

Where do you stand on the taxpayer supported Children's health insurance? Do you think it should be the taxpayers responsibility?

Since Bush vetoed the previous attempt at such a Bill then the issue is one for the next Congress and the next President and no one knows what that will be now.

So if one of the Republican candidates win the Presidency it will be unlikely that any such Bill will happen for the next four years unless some how the Democrats win a large majority in both the House and Senate so pretending that I have the answer for an issue like that would be nieve.

If a Democrat wins the Presidency then such a Bill is far more likely and it will depend on which Democrat because Hillary has a different plan then does Obama then Edwards and the others.

Therefore that issue before the 5th District campaign is moot, IMO.

I like Obama better than Hillary and I say Edwards is the best candidate of them all, and I like Kucinich too link.

 

[This_person]

Since Bush vetoed the previous attempt at such a Bill then the issue is one for the next Congress and the next President and no one knows what that will be now.

So if one of the Republican candidates win the Presidency it will be unlikely that any such Bill will happen for the next four years unless some how the Democrats win a large majority in both the House and Senate so pretending that I have the answer for an issue like that would be nieve.

If a Democrat wins the Presidency then such a Bill is far more likely and it will depend on which Democrat because Hillary has a different plan then does Obama then Edwards and the others.

Therefore that issue before the 5th District campaign is moot, IMO.

So, you don't believe it's an important enough issue to justify the potential representative of this area to take a stand on a specific postion. Gotcha!

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?

 

[Giantone]

JPCsr=IDIOT!

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

JPCsr=IDIOT!

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

 

[Giantone]

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

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

 

[JPC sr]

The big pic.

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]

The big pic.

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]

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]

The big pic.

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

The big pic.

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.