Message from @Ipod
Discord ID: 472711397394874388
they are either lazy or 'too busy' to look up the profiles of the candidates
Or people who just vote the party line
Awwwww!! Payment pupper!
Sadly some people are dumber than this dog and will just wait at the counter without even trying
doesnt the dog die from chocolate in the cookies
Not all cookies have chocolate
Tim Pool had a good piece on the FB stuff.
TL;DR - It's not because of scandals, it's because they missed their growth target.
yea and did news today that facebook are having negative user grow per month is not helping either
Not negative, just slower
They still are gaining more than they are losing.
But most tech stocks are fallacys since rarly is there profit. Their stocks are based on *growth* unlike other stocks
Going to bed in a moment, but I wanted to ask, how controversial is thinking money is free speech lol
Just finished writing an argument for it, so rip lol.
I'm not sure I understand your statement
@Ipod Inversely, how controversial is having a campaign donation limit for candidates?
Maybe... $100/person and $1000/business
Talks for 10 minutes, is told he's wrong by someone that lived in the USSR for 30 years, decides "this is a waste of my time' all of a sudden.
@Fitzydog I would say that there should be no limits.
@Drunklama It was late at night when I wrote my statement, but what I meant was money is free speech and therefore shouldn't be taken out of politics. And to explain further I have three arguments, 2 more fundamental, and one pragmatic, in order to support my position.
1: So long as government has the ability to regulate and control the market, businesses will try and get a hold of politicians and political power in order to control the market themselves. So the issue is not money in politics, but rather that the government has the ability to control markets. Take away that ability and businesses have no real reason to influence politics besides what the individuals that own those businesses are interested in. Since governments do have the ability, however, we find that businesses are forced to play politics so that their competitors do not get the power to control the market, and instead, they get the power to control the market.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying: individuals can try to donate as much as they want, but politicians should be barred from accepting large donations and be audited on a yearly basis.
No one's speech is limited, just the politicians bank accounts
2. A more pragmatic position: By getting money out of politics, we the people have one less mean by which we can help influence politics and political discourse in our favor. This puts us at a heavy disadvantage against large organizations that can provide services and products in return for some political power. Unlike the common citizen, they have services and products to provide that the politician may desire.
3. Money is free speech because for example: I purchase goods from X rather than Y because I prefer X's product or service and therefore think X should succeed while I dislike Y's product or service and think they should fail. Similarly, using money as a means to support a politician X acts the same way, stating that X is liked.
On that note, to retort, I don't think there should be a limitation as limiting the politician's bank account makes no difference. Taking contributions from anyone at any amount is acceptable. There is an argument for a conflict of interest, but I think that if you combine both money and vote, using money to support politicians you like, and then voting those that you support in, there should be no issue on the matter. Anyone can give whatever it is they like, money isn't what people are after when in power, it's the power. If a politician goes against your interest for whatever reason, don't support that politician. If they take money and are flippy-floppy because of it, then they aren't a politician you should support from the start as they don't truly hold your position in mind.
I think what I'm getting at is. Money in politics is not the issue, but rather the voter is the issue and their misuse and misconduct of their vote. Whenever you regulate, people will never learn and stay apathetic. It's a form of tough love and people just have to learn that their vote matters and they must vote as it is their duty to do so. By regulating monetary contributions two things will occur: Those that don't truly support your interests cannot be discovered as their true character is no longer revealed. Secondly, only large organizations will prevail rather than the people. In regards to campaigning in particular, volunteer work would then become paramount. Who would volunteer? The private citizen is most likely not the case, but rather those organizations and corporations that want that politician in who have the resources to expend.
Of course it is the Guardian
@Ipod you make several fair points and I will have to rethink my opinion on the matter but I tend to agree for the most part
why are pride parades in safe cities, where people already respect gay people as much as straight people. Instead of the shitzones with the homophobes?
because that's where the gays are? idk
There is a limit on individual donatuons as well. Desouza was tagged for that. The issue the spreads from donations is possibility of corruption
@franti but you can sell sex, its called prostitution
@Goblin_Slayer_Floki the point i think the twitter guy was making was that children cannot choose to sell sex anymore so than they can consent to sex under any other circumstance.
Are they actual children? Or 21 year old children like before? lol
Also they would fall under age of consent laws of Italy which is prolly like germany 15