Independent far right candidate?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Using money to win elections
[don't respond. I know that it's very common in the US etc]

Well, it would be dumb to use money to LOSE elections.

As long as votes aren't bought, I don't see anything immoral about.  It takes money to do everything.

[jravnsbo]

Yeah how do you have any election outside of the very local level without money?  It takes money to get your message out.  

Sadly how much it really takes though.

Using money to win elections
[don't respond. I know that it's very common in the US etc]

Well, it would be dumb to use money to LOSE elections.

As long as votes aren't bought, I don't see anything immoral about.  It takes money to do everything.

[Vincent]

I don't know is this already discussed in the forum.

Is there any far right candidate in the horizon in this time with immigrants and Nafta issues?

I think it's only fair that Bush would be hurt by right wing candidate, because Nader took presidency from the Gore in 2000.

 I dont see any serious far right candidates.
 However a possibility that might hurt bush would be the libertarian party as they have a former hollywood producer(Aaron Russo) as well as a nationaly syndicated talk radio host (Gary Nolan) seeking the nomination. However they would also take some democrat votes with their socially liberal stances.

[nonluddite]

Using money to win elections
[don't respond. I know that it's very common in the US etc]

Well, it would be dumb to use money to LOSE elections.

As long as votes aren't bought, I don't see anything immoral about.  It takes money to do everything.

Right!  It's only legal to buy votes when you are sitting in the Congress or the White House!  At least people that give money to candidates do it willingly...

[Gustaf]

Well, that's the point, you buy an election by taking up all ad-space, hammering through your message to an extent that your opponent can't. This means that the voters are less informed than they should be when they vote, they know more about one candidate than the other. Also, someone with money can hire campaign workers, and don't have to rely on people actually supporting him. Sometimes the side with the money lose anyway, though, it happened in Sweden recently, when one of the most expensive campaigns in human history got beaten resoundingly. It's about using the money smartly, not just have it.  

Yeah how do you have any election outside of the very local level without money?  It takes money to get your message out.  

Sadly how much it really takes though.

Using money to win elections
[don't respond. I know that it's very common in the US etc]

Well, it would be dumb to use money to LOSE elections.

As long as votes aren't bought, I don't see anything immoral about.  It takes money to do everything.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, that's the point, you buy an election by taking up all ad-space, hammering through your message to an extent that your opponent can't. This means that the voters are less informed than they should be when they vote, they know more about one candidate than the other.

The same (empty) argument could be made for any advertiser of any product or idea.  Advertising (speaking to an audience) is not buying people.  Advertising (speaking to an audience) is not immoral.

Now, if you want to talk about a candidate pandering against his core beliefs, then I would agree that is immoral.

[Gustaf]

Well, that's the point, you buy an election by taking up all ad-space, hammering through your message to an extent that your opponent can't. This means that the voters are less informed than they should be when they vote, they know more about one candidate than the other.

The same (empty) argument could be made for any advertiser of any product or idea.  Advertising (speaking to an audience) is not buying people.  Advertising (speaking to an audience) is not immoral.

Now, if you want to talk about a candidate pandering against his core beliefs, then I would agree that is immoral.

I don't think voting is th same thing as buying a schampoo. Of course advertising is not immoral, I don't think I called it that. But you don't dispute the fact that the voter's choice is less informed if one side has all the money. I agree that someone who buys a particular kind of chocolate might be vadly informed too, but it matters less.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't think voting is th same thing as buying a schampoo. Of course advertising is not immoral, I don't think I called it that. But you don't dispute the fact that the voter's choice is less informed if one side has all the money. I agree that someone who buys a particular kind of chocolate might be vadly informed too, but it matters less.

It is NOT the candidate’s job to inform the public of both sides of an argument.   A candidate advertises to get his viewpoint across, not the viewpoint of the opposing candidate.

Educating the citizen to both sides of the argument is the responsibility of the CITIZEN, not the candidate.

[jravnsbo]

Hey as I've said GOP could just run ads for what the Dems advocate and win.  All for it.

Tax increases

more regulation on business

ona nd on, it would be great!  I want them to get their message out.

[Gustaf]

I don't think voting is th same thing as buying a schampoo. Of course advertising is not immoral, I don't think I called it that. But you don't dispute the fact that the voter's choice is less informed if one side has all the money. I agree that someone who buys a particular kind of chocolate might be vadly informed too, but it matters less.

It is NOT the candidate’s job to inform the public of both sides of an argument.   A candidate advertises to get his viewpoint across, not the viewpoint of the opposing candidate.

Educating the citizen to both sides of the argument is the responsibility of the CITIZEN, not the candidate.

I didn't say that a candidate should advertise for his oponent. That would be ridiculous, and I find it strange that you would think, or pretend, that I advocated that. That still does not change the fundamental issue; it is a problem if only one side can get their message out, and that will give that side more voters.

[jravnsbo]

I didn't say that either.  I was saying that we want the democrats to get out their message!

Was joking when I said the GOP should just run ads for the Dems.  but partly true

[Gustaf]

I didn't say that either.  I was saying that we want the democrats to get out their message!

Was joking when I said the GOP should just run ads for the Dems.  but partly true

I know, I wasn't quoting you, and thus not responding to you! I just let your joke pass without comment...