Opinion of the Issue, part 15

[Associate Justice PiT]

1	Women in the Military	83.3; 5.6; 11.1; 0.0; 0.0
9	Legalize Prostitution	73.1; 11.5; 0.0; 3.8; 11.5
6	Allow Gay Marriage	75.9; 6.9; 0.0; 0.0; 17.2
4	Free Trade Expansion	41.7; 25.0; 2.8; 11.1; 19.4
10	Legalize Selling Human Body Parts	44.0; 16.0; 0.0; 8.0; 32.0
5	Legalize Hard Drugs	31.3; 28.1; 6.3; 9.4; 25.0
8	Punish Illegal Immigrants	26.9; 11.5; 0.0; 7.7; 53.8
14	Privatize Social Security	31.3; 3.1; 9.4; 12.5; 43.8
13	Reduce Federal-Owned Lands	24.0; 8.0; 24.0; 12.0; 32.0
12	Stricter Gun Control	22.6; 3.2; 9.7; 16.1; 48.4
7	Eliminate the Income Tax	16.1; 9.7; 0.0; 6.5; 67.7
11	Restrict Abortion	22.9; 0.0; 5.7; 20.0; 51.4
3	Return to the Gold Standard	9.1; 4.5; 4.5; 9.1; 72.7
2	Support the Patriot Act	4.0; 4.0; 4.0; 12.0; 76.0

[Matt Damon™]

Yes. Entirely remove any private money from campaigns.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes.

And as a question, will there ever been an issue poll that doesn't have to do with something Libertarians make a rallying cry against, or have circle jerks over? 'Cause I'd like a normal issue.

[Mint]

No, this is pointless.

[Earth]

Yes. Entirely remove any private money from campaigns.

Hell no. Why should tax payer money be involved in financing political aspirations?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No. People will always find ways around it.

I find it hilarious that the liberals want it considering how Obama won the presidency.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Neutral

Yes.

And as a question, will there ever been an issue poll that doesn't have to do with something Libertarians make a rallying cry against, or have circle jerks over? 'Cause I'd like a normal issue.

     I just choose whatever issue comes to mind first. If you don't find them to be satisfactory, tell me an issue to make one about & I'll be glad to do it.

[Lief 🗽]

No. People will always find ways around it.

I find it hilarious that the liberals want it considering how Obama won the presidency.

Yeah, we're hypocrites.

Wait.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No.

[Lunar]

The biggest reform should occur with third-party groups like MoveOn and Swift Vote Vets for Truth

Yes. Entirely remove any private money from campaigns.

Hell no. Why should tax payer money be involved in financing political aspirations?

A.  It already is available

B. It'd be a drop in the bucket at the benefit of making it a lot more difficult to become corrupt.  Tons of companies donate equal amounts of money to both political parties (and if it's not equal, they will still donate to both), and since companies have a legal obligation to deliver a maximum amount of profit for their shareholders, what are they doing?  You're paying for it de-facto by buying their products anyway.

You don't even need to have to have a conversation with Congressmen to corrupt them.  All you have to do is donate the maximum amount of money to those that support you and immediately stop your donations as soon as a federal investigation into you starts [which it won't, obviously]

C.  It'd be nice for democracy to have people not buy elections

[k-onmmunist]

Yes. Entirely remove any private money from campaigns.

Yes, but the taxpayer should be able to choose which party his/her money goes to, so as to create a more balanced democracy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Spending by candidates, political organisations and so on should be tightly capped. That is the only way to deal with the problem.

[Keystone Phil]

No

[Earth]

...

C.  It'd be nice for democracy to have people not buy elections

I don't believe for a second this would cut down on corruption, but that's not my main problem. Corruption, ha!

In all seriousness, I don't believe the taxpayer should have to foot the bill so opportunists can run for office. Why should a person potentially have to pay for a candidate that could be antithetical to their morals, and beliefs? This does nothing to save democracy, but another way to undermine it, through misuse of finances.

[Matt Damon™]

Yes. Entirely remove any private money from campaigns.

Yes, but the taxpayer should be able to choose which party his/her money goes to, so as to create a more balanced democracy.

No.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No way.

[Franzl]

I agree with Al on this, although I might favor somewhat higher limits. (not sure what Al is proposing exactly)

[Lunar]

...

C.  It'd be nice for democracy to have people not buy elections

I don't believe for a second this would cut down on corruption, but that's not my main problem. Corruption, ha!

I didn't say anything about corruption in that subpoint.  I mean Romney style

[Earth]

I know, I was just addressing it in passing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

When Liberals talk about "campaign finance reform," what they mean is that they want to silence conservatives and only allow liberal propoganda.

[MasterJedi]

Yes

[Marokai Backbeat]

When Liberals talk about "campaign finance reform," what they mean is that they want to silence conservatives and only allow liberal propoganda.

Limbaugh alert!