Jen Sorensen by Jen Sorensen

Jen SorensenNo Zoom

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Dogday88

    Dogday88 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    I’m really not political but I do watch what goes on. Does Mr. Brooks’ analysis make ANY sense to you? “…illegal to give money to anyone but incumbents…”???? Also, am I on the right track in thinking that Justice Roberts is something of a Looney Tune in a black robe? I’m really asking seriously.

  2. Dogday88

    Dogday88 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Thank you for the feedback. With apologies to Scott, oh what a tangled web we weave when our agenda is one of the threads.

  3. D Lee

    D Lee GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    And, they are going to keep right on doing it until we stop them. We are the 99%—- that means we have the votes to elect people who will actually represent middle class workers and provide a safety net for those who are trying to get into the middle class.We all need to know who is supporting the candidates. That is who they will be working for. They have no choice if they want to stay in office. You have to do the bidding of whoever who is paying your way, just the same as we all do in our jobs. So, before going to vote, look it up on the internet. Open Secrets is a good site, but there are plenty.If the candidate is getting their money from small donors or from unions, they are going to be working for middle class working people. If their donations are from corporationsor from 1%ers, don’t figure they are going to go against them and do anything for the middle class.It would be political suicide.

  4. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 2 years ago

    Obama spent over $1 BILLION to get reelected.
    No problem there, huh Jen?

  5. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 2 years ago

    Activist judge.

  6. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 2 years ago

    President Obama spending over a billion dollars to be re-elected is a problem, but also a symptom of a problem with our system that should be corrected. How much did romoney spend to fail?
    -
    The federal govt could create a pool (budget for) and dole it out by lottery to those that apply to run for a particular office. Same with states and local elections.
    -
    Thems in office should be working for all of their constituents, not just the 1%, not just the unions and not just the biggest wallet/spender.

  7. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 2 years ago

    Ha, ha, yes pirate227, you are correct, another activist judge.

  8. yusodum

    yusodum said, over 2 years ago

    Free speech is a hopelessly obsolete concept. Expensive speech is the future.

  9. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @D Lee

    Really the 80% since the top 20% have most of the wealth with a huge amount concentrating in the uppermost 0.01%.

  10. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @ConserveGov

    It is for those of us who want publicly funded only and to allow in more than the two mummified parties getting national coverage. Weren’t you reading?

  11. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 2 years ago

    cjr53 said, about 1 hour ago
    “President Obama spending over a billion dollars to be re-elected is a problem, but also a symptom of a problem with our system that should be corrected. How much did romoney spend to fail?
    -
    The federal govt could create a pool (budget for) and dole it out by lottery to those that apply to run for a particular office. Same with states and local elections.”——————————————————————————————-
    I can live with that, but GOOD LUCK getting unions and trial lawyer groups to agree that they can only spend as much as a “regular citizen”.
    I hope something Real happens, but I doubt it.

  12. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @ConserveGov

    GOOD LUCK getting unions and trial lawyer groups to agree that they can only spend as much as a “regular citizen”.”

    Those groups had the same rules as corporations. They were limited in how much they could give directly to campaigns, but thanks to Citizens United, they can pour as much money as they want into “campaign advocacy”. Now they can give money to as many candidates as they want.

  13. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    The amount anyone can give directly to any one candidate is still limited. The problem is & continues to be the money spent by outside groups, which has no effective limit at this point. The use of supposed ‘non-political’ organizations to hide donor lists, makes matters worse.

  14. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    “Also Brooks is supporting more power for political parties.”

    McBobo has an uncanny ability to extrapolate inane opinions from his ignorance.

    The goal of campaign reforms in the 70s, was to break the hold of parties over which candidates could even make it to the ballot. They did succeed in that, but also opened the door to candidates who are funded by a very small number of wealthy donors, (often themselves- ie. Bloomberg).

    I don’t think this is anyone’s idea of Democracy.

  15. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 2 years ago

    @ConserveGov

    “I can live with that, but GOOD LUCK getting unions and trial lawyer groups to agree that they can only spend as much as a “regular citizen”.
    I hope something Real happens, but I doubt it.”
    .
    I have no real expectation the suggestion will ever fly with any group. I’m left wondering if you understood that in my suggestion the money doled out from the federal fund is all that there is for federal offices, etc.
    .
    No private donations, no personal money etc. Also, each candidate receives the same amount of air-time, like under the old equal time rules. The only ads a candidate could run is about themselves. No candidate could mention any other candidate in their ad. No other group or pac could run an ad.
    .
    Could you still live with that?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).