Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by damajin View Post
    The difference is with Hillary she's flat out bought the DNC, funding much of the state level offices directly through her Hillary Victory Fund and of course with the direct approval of the head of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz who is pining for a big job in an Hillary administration since she's been fighting off a revolt from her caucus for about 2 years now. Doing that, along with all the other funding she's done is called buying the election, you know that very thing that Dems bitch about Repubs trying to do? Welcome to the real world, where collusion is collusion no matter who is doing it so you are in fact being a hypocrite unless you actually think this type of shit is ok, which if you do then you've got bigger problems then we can handle in this thread.
    Oh we need campaign finance reform. But what you call collusion is simply the results of networking and getting things done. Maybe if Bernie wasnt so self centered and actually networked and worked with people, it wouldnt have blown up in his face. Hell, hes not even a democrat until its advantageous for his presidential aspirations. It just shows how lame duck his wannabe administration would be. He couldnt even work with the dems but he'll supposedly get stuff done with a Republican congress.

    You might want to look up the word hypocrit by the way. As i said in my initial response, i wasnt blasting anyone (rep or dem) for what youre bitching about so there is nothing hypocrital about my position.

  2. #102
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    I see many of you trashing the Citizens United decision I bet most of you doen't have a clue what it was all about. all you know your liberal rags told you Citizens United=Bad

    what Citizens United decision was about is corporations, groups, unions, clubs, what ever is allowed to spend unlimited money on speech. political speech or not what ever
    Yes, and the issue is for anyone who thinks there needs to be campaign finance reform. The only reason it's a "liberal" issue is that it permitted corporation unlimited donations, which they were not be permitted to do before. Saying it's a liberal issue only confirms the fact that it favors corporations more than any 'club'.

    Instead of asking about Micheal Moor making a movie, how about campaign finance reform? Do you support that? Do you believe there is too much money in politics?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    My point is Trump is more likely to appoint a conservative judge who believes citizens united was a good idea even if he's 'self funding' his campaign. We're probably in agreement here.
    Yeah, my bad, I misunderstood. My issue is the concept of Trump being an oligarch as president, is better than oligarchs paying off the president. It was bad when Trump donated a million to McCain, because it implies McCain is imbedded with Trump. Yet, Trump having direct access to presidency is great.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  3. #103
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    I see many of you trashing the Citizens United decision I bet most of you doen't have a clue what it was all about. all you know your liberal rags told you Citizens United=Bad

    what Citizens United decision was about is corporations, groups, unions, clubs, what ever is allowed to spend unlimited money on speech. political speech or not what ever

    should Michael Moore and his production company be limited on how much he is allowed to spend to make his movies because his movies all are political would that be right and fair no it wouldn't
    Actually, it was two parts. First was that spending money is free and protected speech, which is kind of hard to argue against. The second part was that corporations are people and have full constitutional rights. Which is the largest pile of BS I've smelled in a long time. If corporations are people, then owning them is against the 13th amendment.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  4. #104
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Actually, it was two parts. First was that spending money is free and protected speech, which is kind of hard to argue against. The second part was that corporations are people and have full constitutional rights. Which is the largest pile of BS I've smelled in a long time. If corporations are people, then owning them is against the 13th amendment.
    The fact that money ruins politics should be undeniable.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    The fact that money ruins politics should be undeniable.
    The issue with the Citizens United decision is that it does make sense from a logical standpoint.

    Do you agree that individuals have the right to speak in favor of or against a political candidate?
    If yes, do you agree that individuals have the right to broadcast these views?
    If yes, do you agree that individuals have the right to associate with others to pool their resources and broadcast these views as a group?

    If yes, then you agree with the central finding of the decision. It is very easy to see how this can be seen and held as a free speech issue.

  6. #106
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Calamorallo View Post
    The issue with the Citizens United decision is that it does make sense from a logical standpoint.

    Do you agree that individuals have the right to speak in favor of or against a political candidate?
    If yes, do you agree that individuals have the right to broadcast these views?
    If yes, do you agree that individuals have the right to associate with others to pool their resources and broadcast these views as a group?

    If yes, then you agree with the central finding of the decision. It is very easy to see how this can be seen and held as a free speech issue.
    Corporations are not a pulling resources, the whole point is to dissolve liability in incorporating, not reinforce it.

    http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/77730

    The corporation is considered an artificially created legal entity that exists separate and apart from those individuals who created it and carry on its operations.
    It doesn't make any sense, because your questions contradict what a corporation is.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Corporations are not a pulling resources, the whole point is to dissolve liability in incorporating, not reinforce it.

    http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/77730
    Just a question - do you think that I should have the ability to get a few friends together and pool our resources to make a political ad?

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Corporations are not a pulling resources, the whole point is to dissolve liability in incorporating, not reinforce it.

    http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/77730



    It doesn't make any sense, because your questions contradict what a corporation is.
    And that's different than Union donations, how?

    If you say money in politics corrupts, then you must make ALL donations off-limits. You can't pick and choose which ones just because you may, or may not agree with them.

  9. #109
    The Unstoppable Force Jessicka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    20,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Direpenguin View Post
    And that's different than Union donations, how?

    If you say money in politics corrupts, then you must make ALL donations off-limits. You can't pick and choose which ones just because you may, or may not agree with them.
    With a trade union you actively sign up to it for the express purpose of lobbying. A company, you don't necessarily have much choice about shopping with them, or be so spoilt for choice over taking employment with them, nor really is there the same clarity or conversation about what they lobby for or why.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    I see many of you trashing the Citizens United decision I bet most of you doen't have a clue what it was all about. all you know your liberal rags told you Citizens United=Bad

    what Citizens United decision was about is corporations, groups, unions, clubs, what ever is allowed to spend unlimited money on speech. political speech or not what ever

    should Michael Moore and his production company be limited on how much he is allowed to spend to make his movies because his movies all are political would that be right and fair no it wouldn't
    Why are their limits on campaign donations? Why should it be possible to get around those limits just because you're wealthy?

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by justandulas View Post
    With 8 years of President Clinton, we would never take our country back. The amount of laws favoring the rich, the corporations, and the elite would make them virtually untouchable. It would divide our nation far more so than Trump ever could..
    You will never take your country back, anyway. That train left centuries ago.
    You have first past the poll and the way your election campains are set up you only get the illusion of a choice. The rich runel you and make you believe everyone can get rich if only they happen to work for it--that is why it is called the American Dream, because it is imaginary.

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by nyc81991 View Post
    Not true. Bernie Sanders is 100% funded by the people.
    And do you expect him to win? Why not?

  13. #113
    I mean, the problem still falls down on the number of zero information or vested voters in the US, you see prime examples of those on this very boards itself, people like Zombergy, PrimaryColor, "Ifakedmydisabilitytoobtainwelfareunpatrioticsoldier" and Vyxn among others.

    As long as the US has such a huge proportion of voters like that, you will never obtain the required numbers to overturn and cleanse the corrupt establishment - because in the first place, the general public is corrupt.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  14. #114
    Deleted
    That most people don't understand elections are entirely decided by money and modern democracy is about manufacturing consent is both cute and disturbing.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    I see many of you trashing the Citizens United decision I bet most of you doen't have a clue what it was all about. all you know your liberal rags told you Citizens United=Bad

    what Citizens United decision was about is corporations, groups, unions, clubs, what ever is allowed to spend unlimited money on speech. political speech or not what ever

    should Michael Moore and his production company be limited on how much he is allowed to spend to make his movies because his movies all are political would that be right and fair no it wouldn't
    "This reasoning also shows the invalidity of the Government's other arguments. It reasons that corporate political speech can be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckly Court found this rational "sufficiently important" to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, 425 U.S., at 25, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave this question open, 436 U.S., at 788, n. 26, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. ___, distinguished. Pp. 40--45" http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

    And yes, I'd say that's bad.
    Last edited by Lumicide; 2016-03-19 at 12:22 PM.

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dendrek View Post
    Why are their limits on campaign donations? Why should it be possible to get around those limits just because you're wealthy?
    there is a limit to campaign donations Citizens Untied didn't change that see just like I said in my post you replied to doesn't have a clue what it was all about.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Actually, it was two parts. First was that spending money is free and protected speech, which is kind of hard to argue against. The second part was that corporations are people and have full constitutional rights. Which is the largest pile of BS I've smelled in a long time. If corporations are people, then owning them is against the 13th amendment.
    if corporations aren't people aren't run my people, people don't belong to them what are they run by what belongs to them ?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Corporations are not a pulling resources, the whole point is to dissolve liability in incorporating, not reinforce it.

    http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/77730



    It doesn't make any sense, because your questions contradict what a corporation is.
    no corporations aren't dissolved of liability it makes it so not one person is held liable just stop it with your uninformed mistruths

  17. #117
    Hoof Hearted!!!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,805
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    It's not like she has to do what her donor says or she'll get in trouble.

    Obama took money from donors, are there examples of him doing something corrupt for donors?
    I would say yes. The ACA is a prime example since he took a lot of money from the insurance companies and then pressed for making it mandatory for EVERYONE in the USA to have to get insurance. That combined with the fact that he did not put a moratorium on the prices charged by the insurance companies and let them charge much higher prices for less coverage than most people already had.
    when all else fails, read the STICKIES.

  18. #118
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,545
    Well to be fair that's over a 41 year period and more importantly including Bill Clinton. So you're talking money raised over numerous smaller elections, 4 Presidential campaigns, and most importantly for Bill's charity foundation which pretty much all Presidents do after they leave office. Just for comparison, Ted Cruz in only 5 years has raised $54 million by himself. These big campaigns roll in the cash from big donors and people with ties to corporations win or lose.

    But overall definitely I agree the Clintons have a long history of being more than happy to cash grab every chance they get from corporations. So they are on the extreme end of that, which is always funny when they try to pretend like they aren't and they are for the working folks. People seem to have forgotten how the 8 years of Bill were one scandal after another, even if you exclude Lewinksky. So you could count on Hillary having the money donation jar from corporations open and waiting as soon as she gets in.

  19. #119
    Deleted
    Well, you could always vote for the guy that pays for his campaing himsel (mostly)?

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I still cannot understand how that PAC thing is legal in the US. Everywhere else in the world it's called "corruption".
    It is just smoke and mirrors to make people think the corruption is gone. You cannot directly talk to anybody donating to you from your PAC, but you can talk to intermediaries and communicate that way. It is all a bunch of bull shit and one of the many reasons the political system is total crap in the US right now.
    "Privilege is invisible to those who have it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •