He does not understand the difference between state and national level election politics. Local elections are very much starved for cash and those politicians have to beg for cash from upon high. It means national level politicians use that cash (or the withholding of it) to punish/reward local level politicians. Those local politicians absolutely hate it. Moreover those state level politicos are much less disconnected from the masses. The usual trend is state house > state senate > federal run. So they simply have not had enough time to become as disconnected nor is there the same level of rewards for doing so. It is overall simply much easier for things to pass at the state level if the local population wants it.
That's really a false equivalency. While I will be the first to call out the left for demagoguing white working class voters, the sides are not exactly the same on this. 43% of Republicans believe Obama is a secret Muslim.
- - - Updated - - -
This may come as a shock to you, but every issue on the planet does not come down to the left taking one uniform position and the right taking one uniform position, followed by wealthy donors equally funding those two positions. Get real.
Totally agree. I have been saying recently it seems like instead of governing, they are just faking it to rile us all up. For example, Democrats are KILLING Republicans on LBGT issues. There was a time when they would work to pass bills to better their cause. Now, they do nothing so they can just keep kicking the ass of the other guys on the issue forevermore. If you solve the problem, now the new "score" (issues based voters) has new math and you just lost your biggest win against the other guy.
Right so, how does one ad drown out another? Any issue can be put forth. Why do you think one issue having an ad means that the other issue now lost theirs? If public opinion is high for your issue, you should be able to fund raise for it just fine.
- - - Updated - - -
We can play chicken and egg all night. But if a lot of people donate to a LGBT PAC, does that not in fact show support for the issue? Is that not just people exercising their free speech? I mean to me, it's no different than me having a bigger political sign in my yard than my neighbor. Would you restrict that also?
Is it though?
It has gotten worse and worse over the years of one party stopping anothers bill or idea just because it was their idea.
"Republicans introduced this! Kill it!"
"Democrats think this is a good idea! Kill it!"
Bipartisanship is so rare now its unbelievable. The only time we see it these days seems to be right after a terrorist attack when they both vote to curtail civil liberties or expand on surveillance based legislation.
I blame 24 hour cable news that only has 2 hours of news and then fills the rest with partisan assholes telling one side of every issue.
- - - Updated - - -
It was no different, or worse, the last time Democrats had control. Look, I'm not a party fan boy. Political parties are for politicians, not voters. It sounds like you want to get in to some back and forth over these two parties and I'm just not your guy. I hate them both.
And the numbers of people that hate them both truly are growing, based on my completely anecdotal life experience.
We didn't always only have two parties, and there was a time when we had neither of these. All a political party is, is a grouping of ideas aimed at achieving control via a majority of voters.
Someone in the thread mentioned how we get so two solution based on issues because of only two parties. Well, maybe the public will be so pissed about choosing between a shady ass crook, and a shady ass crook, that they will truly get behind some existing or new alternate parties.
I mean, we could also just fucking choose better in a primary just one time in my lifetime.
Last edited by Tijuana; 2016-07-16 at 07:58 PM.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Later amendments supersede earlier ones, not the other way around. She's not saying she's going to try to have a law passed over riding citizens united, she's talking about a constitutional amendment.
If you're talking about the supreme court, no, you don't. It passed 5-4 and one of the 5 is dead.
Buuuuuulllshit she will... Her and Trump have plans to expand corporate interests, despite what they claim. This is a tactic to get voted, nothing real will come of this.
- - - Updated - - -
Well it wasnt unanimous, for starters... and is your point that this is working as intended?
You must have some very special version of the constitution to reach such conclusion. Mine says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of press, speech..." not something like "Congress shall make law ensuring that everyone voice has the same weight".
Also in case you have not noticed, all bill of rights amendments confer negative rights (freedom from governmental action), not entitlements.
This, and in a time when the business community is able to save more money on taxes than ever before, theyre now able to reallocate those saving into funding elections. Sounds right, right?
- - - Updated - - -
The 14th amendment, which is the same amendment that Citizens United questioned: "The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.
Pretty cut and dry adding to entitlement.. The problem is, before 2010, of the 300 or so times this amendment had been brought to court, only 20 or so were bought before the courts because of African Americans. The rest were businesses trying to manipulate their will into law.
Last edited by Daymanmb; 2016-07-16 at 08:48 PM.