Citizens United decision by Supreme Court

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I assumed that Riot would address this. Her favorite guy is accepting her least favorite supreme court decision ever. more hypocrisy from the President showing he's no different than anyone else in Washington.

It shows he won't play politics with one arm tied behind his back financially. BTW, Romney also has said he'd never accept SuperPAC money. He is funded virtually entirely by superPAC, not small donors (he has few small donors, he's a corporate-owned guy)

Yes, Citizen's United was a terrible decision, but it shows our Congress - both sides - has zero desire to get rid of their corporate owners. We don't see them rushing to pass disclosure or limit laws.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

It shows he won't play politics with one arm tied behind his back financially. BTW, Romney also has said he'd never accept SuperPAC money. He is funded virtually entirely by superPAC, not small donors (he has few small donors, he's a corporate-owned guy)

he's a hypocrite. Just make sure when you bash Republicans about Citizens United that you include the Democrat President in the bashing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

he's a hypocrite. Just make sure when you bash Republicans about Citizens United that you include the Democrat President in the bashing.

I bash the Supreme Court for Citizen's United. It's not a "Republican" or "Democratic" issue - they didn't do anything. It's a Supreme Court issue.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

I bash the Supreme Court for Citizen's United. It's not a "Republican" or "Democratic" issue - they didn't do anything. It's a Supreme Court issue.

is that why you mention the Koch brothers and republicans (specifically Scott Walker) pretty much ever single time that you bring up Citizens united?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

is that why you mention the Koch brothers and republicans (specifically Scott Walker) pretty much ever single time that you bring up Citizens united?

It's not due to their party affiliation, it's due to what they do. The political party they chose to own is secondary. The Koch Brothers are the biggest corporate owners of politicians and the political process in the country. Multiple political activist groups and lobbying groups trace back to them. Yes, they are very active in their state of Wisconsin.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/...g-palm-springs

But...but...the republicans (my party) do it so my boyfriend does it too so he can fight those sorry republicans (my party).

I am not a troll. Don't call me names or I'll tattle.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

But...but...the republicans (my party) do it so my boyfriend does it too so he can fight those sorry republicans (my party).

I am not a troll. Don't call me names or I'll tattle.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

is that why you mention the Koch brothers and republicans (specifically Scott Walker) pretty much ever single time that you bring up Citizens united?

rich people who fund reps are the devil. if the kochs spent all that money on dems, they'd be a-ok.

it's not that superpacs are bad. or donors. or deep-pocketed supporters. they're only bad when they are for the gop.





all kidding aside, just another example of there being no real line of demarcation between one party and the other. they'll gladly go hand in hand to hell wearing gasoline underwear...as long as they keep getting re-elected on the way.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

rich people who fund reps are the devil. if the kochs spent all that money on dems, they'd be a-ok.

Not in my eyes. Plenty of Dems are corporate owned, too. The Republicans are simply better at it: always have been.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

It shows he won't play politics with one arm tied behind his back financially. BTW, Romney also has said he'd never accept SuperPAC money. He is funded virtually entirely by superPAC, not small donors (he has few small donors, he's a corporate-owned guy)

Yes, Citizen's United was a terrible decision, but it shows our Congress - both sides - has zero desire to get rid of their corporate owners. We don't see them rushing to pass disclosure or limit laws.

It shows even HE doesn't even believe anything he says. You are the only one.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

It shows even HE doesn't even believe anything he says. You are the only one.

LOL - I never said I believed the Obama campaign wouldn't approve of a SuperPac

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL - I never said I believed the Obama campaign wouldn't approve of a SuperPac

Touche, but He said it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Touche, but He said it.

So what? I never said candidates should not use SuperPacs.

That the Supreme Court created SuperPACs, and allows them to exist is ruining our electoral system, and is terrible thing.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

So what? I never said candidates should not use SuperPacs.

That the Supreme Court created SuperPACs, and allows them to exist is ruining our electoral system, and is terrible thing.

You would think then, if you opposed this that you would run without to prove that our democracy is not bought and paid for but is in fact of the, by the and for the people. Hope and change, no?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

You would think then, if you opposed this that you would run without to prove that our democracy is not bought and paid for but is in fact of the, by the and for the people. Hope and change, no?

Why would any candidate not play by the legal rules? Gingrich and Santorum are both still in the race only because of one billionaire apiece. Campaign orgs so inefficient they haven't even gotten their candidates on the ballot in all states.

Voting in the primaries doesn't even matter for moving a candidate to the top any more.

BTW, SuperPACs exist outside of, and without any involvement by, the candidates. A candidate can disapprove of a SuperPac, even of their own, but cannot control or coordinate with what they do. SuperPacs exist independent of candidates desires, and independent of the campaign. Unlimited, undocumented (except for quarterlies) money, to spend however the SuperPac wants. No candidate has to endorse or approve of a SuperPac in order for it to exist. Example: The Stephen Colbert SuperPAC. You could create a SuperPac youself, and spend it however you wanted on any candidate you wanted.