The differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party

[Padawanbater2]

If we knew up front that candidate X received his funding from a socialist state I don't see a problem. It should be a big old red flare to voters. I'm aware that Kim Jung wants this candidate so I should probably look at others.

Wow, wtf.. OK, lets start with this

You don't see a problem if foreign owners of American corporations buy American elections? Did I read that right?Clarify that before I continue with this point, please..

"It should be", you are giving American voters the benefit of the doubt about how they vote when every scientific study shows, most Americans vote based on party affiliation. Information the establishment uses against us. Use this thread as a perfect example, 50 different subjects from approval of CIA torture to increased education about teen pregnancy to detaining American citizens indefinitely without a trial, house and senate republicans voted against their republican constituents interests (unless Red or desertdude want to argue that being indefinitely detained without a trial is a good thing..) and yet here they are, defending them.. It's sad it would be shocking if they didn't..

If candidate X hid the fact that his funding was from a socialist state then this is a problem. Especially if candidate X is claiming candidate Y's funding was less that up front.

You seem to be framing this issue in a false dichotomy, they're gonna bribe the politicians anyway, lets at least make it transparent.. I support campaign finance transparency, that's not the issue. The problem is the bribes themselves.

If candidate Y was bought and paid for by the autos, I could decide whether or not that's in my best interest or not. If they are bought and paid for by financials, same thing.

That's simply not how it works with people who don't follow politics (most of them). In an ideal world, I'd like it if everyone did and we all just voted according to our best interests and political affiliation didn't mean anything, too, but that's not the reality we live in. Most people vote based on party affiliation/what their parents were/what they were brought up believing, not on their interests and the fact is media is a business just like anything else, it sells people points of views and it's a very powerful tool used to steer public perception and American culture.

We're all just apes with slightly advanced monkey brains after all

Just tell us where the money is coming from, we can base our decision to vote or not on this info.

https://www.opensecrets.org/

That information is available to anyone who wants to look, these are not the things people base their vote on. Billions of dollars a year get spent on making people think a certain way and believe certain things, it's an industry and it works

I

still say the best option is to limit the power these dipshits have so the money doesn't flow to them in such excess, or the effects are minimal, but there are too many parasites to cede that power.

What do you mean "limit their power"? The government has to have the ability to enact and enforce laws, protect rights, declare war, etc. The potential for corruption is inherent in it's creation. We have to limit the power of corporations influence on elections, we do that by overturning Citizens United and McCutcheon and enacting a 28th amendment that eliminates corporate finance in all American elections

 

[UncleBuck]

Have any of you progressives ever had your own original thought?

this is getting more and more hilarious as you continue to copy and paste (read: spam) endlessly.

 

[Red1966]

How can you argue with this reasoning?

Majority opinion

Justice Kennedy, the author of the Court's opinion.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[30] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[31]


Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

It's RACIST!

 

[Red1966]

Wow, wtf.. OK, lets start with this

You don't see a problem if foreign owners of American corporations buy American elections? Did I read that right?Clarify that before I continue with this point, please..

"It should be", you are giving American voters the benefit of the doubt about how they vote when every scientific study shows, most Americans vote based on party affiliation. Information the establishment uses against us. Use this thread as a perfect example, 50 different subjects from approval of CIA torture to increased education about teen pregnancy to detaining American citizens indefinitely without a trial, house and senate republicans voted against their republican constituents interests (unless Red or desertdude want to argue that being indefinitely detained without a trial is a good thing..) and yet here they are, defending them.. It's sad it would be shocking if they didn't..

You seem to be framing this issue in a false dichotomy, they're gonna bribe the politicians anyway, lets at least make it transparent.. I support campaign finance transparency, that's not the issue. The problem is the bribes themselves.

That's simply not how it works with people who don't follow politics (most of them). In an ideal world, I'd like it if everyone did and we all just voted according to our best interests and political affiliation didn't mean anything, too, but that's not the reality we live in. Most people vote based on party affiliation/what their parents were/what they were brought up believing, not on their interests and the fact is media is a business just like anything else, it sells people points of views and it's a very powerful tool used to steer public perception and American culture.

We're all just apes with slightly advanced monkey brains after all

https://www.opensecrets.org/

That information is available to anyone who wants to look, these are not the things people base their vote on. Billions of dollars a year get spent on making people think a certain way and believe certain things, it's an industry and it works
https://www.opensecrets.org/I still say the best option is to limit the power these dipshits have so the money doesn't flow to them in such excess, or the effects are minimal, but there are too many parasites to cede that power.

What do you mean "limit their power"? The government has to have the ability to enact and enforce laws, protect rights, declare war, etc. The potential for corruption is inherent in it's creation. We have to limit the power of corporations influence on elections, we do that by overturning Citizens United and McCutcheon and enacting a 28th amendment that eliminates corporate finance in all American elections [/QUOTE]
But you neglect to mention union influence, or billionaire Australians, or others. You're fine with SOME money influencing politics, but not others.

 

[ginwilly]

Wow, wtf.. OK, lets start with this

You don't see a problem if foreign owners of American corporations buy American elections? Did I read that right?Clarify that before I continue with this point, please..

"It should be", you are giving American voters the benefit of the doubt about how they vote when every scientific study shows, most Americans vote based on party affiliation. Information the establishment uses against us. Use this thread as a perfect example, 50 different subjects from approval of CIA torture to increased education about teen pregnancy to detaining American citizens indefinitely without a trial, house and senate republicans voted against their republican constituents interests (unless Red or desertdude want to argue that being indefinitely detained without a trial is a good thing..) and yet here they are, defending them.. It's sad it would be shocking if they didn't..

You seem to be framing this issue in a false dichotomy, they're gonna bribe the politicians anyway, lets at least make it transparent.. I support campaign finance transparency, that's not the issue. The problem is the bribes themselves.

That's simply not how it works with people who don't follow politics (most of them). In an ideal world, I'd like it if everyone did and we all just voted according to our best interests and political affiliation didn't mean anything, too, but that's not the reality we live in. Most people vote based on party affiliation/what their parents were/what they were brought up believing, not on their interests and the fact is media is a business just like anything else, it sells people points of views and it's a very powerful tool used to steer public perception and American culture.

We're all just apes with slightly advanced monkey brains after all

https://www.opensecrets.org/

That information is available to anyone who wants to look, these are not the things people base their vote on. Billions of dollars a year get spent on making people think a certain way and believe certain things, it's an industry and it works
https://www.opensecrets.org/I still say the best option is to limit the power these dipshits have so the money doesn't flow to them in such excess, or the effects are minimal, but there are too many parasites to cede that power.

Well, you read that wrong, and though you wanted clarity before making your point you decided you would just make it on what you wanted to argue against anyway.

The way things are set up now, a dictator from another country could funnel billions into an election here anonymously through several methods. Substitute OPEC for dictator, same thing.

You say people aren't smart enough to know or care, but if I'm running against a guy who took a billion in donations from North Korea, I'm shouting it to the rooftops and every commercial I have mentions this. If it's not transparent, we don't know.

What I'm saying is, where the money comes from is only relevant if we KNOW where it comes from right? I mean that should be self-evident.

I'm saying Cheesus is right, the amount is less important than the origin.

Read this as me saying IF a foreign corporation is trying to buy an election here, I want to know which foreign corporation and which candidate they are buying. As it stands now, they can donate endlessly through pre-paid visa cards anonymously.

What do you mean "limit their power"? The government has to have the ability to enact and enforce laws, protect rights, declare war, etc. The potential for corruption is inherent in it's creation. We have to limit the power of corporations influence on elections, we do that by overturning Citizens United and McCutcheon and enacting a 28th amendment that eliminates corporate finance in all American elections

Return the central authority to it's original intent and form.

One sized fits all governing is never the most efficient way to do things, less efficiency breeds waste, that's a given, waste breeds corruption, corruption breed abuse.

If it's up to my state to provide me with insurance, then I trust my needs will be better met than if the design is for both California and West Virginia assuming what is best for one is best for all.

 

[desert dude]

Wow, wtf.. OK, lets start with this

You don't see a problem if foreign owners of American corporations buy American elections? Did I read that right?Clarify that before I continue with this point, please..

"It should be", you are giving American voters the benefit of the doubt about how they vote when every scientific study shows, most Americans vote based on party affiliation. Information the establishment uses against us. Use this thread as a perfect example, 50 different subjects from approval of CIA torture to increased education about teen pregnancy to detaining American citizens indefinitely without a trial, house and senate republicans voted against their republican constituents interests (unless Red or desertdude want to argue that being indefinitely detained without a trial is a good thing..) and yet here they are, defending them.. It's sad it would be shocking if they didn't..

You seem to be framing this issue in a false dichotomy, they're gonna bribe the politicians anyway, lets at least make it transparent.. I support campaign finance transparency, that's not the issue. The problem is the bribes themselves.

That's simply not how it works with people who don't follow politics (most of them). In an ideal world, I'd like it if everyone did and we all just voted according to our best interests and political affiliation didn't mean anything, too, but that's not the reality we live in. Most people vote based on party affiliation/what their parents were/what they were brought up believing, not on their interests and the fact is media is a business just like anything else, it sells people points of views and it's a very powerful tool used to steer public perception and American culture.

We're all just apes with slightly advanced monkey brains after all

https://www.opensecrets.org/

That information is available to anyone who wants to look, these are not the things people base their vote on. Billions of dollars a year get spent on making people think a certain way and believe certain things, it's an industry and it works
https://www.opensecrets.org/I still say the best option is to limit the power these dipshits have so the money doesn't flow to them in such excess, or the effects are minimal, but there are too many parasites to cede that power.

What do you mean "limit their power"? The government has to have the ability to enact and enforce laws, protect rights, declare war, etc. The potential for corruption is inherent in it's creation. We have to limit the power of corporations influence on elections, we do that by overturning Citizens United and McCutcheon and enacting a 28th amendment that eliminates corporate finance in all American elections [/QUOTE]


"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[31]

 

[ChesusRice]

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[31]

Ill remember that the next time you bitch about Unions supporting Pro Labor candidates. And how you want to dismantle unions

 

[desert dude]

Toby, if you bother to actually read up on the CU decision and what it affects you will be able to debate this whole thing more effectively. Unfortunately, you will be on my side if you ever actually come to understand it.

 

[desert dude]

Ill remember that the next time you bitch about Unions supporting Pro Labor candidates. And how you want to dismantle unions

Feel free to skewer me with it if you get the chance. I have no problems with unions. I think most are crooks but I don't want to stuff a sock in their mouths.

 

[UncleBuck]

I have no problems with unions.

that's the problem with you "libertarian" spammers. the internet remembers everything you say.

I do oppose public sector unions.

[unions], they have generally, not entirely, descended into debauchery and corruption.

If compulsory membership is required for unions to exist, then they shouldn't.

As another Californian, it ain't gonna happen. This state is owned by the public sector unions, at least politically. Maybe after the big bankruptcy, but not before the public unions have wrung the very last penny out of the taxpayers pocket.

yep, you have no problem with unions alright. except public sector unions, they are corrupt, they shouldn't exist, and they are bankrupting your home state.

you are dumber than a pile of shit, desert douche.

 

[ginwilly]

Ill remember that the next time you bitch about Unions supporting Pro Labor candidates. And how you want to dismantle unions

I will always be for people's rights to collectively bargain in the private sector. Public sector has no use for unions. We should never allow people to "hire" the person they are negotiating with.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the pitfalls of a system that allows that. Detroit....

I think police and fire are different animals that should get there own distinction. I'm undecided about their unionization. I don't want 70 year old firemen coming to put out fires because they have to keep working (unless they pass all physical tests, then I don't care the age).

When FDR is against the public sector unions, people should listen to the why. It's not like he wasn't a huge champion of unions.

When people are unable to draw a distinction between the two, I'm best served by moving on from the conversation because those people are obviously not very intelligent.

 

[UncleBuck]

I will always be for people's rights to collectively bargain in the private sector. Public sector has no use for unions. We should never allow people to "hire" the person they are negotiating with.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the pitfalls of a system that allows that. Detroit....

I think police and fire are different animals that should get there own distinction. I'm undecided about their unionization. I don't want 70 year old firemen coming to put out fires because they have to keep working (unless they pass all physical tests, then I don't care the age).

When FDR is against the public sector unions, people should listen to the why. It's not like he wasn't a huge champion of unions.

When people are unable to draw a distinction between the two, I'm best served by moving on from the conversation because those people are obviously not very intelligent.

excuse me if i don't take the word of someone who believes intelligence is racially based and that whites are superior, princess.

but to point out the obvious, you are parroting desert douche's rhetoric almost verbatim. likewise, you are also a non-smoker, non-grower who always feels the need to spam about his awesome "libertarianism".

enough libertarian spam.

 

[ChesusRice]

Feel free to skewer me with it if you get the chance. I have no problems with unions. I think most are crooks but I don't want to stuff a sock in their mouths.

Uncle buck totally pwned you again

 

[ChesusRice]

I will always be for people's rights to collectively bargain in the private sector. Public sector has no use for unions. We should never allow people to "hire" the person they are negotiating with.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the pitfalls of a system that allows that. Detroit....

I think police and fire are different animals that should get there own distinction. I'm undecided about their unionization. I don't want 70 year old firemen coming to put out fires because they have to keep working (unless they pass all physical tests, then I don't care the age).

When FDR is against the public sector unions, people should listen to the why. It's not like he wasn't a huge champion of unions.

When people are unable to draw a distinction between the two, I'm best served by moving on from the conversation because those people are obviously not very intelligent.

So people that work for the government don't have the right to associate?

 

[UncleBuck]

So people that work for the government don't have the right to associate?

you're talking to people who believe that the first amendment makes civil rights unconstitutional because it limits their "freedom" to dissociate from blacks.

these people are swarmfront bugs who don't grow or smoke and are solely here to spam us with their "libertarian" brand of white supremacy.

 

[Jimdamick]

Very interesting Pada when you see it all in black and white. Seems like the Republicans hate American citizens.

They don't hate all Americans, just people of color, Jews, Catholics, anybody with a college education or the residents of California and New York.

 

[ChesusRice]

They don't hate all Americans, just people of color, Jews, Catholics, anybody with a college education or the residents of California and New York.

you forgot
"Detroit"

 

[schuylaar]

Here ya go, Sky, full frontal.......

i don't know which is more disturbing.

you undressing a doll and posting; or the 5 times it was viewed full screen.

 

[schuylaar]

With lower gas prices travel will be heavy during the holidays.

news this am is it will go lower, as the ruble continues to fall.

thanks, obama!

 

[schuylaar]

that's the problem with you "libertarian" spammers. the internet remembers everything you say.










yep, you have no problem with unions alright. except public sector unions, they are corrupt, they shouldn't exist, and they are bankrupting your home state.

you are dumber than a pile of shit, desert douche.

+rep