CDZ Civil War?

[Darkwind]

You obviously do not feel that Democrats feel the same way about Republicans, so any "discussion" would be pointless. Until you recognize that this "feeling" is a two way street, a game played by two, you will never find perspective.


I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

I recognize that it is both ways, but republicans just seem to voice it more, from what I have personally seen. I am a democrat, but I try to stay as neutral as possible and base my ideals on my own judgement.

I personally believe both sides are being "brainwashed," so to speak, to hate the other side.

Republicans are too intelligent to succumb to brainwashing tactics but one can purchase a Democrat Brainwashing Kit at any Walgreens.

​

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Where does this hatred come from? I've not said anything to offend anyone, but the fact that I have a different opinion immediately makes every republican hate me. As if my very existance were insulting to them.

It may be that you personally haven't, and its a poor reflection on the other side that they don't recognize that. Having said that, for the past 30+ years, Democrats (more specifically, the radicalized left wing known as progressives) have waged war against anyone who does not think exactly the same way they do. If you claim to be a person who values your own judgment, then sooner or later, it will run counter to theirs and you too will become a target. It is only a matter of time.

There was a time when the Republicans and many conservatives on the web forums would try to take a high road and not resort to straight insults until they had been insulted first. Now, no one even bothers. Its straight for the throat and fuck everything else.

I guess the answer is, the right is tired of being called names and they're going to fight back with ferocity.

For 30+ years Republicans have been hell-bent on the destruction of the working and middle class to the benefit of the top 5%, all while pointing their fingers at the poor as being the drain on middle class pocket books. It is not social programs and it is not the working poor who are "taking" from the middle class, it's the 5% and large US retail and service corporations whose wages are being subsidized by social programs, while these corporations book record profits and pay executives 8 figure salaries.

Republicans talk about jobs but no Republican President since Eisenhauer has had the kind of job creation of Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama, or even Jimmy Carter, who is considered an economic failure. Jimmy Carter created more jobs than Ronald Reagan. Both Reagan and Bush had unemployment rates in excess of 6%, that were the result of their cut and spend parties.

If Republicans told the truth about the results of their policies, no one outside of the 5% vote for them, so they lie about what they'll be doing, and who's to blame for the results of their policies (it's always the poor - the people with the least in the policies who are to blame). It liberals, who are to blame. It's the poor. Corporations are always good, poor people are lazy, unmotivated and entirely to blame for their lot.

Now Republicans are attacking liberals are being evil personified. Again, if not for the hate, the bile, and the insults, conservative have nothing. Nothing but lies, distortions and fake news. The United States economy has been going into the toilet since the day Reagan took power, it just took a long, long time to destroy, but you're almost there. I have no doubt that Trump will finish the job. W came close, but Obama pulled it back. W's crash was far more destructive than Reagan's because the working class and the middle class had savings and equity in the 1980's. Much of that was wiped out in W's crash, so that the economy cannot withstand another round of tax cuts coupled with runaway spending, and/or another expensive war or two.

This entire reply is based upon spoon-fed rhetoric designed by the progressives for the express purpose of demonizing and dehumanizing those who disagree with them.

Thank you for proving My point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To the OP: mainstream GOP feel nothing of the sort.

The far right and alt right and neo-fascists want to shut down their opposition, so they accused them of doing what they want to do to the Dems.

Yah, these people totally lost their stuff over President Barack Hussein Obama.

Yah, every time someone claimed to be Republican than began the mulatto Kenyan muslin crap, you knew you were dealing with a person who had personal problems.

 

[PredFan]

Why do republicans feel that democrats are conspiring against them and all-but declaring war on them.

This is an honest question, I'm trying to get a perspective of the mindset.

Do you watch the news at all?
Do you keep up with current events at all?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do republicans feel that democrats are conspiring against them and all-but declaring war on them.

This is an honest question, I'm trying to get a perspective of the mindset.

Do you watch the news at all?
Do you keep up with current events at all?

Both parties' members believe the others are after them, yes. Members of both parties have solid reasons to believe that.

 

[Divine Wind]

What makes you believe that, because from what I've seen, republicans are taking a counteroffensive against a non-existant enemy. The two parties are supposed to work together and compromise to find what's best for the american people

Both major US political parties have each moved to an extreme since the early 1990s. I think the roots of the demise of the Republican party go back to the introduction of the Christian Coalition in 1980, causing Senator Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater to give his famous Congressional speech about it. While it was probably the Republicans who took the first step toward extremism, the Democrats quickly followed suit and, at times over the years, exceeded the Republicans in how far they'd go.

Except for the blip after 9/11, the over all trend in the US is that citizens are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. IMHO, this is directly related to our government, via the two major political parties, catering to small, extreme groups rather than the nation as a whole. To answer your question, yes, the Democrats are conspiring against the Republicans, but the Republicans are also conspiring against the Democrats. That's what politically extreme assholes do; conspire to undermine and destroy the opposition.

Satisfaction With the United States

Direction of Country

Unusually Wide Gap in ’Satisfaction,’ ’Right Direction’ Measures

 

[Dragonlady]

Nothing good can happen until Citizens united is overturned and real campaign finance reform is enacted. We the people just don't have a say anymore, it has never been more clear.

Nonsense, Citizens v United has nothing at all to do with what's been going on in Washington. Hillary spent way more than Trump and lost. Which is not to say the lobbyists aren't influential, but they always find a way to buy influence.

Why would you think that Hilary could ever bring anything good? Never said she would, why would you think I said that? She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution. Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite" and undermines the concept of one person, one vote.

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

 

[task0778]

Nonsense, Citizens v United has nothing at all to do with what's been going on in Washington. Hillary spent way more than Trump and lost. Which is not to say the lobbyists aren't influential, but they always find a way to buy influence.

Why would you think that Hilary could ever bring anything good? Never said she would, why would you think I said that? She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution. Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite" and undermines the concept of one person, one vote.

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why would you think that Hilary could ever bring anything good? Never said she would, why would you think I said that? She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution. Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite" and undermines the concept of one person, one vote.

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens very much enhanced the opportunities for business corruption in our politics.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why would you think that Hilary could ever bring anything good? Never said she would, why would you think I said that? She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution. Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite" and undermines the concept of one person, one vote.

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Unions can be different, but not necessarily so. Still, I'd treat them like corporations and limit all groups regarding elections.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nonsense, Citizens v United has nothing at all to do with what's been going on in Washington. Hillary spent way more than Trump and lost. Which is not to say the lobbyists aren't influential, but they always find a way to buy influence.

Why would you think that Hilary could ever bring anything good? Never said she would, why would you think I said that? She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution. Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite" and undermines the concept of one person, one vote.

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

The "47%" finnaly figured out how to vote for free stuff (without having a financial stake in it) without the right of cooperations to use their free speech in elections would diminish substantially America's economic powerhouse and jeopardise the defense of this country ....sometimes the majority has to be told no for their own good...


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why would you think that Hilary could ever bring anything good? Never said she would, why would you think I said that? She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution. Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite" and undermines the concept of one person, one vote.

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys


.

 

[task0778]

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens very much enhanced the opportunities for business corruption in our politics.

How so? Corruption has existed in politics long before Citizens v United, show me who and how that ruling has made a difference.

 

[task0778]

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys


.

Same question: How so? I always thought Citizens changed very little for unions.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens very much enhanced the opportunities for business corruption in our politics.

How so? Corruption has existed in politics long before Citizens v United, show me who and how that ruling has made a difference.

I just explained it... Cooperation were giving money before citizens United, that's what the case was all about.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys


.

Same question: How so? I always thought Citizens changed very little for unions.

That's why it was a win for Unions and company's, if they lost Unions would have had to follow the same rules

 

[Divine Wind]

"Citizen United gives way too much influence to the corporate "elite""

Curious to know if you have any solid evidence to back that up. I think Big Biz has always had too much influence, long before CvU came along.

"She and the Dems are part of the problem, not the solution."

True, IMHO. Unfortunately, I'd have to add that the Repubs are also a part of the problem too.

"undermines the concept of one person, one vote"

I don't think this is true either, Hillary got a lot of money from Big Corps, a lot more than Trump did but she lost anyway. Gimme some reason to believe this statement is true.

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys


.

And it's too much power to give over "We, the People".

 

[Divine Wind]

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys


.

Same question: How so? I always thought Citizens changed very little for unions.

That's why it was a win for Unions and company's, if they lost Unions would have had to follow the same rules

A win, but not an equal win. Company's have more money, unions have more people.

 

[Divine Wind]

I think it is absolutely wrong for corporations to be treated with the same rights as individuals. The appointment of Judge Gorsuch is helping with the corporatizing of America. Repubs and Dems have too long been allowed to screw things up, we need more parties that can apply resistance to the duopoly that is ruining this country.

Do you think Citizen's United is good for this country?

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys


.

Same question: How so? I always thought Citizens changed very little for unions.

Because corporations have more money than unions and unions have more people (votes) than corporations, what Citizens United did was shift the balance of power toward the corporations.

 

[task0778]

Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:

1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.

2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.

3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.

Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens very much enhanced the opportunities for business corruption in our politics.

How so? Corruption has existed in politics long before Citizens v United, show me who and how that ruling has made a difference.

I just explained it... Cooperation were giving money before citizens United, that's what the case was all about.


.

Uh, whut? As you say, Corps were giving money long before Citizens, so I see no difference now versus then. I'll ask again, somebody provide some evidence that suggest that ruling made much difference if any.

Bear, your previous post referenced unions as being help by Citizens just like Corps were. Which I question.

 

[Wyatt earp]

By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.

I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.

So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.

Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys


.

Same question: How so? I always thought Citizens changed very little for unions.

That's why it was a win for Unions and company's, if they lost Unions would have had to follow the same rules

A win, but not an equal win. Company's have more money, unions have more people.

To put it more simply, just like the electoral college vs the popular vote, but you get it...


.