CDZ Civil War?

[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 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.

Since Corps have always supported both sides, I don't see the practical difference. Do you have any data that shows Corps supporting one party over the other in a pronounced way since Citizens? If not, then in reality there's no reason to believe Citizens changed much of anything.

 

[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 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.

Here is part of a rightwing blog... Yes I know it's from the right... But their is a lot of truth to it



MINNEAPOLIS — The loosening of federal rules for political spending has done more to help Democratsthan Republicans, according to two recent analyses of campaign contributions.

Those facts run counter to a well-established national media narrative — one often repeated by liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers who bemoan the influence of corporate cash in politics after the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 opened the flood gates to unlimited political spending — that says Republicans and their big business allies have been able to unduly influence elections with unfettered spending.

The collection of Supreme Court rulings known as Citizens Unitedopened the door to the creation of so-called “super PACs” with no spending limits. While high-profile conservatives like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelsonhave been at the center of attention over their political spending, their pockets are hardly the deepest.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Here is part of a rightwing blog... Yes I know it's from the right... But their is a lot of truth to it



MINNEAPOLIS — The loosening of federal rules for political spending has done more to help Democratsthan Republicans, according to two recent analyses of campaign contributions.

Those facts run counter to a well-established national media narrative — one often repeated by liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers who bemoan the influence of corporate cash in politics after the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 opened the flood gates to unlimited political spending — that says Republicans and their big business allies have been able to unduly influence elections with unfettered spending.

The collection of Supreme Court rulings known as Citizens Unitedopened the door to the creation of so-called “super PACs” with no spending limits. While high-profile conservatives like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelsonhave been at the center of attention over their political spending, their pockets are hardly the deepest.

More.

An analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that tracks political spending, of groups and individuals who wrote checks of more than $10,000 to super PACs and other political committees found big labor outspent big business by a margin of more than 2-to-1 during 2013.

“When it comes to writing big checks to favored candidates and causes, unions last year seemed to be taking greater advantage of the landmark Citizens United decision than corporations,” saidJacob Fenton, an editorial engineer for the Sunlight Foundation.

 

[task0778]

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.

Here is part of a rightwing blog... Yes I know it's from the right... But their is a lot of truth to it



MINNEAPOLIS — The loosening of federal rules for political spending has done more to help Democratsthan Republicans, according to two recent analyses of campaign contributions.

Those facts run counter to a well-established national media narrative — one often repeated by liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers who bemoan the influence of corporate cash in politics after the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 opened the flood gates to unlimited political spending — that says Republicans and their big business allies have been able to unduly influence elections with unfettered spending.

The collection of Supreme Court rulings known as Citizens Unitedopened the door to the creation of so-called “super PACs” with no spending limits. While high-profile conservatives like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelsonhave been at the center of attention over their political spending, their pockets are hardly the deepest.

Sorry, too dimwitted I guess. Still not seeing how Citizens helps the unions or the Dems. They have their Super PACs just like the Repubs do, and I really don't think they have made that much difference since 2010. I may be wrong, but I think overall political spending has been relatively equal since Citizens, maybe the Dems have been little bit ahead.

Added: just saw your most recent post. But unions were already spending more than the Corps before Citizens came along, so I'm still not seeing how that ruling helped the unions.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Here is part of a rightwing blog... Yes I know it's from the right... But their is a lot of truth to it



MINNEAPOLIS — The loosening of federal rules for political spending has done more to help Democratsthan Republicans, according to two recent analyses of campaign contributions.

Those facts run counter to a well-established national media narrative — one often repeated by liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers who bemoan the influence of corporate cash in politics after the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 opened the flood gates to unlimited political spending — that says Republicans and their big business allies have been able to unduly influence elections with unfettered spending.

The collection of Supreme Court rulings known as Citizens Unitedopened the door to the creation of so-called “super PACs” with no spending limits. While high-profile conservatives like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelsonhave been at the center of attention over their political spending, their pockets are hardly the deepest.

More.

An analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that tracks political spending, of groups and individuals who wrote checks of more than $10,000 to super PACs and other political committees found big labor outspent big business by a margin of more than 2-to-1 during 2013.

“When it comes to writing big checks to favored candidates and causes, unions last year seemed to be taking greater advantage of the landmark Citizens United decision than corporations,” saidJacob Fenton, an editorial engineer for the Sunlight Foundation.

You also have to remember in the 2014 elections billionaire tree hugger Tom Steyer spent a boat load of money in super pacs across the United States to promote the green energy and the environment


.

Thank god he lost in almost every one.

 

[Dragonlady]

Citizens United gave the corporations WAY more power than it gave to the unions because it allowed for the creation of PAC's. It allows people like George Soros, Sheldon Edelson, the Koch Bros. to spend $50 million on elections, to fund efforts for gerrymandering. The Koch Bros. funded the Tea Party once they saw it's potential to promote their no taxes, no social programs agenda.

If you question their influence, consider this: Since the Citizen's United decision, the House and Senate have been controlled by the Republican Party, even though Repulicans have consistently lost the popular vote in the House. I'm sure right wingers will have no problem with any of this but even the right wing Supreme Court knew it had gone too far.

In theory, it does benefit the unions, except there are far fewer unions than corporations, few of the private sector unions have big piles of cash to donate or to create PAC's. Most corporations, banks, and brokerage firms donate to both parties to hedge their bets, but privately encourage their employees to vote Republican.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Here is part of a rightwing blog... Yes I know it's from the right... But their is a lot of truth to it



MINNEAPOLIS — The loosening of federal rules for political spending has done more to help Democratsthan Republicans, according to two recent analyses of campaign contributions.

Those facts run counter to a well-established national media narrative — one often repeated by liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers who bemoan the influence of corporate cash in politics after the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 opened the flood gates to unlimited political spending — that says Republicans and their big business allies have been able to unduly influence elections with unfettered spending.

The collection of Supreme Court rulings known as Citizens Unitedopened the door to the creation of so-called “super PACs” with no spending limits. While high-profile conservatives like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelsonhave been at the center of attention over their political spending, their pockets are hardly the deepest.

Sorry, too dimwitted I guess. Still not seeing how Citizens helps the unions or the Dems. They have their Super PACs just like the Repubs do, and I really don't think they have made that much difference since 2010. I may be wrong, but I think overall political spending has been relatively equal since Citizens, maybe the Dems have been little bit ahead.

No your not a dimwit just trying to figure it out and I see your point of view.



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Citizens United gave the corporations WAY more power than it gave to the unions because it allowed for the creation of PAC's. It allows people like George Soros, Sheldon Edelson, the Koch Bros. to spend $50 million on elections, to fund efforts for gerrymandering. The Koch Bros. funded the Tea Party once they saw it's potential to promote their no taxes, no social programs agenda.

If you question their influence, consider this: Since the Citizen's United decision, the House and Senate have been controlled by the Republican Party, even though Repulicans have consistently lost the popular vote in the House. I'm sure right wingers will have no problem with any of this but even the right wing Supreme Court knew it had gone too far.

Trump was way outspent by Hillary, and I also mentioned Tom Steyer in the 2014 elections...spending 70 million in super pacs and did it again last year


https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....ironmentalist-ramps-up-super-pac-spending?amp



.




.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Since Corps have always supported both sides, I don't see the practical difference. Do you have any data that shows Corps supporting one party over the other in a pronounced way since Citizens? If not, then in reality there's no reason to believe Citizens changed much of anything.

You are free to believe as you wish but most unions are liberal and most corporations are conservative. Sure, both will give some money to both sides, but each has a self-interest reason to support one side over the other.

 

[task0778]

Citizens United gave the corporations WAY more power than it gave to the unions because it allowed for the creation of PAC's. It allows people like George Soros, Sheldon Edelson, the Koch Bros. to spend $50 million on elections, to fund efforts for gerrymandering. The Koch Bros. funded the Tea Party once they saw it's potential to promote their no taxes, no social programs agenda.

If you question their influence, consider this: Since the Citizen's United decision, the House and Senate have been controlled by the Republican Party, even though Repulicans have consistently lost the popular vote in the House. I'm sure right wingers will have no problem with any of this but even the right wing Supreme Court knew it had gone too far.

In theory, it does benefit the unions, except there are far fewer unions than corporations, few of the private sector unions have big piles of cash to donate or to create PAC's. Most corporations, banks, and brokerage firms donate to both parties to hedge their bets, but privately encourage their employees to vote Republican.

I highly doubt the gains made in Congress since Citizens has anything to do with that ruling. IMHO the Democrats stopped listening to pretty much everyone else except the far left and it caught up with them. Passing the unpopular ACA didn't help either. You can blame Citizens if you want too, but correlation does not prove causation.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Since Corps have always supported both sides, I don't see the practical difference. Do you have any data that shows Corps supporting one party over the other in a pronounced way since Citizens? If not, then in reality there's no reason to believe Citizens changed much of anything.

You are free to believe as you wish but most unions are liberal and most corporations are conservative. Sure, both will give some money to both sides, but each has a self-interest reason to support one side over the other.

Too bad both sides were not as greedy and could play nice together for the common good then we wouldn't have this problem.

.

 

[task0778]

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.

Since Corps have always supported both sides, I don't see the practical difference. Do you have any data that shows Corps supporting one party over the other in a pronounced way since Citizens? If not, then in reality there's no reason to believe Citizens changed much of anything.

You are free to believe as you wish but most unions are liberal and most corporations are conservative. Sure, both will give some money to both sides, but each has a self-interest reason to support one side over the other.

I'd have to disagree. Unions do not give to conservative candidates or PACs except in the rarest of circumstances. Corps on the other hand are for whoever supports their interests the most, you will find them equally willing to support Dems as much as Repubs if their interest are advanced.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Since Corps have always supported both sides, I don't see the practical difference. Do you have any data that shows Corps supporting one party over the other in a pronounced way since Citizens? If not, then in reality there's no reason to believe Citizens changed much of anything.

You are free to believe as you wish but most unions are liberal and most corporations are conservative. Sure, both will give some money to both sides, but each has a self-interest reason to support one side over the other.

Too bad both sides were not as greedy and could play nice together for the common good then we wouldn't have this problem.

.

Agreed, but that's why so many people think the country is headed in the wrong direction. I think it's that feeling that got Trump elected over Hillary; Hillary was "more of the same" and Trump was "outside the box".

 

[Dragonlady]

Citizens United gave the corporations WAY more power than it gave to the unions because it allowed for the creation of PAC's. It allows people like George Soros, Sheldon Edelson, the Koch Bros. to spend $50 million on elections, to fund efforts for gerrymandering. The Koch Bros. funded the Tea Party once they saw it's potential to promote their no taxes, no social programs agenda.

If you question their influence, consider this: Since the Citizen's United decision, the House and Senate have been controlled by the Republican Party, even though Repulicans have consistently lost the popular vote in the House. I'm sure right wingers will have no problem with any of this but even the right wing Supreme Court knew it had gone too far.

In theory, it does benefit the unions, except there are far fewer unions than corporations, few of the private sector unions have big piles of cash to donate or to create PAC's. Most corporations, banks, and brokerage firms donate to both parties to hedge their bets, but privately encourage their employees to vote Republican.

I highly doubt the gains made in Congress since Citizens has anything to do with that ruling. IMHO the Democrats stopped listening to pretty much everyone else except the far left and it caught up with them. Passing the unpopular ACA didn't help either. You can blame Citizens if you want too, but correlation does not prove causation.

You're absolutely correct, correlation does not prove causation, and I can think of a number of other factors at play that also factored into the results. After Republicans lost the White House in 2008, they went on an absolute media campaign against the Obama Administration.

Although they seldom appeared on the Sunday morning TV shows while W was President (why set yourself up to have to defend W's policies on network TV?), once Obama was sworn in, they were everywhere on the networks criticizing the President and his attempts to stem the bleeding. Even though Obama held the House and Senate, Republicans were 70% of the guests on the network and public network Sunday morning political broadcasts. That's a LOT of free airtime, which Republicans used very effectively to sell the idea that Obama's policies were the wrong way to go.

In my opinion, you fuck up the economy that bad, you've got a lot of damn gall to criticize the guy whose cleaning up your mess, especially when your solution is more of the cut and spend policies that got us all into this mess in the first place. I don't even want to hear from you until you come back with some new ideas, because this cut taxes and spend shit doesn't work. It didn't work for Reagan (stock market crashed in 1987, 6% unemployment rate), and it sure as hell didn't work under W (world economic meltdown, 2008, 10% unemployment rate).

 

[Desperado]

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

Democrats don't give a rat's ass for doing what is best for the American People. The only care about implementing their Socialist/Communist agenda and have proved they have no intention of working together or compromising with the Republicans.
Democrats should be considered enemies of the state.

 

[Correll]

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.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Citizens United gave the corporations WAY more power than it gave to the unions because it allowed for the creation of PAC's. It allows people like George Soros, Sheldon Edelson, the Koch Bros. to spend $50 million on elections, to fund efforts for gerrymandering. The Koch Bros. funded the Tea Party once they saw it's potential to promote their no taxes, no social programs agenda.

If you question their influence, consider this: Since the Citizen's United decision, the House and Senate have been controlled by the Republican Party, even though Repulicans have consistently lost the popular vote in the House. I'm sure right wingers will have no problem with any of this but even the right wing Supreme Court knew it had gone too far.

In theory, it does benefit the unions, except there are far fewer unions than corporations, few of the private sector unions have big piles of cash to donate or to create PAC's. Most corporations, banks, and brokerage firms donate to both parties to hedge their bets, but privately encourage their employees to vote Republican.

I highly doubt the gains made in Congress since Citizens has anything to do with that ruling. IMHO the Democrats stopped listening to pretty much everyone else except the far left and it caught up with them. Passing the unpopular ACA didn't help either. You can blame Citizens if you want too, but correlation does not prove causation.

You're absolutely correct, correlation does not prove causation, and I can think of a number of other factors at play that also factored into the results. After Republicans lost the White House in 2008, they went on an absolute media campaign against the Obama Administration.

Although they seldom appeared on the Sunday morning TV shows while W was President (why set yourself up to have to defend W's policies on network TV?), once Obama was sworn in, they were everywhere on the networks criticizing the President and his attempts to stem the bleeding. Even though Obama held the House and Senate, Republicans were 70% of the guests on the network and public network Sunday morning political broadcasts. That's a LOT of free airtime, which Republicans used very effectively to sell the idea that Obama's policies were the wrong way to go.

In my opinion, you fuck up the economy that bad, you've got a lot of damn gall to criticize the guy whose cleaning up your mess, especially when your solution is more of the cut and spend policies that got us all into this mess in the first place. I don't even want to hear from you until you come back with some new ideas, because this cut taxes and spend shit doesn't work. It didn't work for Reagan (stock market crashed in 1987, 6% unemployment rate), and it sure as hell didn't work under W (world economic meltdown, 2008, 10% unemployment rate).

Democrats stopped caring about the working man, obamacare is a prime example , democrats just say to bad that people's premiums and deductibles went threw the roof...

If it wasn't for Reagan's policies we would have been in worse shape then today, he stopped the bleeding and the onslaught of the world catching up to us.


Funny how the only ideas Obama had were conservative, another stimulus and making like what 80% of Bush jrs tax cut permanent?

 

[task0778]

Citizens United gave the corporations WAY more power than it gave to the unions because it allowed for the creation of PAC's. It allows people like George Soros, Sheldon Edelson, the Koch Bros. to spend $50 million on elections, to fund efforts for gerrymandering. The Koch Bros. funded the Tea Party once they saw it's potential to promote their no taxes, no social programs agenda.

If you question their influence, consider this: Since the Citizen's United decision, the House and Senate have been controlled by the Republican Party, even though Repulicans have consistently lost the popular vote in the House. I'm sure right wingers will have no problem with any of this but even the right wing Supreme Court knew it had gone too far.

In theory, it does benefit the unions, except there are far fewer unions than corporations, few of the private sector unions have big piles of cash to donate or to create PAC's. Most corporations, banks, and brokerage firms donate to both parties to hedge their bets, but privately encourage their employees to vote Republican.

I highly doubt the gains made in Congress since Citizens has anything to do with that ruling. IMHO the Democrats stopped listening to pretty much everyone else except the far left and it caught up with them. Passing the unpopular ACA didn't help either. You can blame Citizens if you want too, but correlation does not prove causation.

You're absolutely correct, correlation does not prove causation, and I can think of a number of other factors at play that also factored into the results. After Republicans lost the White House in 2008, they went on an absolute media campaign against the Obama Administration.

Although they seldom appeared on the Sunday morning TV shows while W was President (why set yourself up to have to defend W's policies on network TV?), once Obama was sworn in, they were everywhere on the networks criticizing the President and his attempts to stem the bleeding. Even though Obama held the House and Senate, Republicans were 70% of the guests on the network and public network Sunday morning political broadcasts. That's a LOT of free airtime, which Republicans used very effectively to sell the idea that Obama's policies were the wrong way to go.

In my opinion, you fuck up the economy that bad, you've got a lot of damn gall to criticize the guy whose cleaning up your mess, especially when your solution is more of the cut and spend policies that got us all into this mess in the first place. I don't even want to hear from you until you come back with some new ideas, because this cut taxes and spend shit doesn't work. It didn't work for Reagan (stock market crashed in 1987, 6% unemployment rate), and it sure as hell didn't work under W (world economic meltdown, 2008, 10% unemployment rate).

First of all, let's not presume that because the big recession hit when W was in office that it was all his fault. It wasn't his policies that were responsible or even contributed to that economic catastrophe, certainly not the 2003 tax cuts. He had a recession to deal with in his 1st year too, and then 9/11 hit. Had we not gone to war in response to that (which BTW many Dems supported at the time), maybe his administration would have been more successful economically speaking. Certainly the years from 2003-2007 leading up to the recession were pretty damn good, so maybe those tax cuts were on the whole a positive influence.

As far as Reagan's tax cuts are concerned, the US enjoyed a lengthy period of economic success for 20 some years after they went into effect. To say they didn't work is a load of crap. And then there's Obama, who's record of sub-par economic growth during his 8 years are the worst since WWII. And the only reason it was even that good was because of the boom in fracking, which he opposed. He spent money like it was water but the only people who benefited were the richest people; everyone else barely treaded water.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Yeah 'the right' seems really hung up on words, which can't hurt you. Isn't this the very definitioin of snowflake. Someone who is devastated by an insult, or a word?

Conservative policy actually harms people, words or 'pc' don't do anything but bruise egos. Huge difference.

You cannot be serious.

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

No, not at all. I just assumed that since your statement was so false that you must be employing satire. I just wasn't sure, judging by your response, I take it that you were actually serious. In which case... there is no hope for your indoctrinated mind.

Yeah 'the right' seems really hung up on words, which can't hurt you.

Except when those words are things like "your a racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist." That, my friend, has very real consequences. Many a career has been ruined by nothing more that this type of allegation, true or not. An allegation that the left seems all too willing to throw around, even when they have nothing to back it up with. So, yeah, words can't hurt you, go on and keep believing that.
Oh, and then there is all the crap about how it's sooooo hurtful to say certain words that they must be, effectively, banned. But nooooo words can't hurt anyone. naive...

Conservative policy actually harms people,

There are ALWAYS winners and losers. It does not matter what political philosophy you subscribe to. Liberal policy hurts people too, the only difference is that those who are hurt by liberal policy don't whine so much about it.

words or 'pc' don't do anything but bruise egos.

Yeah 'the right' seems really hung up on words, which can't hurt you.

Ummmm, which is it again?
If words can't do anything by bruise egos, then why, pray tell, do we even need pc? If all I would do is bruise an ego, then why is it sooooo wrong for me to udder certain words/phrases? It's only bruising an ego. (Don't get me wrong, there are certain words/phrases that should never again be uddered by ANYONE, ever, for any reason.)

The double standard here is amazing!!! You undermine your own argument, with your argument!!! It's really quite comical.

I don't read it if my post is chopped up and parsed Percy. Sorry. If you can't say what you have to say using sentences and paragraphs in one coherent thought I don't have time. Doesn't mean you should change, but I don't read posts like this.

Who is "Percy"?

 

[Divine Wind]

Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys.

True, but the results are not equal. Consider slapping a flat $10,000/year tax on all Americans. It hurts everyone equally, right? Not quite. Why? Some people have more money than others.

Corporations have money, Unions have labor. That's their main difference. So who can afford to throw PACs more money? Corporations, not unions.