Is it ok for Google to contribute to any politican?

[Crepitus]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

 

[Defiant1]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

You must have a damn bigger bucket than I do...this is what they dumped into the 2018 election cycle.

 

[Defiant1]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

You must have a damn bigger bucket than I do...this is what they dumped into the 2018 election cycle.

View attachment 273891

Ah, so you don't like that they contribute to more than one candidate.

What should the limit be as to how many candidates an individual can contribute?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

It's not even about citizen united. Would you want contributors of Donald Trump running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft amazon?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

You must have a damn bigger bucket than I do...this is what they dumped into the 2018 election cycle.

View attachment 273891

Ah, so you don't like that they contribute to more than one candidate.

What should the limit be as to how many candidates an individual can contribute?

I think when you contribute to a bunch of candidates that are connected you have more influence than if you just do one...and then there are the PACs which help the candidate but are not officially tied to the candidate.

I do not think there should be a limit, it is part of your expression of your 1st amendment rights.

 

[Dragonlady]

That makes no sense to draw that line.

It makes a lot of sense I have the power to control what you put on the internet If it agrees with my political view I will allow it.

That is called free speech. What has it to do with contributions to political campaigns?

Free speech? and depriving those of free speech for views I don't like?

It's called private property. Right wingers generally promote the freedom of the individual to do what one wants with it without government interference. Does this no longer apply across the board? Did right wingers suddenly find the concept of relativism to their liking?

so it's ok for a political party to control all information on the internet in your opinion?

So it's OK for racists to promote ideas of racial superiority that have no basis in science or in fact, and trade ideas of how to effectively murder people, and ratchet up the body counts for "inferiors", or to promote the idea that the white race is under attack and about to be replaced.

Therein lies the problem for radicals. You right wingers are going ballistic at the idea of ISIS radicalizing Muslims in Western democracies resulting in terrorist attacks against the populations, but are willing to give a total pass to white supremacists radicalizing racists is Western democracies to the same effect.

The first thing Trump did in the President's office was to disband all of the forces fighting against radical white supremacist terrorism in the USA. Even as such attacks continue to rise, the Trump administration refuses to acknowledge or even admit that white supremacists are even a problem.

 

[Dragonlady]

As long as we're going to allow money to pollute & distort politics, and as long as we refuse to require term limits, this is going to happen.

We can bitch and moan about it all we want, but we're ignoring the bigger picture. We're certainly good at that.

I strongly disagree with you on term limits, Mac. You need people with experience on how the government works to get things done. Term limits throw those people out as soon as they get to the point where they could get anything done.

If you get the money out of politics with both spending limits on candidates, as well as donation limits on individuals and banning PAC's altogether, you won't need term limits. It's the obscene amounts of money needed to run for public office that are poisoning the well, and keeping politicians beholding to the biggest donors.

Citizen's United needs to be legislated out of existence, but political lobbying and fundraising is now a big bucks industry with its own lobbyists. Any time you have billionaires spending $50 million dollars funding one party, it's not healthy at all. How much more is it worth to these people to make these kinds of investments? What are these people getting in return for their money? Is it any wonder that the working people of America have been consistently screwed over since Republicans took control of the economy under Ronald Reagan?

In Canada, we had a system whereby our taxes funded the election campaigns. About $2 per person. The parties received the election money according to the number of votes received. Of when the Conservatives won the election, they cancelled this funding, and sadly, the Liberals haven't reinstated it. But it was VERY effective keeping votes from being bought by moneyed interests. Once Conservatives killed the program, wages stagnated and the wealth gap increased.

In the US it is illegal to buy votes.

It's also illegal to buy politicians, but it's done every single day. Look at the number of politicians who line up to get funding from the Koch Bros. You think the Koch Bros. are donating $50 million and getting nothing in return?

Nobody bought votes in Canada either. Canadians paid $2 per person into an election fund which was divvied up among the parties according to the number of votes the party received, riding by riding. This system was really helpful to smaller parties, since it gave them funding for votes. The more they put platforms in place to deal with the public's concerns, the more votes they got.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

Can you fund a PAC for $50 million? The Koch Brothers can and do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It makes a lot of sense I have the power to control what you put on the internet If it agrees with my political view I will allow it.

That is called free speech. What has it to do with contributions to political campaigns?

Free speech? and depriving those of free speech for views I don't like?

It's called private property. Right wingers generally promote the freedom of the individual to do what one wants with it without government interference. Does this no longer apply across the board? Did right wingers suddenly find the concept of relativism to their liking?

so it's ok for a political party to control all information on the internet in your opinion?

So it's OK for racists to promote ideas of racial superiority that have no basis in science or in fact, and trade ideas of how to effectively murder people, and ratchet up the body counts for "inferiors", or to promote the idea that the white race is under attack and about to be replaced.

Therein lies the problem for radicals. You right wingers are going ballistic at the idea of ISIS radicalizing Muslims in Western democracies resulting in terrorist attacks against the populations, but are willing to give a total pass to white supremacists radicalizing racists is Western democracies to the same effect.

The first thing Trump did in the President's office was to disband all of the forces fighting against radical white supremacist terrorism in the USA. Even as such attacks continue to rise, the Trump administration refuses to acknowledge or even admit that white supremacists are even a problem.

do your self a favor come back when you aren't so TDS influenced.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

Can you fund a PAC for $50 million? The Koch Brothers can and do.

You do realize the KOCH brothers are antitrumpers?

 

[Crepitus]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

Wrong. So wrong it seems you are being deliberately misleading. There are other ways to financially support a chosen candidate than direct contributions. You know this as well as I.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

It's not even about citizen united. Would you want contributors of Donald Trump running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft amazon?

It is about citizens United and I think I made it pretty clear I don't support it from either side of the aisle.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

You must have a damn bigger bucket than I do...this is what they dumped into the 2018 election cycle.

View attachment 273891

Ah, so you don't like that they contribute to more than one candidate.

What should the limit be as to how many candidates an individual can contribute?

I think when you contribute to a bunch of candidates that are connected you have more influence than if you just do one...and then there are the PACs which help the candidate but are not officially tied to the candidate.

I do not think there should be a limit, it is part of your expression of your 1st amendment rights.

I think the limit should be $0.00 or somewhere close.

 

[Defiant1]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

Wrong. So wrong it seems you are being deliberately misleading. There are other ways to financially support a chosen candidate than direct contributions. You know this as well as I.

Please tell us.

 

[Defiant1]

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

You must have a damn bigger bucket than I do...this is what they dumped into the 2018 election cycle.

View attachment 273891

Ah, so you don't like that they contribute to more than one candidate.

What should the limit be as to how many candidates an individual can contribute?

I think when you contribute to a bunch of candidates that are connected you have more influence than if you just do one...and then there are the PACs which help the candidate but are not officially tied to the candidate.

I do not think there should be a limit, it is part of your expression of your 1st amendment rights.

I think the limit should be $0.00 or somewhere close.

So only people who can fund their own campaigns can run for office?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

It's not even about citizen united. Would you want contributors of Donald Trump running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft amazon?

It is about citizens United and I think I made it pretty clear I don't support it from either side of the aisle.

I'm not talking about citizens united this thread isn't about citizen united.
So don't dodge my question Would you want contributors of Donald Trump running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft amazon?

 

[Crepitus]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

Can you fund a PAC for $50 million? The Koch Brothers can and do.

You do realize the KOCH brothers are antitrumpers?

They weren't in 2016.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

The bucket of money a Koch brother can dump on a candidate is no bigger than the bucket you or I have.

Wrong. So wrong it seems you are being deliberately misleading. There are other ways to financially support a chosen candidate than direct contributions. You know this as well as I.

Please tell us.

Are you trying to say you've never heard of PACs?

 

[Crepitus]

Yes or no.

You conservitards really need to rethink that whole Citizens United thing.

Funny how you thought it was a good think when the Koch Bros were dumping buckets of money over your candidates but don't think it's so grand when it's on the other side of the aisle.

Just for the record I have said it was a bad idea all along and still think it is even if my "side" may be benefitting from it for a change.

It's not even about citizen united. Would you want contributors of Donald Trump running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft amazon?

It is about citizens United and I think I made it pretty clear I don't support it from either side of the aisle.

I'm not talking about citizens united this thread isn't about citizen united.
So don't dodge my question Would you want contributors of Donald Trump running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft amazon?

This thread is all about citizens United, why are you trying to say it's not?