More left wing ignorance

[PredFan]

All these articles and all of the left wing media's hand-wringing about Super-PACs.

"They are buying elections!" "Money is ruining elections!" "The 1% are buying our future!" "The sky is falling!"

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!!!!!!!!"

Unless I woke up in another dimension, votes from actual people count. Unless things have drastically changed, the Super-PAC money doesn't go to voters in return for some kind of guarantee that they will vote a certain way.

Is the left just saying stupid shit in preparation for what they will push on us if obama loses? If they lose the Senate and the White House will they try to claim it was because the 1% or the EEEEEEEEEVILL corporations bought the election?

I guarantee you that if Super-PACs were contributing more to obama than to Romney, the left would consider it the best and most fair thing to ever happen to elections. So what if they are spending a bajillion dollars on attack ads? It isn't as if obama only had a dollar to his name and couldn't afford to buy attack ads. In fact, ads attacking Romney is practically all I've seen so far. The sheer number of attack ads against Romney make ads against obama appear as rare as a Lindsey Lohan appearance in AA meetings, as scarce as a pair of flats in Ryan Seacrest's shoe rack.

Um....sorry, channeling Dennis Miller for a minute there.

Anyway, if your point is the question of whether politicians are then beholden to those corporations and special interest groups after they win well, if you believe that they aren't beholden to them already, you are more out of touch with reality than Gary Busey on heroin.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Money is indeed ruining our political system, and which party may be benefiting more at any given time is irrelevant.

.

 

[jillian]

.

Money is indeed ruining our political system, and which party may be benefiting more at any given time is irrelevant.

.

shhhhhhh... facts are meaningless to him.

imagine his fauxrage if the SuperPAC's were on the other foot...

you know, like they lose their minds about union donations.

 

[PredFan]

.

Money is indeed ruining our political system, and which party may be benefiting more at any given time is irrelevant.

.

Actually, I'm referring to elections, but I'll agree that money is ruining politics.

Money is, but it's the money needed for a politician to run that is ruining it. An person with an income of $70k/year and many great ideas, couldn't run for public office. It would bankrupt him in a heartbeat. That's different from the PAC money. PAC money isn't ruining politics.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow, Predfan. You accomplished something there. You managed to be much less funny than the unfunny guy that you were "channelling".

Mac is right. The issues of campaign finance reform and lobbyist interest in government should be things we agree on as concerned citizens.

 

[PredFan]

.

Money is indeed ruining our political system, and which party may be benefiting more at any given time is irrelevant.

.

shhhhhhh... facts are meaningless to him.

imagine his fauxrage if the SuperPAC's were on the other foot...

you know, like they lose their minds about union donations.

What facts? He presented no facts.

When obama was projected to raise a billion dollars for his re-election bid, you didn't hear me say that they sky is falling.

Have some coffe Jillian, you are off your game this morning.

 

[uscitizen]

We have the best government that money can buy.
Hows that working out?

 

[naturegirl]

Obamavider is falling short of his fundraising goals. If he wasn't this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

 

[PredFan]

Wow, Predfan. You accomplished something there. You managed to be much less funny than the unfunny guy that you were "channelling".

Yeah well, he gets paid to do it and I don't.

Mac is right. The issues of campaign finance reform and lobbyist interest in government should be things we agree on as concerned citizens.

Funny hiow you lefties are only concerned when you side is on the short end of that stick.

 

[PredFan]

We have the best government that money can buy.
Hows that working out?

You are saying that money put obama where he is?

 

[GuyPinestra]

.

Money is indeed ruining our political system, and which party may be benefiting more at any given time is irrelevant.

.

shhhhhhh... facts are meaningless to him.

imagine his fauxrage if the SuperPAC's were on the other foot...

you know, like they lose their minds about union donations.

You're all good with unions extorting money from workers and giving it to the Dems, but you have a problem with others VOLUNTARILY giving money to the Reps?

Hypocrisy much?

 

[Mad Scientist]

When Money buys Obama's election: Good!
When Money buys Romney's election: Bad!

Americans are stupid and easily manipulated.

 

[bripat9643]

.

Money is indeed ruining our political system, and which party may be benefiting more at any given time is irrelevant.

.

The money ruining our political system is the $4 trillion the government hands out every year to various constituencies. If there wasn't $4 trillion up for grabs at every election, it wouldn't be worth it for so many people to invest in trying to get a piece of it.

 

[PredFan]

If you read the OP, you will realize that I'm referring to the prolification of articles and stories on "Super-PACs" from the left wing media. These articles bemoan the imagined effect they have on the election.

If you want to have a discussion of how money is ruining politics in general, well, you'll find very few people on either side of the isle who will disagree.

 

[uscitizen]

We have the best government that money can buy.
Hows that working out?

You are saying that money put obama where he is?

Yep it put virtually all of our gummit in there.

I am not an Obama fan.
I am a fiscally conservative social liberal.

Edit, on second thought Bush played a large part of Obama getting elected.
But Obama did not live up to his promises and turned out to be Bush III.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If we had an educated populace that took the time to research the people they were voting for it wouldn't matter how much money the Koch Bros. contributed or George Clooney raised.

 

[bripat9643]

We have the best government that money can buy.
Hows that working out?

Dims are the ones who put the government up for sale every election. Just watch Obama promising college students free tuition, and everyone else a piece of the "1%." He doesn't display an iota of shame over it. No Democrat ever does. In their eyes, the wealth of America's citizens is free for Congress to dispose of.

 

[jillian]

If we had an educated populace that took the time to research the people they were voting for it wouldn't matter how much money the Koch Bros. contributed or George Clooney raised.

depends on where you're getting you're 'educating' from.

i think the wingers on both sides here think they're 'educated'.

and saying that money doesn't change the landscape is simply silly.

you want a truly educated populace...get the money out of politics. a set amount of government funds for each candidate and that's it.

 

[PredFan]

If we had an educated populace that took the time to research the people they were voting for it wouldn't matter how much money the Koch Bros. contributed or George Clooney raised.

Ding ding ding ding!

But alas, we don't.

 

[PredFan]

If we had an educated populace that took the time to research the people they were voting for it wouldn't matter how much money the Koch Bros. contributed or George Clooney raised.

depends on where you're getting you're 'educating' from.

i think the wingers on both sides here think they're 'educated'.

and saying that money doesn't change the landscape is simply silly.

you want a truly educated populace...get the money out of politics. a set amount of government funds for each candidate and that's it.

I never claimed that money doesn't change the political landscape.

How would getting money out of politics result in educated voters?

Really, have some coffee.