Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
[/QUOTE]Union money?[QUOTE="Obiwan, post: 11060887, member: 54099"]Damn, give a monkey a typewriter and enough time, he just might finally type something that makes sense. Tell Obama we're proud of him. It took him 6 years to do it, but he's finally on to something .
Of course, he needs to get Congress on board and get something enforceable. You know, it never hurts to have adults involved.
Good luck in Utopia. Because money will always play a part. The incumbent always has an advantage and the only way to overcome that is advertising. And that's expensive.NO, the alternative is a democratic republic where what matters is what you know and do, NOT from which birth canal you came or how much money you have.The alternative is an inherited oligarchy that shuts out every new comer. No thanks.Being against ending Citizens United is like being against net neutrality. It gives the bulk of the power to those with the most money. Instead of a democratic republic, we'll develop into a plutocracy. Like most elites, they'll then try their hardest to keep others from joining the club.
The House of Representatives are your street corner hookers. A cheap lay.
Senator are your call girls. They cost a lot more, but they make house calls.
You would be shocked at how much time a Congressman spends every day begging for cash. Your vision is not very far off the mark.The House of Representatives are your street corner hookers. A cheap lay.
Senator are your call girls. They cost a lot more, but they make house calls.
I'm sorry, I just had a revolting vision of McConnell in high heels, cheap lipstick and gaudy perfume knocking at some hotel suite....(LOL)
Although I'm against "unions'" contributions also, at the very least, most of that money is going to try to help common workers......Huge corporations' "contributions" go to make a relatively few board members and CEOs filthy rich .
Good luck in Utopia. Because money will always play a part. The incumbent always has an advantage and the only way to overcome that is advertising. And that's expensive.NO, the alternative is a democratic republic where what matters is what you know and do, NOT from which birth canal you came or how much money you have.The alternative is an inherited oligarchy that shuts out every new comer. No thanks.Being against ending Citizens United is like being against net neutrality. It gives the bulk of the power to those with the most money. Instead of a democratic republic, we'll develop into a plutocracy. Like most elites, they'll then try their hardest to keep others from joining the club.
I have no problem with lobbyists per se. Our representatives need info from all sides to come to a decision. My concern is that when there's money attached in the form of campaign donations, info goes out the window in favor of pumping up the campaign coffer. That's why I favor public financing of elections. It would eliminate the buying and selling of votes and would our representatives would have more free time to actually read a few bills. It's more important to me than term limits. I feel that leads to a lot of novices in government and takes away my freedom to vote for whomever I wish.Our politicians are the whores. The have what the customer wants: power. The special interests who buy their favors are their johns. The lobbyists are the pimps. They connect the whores to the johns and reap the most profit.
You have to give him a thumbs up, if he does go after Citizens United.It's not a ban. And Citizens United noted requiring disclosure is not unconstitutional. BUT, the cynicism of the decision is the Justices all knew that neither side wants THEIR contributors disclosed. McCain Feingold was a balancing act in which both parties essentially agreed to take a hit for the betterment of the country. Politicians were still for sale, but the price was capped, essentially.
The scotus was right in Citizens United that people are smart enough to figure out partisan stuff and what Pols are selling IF they know who's doing the buying. The scotus was either naïve, or supported the plutocracy, when Kennedy understated how much money was going to be unleashed. (my vote is for the latter and not naïve)
You dont understand. I am for more money in politics. I am against forcing non profits to disclose donors, which is unconstitutional in any case. Why would i want to support Obama's attempt to suppress freedom and democracy?Good luck in Utopia. Because money will always play a part. The incumbent always has an advantage and the only way to overcome that is advertising. And that's expensive.NO, the alternative is a democratic republic where what matters is what you know and do, NOT from which birth canal you came or how much money you have.The alternative is an inherited oligarchy that shuts out every new comer. No thanks.Being against ending Citizens United is like being against net neutrality. It gives the bulk of the power to those with the most money. Instead of a democratic republic, we'll develop into a plutocracy. Like most elites, they'll then try their hardest to keep others from joining the club.
Well, actually Utopia really means "no-place" and rather than belittling the possible effort by Obama to stem this corruption, you should join others in signing the petition for Obama to take action.
(and castigate the SCOTUS for joining in the corruption.)
One of the great freedoms we have in this country is freedom of association. You can donate your pennies and dollars to any organization you choose, and thereby have your voice amplified a thousand times over.I have no problem with lobbyists per se. Our representatives need info from all sides to come to a decision. My concern is that when there's money attached in the form of campaign donations, info goes out the window in favor of pumping up the campaign coffer. That's why I favor public financing of elections. It would eliminate the buying and selling of votes and would our representatives would have more free time to actually read a few bills. It's more important to me than term limits. I feel that leads to a lot of novices in government and takes away my freedom to vote for whomever I wish.Our politicians are the whores. The have what the customer wants: power. The special interests who buy their favors are their johns. The lobbyists are the pimps. They connect the whores to the johns and reap the most profit.
Wouldn't the plutocrats win the vote the overwhelming number of times? You're talking pennies vs. dollars. More dollars DOES NOT mean more popular, it just means more dollars.If there are two ideas competing for the hearts and minds of Americans, our collective donations to the organizations which support our views is a way of voting. The more popular idea gets the most cash and therefore has the best chance of winning.
You have to give him a thumbs up, if he does go after Citizens United.It's not a ban. And Citizens United noted requiring disclosure is not unconstitutional. BUT, the cynicism of the decision is the Justices all knew that neither side wants THEIR contributors disclosed. McCain Feingold was a balancing act in which both parties essentially agreed to take a hit for the betterment of the country. Politicians were still for sale, but the price was capped, essentially.
The scotus was right in Citizens United that people are smart enough to figure out partisan stuff and what Pols are selling IF they know who's doing the buying. The scotus was either naïve, or supported the plutocracy, when Kennedy understated how much money was going to be unleashed. (my vote is for the latter and not naïve)
Though does he really stand much of a chance of success, or is this just a decision of the moment for publicity thing that goes nowhere?
Ask Kay Hagen how that worked out for her.Wouldn't the plutocrats win the vote the overwhelming number of times? You're talking pennies vs. dollars. More dollars DOES NOT mean more popular, it just means more dollars.If there are two ideas competing for the hearts and minds of Americans, our collective donations to the organizations which support our views is a way of voting. The more popular idea gets the most cash and therefore has the best chance of winning.
He must realize that a lot of his base is turning away, and that a lot of Democrats are just giving up, till 2016 that is.You have to give him a thumbs up, if he does go after Citizens United.It's not a ban. And Citizens United noted requiring disclosure is not unconstitutional. BUT, the cynicism of the decision is the Justices all knew that neither side wants THEIR contributors disclosed. McCain Feingold was a balancing act in which both parties essentially agreed to take a hit for the betterment of the country. Politicians were still for sale, but the price was capped, essentially.
The scotus was right in Citizens United that people are smart enough to figure out partisan stuff and what Pols are selling IF they know who's doing the buying. The scotus was either naïve, or supported the plutocracy, when Kennedy understated how much money was going to be unleashed. (my vote is for the latter and not naïve)
Though does he really stand much of a chance of success, or is this just a decision of the moment for publicity thing that goes nowhere?
I sincerely do not know if Obama will follow through...although as one who has little to lose, Obama, may just say, "the hell with it" and take the heat for acting on his own through EOs. Mindful, however, that he has once before spoken out against the SCOTUS decision.
You dont understand. I am for more money in politics. I am against forcing non profits to disclose donors, which is unconstitutional in any case. Why would i want to support Obama's attempt to suppress freedom and democracy?Good luck in Utopia. Because money will always play a part. The incumbent always has an advantage and the only way to overcome that is advertising. And that's expensive.NO, the alternative is a democratic republic where what matters is what you know and do, NOT from which birth canal you came or how much money you have.The alternative is an inherited oligarchy that shuts out every new comer. No thanks.Being against ending Citizens United is like being against net neutrality. It gives the bulk of the power to those with the most money. Instead of a democratic republic, we'll develop into a plutocracy. Like most elites, they'll then try their hardest to keep others from joining the club.
Well, actually Utopia really means "no-place" and rather than belittling the possible effort by Obama to stem this corruption, you should join others in signing the petition for Obama to take action.
(and castigate the SCOTUS for joining in the corruption.)
I have no problem with unlimited campaign donations.
I do have a problem with "dark money". I would like to know where a politician got hisbribescampaign donations from. And I would bet most Americans feel the same way.
Those corrupt individuals who have the rubes blinded to what is going on are going to screw the pooch.