When liberals talk about banning private donations to political campaigns...

Pedro de San Patricio

Gold Member
Feb 14, 2015
2,061
271
140
California
Do they actually mean all donations, or just Republican ones? On the one hand, they tend to use pretty generic/inclusive language about it, but on the other the only examples they give are of their enemies doing it. You don't really hear the "get money out of politics" crowd talk much about Soros or Steyer, and never in non-positive terms (despite their own donors giving even more than conservative ones).
 
Do they actually mean all donations, or just Republican ones? On the one hand, they tend to use pretty generic/inclusive language about it, but on the other the only examples they give are of their enemies doing it. You don't really hear the "get money out of politics" crowd talk much about Soros or Steyer, and never in non-positive terms (despite their own donors giving even more than conservative ones).
Damn! You saw right through us non-godfearing, marxist, gun-grabbing, muslim, anti-christian, homosexual lefties didn't you? Of course we mean just republican donations.

Can't get anything past you.
 
If the attack on big money in politics often seems like an attack on republicans there is a good reason for that. Democrats could do just fine without them but republicans would be fucked just having to make do with small individual donations, it's why they worked so hard to get the rules changed.
 
If the attack on big money in politics often seems like an attack on republicans there is a good reason for that. Democrats could do just fine without them but republicans would be fucked just having to make do with small individual donations, it's why they worked so hard to get the rules changed.
It only seems like an attack on Republicans (I'm not one myself btw) because one party that does it is attacking another party for doing it using broad language with a very narrow meaning. I mean, shit. Just look at who funded Harry Reid's election: the same billionaire donors he pretends don't exist on his side, such as Soros and Stephen Spielberg.
 
If the attack on big money in politics often seems like an attack on republicans there is a good reason for that. Democrats could do just fine without them but republicans would be fucked just having to make do with small individual donations, it's why they worked so hard to get the rules changed.
It only seems like an attack on Republicans (I'm not one myself btw) because one party that does it is attacking another party for doing it using broad language with a very narrow meaning. I mean, shit. Just look at who funded Harry Reid's election: the same billionaire donors he pretends don't exist on his side, such as Soros and Stephen Spielberg.
Yeah, I know democrats have their rich donors, they take their money but they would not need it at all if they were not facing the super PAC monster republicans created. Quit trying to go for equivalency, no democrat wanted this state of affairs but they would be fools not to take advantage of it, get elected and attempt to force all that dark republican money out in the open.
 
If the attack on big money in politics often seems like an attack on republicans there is a good reason for that. Democrats could do just fine without them but republicans would be fucked just having to make do with small individual donations, it's why they worked so hard to get the rules changed.
It only seems like an attack on Republicans (I'm not one myself btw) because one party that does it is attacking another party for doing it using broad language with a very narrow meaning. I mean, shit. Just look at who funded Harry Reid's election: the same billionaire donors he pretends don't exist on his side, such as Soros and Stephen Spielberg.
Yeah, I know democrats have their rich donors, they take their money but they would not need it at all if they were not facing the super PAC monster republicans created. Quit trying to go for equivalency, no democrat wanted this state of affairs but they would be fools not to take advantage of it, get elected and attempt to force all that dark republican money out in the open.

At least none of the Democrats have any super PAC monsters. LMFAO.
 
If the attack on big money in politics often seems like an attack on republicans there is a good reason for that. Democrats could do just fine without them but republicans would be fucked just having to make do with small individual donations, it's why they worked so hard to get the rules changed.
It only seems like an attack on Republicans (I'm not one myself btw) because one party that does it is attacking another party for doing it using broad language with a very narrow meaning. I mean, shit. Just look at who funded Harry Reid's election: the same billionaire donors he pretends don't exist on his side, such as Soros and Stephen Spielberg.
Yeah, I know democrats have their rich donors, they take their money but they would not need it at all if they were not facing the super PAC monster republicans created. Quit trying to go for equivalency, no democrat wanted this state of affairs but they would be fools not to take advantage of it, get elected and attempt to force all that dark republican money out in the open.

At least none of the Democrats have any super PAC monsters. LMFAO.
Of course they do, the difference is that they would make them illegal in their current form tomorrow if they could.
 
If the attack on big money in politics often seems like an attack on republicans there is a good reason for that. Democrats could do just fine without them but republicans would be fucked just having to make do with small individual donations, it's why they worked so hard to get the rules changed.
It only seems like an attack on Republicans (I'm not one myself btw) because one party that does it is attacking another party for doing it using broad language with a very narrow meaning. I mean, shit. Just look at who funded Harry Reid's election: the same billionaire donors he pretends don't exist on his side, such as Soros and Stephen Spielberg.
Yeah, I know democrats have their rich donors, they take their money but they would not need it at all if they were not facing the super PAC monster republicans created. Quit trying to go for equivalency, no democrat wanted this state of affairs but they would be fools not to take advantage of it, get elected and attempt to force all that dark republican money out in the open.


No, they didn't want it...

They wanted to stay at the top of the donations list, with little or no competition at all
 
If the attack on big money in politics often seems like an attack on republicans there is a good reason for that. Democrats could do just fine without them but republicans would be fucked just having to make do with small individual donations, it's why they worked so hard to get the rules changed.
It only seems like an attack on Republicans (I'm not one myself btw) because one party that does it is attacking another party for doing it using broad language with a very narrow meaning. I mean, shit. Just look at who funded Harry Reid's election: the same billionaire donors he pretends don't exist on his side, such as Soros and Stephen Spielberg.
Yeah, I know democrats have their rich donors, they take their money but they would not need it at all if they were not facing the super PAC monster republicans created. Quit trying to go for equivalency, no democrat wanted this state of affairs but they would be fools not to take advantage of it, get elected and attempt to force all that dark republican money out in the open.

At least none of the Democrats have any super PAC monsters. LMFAO.
Of course they do, the difference is that they would make them illegal in their current form tomorrow if they could.

Of course they would, and check for something under you pillow from the tooth fairy.
 
Do they actually mean all donations, or just Republican ones? On the one hand, they tend to use pretty generic/inclusive language about it, but on the other the only examples they give are of their enemies doing it. You don't really hear the "get money out of politics" crowd talk much about Soros or Steyer, and never in non-positive terms (despite their own donors giving even more than conservative ones).
It's a money game. "ALL" politicians receive money, gifts, favors, and anything else you can imagine. Politicians are bought and paid for, all of them, no exceptions. Legislation and policy is bought and paid for. "The Washington Brotherhood" is bought and paid for. The money comes from corporations, the financials, the wealthy, the powerful, the influential, foreign governments, Lobbyists, and private citizens.

Both political parties take money, gifts and favors, no exceptions. And, the money flows through many different channels. Some of it hidden, some of it not hidden. All candidates are "on-the-take".
 
[QUOTE="
Both political parties take money, gifts and favors, no exceptions. And, the money flows through many different channels. Some of it hidden, some of it not hidden. All candidates are "on-the-take".[/QUOTE]


Yes. Thank you.
 
Do they actually mean all donations, or just Republican ones? On the one hand, they tend to use pretty generic/inclusive language about it, but on the other the only examples they give are of their enemies doing it. You don't really hear the "get money out of politics" crowd talk much about Soros or Steyer, and never in non-positive terms (despite their own donors giving even more than conservative ones).

Perhaps you can provide an example of some liberal talking about banning private donations?

I can't remember ever seeing anyone saying that they want to ban all private donations.
 
What if we denied rich people from donating to political campaigns? Wouldn't we be denying someone there right to participate in the political system.
 
What if we denied rich people from donating to political campaigns? Wouldn't we be denying someone there right to participate in the political system.
Politics is one thing, money is another. The two should mix as little as possible. A lesson we keep having to learn over, and over, and over again it seems.
 

Forum List

Back
Top