barbara boxer is low on the "take".
drama's meltdown at the sheer thought of fatca is enough to know we are on the right course.
winner of "let them eat cake" moment..i wanted to vomit when she said that.
Some are more equal than others...
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
drama's meltdown at the sheer thought of fatca is enough to know we are on the right course.
AlecTheGardener
Well-Known Member
No, clearly bigotry. Theexpress clearly hates Serbs and doesn't care if you are a criminal or a small child, if you are Serb he clearly dislikes them. He then went on to generalize all Serbians as rapists and war criminals, some Serbians JUST were born and his statements encompass all Serbians.
Bigotry, plain and simple.
I would go so far as to consider putting him on ignore if he continues like that in the future, his posts are an excellent example of hatred in that thread.
It's his hate to have, I just don't think I will be reading it anymore.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I agree.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Would you prefer they made a career of collecting money from the labor of others?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Obama: Time for a constitutional amendment to fight money in U.S. politics
"WASHINGTON – With money pouring into American political campaigns at a torrential pace, President Barack Obama has begun promoting the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution to slow the flow.
The former constitutional-law-professor-turned-commander-in-chief has become an increasingly vocal advocate for a constitutionally mandated curb on campaign donations.
Its basic aim would be to scrap a landmark Supreme Court decision in the 2010 Citizens United case. The court triggered a gusher of spending by companies, unions and other organizations by declaring that organizations have free-speech rights.
The subsequent election saw US$6.3 billion spent on presidential and congressional races in 2012, according to the group the Center for Responsive Politics – more than double what was spent in the U.S. in 2000.
“I would love to see some constitutional process that would allow us to actually regulate campaign spending the way we used to, and maybe even improve it,” Obama said in an interview with the Vox site, released Monday.
He’s floated the idea before. A book on the influx of cash in political campaigns, “Big Money,” says Obama told a private gathering of wealthy donors, including Bill Gates, that this would require a multi-year effort.
“I taught constitutional law,” the book quotes Obama telling that audience after the 2012 election. “I don’t tinker with the Constitution lightly. But I think this is important enough.”
Obama is quoted saying that because he’s run his last campaign, he’s free to use his so-called bully pulpit to argue for this cause. It appears he’s doing it, first with comments in a 2012 social-media interview on Reddit and even more adamantly now with Vox.
Given his former career, he’s surely aware of the obstacles on the path he’s proposing. A constitutional amendment might be even harder to achieve in the U.S. now than in Canada, as it requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of a polarized U.S. Congress, followed by ratification in three-quarters of the state legislatures.
The last such amendment set a mandatory delay for lawmakers’ raises to kick in, until after elections. The 27th Amendment finally passed in 1992 – a full 202 years after it was first proposed.
But the sponsor of a campaign-finance amendment argued Monday that it’s urgent.
Sen. Bernie Sanders said the U.S. is starting to resemble an oligarchy more than a democracy. He used a proposed oil pipeline from Canada to argue that American politics responds not to the people – but only to the hyper-rich.
Sanders said there’s no reason that a bill to build the Keystone XL pipeline should have been the No. 1 priority of the new Republican-controlled Senate – if not for the fact that the same Koch brothers who own so many oilsands leases in Alberta donate heavily to political campaigns.
The Koch brothers’ network has announced plans to spend $889 million in the 2016 election.
A research project last year gave ammunition to critics like Sanders, who say money has infected the American experiment in governance of, by and for the people.
Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern concluded that public opinion is almost irrelevant to modern American lawmaking. They found that a bill stands almost no chance of becoming law without the support of the 10 per cent of wealthiest Americans – no matter how wildly popular it might be with everyone else.
“Maybe the game is over. Maybe they’ve bought the United States government. Maybe there is no turning back,” Sanders, an Independent, told the Brookings Institution on Monday.
“I surely hope not.”
Before the midterm elections, Sanders introduced a constitutional amendment that would prohibit corporate donations to campaigns. It received a majority of votes in the Senate, but none from Republicans and fell short of the two-thirds threshold.
Opponents of Sanders’ effort called it an attempt to curb free speech. A common argument against spending limits is that they would limit the spread of new, perhaps unpopular, ideas.
Reform advocates have also expressed frustration with Obama.
The book, “Big Money,” quotes one named Cynthia Canary who has known Obama for years and calls his presidency “extraordinarily disappointing,” because of the lack of effort he’s put into the issue so far.
In his first presidential run, Obama opted out of the public financing plan for his campaign because. It would have meant agreeing to a spending limit, and he was raising more money than his rival, John McCain.
Obama now laments that the new reality forces politicians to spend so much time fundraising. He should know – he attended at least 65 fundraisers last year."
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/world-news/2015/02/09/obama-time-for-a-constitutional-amendment-to-fight-money-in-us-politics/
"WASHINGTON – With money pouring into American political campaigns at a torrential pace, President Barack Obama has begun promoting the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution to slow the flow.
The former constitutional-law-professor-turned-commander-in-chief has become an increasingly vocal advocate for a constitutionally mandated curb on campaign donations.
Its basic aim would be to scrap a landmark Supreme Court decision in the 2010 Citizens United case. The court triggered a gusher of spending by companies, unions and other organizations by declaring that organizations have free-speech rights.
The subsequent election saw US$6.3 billion spent on presidential and congressional races in 2012, according to the group the Center for Responsive Politics – more than double what was spent in the U.S. in 2000.
“I would love to see some constitutional process that would allow us to actually regulate campaign spending the way we used to, and maybe even improve it,” Obama said in an interview with the Vox site, released Monday.
He’s floated the idea before. A book on the influx of cash in political campaigns, “Big Money,” says Obama told a private gathering of wealthy donors, including Bill Gates, that this would require a multi-year effort.
“I taught constitutional law,” the book quotes Obama telling that audience after the 2012 election. “I don’t tinker with the Constitution lightly. But I think this is important enough.”
Obama is quoted saying that because he’s run his last campaign, he’s free to use his so-called bully pulpit to argue for this cause. It appears he’s doing it, first with comments in a 2012 social-media interview on Reddit and even more adamantly now with Vox.
Given his former career, he’s surely aware of the obstacles on the path he’s proposing. A constitutional amendment might be even harder to achieve in the U.S. now than in Canada, as it requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of a polarized U.S. Congress, followed by ratification in three-quarters of the state legislatures.
The last such amendment set a mandatory delay for lawmakers’ raises to kick in, until after elections. The 27th Amendment finally passed in 1992 – a full 202 years after it was first proposed.
But the sponsor of a campaign-finance amendment argued Monday that it’s urgent.
Sen. Bernie Sanders said the U.S. is starting to resemble an oligarchy more than a democracy. He used a proposed oil pipeline from Canada to argue that American politics responds not to the people – but only to the hyper-rich.
Sanders said there’s no reason that a bill to build the Keystone XL pipeline should have been the No. 1 priority of the new Republican-controlled Senate – if not for the fact that the same Koch brothers who own so many oilsands leases in Alberta donate heavily to political campaigns.
The Koch brothers’ network has announced plans to spend $889 million in the 2016 election.
A research project last year gave ammunition to critics like Sanders, who say money has infected the American experiment in governance of, by and for the people.
Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern concluded that public opinion is almost irrelevant to modern American lawmaking. They found that a bill stands almost no chance of becoming law without the support of the 10 per cent of wealthiest Americans – no matter how wildly popular it might be with everyone else.
“Maybe the game is over. Maybe they’ve bought the United States government. Maybe there is no turning back,” Sanders, an Independent, told the Brookings Institution on Monday.
“I surely hope not.”
Before the midterm elections, Sanders introduced a constitutional amendment that would prohibit corporate donations to campaigns. It received a majority of votes in the Senate, but none from Republicans and fell short of the two-thirds threshold.
Opponents of Sanders’ effort called it an attempt to curb free speech. A common argument against spending limits is that they would limit the spread of new, perhaps unpopular, ideas.
Reform advocates have also expressed frustration with Obama.
The book, “Big Money,” quotes one named Cynthia Canary who has known Obama for years and calls his presidency “extraordinarily disappointing,” because of the lack of effort he’s put into the issue so far.
In his first presidential run, Obama opted out of the public financing plan for his campaign because. It would have meant agreeing to a spending limit, and he was raising more money than his rival, John McCain.
Obama now laments that the new reality forces politicians to spend so much time fundraising. He should know – he attended at least 65 fundraisers last year."
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/world-news/2015/02/09/obama-time-for-a-constitutional-amendment-to-fight-money-in-us-politics/
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Did Obama buy the presidency? Is Obama a Koch sucker? Where did Obama get all that money?
In his first presidential run, Obama opted out of the public financing plan for his campaign because. It would have meant agreeing to a spending limit, and he was raising more money than his rival, John McCain.
In his first presidential run, Obama opted out of the public financing plan for his campaign because. It would have meant agreeing to a spending limit, and he was raising more money than his rival, John McCain.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
No way to control money from out of the country when websites are set up to donate either. I think it's a reality we need learn best to deal with instead of wishing it away.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
A Democrat raised more money than a Republican. How is that possible? Where were the Kochs?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Those that are "wishing it away" usually only object to donors they think disagree with them.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Oh I know. It's either that I just plain missed the threads about Soros, Bloomberg, Steyer, Stryker, Simons and the rest of the mega donors and supporters of liberal causes.
The point Pad makes still remains, money in politics is a recipe for corruption. My solution would involve decreasing the power of these politicians which decreases the value of buying them. That doesn't seem to be an option, so ... KOCHS!!!!
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Yeah. Another tragic case of pussy fever.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
obama's campaign donations overwhelmingly came in amounts of $100 or less.
that's because unlike rawn pawl, obama is massively popular with the electorate and well-liked. will probably go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
the market really did speak.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
does he wear diapers and fuck prostitutes like vitter (R-LA)?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
4 states down, 30 to go. New Jersey becomes the 4th state to call for a constitutional convention to remove the influence of corporate money in politics.
http://awareandfair.com/2015/02/25/people-made-it-happen-nj-4th-state-to-call-for-article-v-convention/
http://awareandfair.com/2015/02/25/people-made-it-happen-nj-4th-state-to-call-for-article-v-convention/
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
You keep Freudian "corporate" money. You would think you would treat them all equally but I never see you do that. Public union money influences elections on every level. If you think about that, it's government, giving money to elect someone in government, so government can negotiate with a friendlier government. How this is good with people is beyond me.
Give me a chance to hire the guy who negotiates my salary, what could go wrong?
If you believe in your cause, you need to say money, not just corporate money, your partisan slip is showing.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
goddamn you need to shut the fuck up and quit your crying.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How many times am I going to have to say "ALL MONEY"?
At this point you are being wilfully obtuse. We've even had this same discussion before in this very sub. I want elections to be fair and equal. Corporate influence is overwhelmingly responsible for corruption in politics, that doesn't mean other organizations aren't also;
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Replace Koch brother in that caption with Soros and tell me if it's less true.How many times am I going to have to say "ALL MONEY"?
At this point you are being wilfully obtuse. We've even had this same discussion before in this very sub. I want elections to be fair and equal. Corporate influence is overwhelmingly responsible for corruption in politics, that doesn't mean other organizations aren't also;
Then tell me you aren't afraid of the boogeyman.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That is exactly the problem. Soros money, Koch money, ALL MONEY influencing elections is the problem. The only thing that should decide who wins an election is American votes.