The abysmal failure of Citizens United
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
mr sunshine
Well-Known Member
Merica, FUCK YEA!!!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The problem with government being bought is certainly a concern but....
How does removing money in elections solve the problems that are inherent to government though is a good question that might be asked.
How is it any different to a person involuntarily encompassed by something if the elected got there by buying an election or was appointed by a bunch of people that think a majority vote can somehow make a thing wrong somehow right?
What's the difference to the person that is involuntarily encompassed? Isn't he just as fucked over?
How does removing money in elections solve the problems that are inherent to government though is a good question that might be asked.
How is it any different to a person involuntarily encompassed by something if the elected got there by buying an election or was appointed by a bunch of people that think a majority vote can somehow make a thing wrong somehow right?
What's the difference to the person that is involuntarily encompassed? Isn't he just as fucked over?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Could you be more specific?
Overturning Citizens United is one of many problems that need to be solved. I'm not sure why you're assuming I believe it will totally fix all aspects of every corner of government
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Sure, first I'm not sure what you believe.
Taking money out of a coercive system might sound good, but the systemic problem with a coercive government isn't all about the funding of how "bosses" and "leaders" are elected. The problem is the systemic coercion will remain even if the money to buy elections is taken out.
Involuntary human relations STILL suck for the person placed in the relationship INVOLUNTARILY as a subservient regardless of whether his master bought the whip or was gifted it by a majority.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why haven't you started a thread in the politics section outlining your ideal form of government? How it would work, how you would implement things, how you would pay for infrastructure or education. I'd be really interested in that
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Citizens United came about because an independently produced Dinesh D'Sousa anti-Hilary Clinton video was classified as a "campaign donation" in order to censor it. Yet MSNBC can run 24/7 running anti-Romney spots. The law was used to stifle free speech. It was being applied in a partisan manner.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Aww, we don't wike it when the playing field is leveled. We want to go back to the days where unions could bankroll our candidates and our competitors weren't afforded the same opportunity. You know, the good 'ol days.
It's a systemic problem, yeah, that sounds good. Now that we don't have an unfair advantage anymore, NOW it's time to get money out of politics. You libs are nothing if not predictable as shit. "But look, we convinced lots of short-memoried dumbshits with our bullshit."
Suck it, you shit the bed, now sleep in it. Union money for decades good, corporation money for a few short years, DISASTROUS.
ASSCLOWNSHOES.
It's a systemic problem, yeah, that sounds good. Now that we don't have an unfair advantage anymore, NOW it's time to get money out of politics. You libs are nothing if not predictable as shit. "But look, we convinced lots of short-memoried dumbshits with our bullshit."
Suck it, you shit the bed, now sleep in it. Union money for decades good, corporation money for a few short years, DISASTROUS.
ASSCLOWNSHOES.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So was it all that union money that got Nixon elected? What about Eisenhower? Reagan, Bush 1 or 2? No wait, wait, it was the union money that passed Buckley v. Valeo and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, huh? It was all that union money that shut down the air traffic controllers union, huh!
You are a complete dunce
The overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of overturning Citizens United and campaign finance reform, including republicans. You are in the tiny minority of idiots, like usual
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I know you'd rather no government, so we will skip past that and focus on the government we do have.
While money is elections is open invitation to buying elections and politicians, it's the money AFTER elected that should be the main focus. Only in government is bribery legal and open. I donate to your campaign (even if you are 4th term, run unopposed mostly and your election is 5 years away), you push through a bill that gets my company a billion dollar contract paid for with other people's money. Why do we allow this?
Public unions operate under the same shitty principle. My gov union helps elect the next guy we negotiate how much money we make and the benefits we receive from other people's money. Nothing could possibly go wrong there
So yeah, getting money out of politics (election campaigns are just the legal loophole bribes are exchanged) is something everyone should agree on.
The citizens united decision just followed our 1st amendment allowing free speech and legally was the correct ruling because the SCOTUS said it was (insert another eyeroll here). To say me donating 10 dollars directly is an example of free speech but Kochs or Adelson donating billions INDIRECTLY is not an example takes a leap I can't make. Neither could SCOTUS. It sucks that they have a more powerful voice, but it is what it is/ There is a limit to how much can be given to an individual candidate, but these pacs have found loopholes around those limits. To say unions can donate millions and call it free speech but corporation can't is another leap SCOTUS was not willing to make.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
link to contribution limits.
I'm pretty sure your answer would be to disband government, but I'm answering in the context we are operating under. It goes back to power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money is power.
We all see the need to limit the relationship of money and politicians, but we will need a constitutional amendment to do it. Pad has shown the attempt that is being made to do that in other threads. It's the only way it's going to happen. I'd also like to see legal bribery and quid pro quo eliminated too. Donations are a pretty cool way to get ambassadorships and pork from stimulus.
So while it doesn't eliminate the systemic problem you address, it reduces it. Fair answer?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
From what I understand, the majority want an amendment that would render the decision moot, not overturn it. In what way was the decision wrong based on the constitution as it stands?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you're just bitter because democrats support the working man and your party doesn't.
maybe you can invent a conspiracy to explain it, like the "liberal plantation" that magically keeps minorities from voting republican.
loser.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
classic two face ginwilly.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The majority of Americans, including republicans, want to overturn the decision
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/21/majority-americans-want-money-politics/
The decision was wrong because it effectively allows wealthy individuals or organizations to buy American elections
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
You need my attention again? I see you followed me to another forum trying to get it.you're just bitter because democrats support the working man and your party doesn't.
maybe you can invent a conspiracy to explain it, like the "liberal plantation" that magically keeps minorities from voting republican.
loser.
Wanna play the game where you incessantly reply to posts where I say nothing again to show the people here how you are not obsessed at all?
I don't get it, but because I believe in helping the mentally challenged...
Ok little one GO!!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I know you'd rather no government, so we will skip past that and focus on the government we do have.
While money is elections is open invitation to buying elections and politicians, it's the money AFTER elected that should be the main focus. Only in government is bribery legal and open. I donate to your campaign (even if you are 4th term, run unopposed mostly and your election is 5 years away), you push through a bill that gets my company a billion dollar contract paid for with other people's money. Why do we allow this?
Public unions operate under the same shitty principle. My gov union helps elect the next guy we negotiate how much money we make and the benefits we receive from other people's money. Nothing could possibly go wrong there
So yeah, getting money out of politics (election campaigns are just the legal loophole bribes are exchanged) is something everyone should agree on.
The citizens united decision just followed our 1st amendment allowing free speech and legally was the correct ruling because the SCOTUS said it was (insert another eyeroll here). To say me donating 10 dollars directly is an example of free speech but Kochs or Adelson donating billions INDIRECTLY is not an example takes a leap I can't make. Neither could SCOTUS. It sucks that they have a more powerful voice, but it is what it is/ There is a limit to how much can be given to an individual candidate, but these pacs have found loopholes around those limits. To say unions can donate millions and call it free speech but corporation can't is another leap SCOTUS was not willing to make.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
link to contribution limits.
I'm pretty sure your answer would be to disband government, but I'm answering in the context we are operating under. It goes back to power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money is power.
We all see the need to limit the relationship of money and politicians, but we will need a constitutional amendment to do it. Pad has shown the attempt that is being made to do that in other threads. It's the only way it's going to happen. I'd also like to see legal bribery and quid pro quo eliminated too. Donations are a pretty cool way to get ambassadorships and pork from stimulus.
So while it doesn't eliminate the systemic problem you address, it reduces it. Fair answer?
I'm fine with other people choosing a government for themselves. So my opposition to government is based not on groups of people making rules, (for themselves) rather it is based on groups of people assuming authority over everyone without the consent of each individual encompassed. I've often pointed to a Lysander Spooner essay when discussing that point.
I will say this about elections...
In the end if a peaceful individual is encompassed by something not of his choosing and is compelled to "obey" the edicts of the elected within that system, it ends up pretty much the same to him regardless if his "leaders" arrived there by buying the position or were placed there by a "fair vote". I fall into that category.
The issue of freedom always comes down to protecting the smallest minority...the peaceful individual.
Last edited:
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, which books would you ban first, Paddy?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Banning books:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
you're just bitter because democrats support the working man and your party doesn't.
maybe you can invent a conspiracy to explain it, like the "liberal plantation" that magically keeps minorities from voting republican.
loser.
If they supported the "working man" they'd be a little more honest about the 90 million plus people that are no longer calculated in the unemployment stats and be railing about the government stat manipulation.
Also, if they supported the working man, they would remove regulations that impede an individual from starting his own business without a mountain of red tape and paying fees simply to be self employed.
I am by no means indicating the other side of the coin is the answer, so hold your Fox news rebuttal for somebody else.