UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
huh, i thought money was evil.
probably would have lost by a few more points than ossoff, just like every single candidate bernie has ever endorsed has lost.
The DNC Reports Lowest Fundraising Since 2003
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
huh, i thought money was evil.
probably would have lost by a few more points than ossoff, just like every single candidate bernie has ever endorsed has lost.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Wrong. It's so that when it comes down to a vote, the Democratic politician will remember who is funding their campaign, as we just witnessed in CA
srh88
Well-Known Member
It's good that you know how every ceo thinks
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
And you don't believe any of the money they receive has any influence on them?
srh88
Well-Known Member
Depends on the person.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm just not naive. I know that people don't give politicians money for no reason, or for "tax deductions" (that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard). They give them money because they expect a return on their investment.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
where literally all but one of them voted for single payer?
you're fucking retarded.
srh88
Well-Known Member
But is it a guarantee that the politician will support the CEO?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So why was it killed?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How would you be able to tell what politicians are influenced by corporate, PAC, and/or special interest campaign contributions?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Only the policies and positions he wants to see.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The only thing that's guaranteed is if the politicians votes the "wrong way", they won't be receiving campaign contributions from that donor anymore
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
same reason it failed in hawaii, illinois, new york, and even fucking vermont. and then some.
srh88
Well-Known Member
Holy fuck.. you're ridiculous. With that logic, how can you know if any candidate is taking contributions or not.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
... Or other donors, because they'll be seen as unreliable. Instead, all that money will shift to their competitor- which greatly increases the chance said unreliable politician will find themselves out of a job.
But I'm pointing out basic logic to Democratic Party cultists. I'm not exactly expecting to make much headway.
srh88
Well-Known Member
If they already won and believe what they ran on who gives a shit?
srh88
Well-Known Member
Sure.. if they were a bad leader.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
In this case, all 'bad' has to mean is 'unwilling to follow the money'.
Remember that he who spends the most money wins 90% of the time.
srh88
Well-Known Member
Still got 10% out there and we are talking about reelection. If somebody really came out and did something really great for once all they would really have to do is say they are running again and nail a debate
