26 Jul 16
Originally posted by joe shmoIf you think that is a lot of money for Hillary supporters to pay, imagine how her daughter feels having to pay her mother to eat with her all those years.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287
This stuff is making me nauseated.
26 Jul 16
Originally posted by joe shmoBack in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.
I'm pretty sure bribing a public official is already illegal. I think what you mean is ban "campaign contributions"?
So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.
26 Jul 16
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.
Back in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.
So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.
26 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Democratic platform specifically calls for a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United. https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf at p. 25
Do you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.
26 Jul 16
Originally posted by no1marauderRight, Hillary says she wants to make Citizens United null and void but has not problem taking the money. 😵
Back in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.
So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.
26 Jul 16
Originally posted by sonhouseThe ruling gave Dims something to whine about after having pretty much everything go their way in terms of health care legislation and gay rights etc.
Do you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.
They desperately needed something to rally around, but will it be enough?
26 Jul 16
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIn politics, winning is much more important than principles and morals. The sell out Bernie Sanders is a good example of this as he endorsed Hillary after she had rigged the primary against him. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the exception as he refused to endorse Trump.
She could voluntarily place herself at a disadvantage by not taking it I suppose, but why should she? It's not illegal.
26 Jul 16
Originally posted by whodeyLMAO! Ted Cruz is "exceptional" because he is only concerned with himself and doesn't let minor details like he repeatedly pledged to support his party's nominee get in the way of his personal ambition.
In politics, winning is much more important than principles and morals. The sell out Bernie Sanders is a good example of this as he endorsed Hillary. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the exception as he refused to endorse Trump.