$100 million from a single (D) megadonor on a single state. I never want to hear anyone complaining about rich people meddling in elections or citizens united or whatever the usual bullshit is ever again lmfao

This post was edited by excellence on Sep 13 2020 03:27pm

Is both sides spending money to elect candidates like a new concept to you?

There's nothing about a billionaire spending money to get Biden elected that negates the need for campaign finance reform.

I think the only "moral" thing Dems have in that argument is that they'd appoint left-wing activist judges. Personally, I think Citizens United is a great thing.

primary exhibit of the cohort im talking about.

both sides lol President Trump spent half of his opponent in 2016 so what the (D)s do now? throw 9 figures at a single state



hard to argue with either of your points

If anything it just strengthens the argument lol

I think we need to change it even though under the current system my preferred party is using it more.

No, it is not. As long as money plays a crucial role in American politics, it will be virtually impossible for the two main parties to be separated along class/wealth lines. If the coalition of party A is far more wealthy than that of party B, then party A will have a huge advantage in all campaigns.

While Citizens United is in place, it will effectively prevent the class conflict from becoming the main cleavage in American politics, from being the main policy issue separating the two parties. The hypothetical party which is focused on representing the interests of the poor and the working-class would start each campaign at a huge cash disadvantage, and generally not be competitive. Citizens United turns both parties into the bitches of wealthy donors and ensures that left-wing redistributional policies, even the non-socialist ones, stay off limits. Not that I, personally, am a huge proponent of such policies, but I think it's a really bad thing when the space of feasible policy positions is artificially narrowed like that and excludes policies which are very much up for debate in most other industrialized countries.

1. Money will always play a crucial role in politics.
Whether its money fundraised from willing participants, taxpayer force funded, or information control through the funding of partisan media propaganda outlets.
Letting the CNNs and Voxs of the world have even more control over who wins and loses and what information is allowed to be spread, while banning opponents from spending to offset that messaging, is insane.

2. The Citizens United case was about the democrats/government trying to shut down an anti-Hillary documentary during election season.
They ruled that the first amendment protects independent expenditures on political communications.
The ruling correctly protected free speech. Good. Banning anti-Hillary documentaries is blatantly unconstitutional and immoral.

3. Socialism and other leftist crap SHOULD be excluded, but its sadly not.
If it actually did what you think it does I would love the ruling even more.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 13 2020 04:44pm

Interesting read


https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/13/biden-the-great-and-powerful/

https://sports.yahoo.com/biden-calls-gun-control-attack-122435373.html


Biden says a pistol and other handguns are “weapons of war” because one of his supporters shot two LA County sheriff’s deputies with one

going by this delusional and out-of-touch logic hammers, axes, blades & knives, fists, etc. should be banned as well

This post was edited by excellence on Sep 14 2020 02:57pm