• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices strike down political donor limits

All I have to say is read my sigline.

Tim-
 
Asking Americans if they want to "lose this and that aspect of ACA that is popular" is a winning ticket .

Yes because who would want to lose a limited choice of doctors or higher deductibles!
 
I don't care how much an individual donates, it's their money they can do what they want with it. However it must be individuals. As in: not superpacs, not corporations, not committees, none of those. Just individuals.

I just want to understand you clearly. Your list would also encompass unions, Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, MSNBC, La Raza, etc.
 
I just want to understand you clearly. Your list would also encompass unions, Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, MSNBC, La Raza, etc.

Of course.
 
Include that in the GOP Health Care bill on the House floor.
Wait, they don't have one--never have .
Yes because who would want to lose a limited choice of doctors or higher deductibles!
 
Include that in the GOP Health Care bill on the House floor.
Wait, they don't have one--never have .

Actually there have been a number of proposals. Ask Harry Reid for copies, I think he has them stuffed in his back pocket.
 
Which House GOP proposals on Health Care are you speaking of?
All I've seen is 50 repeals.
I'd be anxious to see a replace.

To be fair to the RINOs, every time they put out a proposal, such as Ryan's April Fool's day example,
both the Dems and especially the TEAs go ape-****, as they did yesterday.

Why bother huh?

Actually there have been a number of proposals. Ask Harry Reid for copies, I think he has them stuffed in his back pocket.

Do you think running against Reid and with McConnell is a win-win ?
 
Do you think running against Reid and with McConnell is a win-win ?

I think running Charles Manson against Reid and Manson winning would be a win. No one is worse them Dirty Harry!

Please try not talk to much of 50 repeals. People will think you are just a partisan hack for repeating un-truths since it has not been done.
 
Please try not talk to much of 50 repeals. People will think you are just a partisan hack for repeating un-truths since it has not been done.

Don't you think a partisan hack is one who is denying that your team has had 50 repeals?
I ask again, where is your Health proposal on the floor?
What parts of the current law would GOPs get rid of?

Dems will continue to hammer you on this, now that they're spending money .
Hail to the USSC .
 
A win fir free speech.

Free speech existed before this decision.

If you and I, both supported Candidate A, and I gave $5 dollars and you contributed the FEC max of $10 dollars, would the two contributions be lawful and constitutional? Yes they would.

Free speech to donate existed for the both of us.

Now if you believed that the limit of $10 dollars was not fair and took the limit to court...If the "limit" were ruled unconsitutional, then free speech still exists...does it not?

My under the limit $5 dollar contribution is still lawful and constitutional as well as your unlimited contribution.
 
That isn't the ruling of the land today.
Though you are not a DEM, DEMs need to quit whining and deal with the facts on the ground.
No solace can be taken from McCain's words on campaign financing.
Invest in the campaign finance industry.

Corporations are people according to this USSC ruling.
We all need to deal with it .

I know what the rule states, no need to list it out like it's adding something. That's why I said "should" because I am stating my opinion. Being a debate board, people do often times state their opinion even if their opinion conflicts with current law. Thanks.
 
Ok. So you want to let the media own the legislators because they can offer free ads to whoever they choose to run the country?

No, I don't want any ads at all. Ads don't inform the voters anyway, quite the contrary.
 
And you can also speak with money, which is why it is considered protect speech. Do you disagree with poor people pooling their money to support a candidate or are you suggesting only those able to self finance a campaign be allowed to run for office?

Any financing should be public.
further, there should be no multi million dollar campaigns using slick ads spewing half truths and outright lies. We should hear from the candidates in honest debate and hardball interviews.
 
I'm not assuming anything.

I'm correctly acknowledging that the Democrat Party has successfully used class warfare as a campaign strategy when it's far more accurate to say the wealthy are getting the short end of the stick in the United States.

Again, have you looked at tax distribution in this country?

I'm not sure what you mean by "tax distribution." If you're saying that a lot of wealthy people are Democrats, then you're just pointing out the obvious.
 
Corporations are property in fact.

Corporate are built by people, employ people, and serve people. They also pay massive taxes to government. Those taxes are made up of money earned by those people, and as a whole, it deserves a voice in politics.

Much more, in fact, than the 5th grade dropout who's hooked on heroin that is picked up in a bus and pushes a button in exchange for another hit.
 
Corporate are built by people, employ people, and serve people. They also pay massive taxes to government. Those taxes are made up of money earned by those people, and as a whole, it deserves a voice in politics.

Much more, in fact, than the 5th grade dropout who's hooked on heroin that is picked up in a bus and pushes a button in exchange for another hit.

Wow... That's so American of you. A corporation deserves to have a bigger voice in politics than a poor person?

I could make a similar case for education. Those who worked hard and earned a PhD deserve to have more of a voice than uneducated people who sit around rooting for a political party like they were the local football team.
 
Corporate are built by people, employ people, and serve people. They also pay massive taxes to government. Those taxes are made up of money earned by those people, and as a whole, it deserves a voice in politics.

Much more, in fact, than the 5th grade dropout who's hooked on heroin that is picked up in a bus and pushes a button in exchange for another hit.

See this is the biggest problem with far right wingers like you.

You are literally incapable of putting things in proper context.

The fact that the argument to you is either corporations get to do whatever they want OR Heroine addicts decide the fate of the country is absolutely loony and ignores the reality and balance of this world.

The wealthy and corporations are disproportionally buying the influence of the American government in their favour, while average folks are being shut out and BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF THIS and you continue blindly to support this march towards plutocracy.

The key is balance.

This doesn't mean that wealthy individuals should be shut out of the political process but the idea that unlimited donations to candidates and parties won't buy favours is ludicrous and ignores reality.

It's dangerous to a healthy democracy.
 
See this is the biggest problem with far right wingers like you.

You are literally incapable of putting things in proper context.

The fact that the argument to you is either corporations get to do whatever they want OR Heroine addicts decide the fate of the country is absolutely loony and ignores the reality and balance of this world.

The wealthy and corporations are disproportionally buying the influence of the American government in their favour, while average folks are being shut out and BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF THIS and you continue blindly to support this march towards plutocracy.

The key is balance.

This doesn't mean that wealthy individuals should be shut out of the political process but the idea that unlimited donations to candidates and parties won't buy favours is ludicrous and ignores reality.

It's dangerous to a healthy democracy.

And the biggest problem with lefties like you is that you won't acknowledge that Democrats are VASTLY more bought and paid for than conservatives are. Pelosi and Reid are as dirty as it gets. Chicago is basically run by the mob. Al Gore is damn near a billionaire off of the global warming hoax. And Obama lives and believes totally opposite of the common folks he claims to represent.

Yet, these are the folks held in the highest of esteem, while productive, well-intentioned corporations are run through the mud as the evil empire.

Open your eyes.
 
Corporate are built by people, employ people, and serve people. They also pay massive taxes to government. Those taxes are made up of money earned by those people, and as a whole, it deserves a voice in politics.

Much more, in fact, than the 5th grade dropout who's hooked on heroin that is picked up in a bus and pushes a button in exchange for another hit.

The people who make up the corporation are people and should be allowed to invest any amount of their personal money into political contributions that they want. The corporation is property, it has no rights nor representation as it is property. Government is to be for the People, not property. As such corporations should be barred from political donation.
 
Wow... That's so American of you. A corporation deserves to have a bigger voice in politics than a poor person?

I could make a similar case for education. Those who worked hard and earned a PhD deserve to have more of a voice than uneducated people who sit around rooting for a political party like they were the local football team.

I didn't say a bigger voice. You did.

You just want them to have no voice because that's what you do. You look for every means possible to limit the authority of those that contribute the most and succeed. It's one massive Robin Hood scheme driven by a party-drunk inferiority complex.
 
The people who make up the corporation are people and should be allowed to invest any amount of their personal money into political contributions that they want. The corporation is property, it has no rights nor representation as it is property. Government is to be for the People, not property. As such corporations should be barred from political donation.

If it pays taxes, it should be represented. If corporations aren't allowed political donations, then they shouldn't be taxed.
 
If it pays taxes, it should be represented. If corporations aren't allowed political donations, then they shouldn't be taxed.

Corporations are not actually human, not human should not be represented in a government made for The People. There's no "taxation without representation", since property shouldn't be represented in government. The CEOs have right to representation and they should be allowed to spend any amount of their money on political donation. The corporation not so much. There's no philosophical basis for property itself possessing rights.
 
Corporations are not actually human, not human should not be represented in a government made for The People. There's no "taxation without representation", since property shouldn't be represented in government. The CEOs have right to representation and they should be allowed to spend any amount of their money on political donation. The corporation not so much. There's no philosophical basis for property itself possessing rights.

So why not just tax the CEO and his employees? Why does the corporation get taxed?
 
Back
Top Bottom