Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
All I have to say is read my sigline.
Tim-
Tim-
Asking Americans if they want to "lose this and that aspect of ACA that is popular" is a winning ticket .
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.
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.
There are a lot of sites that track that...
Campaign Finance - Money, Political Finance, Campaign Contributions
^^That is a database of donations. You can use it to find who donates to who in your community (or anywhere).. You can track corporations and such as well.
Do you think running against Reid and with McConnell is a win-win ?
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.
A win fir free speech.
Corporations are people.
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 .
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.