Kamala Harris will announce her bid for 2020 on Jan 21

doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
If you donate to a political candidate, do you not expect something in return?
It kind of disgusts me man, like you would ignore such an important issue. You fucking fought in Vietnam. This shit could legitimately send people to war. Have a little bit of respect, man.. Jesus...
Click to expand...
I don't see corporations as my enemy. Corporations formed the original 13 colonies.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Why would I give you money unless I expected something in return? Do you think rich people give money away for free?
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand you are a useless cynic and can't come up with a reason on your own.

If you look at the list of Harris's biggest donors, they are mostly lawyers. Maybe they gave the donations because they agree with Harris's positions? Also recall that Harris isn't running in a vaccum. The Republican she ran against was a total shithead. You cynics limit your thinking by always believing conspiracy and skulduggery explain everything.

So, regardless of your belief, lets look for proof. Has Harris taken advantage of her position financially or is she coddling some venal industry that has given her tons of money? In another state, did Manchin support coal because of large donations or did coal donate to him because he was pro-coal? Same with Ojeda, aka Manchin 2.0. Did he support coal miners because he was given money by coal unions or did he support coal unions and so they gave large donations?

It's a leap of faith to believe a person is automatically corrupted by using legal and publicly known campaign contributions.

Was Gillum corrupt when he accepted large and legal donations for his campaign?

In any case, campaign finance reform cannot go forward until Democrats are back in charge of the government. Your fixation on Democrats misses the real obstacle.

Bernie is a divisive leader, he has done nothing in 12 years. Cult of Sanders is going to be baying from now to the end of eternity about how awful every other Democrat is because you've already made up your mind. To make matters worse, Bernie isn't even a Democrat. Go form your own party.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yes
Click to expand...
Why would I give you money unless I expected something in return?


This is the fundamental question that divides progressives from neocons


Neocons try to pretend money doesn't influence political decisions

Progressives fully admit money influences politics, that's why they donate to them..

@Fogdog, why do you try to pretend like the money donated to the candidates you support by big corporations and establishment democrats doesn't influence their votes in congress?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Why would I give you money unless I expected something in return?


This is the fundamental question that divides progressives from neocons


Neocons try to pretend money doesn't influence political decisions

Progressives fully admit money influences politics, that's why they donate to them..

@Fogdog, why do you try to pretend like the money donated to the candidates you support by big corporations and establishment democrats doesn't influence their votes in congress?
Click to expand...
I answered you already

Fogdog said:
Yes, I understand you are a useless cynic and can't come up with a reason on your own.

If you look at the list of Harris's biggest donors, they are mostly lawyers. Maybe they gave the donations because they agree with Harris's positions? Also recall that Harris isn't running in a vaccum. The Republican she ran against was a total shithead. You cynics limit your thinking by always believing conspiracy and skulduggery explain everything.

So, regardless of your belief, lets look for proof. Has Harris taken advantage of her position financially or is she coddling some venal industry that has given her tons of money? In another state, did Manchin support coal because of large donations or did coal donate to him because he was pro-coal? Same with Ojeda, aka Manchin 2.0. Did he support coal miners because he was given money by coal unions or did he support coal unions and so they gave large donations?

It's a leap of faith to believe a person is automatically corrupted by using legal and publicly known campaign contributions.

Was Gillum corrupt when he accepted large and legal donations for his campaign?

In any case, campaign finance reform cannot go forward until Democrats are back in charge of the government. Your fixation on Democrats misses the real obstacle.

Bernie is a divisive leader, he has done nothing in 12 years. Cult of Sanders is going to be baying from now to the end of eternity about how awful every other Democrat is because you've already made up your mind. To make matters worse, Bernie isn't even a Democrat. Go form your own party.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to donate money to candidates who will fight for your best interests.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Was Gillum corrupted by his accepting donations from a big donor?

Just asking because this assumption that touching money from wealthy people automatically means they have been corrupted seems like a leap of faith to me.
Click to expand...
Then maybe you have trouble understanding basic human nature. The notion that people give away large sums of money while expecting nothing in return is blatantly suspect, doubly so in a mercantile, class based society like ours.

And before you go talking about charitable donations, consider both the concrete tax deductions and the status gained from virtue signaling.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
I don't see corporations as my enemy. Corporations formed the original 13 colonies.
Click to expand...
I don't either. The problem comes when such non human entities are allowed to be directly involved in politics, especially when they're able to utilize their essential advantage; ggregating capital and focusing it on specific activities.

Cash has supplanted votes as the primary motivator of the majority of our politicians. This is the definition of corruption. Whether it's been LEGALISED or not is immaterial; the damage caused remains the same.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I don't either. The problem comes when such non human entities are allowed to be directly involved in politics, especially when they're able to utilize their essential advantage; ggregating capital and focusing it on specific activities.

Cash has supplanted votes as the primary motivator of the majority of our politicians. This is the definition of corruption. Whether it's been LEGALISED or not is immaterial; the damage caused remains the same.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with citizens united....
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yes, I understand you are a useless cynic and can't come up with a reason on your own.

If you look at the list of Harris's biggest donors, they are mostly lawyers. Maybe they gave the donations because they agree with Harris's positions? Also recall that Harris isn't running in a vaccum. The Republican she ran against was a total shithead. You cynics limit your thinking by always believing conspiracy and skulduggery explain everything.

So, regardless of your belief, lets look for proof. Has Harris taken advantage of her position financially or is she coddling some venal industry that has given her tons of money? In another state, did Manchin support coal because of large donations or did coal donate to him because he was pro-coal? Same with Ojeda, aka Manchin 2.0. Did he support coal miners because he was given money by coal unions or did he support coal unions and so they gave large donations?

It's a leap of faith to believe a person is automatically corrupted by using legal and publicly known campaign contributions.

Was Gillum corrupt when he accepted large and legal donations for his campaign?

In any case, campaign finance reform cannot go forward until Democrats are back in charge of the government. Your fixation on Democrats misses the real obstacle.

Bernie is a divisive leader, he has done nothing in 12 years. Cult of Sanders is going to be baying from now to the end of eternity about how awful every other Democrat is because you've already made up your mind. To make matters worse, Bernie isn't even a Democrat. Go form your own party.
Click to expand...
Looks like most Democrats agree with @Padawanbater2 , @schuylaar and myself;

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-democrats-want-candidates-more-bernie-sanders-poll-1019025

Or is Newsweek another one of your 'suspect' news outlets? You know, the ones you love to smear when you can't rebut the argument, nevermind show even one shred of evidence of said news outlet's unreliability as a source?

For someone who so loudly proclaims your allegiance to the facts, you sure play fast and loose with them.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Looks like most Democrats agree with @Padawanbater2 , @schuylaar and myself;

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-democrats-want-candidates-more-bernie-sanders-poll-1019025

Or is Newsweek another one of your 'suspect' news outlets? You know, the ones you love to smear when you can't rebut the argument, nevermind show even one shred of evidence of said news outlet's unreliability as a source?

For someone who so loudly proclaims your allegiance to the facts, you sure play fast and loose with them.
Click to expand...
I’m going to vote in the primary for whoever you and pada complain most about
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Looks like most Democrats agree with @Padawanbater2 , @schuylaar and myself;

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-democrats-want-candidates-more-bernie-sanders-poll-1019025

Or is Newsweek another one of your 'suspect' news outlets? You know, the ones you love to smear when you can't rebut the argument, nevermind show even one shred of evidence of said news outlet's unreliability as a source?

For someone who so loudly proclaims your allegiance to the facts, you sure play fast and loose with them.
Click to expand...
Too funny that can't tell the difference between a propaganda site and one that ACTUALLY is a news reporting site like Newsweek. In any case, it reported about a poll that had a gazillion questions. Opinion polls aren't about facts they are about opinions so it's a bit of a stretch to say the results of an opinion poll are facts but OK, I can roll with that.

What is Bernie? Socialist or liberal? Don't make me laugh and call him centrist. I ask because the following is another pretty meaningless poll that says most Democrats consider themselves liberal:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-democrats-now-identify-as-liberal/

So, yeah, sentiment seems to be shifting leftward for Democrats. I'm glad that a meaningless poll makes you feel all tingly and warm inside.

The bigger deal is how will they vote. You should recall that Bernie was well liked in 2016 but lost by 12% to Clinton who wasn't well liked. What does that mean? IDK, The only poll that mattered was the election poll. Bernie -- well liked but lost to Clinton. Clinton not well liked but Trump was less well liked than Clinton. Trump won that one. What does that mean? Maybe that opinion polls are worthless as predictors of election results?

Anyway, congratulations for your tribe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top