Millionaire Donor Threatens Democratic Party: “If They Go Far Left, I’m Out”

SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
:roll:

I did not, and would not say anything of the sort. What a ridiculous analogy. Are you drunk?

And of all the people you could white knight for, you chose someone that has literally disparaged peoples kids on here umpteen times!?!? lol












I could go on for pages....
Click to expand...
I don't agree with him doing it either, just because I told you not to mention his daughter doesn't mean I'm white knighting.

You Bernie Bros have trouble with using the correct expressions, don't you?
 
K

KillerIndica

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I don't see you making a seven figure income, so why are you licking the balls of millionaires? WTF have they done for you lately, besides make your future ever more uncertain?
Click to expand...
You forget you're talking to Baldrick. Don't tell him he's not really Jonny Quest's dad, he'll get all pissy.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
i think they had a point. that just having money and being a millionaire or billionaire doesnt automatically make someone an enemy and shouldnt be used as a pejorativein political discourse.
Click to expand...
Do you think the reason the top 1% is criticized is because they're rich?

Do you seriously think I care if someone who worked hard becomes rich off of the work they've put into whatever endeavour they've succeeded at?

The reason I criticize rich people is because the people who spend millions of dollars buying politicians and influencing political policy at the expense of everyone else are usually rich... I'm not criticizing all rich people. I don't think there's is anything at all inherently wrong with being or becoming rich. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being born rich or inheriting your family's wealth. This line of reasoning is another strawman attack. The problem I have with rich people is only when they try to buy politicians and affect public policy. I can't do that, you most likely can't do that. Why should some wealthy business owner be able to effectively affect political policy in their favor by holding the carrot that is a political donation in front of their nose that may or may not be the reason they get re elected next time?

I believe elected officials should be elected based on the quality of their positions, not on how much money they were able to raise..
ginjawarrior said:
why would anyone continue donating to a party thats attacking the rich just for being rich?
Click to expand...
Nobody is attacking the rich for being rich. They're attacking rich donors because it's become obvious rich donors have more sway within the Democratic party than Democratic constituents
ginjawarrior said:
now i didnt watch whole video so cant be sure but i didnt see him say anything about being against progressive taxation
Click to expand...
Did you hear how he would stop donating to the Democratic party if they move any farther left on economic issues?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
you cried like a Bernie baby in denial.

jackass

You let your own duct tape get you all fucked up.

you jack offs
Click to expand...
Those true colors sure are bright..

That's a little disappointing..
tangerinegreen555 said:
Who the hell ever promised fairness in politics?
Click to expand...
"Generally: The Principle of Fundamental Fairness

The Court in recent years has held that practically all the criminal procedural guarantees of the Bill of Rights—the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments—are fundamental to state criminal justice systems and that the absence of one or the other particular guarantees denies a suspect or a defendant due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the Court has held that the due process clause protects against practices and policies which violate precepts of fundamental fairness, even if they do not violate specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The standard query in such cases is whether the challenged practice or policy violates "a fundamental principle of liberty and justice which inheres in the very idea of a free government and is the inalienable right of a citizen of such government."
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
so with all that perhaps you could maybe point out why every fucking person doesnt get to have their say?
Click to expand...
Is anyone disputing a representative republic? No.. they are saying the person in charge of representing them is instead representing the corporations and the wealthy who are funding their candidacies. So these politicians are voting on issues in government that support their donors interests, not their constituents. THAT is the issue. Nobody is sitting here proposing to abolish the Republic in favor of direct democracy..
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
nxsov180db said:
How come you called out st0wandgrow but never buck? I get it you don't agree with the 982 times that buck did it but when St0wandgrow does it for the first time ever we gotta give him a little piece of our mind. Hypocrite..
Click to expand...
I will be in future tbh, it always left a bad taste but I was the new guy so who was I to question, but I'm not the new guy anymore.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
With enough electorate pressure and party discipline, Democrats are the best bet and resolving those issues.
Click to expand...
What "party discipline" though? Democrats just got caught stealing the primary. Where is the 'discipline'? The only way for me to support the party is if Tom Perez is ousted as chairman, and the party is 100% transparent in its actions moving forward. That way we know the next primary is held legitimately.
PCXV said:
Establishment Democrats strengthen our cause as they create an inroad to coalitions within the Democratic party that are further left.
Click to expand...
Establishment Democrats weaken our cause as they seed divisions to coalitions within the Democratic party. One side says we need corporate money to win, the other says we don't. Well, we've been taking corporate money for a while now, why have we lost more than 1,000 seats since Obama became president? Maybe it takes more than money to win elections..
PCXV said:
We have to bring moderates in and convince them.
Click to expand...
Right, so why did Democrats choose Clinton over Sanders when more moderates and Independents overwhelmingly support Sanders over Clinton?
PCXV said:
Raising money for our party is the reality until CU is overwritten. That doesn't mean we can't hold reps accountable at the same time.
Click to expand...
You "holding a rep accountable" doesn't mean anything, it doesn't actually amount to anything other than you being upset and thinking you might be doing something.. When Reps can depend on wealthy donors to fund their campaigns, why would they give a single shit about you "holding them accountable"? What are you going to do in order to "hold them accountable" when their donors are the ones funding their campaigns?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What "party discipline" though? Democrats just got caught stealing the primary. Where is the 'discipline'? The only way for me to support the party is if Tom Perez is ousted as chairman, and the party is 100% transparent in its actions moving forward. That way we know the next primary is held legitimately.

Establishment Democrats weaken our cause as they seed divisions to coalitions within the Democratic party. One side says we need corporate money to win, the other says we don't. Well, we've been taking corporate money for a while now, why have we lost more than 1,000 seats since Obama became president? Maybe it takes more than money to win elections..

Right, so why did Democrats choose Clinton over Sanders when more moderates and Independents overwhelmingly support Sanders over Clinton?

You "holding a rep accountable" doesn't mean anything, it doesn't actually amount to anything other than you being upset and thinking you might be doing something.. When Reps can depend on wealthy donors to fund their campaigns, why would they give a single shit about you "holding them accountable"? What are you going to do in order to "hold them accountable" when their donors are the ones funding their campaigns?
Click to expand...
Justice Democrats specifically registered to take unlimited Corporate Donations you dumb cuck.

I can't wait to see "The Real Turks LLC" as a donor like they were in Cenk Uygur's other "no corporate money" PACs like Wolf PAC.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Do you think the reason the top 1% is criticized is because they're rich?
Click to expand...
strawman
Do you seriously think I care if someone who worked hard becomes rich off of the work they've put into whatever endeavour they've succeeded at?
Click to expand...
strawman
The reason I criticize rich people is because the people who spend millions of dollars buying politicians and influencing political policy at the expense of everyone else are usually rich... I'm not criticizing all rich people. I don't think there's is anything at all inherently wrong with being or becoming rich. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being born rich or inheriting your family's wealth. This line of reasoning is another strawman attack. The problem I have with rich people is only when they try to buy politicians and affect public policy. I can't do that, you most likely can't do that. Why should some wealthy business owner be able to effectively affect political policy in their favor by holding the carrot that is a political donation in front of their nose that may or may not be the reason they get re elected next time?

I believe elected officials should be elected based on the quality of their positions, not on how much money they were able to raise..
Click to expand...
Nobody is attacking the rich for being rich. They're attacking rich donors because it's become obvious rich donors have more sway within the Democratic party than Democratic constituents
Click to expand...

wow all that dancing about by you has made me dizzy
Did you hear how he would stop donating to the Democratic party if they move any farther left on economic issues?
Click to expand...
no i heard how he would stop donating to the party if the kept demonising people because they were rich

perhaps we heard something different.. got a timestamp??
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Is anyone disputing a representative republic? No.. they are saying the person in charge of representing them is instead representing the corporations and the wealthy who are funding their candidacies. So these politicians are voting on issues in government that support their donors interests, not their constituents. THAT is the issue. Nobody is sitting here proposing to abolish the Republic in favor of direct democracy..
Click to expand...
you keep bitching and moaning bout that as if it was clearly true and easily proved yet no one even once has shown anything that the millionaire in op has shifted in policy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top