• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ya' just have to laugh...

MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
For more than a year, the Democratic National Committee touted its "unprecedented" plan to prohibit corporate and lobbyist funding of the 2012 convention in Charlotte, but it found it just couldn't put on a show without the money.The convention's host committee has acknowledged that it established a separate entity to help shoulder the costs of many of the convention activities this week. That entity, New American City, Inc., has accepted millions of dollars from companies that include Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and most prominently Duke Energy, the nation's largest electric utility, which has sponsored events all over town.
"What was declared was that the convention would be funded differently, and it has been," said Suzi Emmerling, a spokeswoman for the convention host committee.
Click to expand...

Everybody lies. Democrats Ditch Plan to Stage Convention Without Corporate Cash - ABC News
 
this strikes me as less of a lie and more of a fail. Although it's entirely possible that cynical lies by some where involved, who knew they would fail.
 
the unions refused to pony up this year, especially when the DNC located the convention in the state ranked #50 in percentage of employees as union members
and in a city that promised to recruit union contractors to perform the work of the convention but actually did nothing in that regard
only surprised they did not reach out to that union stalwart [/s], walmart, too, to cover the costs the union refused to cover
 
Debra said:
Oh for Pete's sake, GOP allows billionaires try buy this election flooding millions into their coffers the only way dems can compete is to allow corporate help, get over it ! after the President wins I am sure their going to work on legislation to change that citizens united ruling.
Click to expand...

They're going to create a law that nullifies a Supreme Court ruling? How does that work, exactly?
 
tessaesque said:
They're going to create a law that nullifies a Supreme Court ruling? How does that work, exactly?
Click to expand...

They can certainly legislate full disclosure, of who and how much is donated. They can legislate that PACs are actually not controlled by candidates (no more of this wink and a nod like we see today), or their parties, and impose stiff penalties for violations. There is a lot congress could do to curb the amount of private money flowing into the system.
 
Debra said:
Oh for Pete's sake, GOP allows billionaires try buy this election flooding millions into their coffers the only way dems can compete is to allow corporate help, get over it ! after the President wins I am sure their going to work on legislation to change that citizens united ruling.
Click to expand...

Damn, and all this time I thought Soros was a democrat.
 
avusbluem5 said:
They can certainly legislate full disclosure, of who and how much is donated. They can legislate that PACs are actually not controlled by candidates, or their parties, and impose stiff penalties for violations. There is a lot congress could do to curb the amount of private money flowing into the system.
Click to expand...

Candidate interaction with any PAC or Super PAC is already against the rules. There are penalties for violating those rules but who's going to enforce it? Surely not the people who are benefiting from those violations.

Full disclosure was legislated, too. And then Super PACs found a way around that through loopholes. Close the loophole and they'll find another because they benefit from it.

Private money stops public money from being used for campaigning. When Obama's campaign and the DNC is spending however much it costs to run Obama ads 5-8 times during prime time in Texas, the last thing I want is my tax dollars paying for that (and yeah, before you ask, I'd say the same for Romney if I'd seen any of his ads being played), especially when the nation is running debts.

This idea that corporations are "buying elections" is a bit unsupported. We're still the ones voting. Corporations don't get more votes than private citizens and can't trump our votes. We still hold the power. We just utilize it poorly.

The easiest way to control the flow of cash? Make it a law that you can only spend x-amount on campaign expenses. All of the money left over at the end of the election must be payed to campaign volunteers (or whatever). That way we can stop this "gotta have a villain" nonsense and focus on something that really matters...like which candidate we should be voting for based on their platform and political records.
 
MaggieD said:
Everybody lies. Democrats Ditch Plan to Stage Convention Without Corporate Cash - ABC News
Click to expand...



You seem to be delighting in the fact that the Citizen's United ruling has resulted in the Democratic Party being forced to accept corporate system donations in order to compete. Those of us unable to make million dollar donations ought to be clamoring for laws to get around the ruling. It is absolutely the number one threat to democracy. Which party do you think is most likely to pass such laws?
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
You seem to be delighting in the fact that the Citizen's United ruling has resulted in the Democratic Party being forced to accept corporate system donations in order to compete. Those of us unable to make million dollar donations ought to be clamoring for laws to get around the ruling. It is absolutely the number one threat to democracy. Which party do you think is most likely to pass such laws?
Click to expand...

They've been accepting corporate money (if not necessarily sponsorship) since long before the Citizens' United ruling, but nice spin.

In the 2001–2005 election cycle, the DNC and its affiliated committees (which includes numerous local committees and committees formed to coordinate expenditures for specific districts or races) raised a total of US $162,062,084, 42% of which was hard money. The largest contributor, with US $9,280,000 was the Saban Capital Group, founded in 2001 by Haim Saban, who also founded Fox Family group. Fred Eychaner, the owner of Newsweb Corporation, gave the second highest amount of money to the DNC and its affiliates, US $7,390,000. The third largest contributor was Steve Bing of Shangri-La Entertainment, who gave US $6,700,000.[5]
In 2006, the DNC raised a total of US $61,141,823, all of it hard money. Most contributions came from small donors, giving less than $250, who accounted for over 80% of total dollars raised in the first half of 2006.[citation needed] The three largest individual contributors were law firm Hill Wallack ($100,000), development firm Jonathan Rose & Co. ($100,000), and investment firm Bain Capital ($53,400).[6]
The DNC also relies on the monthly contributions of over 35,000 small-dollar donors through what is known as the Democracy Bonds program, set up by Howard Dean in the summer of 2005.[7]
In 2002, the Federal Election Commission fined the Democratic National Committee $115,000 for its part in fundraising violations in 1996.[8]
In June 2008, after Senator Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Dean announced that the DNC, emulating the Obama campaign, would no longer accept donations from federal lobbyists.[9]
Click to expand...
 
Dezaad said:
........... It is absolutely the number one threat to democracy. Which party do you think is most likely to pass such laws?
Click to expand...

No. Tyranny is the threat to Democracy. Big government, and the erosion of rights. leads to tyranny. Obama, and the liberals who support him are absolutely the number one threat to democracy. There is not a close second.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
No. Tyranny is the threat to Democracy. Big government, and the erosion of rights. leads to tyranny. Obama, and the liberals who support him are absolutely the number one threat to democracy. There is not a close second.
Click to expand...

You mean big government as in government that wants to dictate womens health issues? Big government as in disctating which consenting adults can get married? The Republicans talk a lot about reducing the size of government, but then propose laws invading on our most personal issues. When a party says that women can not get pregnant after being raped and wants to ban abortions with no exceptions, that party supports efforts to bring true tyranny about.
The Democrats support legislation giving us more personal freedom.
 
Hairytic said:
You mean big government as in government that wants to dictate womens health issues? Big government as in disctating which consenting adults can get married? The Republicans talk a lot about reducing the size of government, but then propose laws invading on our most personal issues. When a party says that women can not get pregnant after being raped and wants to ban abortions with no exceptions, that party supports efforts to bring true tyranny about.
The Democrats support legislation giving us more personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Except financially.
Except in reference to 2nd amendment rights.
Except in reference to the 4th amendment.
Except in reference to citizens who may/may not be aligned with terrorism (right to trial? screw it, just kill him with a drone!).

Yeah, sure. Totally. All about personal freedom. Except those pesky constitutional promises, which aren't NEARLY as important as marriage.
 
tessaesque said:
Except financially.
Except in reference to 2nd amendment rights.
Except in reference to the 4th amendment.
Except in reference to citizens who may/may not be aligned with terrorism (right to trial? screw it, just kill him with a drone!).

Yeah, sure. Totally. All about personal freedom. Except those pesky constitutional promises, which aren't NEARLY as important as marriage.
Click to expand...

The democrats are not trying to ban guns. I agree with have gun regulation. Gun regulations do not violate the 2nd amendment.
I don't get your point on the 4th amendment. How are the Democrats trying to violate this amendment?
As for right to trial on terroirsts, if those terrorists are not US citizens, they are not covered by the US constitution. I don't get your point on this one either.
ALso, what freedoms are being violated financially?
 
Last edited:
Hairytic said:
You mean big government as in government that wants to dictate womens health issues? Big government as in disctating which consenting adults can get married? The Republicans talk a lot about reducing the size of government, but then propose laws invading on our most personal issues. When a party says that women can not get pregnant after being raped and wants to ban abortions with no exceptions, that party supports efforts to bring true tyranny about.
The Democrats support legislation giving us more personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Your post is full of dung.

Obama opposed same-sex marriage, btw.

Obama is for big goverment. Statism. TSA anyone ? Gun control anyone ? $16 T in debt ?
 
tessaesque said:
Except financially.
Except in reference to 2nd amendment rights.
Except in reference to the 4th amendment.
Except in reference to citizens who may/may not be aligned with terrorism (right to trial? screw it, just kill him with a drone!).

Yeah, sure. Totally. All about personal freedom. Except those pesky constitutional promises, which aren't NEARLY as important as marriage.
Click to expand...

It's easy to say that one particular area of personal freedom isn't important when it doesn't affect you.

BTW, the financial freedom thing is bull.

Obama has only expanded gun rights (allowing hand guns in national parks). It was Mitt Romney that signed gun restriction legislation.

The fourth amendment issues are something that needs to be watched on both sides of the isle.
 
Dezaad said:
You seem to be delighting in the fact that the Citizen's United ruling has resulted in the Democratic Party being forced to accept corporate system donations in order to compete. Those of us unable to make million dollar donations ought to be clamoring for laws to get around the ruling. It is absolutely the number one threat to democracy. Which party do you think is most likely to pass such laws?
Click to expand...

Both of them.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
No. Tyranny is the threat to Democracy. Big government, and the erosion of rights. leads to tyranny. Obama, and the liberals who support him are absolutely the number one threat to democracy. There is not a close second.
Click to expand...

Hairytic said:
You mean big government as in government that wants to dictate womens health issues? Big government as in disctating which consenting adults can get married? The Republicans talk a lot about reducing the size of government, but then propose laws invading on our most personal issues. When a party says that women can not get pregnant after being raped and wants to ban abortions with no exceptions, that party supports efforts to bring true tyranny about.
The Democrats support legislation giving us more personal freedom.
Click to expand...

tessaesque said:
Except financially.
Except in reference to 2nd amendment rights.
Except in reference to the 4th amendment.
Except in reference to citizens who may/may not be aligned with terrorism (right to trial? screw it, just kill him with a drone!).

Yeah, sure. Totally. All about personal freedom. Except those pesky constitutional promises, which aren't NEARLY as important as marriage.
Click to expand...

All three of you talk about "personal freedom" but still want a government. Just a bit silly to me.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
All three of you talk about "personal freedom" but still want a government. Just a bit silly to me.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how we will be able to have personal freedom if we do not have a government that protects our personal freedom?
 
Hairytic said:
Explain to me how we will be able to have personal freedom if we do not have a government that protects our personal freedom?
Click to expand...

You have to defend your own personal freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom