• 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!

Judge's ruling invalidates FEC regulation allowing anonymous donations to 'dark money' groups

OpportunityCost said:
I am not cherry picking anything, I am giving examples that contradict your assumptions.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's nothing contradictory. "The GOP benefits more" is not a statement that precludes Democrats benefiting. In fact, such a statement implies that Democrats absolutely do benefit. If the statement was meant to be that only Republicans benefit it would have been worded... well, like that.

You're attacking a straw man. I did not suggest there weren't cases that Democrats benefit from gerrymandering. If you think I suggested that, you are wrong. Your perception of my opinion is wrong. I have repeatedly clarified my opinion. Do you still intend to dictate to me what my opinion is?
 
Deuce said:
There's nothing contradictory. "The GOP benefits more" is not a statement that precludes Democrats benefiting. In fact, such a statement implies that Democrats absolutely do benefit. If the statement was meant to be that only Republicans benefit it would have been worded... well, like that.

You're attacking a straw man. I did not suggest there weren't cases that Democrats benefit from gerrymandering. If you think I suggested that, you are wrong. Your perception of my opinion is wrong. I have repeatedly clarified my opinion. Do you still intend to dictate to me what my opinion is?
Click to expand...
Yes. Because you aren't being honest with it. Claiming one side or the other is more for policy when there is evidence contrary to that opinion and changing said opinion as a moving target is not honest.

Just be more honest and don't virtue signal one side as better than the other.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
danarhea said:
Today's news? Dark money will no longer be dark. It won't undo all the damage of Citizens United, but it will certainly allow people to see where the money is coming from, resulting in Citizens United having a much lessened impact on elections.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rules-against-secret-dark-money-contributions
Click to expand...

If I may, what specific problem in your opinion was this seeking to solve? I am against this ruling, because I do not think it is anyone's business as to who donates money to a political campaign or a political action committee unless the money comes from a criminal source or is being spent for a criminal purpose (bribery, pay-to-play, etc.).
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yes. Because you aren't being honest with it. Claiming one side or the other is more for policy when there is evidence contrary to that opinion and changing said opinion as a moving target is not honest.

Just be more honest and don't virtue signal one side as better than the other.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I said they are benefiting from it more, which is true.
 
Felis Leo said:
If I may, what specific problem in your opinion was this seeking to solve? I am against this ruling, because I do not think it is anyone's business as to who donates money to a political campaign or a political action committee unless the money comes from a criminal source or is being spent for a criminal purpose (bribery, pay-to-play, etc.).
Click to expand...

My problem with it is that this was passed by Congress. If Trump doesn't like it, then he should get Congress to pass another bill getting rid of it. It's not up to him to pass laws. That is the job of Congress.

So, if I may, what specific problem in your opinion is the Constitution of the United States?
 
danarhea said:
Today's news? Dark money will no longer be dark. It won't undo all the damage of Citizens United, but it will certainly allow people to see where the money is coming from, resulting in Citizens United having a much lessened impact on elections.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rules-against-secret-dark-money-contributions
Click to expand...
While we're at it, let's outlaw unions giving money to political candidates unless the members vote on that.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
American said:
While we're at it, let's outlaw unions giving money to political candidates unless the members vote on that.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

a couple more good USSC rulings and Unions will pretty much go the way of the DoDo bird
 
American said:
While we're at it, let's outlaw unions giving money to political candidates unless the members vote on that.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

1) Nobody is saying that donations should be outlawed. They are merely saying that people should be able to see who the candidates are getting money from. So, intimating that unions get to give money while other groups don't is dishonest.

2) Union money is public, and people can see it.,,,,,, Or can they? If union money goes to a super pac which donates to a candidate, then people should have the right to know where the money is coming from.... Or are you in favor of unions being able to donate dark money? :mrgreen:

3) Finally, it is Congress that passes laws, not Trump and the Executive branch. This is what was decided by the court, and of course, this is what is in the Constitution. This decision will be upheld by SCOTUS, and it's my bet that it will be a unanimous vote. .
 
TurtleDude said:
a couple more good USSC rulings and Unions will pretty much go the way of the DoDo bird
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming.
If unions go away, there's nothing to stop something else to replace them.
Whether it's drugs, booze, guns or professional guilds, no matter what "law" or even SCOTUS ruling comes down from Mt. Olympus, they're still going to be around.
Organized labor is never going to go away. Pinkerton couldn't stop it, armed thugs couldn't stop it, not even calling in the military could stop it.
In fact, if a SCOTUS ruling tries to do away with organized labor, you may wind up with unintended consequences.

Something like that might just make organized labor come roaring back to life as never before, bigger, more powerful, better organized and more popular than ever.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The should but they won't. They only pick up the cause when it benefits them, that's why they don't give a damn in Illinois and Maryland, because it benefits them.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the deafening outcry of outrage of Republicans in their own states, where gerrymandering by their own party is also under various court reviews? "They" should, but "they" won't, because "it benefits them."

See how that works when you try to pretend the other party is dirty, while your own party glimmers in shiny white satin? Chew your own words well, or you may need to swallow them whole. Again.
 
danarhea said:
1) Nobody is saying that donations should be outlawed. They are merely saying that people should be able to see who the candidates are getting money from. So, intimating that unions get to give money while other groups don't is dishonest.

2) Union money is public, and people can see it.,,,,,, Or can they? If union money goes to a super pac which donates to a candidate, then people should have the right to know where the money is coming from.... Or are you in favor of unions being able to donate dark money? :mrgreen:

3) Finally, it is Congress that passes laws, not Trump and the Executive branch. This is what was decided by the court, and of course, this is what is in the Constitution. This decision will be upheld by SCOTUS, and it's my bet that it will be a unanimous vote. .
Click to expand...

My suggestion to today's Right is that they just stick with the Electoral College and be happy that they have that.
These soft and dark money decisions are going to get overturned, reversed or otherwise nullified, and so will gerrymandering.
And if you're going to pick, you get to just pick one, and the EC has the Constitution behind it, so you're better off with that.

You don't get to have ALL THREE.
The other two's days are numbered, count on it.

And get ready, because another "Voting Rights Act" will be coming down the pike soon, too.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Keep dreaming.
If unions go away, there's nothing to stop something else to replace them.
Whether it's drugs, booze, guns or professional guilds, no matter what "law" or even SCOTUS ruling comes down from Mt. Olympus, they're still going to be around.
Organized labor is never going to go away. Pinkerton couldn't stop it, armed thugs couldn't stop it, not even calling in the military could stop it.
In fact, if a SCOTUS ruling tries to do away with organized labor, you may wind up with unintended consequences.

Something like that might just make organized labor come roaring back to life as never before, bigger, more powerful, better organized and more popular than ever.
Click to expand...

I think an employer should have the right to fire someone for joining a union. Now if the union has enough membership the employer is going to have to back down. but it should be based on that, not government protection of the union

Public sector unions should be banned though
 
marke said:
Leftist activists are all about denying rights of privacy and unmasking conservatives and conservative organizations for the purpose of giving wicked savage barbarians info they can use if possible in some way to undermine, oppress, assault or destroy them. That is what we now must expect from due to the hope and changes made by the leader of our former Obamanation.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how compromised you are, do you?
 
TurtleDude said:
I think an employer should have the right to fire someone for joining a union. Now if the union has enough membership the employer is going to have to back down. but it should be based on that, not government protection of the union

Public sector unions should be banned though
Click to expand...

You should probably stick to things you know about, like guns.
I mean, it IS a free country but apparently your knowledge of organized labor is...shall we say...deficient.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You should probably stick to things you know about, like guns.
I mean, it IS a free country but apparently your knowledge of organized labor is...shall we say...deficient.
Click to expand...

LOL-I have a degree (Masters) in Labor relations and labor law from the top program in the world I know labor law inside out
 
danarhea said:
My problem with it is that this was passed by Congress. If Trump doesn't like it, then he should get Congress to pass another bill getting rid of it. It's not up to him to pass laws. That is the job of Congress.

So, if I may, what specific problem in your opinion is the Constitution of the United States?
Click to expand...

My specific problem with the Constitution of the United States? I love the Constitution. No my only problem is that people use it as a cudgel and refer to it as though it is a piece of poetry from which they can interpret and justify practically any action, and seem to forget that it was originally meant to carefully and specifically spell out the powers of a national government while simultaneously safeguarding the freedoms of individual citizens.

Now, you seem to be arguing over what is legal and the terms of that legislation. I am arguing about the first principles. I do not see anything wrong with people donating money anonymously to political candidates, any more than I think it is anyone's business as to how much you donated to your church (unless you happen to make it an issue when you claim it as a deduction on your taxes). As long as it is not for a separate criminal purpose, I believe who you give your money to is is your business and your business alone.

Put aside the law for a moment. Could you please tell me what you believe is fundamentally wrong with anonymous donations for political campaigns?
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL-I have a degree (Masters) in Labor relations and labor law from the top program in the world I know labor law inside out
Click to expand...

Then you should be EMBARRASSED because you ought to KNOW the history of organized labor better than I do!
So how can you say such ignorant things like "people should get fired for joining a union", as if ONE PERSON does that?
OMG TD, you have got to be kidding me.
 
TD, name ONE instance where a single solitary individual "joined a union".
Good God.
Union organizers build the movement to organize a shop. It's a months or even YEARS long process.
Degree in labor relations and you don't understand how that works? :lamo
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Then you should be EMBARRASSED because you ought to KNOW the history of organized labor better than I do!
So how can you say such ignorant things like "people should get fired for joining a union", as if ONE PERSON does that?
OMG TD, you have got to be kidding me.
Click to expand...

I am saying what SHOULD BE

not what the law is
 
danarhea said:
Today's news? Dark money will no longer be dark. It won't undo all the damage of Citizens United, but it will certainly allow people to see where the money is coming from, resulting in Citizens United having a much lessened impact on elections.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rules-against-secret-dark-money-contributions
Click to expand...

There is speculation that a lot of laundered environmental money, especially the Sierra Club is originating in Russia. The reason is Russia desperately needs the price of oil to increase to help finance the country. The California DA refuses to investigate it, this new ruling may help a shine some lot on who is buying who.

How many of you know that John Boehner is now a lobbies for China. Why the bleep does China get to lobby members of congress? You know much “consideration” is passing through greedy hands.

WTF do we need a state department for, not to mention Embassies. That is where China should be pitching its case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom