Jump to content

SCOTUS, Ted Cruz and Money In Politics


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Well so much for getting money out of politics…fuck it let’s just make it easier to buy them!

 

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan

Edited by Jimmy Snacks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jimmy Snacks changed the title to SCOTUS, Ted Cruz and Money In Politics

VOX news. :lol:

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member

The correct legal standpoint of this ruling and Citizens United not withstanding....we need to amend the constitution to address the mess that is our campaign finance laws. These asshats have no business being allowed to accept money from unions, corporations or other big money interests. We are literally allowing entities to purchase our elected officials. That must stop.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
9 hours ago, irv said:

VOX news. :lol:

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

How about Forbes...don’t you ever tire of being a step and fetch it toady? 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/16/supreme-court-sides-with-ted-cruz-in-campaign-finance-case/?sh=2b869aee3b5e

Edited by Jimmy Snacks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

You calling anyone a step and fetch it toady is the height of irony.  Vox is left leaning garbage.  You might note the key words, as they apply to both parties,  “court sides with”, as in he made his arguments.  You not so much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
13 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

You calling anyone a step and fetch it toady is the height of irony.  Vox is left leaning garbage.  You might note the key words, as they apply to both parties,  “court sides with”, as in he made his arguments.  You not so much.

So you applaud this…got it.👍🏼
 

BTW magoo I added a link from Forbes as well but like Irv you just spew the same old bullshit…what a surprise.🤣

Edited by Jimmy Snacks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mainecat said:

Cancun Cruz

A group of Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin blocked passage of a sweeping anti-union bill Thursday by ignoring orders to attend a vote. Instead, they left the state to force Republicans to negotiate over the proposal.

As ever-growing throngs of protesters filled the Capitol for a third day, the 14 Democrats disappeared from the grounds. They were not in their offices, and aides said they did not know where any of them had gone. A state police search is under way.

Hours later, one Democrat told The Associated Press that the group had left Wisconsin.

Sen. Jon Erpenbach said Democrats fled to delay consideration of the bill in the hopes that Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Republican lawmakers would discuss changes.

"The plan is to try and slow this down, because it's an extreme piece of legislation that's tearing this state apart," Erpenbach told AP in a telephone interview.

He refused to say where he was. Other Democratic lawmakers sent messages over Twitter and issued written statements, but did not say where they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Sure It applies to both parties but Cruz is the one that sued the FEC and  heaven forbid some of you utter a harsh word about a Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
14 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Well so much for getting money out of politics…fuck it let’s just make it easier to buy them!

 

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan

Yet campaign contribution limits of $2900 per election are still in effect.   

You act as if the GOP is the only one who gets campaign contributions from wealthy individuals likely seeking favors.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

So you applaud this…got it.👍🏼
 

BTW magoo I added a link from Forbes as well but like Irv you just spew the same old bullshit…what a surprise.🤣

No.  I didnt say I applaud it.  That would be you assigning positions and piss poor reading  comprehension. Instead of arguing the case and why you think it was wrong, you just posted up a hack article from a leftist website because it criticized a republican, when this law applies to both parties. Such a step and fetch it toady you are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, people think supreme court justices are about abortion and other stupid shit but really they are hand picked by corporations to be lenient about anti trust laws and other forms of corp/govt corruption like this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Sure It applies to both parties but Cruz is the one that sued the FEC and  heaven forbid some of you utter a harsh word about a Republican.

Like you whining when teacher and their unions are criticized? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
7 hours ago, Kivalo said:

The correct legal standpoint of this ruling and Citizens United not withstanding....we need to amend the constitution to address the mess that is our campaign finance laws. These asshats have no business being allowed to accept money from unions, corporations or other big money interests. We are literally allowing entities to purchase our elected officials. That must stop.

What about the major media sources?   Endless supply of money by way of reporting to particular sides.   How do we force neutrality in media?

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DriftBusta said:

No.  I didnt say I applaud it.  That would be you assigning positions and piss poor reading  comprehension. Instead of arguing the case and why you think it was wrong, you just posted up a hack article from a leftist website because it criticized a republican, when this law applies to both parties. Such a step and fetch it toady you are.

I know MC gives him some serious competition on here for being the most stupid, idiotic poster, but if there is a difference, it sure is hard to distinguish sometimes.:news:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
6 hours ago, Highmark said:

What about the major media sources?   Endless supply of money by way of reporting to particular sides.   How do we force neutrality in media?

While its related to it is not the same as outright purchasing an elected leader. 

Still tho, its a good point and also a major problem. But if you look back in history our media outlets have never been truly unbiased. They have certainly been better than they are now tho. I don't think there is an easy answer to your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
7 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Sure It applies to both parties but Cruz is the one that sued the FEC and  heaven forbid some of you utter a harsh word about a Republican.

You know the rules, both sides do it but only the other side is guilty!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
6 hours ago, DriftBusta said:

No.  I didnt say I applaud it.  That would be you assigning positions and piss poor reading  comprehension. Instead of arguing the case and why you think it was wrong, you just posted up a hack article from a leftist website because it criticized a republican, when this law applies to both parties. Such a step and fetch it toady you are.

Ted Cruz filed the lawsuit you senile old fucktard and nowhere did I say that it didn’t apply to both parties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
5 minutes ago, Kivalo said:

While its related to it is not the same as outright purchasing an elected leader. 

Still tho, its a good point and also a major problem. But if you look back in history our media outlets have never been truly unbiased. They have certainly been better than they are now tho. I don't think there is an easy answer to your question.

The media question was actually part of the majority decision.  Hell even NPR is severely biased.  

I could never support a Citizens United decision until the groups like union's and media outlet question being resolved which it never will.   Union's will never give up their right to support a certain side and nor should they.  I guess the same could be said with corporations and generally anymore big corp leans further left than right.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 hours ago, irv said:

I know MC gives him some serious competition on here for being the most stupid, idiotic poster, but if there is a difference, it sure is hard to distinguish sometimes.:news:

Oh fuck off you fucking lackey.🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
1 minute ago, Highmark said:

The media question was actually part of the majority decision.  Hell even NPR is severely biased.  

I could never support a Citizens United decision until the groups like union's and media outlet question being resolved which it never will.   Union's will never give up their right to support a certain side and nor should they.  I guess the same could be said with corporations.  

I'm not aware of any media entity that doesn't have a bias, most have severe bias. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
5 minutes ago, Kivalo said:

I'm not aware of any media entity that doesn't have a bias, most have severe bias. 

And therein lies the problem.  Virtually all media is corp owned and no other election was more influenced by false media narratives than the 2020.   

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...