General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre you a PRACTICAL Democrat? Take the 2-item test.
1) We need the TPP like our Democratic President says. (Yes) (No)
2) Citizens United is a Good Thing because our candidates need Big Money too. (Yes) (No)
Scoring: Give yourself 50 points for each Yes answer.
If your score is less than 100, please report to the Third Way's Citizen Rehabilitation Center for reprogramming.
Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)
Renew Deal This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)I haven't seen one.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)
BY DAVID SIROTA
The same Democratic Party that slammed the Bush-Halliburton relationship now suggests that this type of behavior is fine and dandy.
Less than three weeks into her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has already accomplished a stunning feat: She appears to have unified large swaths of the Democratic Party and its activist base to support the core tenets of the Citizens United decisionthe one that effectively allowed unlimited money into politics.
That 2010 Supreme Court ruling declared that, unless there is an explicit quid pro quo, the fact that major campaign donors may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. The theory is that as long as a donor and a politician do not agree to an overt bribe, everything is A-OK.
When the ruling was handed down, Democrats were outraged, and Hillary Clinton herself has recently suggested she wants it overturned. Yet with revelations that firms with business before Clinton's State Department donated to her foundation and paid her husband, Clinton's campaign and rank-and-file Democratic activists are suddenly championing the Citizens United theory.
To advocates for limiting the influence of money in politics, this pushback from Democrats is particularly rich (pun intended) coming from a party that spent a decade asserting that Republicans raking in cash from Big Oil and pushing oil-friendly policies was rank corruption. The Democratic defense of their presumptive presidential nominee registers as especially disturbing to campaign finance reform advocates considering the mighty efficiency of the Clinton fundraising machine.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17895/hillary_clinton_citizens_united
erronis
(15,241 posts)............
They'll be by soon. I can wait.
.............................
Maybe their cogent defense of CU got lost in the mail.
.....
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)And show me the "defense" of CU. There is nothing there but the claims of the author. The link is missing so we can't read the entire thing.
erronis
(15,241 posts)Many of us are rather fervent about items that concern us at a particular point of time. Many of us are also opportunists that choose topics that might be influential. Many of us can also change our minds, over and over.
Not sure about David Sirota after reading his involvement with AIPAC, a group with a influence level similar to the NRA.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)Of course there is no link. But there isn't a single Democrat named or quoted in what you posted that supports Citizens United.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Actually I thought I had added it before, but discovered the edit apparently didn't go through.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)The person is suggesting that Democrats support Citizens United by action, not by word. I think the claim is wrong and disagree with the idea that Democrats support Citizens United. It's just not true.
Democrats do support legal fundraising as a result of CU. There is nothing wrong with playing by the new rules even if we disagree with the rules.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Oh Democrats.
No
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Incidentally, where did the OP find those amazing answers?
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)And tell the Third Way to suck a root. I don't need no stinking rehabilitation.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)than would ever make themselves known here.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Democracy wins, though.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)But of course!
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I'll bet the food is lousy, and they run out of liquor there.
Can't I get a deferment? *whines* I don't wanna go!!
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)They get ya all likkered up to soften your resistance.
They use booze because they're opposed to legalizing anything else.
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)1) (No)
2) (No)
Score; 0
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)meaning that in November 2016 I'll be shit out of luck
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)You live in an area where there is no constabulary that is replete with mauraders who rape and pillage. What do you do?
1) You meekly surrender your wife or husband and family to the mauraders for them to do with what they wish.
2) You arm yourself the best you can to protect them and yourself.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Do you agree with gratuitous? (Yes) (No)
If your answer is "Yes," you are a practical Democrat, a fine citizen, and a sterling judge of the current scene. If your answer is "No," fuck you.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)like cheering when told to do so? Because I tell you, I failed that one...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)deal making,
having no particular morals,
a corporate whore,
a sell out?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Are you grading on a curve?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I answered No and No. Then on top of that they docked me 10 points for being a grammar Nazi about the first question ("like" should be "as" .
Us grammar Nazis just don't get no love.