In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I saw this pic and couldn't help wondering why it wouldn't be a recommendation for the left to vote for Trump.
maybe because you shouldn't vote based on memes
Then explain the Sanders campaign.
On April 27 2016 09:41 Introvert wrote: This nice, hefty group of lefty states that no Republican will win in the fall was perfectly timed for Trump. Normally suited to help squish moderates, it helps Trump massively, while he'll get blown out there in November. It's all really funny to think about. Now let's move on to other states, so the media narrative can continue to be wildly all over the place.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time?
You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance?
I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying.
Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it.
Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on?
I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw.
Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it.
NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question.
Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence?
We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
Its not dishonest to say if you have more debts then assets you have no wealth because you dont.
The biggest cause of this was the housing crisis that basically made a bunch of homes underwater and since homes are most peoples largest asset there drastic devalueing crippled a lot of homes.
Not really, 4/5 are (Not Rhode Island), but Pennsylvania has an insane amount of unbound delegates (like 40-50% of everything that's up for grabs today).
On April 27 2016 09:41 Introvert wrote: This nice, hefty group of lefty states that no Republican will win in the fall was perfectly timed for Trump. Normally suited to help squish moderates, it helps Trump massively, while he'll get blown out there in November. It's all really funny to think about. Now let's move on to other states, so the media narrative can continue to be wildly all over the place.
Who are you hoping will be the nominee?
At this point anyone but Trump. Not only is he the most liberal Republican frontrunner in a long time (really saying something), he's an absolute disaster for downballot voting.
I'm amused to watch the RNC's own rules cause all this, and it will be fun to watch the cultists who are devoted to dear leader get crushed in an I-told-you-so moment, but in the end it's terrible.
Also, I don't need the media trying to conflate Trumpism and conservatism. Because even though they clearly aren't the same, they will still try.
Edit: all this being said, if Trump loses Indiana than I'm less concerned. He needs that win, and a good day in CA, to go over. If he finishes a good number below 1200 I don't think he's going to get it.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time?
You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance?
I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying.
Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it.
Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on?
I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw.
Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it.
NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question.
Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence?
We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
It wasn't my use of "corrupting" though, it was Hillary Clinton's.
So if you don't like her use of the word, you can substitute it with something else. Then answer the question.
Who, other than Hillary, is using Citizens United openings but not being influenced by it's ______ influence?
On April 27 2016 01:43 kwizach wrote: [quote] I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary.
[quote] Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it.
Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on?
I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw.
Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it.
NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question.
Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence?
We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
Its not dishonest to say if you have more debts then assets you have no wealth because you dont.
The biggest cause of this was the housing crisis that basically made a bunch of homes underwater and since homes are most peoples largest asset there drastic devalueing crippled a lot of homes.
I don't see how the RNC's rules caused this. If anything its the party giving any time to the tea party people finally coming back to eat the party alive. Its getting pretty far along on the doomsday clock now. If it was anyone but hillary on the democratic ticket the part would be bracing for an old time Reagan level drubbing in November.
At the best we can hope for is a wash where everyone is unhappy and nothing really changes.
Who would even want to be his VP? its straight up political suicide for no possible gain.
On April 27 2016 01:43 kwizach wrote: [quote] I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary.
[quote] Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it.
Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on?
I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw.
Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it.
NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question.
Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence?
We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
It wasn't my use of "corrupting" though, it was Hillary Clinton's.
So if you don't like her use of the word, you can substitute it with something else. Then answer the question.
Who, other than Hillary, is using Citizens United openings but not being influenced by it's ______ influence?
I don't care whose use it was, I'm the one you're asking the question. And like I said, the answer was already available in my exchange with Nebuchad, but you're not interested in that because you're trying to attack Hillary through a loaded line of questioning. Plenty of Republicans and Democrats are not corrupt and still benefit from the actions of SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s.
On April 27 2016 09:58 Sermokala wrote: I don't see how the RNC's rules caused this. If anything its the party giving any time to the tea party people finally coming back to eat the party alive. Its getting pretty far along on the doomsday clock now. If it was anyone but hillary on the democratic ticket the part would be bracing for an old time Reagan level drubbing in November.
At the best we can hope for is a wash where everyone is unhappy and nothing really changes.
Who would even want to be his VP? its straight up political suicide for no possible gain.
RNC rules favor the front runner, as you can tell. <40% of the vote, like 50% of the delegates now?
And the delegate allocation process in many states give a lot of power to GOP voters in Blue states. This is true in NY, where there are few GOP voters and some congressional districts with almost no primary voter, still worth 3 delegates.
In my state of CA, Nancy Pelosi's district is worth 3 delegates, as are Orange County districts with far more GOP voters (and more conservative ones). IT's supposed to help someone like Mitt Romney, not Donald Trump, lol.
Edit: and this makes Trump's crybaby whining all the more absurd. He'd have no shot under any other system.
On April 27 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on?
I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary.
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw.
Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it.
NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question.
Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence?
We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
It wasn't my use of "corrupting" though, it was Hillary Clinton's.
So if you don't like her use of the word, you can substitute it with something else. Then answer the question.
Who, other than Hillary, is using Citizens United openings but not being influenced by it's ______ influence?
I don't care whose use it was, I'm the one you're asking the question. And like I said, the answer was already available in my exchange with Nebuchad, but you're not interested in that because you're trying to attack Hillary through a loaded line of questioning. Plenty of Republicans and Democrats are not corrupt and still benefit from the actions of SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s.
Remember we're not saying "individuals ARE corrupt" I'm asking who other than Hillary you think is using Citizens United and isn't influenced by the _____ influence of it. We covered you disagree with Hillary's characterization of "corrupting" so I want to be clear what you call it's influence and who is using them without being subject to it.
Trump is going all the way, after the recent turn of events, Trump would really need to do something catastrophic to get denied the nomination.
As a Trump supporter, I'm very happy with what I'm seeing. And honestly, I don't think Trump is the best option, but man... When you look at someone like Cruz... I think a significant portion of the world would rather have Putin than Cruz.
Anyway, the message as always, don't underestimate the Trump, he might be down double digits on Hillary now, but I would be absolutely shocked if he receives less than 48% of the popular vote. I think the more time that people will spend trying to listen to what he's saying instead of what the media tells them (which they've slowed down on), the more people will like him.
On April 27 2016 02:17 kwizach wrote: [quote] I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary.
[quote] Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it.
NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question.
Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence?
We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
It wasn't my use of "corrupting" though, it was Hillary Clinton's.
So if you don't like her use of the word, you can substitute it with something else. Then answer the question.
Who, other than Hillary, is using Citizens United openings but not being influenced by it's ______ influence?
I don't care whose use it was, I'm the one you're asking the question. And like I said, the answer was already available in my exchange with Nebuchad, but you're not interested in that because you're trying to attack Hillary through a loaded line of questioning. Plenty of Republicans and Democrats are not corrupt and still benefit from the actions of SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s.
remember we're not saying "individuals ARE corrupt" I'm asking who other than Hillary you think is using Citizens United and isn't influenced by the _____ influence of it. We covered you disagree with Hillary's characterization of "corrupting" so I want to be clear what you call it's influence and who is using them without being subject to it. Then it should be easy to name some?
Except that's exactly what you're saying. I haven't used the term "influence", you have. Define what else you mean by "influence"? edit: also, like you already know and are deliberately leaving out, I explicitly said in my exchange with Nebuchad that I do think that corruption can and has happened, and this happens more easily with rules allowing for contributions to be undisclosed. I simply dispute using "corrupt" to characterize the system and everyone in it.
On April 27 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question.
Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence?
We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
It wasn't my use of "corrupting" though, it was Hillary Clinton's.
So if you don't like her use of the word, you can substitute it with something else. Then answer the question.
Who, other than Hillary, is using Citizens United openings but not being influenced by it's ______ influence?
I don't care whose use it was, I'm the one you're asking the question. And like I said, the answer was already available in my exchange with Nebuchad, but you're not interested in that because you're trying to attack Hillary through a loaded line of questioning. Plenty of Republicans and Democrats are not corrupt and still benefit from the actions of SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s.
remember we're not saying "individuals ARE corrupt" I'm asking who other than Hillary you think is using Citizens United and isn't influenced by the _____ influence of it. We covered you disagree with Hillary's characterization of "corrupting" so I want to be clear what you call it's influence and who is using them without being subject to it. Then it should be easy to name some?
Except that's exactly what you're saying. I haven't used the term "influence", you have. Define what else you mean by "influence"?
: the power to change or affect someone or something : the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen
: a person or thing that affects someone or something in an important way
Anyone else think tonight, when coupled with the recent Cruz/Kasich alliance, makes the alliance much worse? After losing this terribly, them making a case to voters to buy into this little scheme is just making them look desperate. Not just desperate, unrealistic after tonight. Kasich in the twenties? Cruz in the TEENS? What in the world are they even trying to pull here?
On April 27 2016 10:19 Mohdoo wrote: Anyone else think tonight, when coupled with the recent Cruz/Kasich alliance, makes the alliance much worse? After losing this terribly, them making a case to voters to buy into this little scheme is just making them look desperate. Not just desperate, unrealistic after tonight. Kasich in the twenties? Cruz in the TEENS? What in the world are they even trying to pull here?
Well their Alliance was bad from the start.
A movement based on denying someone the nomination instead of winning one will never win.
Just the concept of an alliance, the same concept where Cruz just wants to take delegates he doesn't deserve isn't right with most people, and they'll lose support over it.
On April 27 2016 07:24 kwizach wrote: [quote] We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
It wasn't my use of "corrupting" though, it was Hillary Clinton's.
So if you don't like her use of the word, you can substitute it with something else. Then answer the question.
Who, other than Hillary, is using Citizens United openings but not being influenced by it's ______ influence?
I don't care whose use it was, I'm the one you're asking the question. And like I said, the answer was already available in my exchange with Nebuchad, but you're not interested in that because you're trying to attack Hillary through a loaded line of questioning. Plenty of Republicans and Democrats are not corrupt and still benefit from the actions of SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s.
remember we're not saying "individuals ARE corrupt" I'm asking who other than Hillary you think is using Citizens United and isn't influenced by the _____ influence of it. We covered you disagree with Hillary's characterization of "corrupting" so I want to be clear what you call it's influence and who is using them without being subject to it. Then it should be easy to name some?
Except that's exactly what you're saying. I haven't used the term "influence", you have. Define what else you mean by "influence"?
If you disagree with us on the word "corrupting" I'm going to need you to replace it with something satisfactory to you.
So which not-indicted for corruption elected officials do you feel have changed their views because of the impacts of Citizens United? And which haven't (other than who you'll obviously mention, Sanders/Warren)?
Nice speech from Clinton. I hope Sanders drops the dishonest, personal attacks and starts focusing on the issues only from now on. It's time for him to get ready to support Hillary without ambiguity. Come November, we'll have a Madam President
On April 27 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
Like I said, you're asking a loaded question as a springboard to make a speech. I'm not going to indulge you -- I have repeated my opposition to the impacts of Citizens United countless times here. Make your point already.
It's really not for some speech. I don't think you can answer the question.
It's a loaded question with a premise I explicitly rejected in my exchange with Nebuchad, by arguing that I didn't think "corrupt" was an accurate characterization of the system. If you were honestly trying to discuss this, you wouldn't be asking me that question. You know this, and I know this. Stop being dishonest.
It wasn't my use of "corrupting" though, it was Hillary Clinton's.
So if you don't like her use of the word, you can substitute it with something else. Then answer the question.
Who, other than Hillary, is using Citizens United openings but not being influenced by it's ______ influence?
I don't care whose use it was, I'm the one you're asking the question. And like I said, the answer was already available in my exchange with Nebuchad, but you're not interested in that because you're trying to attack Hillary through a loaded line of questioning. Plenty of Republicans and Democrats are not corrupt and still benefit from the actions of SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s.
remember we're not saying "individuals ARE corrupt" I'm asking who other than Hillary you think is using Citizens United and isn't influenced by the _____ influence of it. We covered you disagree with Hillary's characterization of "corrupting" so I want to be clear what you call it's influence and who is using them without being subject to it. Then it should be easy to name some?
Except that's exactly what you're saying. I haven't used the term "influence", you have. Define what else you mean by "influence"?
: the power to change or affect someone or something : the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen
: a person or thing that affects someone or something in an important way
If you disagree with us on the word "corrupting" I'm going to need you to replace it with something satisfactory to you.
So which not-indicted for corruption elected officials do you feel have changed their views because of the impacts of Citizens United? And which haven't (other than who you'll obviously mention, Sanders/Warren)?
I want to know what word besides "corrupting" you would like to use to describe the influence of Citizen United so you can answer who (other than Hillary) you think is both using it, and not being affected by it's _____ influence.
EPT![[image loading]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/f1/01/eaf101f27383529743ba444f631f1561.jpg)
