|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:36 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:20 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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.
That's interesting, you can't answer your own question?  Come on, I know you'd like to speak about anything else than the results currently coming in, but I made my position clear in my exchange with Nebuchad. I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption.
|
On April 27 2016 10:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Anti-Trump guys spent almost no money in these 5 states, they essentially gave them up. These margins are hardly surprising. And this weird resource splitting just started a few days ago, in other states. not saying Trump didn't have a very good night, the game isn't finished.
Also, most of the time in contested conventions the eventually nominee isn't the leader going in. This is all very interesting.
|
|
|
@GH and @kwizach
Can you take your bullshit to PM? You've both discussed at length and already know the answer to these questions.
|
On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:36 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question?
Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it.
Your turn.
|
On April 27 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:36 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question? Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it. Your turn.
Apparently you can't, because you asked me to name some and you didn't. Which elected officials changed their views because of Citizens United?
Like I said in the edit in my previous post: come on, I know you'd like to speak about anything else than the results currently coming in, but I made my position clear in my exchange with Nebuchad. I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption.
|
Bernie supporters are more likely to flake out than the republicans.
|
On April 27 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:36 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question? Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it. Your turn.
Growing your logic I should not trust Bernie to close tax loopholes because he uses those loopholes. That might seem like a leap but at its core they are the same. They are a way to gain an advantage that the only reason you should not take is out of pride and if you want to put an end to these things you can not afford to be blinded by pride.
|
|
|
On April 27 2016 10:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question? Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it. Your turn. Apparently you can't, because you asked me to name some and you didn't. Which elected officials changed their views because of Citizens United? Like I said in the edit in my previous post: come on, I know you'd like to speak about anything else than the results currently coming in, but I made my position clear in my exchange with Nebuchad. I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption.
But you're saying someone can use use Citizens United, those superPAC's, and undisclosed donations and not think it's a problem. I'm asking who, other than Hillary, you think is doing that.
I "can't" name someone specific, because I don't think it's happening.
On April 27 2016 10:52 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question? Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it. Your turn. Growing your logic I should not trust Bernie to close tax loopholes because he uses those loopholes. That might seem like a leap but at its core they are the same. They are a way to gain an advantage that the only reason you should not take is out of pride and if you want to put an end to these things you can not afford to be blinded by pride.
No, not trusting Hillary on this issue goes beyond her using the specific things she's against.
Which "loopholes" is Bernie using that he plans to close?
|
On April 27 2016 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:48 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question? Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it. Your turn. Apparently you can't, because you asked me to name some and you didn't. Which elected officials changed their views because of Citizens United? Like I said in the edit in my previous post: come on, I know you'd like to speak about anything else than the results currently coming in, but I made my position clear in my exchange with Nebuchad. I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption. But you're saying someone can use use Citizens United, those superPAC's, and undisclosed donations and not think it's a problem. I'm asking who, other than Hillary, you think is doing that. I "can't" name someone specific, because I don't think it's happening.
I asked you to name officials whose views have changed due to the effects of Citizens United, which is what you have argued has happened.
I am not saying Citizens United is not a problem, or that the people who work in the current legal framework and make use of what can be done in the current system don't think Citizens United is a problem. On the Democrats' side, the position is overwhelmingly that the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance are terrible.
|
On April 27 2016 10:52 xDaunt wrote:Bernie supporters are more likely to flake out than the republicans.
How do you figure? Clinton is more of a liberal Dem than Trump is a Republican.
|
On April 27 2016 11:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:52 xDaunt wrote:Bernie supporters are more likely to flake out than the republicans. How do you figure?
There's a reason no party bothers to cater to young voters, they just don't turn out. Bernie is losing because of turnout. There just aren't enough people voting for him, despite his massive support among young voters.
|
Oh wow, that looks good for Trump, looks like he will get 40-45~ of those 54, much more than I would have anticipated.
|
On April 27 2016 11:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:52 xDaunt wrote:Bernie supporters are more likely to flake out than the republicans. How do you figure? Clinton is more of a liberal Dem than Trump is a Republican.
Bernie is rallying young voters who are notoriously flakey. I also expect Trump to make some big deals to get the Republican Party to rally around him.
|
On April 27 2016 10:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:48 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question? Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it. Your turn. Apparently you can't, because you asked me to name some and you didn't. Which elected officials changed their views because of Citizens United? Like I said in the edit in my previous post: come on, I know you'd like to speak about anything else than the results currently coming in, but I made my position clear in my exchange with Nebuchad. I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption. But you're saying someone can use use Citizens United, those superPAC's, and undisclosed donations and not think it's a problem. I'm asking who, other than Hillary, you think is doing that. I "can't" name someone specific, because I don't think it's happening. I asked you to name officials whose views have changed due to the effects of Citizens United, which is what you have argued has happened. I am not saying Citizens United is not a problem, or that the people who work in the current legal framework and make use of what can be done in the current system don't think Citizens United is a problem. On the Democrats' side, the position is overwhelmingly that the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance are terrible.
That wasn't my question though.
If it's not it's "corrupting" influence, what makes it's "effects" so "terrible"?
|
On April 27 2016 11:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 11:00 Introvert wrote:On April 27 2016 10:52 xDaunt wrote:Bernie supporters are more likely to flake out than the republicans. How do you figure? Clinton is more of a liberal Dem than Trump is a Republican. Bernie is rallying young voters who are notoriously flakey. I also expect Trump to make some big deals to get the Republican Party to rally around him.
I just don't know what that means. Getting the party to rally around him is one thing, but getting people's votes is another.
I wonder if Trump is really scary enough that Dems will show up just to vote against.
Edit: I think you are right about the party, maybe. Trump can't self fund the general and so far donors are reluctant.
|
On April 27 2016 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 10:59 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:48 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:12 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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
SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question? Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it. Your turn. Apparently you can't, because you asked me to name some and you didn't. Which elected officials changed their views because of Citizens United? Like I said in the edit in my previous post: come on, I know you'd like to speak about anything else than the results currently coming in, but I made my position clear in my exchange with Nebuchad. I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption. But you're saying someone can use use Citizens United, those superPAC's, and undisclosed donations and not think it's a problem. I'm asking who, other than Hillary, you think is doing that. I "can't" name someone specific, because I don't think it's happening. I asked you to name officials whose views have changed due to the effects of Citizens United, which is what you have argued has happened. I am not saying Citizens United is not a problem, or that the people who work in the current legal framework and make use of what can be done in the current system don't think Citizens United is a problem. On the Democrats' side, the position is overwhelmingly that the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance are terrible. That wasn't my question though. If it's not it's "corrupting" influence, what makes it so terrible?
You're asking whose views haven't changed, I'm asking you whose views have. Anyway, you're going back in circles now, clearly looking for something to distract you from the results coming in. I'll repeat my position: I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption.
|
Hillary pulls ahead in Connecticut! The NY Times' live model currently has her winning by three points.
|
On April 27 2016 11:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:59 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:48 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:38 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 10:25 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] [quote] SourceIf 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. That's interesting, you can't answer your own question? Sure I can. I think all of the politicians using citizens united (particularly, directly coordinating with a superPAC, and using dark money) and those opposing candidates who are, are affected, some more than others and clearly in different ways. I agree with Bernie, Hillary, and the DNC that it is "corrupting" even if you and I disagree on the threshold on the use of the word. Bernie and I disagree with Hillary and the DNC that it should be exploited in the process of gaining the power to stop it. Your turn. Apparently you can't, because you asked me to name some and you didn't. Which elected officials changed their views because of Citizens United? Like I said in the edit in my previous post: come on, I know you'd like to speak about anything else than the results currently coming in, but I made my position clear in my exchange with Nebuchad. I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption. But you're saying someone can use use Citizens United, those superPAC's, and undisclosed donations and not think it's a problem. I'm asking who, other than Hillary, you think is doing that. I "can't" name someone specific, because I don't think it's happening. I asked you to name officials whose views have changed due to the effects of Citizens United, which is what you have argued has happened. I am not saying Citizens United is not a problem, or that the people who work in the current legal framework and make use of what can be done in the current system don't think Citizens United is a problem. On the Democrats' side, the position is overwhelmingly that the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance are terrible. That wasn't my question though. If it's not it's "corrupting" influence, what makes it so terrible? You're asking whose views haven't changed, I'm asking you whose views have. Anyway, you're going back in circles now, clearly looking for something to distract you from the results coming in. I'll repeat my position: I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption.
Thought so.
You can't name a single politician using Citizens United, superPAC's and undisclosed donations and not being influenced by it's ______ influence other than Hillary. Nebuchad was right. Your semantic games were just that, games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
