I sure hope the Democrats find a way to get $ Billionaires money out of Politics: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-reportedly-to-spend-at-least-500-million-to-defeat-trump...

son of witless

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-reportedly-to-spend-at-least-500-million-to-defeat-trump

peter11937 Loc: NYS

son of witless wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-reportedly-to-spend-at-least-500-million-to-defeat-trump

Carol Kelly

son of witless wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-reportedly-to-spend-at-least-500-million-to-defeat-trump

D********g. Do they really think they can get by with a Socialist takeover of America.
THERES NOT ENOUGH money in the world to do that. Most Americans do and should understand that Socialism cannot and WILL not provide Utopia. It’s failed everywhere and it would fail here. Socialist party has grown from 6,000 in the 50s to 60,000?since 2016. Why? Muslims, Puerto Ricons, Mexicans? How to explain?

EL Loc: Massachusetts

Carol Kelly wrote:

D********g. Do they really think they can get by with a Socialist takeover of America.
THERES NOT ENOUGH money in the world to do that. Most Americans do and should understand that Socialism cannot and WILL not provide Utopia. It’s failed everywhere and it would fail here. Socialist party has grown from 6,000 in the 50s to 60,000?since 2016. Why? Muslims, Puerto Ricons, Mexicans? How to explain?

If they ever got socialism through (which they won't) every Billionaire/millionaire would leave this country within a week. Then who are they going to hit with a 70% tax?
Socialism is SO bad, one wonders what kind of i***ts are backing it.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

son of witless wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-reportedly-to-spend-at-least-500-million-to-defeat-trump

Why? Republicans will just take it to court and the Supremes will rule that money is speech.

Unless you think that only Republican money is speech.

greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont

I don't know yet how much Bloomberg has spent, but he has apparently bought the Vermont legislature.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

son of witless wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-reportedly-to-spend-at-least-500-million-to-defeat-trump

That money would be better spent on eradicating the stinkin' rats that have taken over New York City.

son of witless

working class stiff wrote:

Why? Republicans will just take it to court and the Supremes will rule that money is speech.

Unless you think that only Republican money is speech.

The whole point of this post is Liberal and Democrat Party hypocrisy. Hypocrisy and lying are the two common characteristics of Liberals. They complain and whine and complain and whine about the rich and about big money and corporate money in politics. Yet when a $ Ka Billionaire like Bloomberg or Soros or Steyer is on their side in politics, nary a peep out of them.

Now splain to me how this is not hypocrisy, if you dare.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

son of witless wrote:

The whole point of this post is Liberal and Democrat Party hypocrisy. Hypocrisy and lying are the two common characteristics of Liberals. They complain and whine and complain and whine about the rich and about big money and corporate money in politics. Yet when a $ Ka Billionaire like Bloomberg or Soros or Steyer is on their side in politics, nary a peep out of them.

Now splain to me how this is not hypocrisy, if you dare.

Why should the Democrats peep? The rules of the game are just that. If money is speech, then what you are calling for is self censorship or unilateral disarmament by Democrats.

May I point out that it is also hypocritical to say that money is speech and then claim 'hypocrisy' when that is taken literally by those with whom you disagree. I can still easily claim that I am for campaign donation limits, t***sparency, or public finance but support the billionaires on my side without any hypocrisy. Your rules...just playing by them.

Can you splain to me how you aren't being hypocritical for claiming money is speech and then complaining when someone you disagree with talks really loud?

son of witless

working class stiff wrote:

Why should the Democrats peep? The rules of the g... (show quote)

" Why should the Democrats peep? The rules of the game are just that. If money is speech, then what you are calling for is self censorship or unilateral disarmament by Democrats. "

They should peep because they say one thing and do the opposite. They say they h**e rich people, but they only h**e rich people not on their big government side. Besides this whole war on the rich is never ever what it is cracked up to be. They raise money on the rich, the rich move into tax shelters and keep their money, all the while the Democrats raise taxes on the middle class to pay for their Socialist schemes which never work.

" Can you splain to me how you aren't being hypocritical for claiming money is speech and then complaining when someone you disagree with talks really loud? "

Can you splain to me WTF you accuse me of being hypocritical for saying something I did not say.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

son of witless wrote:

" Why should the Democrats peep? The rules of... (show quote)

You don't have to say anything, just have many assumptions in your argument. Who h**es rich people? What war on the rich? Assertions without proof.

One can be for limiting political donations and the money influence in politics and still play by the established rules of the game without being hypocritical. Your assertion of hypocrisy is false. Hypocrisy would be passing a law restricting campaign donations and then letting billionaires self finance with unlimited money. Establishing a rule that says money is speech and cannot be limited and then complaining when 'the other side' plays by those rules is hypocritical, regardless if that 'other side' wanted the game to have different rules.

JoyV

working class stiff wrote:

You don't have to say anything, just have many ass... (show quote)

Did not multiple Democrats say they wanted a 70% tax on higher bracket incomes? Some want even higher. But for those who get millions but don't declare them as income (like Hillary and Bill's released income tax during the campaign which had their joint yearly income declared as just under $100 for the year); this 70% tax would not apply.

As for money being used as speech for campaign financing, check your own candidates and party before casting stones! Which candidate in 2016 used far less corporate money, or money from any sources? Which candidate used the most money from his own pocket?

son of witless

working class stiff wrote:

You don't have to say anything, just have many ass... (show quote)

You are better at debating your self than debating me. You create straw men that you can slay, by creating false points I did not make. Since you cannot get your stories straight I will not take up anymore of your valuable time.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

son of witless wrote:

You are better at debating your self than debating me. You create straw men that you can slay, by creating false points I did not make. Since you cannot get your stories straight I will not take up anymore of your valuable time.

If by that you mean I've made my point....thank you.

I did not swallow your assertion that Dems are hypocrites. That's not creating straw men. That's challenging your premise.

I can keep my story straight....I still allege that you are the hypocrite for establishing the rule that money is speech and then complaining about the outcome. Democratic billionaires?....what chutzpah, right?

One of the consequences of Citizens United: all of the sudden anyone who can self finance a p**********l campaign is a qualified contender.

son of witless

working class stiff wrote:

If by that you mean I've made my point....thank yo... (show quote)

" Can you splain to me how you aren't being hypocritical for claiming money is speech and then complaining when someone you disagree with talks really loud? "

I keep going back onto my old posts and I keep looking for where I said that " money is speech ". You keep harping on that and my memory just keeps on telling me that I did not say that.