Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He also votes liberal on others, that is why he is a swing vote.
I don't know why people don't realize that when both parties do not like the decisions of SCOTUS that means that SCOTUS is doing its job.
SCOTUS is doing the job of the wealthy in order to solidify complete control of the country for that class.
They are promoting corruption with Citizens United and this decision.
It amazes me how our nation has gone from the New Deal and Great Society to naked greed.
He probably did. Who knows. Maybe it simply makes him feel important. Some people like to spend $10 million on a yacht. I saw where someone in California just spent $102 million in a house. Adelson likes to feel important and donate to politicians. Meh, so what? It's not anyone else's business to determine how he spends his money.
But you seem to want to curtail the way others spend their money not on a problem you can even point out or explain to anyone. You don't seem to even know whether anyone benefited or not. To curtail the rights of others you at the very least have to prove harm and even then that's not always enough but you can't even show where anyone was harmed with his wasting his money on an election.
No, it's not just "meh, so what."
A guy like Adelson is spending that kind of money because he wants to compel a politician to do something that is in his financial interest. Rich people did not get to be rich by pissing away money and not having a nose for a good ROI; if they are putting mountains of cash into politicians' pockets, you can be sure they have done the calculations as to what they hope and expect to get back for it.
This country was founded on the principle of all legal, voting-age people having a fair voice in the political process, albeit in the form of a representative rather than direct democracy system. Removing all restrictions is not the ultimate of societal "freedom." It is the pathway to the strongest few beating up on the rest and gaining disproportionate influence, thus ending up in the same place as when you have too many restrictions and make government too powerful: tyranny. A functioning democracy needs rules in place to maintain the balance between the voices of those who have deep pockets and those who don't.
So yes, I want to stop Adelson from spending too much to put politicians in his pocket. I don't care how he spends his money in other things, but I care about that. And if you had any interest in the principles upon which this nation was founded, you would too.
But with their deep pockets and ability to go to unlimited lengths now to buy politicians for their own financial motives, they will only increasingly wield much greater and greater influence on what our politicians do than the majority.
The rich are unquestionably needed and important in any society, but the way some of you unreservedly and so passionately kiss ass of the rich as if they were your friends while they ********* over and deny your voice in the process is pretty laughable.
I think you've taken a leap here that is not supported by my posts.
I don't want to curtail the way others spend their money.
I want to curtail corruption.
Campaign finance rules and limits are about curtailing corruption.
And as of yet you've not pointed out the corruption here. We already have laws that address corruption. Its why those like the politicians in California have been suspended and are facing charges.
Where is the corruption in the $100 million Adelson threw away?
SCOTUS is doing the job of the wealthy in order to solidify complete control of the country for that class.
They are promoting corruption with Citizens United and this decision.
It amazes me how our nation has gone from the New Deal and Great Society to naked greed.
The Dems spent way more than the GOP in the Florida special election last month. Why didn't they win?
A guy like Adelson is spending that kind of money because he wants to compel a politician to do something that is in his financial interest. Rich people did not get to be rich by pissing away money and not having a nose for a good ROI; if they are putting mountains of cash into politicians' pockets, you can be sure they have done the calculations as to what they hope and expect to get back for it.
So tell me, what did he get for his money? I've asked this many times now. What did he get?
Quote:
This country was founded on the principle of all legal, voting-age people having a fair voice in the political process, albeit in the form of a representative rather than direct democracy system. Removing all restrictions is not the ultimate of societal "freedom." It is the pathway to the strongest few beating up on the rest and gaining disproportionate influence, thus ending up in the same place as when you have too many restrictions and make government too powerful: tyranny. A functioning democracy needs rules in place to maintain the balance between the voices of those who have deep pockets and those who don't.
If money trumps all why didn't the Dems win the Florida special election?
Quote:
So yes, I want to stop Adelson from spending too much to put politicians in his pocket. I don't care how he spends his money in other things, but I care about that. And if you had any interest in the principles upon which this nation was founded, you would too.
If Adelson has $100 million to spend and I have a million people with $100 to spend who has the strongest position? Do you want to curtail the right of people to associate with other like minded people also?
But with their deep pockets and ability to go to unlimited lengths now to buy politicians for their own financial motives, they will only increasingly wield much greater and greater influence on what our politicians do than the majority.
The rich are unquestionably needed and important in any society, but the way some of you unreservedly and so passionately kiss ass of the rich as if they were your friends while they ********* over and deny your voice in the process is pretty laughable.
What is pretty laughable is using the demonization of the rich to undermine the 1st Amendment. Nothing is more dangerous than undermining the right of free political speech.
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”
― Harry S. Truman
What is pretty laughable is using the demonization of the rich to undermine the 1st Amendment. Nothing is more dangerous than undermining the right of free political speech.
So your solution is to just allow the rich to monopolize the political process because they can pay the most?
What about my rights to having a say in the government? So in order for me to get a say that actually means anything, I have to have deep pockets? That's your idea of what this nation was supposed to be all about? What a joke.
So tell me, what did he get for his money? I've asked this many times now. What did he get?
They are not so stupid as to make a nice list for you and me. But you can bet he swayed politicians' votes on all sorts of things that support things that are to his interest.
Do you think the man is so stupid as to spend all that money for nothing?
[quote=pknopp;34179477]If money trumps all why didn't the Dems win the Florida special election?
Need more detail on how money played a part. Money may not be able to explain every single electoral outcome in the nation, but you have to be pretty naive if you believe that it doesn't sway a lot of things. And you have to believe that a lot of rich, successful people are pretty stupid if they're pouring money in to make certain things happen in the political arena with no effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
If Adelson has $100 million to spend and I have a million people with $100 to spend who has the strongest position? Do you want to curtail the right of people to associate with other like minded people also?
Adelson. A million people with $100 to spend don't have anywhere near as much influence because they're decentralized little peons with no real power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
