Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    26 Jul '16 01:011 edit
    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287

    This stuff is making me nauseated.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Jul '16 01:08
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287

    This stuff is making me nauseated.
    If Joe Shmo were to pay 200,000 USD to have dinner with Hillary Clinton, he should deserve a palatable meal.
  3. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    26 Jul '16 01:27
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    If Joe Shmo were to pay 200,000 USD to have dinner with Hillary Clinton, he should deserve a palatable meal.
    Well...at least one course should be palatable.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Jul '16 02:31
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287

    This stuff is making me nauseated.
    If you think that is a lot of money for Hillary supporters to pay, imagine how her daughter feels having to pay her mother to eat with her all those years.
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    26 Jul '16 06:50
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287

    This stuff is making me nauseated.
    Fortunately people can vote for politicians who want to ban bribery.

    Unfortunately they don't.
  6. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    26 Jul '16 11:54
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Fortunately people can vote for politicians who want to ban bribery.

    Unfortunately they don't.
    I'm pretty sure bribing a public official is already illegal. I think what you mean is ban "campaign contributions"?
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    26 Jul '16 12:05
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    I'm pretty sure bribing a public official is already illegal. I think what you mean is ban "campaign contributions"?
    bribery, yes
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    26 Jul '16 12:09
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    I'm pretty sure bribing a public official is already illegal. I think what you mean is ban "campaign contributions"?
    Back in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.

    So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52853
    26 Jul '16 12:36
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Back in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.

    So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.
    Do you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    26 Jul '16 13:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Do you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.
    The Democratic platform specifically calls for a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United. https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf at p. 25
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Jul '16 14:03
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Back in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.

    So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.
    Right, Hillary says she wants to make Citizens United null and void but has not problem taking the money. 😵
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Jul '16 14:04
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Do you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.
    The ruling gave Dims something to whine about after having pretty much everything go their way in terms of health care legislation and gay rights etc.

    They desperately needed something to rally around, but will it be enough?
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    26 Jul '16 19:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    Right, Hillary says she wants to make Citizens United null and void but has not problem taking the money. 😵
    She could voluntarily place herself at a disadvantage by not taking it I suppose, but why should she? It's not illegal.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Jul '16 19:213 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    She could voluntarily place herself at a disadvantage by not taking it I suppose, but why should she? It's not illegal.
    In politics, winning is much more important than principles and morals. The sell out Bernie Sanders is a good example of this as he endorsed Hillary after she had rigged the primary against him. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the exception as he refused to endorse Trump.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    26 Jul '16 19:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    In politics, winning is much more important than principles and morals. The sell out Bernie Sanders is a good example of this as he endorsed Hillary. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the exception as he refused to endorse Trump.
    LMAO! Ted Cruz is "exceptional" because he is only concerned with himself and doesn't let minor details like he repeatedly pledged to support his party's nominee get in the way of his personal ambition.
Back to Top