Biden asks if deceased congresswoman is at White House event

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
Democrats don't hide where they get their donations from. Republicans, not so much
Click to expand...
I don't know if this can be called "hiding" donors but Democrats do receive a whopping large amount from dark PACs:

www.opensecrets.org

‘Dark money’ topped $1 billion in 2020, largely boosting Democrats

The 2020 election saw more than $1 billion in dark money driven by an explosion of secret donations boosting Democrats.
www.opensecrets.org www.opensecrets.org

Liberal dark money groups overshadow conservatives
Anonymous donors poured record amounts of money into groups backing President Joe Biden in the 2020 contest, leaving the public without a full accounting of who helped him win the White House.

Biden’s presidential bid attracted around $174 million in support from anonymous donors, more than six times the $25.2 million in dark money contributions and spending boosting President Donald Trump’s unsuccessful re-election effort.

Democrats have consistently called for closing loopholes in campaign finance law that allow secret donors to bankroll pricey political ads. But that hasn’t stopped them from using secret funds to win elections. Of donations and spending reported to the FEC, liberal groups directed more than $514 million in dark money into the 2020 election, overshadowing around $200 million that boosted Republicans.

So, Democrats are open to the "you do it too" fallacy when they talk about Republican affinity for donating anonymously. Then again, Republicans block legislation banning untraceable donations. Legislation introduced by Democrats and endorsed by a majority of Democrats would ban dark money to finance campaigns. Meanwhile, Democrats aren't going to concede anything to Republicans. They won't unilaterally refuse legal donations. In 2020, Democrats received more dark money than Republicans did. It is hypocritical to argue against dark money and then accept legal anonymous donations. But they won and that makes all the difference to Democrats and democracy in the US. Campaign finance laws have be changed before this practice can be stopped -- and won't until enough Republicans are voted out. It would be ironic if dark money helped Democrats do this.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
To me, that's the big downside with dems, is the naivety involved with externally wanting to hold corps accountable and then behind the scenes being pro-corp. California politicians cracking down on PGE, yet they're all too happy to take that PGE lobbying money. It's a far cry from the maliciousness required to vote red, but it's something I'd really like to see cleaned up a bit.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
mooray said:
To me, that's the big downside with dems, is the naivety involved with externally wanting to hold corps accountable and then behind the scenes being pro-corp. California politicians cracking down on PGE, yet they're all too happy to take that PGE lobbying money. It's a far cry from the maliciousness required to vote red, but it's something I'd really like to see cleaned up a bit.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see when and how a “loyal opposition” successor to the writeoff that is the GOP emerges. Returning to a more honest two-party system would be an incentive to the Democrats to pay attention to that set of issues imo.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
To me, that's the big downside with dems, is the naivety involved with externally wanting to hold corps accountable and then behind the scenes being pro-corp. California politicians cracking down on PGE, yet they're all too happy to take that PGE lobbying money. It's a far cry from the maliciousness required to vote red, but it's something I'd really like to see cleaned up a bit.
Click to expand...
Completely agree that the campaign finance system is corrupt and needs to be reformed. But, losing an election matters. I get the argument that a little corruption is still corruption. As with corruption, there is no such thing as being a little fucked. One either is or is not. It's just that Republicans have the power to block campaign finance reform and they use that power to block any and all reform. I support campaign finance reform, but not unilateral disarmament. If we want politicians to reform the way they fund their campaigns, we need to change the laws regulating campaign financing.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
Michelle would be like a sequel to a really good movie.....people would queue up to see it
Click to expand...
She does seem very nice but i was more thinking along the lines of politicians and presidents seemingly are a little (very little) like Royalty. The job passes down the family line and the family line becomes celebrities which of cause gives them more scope for votes. Your politics is very family driven Kennadys, Bush's, Clintons, bet we see another trump in the next 20 years. Most countries don't see that family line except for in Royalty or dictatorships like North Korea.
We saw with trump how powerful celebritism is in driving votes rather than policy.
 
Last edited:
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
She does seem very nice but i was more thinking along the lines of politicians and presidents seemingly are a little (very little) like Royalty. The job passes down the family line and the family line becomes celebrities which of cause gives them more scope for votes. Your politics is very family driven Kennadys, Bush's, Clintons, bet we see another trump in the next 20 years. Most countries don't see that family line except for in Royalty or dictatorships like North Korea.
We saw with trump how powerful celebritism is in driving votes rather than policy.
Click to expand...
Have a look at the Canadian political dynasties, there are a few.
 
madvillian420

madvillian420

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I don't know if this can be called "hiding" donors but Democrats do receive a whopping large amount from dark PACs:

www.opensecrets.org

‘Dark money’ topped $1 billion in 2020, largely boosting Democrats

The 2020 election saw more than $1 billion in dark money driven by an explosion of secret donations boosting Democrats.
www.opensecrets.org www.opensecrets.org

Liberal dark money groups overshadow conservatives
Anonymous donors poured record amounts of money into groups backing President Joe Biden in the 2020 contest, leaving the public without a full accounting of who helped him win the White House.

Biden’s presidential bid attracted around $174 million in support from anonymous donors, more than six times the $25.2 million in dark money contributions and spending boosting President Donald Trump’s unsuccessful re-election effort.

Democrats have consistently called for closing loopholes in campaign finance law that allow secret donors to bankroll pricey political ads. But that hasn’t stopped them from using secret funds to win elections. Of donations and spending reported to the FEC, liberal groups directed more than $514 million in dark money into the 2020 election, overshadowing around $200 million that boosted Republicans.

So, Democrats are open to the "you do it too" fallacy when they talk about Republican affinity for donating anonymously. Then again, Republicans block legislation banning untraceable donations. Legislation introduced by Democrats and endorsed by a majority of Democrats would ban dark money to finance campaigns. Meanwhile, Democrats aren't going to concede anything to Republicans. They won't unilaterally refuse legal donations. In 2020, Democrats received more dark money than Republicans did. It is hypocritical to argue against dark money and then accept legal anonymous donations. But they won and that makes all the difference to Democrats and democracy in the US. Campaign finance laws have be changed before this practice can be stopped -- and won't until enough Republicans are voted out. It would be ironic if dark money helped Democrats do this.
Click to expand...
Props for not constantly pretending like the other silly bastards here lol. Dark money everywhere, you cant name a president in the past 30 years that didnt play this game, on either side. Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush (both), Clinton, the list goes on.

Anonymous or not theres legal teams who would easily find a way to get the money where people want it. Super PAC's, etc. on either side. And thats shady shit.
Anyone pretending they're on the side of perfect humans because you voted for whoever wasnt Trump is as gleefully ignorant as ive ever witnessed. Blindly following and praising one side because its "the lesser of 2 evils" is dangerous tribal bullshit.

As George Carlin used to say "Its a big club, and you aint in it."
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
madvillian420 said:
that is actually, VERY easily verifiably false lmfao. If you are going to blindly follow team blue thats fine, but stop spewing what is clearly bullshit, you might confuse someone else into believing your ignorant "thoughts"
Click to expand...
madvillian420 said:
@Fogdog already did. See post #166 please.
Click to expand...
If you had managed to sound out and understand all the words, you'd know that Democrats are trying to reform the campaign finance system to make it more transparent. Republicans are blocking their efforts.

Why do Republicans block the bills that would make dark money illegal? Democrats are trying to drain the swamp but your Swamp creature leaders keep blocking the sump pumps. Why is that?
 
madvillian420

madvillian420

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
If you had managed to sound out and understand all the words, you'd know that Democrats are trying to reform the campaign finance system to make it more transparent. Republicans are blocking their efforts.

Why do Republicans block the bills that would make dark money illegal? Democrats are trying to drain the swamp but your Swamp creature leaders keep blocking the sump pumps. Why is that?
Click to expand...
nobody is trying to drain the swamps lmao are you serious? Trying to stop the shady money by taking damn near historical amounts of it, bold strategy lol.

"They took the money but they didnt want to take the money!" is a pretty damn paper thin argument.
Repubs blocked the bill again, guess we gotta fill our pockets!

Do you think i am defending either side doing this shit? That knee jerk reaction to assume im okay with one because I criticize the other is absolutely nonsensical. Fuck the republicans for blocking it and until they dont take the money fuck the Democrats too.
 
Last edited:
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
madvillian420 said:
nobody is trying to drain the swamps lmao are you serious? Trying to stop the shady money by taking damn near historical amounts of it, bold strategy lol.

Repubs blocked the bill again, guess we gotta fill our pockets!

Do you think i am defending either side doing this shit? That knee jerk reaction to assume im okay with one because I criticize the other is absolutely nonsensical. Fuck the republicans for blocking it and until they dont take the money fuck the Democrats too.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you are just using the all encompassing words 'Democrats' and 'Republicans'.

The Democrats tried to pass laws to stop dark money and I believe it was only Bernie Sanders that stopped it (it was right around the time he was teasing running in 2012 against Obama). And the right wing SCOTUS citizens united decision blew the doors off of dark money being funneled into our politics. Did some vote against it (Sanders)? Sure, but that doesn't mean that the false equivalency shouldn't get laughed at.

So again, using 'Democrats' the way you do ignores that the majority of Democrats have tried to stop this, while the majority of Republicans have fought to keep the dark money flowing. This is why I don't blame the Democrats for taking advantage of the rules as they are written right now, because otherwise would mean letting the insurrectionist continue to attack our nation unchecked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top