Total posts: 7,597
Posted in:
That list can apply in parts to a lot of politicians in DC.Some of the dictators Biden has cozied up to defies explanation.
bullshit. You are a liar. But then again your are a conservative and lying is a fundamental characteristic of being a conservative.
Name 5 politicians who have done 3 of these things on the list.
Which dictators has Biden cozied up to?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Oh, so it only matters if it can be proven. But not in a court. Just proven. Brilliant. You idiot.
And are you too dumb to understand the meaning of “Your post located at #57 in the thread titled “Two Trump spokesmen…””
No surprise you are unemployed and living off government disability
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
No one gives a 💩 what those two “think” or “feels” or “believes.” Same goes for you, clown 🤡!!The only thing that matters is what can be proven. NO ONE can prove such an asinine absurd claim as that.
OMG, ARE YOU STUPID.
THIS IS THE QUOTE. RIGHT HERE. SEE IT ABOVE.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Are you stupid? I did cite it. It’s right there for you to read, you dummy LCpl. You really are disabled - mentally
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The ones who told the truth... well if that's condoning then some definitely did condone.
No. They are liars and you are an idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
The Supreme Court pulled back some of these limits in the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, holding that FECA's limits on expenditures made independently of a candidate violated the First Amendment. The decision further confined regulation so that it covered only expenditures that "expressly advocated" the election or defeat of a candidate, using specific words such as "vote for" or "vote against." This allowed for heavy spending on "issue ads" that might criticize or praise a candidate but stop short of expressly urging a vote one way or the other.
This is when the monster was let out of the cage. Thanks 1976! This is when the gray fog started to form that clouded what was issue advocacy versus what was endorsing a particular candidate
Created:
Posted in:
“ If the problem is that venal legislators are betraying the public trust in exchange for campaign contributions, why would we expect them not to be equally motivated by base impulses when passing campaign-finance legislation? “
Like McCain-Feingold? No, they passed that law for the altruistic goal of stopping special interest money from distorting elections. From lying early and often to a public that is woefully and poorly informed. 95% of voters are low information voters. They are easily manipulated and lack critical thinking skills.
Created:
Posted in:
Free speech means that people other than the candidates get a narrative too.
To me, free speech is about being able to criticize a politician, even the President, without worrying I’ll be arrested or audited by the IRS. It’s not about being able to spend as much money as I want to influence an election in some state I don’t even live in.
Created:
Posted in:
The law, he contended, would even require banning a book that made the same points as the Citizens United video.
This makes no sense because a book in a library does not involve campaign spending. McCain Feingold and Citizens United are about campaign finance reform.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The ones who said the police welcomed them in to the Capitol.
The ones who said those arrested are political prisoners.
The ones who said J6 was protected by the Constitution as free assembly, free speech, and a form of political protest
Created:
Posted in:
In 1996 Bradley Smith published "Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform" in the Yale Law Journal. In "Faulty Assumptions", Smith set forth a case against campaign finance regulation, arguing that efforts to regulate money in politics had been based on a series of incorrect beliefs about the effects of money in politics, and that as a result reform efforts had failed to accomplish their objectives and had made many of the problems of money in politics worse.[2]
It’s funny how this guy defending Citizens United characterizes their political speech as hackneyed. Even Republicans know that their ideas and thinking is stupid.
“The case addressed the question of whether federal campaign-finance law limits the right of the activist group Citizens United to distribute a hackneyed political documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie.“
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Nope. Never said that.
Another lie
No one gives a 💩 what those two “think” or “feels” or “believes.” Same goes for you, clown 🤡!!The only thing that matters is what can be proven. NO ONE can prove such an asinine absurd claim as that.
Your post located at #57 in the thread titled “Two Trump spokesmen…”
You are a liar
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
A legit criminal prosecution ≠ a political prosecution. Not even close.
So if Michael Cohen went to jail for the hush money payment, why shouldn’t Trump? It was done at his direction and then he falsely claimed it as a Trump Organization business expense.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Trump never said the Clintons deserved “a political prosecution,” just that Hilary should have been prosecuted for what she did with the email scandal
It’s the same thing. And Trump’s actions with over 300 classified documents at Mar a Lago was way worse.
And the Obamas and Clintons did interfere with the election. That’s been established as fact,
That’s a lie.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Stating the obvious =/= being a hypocrite.
Saying that the Clintons deserve a political prosecution and he doesn’t is the hypocrisy
Saying that the Clintons and Obama deserve “election interference” but he doesn’t is the hypocrisy
Bill Clinton did not different with Paula Jones
No idea what this means
Just the mere fact that everyone on the left, to include the DOJ, FBI, et al have been covering for the Biden Crime Family
I thought you said the only thing that matters is what can be proven in court. Now you make this ridiculous statement
Created:
Posted in:
So a Super PAC can raise unlimited money, use it to do opposition research then hand that information to another outside group that is a 501(C)4 group who can also raise unlimited money from donors they don’t have to disclose, and create attack ads that can be seen in any state in the country.
Created:
Posted in:
A 501C(4) not 503 as I wrote earlier - can take unlimited money and not have to disclose the names of donors, by claiming to be advocating for certain issues and not for or against any particular candidate.
Avoid certain “magic words” such as “vote for” and you have an issue advocacy ad and not an election ad. Even if the ad is run during an election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Why should we be concerned about campaign adds by someone other than candidates?
So because of Citizens United, we have elections where it isn’t the candidates or even the parties that are telling their stories, it’s outside groups with lots of money and an agenda to make government work for them at the expense of ordinary Americans. Get it?
These outside groups, such as Super PACS and lobbyists are based in Washington and after they get their guy elected they hand the politicians legislation they want passed that will help them get rich at the expense of everyone else.
Super PACs do opposition research and track candidates with a guy and video camera to use in attack ads. These attack ads could be on TV, radio, social media, or Direct Mail. Super PACs will also share their OPO research with other outside groups who make ads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
GP is an idiot substitute teacher who still lives in his mother’s house. Pay no attention to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
How is it untrackable?What makes it untrackable?Why should we be concerned about campaign adds by someone other than candidates?
Because wealthy individuals and corporations donate money to a “Social Welfare” entities classified by the IRS as a 503C organization and then they send the money to Super PACS and other political groups to create ads and mailers attacking the other side in a campaign.
That’s the problem, the ads ARE controlled by the candidate but they are not supposed to be under election laws. Super PACS aren’t allowed to coordinate with campaigns but staff go back and forth between PACS and campaigns.
There is an excellent documentary done by PBS’s Frontline on this very issue. You can find it on YouTube here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Jan 6 was a blip and instantly condemned by every right-wing news outlet.
What are you smokin?
Created:
Posted in:
There's a lot of people on the left that want to end the 1st amendment.
Ya, the first amendment (particularly free speech) is all about unlimited dark money funding campaigns. IDIOT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Are you serious? It allowed unlimited dark (untraceable) money in politics - not just for issues, but for helping and attacking individual candidates in federal elections
Created:
Trump was always quick to say lock them up. But he doesn’t think he should answer for his illegal conduct. Hypocrite!
Trump has advocated for the prosecutions of each of the last four Democratic presidential nominees — every single one since 2004. In two cases, he did it during the campaign, even suggesting they should be ineligible to run.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Think about this. If we ban AR-15s, then normal law-abiding citizens won't have AR-15s. Then you have the criminals. Criminals (especially school shooters) won't care about laws and get access to AR-15s anyways. Then, you have criminals with the advantage, and normal law-abiding citizens with a disadvantage.
False.
We banned automatic weapons back in the 1930s. Now you hardly ever see an automatic weapon used in a crime. It’s very, very rare.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Contemplation of trauma in a context of community and non-violence is always a good idea.
So the contemplation is the response? No wonder religious people are becoming extinct
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- no. Meditation pays attention to what is. Prayer pays attention to what will be, particularly what should be.
Wow, that’s deep
Created:
Posted in:
The court’s ruling basically killed the McCain-Feingold (or BCRA) bipartisan campaign finance law just 8 years after it was established .
BCRA was designed to address 2 things.
Soft money - money raised by political parties to spend on state and local campaigns.
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads - by defining ads that name a federal candidate as “electioneering communications”
Created:
Posted in:
The vote was 5 to 4
The justices who voted in favor were
Kennedy - appointed by Reagan
Roberts - George W Bush
Scalia - Reagan
Alito - George W Bush
Thomas - HW Bush
The court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).
Created:
Posted in:
Don't respond to him please. Ty
That’s right. You two dummies need to remain silent. Because you’re dummies. That is my goal. I win
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So how can one man block something?
Senate rules allow one man to block something
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I can't see much changing. Can you?
It should change. We simply need to elect better people in Congress. To think that we can’t do anything about mass shootings is ridiculous. No other country in the world has this problem. Allowing citizens to own weapons of war is stupid. If we allowed citizens to own belt fed machine guns we would see those being used to kill people all the time but we banned those from private use.
Stop voting for Republicans
Created:
-->
@oromagi
So prayer and meditation. Are you saying they are the same or are you endorsing both these two things? What about repenting? Do you also endorse repenting? Your bio says you are Catholic. You are a Catholic who is “not religious”?
Is prayer a substantive response by a member of the U.S. Congress to repeated mass shootings?
Created:
Chris Burchett (R-UT) As I’ve stated, in this country, we’re a sick nation. We are a sick nation. We need to repent and, honestly, we need a revival. It’s made a lot of people mad that I’ve said that, but it really is — there’s no other answer for it. I think, you know, they come back to me and say, ‘Burchett, you know, look at what your prayers have done for us.’ And the people doing the praying aren’t the ones doing the shooting, ma’am. And it’s it’s just a very unfortunate situation. And there’s no easy answers. I don’t know. Repenting of your sins and having some sort of reform in this country seems to me to be the way we’re going to have to turn this thing around because we have some very sick, evil people doing some very vile things. And revival seems to be the way to go for me. But I realize their hatred towards me and my beliefs. And that’s fine. It’s America, we’re allowed to do it. But I do believe revival is the answer, and I pray for it every day.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Don’t mind TWS. He’s disabled
Created:
Posted in:
If you wanna die on that tree, source me some facts before the usual nonresponse.
It’s “die on the hill” you idiot. No wonder you are a substitute teacher
Created:
Posted in:
So you admit it is a number higher than zero
Show me where I used the word “zero” dummy.
Created:
Posted in:
The only reason the left never suggests divorce is because they know what happens to leftist countries sub consciously.
I would love a divorce from red states. The red states are essentially welfare states, unable to earn an income and support themselves. Most of the taxes collected come from blue states like California and the northeast
Created:
Doo Doo pants is a reference to incontinence issues that Biden is known to have.
That’s a lie. You are a liar.
Created:
Posted in:
but fortunately these corporations are losing things like tax incentives due to republican governors not tolerating anything less than political neutrality.
I thought Republicans believed that corporations are people (Mitt Romney)
Now you want them to be politically neutral? That should mean no political donations by corporations too.
Face it, you want corporations to be political if they are right wing and you want them to shut up if they are left wing. Because you’re a dummy.
Created:
Posted in:
Just ignore the known troll. I think he knows he is lying when he claims zero red states have red flag laws. Florida is a red state and has them as just one of at least 10 examples https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/red-flag-laws-states
I see 2 red states with red flag laws - Florida and Indiana
What are the other 8 red states you dummy?
That means only 2 out of 20 states with red flag laws are red states.
So to recap. 2 out of 25 red states have red flag laws.
18 out of 26 blue states have red flag laws (including DC)
My statement “red states don’t have red flag laws” is accurate just as a statement blue states have red flag laws would also be accurate.
Created:
In the Senate, Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is blocking more than 150 Defense Department nominations because he objects to the Pentagon’s abortion policy — and is prepared to block hundreds more. He is jeopardizing the leadership of crucial military commands and making the military “far less ready than we need to be,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin testified this week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The culmination of those mental comorbidities should have required reporting her to a federal database red flagging her from being able to legally purchase weapons. THAT is the REAL ISSUE here. .
Red states don’t allow red flag laws dummy
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We have had gun rights for all of American history. Why is it we are facing this big problem only up until recently?
The problem of mass shootings with semiautomatic rifles began with Columbine in 1999.
The number of AR style rifles in private hands has continued to increase exponentially since then.
The 10-year Assault Weapons ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none have succeeded
People can bring knives, homemade bombs, etc. To schools and still kill a lot of people.
Columbine was supposed to be a bombing. But their bombs didn’t work. Because bomb making is difficult.
But killing with a semiautomatic rifle is easy and very reliable.
In every mass shooting situation, the problem has been stopped with a gun.Guns are not the problem, they are the solution.
That is so dumb. The shooting usually ends with a self inflicted gun shot to the head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
A government that disarms its people can do more harm and shed more blood than any of these shooters can.
The people definitely need guns in case of a guy like Trump and his followers. But we don’t need assault weapons to guard against this. Ordinary weapons with a 10 round magazine will do just fine.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Well that’s because he’s an idiot.
Created:
Reposted even though there was no interest in Gay Parrot’s original post.
Created:
Posted in:
Reposted per request of a Gay Parrot and a wyttle loser
Created:
Reposting at the request of a Gay Parrot and a wyttle loser
Created: