Well we can assume and “bet” both sides suck or we can objectively look at the actions of the parties over the past decade and inform the opinion.
Fact is if dems had nominated the SC judges we wouldn’t have had this problem to begin with but you were saying they’re just as bad in so many ways? Also, a 2/3ds majority doesn’t have to be required for the other bills they’ve submitted assuming republicans did their job, but republicans can’t be bothered to submit jack shit. And why would they? Republican judges invented this shit in the first place and dark money benefits republicans like trump (remember who the gop said putin pays?) so why would they change it? But yea both sides…
Every dem that introduced legislation against citizens united still has to run in an election where it’s the law of the land. They still had to win to be able to create the legislation in the first place.
Nothing is a perfect black and white split and it’s foolish to discount the one party trying to do anything about it because if they don’t participate in the system they can’t win a seat at the table, and if they do win and then try to eliminate or reform the system the whole party is subjected to a purity test which gives a false equivalence and writes them all off.
I replied to the comment that called the issue bipartisan. The same comment that “bet” dem support would be less than total.
I gave plenty of reasons why that’s a lazy and inaccurate distinction that creates a false equivalence.
I cited articles and made the case that it’s not a bipartisan issue when one party is calling out the decision for opening the gates to foreign cash, and the other party is joking about how much foreign cash republicans are paid.
I mean you made the comment I replied to and everything I said is directly related to your comments and the foreign influence cited in the OP. If I’m not saying “congress bad” is it too complex to understand?
Alright, asshole. (I hope the word “asshole” isn’t too complex for you to understand.)
We should be on the same side here. I never said both sides are equivalent. In fact, I pointed out that Democrats are much better on the issue than Republicans. Adam Schiff (D-California, in case we need to further insult each other’s intelligence) is the primary driver of the amendment.
That’s why I said you may have responded to the wrong comment. You didn’t adapt your (generally valid) talking point to acknowledge the parts I said. You just applied your general “both sides” response to something that it didn’t really apply to. You might say your reply was lazy and inaccurate.
The Amendment Schiff proposed had 51 co-sponsors. Are there only 51 Dems in the house? We haven’t had a vote on Schiff’s amendments, even in committee, but we can look at the votes on the DISCLOSE Act where 36 Democrats voted against transparency in political spending.
Support for overturning Citizens United isn’t 100% among Democrats in office, and it should be. The fact that Republicans are much worse isn’t something I should need to call out more than I already did.
If we really want to overturn Citizens United, we need support from every Democrat and some Republicans. Even a supermajority of Democrats can’t do it alone, and they certainly can’t if support among Democrats isn’t uniform.
Call me names… you said “congress” and generalized about both sides. You don’t feel any need to go into any more nuance than that. You only begrudgingly agreed with me by pointing out how democrats are still bad.
We should be on the same side except I’m linking to good things dems have done and your facetiously asking if I know what comment I’m replying to.
All you’ve done is call me names while whining about “congress”. You only mention specifics to point out how much dems suck and offer nothing positive and never mentioned a way forward . It’s hard to be on that side so by all means keep insulting people.
Well we can assume and “bet” both sides suck or we can objectively look at the actions of the parties over the past decade and inform the opinion.
Fact is if dems had nominated the SC judges we wouldn’t have had this problem to begin with but you were saying they’re just as bad in so many ways? Also, a 2/3ds majority doesn’t have to be required for the other bills they’ve submitted assuming republicans did their job, but republicans can’t be bothered to submit jack shit. And why would they? Republican judges invented this shit in the first place and dark money benefits republicans like trump (remember who the gop said putin pays?) so why would they change it? But yea both sides…
Every dem that introduced legislation against citizens united still has to run in an election where it’s the law of the land. They still had to win to be able to create the legislation in the first place.
Nothing is a perfect black and white split and it’s foolish to discount the one party trying to do anything about it because if they don’t participate in the system they can’t win a seat at the table, and if they do win and then try to eliminate or reform the system the whole party is subjected to a purity test which gives a false equivalence and writes them all off.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
Try to keep up.
I replied to the comment that called the issue bipartisan. The same comment that “bet” dem support would be less than total.
I gave plenty of reasons why that’s a lazy and inaccurate distinction that creates a false equivalence.
I cited articles and made the case that it’s not a bipartisan issue when one party is calling out the decision for opening the gates to foreign cash, and the other party is joking about how much foreign cash republicans are paid.
I mean you made the comment I replied to and everything I said is directly related to your comments and the foreign influence cited in the OP. If I’m not saying “congress bad” is it too complex to understand?
Alright, asshole. (I hope the word “asshole” isn’t too complex for you to understand.)
We should be on the same side here. I never said both sides are equivalent. In fact, I pointed out that Democrats are much better on the issue than Republicans. Adam Schiff (D-California, in case we need to further insult each other’s intelligence) is the primary driver of the amendment.
That’s why I said you may have responded to the wrong comment. You didn’t adapt your (generally valid) talking point to acknowledge the parts I said. You just applied your general “both sides” response to something that it didn’t really apply to. You might say your reply was lazy and inaccurate.
The Amendment Schiff proposed had 51 co-sponsors. Are there only 51 Dems in the house? We haven’t had a vote on Schiff’s amendments, even in committee, but we can look at the votes on the DISCLOSE Act where 36 Democrats voted against transparency in political spending.
Support for overturning Citizens United isn’t 100% among Democrats in office, and it should be. The fact that Republicans are much worse isn’t something I should need to call out more than I already did.
If we really want to overturn Citizens United, we need support from every Democrat and some Republicans. Even a supermajority of Democrats can’t do it alone, and they certainly can’t if support among Democrats isn’t uniform.
Call me names… you said “congress” and generalized about both sides. You don’t feel any need to go into any more nuance than that. You only begrudgingly agreed with me by pointing out how democrats are still bad.
We should be on the same side except I’m linking to good things dems have done and your facetiously asking if I know what comment I’m replying to.
All you’ve done is call me names while whining about “congress”. You only mention specifics to point out how much dems suck and offer nothing positive and never mentioned a way forward . It’s hard to be on that side so by all means keep insulting people.