The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm sure there is a great rationalization for the hypocrisy, though....

Well, since you asked so nicely, there is a difference between the rich who give money to magnify their influence and those who give money to undercut their own influence.

But I am all for strict enough limits on contributions so that rich liberals and rich conservatives alike are unable to exert influence beyond their numbers.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

If that's the best you can do, you make my point for me.

Nice try, your complaint is based in delusion, deal with it.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Nice try, your complaint is based in delusion, deal with it.

A more reasonable liberal, Kepler, responded the way you would if you weren't blinded by partisanship.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why not say Soros and the I'll assume you also mean Koch. It'd spice up your postings a good bit!

I really have included both, explicitly, a couple times -- a few times I've doubled back after posting and amended to include both -- but you make a fair point. The generic issue is the undue influence of the super-wealthy, whatever flavor.

When I'm talking about the specific atrocities of the Kochs, they'll still get singled out.

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I've always thought that one way to better control the influence of $$$ in politics would be to tax it. Set up a progressive tax on any money donated and/or spent on elections/issues. The more you donate/spend the greater the tax. Give $50 and pay zero. Give $500 and pay 20%. Put out a commercial for $200K and pay 50% tax. Hit em with a tax when it's donated and charge em again when they spend it. It'll never happen since the idiots who would make the law would be the ones hurt by it but it might help and would also bring in some income.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

A more reasonable liberal, Kepler, responded the way you would if you weren't blinded by partisanship.

Ahhh, so I'm an unreasonable liberal. Care to back that up with...anything?

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

A more reasonable liberal, Kepler, responded the way you would if you weren't blinded by partisanship.

That's unfair. GrinCDXX was posting a link to the very case I was referencing, when I made an original post mentioning just the Kochs but then doubled back a few minutes later after rereading and thought that also adding Soros strengthened the argument by removing the tinge of partisanship. We are each making the same point so if you want to impugn him you should impugn us both.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Ahhh, so I'm an unreasonable liberal. Care to back that up with...anything?

Your last few posts do fine.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Not at all. You are responding to something I didn't say. I'm just saying it people complain about the issue regarding one party, they should apply the same critical view to the same thing going on in their party of choice.

But if one party would like to restrict those donations but can't, and one party wants unlimited donations and is using their power to make that happen, why shouldn't we call them on it? That doesn't make sense. In the meantime, its reasonable for everybody to operate under the rules as they are now.

I'm sure you and your party (and don't try to say you're an independent) would love it if the Dems decided to take no big bucks money, and therefore were outspent 10 -1 in every race, but as I often tell you you're not dealing with the Dems of the past anymore. There aren't any Russ Feingold's left who foolishly assume they'll be rewarded for abiding by voluntary campaign finance rules that they're opponents are laughing at.

One party voted to reverse Citizens United. The other party blocked the bill. Its not any more complicated than that.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I've always thought that one way to better control the influence of $$$ in politics would be to tax it. Set up a progressive tax on any money donated and/or spent on elections/issues. The more you donate/spend the greater the tax. Give $50 and pay zero. Give $500 and pay 20%. Put out a commercial for $200K and pay 50% tax. Hit em with a tax when it's donated and charge em again when they spend it. It'll never happen since the idiots who would make the law would be the ones hurt by it but it might help and would also bring in some income.

Wow. That is a fantastic idea I have never heard mention anywhere else. My understanding of current Court rulings is its impossible because money equals speech (which is BS) and political speech deserves special protection under the Constitution (which is vital to a free society).

I'd prefer to ban bribes outright, though. It's not like the plaintiff has to pay a tax on the money he slips to his judge -- he's just banned from doing it entirely.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

That's unfair. GrinCDXX was posting a link to the very case I was referencing, when I made an original post mentioning just the Kochs but then doubled back a few minutes later after rereading and thought that also adding Soros strengthened the argument by removing the tinge of partisanship. We are each making the same point so if you want to impugn him you should impugn us both.

When he said my complaint is delusion? I don't think so. It's fact that there are big money folks on both sides of the aisle, and we see lots of folks constantly complaining about Koch, but not Soros. For GrinCDXX to say that's delusional is laughable. Sadly most liberals don't concede issues on their side of things nearly as well as you do.

[joecct]

But if one party would like to restrict those donations but can't, and one party wants unlimited donations and is using their power to make that happen, why shouldn't we call them on it? That doesn't make sense. In the meantime, its reasonable for everybody to operate under the rules as they are now.

I'm sure you and your party (and don't try to say you're an independent) would love it if the Dems decided to take no big bucks money, and therefore were outspent 10 -1 in every race, but as I often tell you you're not dealing with the Dems of the past anymore. There aren't any Russ Feingold's left who foolishly assume they'll be rewarded for abiding by voluntary campaign finance rules that they're opponents are laughing at.

One party voted to reverse Citizens United. The other party blocked the bill. Its not any more complicated than that.

Quit being naive. They're all on the take in DC.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

one party voted to reverse citizens united. The other party blocked the bill. Its not any more complicated than that.

Exactly so.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

But if one party would like to restrict those donations but can't, and one party wants unlimited donations and is using their power to make that happen, why shouldn't we call them on it? That doesn't make sense. In the meantime, its reasonable for everybody to operate under the rules as they are now.

I'm sure you and your party (and don't try to say you're an independent) would love it if the Dems decided to take no big bucks money, and therefore were outspent 10 -1 in every race, but as I often tell you you're not dealing with the Dems of the past anymore. There aren't any Russ Feingold's left who foolishly assume they'll be rewarded for abiding by voluntary campaign finance rules that they're opponents are laughing at.

One party voted to reverse Citizens United. The other party blocked the bill. Its not any more complicated than that.

You are arguing an issue with me that I haven't said a word about. Personally I don't like the big money that pours into campaigns and the influence that can result, but I also am leery about limiting the ability of folks to have their say. I'm rather middle of the road on this issue (though as I noted that's not what my posts were about that got Grin all worked up).

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

When he said my complaint is delusion? I don't think so. It's fact that there are big money folks on both sides of the aisle, and we see lots of folks constantly complaining about Koch, but not Soros. For GrinCDXX to say that's delusional is laughable. Sadly most liberals don't concede issues on their side of things nearly as well as you do.

Now hold on. Your OP said "nary a word." Grin referenced a word. You responded that if that was the best he could do he proved your point. That made no sense -- he had specifically rebutted what you had written; challenge accepted and won. He was quite correct, and your response didn't acknowledge it. On the merits, he was in fact right and you were in fact wrong, and your refusal to note this was... well, kinda sorta and the politest possible way you understand... a little bit delusional.