|
| Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 30
Posts: 5257 | Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: Tanko The election wasn’t stolen. It was bought. By Zuckerberg. Under the guise of “Covid Response Grants” his non-profit funneled $419 million ‘Zuckerbucks’ to Democrat voter strongholds across the country to get out the Democrat vote. $50 million to AZ. $45 million to GA. $45 million to PA. At least $10 million to WI. More than 80% of the money funneled to Wisconsin went to heavily concentrated Democrat areas in that state. Zuckerbucks made the difference. Trump lost Georgia by 0.24 points, Arizona by 0.31, Wisconsin by 0.64, and Pennsylvania by 1.18. Considering what he got for his money, he claims he's staying out of it this year. Iran sanctions ended. Annual oil revenues increase from $65 billion to $200 billion. Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. Increased Iranian funding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels who now control the Red Sea. October 7th and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 'Zuckerberg reveals his endorsement decision for the 2024 election'
Democrats have been the ones trying to remove money from politics, Republicans are the ones that overly support it. When you supported a system where money rules the day, don't be surprised when a few decades later (current times,) the world is run by tech billionaires (who are overwhelmingly liberal) that use their money to influence elections. if Democrats had it their way, Zuckerberg would have never been able to do that. It is the world you created, and continue to foster by opposing bills that limit money in politics even now. So, you cannot really complain about this.
Democrats want money out of politics? What are you? On dope? Democrats love money in politics. Neither side wants it out. Democrats only want sources that go to republicans out.
Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-acthttps://endcitizensunited.org/Some Democrats oppose such proposals, but all Republicans do, but Democrats are the only ones fighting for it. |
|
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195 | Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: Tanko The election wasn’t stolen. It was bought. By Zuckerberg. Under the guise of “Covid Response Grants” his non-profit funneled $419 million ‘Zuckerbucks’ to Democrat voter strongholds across the country to get out the Democrat vote. $50 million to AZ. $45 million to GA. $45 million to PA. At least $10 million to WI. More than 80% of the money funneled to Wisconsin went to heavily concentrated Democrat areas in that state. Zuckerbucks made the difference. Trump lost Georgia by 0.24 points, Arizona by 0.31, Wisconsin by 0.64, and Pennsylvania by 1.18. Considering what he got for his money, he claims he's staying out of it this year. Iran sanctions ended. Annual oil revenues increase from $65 billion to $200 billion. Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. Increased Iranian funding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels who now control the Red Sea. October 7th and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 'Zuckerberg reveals his endorsement decision for the 2024 election'
Democrats have been the ones trying to remove money from politics, Republicans are the ones that overly support it. When you supported a system where money rules the day, don't be surprised when a few decades later (current times,) the world is run by tech billionaires (who are overwhelmingly liberal) that use their money to influence elections. if Democrats had it their way, Zuckerberg would have never been able to do that. It is the world you created, and continue to foster by opposing bills that limit money in politics even now. So, you cannot really complain about this.
Democrats want money out of politics? What are you? On dope? Democrats love money in politics. Neither side wants it out. Democrats only want sources that go to republicans out.
Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-acthttps://endcitizensunited.org/Some Democrats oppose such proposals, but all Republicans do, but Democrats are the only ones fighting for it.
Again what are you? On dope? All those Democrats want to cut off is money sources that go more to the gop. Democrats care about nothing but getting and keeping power. Sheep believe them when they say they want money out of politics. Bernie and Warren are two of the greediest human beings you will ever meet. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength |
|
| Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 30
Posts: 5257 | Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: Tanko The election wasn’t stolen. It was bought. By Zuckerberg. Under the guise of “Covid Response Grants” his non-profit funneled $419 million ‘Zuckerbucks’ to Democrat voter strongholds across the country to get out the Democrat vote. $50 million to AZ. $45 million to GA. $45 million to PA. At least $10 million to WI. More than 80% of the money funneled to Wisconsin went to heavily concentrated Democrat areas in that state. Zuckerbucks made the difference. Trump lost Georgia by 0.24 points, Arizona by 0.31, Wisconsin by 0.64, and Pennsylvania by 1.18. Considering what he got for his money, he claims he's staying out of it this year. Iran sanctions ended. Annual oil revenues increase from $65 billion to $200 billion. Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. Increased Iranian funding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels who now control the Red Sea. October 7th and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 'Zuckerberg reveals his endorsement decision for the 2024 election'
Democrats have been the ones trying to remove money from politics, Republicans are the ones that overly support it. When you supported a system where money rules the day, don't be surprised when a few decades later (current times,) the world is run by tech billionaires (who are overwhelmingly liberal) that use their money to influence elections. if Democrats had it their way, Zuckerberg would have never been able to do that. It is the world you created, and continue to foster by opposing bills that limit money in politics even now. So, you cannot really complain about this.
Democrats want money out of politics? What are you? On dope? Democrats love money in politics. Neither side wants it out. Democrats only want sources that go to republicans out.
Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-acthttps://endcitizensunited.org/Some Democrats oppose such proposals, but all Republicans do, but Democrats are the only ones fighting for it.
Again what are you? On dope? All those Democrats want to cut off is money sources that go more to the gop. Democrats care about nothing but getting and keeping power. Sheep believe them when they say they want money out of politics. Bernie and Warren are two of the greediest human beings you will ever meet.
You can look at voting and proposal history and see which party has more members getting money out of politics, this is not a controversial point. Now, it will never pass, (mostly due to GOP, but some Dems as well,) so is it empty rhetoric and posturing? Maybe. But, still it is empirical that virtually no Repubs support it and many Dems do. |
|
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195 | Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: Tanko The election wasn’t stolen. It was bought. By Zuckerberg. Under the guise of “Covid Response Grants” his non-profit funneled $419 million ‘Zuckerbucks’ to Democrat voter strongholds across the country to get out the Democrat vote. $50 million to AZ. $45 million to GA. $45 million to PA. At least $10 million to WI. More than 80% of the money funneled to Wisconsin went to heavily concentrated Democrat areas in that state. Zuckerbucks made the difference. Trump lost Georgia by 0.24 points, Arizona by 0.31, Wisconsin by 0.64, and Pennsylvania by 1.18. Considering what he got for his money, he claims he's staying out of it this year. Iran sanctions ended. Annual oil revenues increase from $65 billion to $200 billion. Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. Increased Iranian funding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels who now control the Red Sea. October 7th and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 'Zuckerberg reveals his endorsement decision for the 2024 election'
Democrats have been the ones trying to remove money from politics, Republicans are the ones that overly support it. When you supported a system where money rules the day, don't be surprised when a few decades later (current times,) the world is run by tech billionaires (who are overwhelmingly liberal) that use their money to influence elections. if Democrats had it their way, Zuckerberg would have never been able to do that. It is the world you created, and continue to foster by opposing bills that limit money in politics even now. So, you cannot really complain about this.
Democrats want money out of politics? What are you? On dope? Democrats love money in politics. Neither side wants it out. Democrats only want sources that go to republicans out.
Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-acthttps://endcitizensunited.org/Some Democrats oppose such proposals, but all Republicans do, but Democrats are the only ones fighting for it.
Again what are you? On dope? All those Democrats want to cut off is money sources that go more to the gop. Democrats care about nothing but getting and keeping power. Sheep believe them when they say they want money out of politics. Bernie and Warren are two of the greediest human beings you will ever meet.
You can look at voting and proposal history and see which party has more members getting money out of politics, this is not a controversial point. Now, it will never pass, (mostly due to GOP, but some Dems as well,) so is it empty rhetoric and posturing? Maybe. But, still it is empirical that virtually no Repubs support it and many Dems do.
You completely do not get it. Money = speech Money = access Libs like Warren know the Democrats have the lamesteram media locked up so they get sheep to think they want to "get the money out of politics." Reality is they want to lock out opposition. This is what it is all about. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength |
|
| Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 30
Posts: 5257 | Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: Tanko The election wasn’t stolen. It was bought. By Zuckerberg. Under the guise of “Covid Response Grants” his non-profit funneled $419 million ‘Zuckerbucks’ to Democrat voter strongholds across the country to get out the Democrat vote. $50 million to AZ. $45 million to GA. $45 million to PA. At least $10 million to WI. More than 80% of the money funneled to Wisconsin went to heavily concentrated Democrat areas in that state. Zuckerbucks made the difference. Trump lost Georgia by 0.24 points, Arizona by 0.31, Wisconsin by 0.64, and Pennsylvania by 1.18. Considering what he got for his money, he claims he's staying out of it this year. Iran sanctions ended. Annual oil revenues increase from $65 billion to $200 billion. Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. Increased Iranian funding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels who now control the Red Sea. October 7th and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 'Zuckerberg reveals his endorsement decision for the 2024 election'
Democrats have been the ones trying to remove money from politics, Republicans are the ones that overly support it. When you supported a system where money rules the day, don't be surprised when a few decades later (current times,) the world is run by tech billionaires (who are overwhelmingly liberal) that use their money to influence elections. if Democrats had it their way, Zuckerberg would have never been able to do that. It is the world you created, and continue to foster by opposing bills that limit money in politics even now. So, you cannot really complain about this.
Democrats want money out of politics? What are you? On dope? Democrats love money in politics. Neither side wants it out. Democrats only want sources that go to republicans out.
Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-acthttps://endcitizensunited.org/Some Democrats oppose such proposals, but all Republicans do, but Democrats are the only ones fighting for it.
Again what are you? On dope? All those Democrats want to cut off is money sources that go more to the gop. Democrats care about nothing but getting and keeping power. Sheep believe them when they say they want money out of politics. Bernie and Warren are two of the greediest human beings you will ever meet.
You can look at voting and proposal history and see which party has more members getting money out of politics, this is not a controversial point. Now, it will never pass, (mostly due to GOP, but some Dems as well,) so is it empty rhetoric and posturing? Maybe. But, still it is empirical that virtually no Repubs support it and many Dems do.
You completely do not get it. Money = speech Money = access Libs like Warren know the Democrats have the lamesteram media locked up so they get sheep to think they want to "get the money out of politics." Reality is they want to lock out opposition. This is what it is all about.
As you complain about Billionaires spending money on campaigns and candidates that you do not agree with.... Money equals both of those things which is why it is important to limit donations eliminate pacs to be fair. Again this will never happen in America (even if it is somewhat normal in most developed countries,) so it is purely academic. But, you can't complain about "Zuckbucks" and then say rich people have the right to spend the money because they don't get fair coverage. |
|
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195 | Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: Tanko The election wasn’t stolen. It was bought. By Zuckerberg. Under the guise of “Covid Response Grants” his non-profit funneled $419 million ‘Zuckerbucks’ to Democrat voter strongholds across the country to get out the Democrat vote. $50 million to AZ. $45 million to GA. $45 million to PA. At least $10 million to WI. More than 80% of the money funneled to Wisconsin went to heavily concentrated Democrat areas in that state. Zuckerbucks made the difference. Trump lost Georgia by 0.24 points, Arizona by 0.31, Wisconsin by 0.64, and Pennsylvania by 1.18. Considering what he got for his money, he claims he's staying out of it this year. Iran sanctions ended. Annual oil revenues increase from $65 billion to $200 billion. Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. Increased Iranian funding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels who now control the Red Sea. October 7th and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 'Zuckerberg reveals his endorsement decision for the 2024 election'
Democrats have been the ones trying to remove money from politics, Republicans are the ones that overly support it. When you supported a system where money rules the day, don't be surprised when a few decades later (current times,) the world is run by tech billionaires (who are overwhelmingly liberal) that use their money to influence elections. if Democrats had it their way, Zuckerberg would have never been able to do that. It is the world you created, and continue to foster by opposing bills that limit money in politics even now. So, you cannot really complain about this.
Democrats want money out of politics? What are you? On dope? Democrats love money in politics. Neither side wants it out. Democrats only want sources that go to republicans out.
Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-acthttps://endcitizensunited.org/Some Democrats oppose such proposals, but all Republicans do, but Democrats are the only ones fighting for it.
Again what are you? On dope? All those Democrats want to cut off is money sources that go more to the gop. Democrats care about nothing but getting and keeping power. Sheep believe them when they say they want money out of politics. Bernie and Warren are two of the greediest human beings you will ever meet.
You can look at voting and proposal history and see which party has more members getting money out of politics, this is not a controversial point. Now, it will never pass, (mostly due to GOP, but some Dems as well,) so is it empty rhetoric and posturing? Maybe. But, still it is empirical that virtually no Repubs support it and many Dems do.
You completely do not get it. Money = speech Money = access Libs like Warren know the Democrats have the lamesteram media locked up so they get sheep to think they want to "get the money out of politics." Reality is they want to lock out opposition. This is what it is all about.
As you complain about Billionaires spending money on campaigns and candidates that you do not agree with.... Money equals both of those things which is why it is important to limit donations eliminate pacs to be fair. Again this will never happen in America (even if it is somewhat normal in most developed countries,) so it is purely academic. But, you can't complain about "Zuckbucks" and then say rich people have the right to spend the money because they don't get fair coverage.
Eliminate PACs. IOW eliminate free association and free speech. You really live in Fantasyland. I do not complain about Zuke spending money. I do complain about his biased running of his site. And before you say "his site his rules" sorry but he is at the point that the TV networks are. IOW, they cannot refuse advertising to one side over the other. Same should apply to internet sites that have achieved the same kind of dominance. I am in favor of no limits on anyone giving to anyone. I would just want full disclosure of where funds came from. I do not care what "other developed nations" do. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength |
|
| Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 30
Posts: 5257 | Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: Tanko The election wasn’t stolen. It was bought. By Zuckerberg. Under the guise of “Covid Response Grants” his non-profit funneled $419 million ‘Zuckerbucks’ to Democrat voter strongholds across the country to get out the Democrat vote. $50 million to AZ. $45 million to GA. $45 million to PA. At least $10 million to WI. More than 80% of the money funneled to Wisconsin went to heavily concentrated Democrat areas in that state. Zuckerbucks made the difference. Trump lost Georgia by 0.24 points, Arizona by 0.31, Wisconsin by 0.64, and Pennsylvania by 1.18. Considering what he got for his money, he claims he's staying out of it this year. Iran sanctions ended. Annual oil revenues increase from $65 billion to $200 billion. Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. Increased Iranian funding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels who now control the Red Sea. October 7th and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 'Zuckerberg reveals his endorsement decision for the 2024 election'
Democrats have been the ones trying to remove money from politics, Republicans are the ones that overly support it. When you supported a system where money rules the day, don't be surprised when a few decades later (current times,) the world is run by tech billionaires (who are overwhelmingly liberal) that use their money to influence elections. if Democrats had it their way, Zuckerberg would have never been able to do that. It is the world you created, and continue to foster by opposing bills that limit money in politics even now. So, you cannot really complain about this.
Democrats want money out of politics? What are you? On dope? Democrats love money in politics. Neither side wants it out. Democrats only want sources that go to republicans out.
Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-acthttps://endcitizensunited.org/Some Democrats oppose such proposals, but all Republicans do, but Democrats are the only ones fighting for it.
Again what are you? On dope? All those Democrats want to cut off is money sources that go more to the gop. Democrats care about nothing but getting and keeping power. Sheep believe them when they say they want money out of politics. Bernie and Warren are two of the greediest human beings you will ever meet.
You can look at voting and proposal history and see which party has more members getting money out of politics, this is not a controversial point. Now, it will never pass, (mostly due to GOP, but some Dems as well,) so is it empty rhetoric and posturing? Maybe. But, still it is empirical that virtually no Repubs support it and many Dems do.
You completely do not get it. Money = speech Money = access Libs like Warren know the Democrats have the lamesteram media locked up so they get sheep to think they want to "get the money out of politics." Reality is they want to lock out opposition. This is what it is all about.
As you complain about Billionaires spending money on campaigns and candidates that you do not agree with.... Money equals both of those things which is why it is important to limit donations eliminate pacs to be fair. Again this will never happen in America (even if it is somewhat normal in most developed countries,) so it is purely academic. But, you can't complain about "Zuckbucks" and then say rich people have the right to spend the money because they don't get fair coverage.
Eliminate PACs. IOW eliminate free association and free speech. You really live in Fantasyland. I do not complain about Zuke spending money. I do complain about his biased running of his site. And before you say "his site his rules" sorry but he is at the point that the TV networks are. IOW, they cannot refuse advertising to one side over the other. Same should apply to internet sites that have achieved the same kind of dominance. I am in favor of no limits on anyone giving to anyone. I would just want full disclosure of where funds came from. I do not care what "other developed nations" do.
You guys literally were just complaining about his spending (not his FB policies.) I am not a fan of FB (and do not use/have an account.) So I am not here to defend FB. But, I am not aware of any political party being blocked from advertisements. I am in total favor of limits for all, I would go even further and say nationalize campaigning (where each party get advertising allotments and times.) This would solve both issues, but this will never happen in America. And, I would go even further and say that political ads should only be allowed for limited times each year (X number of weeks before the election, our election seasons are never ending and it is absurd, this does not happen in other countries.) |
|
| SquidtheSid Member since: Sep 30, 2024
Threads: 0
Posts: 95 | Quote: odiousgambit I don't know why we should listen to a person who has a strong instinct to troll
Seems I struck a nerve. Too close to home for you? If a person discloses membership in an organization to has ties to sex with 13 year old boys, I believe it deserves to have a light shined upon it. As the self proclaimed board spokesperson, I find it interesting that you see trolling a message board on equal footing with child molestation. |
|
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195 | Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: AZDuffman Quote: Gandler Quote: Tanko The election wasn’t stolen. It was bought. By Zuckerberg. Under the guise of “Covid Response Grants” his non-profit funneled $419 million ‘Zuckerbucks’ to Democrat voter strongholds across the country to get out the Democrat vote. $50 million to AZ. $45 million to GA. $45 million to PA. At least $10 million to WI. More than 80% of the money funneled to Wisconsin went to heavily concentrated Democrat areas in that state. Zuckerbucks made the difference. Trump lost Georgia by 0.24 points, Arizona by 0.31, Wisconsin by 0.64, and Pennsylvania by 1.18. Considering what he got for his money, he claims he's staying out of it this year. Iran sanctions ended. Annual oil revenues increase from $65 billion to $200 billion. Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. Increased Iranian funding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels who now control the Red Sea. October 7th and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 'Zuckerberg reveals his endorsement decision for the 2024 election'
Democrats have been the ones trying to remove money from politics, Republicans are the ones that overly support it. When you supported a system where money rules the day, don't be surprised when a few decades later (current times,) the world is run by tech billionaires (who are overwhelmingly liberal) that use their money to influence elections. if Democrats had it their way, Zuckerberg would have never been able to do that. It is the world you created, and continue to foster by opposing bills that limit money in politics even now. So, you cannot really complain about this.
Democrats want money out of politics? What are you? On dope? Democrats love money in politics. Neither side wants it out. Democrats only want sources that go to republicans out.
Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-acthttps://endcitizensunited.org/Some Democrats oppose such proposals, but all Republicans do, but Democrats are the only ones fighting for it.
Again what are you? On dope? All those Democrats want to cut off is money sources that go more to the gop. Democrats care about nothing but getting and keeping power. Sheep believe them when they say they want money out of politics. Bernie and Warren are two of the greediest human beings you will ever meet.
You can look at voting and proposal history and see which party has more members getting money out of politics, this is not a controversial point. Now, it will never pass, (mostly due to GOP, but some Dems as well,) so is it empty rhetoric and posturing? Maybe. But, still it is empirical that virtually no Repubs support it and many Dems do.
You completely do not get it. Money = speech Money = access Libs like Warren know the Democrats have the lamesteram media locked up so they get sheep to think they want to "get the money out of politics." Reality is they want to lock out opposition. This is what it is all about.
As you complain about Billionaires spending money on campaigns and candidates that you do not agree with.... Money equals both of those things which is why it is important to limit donations eliminate pacs to be fair. Again this will never happen in America (even if it is somewhat normal in most developed countries,) so it is purely academic. But, you can't complain about "Zuckbucks" and then say rich people have the right to spend the money because they don't get fair coverage.
Eliminate PACs. IOW eliminate free association and free speech. You really live in Fantasyland. I do not complain about Zuke spending money. I do complain about his biased running of his site. And before you say "his site his rules" sorry but he is at the point that the TV networks are. IOW, they cannot refuse advertising to one side over the other. Same should apply to internet sites that have achieved the same kind of dominance. I am in favor of no limits on anyone giving to anyone. I would just want full disclosure of where funds came from. I do not care what "other developed nations" do.
You guys literally were just complaining about his spending (not his FB policies.) I am not a fan of FB (and do not use/have an account.) So I am not here to defend FB. But, I am not aware of any political party being blocked from advertisements.
It is not the ads, it is the moderation. "Fact checking" that is nothing of the sort and somehow only happens when a left wing position is attacked. Famous one I can think of is the EV being charged by a diesel generator. Post that and FB will hide it. Quote: I am in total favor of limits for all, I would go even further and say nationalize campaigning (where each party get advertising allotments and times.) This would solve both issues, but this will never happen in America. And, I would go even further and say that political ads should only be allowed for limited times each year (X number of weeks before the election, our election seasons are never ending and it is absurd, this does not happen in other countries.)
What you are suggesting would gut free speech and entrench the current political class. You say you are against PACs but I am willing to wager you are just fine with a pro-abortion group trying to get their candidate elected. Upon further reflection what you are suggesting sounds like the USSR or other repressed societies. IOW, "You have free speech but only when we say you can." War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength |
|
| Tanko Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 0
Posts: 2470 | Quote: Gandler Not at all, many Democratic proposals going way back to get money out of politics. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been talking about it forever.
That was before the election when they were concerned about PACs supporting Republicans. Never heard any complaints from them about the $419 million Zuckerbucks flooding Democrat strongholds. That is in addition to admitting to suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story at Biden's and the FBI's request, and suspending Trump on Facebook and Instagram to silence him on social media. |
