|
Elections must be soon. Got to grandstand a bit before nothing happens
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
remember how everyone was predicting that corporations and individuals were gonna pump billions more dollars into the elction but that never happened because leftists are idiots who dont understand legal decisions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
I mostly think it's funny how ted cruz argued that corporations are people in that segment but for some reason he wasn't outraged that the ceo of GM isn't on death row. Weird
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
RonMexicosPitbull posted:remember how everyone was predicting that corporations and individuals were gonna pump billions more dollars into the elction but that never happened because leftists are idiots who dont understand legal decisions? quote:During the 2012 cycle, in which non-party outside spending tripled 2008′s total and topped $1 billion for the first time, super PACs accounted for more than $600 million of that spending. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/four-years-after-citizens-united-the-fallout/
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/four-years-after-citizens-united-the-fallout/ :facepalm:
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
I loving hate untld corporate funding, ugh!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
scotus sounds a bit like scrotus hehe
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
gently caress you democrats for caring more about the common man than big greedy fat cat corporations!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Apparently insurance companies aren't subject to the sherman anti-trust law for whatever reason and when it was brought up that they should be the Democrats were against it because they feared the insurance companies funding Republicans in 2010. I really don't like my elected officials being scared of where some company/entire sector of the economy is going to spend their money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
anyone else think acronyms like scrotus and protus are stupid?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
avatarinwin posted:anyone else think acronyms like scrotus and protus are stupid? would michelle obama be the hotus
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:would michelle obama be the hotus wotus
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
lots of the guys with shitloads of corporate backing in 2012 lost anyway, that adelson casino jew spent like 88 mil on 10+ candidates that all lost lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
No they don't, Democrats make just as much bank from corporate sugar daddies as the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Gypsum Fantastic posted:gently caress you democrats for caring more about the common man than big greedy fat cat corporations!!!!! lol that people actually believe this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:would michelle obama be the hotus Whorus
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
I too like to couch my honest and terrible opinions in ironic disinterested shitposting
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
instead of having an actual discussion let's just pretend like we're trolling each other so we don't have to make anything resembling a cogent argument
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:lol that people actually believe this. ishygddt.jpg lol epic fail trololol u mad bro
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/four-years-after-citizens-united-the-fallout/ $1 billion is a very small amount of money compared to the US GDP, given the stakes of large elections, if it actually had a large role to play you'd expect a large multiple of that. If Apple could spend $3 billion to buy legislative action they would do it in a heartbeat, the opportunity is simply not there. See also http://cori.missouri.edu/pages/seminars/AES_JEP_2003.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Money of course has no corrupting effects on politics so long as legislation isn't buyable.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
then where's the money? its not in campaign contributions since if that were effective, there'd be a whole lot more certainly there's some reason why policies favoring the rich are passed more than those favoring the poor, but I think it's a second order thing, or something closer to "people who want to be in politics are rich and agree with those sensibilities genuinely"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:01
|
|
Jeffrey posted:then where's the money? its not in campaign contributions since if that were effective, there'd be a whole lot more If campaign contributions were totally ineffective, you'd think someone would have figured it out by now, but more corruption comes from the disparity in lobbying that makes it easier for certain voices to be heard/shut out IMO. There's certainly an important symbolic aspect to getting Philip Morris or Disney money though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Isn't there a practical limit on how much cash a campaign can actually spend, anyways? I mean once you've saturated media outlets with ads, paid for your organization and staffers, paid for get out the vote activities, etc, - what else is left to spend money on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Huurp a duuuurp accept the government you own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Copley Depot posted:Isn't there a practical limit on how much cash a campaign can actually spend, anyways? I mean once you've saturated media outlets with ads, paid for your organization and staffers, paid for get out the vote activities, etc, - what else is left to spend money on? Hookers and blow or I guess real estate and fake non-profits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Gypsum Fantastic posted:gently caress you democrats for caring more about the common man than big greedy fat cat corporations!!!!! n1
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:18
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/four-years-after-citizens-united-the-fallout/ lol i love when people get factowned
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Hesh Ballantine posted:lots of the guys with shitloads of corporate backing in 2012 lost anyway, that adelson casino jew spent like 88 mil on 10+ candidates that all lost lol Only if you suck at lobbying. In reality you donate $100m to Person A in return for legislation that's going to bring $500m into Department X and then donate $100m to Person B in return for legislation that's going to bring $500m into Department Y then bang your mistress on your private jet on the trip home to bang your trophy wife.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Copley Depot posted:Isn't there a practical limit on how much cash a campaign can actually spend, anyways? I mean once you've saturated media outlets with ads, paid for your organization and staffers, paid for get out the vote activities, etc, - what else is left to spend money on? I could've sworn I had heard of an actual scientific study showing how political campaigns are subject to the law of diminishing returns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
RonMexicosPitbull posted:remember how everyone was predicting that corporations and individuals were gonna pump billions more dollars into the elction but that never happened because leftists are idiots who dont understand legal decisions? the election is this year mongoloid
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Ron Darling posted:lol i love when people get factowned its not really factowned unless they showed that election outcomes would have been different without the funding - if anything I'd guess it's a correlation/causation thing and money is given to candidates because they are going to win and they don't win because of the money
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:No they don't, Democrats make just as much bank from corporate sugar daddies as the Republicans. Indeed, the true man of the people is Ron Paul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Indeed, the true man of the people is Ron Paul. This
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:its not really factowned unless they showed that election outcomes would have been different without the funding - if anything I'd guess it's a correlation/causation thing and money is given to candidates because they are going to win and they don't win because of the money quote:91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/ And now we get to see the mental gymnastics this idiot goes through to justify another factual argument against his stupid opinion
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Momplestiltskin posted:
Right, correlation is not causation. It seems similarly reasonable that people with money would rather give it to the candidate who is going to win, since it's completely worthless in the hands of the guy who is going to lose. You have to prove that money changed the outcome of the election, not just that the winner had it. Looking at that, they are almost all incumbents, it's very easy for a donor to guess that the incumbent is going to win and donate to them in hopes of currying favor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Right, correlation is not causation. It seems similarly reasonable that people with money would rather give it to the candidate who is going to win, since it's completely worthless in the hands of the guy who is going to lose. You have to prove that money changed the outcome of the election, not just that the winner had it. haha, what is this poo poo, why are you even bothering
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:haha, what is this poo poo, why are you even bothering to prove im the smartest goon of all
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Some small business owner took away my wife for prima noctae and my yard is full of toxic pig poo poo. I will never stop lammoing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Lammo at libtards being owned by job creators.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:58
|
|