If you aren't on board with taking money out of politics, you're retarded.
>>545171689If you think anything short of civil war will fix your country you're retarded
>>545171689why would the people with power "vote" themselves out of it?
>https://youtu.be/oKZHjoZUMD8>lol
>taking money out of politicsis the most retarded buzzword retardation imaginable. when you are writing or enforcing or adjudicating law it will intrinsically be tied to money in some way. it's like saying we need to get the sugar out of pixie sticks
>>545171689How the fuck are you going to have candidates you elect without money in politics?
>>545171991>>545172084Looking at things in blacks and whites with no grey is autistic behavior You may be on the spectrum
>>545171689If you aren't on board with taking jews out of White countries, you're retarded.
>>545172179So by "take money out of politics" you don't mean "take money out of politics"? What do you mean? Ban lobbying? You run into the same issue.
>>545172220He means reduce the influence of money in politics, it's not hard to understand. It is, in fact, possible, and ending unlimited political spending by corps and billionaires would be an excellent step towards restoring a degree of sanity.
>>545171689If you arent on board with exterminating nigger loving dems youre retarded
>>545172179>Ban basic human behavior such as supporting a side with your own moneyI think you might be the autistic one anon.
>>545172349>unlimited political spendingYou can't give unlimited amounts to candidates. If you want to eliminate PACs, then you'd eliminate any sort of political organization, which only benefits the big boys.I don't think you thought this through.
>>545171689This is just another one of those things that sounds good but is impossible to achieve. Democrats love that shit and they eat it up every time because they don't live in the real world.
>>5451716898 long years of president Ossof. MIGA trannies. Is your asshole ready?
>>545171798>yes continue doing nothing goy!
>>545172349You're just a retarded retard if you don't understand that if it were all made illegal the corpos and billionaires would just find another way to pay the money to acetone their political goals.
>>545172349>He means reduce the influence of money in politicsso are media appearances considered in kind contributions? how about interviews on podcasts? on rogan? how about editorials? how much should each network or newspaper be allotted? its a total clusterfuck that will never be fairly enforced and as such will only benefit established players
>>545172754Nice argument migger. We should just ignore the problem because they might find a way around it. You nigger loving kike worshippers arent people.
>>545173072>they should pass a law!>the criminals wouldnt dare to do it then!You right now
>>545172486>You can't give unlimited amounts to candidates.I'm quite aware. Donating unlimited amounts to superPACs is still unlimited political spending. I don't want to eliminate regular PACs. Which should be obvious, considering the subject matter of the thread is Citizens United.>>545172754A very convenient species of defeatism for them. "They're all-powerful, so there's no point whatsoever even trying to oppose them." It's not true though, you can do a comparison between America and other developed nations, or even modern America to America before Citizens United, and see that rolling it back actually would make a substantive difference.>>545172804Your logic is fallacious. You're effectively arguing that any solution that isn't completely perfect is completely useless, and that's just not the case. We've been able to observe firsthand just how moneyed influence over politics grew after the Citizens United decision.If you want to end CU and ALSO institute more regulations about media such that, say, Jeff Bezos can't buy WaPo and dictate they start writing pro-billionaire editorials, be my guest. Or maybe you hate that idea, fine. But it's a red herring to the specific issue of ending CU.>>545172636Effectively ending CU isn't impossible at all, multiple states are currently in the process of killing it at the state level.
the whole "money in politics" debate is a blackpill in itself. just think about what they actually spend the money on. if it was bribing people to vote or paying computer nerds to hack the voting machines that would be one thing, but if you look at the actual numbers most of it is spent on fucking commercials. then most of those commercials are targeting undecideds in the last few weeks before the election. in other words "money in politics" is all about buying 30 second faceberg ads to convince idiots who can't figure out what they believe in how to vote. this isn't a "money in politics" problem, it's a "democracy is tyranny of the fucking stupid" problem.
>>545171689Based. i hope he'll be able.... do.. it...
I don't think Mossad will let that one pass. They will let it fail by just a little bit though to inspire some suckers to donate more the next election.
>>545173390>Effectively ending CU isn't impossible at all, multiple states are currently in the process of killing it at the state level.OK, but to be fair, the idea of killing it via constitutional amendment as Ossoff suggests basically is impossible. The state-level legislative option is the only reason hope exists.
>>545171689Grok sir, what is Jon Ossoff's ancestry?I see. Thank you Grok sir.
>>545171689This fag is a lobbyist sockpuppet like all the rest, not sure why you would think he were any different.
>>545173432The actual "money in politics" is just lobbyists selling influence, be it non-profits or PACs they all need to go but this guy won't do that because he's another uniparty shill. You don't fight lobbyists in national congress crying about constitutionality, you put the question on ballots in every state and let people decide. Over 1/3rd of our voting age population refuses to vote but this would draw them in, all those people are demoralized beyond compare with politics and hate lobbyists too.
