The Reelection of Barack Hussein Obama

[MyOneAndOnly]

Bill Maher stands up as an example for his people by donating $1,000,000 to Barry's super pac

[Future Boy]

superpacs are evil. but not ours, because we're not, so it cant be.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

superpacs are evil. but not ours, because we're not, so it cant be.

we already went over this

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

we already went over this

once again, who cares, if you're tired of rehashing the same arguments over and over again then stay off this board.

[Future Boy]

by his people did you mean rich people with nothing better to do

[MyOneAndOnly]

let's go over it again

[MyOneAndOnly]

seriously, though. super pacs are now the necessary evil. it will be impossible to win the white house without the use of crazy money from a couple of hundred billionaires.

[Future Boy]

he should just take lobbyist money then

[Future Boy]

i mean officially take it, not just from their spouses and bundlers stuff

[Future Boy]

because winnings what matters, right guys? Eulogy the only thing that would justify this (not him using it, that needs none, but you guys just signing off like its no big deal) is if he wins and they actually do something to reverse citizens united. Otherwise boy will you guys look stupid.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

because winnings what matters, right guys? Eulogy the only thing that would justify this (not him using it, that needs none, but you guys just signing off like its no big deal) is if he wins and they actually do something to reverse citizens united. Otherwise boy will you guys look stupid.

who appoints supreme court justices

oh

or do you want him to unilaterally pass legislation that will once again get struck down for the same exact reasons it was already struck down in citizens united

you really have no leg to stand on here.

[FutureBoy]

you really have no leg to stand on here.[/quote]


what leg do i need? You are the one supporting the superpAc use under the assumptions that he will nominate someone to the court, and that they will oppose the ruling, and that he or the party will want it opposed.it could die off just as quickly as campaign finance reform did after 2008

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by FutureBoy

what leg do i need? You are the one supporting the superpAc use under the assumptions that he will nominate someone to the court, and that they will oppose the ruling, and that he or the party will want it opposed.it could die off just as quickly as campaign finance reform did after 2008

and you're assuming there is some other way to do it

there isn't. so we're gonna need a democratic president until the court finally flips. he and the party are all pretty well aligned against the ruling. it might fall off of the political radar but that doesn't really matter seeing as the only route for its overruling is a different composition of the court. or the court changing its mind, which after this clusterfuck does not appear to be outside the realm of possibility.

[FutureBoy]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

and you're assuming there is some other way to do it

there isn't. so we're gonna need a democratic president until the court finally flips. he and the party are all pretty well aligned against the ruling. it might fall off of the political radar but that doesn't really matter seeing as the only route for its overruling is a different composition of the court. or the court changing its mind, which after this clusterfuck does not appear to be outside the realm of

there is a deference between realizing the court is the best way to change it, and just turning around and embracing a position because it's suddenly our best chance to win.
both sides embracing them makes it more likely to stay, not less, no matter who wins


It's getting old though watching dem base supporters complain when the party caves.i mean they don't stand for anything, why should their pols. Everything is just an election away from being a necessary evil.

Btw,i was simply mocking scottys superpac support thread, can't a guy have some fun around here anymore

[MyOneAndOnly]

new judges, new rulings or a constitutional amendment. anything else is just a waste of time. But progressive have already started trying to organize for a constitutional amendment. And Obama has repeatedly stated that he doesn't agree with the courts' rulings on the matter

[Eulogy]

there is no way a constitutional amendment passes. waste of time/energy/resources.

Scalia is 76.

i see him being there until he's like 95 though. bah.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

there is no way a constitutional amendment passes. waste of time/energy/resources.

Scalia is 76.

i see him being there until he's like 95 though. bah.

you never know. the guy is one unhealthy looking wop.

also, something like an ammendment campaign has other purposes. It can become a way to whip up voters to support candidates or issues related to campaign finance reform.

[Eulogy]

and the converse of my "support" is a republican president.

so i don't really see how that's better.

[MyOneAndOnly]

[MyOneAndOnly]

[Eulogy]

so you want democrats to reject them and basically ensure that the court's composition gets worse so that citizens united never has any chance of getting overruled

but hey at least we didn't use superpacs, guys

how do you not see how silly this is

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

so you want democrats to reject them and basically ensure that the court's composition gets worse so that citizens united never has any chance of getting overruled

no, I want people like you two to not be so meh about them using it, or in scottys case happy. I want the base thats so quick to support this to take a step back and see what they're supporting. Which is where the mock scotty thing comes in.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

how do you not see how silly this is

this is coming from the guy that thinks gobs of money will have no effect on politicians. seriously.

[Future Boy]

maybe this thread was more tongue in cheek than i took it

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

this is coming from the guy that thinks gobs of money will have no effect on politicians. seriously.

my point was that politicians don't fucking matter. a point you say you understand but one that doesn't mesh at all with your posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by Future Boy

this was pointless. its like you're arguing against something that I'm not denying.

you said it only remains an issue if a political party cares. which is false. because the filing of a lawsuit doesn't require the support of a political party.

honestly i have no idea what your point is here. we should be more begrudging? ok?

[Future Boy]

see was that so hard

[Eulogy]

let me talk nonsense for a few posts and then claim that you're the idiot

ok did that work

[Future Boy]

here, ill give it one last go,

i think this will be in effect long enough that if both parties turn to it and come to love it enough, throw up lame transparency safeguards as window dressing for morons, that by the time a dem president has the chance to replace a righty the person doing the appointing and those doing the confirmation may not actually want it gone. i think those pols, in that situation would...wait for it...matter. Because Eulogy, where else will dem voters turn, third party? Go ahead, throw your vote away.

I dont consider that such an omegaconcern type situation that I'm talking nonsense. I guess I just imagined it recently when an entire list of repub scandals fell off the radar once a dem president started doing it too. Low odds though? yeah probably. But none of that was even behind my initial reason for posting in this thread to begin with, and isnt contradicted by anything you've been arguing about.

[Future Boy]

this thread title is racist

[Eulogy]

i don't even think you read anything

so godspeed

[Future Boy]

see was that so hard