Wow. This has to be one of the most blatant attempts at moving goalposts that I’ve ever seen.
When you said slavery was alive and well in China you actually meant something like Wage Slavery? That’s an entirely different thing.
Then you jump to a strawman that I have some opinion about American businesses making money from Chinese labor? Have I posted anything on that subject to this thread? To any thread that you know of?
It’s telling that you have to make things up out of whole cloth instead of just responding to what I post.
That’s no goalpost-shift, wage slavery was exactly the kind Kobal2 was talking about in post #88.
There is also more literal slavery in China, of course, convict labor. (We have that here too, come to think of it, but the American for-profit prison-industrial complex is another discussion.)
And that’s no strawman, it’s what implicates the American biz community in Chinese sweatshop-slavery and supports my thesis that they would do the same to workers here (like they used to) if they could only get away with it – which they conceivably might, if they can buy enough pols.
I disagree. He couldn’t have been more clear. He mentioned debt slavery first, then “actual slavery”.
His post couldn’t have been more silly or hyperbolic and over the top. It’s a good barometer, actually. Anyone who agrees with it is a far left loon.
You could write the same thing from a hardcore Libertarian perspective, of course. Replace greed with government control. Swap radium girls with the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Switch private sector anti-union thugs with government KGB type thugs.
If you think there is any risk, any risk at all, of mainstream American businesses opening debt slavery style sweatshops as a result of a lack of campaign finance laws then, well…
I’m sorry. You’re just a loon.
There’s plenty of rational arguments to be made in favor of campaign finance laws. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. But going straight to radium girls and literal slavery as an argument against the recent SCOTUS case? It’s just nuts.
The radium women, Debaser. Remember the radium women? Wage slaves, not chattel slaves. And Americans.
If you think none of them would if they could get away with it, the loon would be you. The relevance of our present system of campaign finance is that it helps them get their way, and you’d be an even bigger loon to deny that.
Where and why do you think the laws limiting campaign contributions sprang from in the first place, you simpering lummox ? Don’t you think that maybe, just possibly maybe, they could have been the result of backlash against crony capitalism, bought-and-sold politicians and the ravages caused by wealth on the voiceless ? Oh, to bring that golden era back. Enjoy sucking radium brushes and huffing mercury fumes for monkey money soon-ish (again), I guess.
Not really. Once a well is dry, nobody drills there anymore. Limiting donations also means limiting the time spent on getting more and more and more and more of them.
Or if there was a limit to how much people could donate, they would simply set up a PayPal account for small donors (kinda like Obama did with great results in 2008 - of course before the really big influx of cash and Super PACs.)
I like this chicken and egg thing. You’re wrong, of course. Evidence of this is examples of where a sudden influx of money reverses polling trends. For example, let’s look at Proposition 39 in California in 2012 which was a ballot initiative about labeling Genetically Modified Food:
So according to your logic, those companies looked at poll numbers that were against them, ad that was an indicator that they had a winner there? You really think that the barrage of misleading, semi-truthful advertising didn’t have any impact on the poll numbers completely flipping to coincide when those ads started to run? Is that your theory?
Assuming you admit that is pretty likely inaccurate (and really, you should) - why is it not likely with regard to other things on ballots, such as other initiatives or people?
The NRa certainly elevates the paranoia but they do not create it. The NRA was on its way towards becoming irrelevant (to the point where they were starting to adopt other right wing causes (what unions and taxes has to do with second amendment rights, I will never know) when the Dianne Feinsteins of the world tried to ban assault weapons federally and places like NY passed actually passed them locally.
$2600 for the primary and $2600 for the general. You can do that 535 timesfor a total of $2,782,000. One of the best bargains in politics. Of course for that much money you can buy yourself a congressional seat somewhere and might be able to get yourself a senate seat in one of the flyover states so its no trifle but you can also create your own PAC, put Carl Rove in charge of it and pump a billion dollars into it.
This is a drop in the bucket.
Why does it have to? The 5th amendment will not do a goddam thing for most Americans either but we still think its important.
There was recently an article about a San Francisco state Democrat that engaged in some pretty corrupt behaviour for a less than $70,000. Money has a corrupting influence, theres just not a lot we can do about it without signing over the govetrnment to people who can self finance their campaigns.
Congress TRIED to regulate and the SCOTUS struck down the law. I thought that was what the OP was about. SCOTUS didn’t think that an aggregate limit protected against corruption or the appearance of corruption.
I think both are bad laws. I think both are unconstitutional but between the two I think voter suppression is far worse than limiting the choice of attachments and accessories I can legally have on my gun.