Bloomberg strikes again. strict anti-gun bill in Arizona.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hal said:
"USNRet93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...gth_in_Arizona

Look down at the bottom of the chart..."

Look at the top of that link..



All the democrats have to do is swing some of those "Not-Designated" voters over to their side & AZ goes in the books as a blue state.
Click to expand...
I did, but the AZ legislature' is solidly red...Yup, if the AZ state GOP do a 'virgina', it can change but TODAY and until November 2020, it is GOP controlled legislature and governor..
The 'unaffiliated' middle is a large voting block EVERYWHERE...
 
heyjoe said:
a by product of citizens united supreme court decision.
Click to expand...
You have it exactly backwards. Nothing in the law which was struck down in the Citizens United ruling prevented a billionaire from spending as much money as they wanted to influence elections.

Here's what it did prevent: If you and 1,000 like-minded people wanted to pool your money together (AKA "form a corporation") to counter the message the billionaire is putting out it was illegal to do so prior to the election you wanted to influence. Bear in mind the genesis of the case, Citizens United is a corporation formed specifically for political advocacy. They made a movie about Hillary Clinton, which the FEC then banned from distribution prior to the Democrat primary.

The US government banned distribution of a movie because it had political content, let that sink in.

Meanwhile billionaires and political parties and politicians were completely unaffected by the campaign finance law, giving them a monopoly on political information prior to elections.

The 1st Amendment won, the people of the USA won with the SCOTUS decision. Billionaires and political parties lost.

I have yet to meet a single person opposed to the Citizens United decision who even understands what it was about.
 
there were political action committees before citizens united and there were individual limits on what anyone could donate to a candidate before citizens united. your explanation is simplistic and misleading. It also doesnt look to me like billionaires lost. ask virginia, colorado,washington, and oregon.
 
Dufus said:
I am not worried about Texas right now. But that doesn't mean I am closing my eyes and snoozing.
Click to expand...
you better start worrying, look at what has already happened to Austin and Houston/Harris County.

Bloomberg has already paid for the nomination. Bernie is staying in it just to make his followers think he has principles, and of course to get his big payday. Biden is finished now that Obama has endorsed Bloomberg. if you think Bloomberg's multi-billion dollar pay off scheme won't buy off state politicians you're not following things very well.
 
Last edited:
heyjoe said:
there were political action committees before citizens united and there were individual limits on what anyone could donate to a candidate before citizens united. your explanation is simplistic and misleading. It also doesnt look to me like billionaires lost. ask virginia, colorado,washington, and oregon.
Click to expand...
Nothing about the Citizens United decision changed that. The law which was struck down did not address campaign donations at all. Nor did the law which was struck down place any restrictions whatsoever on how much money billionaires could spend to influence elections.

I repeat: I have yet to meet anyone opposed to the Citizens United decision who understands what the case was actually about.

And no, it did not declare that corporations are people either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top