Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: A sea of white supremacy (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the Chamber has been influencing elections since (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick

    it was formed back in 1912. They were pretty effective during the past 98 years too--and they didn't need the CU decision to do it.

    •  We'll have to agree to disagree (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OLinda, blindyone, lostinamerica, MartyM

      Never in my lifetime have I seen so many "anonymous" outside right wing groups (even in obscure House races) relentlessly and endlessly spend so much money going after an entire political party (Dems) as I did in 2010. It was brutal.

      "He's the one, who likes all our pretty songs. And he likes to sing along. And he likes to shoot his gun. But he knows not what it means" - Kurt Cobain

      by Jeff Y on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 10:48:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  there's nothing to disagree about (0+ / 0-)

        The CU decision didn't change anything--it simply set things back to exactly the way they were before.  That is not a matter of opinion or interpretation or ideology--it is a simple bare plain inescapable fact.

        The involvement of money in elections was already skyrocketing before the CU decision--Obama himself ran the most expensive Presidential campaign in history.

        And of course corporations can spend more money on politics now because they HAVE more money to spend--they've been making record profits for years now.

        None of that is the result of CU. The CU decision did not say anything about any of those things.

        Disagreeing with that statement, is like disagreeing with the statement "water is wet" or "rocks are heavy".

        It pains me greatly to see that so many progressives have such a dead-wrong idea about what the CU decision actually said and did.  It makes it that much harder to actually fight the corporations, by wasting our efforts tilting at windmills that don't actually exist, while ignoring the very real sources of power they DO have.

        •  You're wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lostinamerica, MartyM

          For one thing, Obama had a ton of small donors who not only donated but also volunteered for him.

          I'm to tired to argue with you tonight, but you are seriously wrong and misguided on this and you seem to be proud of that.

          Later...

          "He's the one, who likes all our pretty songs. And he likes to sing along. And he likes to shoot his gun. But he knows not what it means" - Kurt Cobain

          by Jeff Y on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 11:04:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no, I'm not wrong (0+ / 0-)

            Despite the army of small donors, most of Obama's money came from corporations--and he got twice as many corporate donations as McCain did.

            And despite all your arm-waving, the simple fact remains that the CU decision simply did not do what you think it did, and did not say what you think it said.

            Please read up on the topic and correct your misconceptions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site