Important lessons for both parties from the 2022 election

What makes you think this hasn't happened before?
And why do you think they supported the worst R candidate? I though trump and his followers were the best in the country?

I personally don't like all that bribe money and dark money and likely foreign money in our political system.
But, McCain/Feingold failed in campaign finance reform trying to limit all the money used in campaign.
R's are largely against it. Unless there were laws broken then the system allows what you're complaining about.

Don't like it, join those of us who would like large bribe money taken out of campaigns.

 

It wasn't direct contributions to the candidates it was mostly media and social media/email efforts.

"Democrats have spent nearly $19 million across eight states in primaries this year amplifying far-right Republican candidates who have questioned or denied the validity of the 2020 election, according to a Washington Post analysis, interfering in GOP contests to elevate rivals they see as easier to defeat in November, even as those candidates have promoted false or baseless claims."

The practice by some campaigns and outside groups this year has divided Democrats, with some in the party complaining that such tactics are risky and could ultimately result in the election of candidates who pose serious threats to democracy.

The approach often involves TV ads suggesting that a far-right GOP candidate is too conservative for a state or district and drawing attention to the candidate’s hard-line views on abortion, guns and former president Donald Trump — messages that resonate with conservative primary voters. In other cases, Democrats have run ads attacking GOP candidates seen as tougher to defeat in general elections in ways that could erode support for them in Republican primaries."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/


Prove it has happened then as if it matters we KNOW there was an organized concerted effort THIS time no do you approve of such a tactic yes or no? And if you don't like freedom of assembly and free speech then get those amendments in the Bill of Rights repealed.

 

It was a very risky approach. NO doubt.
I approve of this tactic because that's how money/free speech works. I disapprove of the tactic because I don't like bribe money picking our candidates for us.

I have never believed a physical object, money, is speech. It is a tool for buying things. And now, it buys election candidates.
Issues have taken a back seat to those who can sling the most mud.

 

Of course it is part of speech, do you think renting a hall and a microphone is free? Do you think printing hand outs and posters is free? Do you think radio and TV time is free? Do you think websites are free? Do you think everyone has the free time to go out and campaign for their candidate and work in their campaign, of course not but they can contribute their work, their earnings from it, to support their candidate and causes. The course are quite clear that is exercising your free speech so it's a moot point you don't like it.

So you are telling me that when the Reps pick up the same tactic you will not voice objections?

 

Whether something is free or not is not the issue.
Are chickens free speech? Chickens once upon a time were used a buying/trading medium.
Money is a method of purchasing. It is not a voice or words or an expression of them.


speech
a
: the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words
b
: exchange of spoken words : conversation
2
a
: something that is spoken : utterance
b
: a usually public discourse : address
3
a
: language, dialect
b
: an individual manner or style of speaking
4
: the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking

Anyway, I end this off topic discussion here. I won't convince you about money and you won't change my mind.
Bu I do have the definition of speech to back me up. Money is not in the definition.

 

Per the SCOTUS, money is political speech.

 

I didn't say the same crap, just different crap

 

Money is used to EXERCISE your freedom of speech, learn the difference. THAT is what the SCOTUS has said. The government cannot prevent you from exercising your free speech and that includes paying for being able to do so. Else the government could ban the internet and printing presses because they are not voices but machines.

 

Yeah but on this specific crap...........I don't know how it could made illegal or something done about it other than the voters saying we won't have it. There are also cases in states where you don't register you political preference and in primaries where persons in one party who already know who their party candidate will be going and voting in the other party primary to try to get the candidate who would be easier to beat.

 

Correct, as I said and you just agreed with me, money is a tool to buy things.
It is NOT an expression of words.
So the SCOTUS is always correct? Were they correct when abortion was constitutional or not constitutional?

Ignore this again if you want.
speech
a
: the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words
b
: exchange of spoken words : conversation
2
a
: something that is spoken : utterance
b
: a usually public discourse : address
3
a
: language, dialect
b
: an individual manner or style of speaking
4
: the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking

 

the sitting president almost always loses seats in the midterms, looks like dems are gonna keep the Senate and lost few seats in the house

the SC doing what they did with Abortion and Republicans seizing on it hurt them badly, that and the candidates worshiping Trump, people are sick of it

 

Republicans been creating ghost candidates for years, republicans did not care about that

 

not so sure they will lose the Senete, Dems look like they got this one

 

Republicans are the ones that said $$$ is free speech, so they can say whatever they want

I would be glad to take big money out of politics.... how about you?

 

It looks like you might be right about the Senate. But if they lose the House there's not much that they can get done. The Dems are lame ducks without both.

 

have to wait and see, they won't get any far left stuff done, but could get a lot of bipartisan stuff done, have to wait and see

 

I don't think Republicans are convinced Biden will work with them. Saying he will consider any "good ideas" from them is another way of saying "It's my way or the highway!"

 

the house needs to work across the isle, make bipartisan bills, if Biden veto's them, that is on him

Biden will work with Republicans if they are reasonable, he will not allow them to add anti-abortion to a bill for example

 

Biden thinks he can govern by EO. I think he learned that from Obama.

 

Trump governed by EO even when his party had control

the only thing Trump got passed was massive permanent tax cuts for the mega corps while his party had full control

 

Please keep in mind that all tax cuts are "tax cuts for the rich" because higher earners pay most of the taxes.

 

More baseless specious assertions. And the Dems did not create candidates this cycle they just supported Republican ones in order to try and get the candidate they best believed they could defeat in the general election, do you support this new tactic yes or no?

 

And SCOTUS has clearly stated that donating money to a campaign or cause is an exercise of your free speech for which candidate you support.

 

the wealth looters think that tax cuts should go to those whose citizenship benefits are subsidized by the rich. Since the top one percent pays all the death taxes (a surcharge on wealth) and 38.9% of the income tax, they should get that amount of tax cuts. The bottom 50% pay less than 6 % of the income taxes and now shoulder a lower percentage of the income tax burden than at any time since 1935: they should pay a higher share of the burden

 

A falsehood.