Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (794148)	7/8/2014 6:51:29 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Recommended By jlallen Respond to of 1577593

The Citizens United is cited by the left as a horrible decision to allow corporations the ability to influence the campaigns. They never want to touch the lopsided influence Labor Unions have in the same circumstances. Labor Unions are much more evident in their support for Left Wing politicians than are corporations in support of the rightwing. Corporations give money to both and frequently more to the left wing politicians. The left are experts in prevarication. They know that most voters don't take the time to rely on anything more than bumper sticker sound bytes. They introduce legislation with positive sounding titles they would never vote on themselves because they will blame the Right for blocking it. It has been a very effective manor in twisting the minds of the left leaning voter.

To: i-node who wrote (794148)	7/8/2014 12:08:49 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1577593

Citizens United at least provides an opportunity for ordinary people to fight what amounts to institutionalized political corruption in the form of incumbency. You're a total idiot. You want to fight incumbency? Get term limits.

To: i-node who wrote (794148)	7/10/2014 11:27:15 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577593

>> In any event, they got some important things wrong, most glaringly their document’s acceptance of slavery They didn't "get it wrong." They wisely recognized that if they tried to deal with the slavery problem at that time there would have been no United States. It simply wouldn't have happened. That was the point of the "3/5 Compromise". To have tried to abolish slavery in the Constitution would have guaranteed there was no Constitution, as it was a matter of economic survival for many in the South. So the FF did a very wrong thing to accommodate the South yet you don't think there should be any repercussions from such a heinous act. Sorry, Dave, but the world doesn't work that way. >> Their view is that by empowering the wealthy in our political system, Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United directly contradict the Constitution’s central commitment to shared self-rule. It is a naive POV. Citizens United is a badly needed offset to the power of incumbency. If you want to amend the Constitution to put in term limits on senators and representatives I would gladly support undoing Citizens United. As it now stands you can't get rid of a Harry Reid because he simply has too much money backing him; Citizens United at least provides an opportunity for ordinary people to fight what amounts to institutionalized political corruption in the form of incumbency. What are you talking about.........all Citizens United did was increase the power and influence of some very powerful non citizens in this country. Harry Reid remains in power because he does what his constituents want. That should be true for all politicians.