This would be the death knell for the GOP

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman
PJ, anyone who believes that the $152 million in speaking fees weren't bribes is an idiot. She's a crook and you know it.......................and for some reason don't care.

---

I don't disagree with the conflict of interest with her speaking fees and I've said as much on this thread.

Can you please give us the name of the special interest-free candidate you are supporting? If you say anyone other than Bernie Sanders then you are lying..and support crooks...oh, and don't care. Did I miss something? Help us out with a name, won't you?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman


Since Trump hasn't taken bribes in return for any governmental favors, and since this is very important to PJ, I'm certain that PJ and other Liberals on this board will be supporting The Donald.

---

You're right. Donald Trump has not received any bribes - he just openly confesses to giving them and expecting to get something back in return. If you believe the giver of a bribe is less scummier than the receiver then Donald Trump is an awesome role model. Congratulations on your pick.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
People who support Citizens United and classify money as "free speech" dont have any business complaining about pay-for-play politics. And neither do people who complain when super-pacs are scrutinized for their tax-exempt status. Know anybody like that on this thread?

The current Democrat in the White House and both Democrats running for the White House support legislatively killing Citizen's United. Thats not far enough and much more needs to be done. But lets not kid ourselves. Democrats have the higher ground on this issue....even if that higher ground is still in the swamp.

---

In other words...."Yeah our politicians are owned by the lobbyists too...but we're better than the Republicans because some of our politicians who are owned by the lobbyists are against our politicians being owned by the lobbyists."

---

As usual - Alanleroy has to translate English to Strawman before he can make an effective argument on any topic.

Hillary has a superpac and its raking in millions for her campaign...and so did Obama. I think their pacs raised more cash than any of their opponents. It is not in their best personal interest to remove that support from which they benefit....but they are for removing it anyway because ....I dont know....maybe they give a shit? Whats your explanation for their support against their own interest?

And like I said - its not good enough. But lets be honest about recent history. Republicans pursued a law case that opened the floodgates of special interest money while Democrats fought against it. Top Republicans openly celebrate special interest money as free speech while Democrats call it corruption. Or as home-town-ref, Alanleroy, would say - they both share the same position on lobbiest money

---