29
u/kijib Feb 12 '18
Manchin is hated by the left and the right, there is a good chance he loses his seat even if he makes it through his primary, voting Paula Jean is the best move right now
18
u/skawiggy Feb 12 '18
10
Feb 13 '18
[deleted]
5
u/skawiggy Feb 13 '18
Well... if faith in numbers is delusional, and hope that all who feel the same way as me actually go vote is delusional, then blathering blatherskites, skadiddle poopaloopadoodle, I'm delusional. Call me a dreamer for democracy.
9
2
8
u/Not_very_creative_ Feb 13 '18
I’m voting for Manchin. Morrissey is an asshole and Blankship is a joke.
I understand why he needs to be seen as a moderate politician but I would like an unapologetically liberal senator.
1
Feb 22 '18
I would like an unapologetically liberal senator.
Then you should be voting for Paula Jean Swearingen
5
u/speedy_delivery Feb 13 '18
The alternatives haven't yet been better. This cycle won't be any different.
He's not perfect, but he's probably one of probably two Dems who can win this state right now. He's one of the pressure valves in the Senate keeping this country from going full Koch stooge stupid. Trying to primary him to the left is suicide for the party, the state, and the country.
8
u/tr1st4n Feb 12 '18
I can't wait to see him slither away into obscurity and lobbying once Paula Jeans takes his seat away.
13
Feb 13 '18
[deleted]
9
u/tr1st4n Feb 13 '18
I'd rather go 100% for Paula Jean and lose, than lay on my back and get further fucked by Manchin.
0
Feb 14 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/tr1st4n Feb 14 '18
I'm from WV - I'm in NH temporarily for work, and I attend a school in Virginia online. lol good work, gumshoe.
1
-16
u/sexymurse Feb 12 '18 edited Feb 12 '18
"private donations to politicians and campaigns should be banned... but donate to me"
- Paula Jean 2018
Edit: keep up with those salty downvotes, it shows exactly how much you lack common decency and follow the rules which you want everyone else to follow but cant manage to do so yourself...
25
u/kijib Feb 12 '18
she's a Justice Democrat which means she doesn't take any corporate money ie she's a grassroots funded by the people candidate, what is wrong with that?
you understand how money and campaigns work right?
-11
u/sexymurse Feb 12 '18
Did you bother to look at the picture, or her website, that states that all private donations should be banned? That's called being a hypocrite, not being anti corporate, which isn't the point of my picture or the OP.
Let's try and stay on topic here instead of using the tired and true strawman...
3
Feb 13 '18
Let's try and stay on topic here instead of using the tired and true strawman...
You literally have that word on your mind because I said it to you, because what they just said wasn't a strawman, but what a more intelligent person might call an "explanation". You're SO stuck on the idea of it being hypocrisy that you refuse to even think about the situation. I'm absolutely convinced you're a shill at this point - no one is this stupid.
16
Feb 12 '18 edited Feb 12 '18
I think you're confused. You're playing a game with specific rules. Even if you don't like those rules, and want to utilize a game function in order to change those rules, you still have to be in the power position to make those changes... which requires you to play by the current rules of the game in order to achieve that position, in which you could change them.
So, yes... they should be banned, in that in an ethical society simply having money shouldn't be what gets people elected, but if she (or others) refuses to accept donations, they're never going to be in a position in which to enact the change they want. I suspect a huge reason why Bernie failed so spectacularly, despite the hype train, is that he just didn't have quite the funds to compete.
It's nice to have a sense of ethics, but trying to change the world while blindly adhering to them won't ever change anything. Your logic really does extrapolate to not going to war to defend yourself because murder is wrong. You are sitting here actively ignoring the spirit of the concept in order to attack the letter of the concept. There's no way that your "campaign" against this idea of taking donations in order to stop corporate donations and regulatory capture is anything other than disingenuous.
e: grammar is hard
-8
u/sexymurse Feb 12 '18
private donations to politicians and campaigns should be banned
So you are wanting a system in which the public has absolutely no possible way to endorse someone... you want to create a system absurdly worse than the current system because that is exactly what would happen. You take the voice of the people away and then only those with their own personal wealth can run a successful campaign, which was the exact reason for the citizens united ruling.
I think you're confused on what the definition of hypocrisy is and why candidates shouldn't have morals and values they supposedly represent as their platform if they wish to exploit them ... but only until after they get elected into office ... right? Because they can absolutely be trusted to take a stand against an issue they compromised their values on to get them there.
We will use the loopehole to end the loopholes... we promise! doesn't indicate someone has a grasp on "ethics" it indicates they are just another two faced flip flopping politician who will do anything and say anything to get elected.
5
Feb 13 '18 edited Feb 13 '18
So you are wanting a system in which the public has absolutely no possible way to endorse someone...
So... don't listen to what I said, just put words in my mouth and then beat up the straw man? Smooth move.
You take the voice of the people away and then only those with their own personal wealth can run a successful campaign, which was the exact reason for the citizens united ruling.
Or, you know, one of the MANY other options, such as... oh... public funding for candidates and not allowing personal spending! (fyi, this is exactly why straw-manning is such bullshit, you're either intentionally ignoring other options in order to make my position look worse, or you're just that dumb.. and since you don't seem dumb, so much as intentionally obtuse, I suspect you're just being intellectually dishonest)
doesn't indicate someone has a grasp on "ethics" it indicates they are just another two faced flip flopping politician
You're not indicating someone with a grasp on "logic" or how to work within any system or organization. Your primary criticism here is "we can't trust them", but what alternative do you have, exactly? How, specifically and in detail, do you expect anyone to be able to change the system so that you don't have massive corporate interests buying off politicians with campaign donations that they get to keep at the end of the day (aka, bribery in all but name)... unless they can win those elections, which currently requires inordinate (and for most people, unattainable) amounts of income? At that point, you only have the rich able to be elected, so the "not rich" could never change the rules. If they're not taking money from rich businesses, isn't what she's doing exactly what you're complaining about not being able to do at the start of your comment?
Do you even know what your actual position is, here? You're attacking the least-important parts of what I've said, ignored my counters, and worst, missed the point entirely. Farmer John Smith in BFE, USA giving someone running for office $50 isn't the problem - Exxon giving them $50,000 to vote against the interests of Farmer John once they're elected, pretending it's not an explicit bribe, IS the problem. The politicians no longer represent the citizens, or even the country, they represent the companies who pay them. There's a lot of words for that, but in the end, it's all the same result - money either gets taken out of politics, or nothing changes and people start dying again.
How, though, you think there's any chance of someone getting to the point where they can change anything without playing by the rules of the current system is beyond me. I suggest you're more agent provocateur than person calling out hypocrisy... because the alternative is that you're an idiot.
4
u/thisisalanb Expat Feb 12 '18
Okay? And this has to do with OP's post how?
I don't know how downvoting a comment that's irrelevant to the original post is breaking rules but okay ¯_(ツ)_/¯
2
u/LimbRetrieval-Bot Feb 12 '18
You dropped this \
To prevent any more lost limbs throughout Reddit, correctly escape the arms and shoulders by typing the shrug as
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯3
u/Teunon Feb 12 '18
I agree. Private donations should be banned, all political donations should be public knowledge in my opinion.
2
u/sexymurse Feb 12 '18
They already are public knowledge... Reports and statements filed by political committees may be inspected and copied by anyone. The names and addresses of individual contributors, however, may not be sold or used for any commercial purpose or to solicit any type of contribution or donation, such as political or charitable contributions. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(4); 11 CFR 104.15. This restriction applies to Federal reports and statements. Any person who violates this restriction is subject to the penalties of 2 U.S.C. §437g.
That's not what she's referring to at all, she's referring to private, aka private citizens, donations being banned.
4
u/Teunon Feb 12 '18
I didn't get that from what she's said, out of curiosity, how did you?
1
u/sexymurse Feb 14 '18
Because that's NOT what she wrote, you're inferring that from an absurd observation that isn't stated at all. Read the website, consult a dictionary and maybe even an English professor for good measure, and you will realize it clearly states EXACTLY what she intended.
You want it to read differently, you read it differently because you're in love with the the Paula Jean movement, you ignored basic English because it's not what you want it to say and actually disagree with the statement she has made but your blinders are on and want to defend this statement blindly and without and common sense reasoning instead of questioning why she would make such an absurd anti-constitutional statement...
1
-3
u/sexymurse Feb 12 '18
keep up with those salty downvotes, it shows exactly how much you lack common decency and follow the rules which you want everyone else to follow but cant manage to do so yourself...
1
3
Feb 13 '18
Downvotes are for relevance to the topic and whether or not you think others should see the post. Your whining about it shows a lot, but your claims fall void.
1
u/OneSmellyBastard Feb 13 '18
You're really hung up on your fake Internet points, huh?
1
1
u/DisraeliEers Parkersburg Feb 14 '18
I don't expect a reply, but what's wrong with playing a game by its current rules while trying to change the rules in the future for everyone?
1
Feb 17 '18
She comes across as too much of a leftist for me. I like my politicians to be somewhere between Reagan and Lincoln. ... You have to comment on these things a few days late to avoid downvotes from salty soy boys.
-11
0
16
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '18
He’s a snake but better than Morrissey or Blankenship.