I'm not defending House Dems strategy, I'm just saying Mitch McConnell will find an excuse to block anything that is good for democracy
I don’t disagree Ari. But a stand alone bill will force him to die on that hill. A bill that wraps up voting rights into a repeal of Citizens United gets him off simply by pointing to SCOTUS decision, calling it free speech, and moving on without any real consequences.https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1062361759900680192 …
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Voters (most of whom are already registered) will care more about the vote to overturn Citizens United. All are good policy and deserve floor votes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Aren't there a dozen different ways he could kill a bill without being forced to stand up and take a vote on it?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Reza---you should be in politics!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But their party and their voters DON’T CARE if they die on that hill! The GOP saying they don’t care about voters or fair elections make not one difference to their cult!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This exactly.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He won’t die on any hill, it’ll just become one of the many bills the House passes and the Senate takes no action on.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He will gladly die on that hill and the base will love it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Citizens United is a SCOTUS decision...you can't just repeal it. What law do you want to pass to test it's limits? CU isn't 10% of what people think it is...but I can't wait for your answer.
-
What do you mean to test it's limits? It can still be undone by another SCOTUS decision. It can still be spoken about so more people (especially conservatives) understand that their party wants the ability to buy elections with only their big financial backers to represent.
-
One will have to write a law that go against the CU decision and hope SCOTUS will review it. You can't just "ask" them to do it again...but more importantly, what do you think the CU decision allows that was not allowed before? Do you think big money in elections is a new thing?
-
I think that having it overturned could lead the door to ending superpacs. And just this attitude of "what good will it do" is just a way to throw babies out with bath water. It may not be an end all, but it's a damn good start. I think we just need more awareness of CU overall.
-
So we push PACs back to "issue advocacy" instead of direct advocacy. They want to classify campaign related spending as not speech so they can regulate it. so it turns into "not campaign related".
-
Who is they? Republicans? Because I'm in Alabama. I can tell you from my boots on the ground in Trumpland, no ones even heard of CU. THEY don't want it even brought up. They like having corporations with the same rights as individuals.
-
They = the House Dems and their bill they will introduce. CU doesn't say corporations have the same rights as individuals. Common misunderstanding.
-
I mean.. I remember the argument. There was that liberal justice that was saying.. he couldn't agree with it because corporations do not have a conscience, like individual humans. So if it wasn't about that.. they spent a lot of time discussing it I'll look into it some more tho
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a legitimate and good argument, which is different from your argument of yesterday when you said the bill would "sail through both houses". That's the part that most people objected to.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.