Comment on China’s Advancing Efforts to Influence the U.S. Election Raise Alarms
Serinus@lemmy.world 7 months agoI half agree, but I do think this is a more bipartisan problem than most. The congresspeople who got into office through this system aren’t likely to change it.
I bet if it came down to it, you’d get support from half of Democrats and near zero Republicans. That’s a far cry from the 2/3rds of Congress needed.
Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Well we can assume and “bet” both sides suck or we can objectively look at the actions of the parties over the past decade and inform the opinion.
Every dem that introduced legislation against citizens united still has to run in an election where it’s the law of the land. They still had to win to be able to create the legislation in the first place.
Nothing is a perfect black and white split and it’s foolish to discount the one party trying to do anything about it because if they don’t participate in the system they can’t win a seat at the table and if they try to eliminate or reform the system you subject the whole party to a purity test.
Serinus@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Try to keep up.
I replied to the comment that called the issue bipartisan. The same comment that “bet” dem support would be less than total.
I gave plenty of reasons why that’s a lazy and inaccurate distinction that creates a false equivalence.
I cited articles and made the case that it’s not a bipartisan issue when one party is calling out the decision for opening the gates to foreign cash, and the other party is joking about how much foreign cash republicans are paid.
I mean you made the comment I replied to and everything I said is directly related to your comments and the foreign influence cited in the OP. Is that too much to understand?
Serinus@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Alright, asshole. (I hope the word “asshole” isn’t too complex for you to understand.)
We should be on the same side here. I never said both sides are equivalent. In fact, I pointed out that Democrats are much better on the issue than Republicans. Adam Schiff (D-California, in case we need to further insult each other’s intelligence) is the primary driver of the amendment.
That’s why I said you may have responded to the wrong comment. You didn’t adapt your (generally valid) talking point to acknowledge the parts I said. You just applied your general “both sides” response to something that it didn’t really apply to. You might say your reply was lazy and inaccurate.
The Amendment Schiff proposed had 51 co-sponsors. Are there only 51 Dems in the house? We haven’t had a vote on Schiff’s amendments, even in committee, but we can look at the votes on the DISCLOSE Act where 36 Democrats voted against transparency in political spending.
Support for overturning Citizens United isn’t 100% among Democrats in office, and it should be. The fact that Republicans are much worse isn’t something I should need to call out more than I already did.