Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Progressive ‘Justice’ in One Tweet
From my favorite “Progressive” Twitter accounts, @stopbigmoney, the multimillionaires at Mothership Strategies:
First, we find her guilty … then we get the investigation! We are through the Looking Glass, no?
Published in GeneralLet the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first—verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly.
— Lewis Carroll
Show me the person and I’ll show you the process crime.
–Roger Stone of the future
Stop big money?? Are they calling for a government shutdown?
I saw this on Facebook. Those folks are crazy. I unfriended a couple of people today.
These are the folks you want in power, Gary.
Everyone should be aware of Mothership Strategies and the trio of Greg Berlin, Charles Starnes and Jake Lipsett. These characters created both Mothership Strategies as a “consulting” firm and End Citizens United as a PAC. They are their own best client. Their screaming tweets with ALL CAPS thrown around, phony polls and petitions (We need just 87 more signatures to wish Jimmy Carter a HAPPY BIRTHDAY and STOP THE ATTACK ON ABORTION!) are a churn and burn operation where they keep an above industry average of 15% of everything they raise. In the last two election cycles ECU paid Mothership a combined $6M. The WaPost reported that each of these guys have bought huge, multi-million dollar homes in the DC suburbs.
Remember Jon Ossoff and his wildly expensive Georgia special election in 2017? Ossoff spent $22M in his loss for a House seat and almost $4M went to Mothership. These guys have no intention of stopping big money. They want it to keep rolling in.
Wonder if they are going to campaign to stop that big money from Bloomberg, 100 million in anti Trump ads?
Apparently I’m missing some information. Who has found Kellyanne Conway of violating an election ethics law, and which one, and why is it an “important” election ethics law?
Back in June the Office of Special Counsel accused Conway of violating the Hatch Act because she criticized Democrats in the Alabama Senate race. But under the Act, any discipline is supposed to be handled by her immediate supervisor and that is some guy named “Trump.”
As to the source of the tweet: Should I assume that “End Citizens United” is a single individual human being? Because if it is a group or collection of people, then ending (or more accurately overruling) the Citizens United decision would give the government the power to silence a group calling itself “End Citizens United,” which I presume a group calling itself “End Citizens United” would consider bad news. No group of people would be so stupid as to argue for the government to ban that very group, would they?
I’ve noticed that lefties and logic don’t mix well.
EJ,
Will these woketards go after Bloomberg when he tries to buy 100 million dollars in anti-Trump ADs? I just love to ask these rhetorical questions.
Regards,
Jim
Is there such a thing? An election ethics law? Sounds like a compound oxymoronic statement. Election, ethics and law all in the same sentence.
Well, if Citizens United were overturned, ECU would sort of lose its reason for existence, wouldn’t it? How many think it would actually close up shop?
I think MoveOn.org might know.
Does MoveOn.org still exist? The March of Dimes?
MoveOn.org is still very much alive and kicking. One of the morbidly amusing ironies is that MoveOn.org is a big proponent of the effort to impeach President Trump. Ironic because the “move on” on which MoveOn.org was founded was to “move on” past the effort to impeach President Clinton, and get on with the real business of the country. Yet here they are trying to stop the business of the country to focus on the impeachment of a different president.
Your Honor, in lieu of actual evidence we would like to submit our retweets.