With two billionaires (both nice people, actually) spending tens of millions of dollars on TV ads, it’s time for Americans to ask whether we think the presidency should be so easily bought. If this assault on our democracy doesn’t call for a non-violent revolution then what does?

Nov 24, 2019 · 4:58 PM UTC

114
296
32
1,591
Replying to @marwilliamson
Marianne you NEED TO WATCH “Ukraine Revealed,” Available On Amazon Prime. PLEASE! You need to know the truth.
1
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
“We are no longer a functioning democracy when $$$$ gets to talk more than we do. Legislation that establishes public funding for federal campaigns should be the battle cry of our generation.” Marianne Williamson
5
2
16
Replying to @marwilliamson
Tulsi Gabbard should be the Democratic nominee. Pass it on.
Replying to @marwilliamson
What do you suggest that doesn't violate the first amendment?
Replying to @marwilliamson
It's my understanding Hillary far outspent Trump in the campaign and she lost. Is this the exception to the rule?
Replying to @marwilliamson
Hillary spent double of what Trump did & still lost. In the digital age, the game is changed. That’s why they’re rigging the Internet. Let’s chat over Kombucha sometime.
3
19
Replying to @marwilliamson
Girl, I love you & yo schtick but you should rephrase this tweet. Hillary spent $1.2billion compared to the pittance that @realDonaldTrump spent. Which seems like the opposite of being "easily bought" if exponentially more money doesn't do the trick. Besides, it's about rates.
Replying to @marwilliamson
When a billionaire tries to buy the presidency, it automatically makes him not a nice guy on my view.
Replying to @marwilliamson @gang4610
More have done within our system that works against a true, democratic system. Just ask @MSNBC how they have suppressed #Yang2020 for months and months. #BoycottMSNBC
1
3
Replying to @marwilliamson
Sociopaths are generally nice
Load more