|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 08 2016 15:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 15:02 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2016 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 14:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 08 2016 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
whoops. You are so anti-Clinton that it's hard to take you seriously. I can practically taste just how salty you still are from Bernie's loss. I'm anti terrible government and Hillary supporters have been wholly blinded by Trump. I'm salty, too. It would've been a great thing for the world on many levels, and this was the perfect opportunity. Bernie could have really wiped away a lot of the bullshit that effects America's political discourse, especially when put in contrast to Trump's ego-driven empty campaign. But, I find it hard to think about that at all when the GOP are actually trying to elect Trump. I'll hate on Hillary after she wins. Call me blinded, call me a Hillary supporter, I don't care. And the WikiLeaks... Assange has turned out to be a really self-important grudge-keeper. I'm disappointed. This has turned out to just be another instance in a nauseatingly-long list of instances of people making exaggerated or false claim about Hillary Clinton. At this point, either prove she's a criminal... or just stop. Because for me, it's actually making me empathize with her. The best thing about her victory, for me, will be the spite of all the people who have spent decades demonizing this woman. I've read so many of these "damning" e-mails and sound-bites that I'm supposed to be outraged by, the Podesta emails, her Wall Street speech,... and there's nothing there! Most of what I see actually just shows she's an extremely pragmatic individual who actually does want to do good things. I mean, I was expecting some real right-wing stuff or political-collusion from that Wall Street speech... and I would've been okay with it to a degree. But really... it's just a normal speech. If anything, I've been pleasantly pleased by these things that WikiLeaks thinks should outrage me. If this is her "hidden secret", if this is her showing her inner right-wing side, then I'm totally good with voting for her. Her Wall street speeches show more that she was lying through her teeth to the left than anything criminal. Unless of course we're to believe she's lying to them after giving her millions of dollars and not to us (like she showed she was doing the whole campaign). A lot has been said about the lowering of the bar by Trump (and it's true), but Hillary has lowered the hell out of the bar on the left as well with little/no outcry from her supporters.
Can you give me an example from one of Hillary's speeches which demonstrates that she was lying through her teeth to the "left", and/or lowered the bar?
|
On October 08 2016 15:59 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 15:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 15:02 Leporello wrote:On October 08 2016 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 14:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:You are so anti-Clinton that it's hard to take you seriously. I can practically taste just how salty you still are from Bernie's loss. I'm anti terrible government and Hillary supporters have been wholly blinded by Trump. I'm salty, too. It would've been a great thing for the world on many levels, and this was the perfect opportunity. Bernie could have really wiped away a lot of the bullshit that effects America's political discourse, especially when put in contrast to Trump's ego-driven empty campaign. But, I find it hard to think about that at all when the GOP are actually trying to elect Trump. I'll hate on Hillary after she wins. Call me blinded, call me a Hillary supporter, I don't care. And the WikiLeaks... Assange has turned out to be a really self-important grudge-keeper. I'm disappointed. This has turned out to just be another instance in a nauseatingly-long list of instances of people making exaggerated or false claim about Hillary Clinton. At this point, either prove she's a criminal... or just stop. Because for me, it's actually making me empathize with her. The best thing about her victory, for me, will be the spite of all the people who have spent decades demonizing this woman. I've read so many of these "damning" e-mails and sound-bites that I'm supposed to be outraged by, the Podesta emails, her Wall Street speech,... and there's nothing there! Most of what I see actually just shows she's an extremely pragmatic individual who actually does want to do good things. I mean, I was expecting some real right-wing stuff or political-collusion from that Wall Street speech... and I would've been okay with it to a degree. But really... it's just a normal speech. If anything, I've been pleasantly pleased by these things that WikiLeaks thinks should outrage me. If this is her "hidden secret", if this is her showing her inner right-wing side, then I'm totally good with voting for her. Her Wall street speeches show more that she was lying through her teeth to the left than anything criminal. Unless of course we're to believe she's lying to them after giving her millions of dollars and not to us (like she showed she was doing the whole campaign). A lot has been said about the lowering of the bar by Trump (and it's true), but Hillary has lowered the hell out of the bar on the left as well with little/no outcry from her supporters. Can you give me an example from one of Hillary's speeches which demonstrates that she was lying through her teeth to the "left", and/or lowered the bar?
I think it's best encapsulated in the quote
As for lowering the bar, one concrete example is when DWS removed the restrictions on lobbyist cash into the DNC.
|
I... don't see the problem with that quote. At all, really.
There are things that I would say in certain contexts but not in others.
On the occasions in which I have been required to make choices which had effects on the lives of other people, I would frequently not have been comfortable had the people involved heard everything I had to say on the issue. Can you honestly say otherwise?
That statement by Clinton just seems like an observation of how life works. Not just banks, not just business, but life in general.
EDIT: I'm willing to stipulate DWS being a political hack (others may wish to contest that, I don't have the knowledge to form a strong opinion) but I lack the information to conclude whether that's significantly worse than the common state of politics.
|
On October 08 2016 16:19 Aquanim wrote:
I... don't see the problem with that quote. At all, really.
There are things that I would say in certain contexts but not in others.
On the occasions in which I have been required to make choices which had effects on the lives of other people, I would frequently not have been comfortable had the people involved heard everything I had to say on the issue. Can you honestly say otherwise?
That statement by Clinton just seems like an observation of how life works. Not just banks, not just business, but life in general.
I'll just ask this: How do you tell the difference between her real positions and the ones she just tells the public to placate them?
EDIT: I'm willing to stipulate DWS being a political hack (others may wish to contest that, I don't have the knowledge to form a strong opinion) but I lack the information to conclude whether that's significantly worse than the common state of politics.
It's not about the "common state of politics". President Obama called for the restrictions, they were implemented, then DWS removed them for Hillary. It's about as cut and dry a case for lowering the bar that can be made. Obama raised it, then DWS lowered it back down.
|
A lot of people are willing to acknowledge that Hillary is a liar, but they think that she is their liar so it all works out. Willful self-delusion, IMO.
|
On October 08 2016 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 16:19 Aquanim wrote:
I... don't see the problem with that quote. At all, really.
There are things that I would say in certain contexts but not in others.
On the occasions in which I have been required to make choices which had effects on the lives of other people, I would frequently not have been comfortable had the people involved heard everything I had to say on the issue. Can you honestly say otherwise?
That statement by Clinton just seems like an observation of how life works. Not just banks, not just business, but life in general. I'll just ask this: How do you tell the difference between her real positions and the ones she just tells the public to placate them?
I don't think that that quote by Clinton necessarily implies that her opinions to the public are "just told to placate them". Or that her real beliefs and actions will not be made with the good of the public in mind even if her opinions told to the public do not agree with her real positions.
Mostly what that quote says to me is that Hillary understands the reality of how politics works.
If you can give me an example of Hillary's public positions concealing a (for lack of a better term) bad private opinion which she would have the power to act upon as President, I am listening.
+ Show Spoiler [analogy to Australian politics] +The current Prime Minister of my country has the opinions he proposes as the leader of his party, the opinions he tries to sell to the public, and his own private opinion, and all three have very, very little in common. That doesn't invalidate him as a reasonable represenative of his side of politics.
|
On October 08 2016 16:29 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of people are willing to acknowledge that Hillary is a liar, but they think that she is their liar so it all works out. Willful self-delusion, IMO.
Alternatively, each and every one of the possible choices is a liar, and Hillary is acceptably close to lying on their behalf.
Full disclosure: I'd have preferred Sanders as president of the US, but I am failing to see anything catastrophically bad about Clinton.
|
On October 08 2016 16:33 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 16:19 Aquanim wrote:
I... don't see the problem with that quote. At all, really.
There are things that I would say in certain contexts but not in others.
On the occasions in which I have been required to make choices which had effects on the lives of other people, I would frequently not have been comfortable had the people involved heard everything I had to say on the issue. Can you honestly say otherwise?
That statement by Clinton just seems like an observation of how life works. Not just banks, not just business, but life in general. I'll just ask this: How do you tell the difference between her real positions and the ones she just tells the public to placate them? I don't think that that quote by Clinton necessarily implies that her opinions to the public are "just told to placate them". Or that her real beliefs and actions will not be made with the good of the public in mind even if her opinions told to the public do not agree with her real positions. Mostly what that quote says to me is that Hillary understands the reality of how politics works. If you can give me an example of Hillary's public positions concealing a (for lack of a better term) bad private opinion which she would have the power to act upon as President, I am listening. + Show Spoiler [analogy to Australian politics] +The current Prime Minister of my country has the opinions he proposes as the leader of his party, the opinions he tries to sell to the public, and his own private opinion, and all three have very, very little in common. That doesn't invalidate him as a reasonable represenative of his side of politics.
Fracking and TPP come to mind. Do I need to dig up the emails/stories, or are you familiar?
EDIT: Oh, and of course campaign finance.
EDIT2: Did a little anyway for some context for those just reading.
|
On October 08 2016 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 16:33 Aquanim wrote:On October 08 2016 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 16:19 Aquanim wrote:
I... don't see the problem with that quote. At all, really.
There are things that I would say in certain contexts but not in others.
On the occasions in which I have been required to make choices which had effects on the lives of other people, I would frequently not have been comfortable had the people involved heard everything I had to say on the issue. Can you honestly say otherwise?
That statement by Clinton just seems like an observation of how life works. Not just banks, not just business, but life in general. I'll just ask this: How do you tell the difference between her real positions and the ones she just tells the public to placate them? I don't think that that quote by Clinton necessarily implies that her opinions to the public are "just told to placate them". Or that her real beliefs and actions will not be made with the good of the public in mind even if her opinions told to the public do not agree with her real positions. Mostly what that quote says to me is that Hillary understands the reality of how politics works. If you can give me an example of Hillary's public positions concealing a (for lack of a better term) bad private opinion which she would have the power to act upon as President, I am listening. + Show Spoiler [analogy to Australian politics] +The current Prime Minister of my country has the opinions he proposes as the leader of his party, the opinions he tries to sell to the public, and his own private opinion, and all three have very, very little in common. That doesn't invalidate him as a reasonable represenative of his side of politics. Fracking and TPP come to mind. Do I need to dig up the emails/stories, or are you familiar?
I won't ask you to dig those up, not really interested in debating them at the moment either. I don't have any other questions.
|
On October 08 2016 16:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 16:29 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of people are willing to acknowledge that Hillary is a liar, but they think that she is their liar so it all works out. Willful self-delusion, IMO. Alternatively, each and every one of the possible choices is a liar, and Hillary is acceptably close to lying on their behalf. Full disclosure: I'd have preferred Sanders as president of the US, but I am failing to see anything catastrophically bad about Clinton.
Hillary is very far from "acceptably close" to anything. That Trump (being who he is) has even had a chance to beat her is a testament to just how terrible she is as a candidate. There is a good reason Hillary prefers not to talk about herself at all and basically makes a campaign out of being the anti-Trump. This election year is... special, to put it nicely.
If you want to support her as the "least worst candidate" then fine. She probably is. But some self-awareness would go a long way in realizing that the reasons she isn't well-liked are genuine and she probably isn't going to leverage her "political sleuth" for your benefit. The "I don't like Clinton but I'm going to push her talking points" so-called "reluctant" support is dishonest to say the least.
|
On October 08 2016 16:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 16:29 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of people are willing to acknowledge that Hillary is a liar, but they think that she is their liar so it all works out. Willful self-delusion, IMO. Alternatively, each and every one of the possible choices is a liar, and Hillary is acceptably close to lying on their behalf. Full disclosure: I'd have preferred Sanders as president of the US, but I am failing to see anything catastrophically bad about Clinton.
What might be catastrophically bad is that Clinton will continue to pursue the current way the US government handles things. Corporate money will continue to be the primary influence in the decision making process, the US will not stop its campaign of terror against the Middle East nor its military occupation of the world and there will not be even the slightest hint of an attempt at reform in the election process.
I suppose you could say that's just "same old same old" but you could also argue that this is a potential long-term catastrophe that's been 25 years in the making (or maybe even 60 depending on how you look at things). Will it all come crashing down when she takes office? Probably not, but it does seem like it will be another step in a possibly very unwise direction.
Granted, voting for Trump is at the very least an equally stupid thing to do.
|
So this is it, right? Trump was quoted as a serial offender and Clinton as a politician again. Please tell me this is it. He can't get out of that, right?
|
On October 08 2016 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 16:33 Aquanim wrote:On October 08 2016 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 16:19 Aquanim wrote:
I... don't see the problem with that quote. At all, really.
There are things that I would say in certain contexts but not in others.
On the occasions in which I have been required to make choices which had effects on the lives of other people, I would frequently not have been comfortable had the people involved heard everything I had to say on the issue. Can you honestly say otherwise?
That statement by Clinton just seems like an observation of how life works. Not just banks, not just business, but life in general. I'll just ask this: How do you tell the difference between her real positions and the ones she just tells the public to placate them? I don't think that that quote by Clinton necessarily implies that her opinions to the public are "just told to placate them". Or that her real beliefs and actions will not be made with the good of the public in mind even if her opinions told to the public do not agree with her real positions. Mostly what that quote says to me is that Hillary understands the reality of how politics works. If you can give me an example of Hillary's public positions concealing a (for lack of a better term) bad private opinion which she would have the power to act upon as President, I am listening. + Show Spoiler [analogy to Australian politics] +The current Prime Minister of my country has the opinions he proposes as the leader of his party, the opinions he tries to sell to the public, and his own private opinion, and all three have very, very little in common. That doesn't invalidate him as a reasonable represenative of his side of politics. Fracking and TPP come to mind. Do I need to dig up the emails/stories, or are you familiar? EDIT: Oh, and of course campaign finance. EDIT2: Did a little anyway for some context for those just reading.
Booo business! Boooo! Kick out all of industry! Once the Democratic party is purged of business, we will be a national party again. Yes. Kick out anyone who tries to make money. Donate and have a good job? You are straight out! The Democrats must be a pure strain of jobless college kids. No one who worked hard to get ahead can have any influence.
Your communism is just boring. Why? Why can't you accept that property rights exist? How is it so hard? The Democrats are the best party in the world at fusing an impossibly diverse voter base with liberal values. Yes, Democrats get donations from things that make money. No, it isn't a big deal. Please turn 30 and accept property rights so we can have real policy discussions.
EDIT: typos. But seriously. This corruption thing is dumb. In a representative democracy, people are going to lobby their representatives. Especially when money is on the line! That is just how politics works and you need to grow up and accept that groups of people with similar interest will donate or hire people to talk to their representatives to get policy that helps those interests. Move past that please. Then we can discuss what is the right and wrong policy without endlessly having bias or not bias discussions that go nowhere.
|
On October 08 2016 17:55 JW_DTLA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 16:33 Aquanim wrote:On October 08 2016 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 16:19 Aquanim wrote:
I... don't see the problem with that quote. At all, really.
There are things that I would say in certain contexts but not in others.
On the occasions in which I have been required to make choices which had effects on the lives of other people, I would frequently not have been comfortable had the people involved heard everything I had to say on the issue. Can you honestly say otherwise?
That statement by Clinton just seems like an observation of how life works. Not just banks, not just business, but life in general. I'll just ask this: How do you tell the difference between her real positions and the ones she just tells the public to placate them? I don't think that that quote by Clinton necessarily implies that her opinions to the public are "just told to placate them". Or that her real beliefs and actions will not be made with the good of the public in mind even if her opinions told to the public do not agree with her real positions. Mostly what that quote says to me is that Hillary understands the reality of how politics works. If you can give me an example of Hillary's public positions concealing a (for lack of a better term) bad private opinion which she would have the power to act upon as President, I am listening. + Show Spoiler [analogy to Australian politics] +The current Prime Minister of my country has the opinions he proposes as the leader of his party, the opinions he tries to sell to the public, and his own private opinion, and all three have very, very little in common. That doesn't invalidate him as a reasonable represenative of his side of politics. Fracking and TPP come to mind. Do I need to dig up the emails/stories, or are you familiar? EDIT: Oh, and of course campaign finance. EDIT2: Did a little anyway for some context for those just reading. Booo business! Boooo! Kick out all of industry! Once the Democratic party is purged of business, we will be a national party again. Yes. Kick out anyone who tries to make money. Donate and have a good job? You are straight out! The Democrats must be a pure strain of jobless college kids. No one who worked hard to get ahead can have any influence. Your communism is just boring. Why? Why can't you accept that property rights exist? How is it so hard? The Democrats are the best party in the world at fusing an impossibly diverse voter base with liberal values. Yes, Democrats get donations from things that make money. No, it isn't a big deal. Please turn 30 and accept property rights so we can have real policy discussions. EDIT: typos. But seriously. This corruption thing is dumb. In a representative democracy, people are going to lobby their representatives. Especially when money is on the line! That is just how politics works and you need to grow up and accept that groups of people with similar interest will donate or hire people to talk to their representatives to get policy that helps those interests. Move past that please. Then we can discuss what is the right and wrong policy without endlessly having bias or not bias discussions that go nowhere.
What happens when some people can donate millions of dollars? If thousands of people donate vs a billionaire who drops 10 million on a random seat somewhere because fuck it why not, who do you think has their interests represented? The interests politicians aught to be concerned with are the people they are representing, not the people who lobby the hardest or throw the most cash around.
|
On October 08 2016 18:06 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 17:55 JW_DTLA wrote:On October 08 2016 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 16:33 Aquanim wrote:On October 08 2016 16:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 16:19 Aquanim wrote:
I... don't see the problem with that quote. At all, really.
There are things that I would say in certain contexts but not in others.
On the occasions in which I have been required to make choices which had effects on the lives of other people, I would frequently not have been comfortable had the people involved heard everything I had to say on the issue. Can you honestly say otherwise?
That statement by Clinton just seems like an observation of how life works. Not just banks, not just business, but life in general. I'll just ask this: How do you tell the difference between her real positions and the ones she just tells the public to placate them? I don't think that that quote by Clinton necessarily implies that her opinions to the public are "just told to placate them". Or that her real beliefs and actions will not be made with the good of the public in mind even if her opinions told to the public do not agree with her real positions. Mostly what that quote says to me is that Hillary understands the reality of how politics works. If you can give me an example of Hillary's public positions concealing a (for lack of a better term) bad private opinion which she would have the power to act upon as President, I am listening. + Show Spoiler [analogy to Australian politics] +The current Prime Minister of my country has the opinions he proposes as the leader of his party, the opinions he tries to sell to the public, and his own private opinion, and all three have very, very little in common. That doesn't invalidate him as a reasonable represenative of his side of politics. Fracking and TPP come to mind. Do I need to dig up the emails/stories, or are you familiar? EDIT: Oh, and of course campaign finance. EDIT2: Did a little anyway for some context for those just reading. Booo business! Boooo! Kick out all of industry! Once the Democratic party is purged of business, we will be a national party again. Yes. Kick out anyone who tries to make money. Donate and have a good job? You are straight out! The Democrats must be a pure strain of jobless college kids. No one who worked hard to get ahead can have any influence. Your communism is just boring. Why? Why can't you accept that property rights exist? How is it so hard? The Democrats are the best party in the world at fusing an impossibly diverse voter base with liberal values. Yes, Democrats get donations from things that make money. No, it isn't a big deal. Please turn 30 and accept property rights so we can have real policy discussions. EDIT: typos. But seriously. This corruption thing is dumb. In a representative democracy, people are going to lobby their representatives. Especially when money is on the line! That is just how politics works and you need to grow up and accept that groups of people with similar interest will donate or hire people to talk to their representatives to get policy that helps those interests. Move past that please. Then we can discuss what is the right and wrong policy without endlessly having bias or not bias discussions that go nowhere. What happens when some people can donate millions of dollars? If thousands of people donate vs a billionaire who drops 10 million on a random seat somewhere because fuck it why not, who do you think has their interests represented? The interests politicians aught to be concerned with are the people they are representing, not the people who lobby the hardest or throw the most cash around.
Real talk: we are there now. Post Citizen's United, donations are free range. There are no limits and when they are broken no one is punished because the IRS doesn't have the staff or constitutional authority to make it happen. So either take the reality that is and cheer on Democratic leaning billionaires in their struggles against Republican billionaires (who exist and will continue to exist even if Dems stopped donating), or go the Bernie Sanders route and watch as your organization collapses when your staff quit in a mass exodus when Weaver told them he would raise money. Seriously, check out what happened to Bernie's org. It is the greatest lesson in lefty petulance and stupidity there can be.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/24/bernie-sanderss-our-revolution-stumbles-out-of-the-gate/
EDIT:
Weaver, who raised 200 million dollars, said go 501(c)(4) so that Our Revolution could raise money and make an impact. Here is what his deluded lefty morons did:
Claire Sandberg, who was the organizing director at Our Revolution and had worked on Mr. Sanders’s campaign, said she and others were also concerned about the group’s tax status — as a 501(c)(4) organization it can collect large donations from anonymous sources…
…“I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign,” she said, expressing concern that Mr. Weaver would “betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grass-roots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement.”
…The staff members who quit also said that they feared that the 501(c)(4) designation meant the group would not be able to work directly with Mr. Sanders or the people he has encouraged to run for office because such organizations are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates.
|
I am well aware that that is already the reality we live. My point was that surely we aught to do something about it and not settle for our system being taken over in such a manner.
But you seem to be fine with the idea that whoever has the most rich donors wins and then pays them back with policy decisions that benefit them. Good luck ever having people represent your interests in such a situation (unless you are rich, in which case, lucky you).
|
On October 08 2016 18:32 Kickstart wrote:
I am well aware that that is already the reality we live. My point was that surely we aught to do something about it and not settle for our system being taken over in such a manner.
But you seem to be fine with the idea that whoever has the most rich donors wins and then pays them back with policy decisions that benefit them. Good luck ever having people represent your interests in such a situation (unless you are rich, in which case, lucky you).
Foolishness. The Koch brothers are spending almost a billion dollars in constitutionally protected money to influence state governments. Your complaints won't stop even a penny. Your votes make no difference because the constitution protects such expenditures. At some point it will hit you that the powers that be with money won't go away while they still have money. That leaves only cheering for the good guys, even if the good guys need money from richer people.
|
On October 08 2016 18:32 Kickstart wrote:
I am well aware that that is already the reality we live. My point was that surely we aught to do something about it and not settle for our system being taken over in such a manner.
But you seem to be fine with the idea that whoever has the most rich donors wins and then pays them back with policy decisions that benefit them. Good luck ever having people represent your interests in such a situation (unless you are rich, in which case, lucky you).
In order to get big money out of the system you would need to do it unilaterally from the top (which is near impossible).
Taking the moral high ground and leading the way alone just makes you lose, at which point its is for naught.
|
On October 08 2016 18:36 JW_DTLA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 18:32 Kickstart wrote:
I am well aware that that is already the reality we live. My point was that surely we aught to do something about it and not settle for our system being taken over in such a manner.
But you seem to be fine with the idea that whoever has the most rich donors wins and then pays them back with policy decisions that benefit them. Good luck ever having people represent your interests in such a situation (unless you are rich, in which case, lucky you). Foolishness. The Koch brothers are spending almost a billion dollars in constitutionally protected money to influence state governments. Your complaints won't stop even a penny. Your votes make no difference because the constitution protects such expenditures. At some point it will hit you that the powers that be with money won't go away while they still have money. That leaves only cheering for the good guys, even if the good guys need money from richer people.
At that point you're not cheering for the "good guys" you're just hoping the bad guys you're cheering for aren't as bad.
|
On October 08 2016 18:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 18:32 Kickstart wrote:
I am well aware that that is already the reality we live. My point was that surely we aught to do something about it and not settle for our system being taken over in such a manner.
But you seem to be fine with the idea that whoever has the most rich donors wins and then pays them back with policy decisions that benefit them. Good luck ever having people represent your interests in such a situation (unless you are rich, in which case, lucky you). In order to get big money out of the system you would need to do it unilaterally from the top (which is near impossible). Taking the moral high ground and leading the way alone just makes you lose, at which point its is for naught.
Again, a great example of moral high ground, Bernie's "Our Revolution" collapsed the day it was formed when its top 8 staffers resigned in a huff because Weaver formed it as a 501(c)(4). Total pointlessness. Everything Bernie's fought for that HRC wasn't already doing has been pissed away because the highest level Berners couldn't stand 501(c)(4)'s. Our Revolution is dead because the kids weren't willing to dirty their ideals with politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
