Absolutely, this is just one case. Point is that a wealthy donor from either party could do the same thing. Too much big money corrupts politics in general, not just a single party.
Corruption = big money in politics
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
Thanks for including the term "both parties". That makes the statement non partisan and acceptable. The Reps have the Koch's but the Dems have Soros and others. But to make the playing field truly level, the mainstream media - ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS etc would truly have to become impartial which they obviously won't do IMO. No more shows with Whoopi spouting her bias, no more 60 minute hit pieces on W's military attendence, no more Stephanopolus' attacking conservative writers because he "can" - etc.
Maybe you are right. BUT my most conservative friends pointed me to this bipartisan group. Maybe they have it right. Nothing else I've seen has a chance. Congress won't do it; at least they have a strategy.
Noone is paying voters to individually vote a certain way. The premise of this thread is that voters are so stupid they can be easily steered to a candidate or party because of the money spent. My contention is if that is true, then it is the fault of the mainstream media which donors aren't supposed to have influence over. But of course everyone knows the majority of voters out in la la land ARE easily led and are the main constituency of a party and ideology that controls Hollywood, New York and other socialist strongholds.
That's a pretty weird distortion. A member of the House has to raise on average $14,000+ a day in campaign donations to stay in office. HIs party will tell him he has to spend at least half of each day at a Republican/Democratic party phone bank across the street from his official office begging for money (he can't ask for funds on a government phone). So who is he going to focus on when he's voting or pushing for someone in office? Peon X who gives $100 or Corporation Y/Labor union X/Industry group Z who can give him thousands of times that?
And in the US the donors can tell an elected official exactly what they expect for the donation. In many countries that's a felony.
And in the US the donors can tell an elected official exactly what they expect for the donation. In many countries that's a felony.
We're talking about the problem from 2 different perspectives - but of course you're wrong and I'm right! 
Its not the "money" that buys the votes, its the "media time" that does. It CAN be bought, but it can also be provided "free" of charge to one party over the other through the mainstream media and govt funded media sources like PBS. Fact is that the liberals don't have to raise the amount of money a conservative does because the left has a head start. That's the problem. What ever happened to "equal time"?
If a candidate can get free "positive" media, they have the inside track to gaining the votes of the "ill-informed and uninformed voters" that know very little about the structure and the history of our nation and really don't care about how our system was/is designed to work.
Its not a fair playing field and the lieberals know it.
Its not the "money" that buys the votes, its the "media time" that does. It CAN be bought, but it can also be provided "free" of charge to one party over the other through the mainstream media and govt funded media sources like PBS. Fact is that the liberals don't have to raise the amount of money a conservative does because the left has a head start. That's the problem. What ever happened to "equal time"?
If a candidate can get free "positive" media, they have the inside track to gaining the votes of the "ill-informed and uninformed voters" that know very little about the structure and the history of our nation and really don't care about how our system was/is designed to work.
Its not a fair playing field and the lieberals know it.
It's going to be pretty difficult for Hillary to transform herself into a candidate of the people.
Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire.
As Clinton tries to talk tough about how she will stand up to America's biggest banks, her Democratic rivals are likely to remind voters just how cozy she's been with Wall Street.
Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.
"Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known," former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has said on the campaign trail.
While Clinton has given paid speeches to many groups, Wall Street banks and investment houses made up a third of her speech income.
She even made more money speaking to UBS and Goldman Sachs than her husband Bill did. Goldman Sachs in New York paid Bill $200,000 for a speech in June 2013 and Hillary $225,000 for a speech in October of that year.
Clinton's Wall Street ties likely to be debate issue
"If the other candidates want to make this an issue, they've got plenty of material," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
Sabato predicts O'Malley or Jim Webb are more likely to go negative on Clinton in the CNN debate Tuesday, but even Bernie Sanders may be able to take a sideswipe when it comes to Wall Street.
Sanders has been outspoken that the big banks are still "too big to fail" and should be broken up.
Clinton's anti-Wall Street policies stop far short of that, with proposals to tax short-term trading and impose a "risk fee" on big banks with assets over $50 billion.
Wall Street's reaction to her plan to regulation big banks was mostly a sigh of relief.
"We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms," one analyst wrote.
Related: Wall Street isn't worried about Hillary Clinton's plan
Wall Street has been a top supporter of Clinton's career
As a former senator from New York, it is not surprising that Hillary Clinton would have a close connection to the financial world. But Wall Street continues to be a big contributor to her political career.
In her 2008 run for president, JPMorgan (JPM), Goldman Sachs (GS), Citigroup (C)and Morgan Stanley (MS)employees were among her top campaign contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Tabulating campaign contributions for her entire senate political career shows that four of the top five her contributors are Wall Street banks (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley).
In contrast, Sander's career campaign contribution list is almost entirely made up of union groups.
Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire.
As Clinton tries to talk tough about how she will stand up to America's biggest banks, her Democratic rivals are likely to remind voters just how cozy she's been with Wall Street.
Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.
"Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known," former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has said on the campaign trail.
While Clinton has given paid speeches to many groups, Wall Street banks and investment houses made up a third of her speech income.
She even made more money speaking to UBS and Goldman Sachs than her husband Bill did. Goldman Sachs in New York paid Bill $200,000 for a speech in June 2013 and Hillary $225,000 for a speech in October of that year.
Clinton's Wall Street ties likely to be debate issue
"If the other candidates want to make this an issue, they've got plenty of material," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
Sabato predicts O'Malley or Jim Webb are more likely to go negative on Clinton in the CNN debate Tuesday, but even Bernie Sanders may be able to take a sideswipe when it comes to Wall Street.
Sanders has been outspoken that the big banks are still "too big to fail" and should be broken up.
Clinton's anti-Wall Street policies stop far short of that, with proposals to tax short-term trading and impose a "risk fee" on big banks with assets over $50 billion.
Wall Street's reaction to her plan to regulation big banks was mostly a sigh of relief.
"We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms," one analyst wrote.
Related: Wall Street isn't worried about Hillary Clinton's plan
Wall Street has been a top supporter of Clinton's career
As a former senator from New York, it is not surprising that Hillary Clinton would have a close connection to the financial world. But Wall Street continues to be a big contributor to her political career.
In her 2008 run for president, JPMorgan (JPM), Goldman Sachs (GS), Citigroup (C)and Morgan Stanley (MS)employees were among her top campaign contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Tabulating campaign contributions for her entire senate political career shows that four of the top five her contributors are Wall Street banks (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley).
In contrast, Sander's career campaign contribution list is almost entirely made up of union groups.
I find it interesting that HRC backers will complain against a ceo's salary for running a multi-Billion corp , but have no problem with Bill ahd Hillary making over $100,000.00 per speech.
Last edited:
Why interesting? Most of the Republican candidates are running so they can charge that kind of money for their speeches and get fat book deals. Anyway that's just changing the subject.
The problem is too much money in politics; this is a nonpartisan issue. The contributors include Citizens United, geremandering, and the carried interest treatment in the tax code. The result is the top 200 donors equal everyone else combined. Who are elected officials going to represent?
Both parties run Honest Gil. http://honestgil.com
The problem is too much money in politics; this is a nonpartisan issue. The contributors include Citizens United, geremandering, and the carried interest treatment in the tax code. The result is the top 200 donors equal everyone else combined. Who are elected officials going to represent?
Both parties run Honest Gil. http://honestgil.com
As opposed to bill and Hillary who already get over $100,000.00 per speech and have received multi millions in book deals.
200 donors equals everyone else
_-----------
Kind like george Soros, or Hollywood donations ted Turner, the Kennedy clan, . . .
BP gave bho over one million dollars; they gave McCain less than one hundred.
_-----------
Kind like george Soros, or Hollywood donations ted Turner, the Kennedy clan, . . .
BP gave bho over one million dollars; they gave McCain less than one hundred.
Another example of big money corrupting public policy. This should NOT be a partisan issue. All of politics are affected regardless of party.
Doesn't seem like the big money is doing a very good job of buying the election for Jeb or Hillary at this point
One of the reasons I like Honest Gil is that he describes politics at the Meta-game level. The game is the day to day partisan politics that people get wrapped up in, while the meta-game is the game managed by deep pockets who sponsor (hire) the candidates to act out their various roles to get elected, but once in office they revert to doing the bidding of those who hired them.
Trump fingered the deep pockets who back the other presidential candidates, and the TP has figured out that the Republican establishment as played them for votes but really has no interest in representing their views. Bernie's rise in the polls could represent a segment of the Dem's coming to the same conclusion about Hillary. But in the end, Congress is still in the thrall of big dough, and a president can only do so much.
So while we voters gladly play the partisan politics game that the deep pockets set up for us, regardless of the outcome, they will continue to use the government as their piggy bank and premium-free insurance company. If the s@#t hits the fan, they still get their bonuses, their companies are bailed out, the subsidies continue, the unnecessary military bases are kept open, the Trillion dollar planes that don't perform are still purchased, yadda, yadda, yadda...
Trump fingered the deep pockets who back the other presidential candidates, and the TP has figured out that the Republican establishment as played them for votes but really has no interest in representing their views. Bernie's rise in the polls could represent a segment of the Dem's coming to the same conclusion about Hillary. But in the end, Congress is still in the thrall of big dough, and a president can only do so much.
So while we voters gladly play the partisan politics game that the deep pockets set up for us, regardless of the outcome, they will continue to use the government as their piggy bank and premium-free insurance company. If the s@#t hits the fan, they still get their bonuses, their companies are bailed out, the subsidies continue, the unnecessary military bases are kept open, the Trillion dollar planes that don't perform are still purchased, yadda, yadda, yadda...
Money talks again. This time to reduce clean water regulation that covers Flint.
http://usuncut.com/class-war/republicans-block-clean-water-legislation-following-flint-tragedy/
http://usuncut.com/class-war/republicans-block-clean-water-legislation-following-flint-tragedy/
Interesting chart: reality vs perception vs ideal
http://www.utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/
http://www.utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/
I am an old white guy, but this attempt to keep old white guys in control is offensive to me. Are we going to be a real democracy or one in name only?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...inas-gerrymandered-maps-are-unconstitutional/
This too
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/gerrym...riating-when-you-can-actually-see-it/#slide-1
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...inas-gerrymandered-maps-are-unconstitutional/
This too
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/gerrym...riating-when-you-can-actually-see-it/#slide-1
Who owns whom. Still early in the process, but serious money is starting to buy these guys.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/100-billionaires-2016-campaign-finance-218862
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/100-billionaires-2016-campaign-finance-218862
Insightful, thought provoking, and objective post. The value added to this discussion by these thoughts is almost impossible to quantify. Posts like this is why I frequent this board.
East throws out the race card whenever he runs out of substantive arguments... Which is pretty much every time he posts... Really surprised that Watu2 jumped in and marginalized himself by backing him...
Wish the Rs weren't so racist and would be willing to vote for someone that's not white. The Dems are at least putting some young, inspiring, minority candidates out there. Looking at the Dem field is like looking at one of those college diversity posters. So diverse. And when strong latina Hillary speaks in spanish....so inspiring.
Last edited:
Is the veal still on the menu at the comedy club where you perform. Your act is tired, but, that veal is delicious.
It's odd to me that the same people who complain to no end about Christians and any attempt by them to force their Christian views upon others support a group who want to base their laws soley on their religious doctrine and force all people who live in Muslim controlled areas to abide by said laws. Can't have it both ways...either side. Bill Mahr angers a lot of Christians and conservatives but at least he is consistent with his views toward religion and its role in governing.
Last edited:
The ridiculousness of L.eastcane is pretty dang funny, he is the foil to Trump He equals Trump in his predjudices on the opposite Trump, I mean bizarro side. Can't believe u are supporting him as much as u have w/ likes Watu. I disagree with about 75%, of what u say, but
I had more respect for u than to expect that kind of support.
But I think I got the biggest ironical comedy out of TUFan's post.
TrumplikeTufan and Bizarro Trumpeastcane oughtta go on tour, and do the comedy circuit, they'd love em in New York.
The ignorance of this post just nominates TpUke(dumbstuff)fan for the comedy circuit even more. I don't think Tufan is a huge Eastern history buff. (I'm talking bout Persia, not the New England States, in case u got confused.) But I doubt he's a buff of any kind! I'm laughing my ass off to the soundtrack of Istanbul(not Constantinople).
Last edited:
Interesting how a examples of gerrymandering, particularly in the Southeast, has led this board to posting personal slurs and characterizing every muslim as a threat to civil society.
My view is that racism still exists in the US and the deep pockets who run our politics support activities, such gerrymandering along racial lines, to keep political control in their hands which happen to largely be white. The root problem is corruption by big money which happens to be white and determined to keep it that way.
Vote for Honest Gil.
My view is that racism still exists in the US and the deep pockets who run our politics support activities, such gerrymandering along racial lines, to keep political control in their hands which happen to largely be white. The root problem is corruption by big money which happens to be white and determined to keep it that way.
Vote for Honest Gil.
Last edited:
Gerrymandering has a long history in this country and has been done by the party in charge of the state legislatures. Let's not act like this is an exclusive Republican thing as it was extensively used when the Dems controlled a majority of the state legislatures as well. Agree about racism still be present in the U.S. Disagree about its role in gerrymandering. Gerrymandering has and always will be about one thing....political power.
Disappointed with the racism accusations being thrown about. Such language in this context does nothing but disminish those instances where racism actual does exist. This board should be better than that.
Disappointed with the racism accusations being thrown about. Such language in this context does nothing but disminish those instances where racism actual does exist. This board should be better than that.
Persian history is every bit the equal to Greco Roman history. That's one of the reasons why they, radical muslims, are angry with the west/US. Their country takes advantage of them to make deals with the western powers. Years later when they get fed up with the situation, and the west(US) is heavily involved in the politics because of the oil, it becomes the main scapegoat. The huge eastern pride in their history and culture is paid no mind, their pride is hurt even more. Throw in the fact that their views on women are backwards, (in some ways for decent religious reasons), but mostly for prejudicial reasons to keep men on top. This group of power hungry, money hungry, religious zealots appeals to the easily swayed, and voilà u have Al Quaeda, ISIS, etc.
Your world is black and white TUfan, the real world has so many shades of gray, that u can barely differentiate them. I am putting whole essays into a single sentence, repeatedly in this post. Meaning the points are incredibly abbreviated and incomplete, but I'm not going to take the time to try and pull u through multiple semesters of history, politics, philosophy, religion, and art courses. The math, science, & medicine of the east is in many ways the equal of the west in historical terms. Which made your statement comical.
Your world is black and white TUfan, the real world has so many shades of gray, that u can barely differentiate them. I am putting whole essays into a single sentence, repeatedly in this post. Meaning the points are incredibly abbreviated and incomplete, but I'm not going to take the time to try and pull u through multiple semesters of history, politics, philosophy, religion, and art courses. The math, science, & medicine of the east is in many ways the equal of the west in historical terms. Which made your statement comical.
Last edited:
Where on this board have u seen rational posts(not tufan) characterizing all muslims as a threat to society. I haven't seen them, tell me where? I think you may be characterizing remarks that way, but as far as I can see, that is only in your head.
Funny how you light those fires and accuse everyone else while you hide the matches and gasoline behind your back.... its a pathetically paranoid life, Konstantly looking for the Klansman in the Kloset...
"A 20-year study by top political scientists found that “the opinions of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact on public policy.”
Should we be surprised?
I have to agree the fact that most Americans don't support Obama care has had little effect on its continuation .
Latest posts
-
-
-
📝 Larry Lewis Game Preview -- Tulsa looking for road win at Arkansas State
- Latest: Chris Harmon
-
-