Indiana Primary DEM/GOP - Cruz missiles self-destruct, Trump unstumpable and r/SandersForPresident h
263 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258441]Let's just drop everything and you answer a simple question.
Is there any reason to suspect any US politicians or political parties of dubious behaviour?[/QUOTE]
Someone changing their position after receiving compensation would be good evidence.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50258438]Of you're going to make broad unsubstantiated claims you should probably have evidence to back them up when pressed next time instead of resorting to personal attacks on users.[/QUOTE]
Well my bad if you feel slighted but you're notoriously pro establishment and pro status quo to a fault. Ill rescind those incorrect statements but when you insist I have hard evidence of something people go to extreme lengths to hide just to say it's a possibility it's hard to even understand your view point.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;50258446]Someone changing their position after receiving compensation would be good evidence.[/QUOTE]
So there's no corruption or dubious behaviour behind corn subsidies or behind the food pyramid that added milk in as an essential dietary component to sell more milk.
Those aren't sudden policy changes but there's monetary trails that show the exacerbation of those issues from small to large with certain groups standing to make more money than without said changes?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258441]Let's just drop everything and you answer a simple question.
Is there any reason to suspect any US politicians or political parties of dubious behaviour?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50257716]And the congressional record of the entiritey of the democratic party since 1981 shows that they only care for the wealthy
You can dance around it, but the democrats are every bit as corrupt as the republicans.
Do you really want to imply the party is considerably less corrupt?
who also take outrageous sums of money.
What I said was that both parties are equally corrupt
Nepotism is also a form of corruption, especially in a political realm.[/QUOTE]
Suspecting and making a bunch of exaggerated claims are two different things, I'm not seeing you use allegedly, suspect, or any words beside definitive blame.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258455][B]Well my bad if you feel slighted but you're notoriously pro establishment and pro status quo to a fault.[/B] Ill rescind those incorrect statements but when you insist I have hard evidence of something people go to extreme lengths to hide just to say it's a possibility it's hard to even understand your view point.[/QUOTE]
I hadn't realized that meant you're allowed to then make up things I've said, and treat them as truth.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50258496]Suspecting and making a bunch of exaggerated claims are two different things, I'm not seeing you use allegedly, suspect, or any words beside definitive blame.
I hadn't realized that meant you're allowed to then make up things I've said, and treat them as truth.[/QUOTE]
So is it wrong to say you're 100% okay with lobbyists as they are in their current form?
Okay, I highly, strongly suspect them of dubious behaviour and the legislation record being more in line with the interests of the wealthy gives me some reasoning for my suspicion.
I don't know what you think but what I'm getting from you is that everything is going fine, there's nothing to be worried about on the front of representation.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258562]So is it wrong to say you're 100% okay with lobbyists as they are in their current form?
Okay, I highly, strongly suspect them of dubious behaviour and the legislation record being more in line with the interests of the wealthy gives me some reasoning for my suspicion.
I don't know what you think but what I'm getting from you is that everything is going fine, there's nothing to be worried about on the front of representation.[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Being the most pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro pretty much anything social makes you think they're corrupt to?
That shouldn't be what you're getting from me.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258455]So there's no corruption or dubious behaviour behind corn subsidies or behind the food pyramid that added milk in as an essential dietary component to sell more milk.
Those aren't sudden policy changes but there's monetary trails that show the exacerbation of those issues from small to large with certain groups standing to make more money than without said changes?[/QUOTE]
If you have evidence that people received money and changed their stances from what they believed before receiving money, then sure, those would be great examples, but hand waving some assumed connection really isn't enough. It's just as likely that people who already supported those things then gained monetary support from those groups because of their already held beliefs.
Lots of politicians get support from LGBT lobbys. Do you assume that their support is do to corruption?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50258631]Yes.
Being the most pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro pretty much anything social makes you think they're corrupt to?
That shouldn't be what you're getting from me.[/QUOTE]
No because there's far less money to be made in being those things by politicians. There aren't multi billion dollar think groups working to better the condition of gays or women through abortion rights. There are multi billion dollar think tanks that exist to find ways to make legislation more palatable to certain industries.
Why shouldn't I have my suspicions of them in that situation? You can make the asinine comparison of gay rights and industry favours all you want but I don't think it's actually analogous to anything we're talking about. There's clearly money in one, not very much so the other way, so why SHOULD I suspect social issues in the same light?
Why not? You seemingly defend the status quo at every chance, so why not? You don't seem to want change in the political sphere as far as I can tell. You seem to be perfectly okay with things as they are, and even defending it from people who think it could or should be different and hopefully better? I mean you roast me for saying the democrats don't look after the same group of people they used to because of what I suspect to be money getting in the way so clearly I can't say anything of the sort about the democrats. What about the republicans? Am I allowed to be suspicious at all in your world view?
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;50258650]If you have evidence that people received money and changed their stances from what they believed before receiving money, then sure, those would be great examples, but hand waving some assumed connection really isn't enough. It's just as likely that people who already supported those things then gained monetary support from those groups because of their already held beliefs.[/QUOTE]
So people benefiting from things they already believed in but then got money from isn't corruption? what is it? Unfavorable?
[QUOTE]
Lots of politicians get support from LGBT lobbys. Do you assume that their support is do to corruption?[/QUOTE]
No and see above.
There are no massive think tanks trying to find ways to push LGBT legislation for monetary gain. They're pushing it because of a huge number of people now being okay with it when 10 years ago the zeitgeist for that just wasn't there.
Do you guys even worry about money in politics or is it just a non issue to both of you?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258680]So people benefiting from things they already believed in but then got money from isn't corruption? what is it? Unfavorable? [/QUOTE]
It's groups trying to get people elected who agree with them.
Quid-pro-quo bribery is already illegal.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258680]No because there's far less money to be made in being those things by politicians. There aren't multi billion dollar think groups working to better the condition of gays or women through abortion rights. There are multi billion dollar think tanks that exist to find ways to make legislation more palatable to certain industries.
Why shouldn't I have my suspicions of them in that situation? You can make the asinine comparison of gay rights and industry favours all you want but I don't think it's actually analogous to anything we're talking about. There's clearly money in one, not very much so the other way, so why SHOULD I suspect social issues in the same light?
Why not? You seemingly defend the status quo at every chance, so why not? You don't seem to want change in the political sphere as far as I can tell. You seem to be perfectly okay with things as they are, and even defending it from people who think it could or should be different and hopefully better? I mean you roast me for saying the democrats don't look after the same group of people they used to because of what I suspect to be money getting in the way so clearly I can't say anything of the sort about the democrats. What about the republicans? Am I allowed to be suspicious at all in your world view?
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
So people benefiting from things they already believed in but then got money from isn't corruption? what is it? Unfavorable?
No and see above.
There are no massive think tanks trying to find ways to push LGBT legislation for monetary gain. They're pushing it because of a huge number of people now being okay with it when 10 years ago the zeitgeist for that just wasn't there.
Do you guys even worry about money in politics or is it just a non issue to both of you?[/QUOTE]
I didn't call you out for saying you were suspicious of political parties. I called you out because you blatantly said both political parties pander to nepotism and the highest dollar. If you work towards change from a flawed viewpoint you're not going to be effective in getting that change.
[QUOTE]Do you guys even worry about money in politics or is it just a non issue to both of you?
[/QUOTE]
I have been down this road with many people It is a non issue for them. They care more about voting against the other party more then improving things.
The religious and alt right is scared of the left. Why? Afraid of being persecuted for their religion or for being white. The left? Gays, people of color, and so forth are afraid of the right of persecuting them.
This is what is preventing improvement.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258680]
Do you guys even worry about money in politics or is it just a non issue to both of you?[/QUOTE]
Money in politics is a non-issue to me because I think our laws are sufficient enough to prevent outright bribery. The max contribution you can make to a campaign is a few thousand total. You can donate a ton to super pacs, but those aren't legally allowed to coordinate with candidates. If the issue is that candidates are coordinating with superpac leaders, then we have an executive issue and not a legislative one.
Furthermore, I think that national security, foreign policy, and the economy are far more important than campaign finance reform
[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50258794]I have been down this road with many people It is a non issue for them. They care more about voting against the other party more then improving things.
[B]The religious and alt right is scared of the left. Why? Afraid of being persecuted for their religion or for being white. The left? Gays, people of color, and so forth are afraid of the right of persecuting them.
This is what is preventing improvement.[/B][/QUOTE]
What on earth are you talking about
I also think that people far-over exaggerate the influence of money in politics. It's shown again and again that lots of money won't win for a candidate unless they also have the general support of the people based on policy or character.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50258842]I also think that people far-over exaggerate the influence of money in politics. It's shown again and again that lots of money won't win for a candidate unless they also have the general support of the people based on policy or character.[/QUOTE]
Money in terms of how it influences elected officials to pass bills in favor of the wealthy few rather than the average person.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50258833]What on earth are you talking about[/QUOTE]
I said what I meant.
B oth sides are concerned with fianc e reform, but both sides are more scared of each other. The latter is a greater concern to them
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258824]Money in politics is a non-issue to me because I think our laws are sufficient enough to prevent outright bribery. The max contribution you can make to a campaign is a few thousand total. You can donate a ton to super pacs, but those aren't legally allowed to coordinate with candidates. If the issue is that candidates are coordinating with superpac leaders, then we have an executive issue and not a legislative one.
Furthermore, I think that national security, foreign policy, and the economy are far more important than campaign finance reform[/QUOTE]
then you and I are never going to be on the same ground.
I want a nation that I can be represented by. You don't see that as a valid complaint as far as I can tell.
I want a nation I can be proud of. I don't just want that nation to exist. It should be worth it. I just see you as being patriotic but without a thought as to what that patriotism should be for
[QUOTE=DaMastez;50258862]Money in terms of how it influences elected officials to pass bills in favor of the wealthy few rather than the average person.[/QUOTE]
Give me an example so I know exactly what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258873]then you and I are never going to be on the same ground.
I want a nation that I can be represented by. You don't see that as a valid complaint as far as I can tell.
I want a nation I can be proud of. I don't just want that nation to exist. It should be worth it. I just see you as being patriotic but without a thought as to what that patriotism should be for[/QUOTE]
Patriotism should be towards your people, not your government. Let me tell you the things I'm patriotic towards:
1. My Family
2. Food
3. My ability to essentially do what I want on a daily basis and choose my own destiny/job/career
None of these things have anything to do with money in politics. If world war 3 broke out and I were drafted to go shoot russians/space-nazis, I wouldn't rally under "All right let's go out there and lay our lives on the line for government transparency!"
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258890]Patriotism should be towards your people, not your government. Let me tell you the things I'm patriotic towards:
1. My Family
2. Food
3. My ability to essentially do what I want on a daily basis and choose my own destiny/job/career
None of these things have anything to do with money in politics. If world war 3 broke out and I were drafted to go shoot russians/space-nazis, I wouldn't rally under "All right let's go out there and lay our lives on the line for government transparency!"[/QUOTE]
What's the point in being patriotic towards your people if they're impoverished, poor, unable to get a valuable education, and otherwise not doing well?
Why be patriotic towards that? Shouldn't the well being of your people be important to you? Is the well being of the people not tied to the well being of the democracy?
Honestly the more you talk the more it sounds like you just want a corporatism government
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258902]What's the point in being patriotic towards your people if they're impoverished, poor, unable to get a valuable education, and otherwise not doing well?
Why be patriotic towards that? Shouldn't the well being of your people be important to you? Is the well being of the people not tied to the well being of the democracy?
Honestly the more you talk the more it sounds like you just want a corporatism government[/QUOTE]
But they ARE doing well? I'm not going to pretend that America is a utopia but our system works pretty well IMO. I've got thousands of dollars in student debt, can't find a job, and everything is fucking expensive, but I [B]love[/B] living here. It's just who I am and what this country is.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258912]But they ARE doing well? I'm not going to pretend that America is a utopia but our system works pretty well IMO. I've got thousands of dollars in student debt, can't find a job, and everything is fucking expensive, but I [B]love[/B] living here. It's just who I am and what this country is.[/QUOTE]
Not so much. They're not all doing well. Yeah it works pretty well but what about the ones that it doesn't work "pretty well" for? You throw them, and their concerns under a bus for the sake of your country. That seems wrong.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258915]Not so much. They're not all doing well. Yeah it works pretty well but what about the ones that it doesn't work "pretty well" for? You throw them, and their concerns under a bus for the sake of your country. That seems wrong.[/QUOTE]
I think there should be a safety net for them. That's why I vote democrat and not republican. I don't see the incompatibility between what we have today and a prosperous future.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258932]I think there should be a safety net for them. That's why I vote democrat and not republican. I don't see the incompatibility between what we have today and a prosperous future.[/QUOTE]
That those people don't have a real voice in the modern democratic party doesn't bother you?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258973]That those people don't have a real voice in the modern democratic party doesn't bother you?[/QUOTE]
How are you defining "a voice?"
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258973]That those people don't have a real voice in the modern democratic party doesn't bother you?[/QUOTE]
I think they do! Sanders ran a good campaign but he lost, and not because of super delegates either. If Sanders had won, I would've voted for him no doubt. But he didn't. Democracy spoke, and Sanders lost.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258986]I think they do! Sanders ran a good campaign but he lost, and not because of super delegates either. If Sanders had won, I would've voted for him no doubt. But he didn't. Democracy spoke, and Sanders lost.[/QUOTE]
It's not democracy if most people are prevented from voting in the primaries.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50258982]How are you defining "a voice?"[/QUOTE]
Well they have their own voices but those voices seem to be ignored by the party. Now, you could argue "That's fine, that's what a political party is for, to represent the interests of the party, not necessarily the people" which is true. The party does represent it's own interests as it should. But being one of only two avenues available for election(because third party is a joke) the democratic party not representing the people who need some collective power currently is a large issue for a two party system.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258986]I think they do! Sanders ran a good campaign but he lost, and not because of super delegates either. If Sanders had won, I would've voted for him no doubt. But he didn't. Democracy spoke, and Sanders lost.[/QUOTE]
The mere fact the democratic party didn't want to let him run, let alone the media arm of the democratic party sandbagging him so strongly for a year is evidence that they didn't want to let those people have a voice.
Bernie couldn't get people on his side because he had no media power. He had no media power because he had no party. He had no party because the party had long ago decided to go with Clinton.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50258997]Well they have their own voices but those voices seem to be ignored by the party. Now, you could argue "That's fine, that's what a political party is for, to represent the interests of the party, not necessarily the people" which is true. The party does represent it's own interests as it should. But being one of only two avenues available for election(because third party is a joke) the democratic party not representing the people who need some collective power currently is a large issue for a two party system.[/QUOTE]
So you're defining "a voice" by having one's political opinions be put into law? If that's the case, then clearly not everyone can have "a voice."
[QUOTE=sgman91;50259006]So you're defining "a voice" by having one's political opinions be put into law? If that's the case, then clearly not everyone can have "a voice."[/QUOTE]
No that's not right either.
They don't have a political arm that can even argue for their side, let alone pass legislation.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50258996]It's not democracy if most people are prevented from voting in the primaries.[/QUOTE]
And we come back to: Primaries are not democracies, they're selections run by private organizations to determine who they want to represent them. Even then, who gets to vote is down to the [B]state[/B] democratic party. You can't blame the democratic party at large for what their constituent members decide to do?
Why should an organization allow non-registered members to participate? If you wanted so bad to vote for sanders, who is also a registered democrat running as a democrat, you should've cared enough about the american political system to register as a democrat
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.