• Indiana Primary DEM/GOP - Cruz missiles self-destruct, Trump unstumpable and r/SandersForPresident h
    263 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50259011]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] What sizable group of people don't have anyone arguing for their side?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50259030]What sizable group of people don't have anyone arguing for their side?[/QUOTE] The poor? The blue collar workers? [url]http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think[/url]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50259033]The poor? The blue collar workers? [url]http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think[/url][/QUOTE] So... you DO think that having a voice means that your political opinions get passed into law? Also, that study isn't necessarily saying what you think it's saying. All it's doing is showing correlation, not causation. If could be very possible (and actually makes sense) that the elites already agree with politicians because politicians are also generally elites. That would explain a strong correlation without pointing to any sort of causation. It's also true that the wealthier you are the more likely you are to be politically active. Obviously those that are politically active will have their opinion heard more. Oddly, they don't state the source of their public polling or list any specific issues and the it costs money to view it. I would be extremely interested in the data that had 100% support from the public. I've never heard of that happening, ever.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50259101]So... you DO think that having a voice means that your political opinions get passed into law? Also, that study isn't necessarily saying what you think it's saying. All it's doing is showing correlation, not causation. If could be very possible (and actually makes sense) that the elites already agree with politicians because politicians are also generally elites. That would explain a strong correlation without pointing to any sort of causation. It's also true that the wealthier you are the more likely you are to be politically active. Obviously those that are politically active will have their opinion heard more. Oddly, they don't state the source of their public polling or list any specific issues and the it costs money to view it. I would be extremely interested in the data that had 100% support from the public. I've never heard of that happening, ever.[/QUOTE] That doesn't really assuage my fears or problems with the system what so ever. Knowing the politicians and the economic elite are more interested in politics therefore have a greater return from the policies is a little bit like a positive feedback loop. Political activity is also measured in monetary terms so that would be obvious, but also not a good result for a democracy IMO.
[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. [/QUOTE] have you ever heard of hillary clinton?
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259250]have you ever heard of hillary clinton?[/QUOTE] Great go ahead and post the evidence friend.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50259299]Great go ahead and post the evidence friend.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;12mJ-U76nfg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg[/video]
[QUOTE=plunger435;50259299]Great go ahead and post the evidence friend.[/QUOTE] His seething irrational and neurotic hatred says more than any real evidence ever could.
[QUOTE=Durandal;50259382]His seething irrational and neurotic hatred says more than any real evidence ever could.[/QUOTE] Ignoring history? Didnt think people outside of extreme religious folks could instantiate such cognitive dissonance. Seriously just look at clintons past, you'll find the evidence
[QUOTE=Reshy;50259373][video=youtube;12mJ-U76nfg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg[/video][/QUOTE] Elizabeth Warren isn't saying Clinton took bribes to determine policy, she's saying pro-credit lobbying changed the political mood on the bill, and Clinton was one of many to vote in favor of it. (Please don't come in saying lobbying in Washington is a direct bribe to all who vote yes on a policy.) [editline]5th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=cody8295;50259414]Ignoring history? Didnt think people outside of extreme religious folks could instantiate such cognitive dissonance. Seriously just look at clintons past, you'll find the evidence[/QUOTE] If it's so easy to find her taking bribes then please show us a bribe.
So instead of posting a video I actually did the [URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/17/hillary-clintons-explanation-for-controversial-bankruptcy-vote-joe-biden/"]research [/URL]on the [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/the-vote-for-bankruptcy-reform-that-haunts-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0"]bill [/URL]itself. She only voted for it after getting some concessions from Republicans regarding the language of the bill affecting mothers and families. The bill didn't pass and she didn't vote for it when it came up again in 2005. Excellent proof 10/10 would spend 5 minutes debunking again. Would have taken 3 but you posted a video that that was posted on a blog that sites a paywall site for it's source.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50259673]Elizabeth Warren isn't saying Clinton took bribes to determine policy, she's saying pro-credit lobbying changed the political mood on the bill, and Clinton was one of many to vote in favor of it. (Please don't come in saying lobbying in Washington is a direct bribe to all who vote yes on a policy.) [editline]5th May 2016[/editline] If it's so easy to find her taking bribes then please show us a bribe.[/QUOTE] The evidence will be clear as day if shes ever president. She took millions of dollars from wall street for dozens of speeches. She isnt going to forget that and i worry her already terrible judgement will become worse.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259695]The evidence will be clear as day if shes ever president. She took millions of dollars from wall street for [B]dozens[/B] of speeches. She isnt going to forget that and i worry her already terrible judgement will become worse.[/QUOTE] If by dozens you mean over 700 between the both of them, not just to Wall Street? People are paid to give speeches, this isn't some kind of new thing the Clinton's invented. She doesn't owe Wall Street anything because as you already pointed out, she was paid to do something she already did.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50259709]If by dozens you mean over 700 between the both of them, not just to Wall Street? People are paid to give speeches, this isn't some kind of new thing the Clinton's invented. She doesn't owe Wall Street anything because as you already pointed out, she was paid to do something she already did.[/QUOTE] 250k to 300k per speech seems like more than compensation for a speech. Words dont cost 300 grand, from anybody. That money is not just for speeches and youd have to be naive to think it is
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259758]250k to 300k per speech seems like more than compensation for a speech. Words dont cost 300 grand, from anybody. That money is not just for speeches and youd have to be naive to think it is[/QUOTE] And George W. Bush makes the same amount from his speeches, as do all ex-presidents, first ladies, etc.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50259792]And George W. Bush makes the same amount from his speeches, as do all ex-presidents, first ladies, etc.[/QUOTE] Keyword "EX", nobody who makes money so easily from an institution so greedy and influential in politics should be back into power
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259758]250k to 300k per speech seems like more than compensation for a speech. Words dont cost 300 grand, from anybody. That money is not just for speeches and youd have to be naive to think it is[/QUOTE] Neil Gaiman charges $45,000 to give a talk, and he's a niche fiction author. I can see major politicians being an order of magnitude higher in price. Also, back in 2010 you could hire Donald Trump himself as a celebrity guest for $300,000/hr, if you wanted to make your event seem more "legitimate". That was just for him to show up, not to actually do anything. (I'm pretty sure he no longer appears on the rent-a-celebrity circuit).
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259818]Keyword "EX", nobody who makes money so easily from an institution so greedy and influential in politics should be back into power[/QUOTE] You must absolutely hate Donald Trump then.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259758]250k to 300k per speech seems like more than compensation for a speech. Words dont cost 300 grand, from anybody. That money is not just for speeches and youd have to be naive to think it is[/QUOTE] They do when you're as important as Hillary Clinton lol
[QUOTE=plunger435;50259884]You must absolutely hate Donald Trump then.[/QUOTE] Nah he's voting for him now that Sanders isn't going to win.
[QUOTE=Durandal;50259902]Nah he's voting for him now that Sanders isn't going to win.[/QUOTE] lol i still believe bernie hae a good chance. Might vote sanders if he runs independent, even though he said he wouldnt, it would be cool
I just had a thought; How weird is it that the democrat pick is status quo and the republican pick is populist. It's literally both parties acting entirely against their names.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50259013]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[/QUOTE] The Problam with this is the gact taxs payers money go into the DNC and such a party should not be privated it should be regulated
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.