There's basically no similarity here.
Money was given, and desired results were obtained. Everyone knows what is really happening, but there is no actual evidence of quid pro quo. It is exactly the same.
Again - Either money affects policy, or it does not. I think it does. I think both parties are essentially shamelessly selling out the vast majority, and hiding behind, "no actual evidence", when it is plain as day what is happening.
You might not like it when "people like [me]" point out that both sides are doing the same stuff, but at least Trump admits it. If you are trying to tar the other side (I assume that is why the "we" you are referring to post articles like this, and there is nothing wrong with that), it is best to select topics that your choice of candidate isn't also guilty of.
Post 2001 - A (Waste of) Space Odyssey!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Drahliana: Oh, I get that issue, don't worry. It's one of the many things that's soured me on the Republicans this cycle, because confirming nominees to major government positions is one of their most important jobs and they're not doing it. If they decide nominees should never be confirmed unless they're put forth by a president of their party, then they are full of nonsense. Whoever wins, Congress needs to buckle up and do its job.
@Drahliana: Oh, I get that issue, don't worry. It's one of the many things that's soured me on the Republicans this cycle, because confirming nominees to major government positions is one of their most important jobs and they're not doing it. If they decide nominees should never be confirmed unless they're put forth by a president of their party, then they are full of nonsense. Whoever wins, Congress needs to buckle up and do its job.
They're simply playing the same political game that Democrats have done on the very same issue, only not to the same degree. And part of it is that the initial goal of denying Obama a second term has devolved into denying him anything out of sheer spite.
There's basically no similarity here.Money was given, and desired results were obtained. Everyone knows what is really happening, but there is no actual evidence of quid pro quo. It is exactly the same.
Again - Either money affects policy, or it does not. I think it does. I think both parties are essentially shamelessly selling out the vast majority, and hiding behind, "no actual evidence", when it is plain as day what is happening.
You might not like it when "people like [me]" point out that both sides are doing the same stuff, but at least Trump admits it. If you are trying to tar the other side (I assume that is why the "we" you are referring to post articles like this, and there is nothing wrong with that), it is best to select topics that your choice of candidate isn't also guilty of.
Post 2001 - A (Waste of) Space Odyssey!
Reductive: Money effects policy, thus any candidate who takes campaign contributions is equally corrupt and there's no point in talking about it.
And Trump "admits" it and thus is seen as honest by people like you while actually illegally hiding it in the Foundation's tax reports.
Latest wrinkle on "Honest Don". Trump isn't paying his top volounteers. Instead they list themselves as observers and take money from his SuperPac, a clever way of getting around SuperPac restrictions since unlike Clinton, if she were to try the same thing, he'll never get called up on it.
@Drahliana: Oh, I get that issue, don't worry. It's one of the many things that's soured me on the Republicans this cycle, because confirming nominees to major government positions is one of their most important jobs and they're not doing it. If they decide nominees should never be confirmed unless they're put forth by a president of their party, then they are full of nonsense. Whoever wins, Congress needs to buckle up and do its job.
At the moment, they see their job as preventing Obama from putting an Anti-Scalia on the Court. There is no Constitutional mandate on when the job is supposed to be done.
The problem is not the vote, but that the Senate committee in charge of approvals has flat out stated, that they will not forward a candidate FOR a vote PERIOD, possibly not until a Republican wins the Presidential election.Ah, the time honored tactic of holding the government hostage until the opposing party capitulates to ceding your party additional power.
I continue to hate politics.
It's still better than the alternative.
Reductive: Money effects policy, thus any candidate who takes campaign contributions is equally corrupt and there's no point in talking about it.
And Trump "admits" it and thus is seen as honest by people like you while actually illegally hiding it in the Foundation's tax reports.
I must not be doing a good job of expressing myself. Allow me to try again. Candidates do work for the people who pay them. If they are paid by a mass of citizens, they will work for those citizens. If they are paid by a few select interests, they will work for those interests. This has been incredibly obvious for hundreds of years. I don't think it is a very controversial concept.
I'm kind of insulted that you assume that I think Trump is honest. Here is an article I think is relevant to that subject. I think that what he said about giving money in exchange for results is just a statement of fact.
I'm kind of insulted that you assume that I think Trump is honest. Here is an article I think is relevant to that subject. I think that what he said about giving money in exchange for results is just a statement of fact.
The one thing he was telling the truth about and it's a felony? :)
The two things that made him appealing to his followers was he told it as he saw it and he isn't bought . . .
He's the buyer not the seller in a corrupt political process that goes to the highest bidder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.
In toto, I'm a Progressive Liberal. To the True Left, I'm considered too moderate at best, a collaborator & sell-out with the Right & NeoLibs at worst. Thus, I am Comrade Anklebiter's Enemy. There will be no merging until we have a Highlander-style reckoning.
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.In toto, I'm a Progressive Liberal. To the True Left, I'm considered too moderate at best, a collaborator & sell-out with the Right & NeoLibs at worst. Thus, I am Comrade Anklebiter's Enemy. There will be no merging until we have a Highlander-style reckoning.
Yeah...I wasn't aware that "Left of mainstream republican" = socialist...
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.In toto, I'm a Progressive Liberal. To the True Left, I'm considered too moderate at best, a collaborator & sell-out with the Right & NeoLibs at worst. Thus, I am Comrade Anklebiter's Enemy. There will be no merging until we have a Highlander-style reckoning.Yeah...I wasn't aware that "Left of mainstream republican" = socialist...
I imagine that through Conservative Anklebiter's rose-colored bootstraps glasses, we all look Pinko.
*in Thor voice* Anyone want some ale?
I imagine that through Conservative Anklebiter's rose-coloredI wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.In toto, I'm a Progressive Liberal. To the True Left, I'm considered too moderate at best, a collaborator & sell-out with the Right & NeoLibs at worst. Thus, I am Comrade Anklebiter's Enemy. There will be no merging until we have a Highlander-style reckoning.Yeah...I wasn't aware that "Left of mainstream republican" = socialist...
bootstrapsglasses, we all look Pinko.
Different shades.
Five minutes has passed, do you know where Trump stands on immigration!
I usually just check this thread and I'll know the response.
What's the appeal of Trump then? I mean I don't like Hilary but the one thing she has going for her is that she's not proposing deporting whole families if one of them happens to be illegal, making a religious test for entry into the US, ripping up international free trade agreements, environmental agreements, breaking up NATO, letting Russia have the Ukraine, or any other disastrous policy he's floated in this election season. The two things that made him appealing to his followers was he told it as he saw it and he isn't bought . . .Reductive: Money effects policy, thus any candidate who takes campaign contributions is equally corrupt and there's no point in talking about it.
And Trump "admits" it and thus is seen as honest by people like you while actually illegally hiding it in the Foundation's tax reports.
I must not be doing a good job of expressing myself. Allow me to try again. Candidates do work for the people who pay them. If they are paid by a mass of citizens, they will work for those citizens. If they are paid by a few select interests, they will work for those interests. This has been incredibly obvious for hundreds of years. I don't think it is a very controversial concept.
I'm kind of insulted that you assume that I think Trump is honest. Here is an article I think is relevant to that subject. I think that what he said about giving money in exchange for results is just a statement of fact.
1. What he sees is pretty terrible.
2. That last isn't true either. He not only has his own SuperPac soliciting donations, but he's using it to directly enrich himself, by bypassing the rules prohibiting SuperPacs from directly funding campaigns, and two, hiking the rates his faculties now charge his campaign for their use since he started receiving outside money.
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.In toto, I'm a Progressive Liberal. To the True Left, I'm considered too moderate at best, a collaborator & sell-out with the Right & NeoLibs at worst. Thus, I am Comrade Anklebiter's Enemy. There will be no merging until we have a Highlander-style reckoning.Yeah...I wasn't aware that "Left of mainstream republican" = socialist...
By modern Republican standards, both Nixon and God (I'm referring to Ronald, not *THAT* one,) would be socialists.
Did I nail it?
By modern Republican standards, both Nixon and God (I'm referring to Ronald, not *THAT* one,) would be socialists.
No kidding. If you're not a Laissez Faire capitalist then you must be a socialist.
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.
Please don't.
I believe my bro was there the last time Democrats discussed Hillary in my threads. Lots of vomit splattered on the walls.
Although...I don't believe I've seen it mentioned on the boards, but apparently the current president of Honduras got the laws changed so that he could run for re-election. This is, of course, highly ironic since the coup that Hillary helped legitimize in that country to oust the previous president was largely motivated by the coupers claims that Zelaya was calling for a Constitutional convention to change the laws so that he could run for re-election...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.In toto, I'm a Progressive Liberal. To the True Left, I'm considered too moderate at best, a collaborator & sell-out with the Right & NeoLibs at worst. Thus, I am Comrade Anklebiter's Enemy. There will be no merging until we have a Highlander-style reckoning.
En garde!
By modern Republican standards, both Nixon and God (I'm referring to Ronald, not *THAT* one,) would be socialists.No kidding. If you're not a Laissez Faire capitalist then you must be a socialist.
It works both ways, alas. Berniecrats claiming that if you believe in regulated markets and a social safety net...that's socialism!
[Vomits]
According to google:
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Basically, anything that puts a restraint on unfettered capitalism in the name of protecting people is socialism. Outlaw Ponzi schemes? No lead in baby food? Government protecting your deposits if the bank fails? All socialism. Socialism runs through most of our political and economic ideals.
Of course there are all kinds and variations of socialism... Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, while Anklebiter is a Revolutionary Socialist. I lean toward a Democracy at Work type of Socialism.
Learn more about Socialism in Comrade Anklebiter's thread, wikipedia, or your local library.
Learn more about Socialism in Comrade Anklebiter's thread,
I'm still embarrassed about the typo in the title of the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel in the first post of my thread.
It's almost as if people had never heard of a mixed economy.
But have they heard of dirigisme?
Something something Cinnamon Toast Crunch?!
But have they heard of dirigisme?
I hadn't. But I first got hit with mixed economy in an economics class in high school. It's almost like you'd have to go out of your way to be unaware of the basic concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*in Thor voice* Anyone want some ale?
No. I want mission report, December 16, 1991.
"Not to the same degree"? Not to within a mile of the same degree. Far enough that I'm not even sure what you're talking about.@Drahliana: Oh, I get that issue, don't worry. It's one of the many things that's soured me on the Republicans this cycle, because confirming nominees to major government positions is one of their most important jobs and they're not doing it. If they decide nominees should never be confirmed unless they're put forth by a president of their party, then they are full of nonsense. Whoever wins, Congress needs to buckle up and do its job.They're simply playing the same political game that Democrats have done on the very same issue, only not to the same degree. And part of it is that the initial goal of denying Obama a second term has devolved into denying him anything out of sheer spite.
I don't normally use the The Federalists as a source, but they can point to a few examples. Then -Senator Obama himself threathened to use a filibuster to block an Alito vote.
What's the appeal of Trump then? I mean I don't like Hilary but the one thing she has going for her is that she's not proposing deporting whole families if one of them happens to be illegal, making a religious test for entry into the US, ripping up international free trade agreements, environmental agreements, breaking up NATO, letting Russia have the Ukraine, or any other disastrous policy he's floated in this election season. The two things that made him appealing to his followers was he told it as he saw it and he isn't bought . . .Reductive: Money effects policy, thus any candidate who takes campaign contributions is equally corrupt and there's no point in talking about it.
And Trump "admits" it and thus is seen as honest by people like you while actually illegally hiding it in the Foundation's tax reports.
I must not be doing a good job of expressing myself. Allow me to try again. Candidates do work for the people who pay them. If they are paid by a mass of citizens, they will work for those citizens. If they are paid by a few select interests, they will work for those interests. This has been incredibly obvious for hundreds of years. I don't think it is a very controversial concept.
I'm kind of insulted that you assume that I think Trump is honest. Here is an article I think is relevant to that subject. I think that what he said about giving money in exchange for results is just a statement of fact.
The appeal is emotional. Trump is especially appealing to the white mindset that feels that it is losing it's grip on the country that it used to own. This is especially true given the losses that the white blue collar has endured over the last few decades. Especially since they are a group which hasn't seen that much of the oft-trumpted economic recovery.
That's just not good enough. Now I understand that people are looking to overturn the apple cart, I totally understand not wanting to vote for Clinton, especially if you feel the establishment has failed you repeatedly, but I just don't see how that translates into a vote for Trump. I think even Nostradamus can see that a Trump presidency would even disappoint white supremacists as Trump seems to be grossly incompetent and the only thing that would come from a Trump presidency would be tax cuts for the rich further compounding the financial burden on the working poor.
The appeal is emotional. Trump is especially appealing to the white mindset that feels that it is losing it's grip on the country that it used to own. This is especially true given the losses that the white blue collar has endured over the last few decades. Especially since they are a group which hasn't seen that much of the oft-trumpted economic recovery.
Again from their viewpoint, they haven't seen any real benefits when everyone has been showing how great Wall Street and the moneybags are doing. If even the "experts" have failed them, than maybe anyone who upsets the usual order of things can be an improvement. Bernie Sanders drew from much of the same sentiment, even if his approach was vastly different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*in Thor voice* Anyone want some ale?No. I want mission report, December 16, 1991.
Sorry you got the wrong entity for that. Ask my Father.
Contact Other Plane really is useless.Sorry you got the wrong entity for that. Ask my Father.*in Thor voice* Anyone want some ale?No. I want mission report, December 16, 1991.
There is something weird going on with the Asgardian scry-fi. Calls to Odin are misrouted to someone who giggles like Loki and hangs up.