Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[OCinBuffalo]

 

You've yet to accurately surmise my argument so I'm not sure how Trump can disprove it. My argument is not "whoever spends the most money always wins". That's not only far too simplistic, it's missing the larger point.

 

The game is rigged. The election was decided before the first primary was even held. Hillary will be the next president, by hook or by crook.

No, I've asked you to explain the contradiction in your argument. I don't see how the internet does anything but make the rigging of politics harder, not easier. Ask Dan Rather about the internet's influence on rigging politics. Therefore, I don't see how Citizens united is the issue for the left that it once was. Trump is a practical example of: money isn't the only way.

 

There is no larger point. You are saying that money is the problem, yet at the same time saying that the internet et al reduces the need for for the big wigs to spend $. That is a contradiction, like it or not. You're describing a problem, and its solution, but then telling us that the solution is irrelevant, because money is still the problem.

 

Yeah, I accurately surmised your argument, and rather than merely being simplistic, it's illogical.

 

IF the game is rigged, that has a lot more to do with what politicians are selling, rather than what donors are buying. They easiest way to change the game is to reduce what the politicians have to sell. Reducing how much money can be spent on lobbying by the buyers is almost beside the point: it won't change the scope or scale of what the politicians are putting up for sale. Consider: a Congressperson is going to try and bring home the pork(let's say a new bridge) no matter what. So, what difference is saying "you can only spend $4k" going to make to the guy who wants the pork(to build the bridge)? All you're doing is making the cost of business cheaper for the buyer.

 

Your mother told you it takes 2 to fight. And, as annoying as that is, because of all the nuances involved, the same is true of bribery, also because of the nuances involved.

 

You think all the blame lies with the buyers. No way. They can only buy what the politicians are willing to sell.

 

EDIT: And, your argument is completely bereft of the group who gains the most from all of this: the bureacracy. They gain the most, because they are put in charge of handing out what is being sold, and taking their cut, AND, they can threaten both buyers and sellers with regulations if they don't get their cut.

Edited April 9, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[meazza]

:lol: Come out on the town with me one night here in LA, that line (along with a HRC campaign sticker) can get you laid.

 

 

If that's the case I'm getting a Chocolate Almonds for Hillary Tattoo.

[Deranged Rhino]

No, I've asked you to explain the contradiction in your argument. I don't see how the internet does anything but make the rigging of politics harder, not easier.

 

I have never said the internet makes rigging elections harder. If anything the digital age makes rigging elections easier, especially with our growing love of using automated voting machines.

 

I said the internet, as well as the advances in telecommunications in general, now give everyone a cheap and easy way to exercise their right to free speech. This was in response to the notion that you need to be able to spend millions of dollars to exercise your right to free speech -- that thinking is completely outdated and best left in the 20th century where broadcast networks were the only major outlet. You're a big believer in the market place of ideas, right? Shouldn't the power and effectiveness of one's message be determined by its content rather than the amount of money put behind it?

 

Money is a speech amplifier, it is not speech. Citizen's United didn't create the problem, it merely amplified it.

 

What we're seeing today is a system that's been bought and paid for by corporations and organizations that have no desire to better the United States through their political activities, merely they wish to feather their own nests at the expense of the majority of American citizens.

 

The rebellion against the establishment is precisely because people are waking up to the idea that the system is rigged and they have been completely disenfranchised. The Trumpers blame the left, the Bernsies blame the right. They're both wrong -- and in some ways both right -- because the parties to blame aren't political ideologues at all.

 

Politicians are not determining national policy. Nor are the people.

 

 

There is no larger point. You are saying that money is the problem, yet at the same time saying that the internet et al reduces the need for for the big wigs to spend $. That is a contradiction, like it or not. You're describing a problem, and its solution, but then telling us that the solution is irrelevant, because money is still the problem.

 

 

Incorrect. You're not following me at all.

 

 

Yeah, I accurately surmised your argument, and rather than merely being simplistic, it's illogical.

 

 

What you're claiming to be my argument is not. So, again, you're incorrect.

 

 

 

IF the game is rigged, that has a lot more to do with what politicians are selling, rather than what donors are buying. They easiest way to change the game is to reduce what the politicians have to sell. Reducing how much money can be spent on lobbying by the buyers is almost beside the point: it won't change the scope or scale of what the politicians are putting up for sale. Consider: a Congressperson is going to try and bring home the pork(let's say a new bridge) no matter what. So, what difference is saying "you can only spend $4k" going to make to the guy who wants the pork(to build the bridge)? All you're doing is making the cost of business cheaper for the buyer.

 

 

Limiting the temptation for politicians to sell out, thus making it harder for the interests of a select few to dominate the political arena, is the issue. Simplifying it to "money is bad" is not only inaccurate but overly simplistic. I've never once argued that you're going to get all the money out of politics or that you should.

 

What I have argued for is a constitutional amendment that would limit the need for politicians to spend millions on campaign ad buys, thus eliminating the temptation to be bought off by interests and lobbies they otherwise would want no part of. We live in an age where it doesn't require millions of dollars to get your message out to the masses, this solution is just one way to go about addressing the problem.

 

I've never said it's the only solution or deemed it perfect, but it's better than the codified bribery system that's now in place. For the broadcast networks who are dying a loud and painful death, it's a business friendly solution they'd get behind as it would give them an opportunity to remain relevant in the streaming age.

 

 

 

You think all the blame lies with the buyers. No way.

 

I've never said that. Not once. Again, you're not even having the same conversation I am.

 

 

If that's the case I'm getting a Chocolate Almonds for Hillary Tattoo.

 

You would do some serious damage in this town with that. Serious damage.

[OCinBuffalo]

1. What we're seeing today is a system that's been bought and paid for by corporations and organizations that have no desire to better the United States through their political activities, merely they wish to feather their own nests at the expense of the majority of American citizens.

 

2. Limiting the temptation for politicians to sell out, thus making it harder for the interests of a select few to dominate the political arena, is the issue.

 

Ok, now that you've seen fit to clear up your contradiction, which is all I was asking of you....

 

I'll boil down the argument to your 2 points above, because I am pretty sure you'd agree that these are the real points of contention here.

 

My response:

1. If it has been bought and paid for, that is only because it was first marketed and sold. You really can't conceive of "either you give to the political action committee, or, we're going to come by and check to see if all your bathrooms are up to code"? If not, educate yourself: Tammany Hall was around long before TV was, or ad buys. Government "protection" rackets, and general "give me this or I'll abuse my power as a government official"...has been around since the first emporer of China, and probably long before that. You're trying to blame corporations for this, when you have it ass backwards: corporations were INVENTED as a way to protect buisiness FROM government, and especially their lawyers. It is the government people, who first chose to begin the feathering of the nest activity. Why? For the same reason since forever: the business people make lots of money, and the government people covet it, largely because they can't make their own. So, corporations were established.

 

Now, has the pendulum swung too far the other way? Perhaps, but please, don't waste my time telling me that the government hasn't been in the "protection" racket since forever. Today, the biggest thing the government has to sell is the tax code. Take that away, and institute a FAIR tax? Half of your problem is solved instantly. The next big thing is regulations on competitors, or, protection from regulations. There's lots of things that can be done here. I actually do some of them every day.

 

2. What in God's name makes you think any politician is "tempted" to sell out, rather than: joins the profession with every intention of selling out? Consider: "deals" are made all the time by politicians. "You give me my bridge, I'll vote for your legislation", etc. But it goes way beyond that.

 

#2 is precisely why the founders of this country proscribed all-powerful central government, and specifically left unenumerated power to the states. That's why the Constitution is written in terms of what government cannot do, and must do, rather than what it can do.

 

Your problem is that you think that somehow politicians aren't in it for $. Are you willing to sell your scripts for nothing? Everybody is "in it for the $" to some degree, the only question lies in whether they are "in it" for anything else. One thing I know: politics means power, and power ALWAYS means money. Money doesn't always necessary mean power. But power always means money.

 

I think it's rather absurd for us to concern ourselves with trying to limit the temptations of people that are there to do it on purpose. Rather, we should just limit what they have to sell.

Edited April 9, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[truth on hold]

Really seems like women and African Americans are carrying her. Women I kind of get, but African American I don't. So I asked an African American friend why is she so strong in that community? He said people get it wrong that African American = poor vote. That many African americans with felony records aren't eligible for voting, and that many poor that are don't vote. That leaves educated , higher income types like him, who vote for her because she's elitist and they think thats aligned with their interests. Go figure.

Edited April 10, 2016 by truth on hold

[B-Man]

Black Lives Matter co-creator: Hillary talking out of both sides of her mouth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ONE YEAR LATE: State Dept Turns over 1,100 Pages of BENGHAZI Records

April 9, 2016

 

 

At this point, what difference does it make?

 

 

 

A year after the House Select Committee on Benghazi made its initial request, the State Department finally handed over 1,100 pages of records.

 

These records contain include files, “stored on network folders used by senior employees within the Office of the Secretary, and emails from Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Susan Rice, and Patrick Kennedy,” according to the Select Committee.

 

Records received Friday were in response to requests made by the committee in November of 2014. When the requests were unanswered, subpoena’s were issued in March of 2015.

 

[reddogblitz]

She likes chocolate covered almonds.

 

Trump likes gold covered almonds because he's REALY rich.

[Deranged Rhino]

Trump likes gold covered almonds because he's REALY rich.

[truth on hold]

Given a choice of Bernie winning the primary or bills winning the super bowl, Id take Bernie. That's how much I want to close the lid on the Clintons.

Edited April 10, 2016 by truth on hold

[meazza]

Given a choice of Bernie winning the primary or bills winning the super bowl, Id take Bernie. That's how much I want to close the lid on the Clintons.

I personally think that's a lifetime bannable offense.

[/dev/null]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/hillary-clinton-broke-campaigning-rules-new-york-city-subway

 

Rules are for the Proles.

[B-Man]

So I'm waiting for Elementary to come on CBS, its delayed by the Masters running late.

 

I have watched 15 minutes of Madame Secretary, so far she has rescued the kidnapped girls in Africa and stood up to cartoonish Pentagon leaders.

 

All sandwiched into two ACTUAL Hillary commercials during the breaks

 

 

 

If I was Bernie I would sue for equal time.........................

[Deranged Rhino]

I personally think that's a lifetime bannable offense.

 

Only if it comes from an actual Bills fan...

 

So I'm waiting for Elementary to come on CBS, its delayed by the Masters running late.

 

I have watched 15 minutes of Madame Secretary, so far she has rescued the kidnapped girls in Africa and stood up to cartoonish Pentagon leaders.

 

All sandwiched into two ACTUAL Hillary commercials during the breaks

 

 

 

If I was Bernie I would sue for equal time.........................

 

Is she still a spy? I only watched the first two episodes of their first season (was lured in by it being a spy show) but I had to tap out.

[/dev/null]

So I'm waiting for Elementary to come on CBS, its delayed by the Masters running late.

 

I have watched 15 minutes of Madame Secretary, so far she has rescued the kidnapped girls in Africa and stood up to cartoonish Pentagon leaders.

 

All sandwiched into two ACTUAL Hillary commercials during the breaks

 

 

 

If I was Bernie I would sue for equal time.........................

Madame Secretary is some bad TV

 

Whatever your political leanings are, it's still not a very good show. A while back I saw it on a list of available Netflix series and it had like one and a half stars

[Chef Jim]

I personally think that's a lifetime bannable offense.

 

Good to know. I'll keep that in mind.

[B-Man]

7 - 1/3 years in and he still doesn't know how to be a good administrator

 

 

 

What he should have said:

"No comment."

What he said:

"She has not jeopardized America’s national security."

#ThumbOnTheScales

[Deranged Rhino]

Who wrote this joke and thought it wasn't going to blow up into a big deal?

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/11/watch_hillary_clinton_and_bill_de_blasio_make_a_cringeworthy_colored_people_time_joke_at_new_york_city_charity_event/

[/dev/null]

 

7 - 1/3 years in and he still doesn't know how to be a good administrator

 

 

 

What he should have said:

 

"No comment."

 

What he said:

 

"She has not jeopardized America’s national security."

 

 

#ThumbOnTheScales

 

 

I'm gonna have to ask my DoD friends about Obama's new classification levels of Classified, "Classified", Top Secret, and my personal favorite new classification "Really Top Secret"

[Chef Jim]

Who wrote this joke and thought it wasn't going to blow up into a big deal?

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/11/watch_hillary_clinton_and_bill_de_blasio_make_a_cringeworthy_colored_people_time_joke_at_new_york_city_charity_event/

 

CPT? I've never heard that before. So when's the backlash on this?

[meazza]

Who wrote this joke and thought it wasn't going to blow up into a big deal?

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/11/watch_hillary_clinton_and_bill_de_blasio_make_a_cringeworthy_colored_people_time_joke_at_new_york_city_charity_event/

 

That's what happens when baskin is writing your material.