Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[laklak]

I don't blame anyone for not getting involved in the 'Nam clusterfuck. Hell, I was a fucking theology major for two years at Emory just to get the draft deferment. Those little yellow dudes never did shit to me, I saw no reason to go kill them. Besides, we were getting plenty of Thai stick at home.

[Svartalf]

Laklak as a theology student, that's rich... but given the times, I wonder how many people with real vocations studied at Candler...

[piscator]

But you forgot those monies are not to be considered in the same light as other candidate's campaign fund raising. They are bribes, pure and simple, just like all Hillary's so-called "Campaign fund raising" (whoring).
Moreover, Hillary's $$ comes from such a wide diversity of moneyed interests that it won't be long before their bribes conflict, then where will Hillary be? #rudderless&sad

Also, Hillary is a Neocon Warhawk, a very precise definition of which must exist, somewhere.


It's just a shame we couldn't get a qualified candidate who isn't a bribe-taking Neocon Warhawk!

Large donations buy influence. Small donations - $100 or $25 -- from Joe Shmo doesn't buy anything. .

Thanks for sharing your vast expertise.
However, SCOTUS does not agree with you. They prefer to call political donations, "Free Speech" and, "Protected under the 1st Amendment" when carried out within the law.
Who's word should carry the day here? Hmmm...


I think that just because a large donation would most assuredly "Buy" Donald Trump (and a Trump steak and a Trump suit and a degree from Trump University...), that's not necessarily a knock against a self-professed money-grubbin' buttfucker like Trump. No one really expects much from him in the field of ethics.

But I think we can all expect Hillary to charge top dollar for very narrowly-defined influence, because she knows the market so much better, and she's not going to leave bribe $$ on the table like some dickhead amateur loser douchebag who thinks he knows the ropes.

[Svartalf]

Regardless of its legal standing, even as affirmmed by the Nazgûl, large donations still involve a degree of i_nfluence peddling .

[piscator]

Regardless of its legal standing, even as affirmmed by the Nazgûl, large donations still involve a degree of i_nfluence peddling .

Support your claim.
You pay me a million dollars to do a survey, you just get the survey. You don't get to tell me how to vote.
Put together a show and want to pay me $1million to speak? OK, that's what you're buying, and that's all you're buying. Still want to buy it? Good! That's the American Way. You're still not getting to tell me how to vote...

Same here: I give Hillary money because I think she's the best candidate for POTUS. I don't expect to influence Hillary with my donation, I already like most of her positions and want to see them implemented.


If you want to charge Hillary with Influence Peddling, come up with something better than aspersion by circumstantial ad hominem, Bro.

[Svartalf]

I pay the politico a milion dollar, he better treat my hot button issue as I wish or he won't be seeing it again wheen PAC time comes or if you prefer, if my pet politico doesn't behave, there won't be another speech engagement from me, and I'll be discouraging my friends from giving him any either.

[JimC]

So, Svarty, you have a pet politico? What do you feed it? Is it house-trained?

[piscator]

I pay the politico a milion dollar, he better treat my hot button issue as I wish or he won't be seeing it again wheen PAC time comes or if you prefer, if my pet politico doesn't behave, there won't be another speech engagement from me, and I'll be discouraging my friends from giving him any either.

So you made a political contribution in bad faith under US law at best, an attempted bribe any other day. Consider the $1M as a voluntary tax on the ethically-challenged and STFU, or run around telling everyone you know that Hillary can't be bribed and you in fact ended up making a political contribution with no quid pro quo. Suit yourself, by all means.

Now, if you had produced a for-profit entertainment event and contracted Hillary to speak for that $1M and filled up the house at $35k/seat, then you have some grounds to expect a quid pro quo from Hillary. Namely, her speech at the time/place agreed upon.


I don't see you as keen on the distinction, even though it's quite clear. Moreover, you fail to see it from the standing place of a man who would probably do just about anything for a million bucks. Not everyone is like you, some already have lots of money and so a million bucks is more like someone offering you $500 to risk humiliation, the destruction of everything you've striven for in your professional life, and jail for them.

[pErvinalia]

Regardless of its legal standing, even as affirmmed by the Nazgûl, large donations still involve a degree of i_nfluence peddling .

[pErvinalia]

Regardless of its legal standing, even as affirmmed by the Nazgûl, large donations still involve a degree of i_nfluence peddling .

Support your claim.
You pay me a million dollars to do a survey, you just get the survey. You don't get to tell me how to vote.
Put together a show and want to pay me $1million to speak? OK, that's what you're buying, and that's all you're buying. Still want to buy it? Good! That's the American Way. You're still not getting to tell me how to vote...

Same here: I give Hillary money because I think she's the best candidate for POTUS. I don't expect to influence Hillary with my donation, I already like most of her positions and want to see them implemented.


If you want to charge Hillary with Influence Peddling, come up with something better than aspersion by circumstantial ad hominem, Bro.

Wow, that's naivety of spectacular proportions!

[Seth]

Regardless of its legal standing, even as affirmmed by the Nazgûl, large donations still involve a degree of i_nfluence peddling .

So what? Everybody is a "special interest group" and every single person who donates time or money to any candidate anywhere does so with the hope and expectation that the candidate will serve their interests if elected. Nothing at all wrong with that.

It's also prudent to remember that a multi-million dollar donation from a corporation is merely a million multi-dollar contributions from the stockholders of the corporation who have banded together to pool their money in order to elect candidates who will pay attention to their interests. Not a damned thing wrong with that.

The NRA spends millions on political campaigns because the 5 million plus members of the NRA have told the executives to do so precisely because they want their voices heard by politicians and they want their interests served.

So do you. So does everyone else. That some greenie leftist dipshits acting like a herd of cats can't get together long enough to form a corporation of their own to do the same thing is merely stupidity on their part.

And, I love the hypocrisy of bitching about the power of the NRA while ignoring the obvious fact that every left-wing political organization, from George Soros to the Sierra Club, are doing exactly the same thing the NRA is doing.

Bitching about "big business" funding campaigns is just fucking sour grapes and disinformation because believe me, the leftists are pouring money into Hillary's campaign too.

[pErvinalia]

Regardless of its legal standing, even as affirmmed by the Nazgûl, large donations still involve a degree of i_nfluence peddling .

So what? Everybody is a "special interest group" and every single person who donates time or money to any candidate anywhere does so with the hope and expectation that the candidate will serve their interests if elected. Nothing at all wrong with that.

The problem is of course that corporations and the rich can buy more influence than a regular citizen. I know that you don't find that a problem, as you support fascism. But those of us who are supporters of liberal democracy, where it's supposed to be one person one vote, not one dollar one vote, we see this as an obvious corruption of the democratic process.

[JimC]

Big money buys big political power, to help the big money people make even more money...

[Seth]

Regardless of its legal standing, even as affirmmed by the Nazgûl, large donations still involve a degree of i_nfluence peddling .

So what? Everybody is a "special interest group" and every single person who donates time or money to any candidate anywhere does so with the hope and expectation that the candidate will serve their interests if elected. Nothing at all wrong with that.

The problem is of course that corporations and the rich can buy more influence than a regular citizen.

So what? Corporations are largely made up of "regular citizens" who have invested in stock and "the rich" have every right to spend their money however they choose, including in order to get sympathetic politicians elected. You don't like it, buy stock or get rich. The fact that some people are wealth and have more and some people are poor and do not is not an argument against being wealthy to anyone but a hard-core Marxist. Is that what you are?

I know that you don't find that a problem, as you support fascism.

You lie. Anyway, wealth =/= fascism.

But those of us who are supporters of liberal democracy, where it's supposed to be one person one vote, not one dollar one vote, we see this as an obvious corruption of the democratic process.

And this is where your lunacy falls apart completely. It is one person, one vote. Corporations have no vote at all and the rich have one vote per person just like everyone else. Your claim to the contrary is just pure, unadulterated Marxist bilge.

[pErvinalia]

And pigs fly too, Seth!

Pisci, see who you find yourself aligned with? If ever there's a good reason to wake up and smell the cheese, this is it.