The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

SSNeoman posted:

Same thing here, no it's not hypocritical to fleece money from dumbshit banks to talk about the corrupting power of money in politics. Unless you guys have proof that this money was used to fun anti-DNC activities, then all you're doing is the same leftist firing squad I've been mocking since this thread began. And I know you guys don't have this evidence because this was the same tract they used to discredit Hillary and her speeches, and it was equally without merit.

You are regurgitating right wing talking points ffs.

You are either incredibly naive, or incredibly complacent within the framework of corporate sponsored politics.

The point is that yes, that money, or any other money donated by wealthy sponsors, is not spent to fund anti-DNC activities, but that is because political parties, through the deep, deep professional and institutional linkages between politics and business, are corporate instruments. Instead that money is used to fund anti-public activities, aka the integration of private business and the public sphere.

BTW, just because it's a forums joke doesn't mean it isn't a really lovely argument.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Apr 26, 2017

# ? Apr 26, 2017 08:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 09:13

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

If somebody enters politics with the knowledge that they will eventually take a career step up to sit on boards of banks and hedge funds and raise funds for them etc., then yes, they are corrupted by money in politics. If parties are chaired by people with that mindset, who then pick like minded subordinates to smooth out their career, then yes, parties are corrupted by money in politics. If politicians take advice from retired colleagues who have transitioned to corporate jobs, and even use them as representatives of their party, then they are corrupted by money in politics. If politicians pick their official team members from among corporate executives with whom they worked before attaining an office, then they are corrupted by money in politics.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Apr 26, 2017

# ? Apr 26, 2017 08:59

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

SSNeoman posted:

"when he himself is made of carbon"

Taking money from Wall Street and protecting white collar criminals is just built into my chemical structure!

# ? Apr 26, 2017 09:05

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

The point is that yes, that money, or any other money donated by wealthy sponsors, is not spent to fund anti-DNC activities, but that is because political parties, through the deep, deep professional and institutional linkages between politics and business, are corporate instruments. Instead that money is used to fund anti-public activities, aka the integration of private business and the public sphere.

steinrokkan posted:

If somebody enters politics with the knowledge that they will eventually take a career step up to sit on boards of banks and hedge funds and raise funds for them etc., then yes, they are corrupted by money in politics. If parties are chaired by people with that mindset, who then pick like minded subordinates to smooth out their career, then yes, parties are corrupted by money in politics. If politicians take advice from retired colleagues who have transitioned to corporate jobs, and even use them as representatives of their party, then they are corrupted by money in politics. If politicians pick their official team members from among corporate executives with whom they worked before attaining an office, then they are corrupted by money in politics.

Okay so your problem is the very idea of speaking fees in general? Because this has always been the case, former Presidents are celebrities. Companies want them to give speeches, and they pay good money for that. They use movie stars for the same reasons.
Your argument, assuming you understand the above, is that this has a corrupting effect on politicians? Then I disagree for two reasons.

1) This is way too much trouble to get prestige/a cushy job. Obama could have flown low and stayed as a Senator and he would have been able to get speaking fees from companies anyway. He did it cause...poo poo I dunno why he did it. He had a vision for the country maybe?
and
2) This is way too little money to have a corrupting influence in politics, you get much higher deals from lobbyists and PACs.

Obama, with his experience, can get rich in any number of ways. People can pay him to be in advertising. People can invite him to talk in universities. He can write a book and prob sell millions, poo poo you'd prob be the first in line for it. This is how it's always been. You're barking up the wrong tree with this. You got proof that speaking fees cause this sort of political ruin?

Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Apr 26, 2017

# ? Apr 26, 2017 09:21

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

SSNeoman posted:

Take a break from this thread, Stein. You don't even get simple forum jokes anymore.

The point of the quip is that it's a trite and pointless criticism used to tear down a person or idea. As in "isn't it hypocritical to talk about reducing carbon when you yourself are made of carbon?" and the answer to that question is "no it's loving not, idiot"

Same thing here, no it's not hypocritical to fleece money from dumbshit banks to talk about the corrupting power of money in politics. Unless you guys have proof that this money was used to fun anti-DNC activities, then all you're doing is the same leftist firing squad I've been mocking since this thread began. And I know you guys don't have this evidence because this was the same tract they used to discredit Hillary and her speeches, and it was equally without merit. That's why Republican attacks using that rhetoric was just verbal finger-pointing. And you all ate that poo poo up.

You are regurgitating right wing talking points ffs.

it's payment for sevices rendered. namely keeping them out of jail during their many scandals in his administration. it's also payment for letting them run the country for 8 years. that's p anti-DNC to me, but you new democrats seem to think bribes are good and cool now so...

# ? Apr 26, 2017 09:23

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

Condiv posted:

it's payment for sevices rendered. namely keeping them out of jail during their many scandals in his administration. it's also payment for letting them run the country for 8 years. that's p anti-DNC to me, but you new democrats seem to think bribes are good and cool now so...

Prove it motherfucker otherwise this is all hearsay I could read on breitbart.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 09:24

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Your world view only makes sense if you think politicians are just celebrities, like singers or writers and have no additional responsibilities. But they are politicians, and they can't ever shake off their personal history, and the effect their actions will have throughout their lives on the actions of others. If they can't adjust their behavior to match their social role, they should seek other employment, perhaps in entertainment business. And that there is a neatly delineated sphere in the social space labeled "politics" outside of which no action has any political implications. And that people can step out of Politics for a moment, take some actions outside Politics (with no effect whatsoever on what happens in the Politics sphere), and then step back in as if nothing happened.
But that would be a really poor attempt at legitimizing the collusion between politicians and corporate entities, wouldn't it?

# ? Apr 26, 2017 09:30

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

So...yes? Your problem is with the concept f speaking fees?

# ? Apr 26, 2017 09:30

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

My problem is with politicians becoming involved with the people they should be regulating, and receiving monetary and social benefits from them, no matter what form they take.

Because ultimately everybody is formed by the environment they move in, and if they are incentivized, financially or through carousing with celebrities, to move in an environment made up of corporate agents beyond what their job requires, instead of among their constituents, they are going to be affected, like it or not.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Apr 26, 2017

# ? Apr 26, 2017 09:32

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

SSNeoman posted:

Prove it motherfucker otherwise this is all hearsay I could read on breitbart.

actually, breitbart readers like citizens united and apparently you do too since you want to echo its lovely ruling on bribery and corruption

# ? Apr 26, 2017 09:39

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

SSNeoman posted:

Prove it motherfucker otherwise this is all hearsay I could read on breitbart.

I too don't understand human nature beep boop what is love

# ? Apr 26, 2017 10:38

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

This reminds me of when Hill Folk were acting like it was ridiculous that people would think abuela getting paid to give private speeches to Goldman Sachs would influence her policy in any way

# ? Apr 26, 2017 10:39

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

SSNeoman posted:

Okay so your problem is the very idea of speaking fees in general? Because this has always been the case, former Presidents are celebrities. Companies want them to give speeches, and they pay good money for that. They use movie stars for the same reasons.
Your argument, assuming you understand the above, is that this has a corrupting effect on politicians? Then I disagree for two reasons.

1) This is way too much trouble to get prestige/a cushy job. Obama could have flown low and stayed as a Senator and he would have been able to get speaking fees from companies anyway. He did it cause...poo poo I dunno why he did it. He had a vision for the country maybe?
and
2) This is way too little money to have a corrupting influence in politics, you get much higher deals from lobbyists and PACs.

Obama, with his experience, can get rich in any number of ways. People can pay him to be in advertising. People can invite him to talk in universities. He can write a book and prob sell millions, poo poo you'd prob be the first in line for it. This is how it's always been. You're barking up the wrong tree with this. You got proof that speaking fees cause this sort of political ruin?

I'm sorry sir but you've got a terminal case of bad dem.

frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

This reminds me of when Hill Folk were acting like it was ridiculous that people would think abuela getting paid to give private speeches to Goldman Sachs would influence her policy in any way

It's honestly quite incredible that not even losing as bad as you can possibly lose has shaken these people out of their goddamn out of touch bubble.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 10:43

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

SSNeoman posted:

Okay so your problem is the very idea of speaking fees in general? Because this has always been the case, former Presidents are celebrities. Companies want them to give speeches, and they pay good money for that. They use movie stars for the same reasons.
Your argument, assuming you understand the above, is that this has a corrupting effect on politicians? Then I disagree for two reasons.

1) This is way too much trouble to get prestige/a cushy job. Obama could have flown low and stayed as a Senator and he would have been able to get speaking fees from companies anyway. He did it cause...poo poo I dunno why he did it. He had a vision for the country maybe?
and
2) This is way too little money to have a corrupting influence in politics, you get much higher deals from lobbyists and PACs.

Obama, with his experience, can get rich in any number of ways. People can pay him to be in advertising. People can invite him to talk in universities. He can write a book and prob sell millions, poo poo you'd prob be the first in line for it. This is how it's always been. You're barking up the wrong tree with this. You got proof that speaking fees cause this sort of political ruin?

SSNeoman posted:

Prove it motherfucker otherwise this is all hearsay I could read on breitbart.

Ok let's say that for a moment that, like you and Justice John Roberts do, I ~~am pretending to~~ believe that politicians aren't ordinary humans, they are perfectly compartmentalized supermen, that the access that money buys does not translate into influence, that close relationships between company board members and those who are supposed to regulate them don't affect the professional judgment of the regulators, that the promise of well-paid gigs, cushy sinecures, or influential lobbying positions after their political career doesn't affect the thinking or decisions of politicians, that what looks like a revolving door between corporations and government is all just a coincidence and it's a straight meritocracy and politicians just so happen to be the most qualified to lobby on behalf of companies for whom they wrote favorable legislation. Okay, let's just say that, and anything hint of impropriety or corruption is nothing more than a Breitbart/Green party lie. OK let's say that.

Just from a practical standpoint only: do we have to help the far right/left media? Do we have to appear to the public like the we're the corrupt politicians Breitbart/Greens say we are, and make their accusations look more plausible to ordinary voters? Would it not be smarter to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest in order to win the trust of the voters? Can you tell me what's the upside to taking a few mil here and there from Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan-Chase? Obama and Hillary are already millionaires from book deals: do they need a payday from Wall Street too? What is the upside, I cannot think of any. Zero. None, at all.

Just from an amoral pragmatic standpoint of winning elections: why do something that pisses people off and has no benefits, and why defend politicians in our party for doing it? Let's look at Hillary's negative press from the GS speeches and her absurd secrecy about them. She got what, a half a million, maybe a million? And she just barely blew a one thousand million dollar campaign. That has to be the most expensive million anyone has ever made in the history of the human race. Shouldn't we stop doing things that look bad, that have no benefits? Is there a trade-off I'm missing here?

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Apr 26, 2017

# ? Apr 26, 2017 11:44

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Cerebral Bore posted:

It's honestly quite incredible that not even losing as bad as you can possibly lose has shaken these people out of their goddamn out of touch bubble.

Thanks to the stupid popular vote, a lot of them haven't actually processed the fact that they lost yet.

VitalSigns posted:

Obama and Hillary are already millionaires from book deals: do they need a payday from Wall Street too? What is the upside, I cannot think of any. Zero. None, at all.

Yea, like WTF does Obama need an extra $400k for?

# ? Apr 26, 2017 11:50

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

SSNeoman posted:

You got proof that speaking fees cause this sort of political ruin?

2016 election

# ? Apr 26, 2017 12:12

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

Ok let's say that for a moment that, like you and Justice John Roberts do, I ~~am pretending to~~ believe that politicians aren't ordinary humans, they are perfectly compartmentalized supermen, that the access that money buys does not translate into influence, that close relationships between company board members and those who are supposed to regulate them don't affect the professional judgment of the regulators, that the promise of well-paid gigs, cushy sinecures, or influential lobbying positions after their political career doesn't affect the thinking or decisions of politicians, that what looks like a revolving door between corporations and government is all just a coincidence and it's a straight meritocracy and politicians just so happen to be the most qualified to lobby on behalf of companies for whom they wrote favorable legislation. Okay, let's just say that, and anything hint of impropriety or corruption is nothing more than a Breitbart/Green party lie. OK let's say that.

Just from a practical standpoint only: do we have to help the far right/left media? Do we have to appear to the public like the we're the corrupt politicians Breitbart/Greens say we are, and make their accusations look more plausible to ordinary voters? Would it not be smarter to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest in order to win the trust of the voters? Can you tell me what's the upside to taking a few mil here and there from Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan-Chase? Obama and Hillary are already millionaires from book deals: do they need a payday from Wall Street too? What is the upside, I cannot think of any. Zero. None, at all.

Just from an amoral pragmatic standpoint of winning elections: why do something that pisses people off and has no benefits, and why defend politicians in our party for doing it? Let's look at Hillary's negative press from the GS speeches and her absurd secrecy about them. She got what, a half a million, maybe a million? And she just barely blew a one thousand million dollar campaign. That has to be the most expensive million anyone has ever made in the history of the human race. Shouldn't we stop doing things that look bad, that have no benefits? Is there a trade-off I'm missing here?

Yeah like there's always the response of "ugh the leftists and their purity tests..." but the reality is that the Democrats are at a really bad point and need every vote they can get. They are effectively shut out of government and have large unfavorability in general, not just leftists, so the attitude that they don't have to worry about voters is really stupid. It's also not just the leftists, regular people really don't like Wall Street very much and see the idea of politicians cozying up to them is distasteful. The Republicans can get away with it better because they aren't the party that is supposed to be on the side of the workers. When Hillary is giving GS speeches (and being secretive) she loses any credibility she has that she's going to be an ally of the workers those people are screwing. When Obama gives a speech to them less than a hundred days after leaving office in which during his tenure he actively protected them it looks kinda odd (I don't think Obama let them off for the promise of a future 400 grand but the optics are potentially bad). Obama doesn't have to worry about getting elected again, but as a "standard bearer" for the party that is still influencing the DNC what he does still matters and influences the perception of the party. A $400,000 gig isn't something Obama has to do either. He already has enough money for the rest of his life. I could maybe understand if he really needed the money but the whole idea that he should get every buck he can starts to sound similar to the rich people running up the score that Democrats normally talk bad about.

Honestly this probably won't really matter since Obama himself is still very popular, especially when his replacement is so obviously awful but it's something that the Democrats really need to think about when they don't have the luxury of sitting back and letting voters decide that both parties are not worth voting for.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Apr 26, 2017

# ? Apr 26, 2017 12:13

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

VitalSigns posted:

Ok let's say that for a moment that, like you and Justice John Roberts do, I ~~am pretending to~~ believe that politicians aren't ordinary humans, they are perfectly compartmentalized supermen, that the access that money buys does not translate into influence, that close relationships between company board members and those who are supposed to regulate them don't affect the professional judgment of the regulators, that the promise of well-paid gigs, cushy sinecures, or influential lobbying positions after their political career doesn't affect the thinking or decisions of politicians, that what looks like a revolving door between corporations and government is all just a coincidence and it's a straight meritocracy and politicians just so happen to be the most qualified to lobby on behalf of companies for whom they wrote favorable legislation. Okay, let's just say that, and anything hint of impropriety or corruption is nothing more than a Breitbart/Green party lie. OK let's say that.

Just from a practical standpoint only: do we have to help the far right/left media? Do we have to appear to the public like the we're the corrupt politicians Breitbart/Greens say we are, and make their accusations look more plausible to ordinary voters? Would it not be smarter to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest in order to win the trust of the voters? Can you tell me what's the upside to taking a few mil here and there from Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan-Chase? Obama and Hillary are already millionaires from book deals: do they need a payday from Wall Street too? What is the upside, I cannot think of any. Zero. None, at all.

Just from an amoral pragmatic standpoint of winning elections: why do something that pisses people off and has no benefits, and why defend politicians in our party for doing it? Let's look at Hillary's negative press from the GS speeches and her absurd secrecy about them. She got what, a half a million, maybe a million? And she just barely blew a one thousand million dollar campaign. That has to be the most expensive million anyone has ever made in the history of the human race. Shouldn't we stop doing things that look bad, that have no benefits? Is there a trade-off I'm missing here?

loving this. It's really goddamn weird how the idea that you ought to avoid even the appearance of impropriety is a foreign concept to bad dems.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 12:14

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

I still don't know why ridiculous speaking fees aren't considered a form of corruption, gently caress we would be roasting politicians in other countries if they did the same thing. In the US really try to believe in the fig leaves we place over a system that would be laughable otherwise.

To be honest, I fully expected Obama to start racking up the fees, but as cynical as I am I thought he would wait a bit longer or be a bit more discreet.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 12:17

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Ardennes posted:

I still don't know why ridiculous speaking fees aren't considered a form of corruption, gently caress we would be roasting politicians in other countries if they did the same thing. In the US really try to believe in the fig leaves we place over a system that would be laughable otherwise.

To be honest, I fully expected Obama to start racking up the fees, but as cynical as I am I thought he would wait a bit longer or be a bit more discreet.

No he's scamming ceos with those fees. See, CEOs thought that if they promised to reward him after he exits office, Obama would let them off the hook for exploding the economy with their scams and grift. Little did they know Obama would've done it for free! Suckers!!

# ? Apr 26, 2017 12:27

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

A situation where politicians were actually bribed with explicit promises of payments would be preferable to the current system where they simply perceive politics as a self-interested career, working with (read: for) corporations as part of their job description, and transitioning between government and corporations as a logical part of personal growth, and by doing so set the norm for future generations of supposed public servants.

They don't need to be bribed by the system if they are fully embedded in the system rather than standing above it.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Apr 26, 2017

# ? Apr 26, 2017 12:53

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Ardennes posted:

I still don't know why ridiculous speaking fees aren't considered a form of corruption, gently caress we would be roasting politicians in other countries if they did the same thing. In the US really try to believe in the fig leaves we place over a system that would be laughable otherwise.

To be honest, I fully expected Obama to start racking up the fees, but as cynical as I am I thought he would wait a bit longer or be a bit more discreet.

He's not a politician anymore.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:05

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Nevvy Z posted:

He's not a politician anymore.

Oh, so all that work he's planning on doing with redistricting, that's not politics?

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:06

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Nevvy Z posted:

He's not a politician anymore.

If he is weighing in on the DNC chair elections, then he is still active in politics.

You know what, if he wants to announce his complete retirement from political life and never ever endorse candidates again then he can roll around in all that ill-gotten foreclosure money the banks can throw at him and I won't say boo. But if he's still a public face of the Democratic Party then what he does matters.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:09

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Nevvy Z posted:

He's not a politician anymore.

When Obama ended his tenure, he hit a hard reset button and all his history got erased from record. his achievements since then are 100% the result of his work in that short period of time. It's remarkable that in America a complete nobody can in such a short time become a celebrity cruising around the world with stars and giving lectures for wildly disproportionate amounts of money.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:10

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

The second most baffling thing about all this, just behind not getting why taking all that wall street cash looks bad, is the newfound insistence from the usual suspects that Obama suddenly became completely severed from all politics on January 20th.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:11

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Sorry, clearly since he took this money we should never vote him into elected office again.

Is the truth somewhere in the middle? Like maybe he just took money because they offered it?

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:11

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

It's OK if we just dangle these incentives in front of your face until you leave the office, right? We wouldn't want anything inappropriate to happen.

You are a loving joke.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:12

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

This is bizarre even for sheer contrarianism.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:14

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

I think all you silly leftists are forgetting that money is all that matters

How could you possibly pass up the opportunity to pad your bank account?

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:13

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

VitalSigns posted:

If he is weighing in on the DNC chair elections, then he is still active in politics.

You know what, if he wants to announce his complete retirement from political life and never ever endorse candidates again then he can roll around in all that ill-gotten foreclosure money the banks can throw at him and I won't say boo. But if he's still a public face of the Democratic Party then what he does matters.

i would, since he let them off easy for obvious crimes

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:15

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

If it is OK for him to take money now, when was the last day it was not OK? Jan 20? Jan 19? Jan 18? Day after the 2012 election? How long do you need to wait to cash in on your built up social network and personal capital (which you built while in office) to avoid suspicion? If you can suddenly do it the day after leaving office, why can't you do it in office, I guess just because it would be bad for the dignity of the state?

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Apr 26, 2017

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:15

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

When Obama ended his tenure, he hit a hard reset button and all his history got erased from record. his achievements since then are 100% the result of his work in that short period of time. It's remarkable that in America a complete nobody can in such a short time become a celebrity cruising around the world with stars and giving lectures for wildly disproportionate amounts of money.

When he ended his tenure? poo poo, why wait til you're out of office. The second you knock off for the night and take off that American flag pin, you become an entirely different person who can accept dump trucks full of money and promises of lucrative future careers without any effect on what politician-you will do in office the next morning.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:17

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

Nevvy Z posted:

Sorry, clearly since he took this money we should never vote him into elected office again.

Is the truth somewhere in the middle? Like maybe he just took money because they offered it?

Or for sure, Wall Street is well known for wasting money for no return on investment

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:17

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Nevvy Z posted:

Sorry, clearly since he took this money we should never vote him into elected office again.

Is the truth somewhere in the middle? Like maybe he just took money because they offered it?

Let's just walk this all the way to the logical conclusion then: should we even have campaign contribution limits at all? Or is money and prestige irrelevant and politicians just take what is offered without anyone involved expecting to get any advantages thereby.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:21

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Nevvy Z posted:

Sorry, clearly since he took this money we should never vote him into elected office again.

Is the truth somewhere in the middle? Like maybe he just took money because they offered it?

why do all the bad dems side with the conservative half of the supreme court on this? why do you all buy into the republican line that it's not corrupt if you can't prove quid-pro-quo?

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:21

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

Condiv posted:

why do all the bad dems side with the conservative half of the supreme court on this? why do you all buy into the republican line that it's not corrupt if you can't prove quid-pro-quo?

pssst it's because they are economically conservative

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:22

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

I have devised a new and foolproof measure of corruption -

Unless a politician is looking at a comically oversized mechanical counting machine labeled "BRIBE $$$$" with wildly spinning digits RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND, he is not influenced by money in politics.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:24

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

VitalSigns posted:

Let's just walk this all the way to the logical conclusion then: should we even have campaign contribution limits at all? Or is money and prestige irrelevant and politicians just take what is offered without anyone involved expecting to get any advantages thereby.

Agreed, clearly pure logic will solve this conundrum

steinrokkan posted:

If it is OK for him to take money now, when was the last day it was not OK? Jan 20? Jan 19? Jan 18? Day after the 2012 election? How long do you need to wait to cash in on your built up social network and personal capital (which you built while in office) to avoid suspicion? If you can suddenly do it the day after leaving office, why can't you do it in office, I guess just because it would be bad for the dignity of the state?

You are right. Ex president's should be killed on leaving office to prevent their future corruption.

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 09:13

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Lol last year centrism was the logical, pragmatic choice, allegedly.

Yeah I agree if you jettison logic, and you ignore pragmatic concerns like appearing to the voters like you have a conflict of interest, then the religion of neoliberalism looks pretty great! It makes no logical sense, and is electorally a failure, and empirically worthless, and contrary to what we know psychologically about incentives and human behavior, but it has something to recommend it like

# ? Apr 26, 2017 13:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›483 »