Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[caze]

a) Ok then tell me Chen, what is the ostensible reason for prison lobbyists giving money to a politician?

 

b) federal laws aren't permanent

 

yeah, I'm sure opening them up again will be her #1 priority. you really have no idea how politics works I'm sensing.

Edited September 2, 2016 by caze

[LimpyLoo]

Why do groups donate money to political candidates?

 

Answer that, and we can go from there

Edited September 2, 2016 by LimpyLoo

[LimpyLoo]

 

a) Ok then tell me Chen, what is the ostensible reason for prison lobbyists giving money to a politician?

 

b) federal laws aren't permanent

yeah, I'm sure opening them up again will be her #1 priority. you really have no idea how politics works I'm sensing.

1) I never said it was

 

2) you really have no idea how human beings work I'm sensing...people and groups act upon the world to improve their situation...I don't know specifically what goes through the mind of a prison lobbyist, but I know it's not "Hillary seems like a nice lady...let's give her $100,000"....whatever the REAL reason is, it's not charity, and perhaps it's not an implicit quid pro quo, but they certainly seem to think giving her $100,000 will improve their situation by at least that amount

[caze]

Why do groups donate money to political candidates?

 

Answer that, and we can go from there

 

why do companies spend money on advertising? it's pretty well established that it has little to do with attracting new customers. it's mostly a complete waste of their resources, but they have to do it because everyone else is doing it, if it works for them it might keep some kind of brand loyalty amongst their customers, when it doesn't someone switches to a similar product sold by someone else. 

 

political contributions are very similar, they're usually pretty evenly spread out, amongst the entire political class (bar a couple of different industries here and there where one party tends to monopolise - e.g. the tobacco industry, which almost entirely lobbies with republicans - and a few black democrats only, african americans love tobacco lobbyists for some reason).

 

most of the money goes into election campaigning, it's only necessary because if it goes to one candidate it has to go to the other candidate to counteract it, which is what happens for the most part. they donate in the first place not in order to get quid-pro-quo policies in their favour (in the less corrupt countries of course, america being one of them, you can no doubt find the odd example to the contrary, but they're the exception), but in order to have their voices heard in the huge mess of competing demands on public money (which includes the public). you could almost view it as an extra tax.

 

this is why someone like Clinton can have no problem with taking campaign donations and still campaign to overturn citizens united and replace it with federal campaign funding of some sort - as long as nobody else is doing it and she doesn't have to compete with them there's no problem. fundamentally she's a weathervane politician, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just depends on what direction the wind is blowing, and what the political realities of the day are - and given the current climate she really has little choice but to pursue certain policies (her publicly stated policies - which are pretty far to the left of Obama's for example, and they don't include opening up private prisons and reneging on campaign reform). none of that means she will be successful of course, she's not running for emperor, and both US houses are pretty fucked at the moment, though if Trump brings the rest of the republicans with him in a whitewash loss she might be able to get a lot more done.

 

all most politicians really care about at the end of the day is getting re-elected, this might be because they want to leave some political legacy behind, or just because they like being in power, doesn't really matter too much at the end of the day why. the game is played the same way in most cases.

[chenGOD]

Get back to me when Hilary has repealed the laws. Then you can hop on the "see chen you're just naive" bandwagon.

Last year she gave some of the private prison donations to a woman's prison charity - not all of it.

 

Look of course lobbyists give money to politicians - that's the name of the game. Does it mean politicians are going to always act on their behalf? No.

And really - do they think it will improve their position by $100,000? That's such a negligible amount in terms of the total industry, it's not even worth the time. It's probably just a way of saying "hey, we're still here", or possibly "don't put us in one of our own prisons for breaking the law."

 

And for the record, I think private, for-profit prisons are abhorrent, even more than regular prisons.

[LimpyLoo]

I don't think you're naive Chen

(You know I don't)

 

I'm just saying that we all seem so numb to the sorts of everyday, legal corruption that when someone points it out, nobody see a problem and we all just say "that's just how the game is played, innit"

 

Hillary hires someone who tampered with the democratic process and we're all "hate the Game, not the playa" like since it's so commonplace it's not ACTUALLY a bad thing

[LimpyLoo]

And I seem to be the only person is this thread concerned about potential conflicts of interest

In the practice of law, 'conflicts of interest' are actually taken seriously

 

In this jaded post-Citizens United political atmosphere, if I worry about such potential conflicts of interest, I get told that I don't know how politics works..."that's just how the game works, brah"

[chenGOD]

Ummm what happened with the DNC was not "tampering with the democratic process". Was it unethical? Probably yes, but not illegal, and not vote rigging, or suppressing people's ability to vote.

 

i still don't understand how people are actually surprised that the Democratic Party supported a lifelong Democrat over someone who just joined in order to caucus with them.

[LimpyLoo]

Are you sure you're familiar with all the details?

 

Because planting stooges to ask Sanders about his Atheist Jew-ness in order to undermine him does not seem like a very impartial way to run the system lol

Edited September 2, 2016 by LimpyLoo

[LimpyLoo]

For anyone looking for a refresher on how this totally wasn't "tampering with the democratic process":

 

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

[LimpyLoo]

Your argument seems akin to "of course the Russian Olympic judges were always ruling in favor of Russia...they're Russian!"

[chenGOD]

Again, unethical, probably yes. Tampering with the voting process no.

 

Again, why are you surprised that the DNC would work to get the lifelong democrat elected? They're not supposed to be impartial, read their charter about who they should support.

 

I mean, Bernie has even gone back to being an independent. And he doesn't even seem to care as much as some of his supporters.

[LimpyLoo]

The charter? Dude they violated the charter in many ways

 

And I'm not surprised about such corruption....I just seem to be the only one bothered by it

[chenGOD]

But it's quite clear that it's not corruption.

[marf]

us bernie supporters knew all along they were out to demolish him. following cnn or any major news network on facebook constantly put it in your face

 

basically, "dont go with the loser folks, he's not winning, go with hillary" eaaarily on

Edited September 2, 2016 by marf

[LimpyLoo]

Here's today's FBI/Clinton email mega thread from Reddit:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/50utmo/fbi_releases_documents_in_hillary_clinton_email/

 

 

But it's quite clear that it's not corruption.

Aside from people conspiring to break rules/laws and launder money in order to subvert the democratic process, of course Edited September 2, 2016 by LimpyLoo

[LimpyLoo]

Btw Chen, how do you feel about Hillary lying to the FBI? Does that also not qualify as corruption?

[chenGOD]

 

But it's quite clear that it's not corruption.

Aside from people conspiring to break rules/laws and launder money in order to subvert the democratic process, of course

 

 

Working together does not equal a conspiracy. You'll have to prove that laws were broken. So far, no one has.

And again, no democratic process was subverted. You do know that Bernie lost the popular vote right? It didn't hinge on hanging chads or deceased voters, it was by a wide margin.

 

This mewling over the past serves no one, least of all Bernie Sanders.

Is Hilary perfect? Of course not. Undoubtedly she has many flaws - we all do as humans. Hers might count for more, what with potentially holding the highest office in the land. But if you were a Bernie supporter, you should vote for Hilary - here's why.

 

http://qz.com/742209/dear-fellow-bernie-fans-our-candidate-lost-in-2016-heres-how-we-can-win-in-2020/

[Nebraska]

https://youtu.be/hWNqix6_fyY

[LimpyLoo]

I am voting for Hillary, Chen

Did you think I was gonna vote for Trump?

 

Also, if we lived in an actual democracy (not confounded by superdelegates etc) then Sanders would've won:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster

[ignatius]

https://youtu.be/hWNqix6_fyY

 

 

this is some weird looking shit here.. 

 

[doublename]

^They've got really creepy Body Snatchers '78 vibe about them.

 

 

Taco trucks on every corner is a great pitch, btw. 

Edited September 3, 2016 by doublename

[ignatius]

^They've got really creepy Body Snatchers '78 vibe about them.

 

 

Taco trucks on every corner is a great pitch, btw. 

 

the tweet i nabbed the pic from said "this is either the poster for "Mr Robot Season 3" or "American Psycho the Musical".  seems about right. 

[azatoth]

Limpy ought to hate the game and not the player.

[auxien]

 

 

Very honest, we're simply talking about the implications of Wall Street donations

(Because you asked specifically about that)

 

Hillary and her minions subverted the fucking democratic process...HOW MUCH MORE CORRUPTION DO YOU NEED??? The primaries were literally fucking rigged...and then after that...she hired Schultz

 

Is there anything more corrupt than taking that choice out of the people's hands? That is some Russia shit right there...if that doesn't bother you then....

Subverted the democratic process? The party primaries can only be vaguely considered a democratic process. They were not 'literally fucking rigged'...at least not as far as we know. There were some isolated incidents of which there seems to be evidence that some small groups acted in that way, but the evidence of any of it is vaguely suggestive at best, and even then is ridiculously sparse. More information may come to light later, but for now there's no fire.

 

I'm with you that Clinton has undoubtedly done shit she shouldn't have, hiring Wasserman-Schultz after she quit her position among many other things; however I'm simply arguing that she's done nothing that we can prove, and so your argument is pretty fucking moot. The Clintons' track record of shady-ass shit is decades long, no one can deny that. But anything actually fully outright illegal, besides the 'illegal' technicalities of the email silliness which they declined to prosecute over obviously and maybe some of their 80s-90s stuff, has either been fully covered up or was so expertly done that it can never come back to her/them. You, me, and plenty of others would love to see proof of anything her or husband have done outright wrong, but we all know millions of dollars and thousands of hours have been poured towards that goal by Republicans, Repub. elites, and who knows who else, with nothing sticking yet. The case isn't going to be proved by you Limpy or anyone else on WATMM. lol.

 

edit: I'm tired brain don't work

I'm not speculating that the Clintons have some dark dark skeletons in the closet...like dead bodies...I'm not one of 'those people'

 

I'm saying what we know is bad enough

 

The hiring Schultz thing is very interesting to me...this person resigns in shame...and then is promptly hired by Clinton...now what we know is that for Clinton, hiring a corrupt and disgraced person was seen as better than the alternative (not hiring her)

 

Either Clinton is autistic, or Clinton wants to remain in Schultz's favor and keep her close by...it could very well the former, and she decided Schultz wasn't a liability on the payroll...or perhaps she's a liability if NOT on the payroll

 

Either way, Schultz is the smoke of some fire or other

 

It was sure sounding like you were one of those people, but I trust you if you say you're not.

 

I'm saying what we know is bad, but it doesn't much matter. Those types of actions are rampant among the politically active, among the rich, and among the elites. The Clintons are all those things, so that they're party to any of it isn't any more surprising than finding out a Wall Street investor heard a tip from a friend of a friend of a friend and sold some shares to make money. Illegal? Maybe. Wrong? Sort of. Expected? Of course. Nothing will change in either case.

 

Your reasons for her hiring Wasserman-Schultz are definitely in the 'but they've got bodies hidden!' camp there pal. Looking for conspiracies. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what you're suggesting isn't possible, I just don't think it's likely. I imagine that Clinton hired WS more because WS needed a job after she resigned, contacted someone she knew in the upper level Democratic Party, and they suggested putting her talents to viable use in campaigning for the current Democratic nominee for President. Clinton herself should've nixed that before it happened since it would be an obvious issue, but she often makes dumb decisions, and it was a quick sputter in the news cycle that was largely ignored after 24 hours.

 

I disagree that WS is smoke of any fire. I think there was definitely a push by the 'true' Democratic Party to have a good candidate, but Clinton had been angling things in her direction for SO many years that it was nearly inevitable that she'd get the nomination if she went for it. Democratic Party falls in line with this, and so we get a mediocre candidate on the blue side who few actually like but everyone just deals with. She'll be out after her first term.