SRDDS

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
I've always been for justice and Democrats.

But I would still take any Democrat over Trump.
Hell, I'd take any republican over Trump too.

Trump's really really horrible.
Click to expand...
I think it's time for the People to choose their own candidates; letting Corporate America do it for us hasn't worked out very well.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nikolai gorokhov was a witness in a cyprus money laundering case being prosecuted by the now-fired preet bharara. the same cyprus bank that trump cabinet member wilbur ross founded as a handy place to launder russian mobster money.

nothing suspicious though.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
nikolai gorokhov was a witness in a cyprus money laundering case being prosecuted by the now-fired preet bharara. the same cyprus bank that trump cabinet member wilbur ross founded as a handy place to launder russian mobster money.

nothing suspicious though.
Click to expand...
That missing 19% of ROSNEFT turned up in a BBC story tonight.

Nothing to see here, though.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I've only been waiting 37 years. How much longer do you suggest I 'just be patient'?!
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think we need to take the corporate money to win the election to remove corporate money from elections.

It sounds kinda shitty but the Republicans won't play fair so I don't see an alternative.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Honestly, I think we need to take the corporate money to win the election to remove corporate money from elections.

It sounds kinda shitty but the Republicans won't play fair so I don't see an alternative.
Click to expand...
That was the excuse that got this country INTO this mess.

Mr Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination without corporate money- and it's my opinion that taking corporate cash would not have helped him win.

If there was an easy solution someone would have proposed it already.

This is a very scary trap we Americans have put ourselves into. Corporate America frankly hopes we never find out way out- after all, THEY'RE making money hand over fist! And they'll shovel cash at whomever will help maintain the status quo.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
That was the excuse that got this country INTO this mess.

Mr Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination without corporate money- and it's my opinion that taking corporate cash would not have helped him win.

If there was an easy solution someone would have proposed it already.

This is a very scary trap we Americans have put ourselves into. Corporate America frankly hopes we never find out way out- after all, THEY'RE making money hand over fist! And they'll shovel cash at whomever will help maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...
This is where we have issues, losing the primary by 12% is not "nearly winning".

And in the general whoever spends the money for air time wins...

I don't understand your absolutism, a lack of flexability is generally the first step to any losing plan.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
This is where we have issues, losing the primary by 12% is not "nearly winning".

And in the general whoever spends the money for air time wins...

I don't understand your absolutism, a lack of flexability is generally the first step to any losing plan.
Click to expand...
To flip that logic, consider that taking corporate money is political corruption and destroys one's credibility.

The fact that the most money wins most of the time is PRECISELY why it's so pernicious, and shifts political or into the hands of those who dispense the cash.

... And the current political landscape is the logical result. You're suggesting we do more of the same, yet expect a different result. Isn't that the definition of insanity?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
To flip that logic, consider that taking corporate money is political corruption and destroys one's credibility.

The fact that the most money wins most of the time is PRECISELY why it's so pernicious, and shifts political or into the hands of those who dispense the cash.

... And the current political landscape is the logical result. You're suggesting we do more of the same, yet expect a different result. Isn't that the definition of insanity?
Click to expand...
Could you not approach the electorate on the basis that you'll run this cycle within the current system but once elected it can be completely changed for the better?

I just have this feeling that it'd be like meeting the Republicans in a duel with a drinking straw.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Could you not approach the electorate on the basis that you'll run this cycle within the current system but once elected it can be completely changed for the better?

I just have this feeling that it'd be like meeting the Republicans in a duel with a drinking straw.
Click to expand...
The optics are all screwed up; 'I'll join the corrupt team JUST THIS ONCE'

Where's the credibility we're looking for? How about the accountability?

Mr Sanders lost the Democratic nomination. He won the conversation however, and has opened the door for an untarnished independent candidate to walk through.

This is the DNC's worst nightmare, because they have the most to lose.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The optics are all screwed up; 'I'll join the corrupt team JUST THIS ONCE'

Where's the credibility we're looking for? How about the accountability?

Mr Sanders lost the Democratic nomination. He won the conversation however, and has opened the door for an untarnished independent candidate to walk through.

This is the DNC's worst nightmare, because they have the most to lose.
Click to expand...
It's not about joining the corrupt team once; it's saying I'll work within the system that unfortunately is in place at the minute but reform it when elected.

It's like killing the Nazis to save Europe, killing is wrong but it needed to be done for the greater good.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
It's not about joining the corrupt team once; it's saying I'll work within the system that unfortunately is in place at the minute but reform it when elected.

It's like killing the Nazis to save Europe, killing is wrong but it needed to be done for the greater good.
Click to expand...
There was nothing wrong or corrupt about killing Nazis to save Europe. This is a bad analogy.

Look, I get your line of reasoning. The flaw I'm pointing out in it is that a core source of Mr Sanders' credibility lay in the fact that he refused to take corporate campaign contributions, and that anyone hoping to follow in his footsteps will need to do the same or lose the support of those who think taking such contributions is wrong. People like me.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
There was nothing wrong or corrupt about killing Nazis to save Europe. This is a bad analogy.

Look, I get your line of reasoning. What I'm pointing out is that a core source of Mr Sanders' credibility lay in the fact that he refused to take corporate campaign contributions, and that anyone hoping to follow in his footsteps will need to do the same or lose the support of those who think taking such contributions is wrong.
Click to expand...
Lets try somewhere in the middle, what about small Private Donations and PAC's?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Lets try somewhere in the middle, what about small Private Donations and PAC's?
Click to expand...
Shit, SuperPACs are the worst part of the problem! They're currently allowed to shovel cash into any campaign they want without disclosing the source of their funds. The idea that someone can take such funding and still have any credibility is risible.

Why are you convinced that is impossible to get elected without having more money than the other guy?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Shit, SuperPACs are the worst part of the problem! They're currently allowed to shovel cash into any campaign they want without disclosing the source of their funds. The idea that someone can take such funding and still have any credibility is risible.

Why are you convinced that is impossible to get elected without having more money than the other guy?
Click to expand...
It's not even about having more, it's just about having enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top