Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Or the boatloads of money that every other Democratic politician has been getting. That is how things work, you know. No money = no win elections, unless the media gives you all the free advertising, like Trump.
And Clinton lacks the personality and willingness to take Refuge in Vulgarity Trump has
![]()
You honestly seem to be reversing cause and effect — people donate to political candidates that do things they like, they don't donate in order to earn "leverage" over a candidate. A political donation is saying "I like what you're doing, so I want you to get elected", not "I paid your way into office, now you have to do what I say".
What's important to look at is what they say in order to attract donors, not looking at who donates to them and trying to extrapolate their positions from that.
edited 25th Jul '16 12:21:12 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
![]()
The political philosophy Trump is pushing would likely be very damaging to the economy and the main GOP platform is not much better. Very few sane businesses would want to donate to him.
Let's be fair; that's not always true. Oil and coal companies on global warming. Telecoms on net neutrality. Media companies on IP law. All of these have shown excessive willingness to spend money toward the end of getting politicians to argue in their favor.
edited 25th Jul '16 12:30:03 PM by Elle
![]()
Hm. If that's true, then maybe Hillary could be a better deal than I initially thought. And besides, Trump is little more than a Spanner in the Works to me. Either way, this is going to be a tough call (well, for me anyways).
edited 25th Jul '16 12:31:55 PM by nervmeister
Keep in mind, Elizabeth Warren, darling of the Left, is pretty wealthy now.
One thing to keep in mind is which corporate backers she deals with. We know she's given speeches for Goldman Sachs. So? They want the world economy to be stable. In recent months, they've been pointing out holes with the current economy that can and are causing problems. I don't think they'd really even mind a readjustment of the economy to lessen the income stratification. They seem perfectly willing to adapt to any changes that aren't catastrophically huge. Like it or not, the banks are necessary. Maybe not at the scale they currently sit at, but you kind of want the banks to be, at least somewhat, on the side of the government, or at the very least, not be antagonistic.
edited 25th Jul '16 12:34:28 PM by Zendervai
In other corruption news, US Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) is accused of 24 counts of fraud, allegedly diverting $800,000 from One Door for Education for personal use
. And given that she (again, allegedly) had two family members involved in the scam along with her chief of staff and the charity's president, this could get real ugly.
And the issue with Goldman-Sachs (and, indeed, any massive banking institution) is that they were the ones that helped engineer the 2007-8 meltdown that cost billions of dollars for millions of people, yet were never punished for their antics. The concern is that Hillary may feel beholden to them and further weaken the existing regulations, or at least prevent new ones from being made.
edited 25th Jul '16 12:40:54 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"There's some level of edge cases where a potential donor might meet with a candidate and say "we're considering donating to your campaign, but first we need to know that your stance on issue X is position Y", at which point they're basically buying a vote. But the idea that a candidate will say one thing publically and then do something else when it comes time put their money where their mouth is is just wrong. Voters hate when politicians go back on campaign promises, and though money certainly helps one win an election, pissing off voters by lying to them is a sure-fire way to lose, no matter how much money they have to throw at their re-election campaign.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Then Clinton (and her supporters) should be more honest about the issue (no "there's no proof that they affect me" anymore) and make campaign finance reform one of the spearpoints of her campaign.
To be fair, the Fossil Fuel Industry, Wall Street, Big Pharma, and Private Prisons would probably want four years of a Democrat than having Trump come in and basically end America's status as the sole superpower in one fell swoop. Those groups can easily affect world politics by merely influencing America with their current position as top dog, whereas they would have more problems also dealing with the EU, Russia, and China in addition to America in a multipolar world with no superpowers.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:03:16 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly
Unless the GOP steps up their game and joins the 21st century, I doubt it. Demographic shifts are going to be make things extremely difficult for the GOP starting in about 2024, to the point where they're pretty much finished as a party if they don't pull their act together by then, meaning the democrats just have to hold the critical offices until then before they can do whatever the hell they want.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:09:24 PM by CaptainCapsase

I'm imagining the Jewish Baking Conglomerate trying to control the world with some sort of matzah bread or something.
Oh really when?