Dreamweaver
Well-known member
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 2,466
Was typing an answer but what NauticalGent said if for me it even happens here in UK just not so openly
Where do you stand politically? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 6,330
Pat's recent contributions about our political system are simply outstanding. Both parties have sold us down the river yet ha e managed to get us to blame each other for voting for the "wrong" party. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn pathetic.
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,116
Ok, right. Basically, it's you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Like tax breaks and stuff.
Bit sad though if they give millions to a candidate and he or she doesn't make president, I suppose they lose their money.
Seems a bit high risk to me.
Col
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 6,330
Actually, it isn't the president that they are hoping to receive the scratch from; it is the members of CONgress that belong to the same party the president is a member of.
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,116
Ok I see. So how do the donors know they'll get their money back in "benefits "? Is there a contract or some written agreement to safeguard their money?
Col
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 6,330
Not sure since I've never been rich! I assume there is always risk, albeit mitigated as much as possible...
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,116
Hmmmm. It does seem rather strange, but as so many in the USA do it, I suppose it must pay off in some way.
Although, if a candidate does get to the senate with the help of donor money, there's no guarantee they can get a bill through to benefit the donor. It just seems odd to me.
What do I know? Nothing. What do I care? Nothing really. I'm quite happy with my garden especially as Spring is near. All my daffodils and tulips are up and ready to give a lovely colourful burst of welcoming Spring.
Col
Although, if a candidate does get to the senate with the help of donor money, there's no guarantee they can get a bill through to benefit the donor. It just seems odd to me.
What do I know? Nothing. What do I care? Nothing really. I'm quite happy with my garden especially as Spring is near. All my daffodils and tulips are up and ready to give a lovely colourful burst of welcoming Spring.
Col
NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 6,330
I have to say I'm a bit jealous. I am still trying to get back to Virginia where my own micro-farm is being tended by my father in law. Someday soon I hope...
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,116
Good luck with that. I don't have a micro farm or small holding as its called in the UK. I just have a reasonable garden with lovely plants, a nice pond with fishes and a nice water feature I've just built. Potatoes are ready for planting in a couple of weeks, then I can buy some bedding plants to give lovely colour in the summer. I potted on my cabbage plants today to bigger pots, but still in the greenhouse because of possible frost.
My wife is now in a care home, she has MS. So I live alone, and am quite happy if I don't see anyone, people cause problems, being a recluse is more fun. I go to town on the bus for free. In the summer I shall have French people to stay so I earn extra pennies to improve my garden.
Better shut up now.
Col
- Local time
- Today, 17:55
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,172
Col, I might have a different take on this that will help you understand.
Politics is a big gamble in that the politicians each hope to gain their office and through that office, gain a lot of personal influence. But they need the money to get their name out there. So you ask the perfectly legit question, "What's in it for the donor?"
The answer is "predictability." One of the slickest politicians ever to come out of Louisiana was Edwin W Edwards, who once offered the definition of an "honest politician." He said, "An honest politician is one who stays bought." I wish to emphasize that while he said it, I do not believe it was original with him. I have found at least nine different usages of that quote with different attributions.
The wealthy donor picks a candidate because s/he believes that the candidate has taken a stance that is favorable to his/her business. Therefore as a gamble, a speculative venture if you prefer, the donor offers money to help the candidate get elected. The candidates "roll the dice" with the voters. Some candidates win. Others lose. The 'honest politician" knows that s/he was elected based on having said certain things during the campaign and those things attracted the donors. So an honest politician holds up his/her end of the bargain and sponsors legislation consistent with that set of campaign promises. I.e. "stays bought."
Now let's do a case in point. Mr. Trump was a believer in the idea that the liberals put too many constraints on business. So one of his platform planks (promises, if you prefer) was to reduce the number of regulatory constraints on business. You can BET that every business person who ever ran into any of the big government regulations would support Mr. Trump. See how that works? And true to his word, Mr. Trump removed a LOT of those constraints, with the concomitant improvement in the USA economy. That increase occurred because the profit margin could be more easily predicted since businesses do not expect Mr. Trump to enact too many regulatory constraints.
Let's do another case in point. It was a poorly concealed fact that Hillary Clinton was being supported by what we call "Big Pharma" - the pharmaceutical industry. I must have read five or six internet articles on the subject. Her promised Medicare expansions would have paved the way for increased payouts for expensive medications AND she would not have done what Mr. Trump did, to work on allowing import of drugs from foreign markets as a type of competition. Hillary would have made it darn near a USA monopoly for USA prescriptions. So Big Pharma stood to gain a huge increase in business and a restricted trade market for pharmaceuticals.
You also asked what happens if the donors guess wrong. Well, at the moment, the Clintons are completely out of power, low profile, off the grid. They have been shunned by a lot of their own party members. She cost the Democratic Party a LOT of political capital as well as monetary-type capital. She was an expensive flop. The Clinton Foundation, a facade for political contributions to be funneled through the Clintons for them to increase their influence, is now out of business because of the incredibly bad repercussions of her flop. In essence she became a bad gamble.
Politics is a big gamble in that the politicians each hope to gain their office and through that office, gain a lot of personal influence. But they need the money to get their name out there. So you ask the perfectly legit question, "What's in it for the donor?"
The answer is "predictability." One of the slickest politicians ever to come out of Louisiana was Edwin W Edwards, who once offered the definition of an "honest politician." He said, "An honest politician is one who stays bought." I wish to emphasize that while he said it, I do not believe it was original with him. I have found at least nine different usages of that quote with different attributions.
The wealthy donor picks a candidate because s/he believes that the candidate has taken a stance that is favorable to his/her business. Therefore as a gamble, a speculative venture if you prefer, the donor offers money to help the candidate get elected. The candidates "roll the dice" with the voters. Some candidates win. Others lose. The 'honest politician" knows that s/he was elected based on having said certain things during the campaign and those things attracted the donors. So an honest politician holds up his/her end of the bargain and sponsors legislation consistent with that set of campaign promises. I.e. "stays bought."
Now let's do a case in point. Mr. Trump was a believer in the idea that the liberals put too many constraints on business. So one of his platform planks (promises, if you prefer) was to reduce the number of regulatory constraints on business. You can BET that every business person who ever ran into any of the big government regulations would support Mr. Trump. See how that works? And true to his word, Mr. Trump removed a LOT of those constraints, with the concomitant improvement in the USA economy. That increase occurred because the profit margin could be more easily predicted since businesses do not expect Mr. Trump to enact too many regulatory constraints.
Let's do another case in point. It was a poorly concealed fact that Hillary Clinton was being supported by what we call "Big Pharma" - the pharmaceutical industry. I must have read five or six internet articles on the subject. Her promised Medicare expansions would have paved the way for increased payouts for expensive medications AND she would not have done what Mr. Trump did, to work on allowing import of drugs from foreign markets as a type of competition. Hillary would have made it darn near a USA monopoly for USA prescriptions. So Big Pharma stood to gain a huge increase in business and a restricted trade market for pharmaceuticals.
You also asked what happens if the donors guess wrong. Well, at the moment, the Clintons are completely out of power, low profile, off the grid. They have been shunned by a lot of their own party members. She cost the Democratic Party a LOT of political capital as well as monetary-type capital. She was an expensive flop. The Clinton Foundation, a facade for political contributions to be funneled through the Clintons for them to increase their influence, is now out of business because of the incredibly bad repercussions of her flop. In essence she became a bad gamble.
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,116
Thanks Doc, I think I understand. Basically it's "you pays your money and takes your choice". Your reference to the orange one with white eyes indicated he attracted lots of funding - let's suppose that the candidate who had the highest vote of the populace (Hillary) had become president. Would all the Trump investors lose all their investment money?
Quick question. To run for president, do you need to already be a senator? In the UK to run for Prime Minister, you already have to be a member of parliament.
Col
Quick question. To run for president, do you need to already be a senator? In the UK to run for Prime Minister, you already have to be a member of parliament.
Col
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 43,257
To run for president, you have to be 35 years of age, a natural born US citizen (not an immigrant) and have lived in the US for the past 14 years. The term is 4 years. The constitution was amended after FDR to limit presidential terms to 2. FDR died during his fourth term. Some of us think ALL of Congress AND the Supreme Court and the top levels of the bureaucracy should also have term limits.
At the moment, we have the best Congress money can buy. Corruption is rampant (Biden and his son and brothers is just one example). The Democrats seem to be more blatant in their misuse of power but the Republicans are certainly not clean and there are several books detailing some of their scams to turn their positions into money for themselves and their families. Congress gets away with stuff by writing laws that exclude themselves. Like Obamacare for example. It was "great" for the American people but Congress exempted themselves, their staffs, and some of their union buddies so how good could it really have been? My daughter, a single mother with TWO in college has a deductable of $8,000 on top of her premiums which are around $6,000!! Who can afford that? I keep offering to pay so they'll go to the doctor. 60 minutes did a segment a few years ago about the fact that the insider trading law exempted members of Congress and their staffs. So, if you sit on the right committees and you know what legislation is in the works, you can buy/sell stock to take advantage of what you know is coming. You can also steer contracts to your family which is what Nancy Pelosi does for her husband's company. As a result of the uproar over 60 minutes, the exemption was removed with fanfare. However, a few months later, the exemption was reintroduced and no one seems to have noticed. Our press is in the tank for what ever makes the Dems happy and so they never reported on it.
With the new liberal view that laws should be applied to people you don't like but not to people you like, we are rapidly becoming a banana republic. The latest travesty is Roger Stone. He got caught up in the Muller persecution (I can't call it an investigation since it was so biased) and lied (or misremembered a conversation) to the FBI and that is what he was prosecuted for. He's just been sentenced to 7-9 years in prison!!!!! The average sentence for ra** is 4.5 years!!!! His sentence is a direct reflection on the fact that he was part of the Trump team. As the trial was going on, one of the jurors was posting on twitter of her hatred for Trump. Former FBI agents who are on tape lying to Congress are still walking free. The media is going ballistic because Trump said the sentence was excessive.
At the moment, we have the best Congress money can buy. Corruption is rampant (Biden and his son and brothers is just one example). The Democrats seem to be more blatant in their misuse of power but the Republicans are certainly not clean and there are several books detailing some of their scams to turn their positions into money for themselves and their families. Congress gets away with stuff by writing laws that exclude themselves. Like Obamacare for example. It was "great" for the American people but Congress exempted themselves, their staffs, and some of their union buddies so how good could it really have been? My daughter, a single mother with TWO in college has a deductable of $8,000 on top of her premiums which are around $6,000!! Who can afford that? I keep offering to pay so they'll go to the doctor. 60 minutes did a segment a few years ago about the fact that the insider trading law exempted members of Congress and their staffs. So, if you sit on the right committees and you know what legislation is in the works, you can buy/sell stock to take advantage of what you know is coming. You can also steer contracts to your family which is what Nancy Pelosi does for her husband's company. As a result of the uproar over 60 minutes, the exemption was removed with fanfare. However, a few months later, the exemption was reintroduced and no one seems to have noticed. Our press is in the tank for what ever makes the Dems happy and so they never reported on it.
With the new liberal view that laws should be applied to people you don't like but not to people you like, we are rapidly becoming a banana republic. The latest travesty is Roger Stone. He got caught up in the Muller persecution (I can't call it an investigation since it was so biased) and lied (or misremembered a conversation) to the FBI and that is what he was prosecuted for. He's just been sentenced to 7-9 years in prison!!!!! The average sentence for ra** is 4.5 years!!!! His sentence is a direct reflection on the fact that he was part of the Trump team. As the trial was going on, one of the jurors was posting on twitter of her hatred for Trump. Former FBI agents who are on tape lying to Congress are still walking free. The media is going ballistic because Trump said the sentence was excessive.
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 43,257
Trump did attract a lot of funding last time but it was mostly small donors rather than big money. He'll probably get big money this time (hopefully, he won't take it) since they know his plan and his intention to execute it. Trump spent less on his entire campaign than some of the Democrats have spent so far just to get into the primaries.
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,684
As a corollary. With many issues, such as the Kavanugh nomination hearings; Democrats act en masse, ignore facts, overlook ethical concerns, disdain due process, and act as mindless automatons for the benefit of the Democratic party. Unfortunately, much of the media purposely declines to call the Democrats out on these short-comings.
Contrast this to how Republicans act. Republicans become befuddled over ethical concerns. While it is good to evaluate the issues before you, it also means at times, a fractured Republican mantra. So when the likes of a Romney support's a Democratic position based on his/her "conscience", some of the media go berserk to use that as an excuse to assert that the Democratic position is "correct" and Republicans are "evil". So it would be nice if Republicans, even if they have some reservations, would be more unified. Politics is a "dirty" business. Republicans role over to easily. The Democrats are absolutely unified and will have no qualms squashing those in opposition.
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 7,388
I thought what happened to Kavanugh was appauling. This might give an idea as to some motives: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-ra**-/
Someone admitting they made it up to derail the hearings.
This is what the main accusers lawyer said: https://www.nationalreview.com/news...next-to-kavanaughs-name-when-he-rules-on-roe/
It suggests that she had political motivation regarding Roe v. Wade.
Someone admitting they made it up to derail the hearings.
This is what the main accusers lawyer said: https://www.nationalreview.com/news...next-to-kavanaughs-name-when-he-rules-on-roe/
It suggests that she had political motivation regarding Roe v. Wade.
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,684
Its a bit more deplorable. At the Kavenaugh nomination hearings, if I remember correctly, the Democrats claimed to want judges who would make rulings based on the Constitution and would not have a predisposition to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Biden, who is running for President as a Democrat, has disclosed that he would "pack" the Supreme Court with judges who would "enforce" Roe vs Wade. "Biden endorses abortion litmus test for Supreme Court nominees".
This is very disturbing, as the Democrats (on the assumption that Biden speaks for the Democrats) will nominate judges based on Democratic party political objectives and not the Constitution.
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 15:55
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,940
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 7,388
I know a lot about USA politics. More than you might imagine!
I also know that while Christine couldn't remember how she got home, she did remember she only had the one drink, despite it being 38 years ago. Imagine that!
I also know that while Christine couldn't remember how she got home, she did remember she only had the one drink, despite it being 38 years ago. Imagine that!
- Local time
- Today, 17:55
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,172
Yep, don't you just love non-credible witnesses and plaintiffs?
Col, short answer: To run for president, you do not have to actually BE a senator but you must be qualified to run for a Senate seat. Same qualifications for both, more or less. Which is why so many presidential candidates WERE senators.
Col, short answer: To run for president, you do not have to actually BE a senator but you must be qualified to run for a Senate seat. Same qualifications for both, more or less. Which is why so many presidential candidates WERE senators.
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 43,257
Christine Blassey Ford ended up with a million dollars for her efforts from a go fund me page.
I think most Americans are willing to let Roe v Wade stand. The idea being abortions should be legal but rare with constraints during the latter half because the alternative of them being illegal is worse. The Democrats are pushing state laws that allow allow late term abortion including during delivery and they succeeded in New York and got a round of applause on the floor. The governor of Virginia, who was an OBGYN (I think) even said on radio that the mother could decide in the delivery room whether or not to let the baby live. They would just make him comfortable. That is beyond the pale for most people and that will bring back resistance to Row v Wade with a vengeance as part of the attempt to overthrow the state laws.
I think most Americans are willing to let Roe v Wade stand. The idea being abortions should be legal but rare with constraints during the latter half because the alternative of them being illegal is worse. The Democrats are pushing state laws that allow allow late term abortion including during delivery and they succeeded in New York and got a round of applause on the floor. The governor of Virginia, who was an OBGYN (I think) even said on radio that the mother could decide in the delivery room whether or not to let the baby live. They would just make him comfortable. That is beyond the pale for most people and that will bring back resistance to Row v Wade with a vengeance as part of the attempt to overthrow the state laws.
Similar threads
