Both republicans and democrats have been sucking the corporate cock more and more... this should not be at all surprising. Once we get corporate money out of political races, this shit will straighten itself out.

I've believed this for a long time. If we could find a way to get money out of politics, a lot of problems would fix themselves. The trouble is, I don't think we can get money out of politics without violating the first amendment unless the Supreme Court declares that money isn't speech.

Money is speech but it isn't just speech. You can't use speech to buy food or pay your rent or build houses. Speech doesn't change the shape of the world the way money does. That's what the ACLU didn't get when they chose not to fight Citizens United.

Which do you think Hillary would have preferred? $10 million in campaign contributions from Time Warner (CNN) or wall to wall praise and reporting on distorted polls?

A moot point either way as neither helped. She by far outspent Trump.

Why the fuck is Hillary even in this discussion?

Good question. If she would have won her connection to banks might have been a problem, but at least her banks were American not Russian.

She's got a of time on her hands now.

Because she harped the same line of "getting money out of politics" at some point in the campaign (primarily because she had to co-op Bernie's message) and yet was THE problem, not just part of it.

Hillary is not president. The election was last november. Remember? But I realize cons need a boogey man. The article is about a broken economy, and the thread was about money in politics, yet you, like I see cons in other forums, constantly need to compare everything to hillary, as though it were relevant. But if you like, lets go ahead and make this a partisan discussion, shall we? Levels of corruption :

Over the last 53 years Republicans have had the Presidency for 28 years, the Democrats for 25 years.

The facts are that in their 25yrs in office, Democrats had a total of three executive branch officials indicted with one conviction and one prison sentence.That's ONE executive branch official convicted of a crime in two and a half DECADES of Democrat leadership.

In the 28yrs that Republicans have held office over the last 53yrs they have had a total of:
120 criminal indictments of executive branch officials.
89 criminal convictions and
34 prison sentences handed down.
That's more prison sentences than years in office since 1968 for Republicans!

If you want to count articles of impeachment as indictments (they aren't really but we can count them as an action), both sides get one more. However, Clinton wasn't found guilty while Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford. so those only serve to make Republicans look even worse.Republicans have clearly shown themselves to be many times more corrupt than Democrats.

Obama - 8yrs in office. zero criminal indictments, zero convictions and zero prison sentences. so the next time somebody describes the Obama administration as "scandal free" they aren't speaking wishfully, they're simply telling the truth.

Bush, George W. - 8yrs in office. 16 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 9 prison sentences.

Clinton - 8yrs in office. 2 criminal indictments. one conviction. one prison sentence. that's right nearly 8yrs of investigations. Almost $100 million spent and 30yrs of claiming them the most corrupt ever and there was exactly one person convicted of a crime.

Bush, George H. W. - 4yrs in office. one indictment. one conviction. one prison sentence.

Reagan - 8yrs in office. 26 criminal indictments. 16 convictions. 8 prison sentences.

Carter - 4yrs in office. one indictment. zero convictions and zero prison sentences.

Ford - 2 1/2 yrs in office. one indictment and one conviction. one prison sentence.

Nixon - 6yrs in office. 76 criminal indictments. 55 convictions. 15 prison sentences.

Johnson - 5yrs in office. zero indictments. zero convictions. zero prison sentences.

Honestly, I keep saying in this thread "let's save this for another discussion" but we all keep going on tangents. I've love to make some posts to get things going but being a "conservative" on here no one will let my karma above +5.

I don't think we're going to convince one another in any way which party is more corrupt. I appreciate your research; it's extensive and it is sound. I also agree that Obama was probably one of the most upstanding Presidents morally (perhaps in history) and he got through 8 years squeaky clean and scandaless. His politics on the other hand...

But again, comparing criminal indictments is a tangent from the topic of campaign funding which is a tangent from wealth inequality... :P

Feel free to start a thread so that we may have these discussions.

Working on being able to...

Bernie or BUST!

Pay their fair share!

Black lives matter!

That's not real socialism!

Ok... hopefully I'll get a +1 from someone for one of those.

Thanks! Be patient with me til something comes up relevant...

Happy to start some discussion posts. Just give me the topics you'd like to discuss. :)

Topics come up daily but post election most of the big high level stuff has gone to the back burner. I think with a "conservative" President and Congress there is going to be little push for "progress" on anything.

And I like that.

But really anything you think is worth talking about goes.

Though I clearly disagree with your politics, I must say that was well handled and gentlemanly of you sir. Hats off to you for civility and rationality.
The internet, politics, and the world needs more of that.

Thank you. Feel free to upmod as well so that I can get my karma up to post threads.

Because Hill-hate is just a reflex now. They don't even have to think about it.

Trump is in office because Hilary's platform is part of the problem. (So is Trump's but he didn't boast about it on the campaign trail.)

Hillary's platform was the most liberal platform ever put forth by either party... in my life time and.. THAT... was why she didn't get elected?

Hillary didn't talk about it much. Her television ads were the least substantive of any presidental candidate since 2000:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads

Oh ya If she would of come out on stage and... Screamed $15 or fight... as many times as Trump screamed... lock her up... she would be president. No seriously she did not run on her platform..well maybe because it wasn't hers it was Bernie's.

All I can seriously remember was I am not Trump and I am a woman...The platform was brilliant the campaine sucked.

The real issue isn't who spent how much on a presidential campaign to be honest. Presidential campaigns are their own beasts and additionally its fairly limited what a president can actually accomplish. No, what I'm commenting on is the vasts amount of money spent by each party on selective local campaigns. Those local campaigns are where the real governing and modern corporate corruption happen and it goes all the way up the chain. When either the locally big-party backed candidate goes for office, almost any non-backed candidate stands little to no chance. His or her coffers are pennies on the dollar at best. You essentially get the whole Bernie/Hillary thing at a smaller scale.

I would agree with your there; about local politics being a lot more influenced by money...

Except for what I had to live through recently where nationally funded Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff ran a record shattering funded campaign only to lose.

I'm pretty clearly one on side of the aisle politically... but from my vantage I see it as completely objective to point out that there is one party that is the greatest offender of "money in politics" at this very moment and it's not doing them a bit of good because their message stinks.

would she have far outspent Trump if he didn't run everything he touches as if it is a reality show? Trump was brilliant at getting free campaign ads etc on the news be it daily, nightly or 24 hour cycle. His formula was say fucked up shit that is just unbelievable, that any candidate could say, and then have the news media devolve into circle jerks praising or condemning what he said. Many of his rallies etc were also held at trump properties so even when he spent money he made it back.

He is definitely his own shitlord; you can't say anyone paid him to do it.

That's a great way to make money. Get people to donate money to your campaign, then spend that money at properties you own. Trump isn't rich for nothing.

You hit the nail on the head...money is not speech, unless you give me the same amount of money...one person one vote. and it will take 20 years before we can change the makeup of SCOTUS now that people didn't vote for the Democrat because she had a private email server.

You were told Hillary was an unacceptable candidate. You tried to force her through anyway. That's why you're about to get in a nuclear war with the Pillsbury Pho Boy.

"we can change the makeup of SCOTUS"

That was a lot of people's reasons for voting against Hillary... because the Left is pretty open about "change" when it comes to getting around that pesky Constitution.

Again, another topic for later...

Preventing more conservatives from getting put on the Supreme Court was also a lot of peoples' reason for voting FOR Hillary.

Well that was my reason of voting for her. I am no big fan but I knew what would happen to the courts of Trump won. I kept saying that 2016 was all about the courts but I don't think anybody took my warning seriously.

Ya it was why he got support from the "Christian Right" because they knew the balance of the court hung in the balance...and would remain for a generation. And they could put up with a lot of pussy grabbing for a real chance to reverse Roe. And nobody is trying to get around the constitution.

The justices just like you and me see things differently and the constitution is just vague enough they can put their own spin on it.

I'd rather talk about this in a dedicated thread but...

No, abortion is going to be legal until the end of the Republic. Period. That's a massive scare tactic of the Left. Where the fringes will be tested is at the state levels with the trimester or tax funds going towards it. That might reach the Supreme court but rest assured if a woman wants to kill her baby she'll be able to do it without legal repercussions.

Now, for my pet peeve reason... guns. Obama's choice was the very catalyst for District of Columbia v. Heller that affirmed personal rights to possession of firearms. "Doing something about guns" was the last thing on his agenda he did not get to do during his tenure and he made sure his SCOTUS appointment was addressed to that specific issue.

What's clearly going to be more important in the next several years is the First Amendment. It will come from anarcho-leftist rallies getting out of hand, the death throes of the old media (and what the meaning of Press becomes), or corporate censorship of political speech online.... one or all of those. You should hope that people "wanting to change" things are not on the court when those come to pass.

"No, abortion is going to be legal until the end of the Republic."

The question if SCOTUS will overturn Roe is a coin flip right now (Kennedy once again) the question of it being legal is also 50/50 depending on where you live and how much money you have...to some women it is already not a viable choice...due to what I believe are illegal blocking laws...that a different topic as well.

"guns"

Fist of all the 2nd amendment does not give a blanket right for US citizens to own weapons. It is about forming " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" We have one of them we call them the National guard.

That said the amendment has been interpenetrated as an right to own weapons so long that it is a right to own weapons. It is not an unfettered right it has limits.

So this is me the guy who preaches about the common good and that is how I want gun law written. If something is a threat to the common good get rid of it, if not leave it alone.

That said blocking the keep of statics make we give every benefit of the doubt to the control advocates. If the NRS and such Keep blocking the CDC and such from keeping records that means they are lying.

First Amendment. Does not cover anything you can buy. The Amendment is not for sale. I means I have to put up with that God awful Baptist Church and Shawn Hanity spew his hate and lies.

But your comments about the Media make me nervous...I hope you are not on this road like many I see are...

Scarborough: Republicans who would favor postponing election should hide faces in 'shame'

Leave the Press alone that road goes to a bad and lonely place.

I just don't see that happened re: Roe.

Yes it does and that is what v. Heller decided. All that focus on that phrase with complete ignorance towards "shall not be infringed."

The common good is deeply ingrained within the 2nd. It's why we put it in there (US Revolution). It's what history since has taught us its value.

A single crazy with a scary black rifle has limited ability to wreck havoc. States, again and again, have virtually unlimited capacity to murder. A state monopoly on deadly force makes it decidedly not free.

THAT has it's own thread. Wow talk about tangents we go on.

We've had the gun rights argument many times and it has never gotten us anywhere.

We have had that discussion.

Really shouldn't come as a surprise to the voters, either, when the majority party's *only* economic policy for years has been tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everybody else.

Remember, when Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency in the early 90's income inequality was already a hot button issue. This isn't something new. There's no one in the federal government suddenly being blindsided by this in the past decade or something. They've known.

This isn't new and is entirely predictable. In any creative domain there will be unequal production and distribution of products and wealth will differ by orders of magnitude.

The top 0.7% of wealth holders control more than 89.47% of the wealth. Is this something Bernie would say... or is it the distribution of Bitcoin within its young, isolated, and completely unfettered economy? Fact of human greed, force of economic nature; either way not something you can do much about. Nor is it attributable to a moral standing.

The better question is; how has society fared overall? We could use poverty statistics but the standards change year to year. A better metrics would be how has the percentage of people living in air conditioning risen during the same time.

Approaching economic theory from the perspective of an agenda takes you farther from the truth.

Not growth, circulation. Growth is unsustainable, but keeping the wealth circulating through society is what improves quality of life.

Growth is sustainable. We still have babies and receive far more energy from the sun than we can currently use.

Creating incentives for people to create and innovate is what keeps society moving forward.

Government capturing wealth and redistributing it out equally creates zero incentive for people to do that.

So do copyrights and contracts re: inventions at companies and universities.

I missed the correlation here...

There's a lot you miss.

Incentive for innovation. I think copyright does much more harm to innovation than government dolling out money. It's a bit off tangent.

It's not the dolling out money... government doesn't generate money (except through inflation). its the seizure from productive sources that harms innovation.

That's a separate discussion; incentive to own one's efforts versus patent trolling/obstruction.

The government's value is not generating money. It is able to create efficiencies and stability through taxes and infrastructure.

Traditionally big business fails to innovate. That's why startups are being created and bought out by massive companies- but you don't have to look far to see companies like Facebook ruining innovative companies.

Hell HP was just sitting on iPhone technology until Steve jobs was able to convince them to get his greasy little hands on it.

I'm not saying all business is bad, or that big business is bad (it has advantages) but I don't think government is particularly horrible (except when certain actors are trying to make it horrible)

We already have more people than we need to sustain those people. That's part of what leads to low-paid busy work like fast food restaurants. It just doesn't take many humans to produce all the food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment etc we need for a thriving society. The catch is that is only true if the wealth is more evenly spread around. There is plenty of wealth right now to give every human alive an excellent standard of living, and still have plenty concentrated in an elite class of competitive innovators.

More growth only serves to produce more, unnecessary wealth to be further concentrated with those who don't need it. We are already stressing the planet more than any single species in history. Perhaps there's room for some more growth at some point in the future after we get our shit together, but there certainly isn't any with the way we currently do things.

That's really your opinion when it comes to how many people we "need." We were predicted by Thomas Malthus before the industrial revolution to be approaching a species wall of growth but technology catapulted us forward.

We of course disagree about the spreading around. I would argue against you that it is not necessary to achieve the goal you lay out; that of an excellent standard of living. Obesity is a pretty undeniable sign that we've eradicated famine as the greatest enemy of humans throughout history. We live well beyond the 35 year life expectancy of our ancestors. And there are plenty of fringe benefits available to the lowest of poor that kings of old never had. It's all relative.

Pretty sure the planet will survive us.

The only way growth beyond 2% is sustainable is if we open up the boarders for a lot more immigration. And to your second point the reason we have the growth we have is due to fracking. You are putting a lot of faith into solar power.

And that is one of the most important things government does in a capitalist society is redistribute wealth...that how you control it otherwise it eats your poor.