What's new
By:
Filters

Spin this you resident liberal pukes

bigun said:
Not a Liberal, just a realest
That is the way politics work "I'll donate/ work to get you elected for favors wen you get elected!"
Click to expand...

Very true. :frown: I wish it didn't work that way, but it does. If you (not aimed at you bigun) support denying "big pharma" from donating to a campaign you have to also support gun manufacturers/groups from donating. Selective banning will not fly.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Very true. :frown: I wish it didn't work that way, but it does. If you (not aimed at you bigun)
Click to expand...

Thank you system has been in place since the begining, should be a 10 year ban on congress critters becoming lobbyist
Social groups also donate expecting a return by favorable legislation

2003 Josh Brolin had a 15 episode TV show titiled "MR. Sterling" I told mom at the time it ran one season because it revealed to much about how washington works

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348966...nm_flmg_act_46

seek and ye shall find on you tube

[video]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348966/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_46[/video]
 
Last edited:
SanDiegoCJ said:
Very true. :frown: I wish it didn't work that way, but it does. If you (not aimed at you bigun) support denying "big pharma" from donating to a campaign you have to also support gun manufacturers/groups from donating. Selective banning will not fly.
Click to expand...

I say ban them all.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
IMO it's the only way I see to reign in this system we have of "big money" buying politicians, is to pass an amendment, but I don't see congress okaying it as it'd stop their gravy train.
Click to expand...

Ehh I think theres a another way. The pols definately wont like it but it would be more effective.
 
Stuck said:
Ehh I think theres a another way. The pols definately wont like it but it would be more effective.
Click to expand...

What, disregard COTUS or a constitutional convention ? If you're talking a convention state politicians need to vote for that.
 
I honestly have no issue with this.

I have no problem with a company or corporation donating money to support those people that will enact policies that provide a friendly business climate.

The rub runs in when we have a media that doesn't act in its supposed role of watchdog of these relationships. The people should know when anyone elected is taking money and that results is policy that can be a result. The current media as a whole obviously isn't that except for one side.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
What, disregard COTUS or a constitutional convention ? If you're talking a convention state politicians need to vote for that.
Click to expand...

As long as you aware that a constitutional convention can open up changes to all your rights , most likely starting with our 2nd and 1st. and so on.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump on that bandwagon.:usa:
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAE
dntsdad said:
I honestly have no issue with this.

I have no problem with a company or corporation donating money to support those people that will enact policies that provide a friendly business climate.

The rub runs in when we have a media that doesn't act in its supposed role of watchdog of these relationships. The people should know when anyone elected is taking money and that results is policy that can be a result. The current media as a whole obviously isn't that except for one side.
Click to expand...
There’s a pretty big difference between a “friendly business climate” and a straight up quid pro quo for cash..
 
Saloon65 said:
There’s a pretty big difference between a “friendly business climate” and a straight up quid pro quo for cash..
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with that either.

Where the line is.......I dont know that either.

This does look bad though. Really? A day 1 thing?
 
FJC11 said:
As long as you aware that a constitutional convention can open up changes to all your rights , most likely starting with our 2nd and 1st. and so on.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump on that bandwagon.:usa:
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of that. Reread my post. I NEVER said it was a good idea, nor did I advocate it. I was asking "stuck" what "way" he was talking about in his post.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
I'm well aware of that. Reread my post. I NEVER said it was a good idea, nor did I advocate it. I was asking "stuck" what "way" he was talking about in his post.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that since you where at the original signing , I was simply pointing out to everyone else that once you open that process it may go completely south , well pretty much a given.
 
FJC11 said:
I'm aware of that since you where at the original signing , I was simply pointing out to everyone else that once you open that process it may go completely south , well pretty much a given.
Click to expand...

I agree. When the "committee" got together to modify the Articles of Confederation it was "supposedly" just to make some changes, but they decided to do a complete new document.


What was the original goal at the Constitutional Convention?
The Constitutional Convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The point of the event was decide how America was going to be governed. Although the Convention had been officially called to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, many delegates had much bigger plans.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called to revise the ailing Articles of Confederation. However, the Convention soon abandoned the Articles, drafting a new Constitution with a much stronger national government.

There's nothing to stop any changes.
 
dntsdad said:
I honestly have no issue with this.

I have no problem with a company or corporation donating money to support those people that will enact policies that provide a friendly business climate.

The rub runs in when we have a media that doesn't act in its supposed role of watchdog of these relationships. The people should know when anyone elected is taking money and that results is policy that can be a result. The current media as a whole obviously isn't that except for one side.
Click to expand...

Basically the post I would have made.
 
Saloon65 said:
There’s a pretty big difference between a “friendly business climate” and a straight up quid pro quo for cash..
Click to expand...

What else would it be if it wasn't quid pro quo?

I have no problem with a quid pro quo, as a Corporate leader will need to provide some proof of value for money spent. I don't want to work for Abbot or be a stockholder, and then know that a percentage of my interest is being thrown around for wind coming out of a Politician's mouth.

And like others here, I am not judging this particular sour-sounding development in OP, I'm just saying that as long as it's examined and tracked, I'm ok with it.

Essentially the US has 'legalized' corruption and this works very, very well. It's a hand-down from the British. The Napoleonic and Gallic interpretation of civilization hides that money and indeed outside of Northwest Europe and the Anglosphere, corruption is a huge problem. In the entire world.

This came from guys like Brunel lobbying Parliament for money to build a bridge, ship, or canal. Or the incorporation of interests like the East India Company. Matthew Bolton lobbied Parliament to extend Watt's steam engine patent for (extra) 17 years. This was a source of MASSIVE, and I mean real discontent and anger in Industrial Era Britain. Can you imagine, the ONLY company able to make the simplest form of external-condenser steam engine is Bolton & Watt of Birmingham?

Now, there's an entire historical thing here about co-operation between Government and Business, I just want to stop and say that the US system of Lobbying is exactly how Churchill described the US Government: The worst form of Government except for all other forms.

US business lobbying is the worst form of corruption, except for all other forms of corruption yet devised. As dntsdad said, the problem is in the poor judgement of our journalist system.
 
As a customer Or employee, speak with your feet. I fully believe that companies should not be allowed to donate to any political party or elected official.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh