Are both "sides" equally corrupt?

Posted by: logtroll

Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 09/30/19 11:44 PM

If they are, what is the proper and realistic course of action to fix the problem?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/01/19 12:48 AM

Yes, they are. A realistic course of action is concentrate on where the corruption is the worst and most entrenched. That place is CONGRESS not the White House. Whoever is our President is only in office for four to eight years, whereas members of Congress are there for decades. Why is Congress the place to concentrate on? Because Congress writes the laws that we live by. The source of the corruption that is a problem is when members of Congress write laws with help of lobbyists. There two things that can be done to reduce the corruption that flows out of Congress.

1) Don't vote for any incumbents.
2) Start a bipartisan organization to repeal Public Law 62-5.

You can't solve a problem until you know what it is and what caused it. The problem of bipartisan corruption started when Congress passed an unconstitutional law that froze the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435. If Public Law 62-5 is repealed the House of Representatives could be as large 10,300 members. With that many members they couldn't all meet in Washington, D.C. they would have to stay at home in their much smaller districts and be more accessible to the average citizen. Also there isn't a lobbying firm that has the staff or the money to lobby that many people.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/01/19 02:17 AM

Yes
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/01/19 02:50 AM



Mebbe getting money out of campaign finance and undoing Citizen's United. Hmm
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/01/19 02:57 PM

LOL ... I found your comments humorous for a couple of reasons.

First I semi-agree with the million representative theory. I have always been a strong believer in the city-state model i.e. very local government. But of course I am also a pragmatic realist and realize it would never work in a modern world, unless ... [you can fill in the rest depending on political taste]

Your misdirection away from the WH is more than somewhat disconcerting. Why would 4 or 8 years of real corruption be better than the perception of corruption in Congress? No man is above the law, especially the occupant of the WH .... and I don';t care if that person is right wing, left wing or chicken wing ... Congress has an obligation mandated by the Constitution to root out corruption.

The real corruption in Congress would be abdication of their responsibilities. So, for that, certainly vote them out or impeach them for failure to do their duty given by oath of office.

It is not essential to solve a problem by making it worse. Why wouldn't the simple fix be to regulate lobbyists in a manner agreeable to YOU personally. The major problem is of course lobbyist represent the expertise of whomever they represent. Without that expertise we would be subject to academic expertise (and I have to suspect you hate the academics) or be subject to ignorant Congressmen. How would you like 75 year old Congressmen who don't understand modern technology write law about new technology?

How about something like no personal individual contact with lobbyists and no campaign contributions from lobbyists? otherwise subject to penalty by law.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/01/19 03:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
2) Start a bipartisan organization to repeal Public Law 62-5.


Why repeal a lawfull law, passed by a bi-partisan congress exercising their constitutional duty for apportionment resulting from a census? There is no requirement for congress to pass another apportionment law after a census, though they did since 1792. The only requirement in the Constitution is the setting of a baseline for apportionment of one (1) Representative per 30,000 persons (excluding Indians not taxed), note "Persons" not citizens, not whites only, not non-catholic Christians, not only voters, but just Persons.

Now, since there is another census in 2020, the congress can again pass another apportionment bill, though there is no requirement to do so, and change the number of representatives so long as each representative has the same number of persons to represent and that all persons (citizens, aliens, permanent residents, tempory workers, migrant workers, men, women, children, LBGT&Q in the United States are counted. This naturally excluded any citizen of the US not residing in the United States (expats).

Of course the above also includes those persons residing in Washington D.C. They also should be represented in congress by a full empowerment of their representative(s).

So why repeal a bi-partisan law that seems to have worked so well for the last 108 years?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/01/19 09:06 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Mebbe getting money out of campaign finance and undoing Citizen's United. Hmm
Since advertising and campaign literature isn't free money will always be necessary for political campaigns. Implementing these suggestions will reduce the amount one campaign will need but will increase the number of campaigns that need money.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/01/19 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
LOL ... I found your comments humorous for a couple of reasons.

First I semi-agree with the million representative theory. I have always been a strong believer in the city-state model i.e. very local government. But of course I am also a pragmatic realist and realize it would never work in a modern world, unless ... [you can fill in the rest depending on political taste]
Why wouldn't it work? Because of our modern world members of Congress could meet, debate issues, and vote the same we are having this discussion, online.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Your misdirection away from the WH is more than somewhat disconcerting. Why would 4 or 8 years of real corruption be better than the perception of corruption in Congress? No man is above the law, especially the occupant of the WH .... and I don';t care if that person is right wing, left wing or chicken wing ... Congress has an obligation mandated by the Constitution to root out corruption.
The real corruption is in Congress not the White House. Congress writes the laws and the money that flows to their campaigns is to influence what those laws are. If as you say Congress has a mandate to root out corruption, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" who watches the watchers? That is our job and it is one we have abdicated by reelecting people to Congress for decades.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
The real corruption in Congress would be abdication of their responsibilities. So, for that, certainly vote them out or impeach them for failure to do their duty given by oath of office.

Voting them out of office was my first suggestion. But we don't do that.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
It is not essential to solve a problem by making it worse. Why wouldn't the simple fix be to regulate lobbyists in a manner agreeable to YOU personally. The major problem is of course lobbyist represent the expertise of whomever they represent. Without that expertise we would be subject to academic expertise (and I have to suspect you hate the academics) or be subject to ignorant Congressmen. How would you like 75 year old Congressmen who don't understand modern technology write law about new technology?
Who is to write the laws to regulate the lobbyists? Congress. Since members of Congress rely on the lobbyists expertise any bills Congress writes would so watered down as to be worthless. Currently there are 75, even 80, year old members of Congress writing laws on modern technology. If the number members of Congress were increased they would rely more on academics than on lobbyists. Whether or that would be an improvement is a chance I am willing to take.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
How about something like no personal individual contact with lobbyists and no campaign contributions from lobbyists? otherwise subject to penalty by law.
Again, who will write those laws? Members of Congress? Do you really think they will cut off the gravy train of money that almost guarantees their reelection?
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/01/19 10:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
[quote=Senator Hatrack]2) Start a bipartisan organization to repeal Public Law 62-5.


Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Why repeal a lawfull law, passed by a bi-partisan congress exercising their constitutional duty for apportionment resulting from a census? There is no requirement for congress to pass another apportionment law after a census, though they did since 1792. The only requirement in the Constitution is the setting of a baseline for apportionment of one (1) Representative per 30,000 persons (excluding Indians not taxed), note "Persons" not citizens, not whites only, not non-catholic Christians, not only voters, but just Persons.
Is Public Law 62-5 a Constitutional amendment? No, it isn't, therefore it isn't lawful. The average number of people in a Congressional district is around 700,000. That greatly exceeds the number set by our Constitution.
Originally Posted By: US Constitution
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,...


Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Now, since there is another census in 2020, the congress can again pass another apportionment bill, though there is no requirement to do so, and change the number of representatives so long as each representative has the same number of persons to represent and that all persons (citizens, aliens, permanent residents, tempory workers, migrant workers, men, women, children, LBGT&Q in the United States are counted. This naturally excluded any citizen of the US not residing in the United States (expats).
Why would Congress pass a law that reduces it's power? By limiting the number of Representatives to 435 the power each one of them has was greatly increased!

Originally Posted By: U jest Shurly
Of course the above also includes those persons residing in Washington D.C. They also should be represented in congress by a full empowerment of their representative(s).

The people who live in Washington, D.C. are represented by delegates with limited voting power.
Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
So why repeal a bi-partisan law that seems to have worked so well for the last 108 years?
This unconstitutional bipartisan law has worked well for members of Congress to the detriment of the American people.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/02/19 12:31 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
If they are, what is the proper and realistic course of action to fix the problem?

I don’t believe they are. We must allow for individuals who may be more principled, but the trends affecting government are pretty clear. Without a detailed dossier of facts, here are some of my observations (as seen through a lens of scale and relativity):

Gerrymandering - the Righties are definitely on top of this game.

Lying - seems to be SOP for righties, so much so that we can count on whatever they say to actually be the opposite (ConROT - Conservative Rule of the Opposite Thang; see also, “temious”).

Bending of the rules - see Mitch M’s refusal to hold a confirmation hearing on Garland.

Lying Bigly - see Potus’ record of more than 12,000 significant lies in 2-1/2 years, and the rank and file’s apathy about it.

Hyperbole - we need a wall to keep out the Mexican invaders!

Willingness to do anything to win - asking foreign countries to help rig elections.

Rumor milling - HILLARY!!!

I expect a flurry of butwhataboutisms that will depend upon false equivalencies for their strength.

What to do about corruption? I don’t see any clear strategies given the weaknesses of human nature in general. The voters are no less corrupt than the politicians they elect. But limiting the amount of money in elections and torching the Citizen’s United decision would help.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/02/19 01:02 PM

Senator Hatrack: "Is Public law 62-5 a Constitutional Admendment? No, it isn't therefore it isn't lawfull."

Ummm, you may need a brief refresher, on how a bill becomes law. Here is a short video to help you: How a bill becomes a law Since Public Law 62-5, was passed by Congress it is lawful, maybe not righteous, but it sure is lawfull.


Senator Hatrack: "Why would Congress pass a law that reduces it's power? By limiting the number of Representatives to 435 the power each one of them has was greatly increased!"

Just how has Public Law 62-5 reduced the power of Congress? Public Law 62-5, does not reduce the power of Congress, if anything it maintains the power and ensures each Representative has the same power as all other Representatives.


Senator Hatrack: "The people who live in Washington, D.C. are represented by delegates with limited voting power."

Wrong! Wash D.C, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, The Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam do not have a Representative with voting powers (yes, their voting powers are limited, they can only vote on procedural matters and on committees, they can not vote on legislation or anything on the floor). Nor, do these territories have a Senator. They are Americans without the right to vote in Federal elections, but they have the burden to pay taxes, etc. They suffer, Taxation without representation ...! Does that sound familiar?
(James Otis, 1761: Taxation without representation is tyranny.)


Senator Hatrack "This unconstitutional bipartisan law has worked well for members of Congress to the detriment of the American people."

Prove, Public Law 62-5 is unconstitutional. Prove, it has worked well for members of Congress. Prove, it is a detriment to the American People.

edited to clarify certain points as underlined.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/03/19 01:50 PM

Were simply livestock to be rendered by the wealthy.
First Epstein.
Now Buck: Ed Buck Indicted After Two Overdose Deaths in West Hollywood Apartment
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/03/19 04:29 PM

We live in a representative democracy. Since adoption of the Permanent Reappointment Act of 1929, however, we have become less "representative", thus less "democratic".
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/03/19 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Senator Hatrack: "Is Public law 62-5 a Constitutional Admendment? No, it isn't therefore it isn't lawfull."

Ummm, you may need a brief refresher, on how a bill becomes law. Here is a short video to help you: How a bill becomes a law Since Public Law 62-5, was passed by Congress it is lawful, maybe not righteous, but it sure is lawfull.

No, Public Law 62-5 is not lawful. It isn't because it isn't a Constitutional amendment! To explain why it isn't lawful, even it was passed following the proper procedure for a bill to become a law, say Congress passes Public Law XX-X. This law says that members of the Senate now hold office for life. Congress can only change the length of a Senator's term with a Constitutional amendment. Public Law 62-5 changed the number of Representatives in Congress. Since it was NOT a Constitutional amendment it isn't lawful, regardless of the fact that it was passed using the proper procedure for a bill to become a law.


Originally Posted By: U jest Shurly
Senator Hatrack: "Why would Congress pass a law that reduces it's power? By limiting the number of Representatives to 435 the power each one of them has was greatly increased!"

Just how has Public Law 62-5 reduced the power of Congress? Public Law 62-5, does not reduce the power of Congress, if anything it maintains the power and ensures each Representative has the same power as all other Representatives.

Public Law 62-5 does not reduce the power of Congress. It does just the opposite, it increases the power of members of Congress. That is why I asked the question why would Congress pass a law that reduces it's power? It wouldn't!

Originally Posted By: U jest Shurly
Senator Hatrack: "The people who live in Washington, D.C. are represented by delegates with limited voting power."

Wrong! Wash D.C, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, The Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam do not have a Representative with voting powers (yes, their voting powers are limited, they can only vote on procedural matters and on committees, they can not vote on legislation or anything on the floor). Nor, do these territories have a Senator. They are Americans without the right to vote in Federal elections, but they have the burden to pay taxes, etc. They suffer, Taxation without representation ...! Does that sound familiar?
(James Otis, 1761: Taxation without representation is tyranny.)
When a question is expanded after it has been answered of course the answer will be wrong. My answer to your question do the citizens of Washington, D.C., and only Washington, D.C., have Representatives in Congress is correct, yes, they do.


Originally Posted By: U jest Shurly
Senator Hatrack "This unconstitutional bipartisan law has worked well for members of Congress to the detriment of the American people."

Prove, Public Law 62-5 is unconstitutional. Prove, it has worked well for members of Congress. Prove, it is a detriment to the American People.
Is it a Constitutional amendment? No, it isn't. Because only a Constitutional amendment can change the number of Representatives in Congress, Public Law 62-5 is unconstitutional. The purpose of the House of Representatives and their being up for election every two years was to keep in close contact with their constituents. That is why our Constitution says that is to be one Representative for every 30,000 people. The detriment to the American people is that it isolates our Representatives from us. What citizen has the time and money to go to Washington, D.C. to talk with their Representative? Public Law 62-5 makes our Representatives inaccessible to us and that is very detrimental to the American people!
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 12:13 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
We live in a representative democracy. Since adoption of the Permanent Reappointment Act of 1929, however, we have become less "representative", thus less "democratic".


Hmm, I think you're right.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 12:44 AM

The Constitution is explicit. "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 35,000."

The only Constitutional way to change that is by Amendment. Article V.

I totally agree it is unconstitutional. But it isn't going to change until someone with standing can challenge PL 62-5 and get the SCOTUS to rule on it.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 04:05 PM

This issue was addressed by the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment (Wikipedia), the only one of the original 12 Amendments never ratified.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 04:08 PM

While I agree with the sentiment and the literal application of the Constitution in this regard, I do believe a House of 11000 members would be...a little large. Had that been reality, however, the Amendment might have passed.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 04:31 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
This issue was addressed by the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment (Wikipedia), the only one of the original 12 Amendments never ratified.

I didn't know that. Amazing what one can learn on a political site. It also proves one is never too old to learn.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 04:37 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
While I agree with the sentiment and the literal application of the Constitution in this regard, I do believe a House of 11000 members would be...a little large. Had that been reality, however, the Amendment might have passed.


I don't know the history of this. But I do think gathering 2/3rds vote required in both chambers would have happened. Then one needed 3/4ths of the states. Perhaps some of the smaller population states might have opposed, again I don't know.

But apparently there were enough senators for cloture. Cloture back in those days required 67 senators, not 60. 60 votes came about in 1975.

If I'm correct, I wonder why congress or the house decided to skirt the amendment process which was clearly called for.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 05:29 PM

I'd suggest "laziness". I have not researched the issue, although I have watched the increasing fallout from the 1911 reapportionment effort that culminated in the 1929 permanent act. It has been most apparent in the EC results. I don't think it was intended (although it might have been), but it is a consequence, unintended or not. The impetus of the 1929 act was to protect the prerogatives of the rural States.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 06:38 PM

I've been researching the issue and have some suppositions. During the early period of the nation the population grew rather slowly, in line with the original conception of the original First Amendment. It didn't exceed 50,000 per member until after the 1830 census. Congressional Apportionment (Wikipedia), so I don't think it was viewed as an "issue" until then. The population of each district ballooned thereafter.
Quote:
In 1921, Congress failed to reapportion the House membership as required by the United States Constitution. This failure to reapportion may have been politically motivated, as the newly elected Republican majority may have feared the effect such a reapportionment would have on their future electoral prospects.
Oh Lord does this sound familiar?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 06:47 PM

If the original 30,000 number were used we'd have 10-11,000 Representatives. If we used 50,000, we'd have 6600. If we used the 1920 ratio, we'd have 1650. I guess the question is: What is a reasonable number and ratio? Then, how do we get there? Of course, there will be resistance, as there was in 1920.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 08:10 PM

There is a solution. Right now, for instance, its the Dems against Republicans and the Dems are likely to win according the all talking heads (well, at least most). So, get a group of dems to suggest something that BOTH parties have allowed over several administrations. There are a number of these that make no sense yet neither side seems to be able to fix. The first is the so called truth in advertising. After Citizens United the supremes actually suggested this one for congress. Both sides, at one time or another, actually made a run at it. Its really pretty simple. If you do any political advertising then your name(s) go on the ad. I remember when the Dems tried it but the Unions objected and they knuckled under. Given that the Unions are now approximately 1 10th of what they were maybe they could try again? There are any number of these. Another are the laws governing the ongoing rape by drug companies. Another would be the restriction on Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco. They have been disallowed the use of computers as that may threaten the 2nd amendment <sigh>.

The trick is to point out they have both been guilty of whatever in the past but that's all over now and, this time, we will do better.

I remember when a European had the law governing lobbying explained. After hearing said explanation he said; "You have, basically, written a law that has legalized bribery!" Nothing has changed, and won't, until that one is changed which is unlikely to happen. Remember, congress itself got rid of staff experts and gave all that to the lobbyists (that one is relatively recent).
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 08:40 PM

All three posts are good. It could be 435 might be the ideal number. Even so, it doesn't change the fact that the Constitution states one thing and limiting congressional critters to 435 goes against what the Constitution flatly states outright.

You're never going to take party politics out of this. Each party will do everything they can to attain a political advantage. Be that gerrymandering or whatever.

Estimated congressional losses after the 2020 census will further erode the Northeast’s political power. States losing, New York -2 (from 27 to 25), Pennsylvania -1 (from 18 to 17), Rhode Island -1 (from 2 to 1). The Midwest will also lose, Illinois -1 (from 18 to 17), Michigan -1 (from 14 to 13), Minnesota -1 or even (from 8 to 7 or no change), Ohio -1 (from 16 to 15).

Texas, plus 3 and Florida plus 2 are the big gainers, at least as forecasted today. Even California might lose one, the forecast states either even to minus one for California.

https://www.insightsassociation.org/arti...-census-updated

Each congressional district is estimated to have approximately 750,000 folks after 2020. Way over the 30,000 as mandated by the Constitution. Perhaps the solution is a Constitutional amendment capping the House at 435, but also including a provision making gerrymandering illegal. I have an idea on how to do that.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/04/19 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
If the original 30,000 number were used we'd habe 10-11,000 Representatives. If we used 50,000, we'd have 6600. If we used the 1920 ratio, we'd have 1650. I guess the question is: What is a reasonable number and ratio? Then, how do we get there? Of course, there will be resistance, as there was in 1920.
If the 30,000 number is used there would be about 10,300 members of Congress. Here is why it is.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
It is the repeal of PL 62-5 that will do the most to solve the problem of a government that is too damn big! It will do so in a way that most people think has just the opposite effect. What PL 62-5 did was limit the number of Representatives in Congress to 435. According to our Constitution (Article I Section 2 clause 3)* there should be one Representative for every thirty thousand citizens. With the number of Representatives limited to 435 the average population of a Congressional district, as adjusted for the 2010 census, will be 710,767 people. That is far too many people for one person to represent in Congress! As the population of the U.S. grows the number of people in every Congressional district will too. Government is best when it is as close as possible to the people it serves. What must be done is to decrease the number of people a member of Congress represents by increasing the number of Representatives. Most people have the idea that increasing the number of Representatives will make our government bigger.


It won’t? Why won’t it? Because it weakens the power of Congress! What the repeal of PL 62-5 would do is dramatically increase the number of Representatives in Congress. Instead of the 435 Representatives we have now we would have over 10,300. How, you might ask will that weaken the power of our government? It will do so by diluting the power of our federal government. Members of the House of Representatives will be only a little more powerful than a state representative. Not only will the power of the Representatives be checked but it will also reduce, if not eliminate, the power of the lobbyists in Washington. There isn’t a lobbying firm in the country that has the time or money to effectively lobby 10,300 Representatives spread out across the country.


When there are 10,300 Representatives meeting in Washington will not be feasible. If they cannot meet in Washington where will they meet? They can meet the same you are reading this, by meeting online. It doesn’t matter where they meet, nor do they have to meet in person. But, if they don’t, how will they do what they were elected to do? Thanks to the internet members of Congress can stay at home in their districts and still do their job.


The work to repeal PL 62-5 will be difficult. Another possible way to remove it would be to file a lawsuit testing its Constitutionality. Its Constitutionality is questionable because it changed our Constitution but did not amend it. Members of Congress will not want to voluntarily relinquish power. It is human nature to want power and to hold on to it as long as is possible. Lobbyists will fight the repeal of them because their power and jobs depend on it. The more power they have the less freedom we have. The repeal of these laws will help restore limited Constitutional government to our country. If we really want the power of Washington to be broken these laws must be repealed! The repeal of these and other laws will begin to reduce the size of our government.


When our Representatives don’t meet in Washington they will have to spend more time in their district. When our Representatives spend more time in their districts they will be more accountable and accessible to the people they represent. When our Representatives actually live and work in their districts it will be easier for the people they represent to see them. When our Representatives are living in their district they will be shopping at the local supermarket, buying gas at a local gas station, eating in local restaurants, and going to local places of entertainment. When our Representatives and their staff live in their district that is what will break the power of Washington, D.C.!

* http://constitutionus.com/

This is an excerpt from an article I wrote. In the full article I talk about repealing the XVII Amendment. With the XVII Amendment and Public Law 62-5 repealed the power of the lobbyists is gone.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 01:03 AM

Quote:
With the XVII Amendment and Public Law 62-5 repealed the power of the lobbyists is gone.

I'm going to take you at your word on this because you are far more knowledgeable than I. Removing the power of lobbyists would be a remarkable gain for Democracy in our great nation.

Does stuff like Citizens United fall by the wayside too?
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 01:10 AM

Senator Hatrack, a question. Do you have access to a copy of the Constitution? A booklet is available from many sources, your federal representatives or senators, the Government Printing Office, the ACLU, and many, many, many more places. I believe you can get a copy or book at Barnes and Noble, and probably almost any bookstore. You can also view copies on many websites, such as The Constitution Society. Anyway, you got the quote about the number of persons per representative wrong.

The correct phrasing is "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, ..." Meaning that each representative can represent 30,000 persons at a minimum only, though they can represent more.

There is an Apportionment Amendment The Apportionment Amendment
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 01:40 AM

Repeal of the 17A is an end run power grab because appointment of Senators gets shunted to the oligarchy and to money interests who leverage influence over who gets appointed. We do not need a House of Lords.
That's basically what the Senate was prior to the 17A.
In effect you'd be trading lobbyists for Lords.

NO sale, your Lordship.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 01:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Mebbe getting money out of campaign finance and undoing Citizen's United. Hmm
Since advertising and campaign literature isn't free money will always be necessary for political campaigns. Implementing these suggestions will reduce the amount one campaign will need but will increase the number of campaigns that need money.


Which statement is more sound?

"Corporations are people"

"A corporation is a person"

Be careful, here be monsters.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 02:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Repeal of the 17A is an end run power grab because appointment of Senators gets shunted to the oligarchy and to money interests who leverage influence over who gets appointed. We do not need a House of Lords.
That's basically what the Senate was prior to the 17A.
In effect you'd be trading lobbyists for Lords.

NO sale, your Lordship.

I disagree. The senators represented their state and were appointed by the state legislature. Today senators represent their political party much more than their state.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Mebbe getting money out of campaign finance and undoing Citizen's United. Hmm
Since advertising and campaign literature isn't free money will always be necessary for political campaigns. Implementing these suggestions will reduce the amount one campaign will need but will increase the number of campaigns that need money.


Which statement is more sound?

"Corporations are people"

"A corporation is a person"

Be careful, here be monsters.


Corporations are made up of people, but a corporation isn't a person. You can say the same thing about unions, unions are made up of people but a union isn't a person.

Now having said that, I propose an amendment that would state that only a living, breathing citizen of the United States can donate to a candidate or political party.

That would probably have to be worked on as to the wording, but that is the idea in a nut shell. I would also add to that amendment that the living, breathing citizen of the United States could only donate to a candidate that they can vote for.

This later comes from a senate race a few years back when half of a candidates money came in from California. I don't think the folks in California should be trying to buy a Georgia Senate seat.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 03:11 AM

I think, simply saying "donations are only allowed directly from a citizen" takes care of most issues. Only citizens can vote. Corporations are not citizens. Unions are not citizens.

I don't agree with the cross-State proposal, though. I have a keen interest in the Kentucky Senate race this year, for some reason. So long as leadership is drawn from other State's Senators/Representatives, I have an interest. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 03:44 AM

Don't forget, ALEC has been flexing its muscles in local and state politics for well over a decade, on literally HUNDREDS of issues, in literally HUNDREDS of counties and dozens of states.
Anyone who ever looks at the sum total reach of ALEC tentacles usually craps their drawers first time around, unless they are a sociopath.

Perotista, I take no pride in some group in Cali attempting to influence Georgia but let's all be honest in recognizing that such stuff has been flying back and forth for a long time, by a lot of different outfits.

Not saying what you raised is or was small potatoes.
I'm saying

"It's brung a multitude of friends, padnuh."

inout ROTFMOL
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 05:33 AM

I remember the LDS church, Roman Catholic Diocese and similar donors, pumped millions into California's Prop 8.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 12:21 PM

the way I look at it, the people that live in a district or a state are the ones who should decide whom they want to represent them. It's their decision. Outside the district or state influences in trying to direct the voter to vote the way those outside influences want them to, I think is wrong. As a person living in Georgia, I shouldn't be able to influence a race in New York or Iowa or Nevada or anywhere else. Their senators and representatives don't represent me, they represent supposedly the people that elect them. Is it right for me to have a say, even if it is just money in their races?
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 12:32 PM

No doubt, I wasn't referring to just one party or ideology. I don't care who it is. The most corrupting influence on our politics today is money. The buying of our elected officials through what is called campaign donations. I firmly believe that both parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interest, mega money donors. All the above are very smart business people. They wouldn't invest in politics or campaigns if their return on their investment, er donation, if they didn't get double or triple back in return for their original investment. They wouldn't do it.

I do think if someone, anyone, any group, organization etc can't vote for someone, can't invest or donate to that someone would help clean up the money corruption of our politics. Besides, it isn't right for someone to try to buy someone else's representative or senator.

The fact it's been going on for eons, doesn't make it right.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 12:45 PM

What about the actual politicians on “both sides”? Are they corrupt? If so, are they equally corrupt?

I just met with my Congresswoman and my sense is that she is not corrupt at all. The previous Congressman representing my district was, in my opinion, quite corrupt - a lapdog of the oil and gas industry. In fact, he owns several companies serving that industry.

One is a Democrat and the other is a Republican. It is clear that they are not equally corrupt.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 01:02 PM

This will help to sort things out a bit:

Quote:
Corruption
In general, corruption is a form of dishonesty or criminal activity undertaken by a person or organization entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire illicit benefit, or, abuse of entrusted power for one's private gain. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement, though it may also involve practices that are legal in many countries. Political corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain. Corruption is most commonplace in kleptocracies, oligarchies, narco-states and mafia states.Wikipedia
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 01:19 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I do think if someone, anyone, any group, organization etc can't vote for someone, can't invest or donate to that someone would help clean up the money corruption of our politics. Besides, it isn't right for someone to try to buy someone else's representative or senator.

I agree. I saw Idaho’s politics bought by out-of-state business interests back in the 1970’s. Prior to that it was a state dominated by the Democratic party due to the large blue collar class working in natural resource industries. They didn’t used to be Republicans until the oil and gas barons, largely from Texas, began a massive effort to buy them some rubes from a backward state so they would have more power at the National level. A campaign of fear that “regulations” and them goddam environmentalists were trying to steal their jobs was successful at brainwashing the electorate into being servants to the class of people described in my post above.

Of course, the same can be said for any special interest group that becomes focused on power, usually led by selfish and corrupt assholes.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 01:29 PM

I think we are all subject to some degree of self interest corruption - there's probably no way to fix that by political means. But if our self-interest influence is limited to the individual scale, then I think we would have the most level politicscape possible.

Allowing self-interest groups to have political influence will nearly always lead to large scale corruption.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 04:29 PM

Equally, I think that is hard to say. Usually money flows into the incumbents coffers as they usually win. I noticed around June of 2010, the money dried up some for the Democrats, then ran like a waterfall toward the Republicans. What had been a 200 million dollar deficit for the GOP ended up with the GOP outspending the Democrats 570-521 million in the house races.

2018 was the opposite, 1 billion to the Democrats, 661 million to the GOP. so when the winds of change begin to blow, the money leaves incumbents for challengers.

I have no doubt that our elected officials take care of those who provide the money to them. Some are more overt about it, some more covert. Now proving a quid pro quo for the money is usually very hard to do. It might be the party that controls each chamber could be the most corrupt as they can do the most for their moneyed friends, investors. If so, this means most corrupt changes.

Only once since 1964 has a presidential candidate who had less money won. That was 2016 with Trump. 2018 in the House the Democrats had the most money, regained control. In 2010,12,14,16 it was the Republican and they remained in control 2008 the Democratic House had a huge advantage in money, but in 2006 the GOP house candidate actually had more money and lost control. But in 2000, 2002 and 2004 the GOP had the money and they retained control.

We had another exception in 1998 where having more money didn't help the Democrats. Also in 1994 the democrats had the money advantage and still lost 54 seats.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 04:30 PM

I agree.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 05:31 PM

First, citizen's united was decided based on previous decisions. The decision to give corporations rights similiar to those of individual citizens goes all the way back to 1936 (got free press rights) and even further. These pro corporation decisions go waay back up to the point where they were granted (apparently) the same rights as an individual citizen. Then there the money thing. That one too goes quite a way back to 1976 which determined that individuals have a right to spend their money anyway they want. Individuals are, however, are regulated as to how much they can give an individual candidate. The interesting thing is the supremes also said that congress can pass a law to force those who do political ads to also put their name on said ads. NEITHER side, Democratic or Republican, has been able to pass a law to that effect.

Anyway, the only way to fix this is an amendment to the constitution which states that corporations are not individual citizens and are not entitled to the same rights. The same amendment should also allow for the control of spending on politics. I, for one, would like something that would actually ban all outside advertising, statewise. If all of that happened then only individuals, within a state could donate an agreed, and regulated, amount to stuff political.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 09:08 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
First, citizen's united was decided based on previous decisions. The decision to give corporations rights similiar to those of individual citizens goes all the way back to 1936 (got free press rights) and even further. These pro corporation decisions go waay back up to the point where they were granted (apparently) the same rights as an individual citizen. Then there the money thing. That one too goes quite a way back to 1976 which determined that individuals have a right to spend their money anyway they want. Individuals are, however, are regulated as to how much they can give an individual candidate. The interesting thing is the supremes also said that congress can pass a law to force those who do political ads to also put their name on said ads. NEITHER side, Democratic or Republican, has been able to pass a law to that effect.

Anyway, the only way to fix this is an amendment to the constitution which states that corporations are not individual citizens and are not entitled to the same rights. The same amendment should also allow for the control of spending on politics. I, for one, would like something that would actually ban all outside advertising, statewise. If all of that happened then only individuals, within a state could donate an agreed, and regulated, amount to stuff political.


I think we're in agreement and thanks for the history. The problem is neither party is going to do anything to stop the cash flowing.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/05/19 10:22 PM

The Democrats made a huge mistake when they passed ACA. They should have adapted RomneyCare for the minimal differences needed for going federal, and then insisted on calling in RomneyCare. Republicans coined the term "ObamaCare" even though he had very little to do with it. I remember at the time, he said: "Bring me something to sign, and I'll sign it."

Of course, Republicans would have found some other issue to hang around Obama's neck for his terms in office. Everybody knows the main thing they hated about him. I suppose one pretense is as good as another.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 12:29 PM

Passing the ACA when the majority of Americans were against it was a huge mistake. The Democrats also passed it before it was ready or finished. Ted Kennedy dying along with Brown being elected to replace him ending the filibuster proof senate they had made them rush it through. The Democrats also didn't take the time to try to sell it the American Public.

Here's the polls on it.

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009
CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25
Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12
Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20

Americans weren't ready to have their whole healthcare system revamped, changed. They were in favor of getting the uninsured insured, but not to a point where there would be massive changes.

Also once passed, I'm sure the democrats thought they could come back to it and change whatever needed fixing. They had no idea that a 63 seat loss awaited them in November. This made Obama basically a caretaker president for his last six years.

The funny thing about the ACA is that today, Democrats want to do away with it and replace it with Medicare for All. It seems both major parties are now in agreement of doing away with the ACA, it's what replaces it that is up for debate.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 08:14 PM

I just thought I would add a bit on Obama and his tenure in which the Republicans, who announced they would fight ANY and all Obama legislation. The result was that he did a lot of ligislation with presidential fiat. This is why Trump can, easily, with the same pen, abdicate Obama decisions.

The Republicans got the congress 2 years after Obama was first elected. He actually got legislation passed during that initial 2 years (Obamacare was one and banking regulations was also one) After that, however, he got VERY little passed through congress as the Republicans fought him, tooth and nail, on anything he made a run at. This included any appointments, etc.

What is interesting about the last 6 years of Obama was that the nation, as a whole seemed to like this situation. I have always wondered about that entire period and what it might mean. Perhaps we are finding out what that meant - now?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 08:58 PM

Quote:
Americans weren't ready to have their whole healthcare system revamped, changed. They were in favor of getting the uninsured insured, but not to a point where there would be massive changes.


Americans will never be ready for anything to be revamped or changed as long as it costs a single one of them a single penny. ACA could have been a remarkable program, except for the black guy. He had to be destroyed so thoroughly that no man or woman of color could ever be elected to the office again.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 09:09 PM

Quote:
What is interesting about the last 6 years of Obama was that the nation, as a whole seemed to like this situation. I have always wondered about that entire period and what it might mean. Perhaps we are finding out what that meant - now?


Split government, if it is to work at all, requires co-operation. Nothing will get done unless both parties are behind it. Americans in general don't want government to actually do much of anything and certainly not ramrod through highly partisan programs that infuriate the other side. Either side! Can we simply address a few issues that might be good for ALL AMERICANS? We don't need to even hear all the partisan bickering and bullshi*ting, We pay them guys big bucks to hammer out the details.

To me the problem is that the republican side of the aisle simply has no ideas at all about anything. They do nothng but funnel money to the veery rich and lately seem to be doing more and more business with Russian oligarchs. Didja see Moscow Mitch pulling funds from coal minor pensions to fund the start up of a factory for a Russian oligarch? Good times yall.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 09:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Americans weren't ready to have their whole healthcare system revamped, changed. They were in favor of getting the uninsured insured, but not to a point where there would be massive changes.


Americans will never be ready for anything to be revamped or changed as long as it costs a single one of them a single penny. ACA could have been a remarkable program, except for the black guy. He had to be destroyed so thoroughly that no man or woman of color could ever be elected to the office again.
Do you ever do any research before you make a comment Greger? FDR
The idea that is called Obamacare was first proposed by FDR. It was a terrible idea when FDR proposed it and it is a terrible idea when it was passed during the Obama administration. Just for your edification FDR was a white guy.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 10:03 PM

Quote:
Do you ever do any research before you make a comment Greger?

Actually, no. Other than to occasionally fact check any bold statements I might make, and occasionally I let them pass anyway in the name of hyperbole. I would really really really prefer that health insurance companies could offer affordable packages to everyone. That government didn't have to worry about the issue at all. That the market would regulate itself. When you only make a thousand bucks a month and insurance is $700 it's a little hard to make the rent, ya know?
But the market failed. Who's agonna fix it? Friends and family? We're all gleefully watching what happens every time a Republican takes charge. Last time it was two wars and the great recession. Not to mention gas prices over $4. Jolly fun that. And now we're seeing a different but even more corrupt government F****ng things up beyond all recognition once again.

I'm a firm believer that the markets could control themselves, that they choose not to is the problem. Who's gonna jump in there and control the price gouging and the greed? It's unfortunate but there is only one entity that has the power to do it. And you insist they shouldn't do a thing. About anything.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Do you ever do any research before you make a comment Greger?

Actually, no. Other than to occasionally fact check any bold statements I might make, and occasionally I let them pass anyway in the name of hyperbole. I would really really really prefer that health insurance companies could offer affordable packages to everyone. That government didn't have to worry about the issue at all. That the market would regulate itself. When you only make a thousand bucks a month and insurance is $700 it's a little hard to make the rent, ya know?
But the market failed. Who's agonna fix it? Friends and family? We're all gleefully watching what happens every time a Republican takes charge. Last time it was two wars and the great recession. Not to mention gas prices over $4. Jolly fun that. And now we're seeing a different but even more corrupt government F****ng things up beyond all recognition once again.

I'm a firm believer that the markets could control themselves, that they choose not to is the problem. Who's gonna jump in there and control the price gouging and the greed? It's unfortunate but there is only one entity that has the power to do it. And you insist they shouldn't do a thing. About anything.
Do some research Greger before you eat some more shoe leather. Do you know why healthcare mess exists? It is isn't because of greedy corporations. In another comment you said you live and support yourself and someone else on $7.20 an hour. Now you are complaining that you don't make enough money. Either you can live on $7.20 a month or you can't, which is it Greger? Who is going to work to fix things? It probably won't be you because then you wouldn't have big corporations and Republicans to bitch about.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 10:48 PM

I don't need anything more than I have and I ask for nothing for myself. I only ask that that everyone be granted as much as I have. A roof, medicine, and food. I depend entirely on the US government for everything I have. I'm not proud of that but it is what it is. When the system works it works well.

I don't want to see huge sweeping expensive programs, I'm as conservative as the next guy when it comes to that. Just a few tweaks here and there. If any one thing comes of President Warren's administration I'd like for it to be a $15 minimum wage. There are companies who can't do that and I'm sympathetic to them, I was a tiny business once. There should be exemptions where applicable and tax subsidies to help bring them up to speed. It's something that would help a lot of people and it's not hard to do. It would also, I think, spur wage increases for EMTs and firefighters and many other fields. I'd just like to try and see how it works out.

In her second term I hope President Warren manages another tweak, to raise the income cap on social security so that it can support itself in perpetuity. Those two tweaks would be enough for me over the next 8 years. I'm really not asking for a lot.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 11:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I don't need anything more than I have and I ask for nothing for myself. I only ask that that everyone be granted as much as I have. A roof, medicine, and food. I depend entirely on the US government for everything I have. I'm not proud of that but it is what it is. When the system works it works well.

I don't want to see huge sweeping expensive programs, I'm as conservative as the next guy when it comes to that. Just a few tweaks here and there. If any one thing comes of President Warren's administration I'd like for it to be a $15 minimum wage. There are companies who can't do that and I'm sympathetic to them, I was a tiny business once. There should be exemptions where applicable and tax subsidies to help bring them up to speed. It's something that would help a lot of people and it's not hard to do. It would also, I think, spur wage increases for EMTs and firefighters and many other fields. I'd just like to try and see how it works out.

In her second term I hope President Warren manages another tweak, to raise the income cap on social security so that it can support itself in perpetuity. Those two tweaks would be enough for me over the next 8 years. I'm really not asking for a lot.
To get back to the subject, Are both "sides" corrupt?" should the minimum wage be raised to $15 an hour aside from increasing unemployment it will create a lot of opportunities for corruption.
Originally Posted By: Greger
There are companies who can't do that and I'm sympathetic to them, I was a tiny business once. There should be exemptions where applicable and tax subsidies to help bring them up to speed.
How will the companies get exemptions from the $15 an hour minimum wage? By lobbying their elected officials? Who can afford to lobby members of Congress for an exemption from the $15 an hour minimum wage? It sure as hell won't be the small businesses like Greger once had. It will be the big corporations he complains about.
Originally Posted By: Tacitus 56 CE - 120 CE
The more corrupt the state the more numerous the laws.

But that should make Greger happy. It will give him something more to complain about.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 11:23 PM

Here's an interesting study in what seems to be a corruption flip-flop.
Quote:
Pompeo sounded an alarm that Trump would be “an authoritarian president who ignored our Constitution.” He urged Republicans to come to their senses and resist the lure of the surging Trump campaign. “It’s time,” he said, “to turn down the lights on the circus.”….

Lindsay Graham once called Trump “the world’s biggest jackass” and somehow decided that Trump was the new John McCain, which is like deeming tripe the new tenderloin.

And what was Mick Mulvaney thinking when he agreed to be Trump’s third chief of staff, having witnessed the tortures of chiefs Nos. 1 and 2? Before Trump was elected, Mulvaney called him and Hillary Clinton “two of the most flawed human beings running for president in the history of the country,” and lest you think Trump was merely collateral damage in her disparagement, Mulvaney separately called Trump “a terrible human being.” Now he calls him boss. Amazing how revulsion crumbles when relevance is in the equation.

Bruni calls Kellyanne Conway the “dark empress of alternative facts” and sends readers to a link I found illuminating. He writes that “Kellyanne Conway was a respected, reasonably mainstream, uncontroversial Republican pollster and strategist” and adds that...
“months before she joined Team Trump, she correctly labeled him “vulgar,” said that he wasn’t presidential, called him a liar and demanded his tax returns. Then he offered her the lofty job of managing his presidential campaign — and all the television airtime that came with it — and she turned herself into a kowtowing cartoon. She’ll never be seen the same way again. Was the ride really worth it?”
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
To get back to the subject, Are both "sides" corrupt?" should the minimum wage be raised to $15 an hour aside from increasing unemployment it will create a lot of opportunities for corruption.

Whaat??
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/06/19 11:37 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I just thought I would add a bit on Obama and his tenure in which the Republicans, who announced they would fight ANY and all Obama legislation. The result was that he did a lot of ligislation with presidential fiat. This is why Trump can, easily, with the same pen, abdicate Obama decisions.

The Republicans got the congress 2 years after Obama was first elected. He actually got legislation passed during that initial 2 years (Obamacare was one and banking regulations was also one) After that, however, he got VERY little passed through congress as the Republicans fought him, tooth and nail, on anything he made a run at. This included any appointments, etc.

What is interesting about the last 6 years of Obama was that the nation, as a whole seemed to like this situation. I have always wondered about that entire period and what it might mean. Perhaps we are finding out what that meant - now?

I for one love divided government. I voted Republican in 2010 and voted democratic in 2018. Georgia has two senate seats up in 2020, I'll vote Republican in both of them in hopes the GOP retains the senate.

What I want is for the two parties to work together. Play the old game of compromise and give and take. I know there are some issues where compromise is impossible, but not on most. What happened? Eisenhower had LBJ, then senate majority leaders over to the White House three times a week to discuss how to get IKE's agenda through congress. JFK and LBJ worked with Republican Minority Leader Everit Dirksen on most things. Even Reagan worked with then Speaker Tip O'Neal to iron out things. Their relationship had become a legend.

In the senate, Lott would work with Daschle, Dole with Mitchel, even Baker with Byrd. None of them would have even thought of using the nuclear option let alone doing it. Most Americans want compromise, working together. Not polarization or ultra high partisanship. Not Republicans automatically opposing anything Democratic or Democrats automatically opposing anything Republican.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx

I think this problem began with the Hastert rule.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/07/19 12:55 AM

Quote:
the Hastert rule.
The one that says the boys he buggers have to be under 15 or the other one...? Without doing any research or engaging in any deep thought I'm gonna call your Republican Senate seat toast.

Remember 2018? Yall has pissed off the colored girls. Serious mistake.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/07/19 01:09 AM

Quote:
How will the companies get exemptions from the $15 an hour minimum wage? By lobbying their elected officials?

Why don't we try just legislating it from the get go to get the most good for the most people at a minimum of cost to business and government... Y'see I offer a simple solution to a problem and do I see any attempt at compromise? Do I hear a single ..."What if we...?" Nope just the sure notion that if the government does anything at all it's going to be corrupt.

Once Republicans are banished to the annals of history we might...just might...be able to get a handle on the corruption. Democrats aint no angels but they're a lot better at policing themselves. Numbers don't lie. The number of indictments and convictions among top tier Republicans is really all the proof you need to see this. But we get into those pesky facts again. Yall don't care much for them.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/07/19 03:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
How will the companies get exemptions from the $15 an hour minimum wage? By lobbying their elected officials?

Why don't we try just legislating it from the get go to get the most good for the most people at a minimum of cost to business and government... Y'see I offer a simple solution to a problem and do I see any attempt at compromise? Do I hear a single ..."What if we...?" Nope just the sure notion that if the government does anything at all it's going to be corrupt.

Once Republicans are banished to the annals of history we might...just might...be able to get a handle on the corruption. Democrats aint no angels but they're a lot better at policing themselves. Numbers don't lie. The number of indictments and convictions among top tier Republicans is really all the proof you need to see this. But we get into those pesky facts again. Yall don't care much for them.
The only reason the Democrats are better at "policing themselves" is because the Democrat's corruption was at the city level and they controlled the police. We Republicans are slow learners and try to do it on national scale, which it easier for us to caught. However, as with Mark Twain the reports of our demise are premature.
grin
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/07/19 04:29 AM

Quote:
Democrat's corruption was at the city level and they controlled the police


Really? I've never heard of a city where the police were on the side of anybody but the rich. And those tend to be Republicans. Did you means democrats pre-1964 in the South? That would mean Democrats have not had much corruption for almost 60 years!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/07/19 02:52 PM

Well this should be interesting. Sander's, once again, asked the eternal question of who's side your on in a very political way.

Sanders unveils plan to stop corporate donations to Dem convention

Probably get the same usual reaction from the press and party leaders...

Ignore him!..

meanwhile, in the Ukraine....
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/07/19 04:23 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Well this should be interesting. Sander's, once again, asked the eternal question of who's side your on in a very political way.

Sanders unveils plan to stop corporate donations to Dem convention

Probably get the same usual reaction from the press and party leaders...

Ignore him!..

meanwhile, in the Ukraine....


I'm all for a constitutional amendment that would basically state that only a living breathing citizen of the United States can donate to a candidate or political party.

Sanders is hitting corporations which aren't a person in my opinion is fine. But neither is a union or Wall Street firms. Cover all the bases. That being said, I agree most Democrats and the DNC would be against the amendment. Both parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors. That's where they get their tens of millions.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/07/19 05:59 PM

Mostly agree with what your sayin, perotista, cept for the need to limit the amount of 'contributing' period. What's the difference between an oligarch and a corporation? Especially as they both have an outsized influence on how were ruled.
Posted by: perotista

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/07/19 06:43 PM

Another of my points on this, the amendment would also state that one can't contribute to anyone they can't vote for. I addressed this on another thread. This would limit giving to those who live in a congressional district, house. To those living in the state a senator is running for election, then every citizen can contribute or donate for the office of the presidency.

I really don't think limiting the amount would be necessary. A Soros or a Koch or whomever could only donate to those candidates in their district or state. Now the presidency is different. I don't think the limits place on that do any good today anyway. One sets up a Super Pac or one sets up an outside special interest organization to run their political ads.

With the living, breathing citizen, the donate only to candidate you can vote for, then add a portion outlawing gerrymandering. I have my ideas on that too.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/08/19 12:18 AM

Quote:
I'm all for a constitutional amendment that would...


I imagine we can all dream up a bunch of amendments that would make the USA a better place. But none of them will ever happen. I'm kinda fond of a complete re-write, primarily putting what we know the FFs intended first but clarifying and bringing the whole thing into the twenty-first century and addressing a lot of issues the FFs never could have imagined. I might put Senator Hatrack in charge of the project because we want it as near the original as possible in intent and limitation of government.

It's really a moot point at the rate we're going though, when the whole house of cards comes down the constitution will go down with it.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/08/19 03:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I'm all for a constitutional amendment that would...


I imagine we can all dream up a bunch of amendments that would make the USA a better place. But none of them will ever happen. I'm kinda fond of a complete re-write, primarily putting what we know the FFs intended first but clarifying and bringing the whole thing into the twenty-first century and addressing a lot of issues the FFs never could have imagined. I might put Senator Hatrack in charge of the project because we want it as near the original as possible in intent and limitation of government.

It's really a moot point at the rate we're going though, when the whole house of cards comes down the constitution will go down with it.
An updating of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence into modern English is not a bad idea. If it can been done with the Bible it can done with both of them. There aren't really a lot issues that our FF couldn't have imagined but the beauty, the genius of our Constitution is it's understanding of and the need to put a limit on man's lust for power.

To truly understand our Constitution one must look at it through the "glasses" of our Declaration of Independence. One of the complaints in the DoI is this one.
Originally Posted By: DoI
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
This is an updating of the quoted complaint in modern English. "There are too many bureaucracies which are eating up our paychecks and too many bureaucrats making unnecessary laws." Jefferson was complaining about the bureaucracy that existed back then. Compared to what we have now the bureaucracy that Jefferson complained about was nothing. Here is a link to a list of Today's bureaucracies. Some can be eliminated, some can be consolidated into one agency, and then we keep what remains. If an agency is eliminated but found to be necessary it can be brought back. Before an agency is eliminated a similar one in the private sector should be created or the agency is privatized so that those who it is helping do not suffer any adverse effects.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/08/19 05:52 AM

Quote:
Before an agency is eliminated a similar one in the private sector should be created or the agency is privatized so that those who it is helping do not suffer any adverse effects.


Boy, is that misguided and naive: So many private institutions that are supposed to be fulfilling certain functions are actually massively corrupt. Like the Local Red Cross that pays their officers several hundred thousand per year, or all the Police. Veterans, Firefighter, etc. charities that call on the phone and give less than 5% of their income to their "beneficiaries".
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/09/19 03:59 PM

Or the "Trump Foundation".
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/09/19 04:38 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
Before an agency is eliminated a similar one in the private sector should be created or the agency is privatized so that those who it is helping do not suffer any adverse effects.


Boy, is that misguided and naive: So many private institutions that are supposed to be fulfilling certain functions are actually massively corrupt. Like the Local Red Cross that pays their officers several hundred thousand per year, or all the Police. Veterans, Firefighter, etc. charities that call on the phone and give less than 5% of their income to their "beneficiaries".
There are and always will be phony and dishonest charities. Greed is part of human nature. What I was suggesting is that private charities, even with the dishonest ones, can do more to help people than a government bureaucracy can.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/09/19 05:25 PM

Quote:
private charities ... can do more to help people than a government bureaucracy

Unless you have some statistical data to support your claim I would suggest you rewrite it as .... You believe private charities etc etc.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/09/19 05:35 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
private charities ... can do more to help people than a government bureaucracy

Unless you have some statistical data to support your claim I would suggest you rewrite it as .... You believe private charities etc etc.

I agree. Evidence to support the assertion would be welcomed.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/09/19 05:54 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
private charities ... can do more to help people than a government bureaucracy

Unless you have some statistical data to support your claim I would suggest you rewrite it as .... You believe private charities etc etc.
Here is why I believe a private charity can do more to help people than a government bureaucracy can. A private charity is goal oriented. In order to get funding a private charity must have a definite plan of action and then follow that plan. If the private charity is not as successful as possible in doing what it sets out to do people stop donating money to it. A private charity is usually locally based. People don't like asking for money hence a private charity is accountable to those who donate to it. (With the the exceptions you mentioned earlier. Even then donations decline as the charities dishonesty is revealed.)

A government bureaucracy is not goal oriented. A government bureaucracy does not need get funding it is automatically funded with our taxes. A government bureaucracy does not want to solve the problem is was created to deal with. If it does the bureaucracy and it's funding will shrink. If government bureaucrats are found to be dishonest it is very difficult to fire them. But the bureaucracies funding, our taxes, keeps rolling in.

Thus a private charity has greater accountability than a government bureaucracy does. That greater accountability makes private charities better able to help people. This does not deny the fact that dishonest exists in private charities. But to think that a government bureaucracy will never have dishonest people in it is also naive.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 12:44 AM

I think it's very hard to compare private charities to government agencies. The scale factor difference is huge. That's because the government agency has to help everyone who qualifies for their programs. They also tend be much more efficient than the thousands of local charities that it would take to replace them, and have a lot more oversight to watch for corruption and discrimination.

Can you imagine private charities taking over the work of the Social Security Administration? It would be chaos and kill hundreds of thousands of old folks. Libertarian ideas sound good, until you explain to people what they would have to give up. Then they look at you like you are peddling leprosy door-to-door.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 02:52 AM

Quote:
A private charity is goal oriented.

Aye, it is, there's no doubt! And that goal is to put money into the hands of executives and administrators. This is what every major charity does best.
Churches...? Samesies! All you can count on is the money floating up to the top rather than being efficiently distributed to those who need it.

Look into some charities if you want to see how much actually goes to the needy. It hovers around 10% in most cases I think.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 02:58 AM

Are both sides equally corrupt?

No.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 03:25 AM

Uhh....

Yes
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 03:45 AM

Not the politicians I know. The factual disconnect between your broad generalization and my direct experience deserves a closer look, don’t you think?

Posted by: rporter314

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 03:51 AM

LOL .... ROFLMAO

Are you for real????

I asked for stats to support your claim and you offered two paragraphs of why you BELIEVE something and then have the gall to start a third paragraph with "thus" as if a conclusion can be derived from your BELIEFS. Three paragraphs of worthless words juxtaposed simulating an argument.

And you wonder why liberals laugh at the sheis conservatives say.

The ghost of Hannity <----> geeeeeeeeeez
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 12:10 PM

My broad generalization is bolstered by broad economic, political and environmental trends as well as my anecdotal experiences in those overlapping subjects.
You probably have experienced some life and have reached another conclusion.
I look at things thru class and economics and from that lens, yes, the liberal and conservative parties are equally corrupt. It’s just a difference of style and speed.


Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 12:15 PM

Pelosi’s son gets his freak on a Mar a Lago

How come all these ruling class kids are into Ukraine energy?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 12:27 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
My broad generalization is bolstered by broad economic, political and environmental trends ...

Trends are useful for generalizations.

I have the opinion that corruption exists on both "sides". The trends I see are that the rightwing trend is to be more greedy, less principled, less moderated by ethics, less concerned about the planet, less concerned about people, etc.

I also know a number of politicians, both left and right, and those trends are clear there. This is what bolsters my opinion that both sides are not equally corrupt.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:04 PM

So it's anecdotal and generalizations then.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:06 PM

How bout cliche's?

A picture's worth a thousand words...
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:11 PM

Mostly, yes, but with a sample of examples. Perhaps we could poll RR on these trends? Recognizing that corruption can, and does, appear anywhere, which "side" is:

-more greedy;
-less principled;
-less moderated by ethics;
-less concerned about the planet;
-less concerned about people.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:20 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

What message are you getting from that picture that relates to both sides being equally corrupt?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:21 PM

What would that prove?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:23 PM

I see a liberal meme breaking bread with a fascist meme

What do you see?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:27 PM

S'more
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:31 PM

memories.....
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:39 PM

Maybe I'm missing your point, which appears to be that many on the left and the right are equally corrupt - I agree. But the question I posed opening this topic is about the relative corruption of the "sides".

Your memory photo shows a number of people who I think are generally considered to possess measures of corruption, but it does not show equal corruption.

As a thought experiment, let's say that you are correct and both sides are equally corrupt - how do we use that information to fix the problem?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:45 PM

First off, stop equating democrats with 'leftist' politics. It's not.

Both sides are committed to hierarchy. One with race, the other with 'meritocracy'.

Attack hierarchy.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:47 PM

How?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:48 PM

Horizontalism
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 01:55 PM

(leftist politics and economics)
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 02:02 PM

Which political "side" do you intend to work with to accomplish your solution to corruption? Or is the plan to get there maverick-style?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 02:07 PM

I plan to vote for my material interest. I will not vote against my interest.
If no one represents my material interest I will not vote.

There's a trend out there somewhere on doing this...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 02:15 PM

Both parties wholly embrace capitalism in it's current form....

Capitalism, in it's current form, is a death cult.

Which party do you support Log?

The non-mavericky one?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 02:20 PM

I guess you just want to fight. Otherwise you would be trying to work with me - or haven't you ever read any of my posts on economics and capitalism?

I have no interest in fighting with you over labels and ideologies, I want to make some progress.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 02:42 PM

Who's fighting? I'm answering your questions with honest answers.

Were your questions not asked honestly?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 02:59 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
I guess you just want to fight. Otherwise you would be trying to work with me - or haven't you ever read any of my posts on economics and capitalism?

I have no interest in fighting with you over labels and ideologies, I want to make some progress.


I'm sorry Logs, I'll try harder to work with you. What would be the correct answers to your questions in order to do so?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 03:22 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
... Perhaps we could poll RR on these trends? Recognizing that corruption can, and does, appear anywhere, which "side" is:

-more greedy;
-less principled;
-less moderated by ethics;
-less concerned about the planet;
-less concerned about people.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 03:40 PM

Quote:
I plan to vote for my material interest. I will not vote against my interest.
If no one represents my material interest I will not vote.

There's a trend out there somewhere on doing this...

Not enough of a trend to get Bernie nominated. We might see a few more Democratic Socialists in Congress and we will see a progressive candidate elected in 2020. But it won't be Bernie.

A lot of anti-corruption legislation is going to be passed in the coming years and I'm certain the leftist trend is going to continue but it's going to move at a snails pace. That's well and good as far as I'm concerned because it's got to be a stealth effort to avoid backlashes like Donald Trump.

I don't care who you vote for or whether you vote at all. It simply doesn't matter unless a feck ton of other people vote the same as you, That's how democracy works ya know. At this stage in the game there just aren't enough voters who agree with you.

I can't quite come to grips with why you think Bernie is the only person in the world who can solve any problems. He's cool and all but others can accomplish the same things.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Both parties wholly embrace capitalism in it's current form....

Capitalism, in it's current form, is a death cult.

I fully agree with this. How do we kill capitalism in its current form, and what will replace it?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 05:35 PM

?!...

I'm talking not voting.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 05:38 PM

I like the 'Democratize the Enterprise' that Wolff has been proposing. Would be a good start.

Rebuild the Democratic party or leave it is another.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 05:41 PM

Quote:
Are both "sides" equally corrupt?

It appears the Republican party is winning this race to the bottom thanks to the Trump Cabal. smile
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 06:07 PM

I thought the question was about amount and not speed?

What I do notice is how each wing gives their own brand of corruption a free pass or a tsk, tsk, while yelling FIRE!!! about the other wing.

On the other hand, If I look thru the leans of class politics, it's not even close...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 06:16 PM

You get a car! and You get a car!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 06:48 PM

Jimmy Dore nailed it well a week or so ago.

The Hunter Biden story has been kicking around out there for at least a year before the impeachment crap started up. It's not always the far right that critiques the center right wing.

Sometimes coke taste just like pepsi.



But a celeb anchor say's it's all a nothingburger so move along cuz.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 06:59 PM

So let's all not vote then!
Now, how do we guarantee that all the Trum...oh wait...they're going to vote.
So in essence, what we have here is the purity pony thing again.
Only Bernie is pure and if we can't have him, we're sitting home and sulking.
Congratulations Bernie Bros!
YOU GET POINTS, for consistency!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/10/19 07:21 PM

Goodness,

Bernie doesn't have a son in this fight.

I thought it was about corruption in both the rights political factions...
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/14/19 07:44 PM

Quote:
Sometimes coke taste just like pepsi.

I'd beg to differ on that. Coke tastes nothing like Pepsi, the latter is watered down, a bit sweeter and more palatable to less discerning drinkers. Ever heard of a Rum and Pepsi? I didn't think so because Pepsi is useless pap and never will make a decent highball or Cuba Libre. It's a children's drink at best. Republicans prefer it 6/4.
It's the kool aid of colas.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/14/19 09:07 PM

Tried rum & coke. Skipping high school with friends, driving on back roads, listening to ac/dc, Floyd etc. Haven’t had a mix cola drink since. You might be able to find the subtleties between em, Gregor, but for some that have no fondness for cola, the differences are negligible.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/16/19 01:19 AM

Add a squeeze of lime to that rum and coke and it aint half bad.

I can't have the sugar or the rum anymore, I'm just here sucking the ice cubes and wishing there was more...
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/16/19 02:17 AM

Now...as far as the Biden's go i figure Joe got his boy these cushy jobs by pulling strings for him. Certainly not corruption in the trumpian sense but shady dealings none the less. Is baby Joe selling access to the anointed President to be? Sheer speculation but as long as it casts a bit of doubt on Biden it's all good with me.

Some of you might recall that I don't much care for the old hairspray sniffer.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/16/19 05:20 AM

Read Hunter Biden's entry on wikipedia. He's been working in finance for 23 years, ever since he got his law degree from Yale. He's started investment companies, run lobbying companies, run hedge funds, sat on multiple boards, etc. He's done an awful lot of things to still need daddy's help on anything. He may have benefited by his father being who he is, but I doubt very much ole' Joe had a hand in anything. Hunter even got appointed to the AMTRAK board in 2006.....by George W. Bush!

So it's perfectly reasonable he was asked to serve on Burisma's board after they had a money laundering charge, in a effort to clean up their act. I can see why chunkstyle would not like him: He's certainly one of the upper class capitalists. But he's not really any more corrupt than any other upper class capitalists. I've never read anything about him stiffing contractors or grabbing random women by the crotch.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/16/19 05:31 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I've never read anything about him stiffing contractors or grabbing random women by the crotch.

..or told over 13,000 lies since starting a new job. coffee
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/16/19 02:40 PM

Quote:
So it's perfectly reasonable


Of course it is. I'm not interested in facts I just want Biden to lose.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/16/19 09:02 PM

I have previously posted on this one. I have given it some thought. The question was "are both sides equally corrupt". My post didn't really address that but just mentioned that there are some issues where both sides were unable to resolve, one was, I think, the ability to pass a law enforcing those that put up political ads to put their names on their product.

Anyway, as far as equality in corruption I think the most corrupt, without a doubt, based on current facts, is that the Republicans win as being the most corrupt hands down. I think that Trump is, flat out, a professional criminal and liar, doesn't pay his bills, and is also a philanderer. The only real question about that is the criminal part but I suspect, if the Dems can get it together and for testimony that proving criminality is a given. If they fail (likely) then that's on the Dems. Pelosi mentioned, yesterday, something like; "All Trump roads lead to Putin". If they got something on that one then I missed "traitor".

As usual - in the fullness of time.................
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/16/19 09:50 PM

This most recent discovery that Trump has used one set of books for lenders and another for tax purposes is probably criminal. And it's probably indicative of a lot of other criminal activities. It has smelled of money laundering from the start. Was it Deutschbank who just discovered they "accidentally destroyed" all of Trump's documents?

Guys in the international money laundering industry usually keep a low profile to avoid arrest and incarceration. Trump has gone where no crime boss has ever gone before.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 03:41 AM

I went to two candidates’ forums for Soil and Water Conservation District board members last night and tonight. SWCD’s are subdivisions of state government and members serve four year terms. Nov. 5 will be the first election in 21 years - how does that work?, you might be thinking. Turns out that the several members who have controlled it all that time didn’t see fit to let the public know that there were elections, so nobody ran against the incumbents, and because there were no challengers they would cancel the elections. The fact is they were so un-transparent that nobody in the general public even knew that it was an elected board. Whenever a board member stepped down they would simply exercise their authority to appoint a hand-picked replacement who would become an elected member at the next cancelled election.

It has been a real good ol’ boys club where most of the funding for projects went to friends and family, and contractors were sole-sourced without competitive bidding. And the District had become virulently anti-environment, funded by state tax dollars. Somehow it all came to light a couple of months ago and three interlopers made it into a real horserace.

Since this topic is a question of equal corruption of both sides, it’s probably notable that the good ol’ boys are all rightwingers, and the three challengers are all lefty progressives advocating the representation of all the spectrum of residents in full sunlight.

Mark this as a community level example of one side being egregiously more corrupt than the other.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 04:53 AM

Quote:
I'm not interested in facts I just want Biden to lose.


And that's a perfectly reasonable desire. But then again, you are not spreading malicious lies about Biden or his family. I would rather Biden lose as well, because I think a lot of other people could do a better job.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 05:00 AM

Quote:
one set of books for lenders and another for tax purposes is probably criminal


It most certainly IS criminal and lots of people have gone to prison for that. Hiding money used to pay off bimbos is also criminal money laundering. I think there will be way more than enough for a gigantic RICO prosecution when all the rot is exposed to the light of day. And the cool thing about RICO, is they can sentence people to prison, fine them, and confiscate all their ill-gotten gains. When it comes to Trump, all his money is probably ill-gotten. It is all about conspiracy as well, so it could sweep up a lot of his stooges and enablers. Like all the people ignoring subpoenas.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 01:24 PM

I have given this forum several examples of progressive candidates getting torpedo’d in the primary by the Democratic Party, Log.
Much like the Biden corruption, it goes unnoticed and uncommented.
The similarities between the Conservative neoliberal and conservative parties is really amazing.
Each side huffs and puffs over corruption while the other side sends in the talking heads to explain it away.
Each side believes it to be righteous while the other is morally, ethically repugnant.

Both play in the same sandbox as their adherents will remain blind and uncritical to their party. It’s a good con.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 01:35 PM

Bull.
Crack smoking fail son gets a board seat on Burisma right after getting kicked out of Navy pissing hot for coke. Nothing to do with dad’s being VP. He’s fighting crimes for Bamz. Forget the crack smoking. He’s the man for the the job of Ukrainian economic and political graft crime fighting? Or whatever other lame neoliberal rational you can use.

It sounds hypocritical to ignore (condone) your political faction while yelling about the ‘other side’.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 02:35 PM

Seems we have a cross-talk miscommunication where one of us is making broad generalizations and the other is noting empirical evidence. I am a project oriented type who likes to try to implement solutions. To do that I have to engage in ways where I can participate meaningfully, and it involves understanding the problem. I can do something about the SWCD problem where corrupt righties have stolen the District for their own personal use.

Regarding the Bidens, my abilities are much more limited. Other than joining you in generically condemning all Democrats as equally corrupt as the Republicans, with which I disagree, about all I can do is vote for, or against, specific candidates.

I have never taken the position that all Democrats are corruption-free, and I agree that corporate capitalism is a cancer that threatens our entire culture. But the selection of actions that are available to me requires some level of interaction with the unpure, otherwise I would only be screaming from the sidelines.

What are the actions you are taking to fix the problems? I asked this before and noted that your response was to call for some general conceptual things, in which I was unable to identify any action that I could take.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 03:12 PM

Your evidence of republican corruption being worse than democrats is no more valid than my experience on campaigns getting torpedoed by the national committee in favor of candidates larded up with hedge fund and fracking industry money.

I work to get representatives elected that have my interest. As you are trying to do. There's no cross talk here.

My experience is one that is shared nation wide and has been covered extensively by various reporting. I've given links to them in the past. The right wing, pro fossil fuel, pro hedge fund portion of the party is the dominant wing and has been so for decades now. My solution to that is to get progressives elected.

Your reporting on a local board level. Yes, they are important as are school boards, district boards, etc...

I have worked at this level as well. The corruption is near identical at this level. You may not like the style of the other side but the grift is much the same. At least the republican side is unashamed to admit it.

Finally, I believe that the thread started by you was to argue if both sides are corrupt. I don't believe that having the solutions was a requirement to post on this question. If that is something you want addressed, aren't you supposed to be starting another thread based on your previous posting logic? S'funny how that logic keeps changing with you.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 03:24 PM

The question, as I read it, was: are both "sides" equally corrupt? Beyond fluster, bluster and opinionating I think that point is being somewhat overlooked, at least by some. In the 1970-1980s, I think an argument, notwithstanding Nixon, could have been made that the Democrats had managed near-parity in that field, what with Dan Rostenkowski, et al. The bane of long control is complacency to petty corruption.

But Reagan ushered in an era a brazen corruption by Republicans that hadn't been seen since ancient Rome or Medici Italy. Democrats are rank amateurs and upstarts by comparison. Reagan pursued, professionally , the imperial presidency less than a decade after Nixon brought the office crashing down. Iran-contra, anyone? He made a practice of appointing enemies of the agencies to dismantle them, and put cronies in charge to make money off their offices. James Watt ring a bell? Ed Meese?
Quote:
The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.
(Wikipedia) Bush, with the tutelage of tricky Dick Cheney, practically perfected it by starting a war to profit from - that is still generating income! Trump is just the latest exemplar, and most ardent acolyte, of profit-from-office politics.

Yes, both "sides" are corrupt, but trying to "equate" their delinquency is a ploy. When 90% of the corruption is on one side of the ledger, bookies know how to set the book. The spread is laughable.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 03:48 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
S'funny how that logic keeps changing with you.

I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish with your statements in this topic. Seems like you want to grind an axe and find fault with me for some reason I can't divine.

Sorry...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 04:02 PM

Rilly NWP. That it?

What does it mean when you cage millions and take 'contributions' from industries profiting off of that activity? Is that fluster? We have people still serving in jail for crimes that are no longer illegal in some states. Should we go thru the record on that?

Wars of imperialism. Should we examine the record of congressional votes and presidential candidates on any of the ones waged in the last few decades? Do Neoliberals only vote for the good kind of state violence?

You want to examine only what you want to examine and disregard points made to the contrary. Your arguments are as arbitrary as anyone else's and carry to legitimate weight.

As one current candidate has pointed out, you can't take special interest money and expect to do the public interest when it may be counterproductive to that money. Here the Democratic Party structure is just as dubious and odious as republicans. Referencing a coupla scandals is proof of being able to reference a coupla scandals. It's evidence of nothing.

Neolibs (are we still pretending that there's no such political ideology?) do talk a better game when it comes to social issues but even that can be elusive when they are in contradiction of that special interest dollar.

And if we want to be real, it's the special dollar that calls the tune in politics and Republicans have no monopoly on that kind of corruption. Your box lid rules violation references not withstanding NWP, I hear there's human slave markets in Libya now. The inventory is being supplied by refugees from parts of the middle east. I don't remember Ghaddafi having slave markets. Wonder what happened to him and Libya...

Is that a rule violation or was that done all legal like too?







Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll


What are the actions you are taking to fix the problems? I asked this before and noted that your response was to call for some general conceptual things, in which I was unable to identify any action that I could take.



I am responding to your question being raised that seems tangential and outside the scope of the threads question.

As I recall, This thread got started by you as a result in my doing the same thing in another thread you started. I believe you frowned on my doing that there and took it on yourself to start this one . I simply wanted to take the opportunity to mention your doing it here. In your own discussion you started. (I'm politely saying your being hypocritical).

I'm happy to discuss solutions with you. Any time.

You may not like my ideas. Fine. Behaving as though I won't follow some set of rules regarding discussion is silly, arbitrary and limiting.

I mentioned Wolff's proposals, which are similar to other political economists but I started with Wolff. Again, we strayed but I didn't mind.

Different concepts of organizing got mentioned and which one I preferred.

Please refer me to the rules of discussion that I'm in violation of and I will mend my ways so that they are more sympathetic to your sensibilities.



Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 04:17 PM

Quote:
campaigns getting torpedoed by the national committee in favor of candidates larded up with hedge fund and fracking industry money.


DNC is most definitely corrupt, centrist, neo-liberal, power grubbing corporatists. But that doesn't exactly make them equal in their crimes to the Trump Family Syndicate. Not in my eyes anyway. They are your political rivals and they will do everything in their power to to keep centrist democrats in office. It's what their donors want. It's what political parties do.

You have a tendency to support long shot candidates then blame everybody but the candidate when they lose. The cool thing that you never seem to notice is that more and more progressive candidates are getting elected anyway. People like progressive ideas, Bernie has changed the world, not by getting elected but by getting word out that there is another way to do things! His candidacy may never catch fire but his ideas did! They not only caught fire but they burned themselves into the hearts of Americans. Bernie has drawn the map to our future. We'll make some wrong turns along the way(e.g. DJT) but we know what we need to do now.

Centrists aren't necessarily evil, they're just cautious.

Corruption...? Political maneuvering within the party to protect a preferred candidate isn't corruption, it's politics.

Corruption involves crime, like enlisting a foriegn country to interfere with an election. Like illegally withholding Congressionally approved funds to dig up dirt on a political rival.

Corruption is using your office for personal gain or accepting bribes for votes. Corruption is measured in indictments, convictions, and sentences. Corruption is measured in scandals, imbroglios, and public shaming. Corruption, once discovered, will usually destroy careers.

No, both sides are nowhere near equal.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 04:35 PM

Your putting words in my mouth.


I support my interests weather they are long shots or sho-ins.
You want to put off my pointing out the rigging of primary elections as sour grapes? O.K., whatever.

Citizens united is legal. Is it corrupting?

I'm not making this about Sanders or his viability as a candidate. Just noting an argument that has been made by him as it relates to Special Interest Inc. and who's side are you representing.


Centrists are what they are. The needles are buried in the red and they are slow walking any proposals to address this state of affairs. Wonder why?

Oh, right...

cuz republicans...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 05:04 PM

memories...
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 05:15 PM

Nope...cuz money. Like ever since money and government first met.

Putting words in your mouth? I don't know who else you might support and can't speak to that. But Bernie is a longshot candidate. Perhaps I'm wrong to assume you might support other long shot candidates but I think it's a safe bet. You voted for Ralph Nader, remember?
Quote:
I support my interests weather they are long shots or sho-ins.

That your reasons might be personal greed is no matter to me. I think our goals still are the same. Rigging of primary elections? That's not corruption. It's politics. Bernie was a dark horse candidate in 2016. Not even a party member. Yet you want the DNC to treat him as an equal to a candidate they and almost everyone else considers a shoo in?

Are you blind to what Bernie accomplished? Where he has taken us? Try to get over 2016.Try to accept that Bernie isn't going to win this time either. Bernie he has changed the Democratic Party forever.

Spit out the sour grapes, I got sweet ones right over here.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 06:55 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: logtroll
What are the actions you are taking to fix the problems? I asked this before and noted that your response was to call for some general conceptual things, in which I was unable to identify any action that I could take.

I am responding to your question being raised that seems tangential and outside the scope of the threads question.

As I recall, This thread got started by you as a result in my doing the same thing in another thread you started. I believe you frowned on my doing that there and took it on yourself to start this one . I simply wanted to take the opportunity to mention your doing it here. In your own discussion you started. (I'm politely saying your being hypocritical).

I'm happy to discuss solutions with you. Any time.

You may not like my ideas. Fine. Behaving as though I won't follow some set of rules regarding discussion is silly, arbitrary and limiting.

I mentioned Wolff's proposals, which are similar to other political economists but I started with Wolff. Again, we strayed but I didn't mind.

Different concepts of organizing got mentioned and which one I preferred.

Please refer me to the rules of discussion that I'm in violation of and I will mend my ways so that they are more sympathetic to your sensibilities.

My sensibilities are telling me that they don't understand what your problem is, that's all.
You be seein' sumthin' that I ain't be seein', brutha.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 06:58 PM

You keep making it about me. It's not. It's a argument about what constitutes corruption.
WHen Dems do it, it's permissable under 'politics'.
When republicans do it, it's corruption.

If it's personal greed then both parties will accommodate you with that endeavor so long as you have the bread.

I vote my class interests and the record is pretty clear who's been serving whom.

Sorry for the confusion. Not all interests are personal. Should have been specific there.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 07:03 PM

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand your points. I can admit to that. I'm beginning to forget the point of this thread really.

Cept' Dem side good. Repub Bad.

O.K., you got me.

your right Logtroll.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/17/19 11:40 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Cept' Dem side good. Repub Bad.

Okay, I never said that. But I think maybe I'm finally seeing the burr under your saddle - I'm not bitching enough about Dem corruption, only Rep corruption, and you want me to bitch about Dems.

The thing is, all of the Dem politicians that I know are not corrupt in any way that I know of. Yet I know numerous Reps that are corrupt in varying obvious degrees.

Away from them that I know, the corruption among national level Reps is swampy, indeed. The occasional corrupt or unethical Dem seems to get what's deserved, and sometimes more so (Al Franken comes to mind). The Biden thing has some fishy smells, of which I haven't seen actual proof, but it bolsters my disinclination to vote for Ol' Joe (as if I needed more). In any case, Ol' Joe does not seem to be actively harming anything I care about.

As for bitching about other obviously corrupt and unethical folks, I have a fairly long list of Reps who I think are are outrageously slimey but not very many Dems. Hence my opinion that both sides are not equally corrupt.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Cept' Dem side good. Repub Bad.

Okay, I never said that. But I think maybe I'm finally seeing the burr under your saddle - I'm not bitching enough about Dem corruption, only Rep corruption, and you want me to bitch about Dems.


Uhhh.... no.
Try rereading what I plainly wrote.

As far as who’s more corrupt I guess we may have different ideas of what corruption is and how it exists?

We seem to have made political bribery legal under citizens united so maybe start at the beginning and take that off the table, what else should be considered politically corrupt?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 02:22 AM

I don’t understand what you are saying. Maybe someone else will interpret.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 03:02 AM

Getting rid of Citizens United would be a good start. Did the Democrats support that? Do they now? I was under the impression it was mostly pushed through by conservative members of the SCOTUS. That being the case, Republicans have taken control of the Supreme Court and it's gonna be a long time before that changes. Is Mitch McConnell corrupt? Or is he the consummate politician? He certainly had a lot to do with that. Justice Kennedy's retirement was also kind of questionable. I figure Trump dug up dirt on him and blackmailed him into retirement. Lindsey Graham was a never Trumper, then he wasn't...Dirt? Probably. Corruption? Probably. Crime? Maybe.

And all you got on the Dems is Debbie Wasserman Shultz? And some DNC hanky panky? Weak tea compared to the Republican side. RNC never done that when one of their favorite sons gets primaried by an upstart? Is the DNC as corrupt as the RNC? I dunno, I try to just ignore them, it's party politics and I aint a member of the party. I don't vote in the primaries and don't have a dog in the fight.

Call it corruption if you want, I won't argue. But no one went to jail, no laws were broken, Wasserman-Schultz got re-elected and continues to serve. Claims to be a progressive in fact and has probably embraced a bunch of Bernie's ideas at this point.

That's poetic justice if you ask me....also political maneuvering to place herself in the best light among liberals to win re-election a bunch more times. Politics. And more proof that Bernie has shaped the future of the Democratic Party.

To my notion, where there is corruption there is usually crime. Where there is no crime it's just politics. It's a combat sport, it's entertainment, it's like wrestling, carefully choreographed and driven by money.

Just rambling...don't mind me...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 03:44 AM

The RNC watched its favorite son get pushed off the stage by an interloper. It didn’t stop him going on to win the party nomination. Democratic Party nomination was much different if my memory serves. In a perverse way the Republicans are more honest and democratic with their nominating process.
Citizens united was decided by the Supreme Court. Yes, the Democratic Party put on a nice performance of outrage but their campaign fundraising tells another story. Both parties are corporate owned I guess it’s a matter of what corporate sponsors you prefer to identify with. Which corporate boards backside you would like your candidate kissing.




Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 03:47 AM

Don’t sweat me Logs. I don’t often understand your rationals either.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 04:49 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

Citizens united was decided by the Supreme Court. Yes, the Democratic Party put on a nice performance of outrage but their campaign fundraising tells another story.



So I guess they should have just doffed all pretext at corporate funding whatsoever and all Democratic candidates, starting with Barack Obama at the very least, should have crowdsourced all of their mojo.

Well, at least I am glad we both agree that Bernie should have started doing much the same thing right after 2012, provided of course he actually had joined the party.

Or, I suppose Democrats could have just decided to refuse to participate any further in any election campaign where the other party is being infused with corporate cash.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 05:08 AM

Does the phrase ‘they got the money, we got the numbers’ mean anything to you?
The drive to get corporate cash is the very hallmark of neoliberalism. Justified with an arms race argument.
One wonders how the democrats held a majority monopoly of congress from the new deal until... lessee know, when did the ‘New Democrats’ first arrive with those rationals of how to win...
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 11:39 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Rilly NWP. That it?

What does it mean when you cage millions and take 'contributions' from industries profiting off of that activity? Is that fluster? We have people still serving in jail for crimes that are no longer illegal in some states. Should we go thru the record on that?

Wars of imperialism. Should we examine the record of congressional votes and presidential candidates on any of the ones waged in the last few decades? Do Neoliberals only vote for the good kind of state violence?

You want to examine only what you want to examine and disregard points made to the contrary. Your arguments are as arbitrary as anyone else's and carry to legitimate weight.

As one current candidate has pointed out, you can't take special interest money and expect to do the public interest when it may be counterproductive to that money. Here the Democratic Party structure is just as dubious and odious as republicans. Referencing a coupla scandals is proof of being able to reference a coupla scandals. It's evidence of nothing.

Neolibs (are we still pretending that there's no such political ideology?) do talk a better game when it comes to social issues but even that can be elusive when they are in contradiction of that special interest dollar.

And if we want to be real, it's the special dollar that calls the tune in politics and Republicans have no monopoly on that kind of corruption. Your box lid rules violation references not withstanding NWP, I hear there's human slave markets in Libya now. The inventory is being supplied by refugees from parts of the middle east. I don't remember Ghaddafi having slave markets. Wonder what happened to him and Libya...

Is that a rule violation or was that done all legal like too?

That's a lot of words to say nothing at all...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? - 10/18/19 12:18 PM

Maybe corruption comes in different forms, some legal, some not . More than the couple cherry picked ones you referenced to make your point.