Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US

[tampee]

hillary went to china decades ago and stated unequivocally that "women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights".

it doesn't get any more progressive than that.

Did she do the same in Saudi Arabia? Or just took their money?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You conflate two unrelated concepts. You are confused about what progressive politics are.

Accepting bribes is not a progressive policy position

I don't support candidates who accept bribes, you believe accepting bribes is necessary to beat Republicans

 

[ttystikk]

Accepting bribes is not a progressive policy position

I don't support candidates who accept bribes, you believe accepting bribes is necessary to beat Republicans

This seems to be a fundamental difference between yours and my position and that of the other 'liberals' here.

I don't get the dichotomous thinking here; bribes short circuit democracy by offering outsized influence to those who can afford it- but those of us who are against legalized corruption have to engage in it anyway in order to compete?

NO. If that worked, the Democratic Party Establishment wouldn't be in such disarray across the country from statehouses on up.

Funny how establishment Democrats are bound and determined to call Mr Sanders' campaign a failure, even though it was in fact revolutionary in terms of what it accomplished against an entrenched system.

Clearly they're terrified of losing their ability to bribe candidates.

 

[visajoe1]

The progressive political movement had its heyday about a hundred years ago and the term lost any real meaning when the movement sputtered out after Roosevelt Bull Moose party dissolved.

Absent an organized movement, the term drops into a general ideal of supporting progress and change. Progressive can be conservative or liberal in nature. Progressive liberals support social and economic change for the general public. What distinguishes liberals from progressive liberals is that progressive liberals support government regulations and enforcement actions, such as banking reform in the form of regulators and laws to force change on banks. Liberals might want the same things but shy away from authoritarian actions such as enforcement through laws and regulations.

Campaign contributions are legal and protected as free speech under the Citizen's United ruling. Progressives advocate repealing this ruling but feel no moral obligation to stop taking them if legal. The moralistic liberal would eschew them on principle, which more closely matches Paddy's attitude. The less lofty progressive may campaign for finance reforms but sees no reason to eschew legal campaign contributions, especially if by not accepting legal contributions, their opponent, who favors unlimited donations from corporate donors, gains an advantage..

Examples of progressive (progressive liberal) reforms and actions are: Social Security, Civil Rights Act, EPA, Affordable Care Act.

Examples of liberal actions and movements: Tree sitting to protect forests, sit-in type protests, Black Lives Matter, Planned Parenthood

Thanks dog, appreciate the time you put into that, it helps for sure. The political spectrum has taken on some new shades the last decade, and its tough to discern the differences sometimes. But this, I can understand.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Accepting bribes is not a progressive policy position

I don't support candidates who accept bribes, you believe accepting bribes is necessary to beat Republicans

I still don't believe in your concept of 'bribes'.

Just because you take money from someone doesn't mean you're going to blow them.

And what about Hillary? She took 'bribes' according to you, but she can't do anything for the donors.

So, 50% of your 'bribes' have no value?

I'm all for gutting Citizens United, but I don't see every campaign contribution as a bribe.

Like I said before, the corporation I worked for gave equal donations to BOTH sides in senatorial races here. They wanted import dumping relief.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

This seems to be a fundamental difference between yours and my position and that of the other 'liberals' here.

I don't get the dichotomous thinking here; bribes short circuit democracy by offering outsized influence to those who can afford it- but those of us who are against legalized corruption have to engage in it anyway in order to compete?

NO. If that worked, the Democratic Party Establishment wouldn't be in such disarray across the country from statehouses on up.

Funny how establishment Democrats are bound and determined to call Mr Sanders' campaign a failure, even though it was in fact revolutionary in terms of what it accomplished against an entrenched system.

Clearly they're terrified of losing their ability to bribe candidates.

Bill Maher donated a million to Obama in 2012.

Obama would never go on his show.

Failed 'bribe'?

 

[ttystikk]

I still don't believe in your concept of 'bribes'.

Just because you take money from someone doesn't mean you're going to blow them.

And what about Hillary? She took 'bribes' according to you, but she can't do anything for the donors.

So, 50% of your 'bribes' have no value?

I'm all for gutting Citizens United, but I don't see every campaign contribution as a bribe.

Like I said before, the corporation I worked for gave equal donations to BOTH sides in senatorial races here. They wanted import dumping relief.

They're buying the 'right' to have their concerns heard first and with higher priority than, say, dealing with homeless veterans.

How ISN'T that corruption?

 

[ttystikk]

Bill Maher donated a million to Obama in 2012.

Obama would never go on his show.

Failed 'bribe'?

Bill Maher got plenty of mileage out of that donation simply by taking about it on his show.

Please tell me you know better than to think corporations and fat cats aren't expecting returns on their campaign finance investments?

How is that NOT corruption?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

They're buying the 'right' to have their concerns heard first and with higher priority than, say, dealing with homeless veterans.

How ISN'T that corruption?

So when Hillary lost, what did her donors get?

It isn't corruption if they didn't get anything, right?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Bill Maher got plenty of mileage out of that donation simply by taking about it on his show.

Please tell me you know better than to think corporations and fat cats aren't expecting returns on their campaign finance investments?

How is that NOT corruption?

It's an enormous waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

I have trouble calling it all 'corrupt'. You're smart enough to know it's complicated.

 

[ttystikk]

So when Hillary lost, what did her donors get?

It isn't corruption if they didn't get anything, right?

They donated to both sides, ensuring that no matter who won, they preserve their preferential status.

How ISN'T that corruption?!

Why can't you answer my question?

You've been trying, but every answer keeps coming back to preferential access/treatment = corruption.

The only way it wouldn't be corruption is if the maximum donation were limited to a universally accessible amount, like $100.

In other words, how Bernie's campaign did it.

 

[ttystikk]

It's an enormous waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

I have trouble calling it all 'corrupt'. You're smart enough to know it's complicated.

Lol you go right on thinking that, and the fat cats will go right on getting their agenda heard over yours.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Lol you go right on thinking that, and the fat cats will go right on getting their agenda heard over yours.

I'm not saying you don't have good ideas or that we don't share basic core beliefs.


But it's not all corrupt. There were worthy compaign donors as well.

Unfortunately, Citizens United is the law of the land as much as the ACA.

Getting it overturned is near impossible when a regime like this one takes power.
I'm 100% behind finance reform, but it's not happening soon.

How many republicans have you flipped lately? I'm not having much luck talking to the fake news crowd myself. Until you (we) can somehow neutralize fake news, nothing is changing here.

You have to consider what you're up against here.

 

[Fogdog]

Accepting bribes is not a progressive policy position

I don't support candidates who accept bribes, you believe accepting bribes is necessary to beat Republicans

Again, you conflate two unrelated concepts. Bribes are not legal campaign contributions. Goddamit you are confused.

 

[ttystikk]

I'm not saying you don't have good ideas or that we don't share basic core beliefs.


But it's not all corrupt. There were worthy compaign donors as well.

Unfortunately, Citizens United is the law of the land as much as the ACA.

Getting it overturned is near impossible when a regime like this one takes power.
I'm 100% behind finance reform, but it's not happening soon.

How many republicans have you flipped lately? I'm not having much luck talking to the fake news crowd myself. Until you (we) can somehow neutralize fake news, nothing is changing here.

You have to consider what you're up against here.

My target isn't right wing voters.

Turns out that more registered voters didn't vote than all those who showed up to vote put together.

THOSE are the people I hope to convince.

 

[ttystikk]

Again, you conflate two unrelated concepts. Bribes are not legal campaign contributions. Goddamit you are confused.

Large campaign contributions ARE bribes, whether they're legal or not.

Who's the confused one?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

My target isn't right wing voters.

Turns out that more registered voters didn't vote than all those who showed up to vote put together.

THOSE are the people I hope to convince.

I thought I read 57% of registered voters showed up.

If correct, that's not bad for 2 candidates over loaded with negative polling.

There remains too much apathy. And too much believed fake news.

 

[Fogdog]

Bill Maher got plenty of mileage out of that donation simply by taking about it on his show.

Please tell me you know better than to think corporations and fat cats aren't expecting returns on their campaign finance investments?

How is that NOT corruption?

Yep. Corruption takes many forms. In the US corruption is evident when access is gained by contributions and the access is used to write regulations by the people who would be regulated. They are not participating as one of many stakeholders in the legislation to help make it better, they shut out other stakeholders to their advantage. Also agree that democracy is under siege by this same corrupt system.

The main issue today that blocks repeal of Citizen's United is right wing control of the government. Until Republicans are reduced to minority status in Congress and a Democratic Party President is in office repeal is not going to happen. Repeal of CU IS supported by Democratic Party elected officials and has been for some time. In 2015, GOP congressmen blocked repeal. First gain control of Congress THEN is time to hold Democrats responsible to repeal Citizen's United. Go ahead and fulminate about out sized campaign contributions by the wealthy but there isn't much sense in Democrats unilaterally ending them and giving Republicans the campaign spending advantage.

 

[Fogdog]

Large campaign contributions ARE bribes, whether they're legal or not.

Who's the confused one?

You and Paddy are.

The difference is in the act. Bribes are given with an up front agreement -- "I'll give you this if you'll do that".

Definition of bribe: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. Police officers accused of taking bribes (Merriam Webster)

Large, legal campaign contributions gain access but there can be no promise of an expected outcome or overt expectation of influence. Did I bribe my Congressman with my $25 legal contribution?

Agree that there is corruption in the current campaign contribution system in that big donors gain access and an advantage but legal contributions are not bribes. Perhaps you confuse corruption with bribes?

 

[ttystikk]

I thought I read 57% of registered voters showed up.

If correct, that's not bad for 2 candidates over loaded with negative polling.

There remains too much apathy. And too much believed fake news.

Even assuming those numbers are accurate, it still prices my point that independent voters are a rich target and their numbers would easily overwhelm either establishment party.