Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US

[ttystikk]

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?

Unlimited contributions from anonymous donors cross the line.

Play all the semantic games you want, the end result is the same.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Unlimited contributions from anonymous donors cross the line.

Like Russia?

 

[Tim Fox]

I'll put up two names and let you knock them down if you like.

Ron Wyden, Peter Defazio. Congressmen from Oregon who have a lot of policies that I like.

But I'm not an absolutist. They just have to be mostly good. Like me.

my home state

 

[Unclebaldrick]

This has gotten to be a long thread.

Has anybody said "penis" yet?

 

[ttystikk]

Like Russia?

One of many sources our national stupidity now allows.

 

[Tim Fox]

Go Bernie, Get your Grove on,,, Go Bernie

 

[Fogdog]

Unlimited contributions from anonymous donors cross the line.

Play all the semantic games you want, the end result is the same.

Dude, words aka semantics matter. Paddy was shouting about bribes which holds a different meaning than legal campaign contributions that give access. Unlike a bribe, accepting a legal campaign contribution is not the same as giving a promise of a favor.

The issue at hand is whether or not Democratic party candidates should reject legal campaign contributions when their opponents not only do but will never do anything to repeal Citizen's United.

 

[UncleBuck]

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

did trump do the same in saudi arabia when he registered 8 businesses there?

or did he just rape a whole bunch of people, like he raped his ex-wife, jill harth, 13 year old katie johnson, and countless unknown others?

 

[ttystikk]

Dude, words aka semantics matter. Paddy was shouting about bribes which holds a different meaning than legal campaign contributions that give access. Unlike a bribe, accepting a legal campaign contribution is not the same as giving a promise of a favor.

The issue at hand is whether or not Democratic party candidates should reject legal campaign contributions when their opponents not only do but will never do anything to repeal Citizen's United.

This sounds like schoolyard 'they did it so it must be okay!' bullshit to me.

I agree that putting Democrats back in power would give it a snowball's chance.

So send only those candidates who pledge to actually do it once elected.

 

[UncleBuck]

So send only those candidates who pledge to actually do it once elected.

like hillary clinton?

 

[ttystikk]

like hillary clinton?

There's the credibility factor to consider.

 

[UncleBuck]

There's the credibility factor to consider.

she was the most honest politician in the nation, if verifiable facts are to be believed.

 

[ttystikk]

she was the most honest politician in the nation, if verifiable facts are to be believed.

Hmmmm. That doesn't square with what I know about Bernie Sanders.

 

[UncleBuck]

Hmmmm. That doesn't square with what I know about Bernie Sanders.

you can either believe facts or disregard them.

 

[ttystikk]

you can either believe facts or disregard them.

Ok so they're close, and Sanders stands for what I believe in.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ok so they're close, and Sanders stands for what I believe in.

so does hillary and she's more honest.

 

[ttystikk]

so does hillary and she's more honest.

Here's where we disagree.

She's done. No three time losers, our political system can't take the abuse.

 

[Fogdog]

Here's where we disagree.

She's done. No three time losers, our political system can't take the abuse.

You are hung up on fake conspiracy theories, not just about Clinton but the Democratic party itself. Buck has shown you some facts that run counter to your belief about Clinton and so you reject them. I bore down on a "semantics" difference because words matter when using them to draw conclusions. I'm pretty sure I didn't get through.

Clinton is done, this is true. Discussing her is only important because the cause of her failure is complicated. Some of it is her own shortcomings. Quite a bit more is due to the propaganda and misogyny that plagued her career. She is done. But the Democratic Party is beset by the same fake news and other forms of propaganda. And so, I'm willing to talk about both.

 

[ttystikk]

You are hung up on fake conspiracy theories, not just about Clinton but the Democratic party itself. Buck has shown you some facts that run counter to your belief about Clinton and so you reject them. I bore down on a "semantics" difference because words matter when using them to draw conclusions. I'm pretty sure I didn't get through.

Clinton is done, this is true. Discussing her is only important because the cause of her failure is complicated. Some of it is her own shortcomings. Quite a bit more is due to the propaganda and misogyny that plagued her career. She is done. But the Democratic Party is beset by the same fake news and other forms of propaganda. And so, I'm willing to talk about both.

Nothing here I disagree with.

 

[UncleBuck]

Quite a bit more is due to the propaganda and misogyny that plagued her career.

even good folks like tty aren't immune, he felt sanders was the more honest candidate despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

now apply that same internalized bias to the mouth breathing fascists on the right.