Oligarchy
- Thread starter ping72
- Start date
That doesn't make any sense.
Why should we be precluded from lobbying our elected government to inform them of our interests?
That's the whole point of freedom of speech and representative government.
Sanders apparently has had no issue with Soros and his huge impact on getting judges and politicians elected that fit his narrative for how the US should be run. Sanders can f-off.
Because they give them money to get what they want creating a conflict of interest.
Want to make sure I'm keeping up here.
'They' are the lobbyists?
'Them' are the elected representatives?
Bribes are against the law already. Are you talking about campaign contributions?
You're in essence saying that if someone supports a candidate for a reason (the 'interest'), that providing a candidate the money to spread the message about what they support (or oppose) is corrupt?
How else do politicians get the message out about what they support if they can't spend money to do it? Whenever I ask the people who oppose 'money in politics' how you can have freedom of speech if you can't pay for a microphone, I don't get an answer.
How would our representative government work if the interests of the electorate aren't allowed to be communicated to the politicians?
Bribes are against the law, but you know perfectly well there's a very wide gray area involving "gifts", "vacations" and such.
They can use their expense plan to buy a microphone. Thats what it’s for. As a constituent, got something on your mind? Call your rep. Pretty simple, really.
No. There should be no money in politics. It creates a conflict of interest? You ok with conflicts of interest?
He is being obtuse and arguing just to argue. He knows damn well the corruption lobbying presents.
Jfc the idea that candidates need millions of dollars in bribes from special interest groups in order to get their message out is insane.
There are more platforms than ever for candidates to get their messages out. All major social media platforms in this country are free. There are hundreds of local and national tv shows, radio stations, and podcasts that are available.
So why did the Democrats spend 2 billion dollars for the presidential election last cycle?
Are they just too stupid to know that posting on social media is free?
What do you think they did with that money?
Granted…some change of mind is warranted, but not on virtually the majority of her positions.
That sleazy woman can’t dress with class. Did she need an extra ticket for her bolt ons or her puffed up lips?
Sheesh.
The cost of this election
The 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive since at least 1998. In total, $5.5 billion dollars was spent on the race by presidential candidates, political parties and independent interest groups trying to influence federal elections, according to Open Secrets. Adjusted for...
www.pbs.org
Because the leadership at the DNC is out of touch when it comes to new and alternative media.
Considering they let a billionaire businessman who has stiffed or screwed over hundreds of small businesses come off as the candidate who was more for the common man twice..... I think it's pretty clear that they are stupid.
As for how they spent that money, I wouldn't know but I'm guessing a lot that went to 5* hotels/restaurants, useless consultants, focus groups, and pointless ad buys.
I keep saying - Democrats lost on messaging, not policy.
What policies do you think the Democratic Party should have run on (the messaging part). Thanks Sober.
Much of what Harris ran in general polled well once it was understood what they were. Final polls showed that Harris did best with educated voters but got crushed with the rest.
Dems have to figure out a way to simplify and sell their ideas. Trump kept his message simple - immigrants bad; high prices bad, etc. Harris never figured out a way to do any of that - she couldn't sell her ideas, couldn't figure out a way to distance herself from Biden and be her own candidate, so she got tied to everything people didn't like about the last 4 years. And so on.
She had no policies at first and in fact hid away from the public. At first. Then she did come out and contradict her previous policies. Policies from like 4 or 5 yrs ago. Like not saying “terrorists”. America doesn’t like being told that
Thanks, to be fair to Harris, she really did not have time to distance herself. I thought the Dems did a HORRIBLE job of messaging out their 'great economy'. I put that in quotes because I think the vast majority of people equate economy to their day to day life. Gas prices, grocery prices, etc. Things they see every day.
Honestly, it was so hard for most people to listen to Harris that they just tuned her out. I honestly cannot remember one thing she ran on. She got that huge initial bump because she wasn't Biden,,,but then she really kind of hid from view (in the mind of many). Personally I thought she should have gotten in front of the press for questions way more frequently so people could hear her respond to some tough questions. ALTHOUGH, that might have really backfired.
We got the message loud and clear: men can have babies, illegals can come here and commit crimes, the economy and inflation is republican propoganda, the democracy is at risk, guys can shower with the chicks in school
For some reason she seemed to try to run an a typical campaign...against an atypical candidate and under atypical conditions.
I think alot of people in her camp thought all she needed to do was be the fresh face and that would put them over the top vs Trump.
Thanks Sober, always appreciate our discussions.
Yeah, when you're lobbed a softball question from an appreciative panel about what you would have done different than Biden, and your answer is "Nothing" people really struggle to distance you from Biden.
Stupid people.
whenever somebody says, "I need you to" , I always want to say, "I need you to go to heck"
Latest posts
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep 121 Iowa BBall SLUMP: Women Lose 5 in a Row, Men Drop 2 in LA
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
