The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[Jludo]

I liked Tulsi and jocko on Rogan, i wish they would have brought up guns though as im clearly not on board with an assault weapons ban. For her claiming she doesnt follow Democrat talking points she sure seems to follow them on gun control.

One thing they did mention that I'd never thought about before though, campaign contributions to an individual are capped at 2800 but the parties themselves can raise a lot more money so the party can control the candidate by contributing or not contributing to their campaign. Apparently after the Bernie/hilary thing in 2016 Tulsi became a persona non grata in the dem party and gets no support from them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hunter Biden suspected of smoking crack in DC strip club VIP room.

If there's a better place to smoke crack, I'm open to suggestions

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1199502515861118976

That seems to be a hit piece... evidenced by it occurring "late last year," and the fact that there's nothing that can ever come from the allegation.

 

[Leadeye]

Hunter Biden suspected of smoking crack in DC strip club VIP room.

If there's a better place to smoke crack, I'm open to suggestions

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1199502515861118976

Marion Barry probably knew of a few places.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Marion Barry probably knew ALL places.

FIFY

 

[Ingomike]

I liked Tulsi and jocko on Rogan, i wish they would have brought up guns though as im clearly not on board with an assault weapons ban. For her claiming she doesnt follow Democrat talking points she sure seems to follow them on gun control.

One thing they did mention that I'd never thought about before though, campaign contributions to an individual are capped at 2800 but the parties themselves can raise a lot more money so the party can control the candidate by contributing or not contributing to their campaign. Apparently after the Bernie/hilary thing in 2016 Tulsi became a persona non grata in the dem party and gets no support from them.

All brought to you by campaign finance laws. Once upon a time we had freedom, if anyone liked a candidate, they could directly finance that candidate to present their positions to the people, no middle man. Parties were less important, PAC's did not exist, no need, just give the money to the candidates. Then do gooders decreed money is evil, not speech, like the SCOTUS, and walla, we have party power, billionaire candidates, PAC's, money bundlers and "outside groups" involved in Presidential elections.

The court got Citizens United right but not striking down candidate contributions limits was a bad decision, one I hope the current court looks at again...

 

[T.Lex]

All brought to you by campaign finance laws. Once upon a time we had freedom, if anyone liked a candidate, they could directly finance that candidate to present their positions to the people, no middle man. Parties were less important, PAC's did not exist, no need, just give the money to the candidates. Then do gooders decreed money is evil, not speech, like the SCOTUS, and walla, we have party power, billionaire candidates, PAC's, money bundlers and "outside groups" involved in Presidential elections.

The court got Citizens United right but not striking down candidate contributions limits was a bad decision, one I hope the current court looks at again...

I think this overlooks significant swaths of American history in which candidates were "owned" by wealthy individuals. Yeah, the current system re-arranged the chess pieces, but it prevents (sorta) individuals from having too much monetary influence over candidates. It dilutes any one person's financial impact, in favor of requiring (sorta) a group, an aggregation, which dilutes any one person's influence. (Sorta.)

I'm not defending the current system as 'perfect' - far from it. Its just the best one available.

Really, there can't be a "perfect" system for this kind of thing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think this overlooks significant swaths of American history in which candidates were "owned" by wealthy individuals. Yeah, the current system re-arranged the chess pieces, but it prevents (sorta) individuals from having too much monetary influence over candidates. It dilutes any one person's financial impact, in favor of requiring (sorta) a group, an aggregation, which dilutes any one person's influence. (Sorta.)

I'm not defending the current system as 'perfect' - far from it. Its just the best one available.

Really, there can't be a "perfect" system for this kind of thing.

THIS. Can you imagine if Zuck, Bloom, or any of a variety of billionaires could bring the full weight of their wealth to our political system?

 

[T.Lex]

So that's kinda the problem: they still can.

It is more difficult, and subject to certain transparency, but it can still be done.

Koch brothers, Soros immediately come to mind, but there are other politically active rich people.

 

[Jludo]

I think the point Tulsi was trying to make was more that all the money had to flow through one of the two parties now.

 

[KLB]

I think the point Tulsi was trying to make was more that all the money had to flow through one of the two parties now.

Another roadblock for another party to challenge the established.

 

[Leadeye]

A question with no answer is how much of the cash influence game gets run through law/lobby firms in dc. The who and how much would probably be a scary answer if we could ever get it.

Over the years I think this big city machine model has spread far.

 

[Phase2]

A question with no answer is how much of the cash influence game gets run through law/lobby firms in dc. The who and how much would probably be a scary answer if we could ever get it.

Over the years I think this big city machine model has spread far.

You don't have to have an exact dollar accounting to know that the number is way too much.

Census Bureau: 5 Richest Counties Are D.C. Suburbs- 9 of the top 20 counties by income are located in the DC area.

The Washington DC area produces no products/services of significance except political influence and control.

 

[nonobaddog]

So that's kinda the problem: they still can.

It is more difficult, and subject to certain transparency, but it can still be done.

Koch brothers, Soros immediately come to mind, but there are other politically active rich people.

It is really not that hard. They use dark money, things like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, and the contributors are not limited and their identity is not reported.

 

[T.Lex]

Can we all agree that a celebrity who photochopped their own face into a movie poster would be properly mocked here on INGO?

 

[KG1]

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Scammin' Stallion?

 

[Phase2]

Fighting for America.

 

[KG1]

I don't think it's photoshopped.

 

[KG1]

The Scammin' Stallion?

Rocky Baloneyboa

 

[printcraft]

I don't think it's photoshopped.

Better get the new york times on the case to check to see if it's real.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/politics/trump-dog.html