Because I'm certainly not going to vote for Hillary.
Weird way to go about things. You're not fine with politicians being bought and put into power, but you're fine with those who buy them being in power? What exactly is the difference if at the end of the day, the agenda of those buying is what is being put in place?
Strawman. I asked why somebody would be alright with somebody who buys them.
Weird? Why weird? Who is the smarter player? The buyer, or the sell out?
And no strawman, you asked the question, but offer no explanation for it.
Why do think it's a negative to buy a politician, as you put it, when that is SOP in politics?
I won't deal with silly questions about 'who is smarter?' when the 'player' who you believe is smarter keeps telling his dwindling supporters that he'll ban entire demographics and force other countries to build walls.
Please show where I've said it's negative to do anything. In thread post number will suffice. Thanks.
LOL Well, if you're so biased as to be unable to be objective, what is the point of asking the question?
Also, if you believe you haven't indicated a negative it's fruitless to provide a post number.
Weird? Why weird?
Well, think about it. If I buy a politician and get them to do X or if I run for office myself and do X what's the difference? Either way X is getting done. The only thing that really matters is if X is a good thing or bad thing.
If you are upset about politicians being bought off, that's suggesting that you don't like what they are being told to do by their sugar-daddies. But it seems odd that you think that's somehow a problem yet if the sugar-daddy ran himself and still had all the same motives that the sellout had, somehow that's not as big of a problem.
In general when people complain about politicians being bought and paid for, their real complaint is that they are supported by the wrong groups. Democrats will be thrilled when a teachers union supports Hillary Clinton but mad when Hillary takes money from wallstreet. Republicans will call out a democrat for being a sell out to unions but won't likely criticize a republican for taking money from big oil or say the chamber of commerce etc.
Yea, I agree. And I'm the same way. I try to catch myself but not always successful. I do think we need to massively overhaul current campaign finance laws.I think you hit the nail on the head. The complaints do typically involve who is doing the buying, and who is taking the money.
In a truly objective opinion, I have less concern for someone doing the buying than I do for someone putting themselves up for sale. One involves a desire to get the job done, no matter the obstacle, and the other involves someone with little integrity and values.
This is where Partisanship and people dumb enough to be duped by political machines gets us.
We are the laughing stock of the world right now because of Trump and Hillary, I hope at least someone in this thread realizes this, and the tantamount quantum insanity of even taking the whole political process - at this moment - remotely seriously.
Could have been much worse. Could have been Trump and Sanders. I can hear the world giggle as I type that.
Yea, I agree. And I'm the same way. I try to catch myself but not always successful. I do think we need to massively overhaul current campaign finance laws.
Also, I wouldn't call that truly objective. What if the politician is thinking "I need to get elected to get X done and I know it would be good for the country, but in order to get elected I need funds and Company Y will donate to me if I push for Y which isn't something that I'm opposed to so why not"
Of course I think that this is not often the case, but I wouldn't say it never happens. I think in every case the motives of the buyer and seller play a very very large part.
You think ...Bernie Sanders is worse than Donald ****ing Trump...
:lamo
Wait, you actually believe that don't you?
:lamo :lamo :lamo
To hell with giggling I'm crying.
He's saying it could have been Bernie and Trump INSTEAD OF Hillary and Trump. He's saying Bernie being a presidential nominee is crazier than Hillary. Not more than Trump. Unless he also thinks that.
You think ...Bernie Sanders is worse than Donald ****ing Trump...
:lamo
Wait, you actually believe that don't you?
:lamo :lamo :lamo
To hell with giggling I'm crying.
I think it's different than last time. Did the media polls purposefully distort the standings last time, such as they've done here?
They might have, but I don't recall them doing so last time.
So this is not 'the exact same excuses'.
I'd just as soon have honest and accurate polls that are using sound methodology. Wouldn't you?
It's a thin line for sure. In an era where social media and manipulated sound bites play a bigger role than policy and conviction, I'm not sure how the monetary component could be removed.
:lol: :lamo :lamo :lamo :lol:
I did not realize reading comprehension was so hard...
Could have been Trump and Sanders.
Finally, the partisanship is admitted.
Given a choice between A and B, all you see if partisanship.
Well, I guess we now know through which hyperpartisan blinders you view the world.
As if you'd vote for Sanders(C)? Lol. Come on. Be serious. Republicans could have put up a mop, and you'd probably vote for it before voting for Clinton. Hell, they have put up a wet mop with zero experience in government (as per his constant repetition of stupid suggestion that Mexico -- practically a 3rd world country - is going to pay for a wall in the US and he's going to ban an entire demographic from entering the US.
Keep trying. You're the one who just admitted you'll vote for the least experienced Republican to ever run before you vote for a Democrat with 10x the experience.
Ten times the experience in pandering, lying, bullying women, and endangering the national security. Not to mention financial support from countries where women are third class citizens. She is bought and paid for and a miserable human being with a temper like a banshee and a drunk on top of it.
As if you'd vote for Sanders(C)? Lol. Come on. Be serious. Republicans could have put up a mop, and you'd probably vote for it
before voting for Clinton. Hell, they have put up a wet mop with zero experience in government (as per his constant repetition of stupid suggestion that Mexico -- practically a 3rd world country - is going to pay for a wall in the US and he's going to ban an entire demographic from entering the US.
Keep trying. You're the one who just admitted you'll vote for the least experienced Republican to ever run before you vote for a Democrat with 10x the experience.
That statement assumes a great deal not in evidence, a great deal about myself you couldn't possibly know, and further more, is an unprovable hypothesis. Let me know when the GOP proffers up a mop candidate.
I was rather disappointed the results Kasich achieved. You keep trying to assign to me positions which I've not taken. Hell, eventually even a blind squirrel find a nut. Maybe you will too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?