• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senators who voted for Syria strike got more defense contractor dough [W:14]

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,498
Reaction score
16,290
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I guess this explains why they voted yea.

Senators for Syria strike rolling in defense industry dough | The Daily Caller
The ten Senate Foreign Relations Committee members who voted to attack Syria received 83 percent more campaign contributions from defense contractors than the seven senators who voted against it, according to analysis from Maplight.org.
Examining data from 2007 to 2012, the analysts found that the average senator who voted “yes” on the authorization of the use of military force took $72,850 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests. Senators who voted “no” received just $39,770 on average.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain led the pack among those in favor, raking in about $176,000 from defense interests over five years. Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin garnered $127,000 from the defense industry, followed by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who picked up a cool $101,000.
The defense industry’s favorite among the “nays,” Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, received just $86,000, about half of the money provided to McCain. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio took in $63,000 and voted “no,” as did Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy, despite receiving $59,000.
None of the other four senators who voted “no” received over $20,000 in defense donations.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,609
Reaction score
33,237
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It was the same with the mass wiretapping deal.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Kind of ironic hearing conservative complain about corporate influence in politics. Almost disingenuous.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know, the op is exposing something very sick, but the left partisans are going to defend their party and the MIC is going to get its fix because we have idiots, morons, knuckle dragging mouth breathers, and dumb asses. That's all that's left in America.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is that all you have to say about that?
I have determined that his purpose here has nothing to do with debate, and all to do with flaming and trolling Republicans and conservatives... period.

Never seen him add anything to a conversation at all. Maybe I'm wrong.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,446
Reaction score
18,366
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I guess this explains why they voted yea.

Senators for Syria strike rolling in defense industry dough | The Daily Caller
The ten Senate Foreign Relations Committee members who voted to attack Syria received 83 percent more campaign contributions from defense contractors than the seven senators who voted against it, according to analysis from Maplight.org.
Examining data from 2007 to 2012, the analysts found that the average senator who voted “yes” on the authorization of the use of military force took $72,850 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests. Senators who voted “no” received just $39,770 on average.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain led the pack among those in favor, raking in about $176,000 from defense interests over five years. Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin garnered $127,000 from the defense industry, followed by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who picked up a cool $101,000.
The defense industry’s favorite among the “nays,” Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, received just $86,000, about half of the money provided to McCain. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio took in $63,000 and voted “no,” as did Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy, despite receiving $59,000.
None of the other four senators who voted “no” received over $20,000 in defense donations.
What's that old adage about following the money? Although when running for the senate, 100,000, 200,000 is trump change when the average cost for running for the U.S. Senate is 20 million. Much more in bigger states like California, 40 million which is tops.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
So, what freedom are we protecting by allowing any corporation to effectively purchase influence? Shouldn't this be illegal?

If this is what's on the table, it makes me wonder what else comes with the deal? Can you buy a war for just a million or two?
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have determined that his purpose here has nothing to do with debate, and all to do with flaming and trolling Republicans and conservatives... period.

Never seen him add anything to a conversation at all. Maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah. I just wonder, is that all we need anymore to start a war is bribes from defence contractors? I'm so pissed about all this.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah. I just wonder, is that all we need anymore to start a war is bribes from defence contractors? I'm so pissed about all this.
The money isn't the prime factor here, IMHO. To me, it's two primary factors in that particular committee's vote: 1) loyalty to the President, or 2) NeoCon Hawks being NoeCon Hawks. Beyond that, nothing like reason, justification, humanitarian concern, morals or ethics had anything to do with it.

They either wanted to blindly support their guy, or just blow something up. One of the two.
 

ChrisL

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
47,571
Reaction score
16,958
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I have determined that his purpose here has nothing to do with debate, and all to do with flaming and trolling Republicans and conservatives... period.

Never seen him add anything to a conversation at all. Maybe I'm wrong.
Nope, you're not wrong. :)
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've been saying it for some time now, the military should not be an extension of corporate welfare
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Kind of ironic hearing conservative complain about corporate influence in politics. Almost disingenuous.
It makes me wonder where they would be had mittens won the election and was pushing for the defense contractors profits at the expense of american lives. This syria situation was most likely to be present for either of them, and I have no doubt we would be fighting against an all out invasion of syria with mittens in charge. We would not be hearing any of the reality that defense contractors were bribing congress. I do not doubt there would be a few dems switching sides also. At least here we seem to still have some Obama hate pushing back on the bribes. This really seems to shine a light on republicans who give lip service to hating Obama to please the racist back home, but when it really counts they buddy up to him closer than Chris Christie looking for disaster relief. It will be really funny in 2016 when they lambaste christie for his Obama ass kissing with the crap still on their noses from the warmongering ass kissing.
 

RedAkston

Silent Bob for President!
Administrator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
45,810
Reaction score
26,699
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Moderator's Warning:
The topic is not other posters. Stick to the topic and stop with the personal attacks.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The money isn't the prime factor here, IMHO. To me, it's two primary factors in that particular committee's vote: 1) loyalty to the President, or 2) NeoCon Hawks being NoeCon Hawks. Beyond that, nothing like reason, justification, humanitarian concern, morals or ethics had anything to do with it.

They either wanted to blindly support their guy, or just blow something up. One of the two.
At least there is some question this time. There was barely even mention about the reality the war with Iraq was actually fighting for the people who attacked the US. One of the reasons they were so mad at us was because we stood by and watched Saddam gas them after giving him the go ahead and location to drop chemical weapons we hate so much. The connection to the people who did 9/11 was that saddam actually kept them out of Iraq and killed them when he found them because they were his enemies. At leqast here we see the information that the rebels are associated with many extremist terrorist groups,. and that there really are no good guys to support. The republicans did not care to share any of this truth back in the early 2000s and the dems gave really pathetic objections with no education of the populace as to the crazy that was going on. I have to say much of the opposition to Obama is the rabid haters who i appreciate their effort, but there is no doubt if this was mittens we would see those people pushing for more than just some missile strikes.

It is great they showed up, and perhaps their support will help stop this idiocy, but they are not reliable when it comes to doing the right thing.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The money isn't the prime factor here, IMHO. To me, it's two primary factors in that particular committee's vote: 1) loyalty to the President, or 2) NeoCon Hawks being NoeCon Hawks. Beyond that, nothing like reason, justification, humanitarian concern, morals or ethics had anything to do with it.

They either wanted to blindly support their guy, or just blow something up. One of the two.
I hear ya Beau, but either way or both, none of that is sustainable to our republic, I thought that's the type of behaviour we reserve for "our enemies" you know the ones I hear about all the time on these boards like China, Russia, Iran even Syria.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So, what freedom are we protecting by allowing any corporation to effectively purchase influence? Shouldn't this be illegal?
It is illegal for everyone BUT Congress. This is called "a bribe" to the rest of us, who would go to jail for such things. For congress however, it's just good business.

If this is what's on the table, it makes me wonder what else comes with the deal? Can you buy a war for just a million or two?
That's 1 1/2 Tomahawk missiles worth, if they're going to bribe for votes, I'd hope they'd make it worth the effort. 250 mil. at least.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It is illegal for everyone BUT Congress. This is called "a bribe" to the rest of us, who would go to jail for such things. For congress however, it's just good business.

That's 1 1/2 Tomahawk missiles worth, if they're going to bribe for votes, I'd hope they'd make it worth the effort. 250 mil. at least.
Yes, I think that was my point.

They really need to prohibit these minor election bribes and just pay their representative in cash.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yes, I think that was my point.

They really need to prohibit these minor election bribes and just pay their representative in cash.
Prohibit? That's why these goons make a career out of politics... it's the grease that makes the wheel go round! Example: Raytheon makes Tomahawk missiles. Raytheon's missile division is based in Tuscon Arizona. Who's one of the big supporters of punishing Syria right now from Arizona? John McCain. I'm happy to report Raul Grijalva the House Democrat 3rd district is still against going into Syria.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Prohibit? That's why these goons make a career out of politics... it's the grease that makes the wheel go round! Example: Raytheon makes Tomahawk missiles. Raytheon's missile division is based in Tuscon Arizona. Who's one of the big supporters of punishing Syria right now from Arizona? John McCain. I'm happy to report Raul Grijalva the House Democrat 3rd district is still against going into Syria.
Yes, of course. I'm being facetious. The only reason to go into politics is to make lots of money. Seems we should have a better strategy but....this is pretty much it.
 
Top Bottom