Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Influence of Adelson (and by proxy Likud Party) in American Politics (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Clifford
- Start date
Fennis
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Clifford, it should bother you if another country had that much sway over our political process- if it were true- but it isn't. Neither Israel nor any other country has ever made the difference in selecting a Presidential candidate from either side. Neither Israel nor any other country has ever swayed a Presidential election. The fact that Sheldon Adelson might have a disagreement with Chris Christie over some verbiage is meaningless- heck, at this point we don't know who Adelson is going to support, and his support by itself is unlikely to have any determining effect whatsoever.
I have no idea why you started this thread. I have no idea what you're trying to prove about Israel's influence or Adelson's influence or whatever. But you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support any of your stated concerns.
I have no idea why you started this thread. I have no idea what you're trying to prove about Israel's influence or Adelson's influence or whatever. But you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support any of your stated concerns.
Clifford
Footballguy
Adelson was born and grew up in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, the son of Sarah (née Tonkin) and Arthur Adelson.[7][8] His family was of Ukrainian Jewish ancestry.[9][10] His father drove a taxi, and his mother ran a knitting shop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson
Clifford
Footballguy
I don't know why you can't accept that this thread was about asking for opinions and not trying to prove a point. I disagree with you on your first and subsequent points stemming from your belief that no country has that much sway over our political process. So what you say should bother me does bother me. I was asking others if they perceived something that bothered them, and put my opinions about what I had read in the OP.
I started the thread to gather opinions about whether a slip of the tongue related to an ally's problems should kill or seriously mar someone's chances of being the GOP nominee. You think it can't and shouldn't. I think it shouldn't and can.
Fennis
Footballguy
So, no, he is an American.
I don't see the difference between him and any other American billionaire that is passionate about his particular cause and donates boatloads of money to support his political position. I think the difference is you disagree with him on his cause. If he was donating hundreds of millions to candidates to save the whales, you wouldn't complain about whales having too much power.
Now if you want to say there shouldn't be politicians on the take, I would agree. But Adelson is only a symptom, not the problem when it comes to too much money in politics.
timschochet
Footballguy
If you're going to accuse Israel of having enough influence to sway American elections, you should at least be able to provide some evidence of this claim. You don't have any.
Clifford
Footballguy
Totally a symptom but a telling one in terms of the lack of limits. And let's say it was save the whales. If Christie was in the meeting with him and incorrectly stated "And let's go save all the fish" instead of "whales" and it was that one slip of the tongue that cost him the chance to run because he could no longer effectively raise funds, I would have a problem with that. But I can't reproduce that scenario.
It's the slip of the tongue thing that bothers me more.
It's the slip of the tongue thing that bothers me more.
Clifford
Footballguy
Look I know this is your soapbox and all, but you read the title wrong because of it. You aren't listening. And I can't explain it any differently so let's drop it. I never accused Israel of anything. If you're going to be ultra-literal I'm going to have to ask for the exact quote where I accused Israel of anything. They have influence by proxy of a supporter they don't control.
Fennis
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
You wrote "Israel is the only country with that much influence in real life". By "that much influence" you meant enough influence to sway a Presidential election. That's a ridiculous statement. I asked you to back it up and you haven't.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
Yeah, you're over-exaggerating the impact of that, too. One paragraph in a New Yorker article, and it's suddenly the difference between getting the nomination and not?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Honestly the best thing to do is prosecute for quid pro quo.
This country has gotten used to the idea that campaign donations buy influence and that's ok. It's NOT.
Problem is that over and over again there is selective prosecution. Believe me we have our share of quid pro quo prosecutions of officials in LA, state and federal. But we're talking rest of the country. This is kind of like what happens if Mike Tomlin tries to trip a player in a key game and then what happens if Dennis Allen were to try to trip oh say the Giants returner in a game with playoff implications.
Let's face it: if no one was buying influence we would not care who was spending what on elections (or rather we would care less, because then there's influencing voters' votes and all that but we're really more concerned with presidential and congressional votes being influenced once in office, right?).
And does the fact that we are concerned with this and yet there are very very very few prosecutions for it relatively mean that it's not going on or any less criminal? No and No.
Last edited by a moderator:
drummer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Wait a minute. Criticize Israel all you want. Talk about Jewish control of the world; that's acceptable. Obama buddy buddy with Farrakhan that's OK. But don't you dare impugn Mike Tomlin or any Pittsburgh Steeler. You've crossed the line there.
Yeah, I hate it when reporters completely make #### up too, especially when they make up stories about fictional, potential future events.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Adelson has a pretty awful track record in terms of backing candidates in recent primaries. Christy saying the wrong thing in front of him will have zero impact on whether he gets the nomination although it does make the astute observer question Christy's readiness for a presidential campaign. Everyone involved in politics knows Adelson's pet issues so to say the wrong thing about Israel demonstrates a lack of preparation on Christy's part.
Clifford
Footballguy
Yeah, if you read further in the article it's actually insane he has gotten as far as he has. And I'm only halfway through.
Interestingly enough it provides a somewhat startling picture of the influence of money at state level politics. Basically one wealthy democrat named Norcross runs half of New Jersey. Gets his guys elected, tells them what to do, what to back, where to build, what contracts to give out, everything. Basically one guy determines most of the politics in the state. And all outcomes thereof.
It occurred to me, more than ever, after reading about his influence that we do not live in anything close to a democracy. Our votes are completely meaningless when compared with the unbelievable amount of power and influence money buys in American politics. Voting is pointless. There is zero power in the American people as a whole or any ability to actually effect outcomes. Most likely that rests in the hands of a small group of individuals, probably less than 200 or so people.
It's an eye-opener, not just on Christie but the machinations of American politics.
Interestingly enough it provides a somewhat startling picture of the influence of money at state level politics. Basically one wealthy democrat named Norcross runs half of New Jersey. Gets his guys elected, tells them what to do, what to back, where to build, what contracts to give out, everything. Basically one guy determines most of the politics in the state. And all outcomes thereof.
It occurred to me, more than ever, after reading about his influence that we do not live in anything close to a democracy. Our votes are completely meaningless when compared with the unbelievable amount of power and influence money buys in American politics. Voting is pointless. There is zero power in the American people as a whole or any ability to actually effect outcomes. Most likely that rests in the hands of a small group of individuals, probably less than 200 or so people.
It's an eye-opener, not just on Christie but the machinations of American politics.
timschochet
Footballguy
Man you make a lot of very general (and IMO, wrong) conclusions after being presented with little or no evidence.
Clifford
Footballguy
Ok, and you're still mad because someone other than you said something about Israel. Get over yourself. All I am doing is pointing out an interesting read and posting my opinions. I don't need evidence on every little thing to draw my own conclusions, and I don't need a controlled study to tell me that my vote, compared to the practically unlimited power billions can buy you, is a farce.
Rove!
Footballguy
from wikipedia:
IdeologyIn a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left me", Adelson specifies three reasons why he switched political parties. First, he cites foreign policy, pointing to a Gallup poll that suggests Republicans are more supportive of Israel than Democrats.[28] Second, he cites statistics that suggest Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. To support this claim Adelson adduces a report from the Chronicle of Philanthropy which found, after studying tax data from the IRS, that U.S. states which vote Republican are more generous to charities than those states which vote Democratic. "My father, who kept a charity box for the poor in our house," he writes, "would have frowned on this fact about modern Democrats."[29] This leads him to his third reason—economic policy—for leaving the Democratic Party. He writes:
Democrats would reply that taxation and government services are better vehicles for helping the underprivileged. And, yes, government certainly has its role. But when you look at states where Democrats have enjoyed years of one-party dominance—California, Illinois, New York—you find that their liberal policies simply don't deliver on their promises of social justice. Take, for example, President Obama's adopted home state. In October, a nonpartisan study of Illinois's finances by the State Budget Crisis Task Force offered painful evidence that liberal Illinois is suffering from abject economic, demographic and social decline. With the worst credit rating in the country, and with the second-biggest public debt per capita, the Prairie State "has been doing back flips on a high wire, without a net," according to the report.
Adelson then quotes at length political scientist Walter Russell Mead who, Adelson claims, "summed up the sad results of these findings" at The American Interest:
Illinois politicians, including the present president of the United States, have wrecked one of the country's potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies—and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state's distress.[30]
Adelson concludes his article about his political beliefs with these words:
Although I don't agree with every Republican position—I'm liberal on several social issues—there is enough common cause with the party for me to know I've made the right choice. It's the choice that, I believe, my old immigrant Jewish neighbors would have made. They would not have let a few disagreements with Republicans void the importance of siding with the political party that better supports liberal democracies like Israel, the party that better exemplifies the spirit of charity, and the party with economic policies that would certainly be better for those Americans now looking for work. The Democratic Party just isn't what it used to b
IdeologyIn a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They Left me", Adelson specifies three reasons why he switched political parties. First, he cites foreign policy, pointing to a Gallup poll that suggests Republicans are more supportive of Israel than Democrats.[28] Second, he cites statistics that suggest Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. To support this claim Adelson adduces a report from the Chronicle of Philanthropy which found, after studying tax data from the IRS, that U.S. states which vote Republican are more generous to charities than those states which vote Democratic. "My father, who kept a charity box for the poor in our house," he writes, "would have frowned on this fact about modern Democrats."[29] This leads him to his third reason—economic policy—for leaving the Democratic Party. He writes:
Democrats would reply that taxation and government services are better vehicles for helping the underprivileged. And, yes, government certainly has its role. But when you look at states where Democrats have enjoyed years of one-party dominance—California, Illinois, New York—you find that their liberal policies simply don't deliver on their promises of social justice. Take, for example, President Obama's adopted home state. In October, a nonpartisan study of Illinois's finances by the State Budget Crisis Task Force offered painful evidence that liberal Illinois is suffering from abject economic, demographic and social decline. With the worst credit rating in the country, and with the second-biggest public debt per capita, the Prairie State "has been doing back flips on a high wire, without a net," according to the report.
Adelson then quotes at length political scientist Walter Russell Mead who, Adelson claims, "summed up the sad results of these findings" at The American Interest:
Illinois politicians, including the present president of the United States, have wrecked one of the country's potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies—and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state's distress.[30]
Adelson concludes his article about his political beliefs with these words:
Although I don't agree with every Republican position—I'm liberal on several social issues—there is enough common cause with the party for me to know I've made the right choice. It's the choice that, I believe, my old immigrant Jewish neighbors would have made. They would not have let a few disagreements with Republicans void the importance of siding with the political party that better supports liberal democracies like Israel, the party that better exemplifies the spirit of charity, and the party with economic policies that would certainly be better for those Americans now looking for work. The Democratic Party just isn't what it used to b
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not mad, and I wasnt yesterday. But you're making the wildest speculations about our political system based on a few scraps of information and very little else. And even more annoying than the "Israel controls everything" theme is the "200 guys control everything" theme. It's popular among Lyndon LaRouche fans but it's simply a falsehood. For one thing, if 200 billionaires made all political decisions, Barack Obama would NEVER have been elected.
timschochet
Footballguy
There's a great scene in Tom Wolfe's novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, where he absolutely demolishes the notion of the power elite controlling everything. The wealthy white stockbroker who's on trial for supposedly killing a black kid tells his father, a retired judge and formerly powerful man of his predicament. The father promises to sound out his old buddies on the bench and see if they can get the charge quashed. The stockbroker realizes then how futile his fathers promise is: as if a bunch of old white men are going to quash a huge news story, and public protests. He thinks, if ever a few guys did once upon a time long ago have this kind of control of society, they certainly don't anymore. Nobody has any control. Things happen chaotically, without any plan.
So you're correct Clifford that your vote has very little influence. But the billionaires you fear don't have very much influence either. More than any other factor, random chance rules human affairs.
So you're correct Clifford that your vote has very little influence. But the billionaires you fear don't have very much influence either. More than any other factor, random chance rules human affairs.
timschochet
Footballguy
Clifford, John McCain in 2008 is another example that completely destroys your premise. How exactly did McCain win the nomination? He had far less money than Romney or Giuliani, the two front runners going in. He did not have the support of the "establishment"- they supported Giuliani. He did not have the support of conservative talk show hosts and other conservative spokesmen/ to a man, they hated him and railed against him. Rush Limbaugh, who is considered to be very influential, openly stated that McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican party and that he would never vote for him.
Yet McCain was nominated anyhow, because the Republican voters decided to ignore their so called leaders and influence makers; they liked McCain better than the other guys. It was pure democracy in action.
Yet McCain was nominated anyhow, because the Republican voters decided to ignore their so called leaders and influence makers; they liked McCain better than the other guys. It was pure democracy in action.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Right, so Bill Jefferson (D-LA) goes to jail for improper use of his office for influence peddling with a Nigerian vice president to the tune of $90,000 found in his freezer (by pure chance mind you) but Congressmen and Senators who take mammoth checks and open doors for the Kochs and Soroses of the world for billions of dollars in business opportunities don't go to jail.
And then we have former politicians and bureaucrats who go to work in the private sector for the very companies and industries they were regulating and writing and passing laws on. What of them?
I keep hearing about how horrible the Kochs are, how underhanded and controlling Soros is - where are the prosecutions for the influence they yield on Republicans and Democrats? There are many like them, they just get used as symbols. I mean these campaign donors are the johns of the world and the politicians are the prostitutes, don't you agree? Or is it the other way around? In any event shouldn't both parties to the dirty deed go to jail?
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford
Footballguy
So me drawing conclusions from a New Yorker investigative report is inadvisable, but drawing conclusions to contrary based on a work of fiction is better?
Please don't misinterpret that I think all of these 200 or so billionaires get together and plot out how to rule the world.
I just think that each one of these billionaires is allowed a far greater degree of outcome control, one that essentially renders votes pointless because they are picking the candidates and controlling them once elected.
Yes, let's take a look at Barack. His election to President was largely viewed as a historic event in American politics. He ran a platform of almost 180 degree divorce from the previous admins policies, on everything from civil liberties here at home, to America's stance to the rest of the world.
What happened to that? What happened to all those radical ideas about the return of the rule of law, respecting privacy, a more humble stance in the world? This guy has expanded the NSA spying program and vigorously defended it. He has codified the elimination of habeus corpus for terrorism suspects. He even attempted to get Congressional approval to execute American citizens without trial. The DEA has gotten way more aggressive under him. We are killing more foreign nationals and have not adopted the more humble position he promised, at least in terms of words.
Why? Because he was overwhelmed? Because he became a different person?
Please don't misinterpret that I think all of these 200 or so billionaires get together and plot out how to rule the world.
I just think that each one of these billionaires is allowed a far greater degree of outcome control, one that essentially renders votes pointless because they are picking the candidates and controlling them once elected.
Yes, let's take a look at Barack. His election to President was largely viewed as a historic event in American politics. He ran a platform of almost 180 degree divorce from the previous admins policies, on everything from civil liberties here at home, to America's stance to the rest of the world.
What happened to that? What happened to all those radical ideas about the return of the rule of law, respecting privacy, a more humble stance in the world? This guy has expanded the NSA spying program and vigorously defended it. He has codified the elimination of habeus corpus for terrorism suspects. He even attempted to get Congressional approval to execute American citizens without trial. The DEA has gotten way more aggressive under him. We are killing more foreign nationals and have not adopted the more humble position he promised, at least in terms of words.
Why? Because he was overwhelmed? Because he became a different person?
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford
Footballguy
Who do you believe has more influence on a politician in office. The people who voted for him, or the donors that gave him all the money. And will finance his reelection campaign?
Well-backed politicians lose every election. That's not the point.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Personally I think Obama's Super Tuesday speech was one of the best, potentially most important speeches ever - if delivered upon. I loved it and I think the whole country wanted a version of that guy to one day be president. But we did not get that guy.
I think you're talking to Tim here but people should have known that something was up with him because though his rhetoric was consciously transformational (even if his policies would prove to be the opposite)...
.... he also happened to be a guy who was an absolute world record breaking fundraiser. I think a lot of these scandals have been arising because he's not in fact at his desk or handling policy or executing laws, but rather he spends all his time fundraising. It's what he does, and these days that means selling influence.
Remember right out the gate his Senate seat - Obama's - was sold (or attempted to be) by the Illinois governor after conversations involving Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett. Think about that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford
Footballguy
Saints, yes. I have long been an advocate of lengthy real prison sentences for both parties involved.I'll take it one step further and say that all campaign airtime, vehicles, spots, etc, should be paid for out of a general election campaign fund the is supplied by tax dollars, and any exchange of money involving a prospective, current, or former politician not from a blood relative and in excess of $100 in a calendar year should be a crime punishable by 20 years in prison.
You just make Networks surrender commercial inventory for tax breaks which will cover 90% of the expense of campaigns.
You just make Networks surrender commercial inventory for tax breaks which will cover 90% of the expense of campaigns.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I like that but another idea is use a process that is used with inspectors general.
So for instance in federal or local contracting there is often a county/parish inspector general who gets oversight over the activities of officials. He/she is funded by putting a 3% fee or so on all public contracts. If someone is hinted at taking a bribe then the IG can go in and audit the hell out of them and if there's evidence there they can refere it for prosecution.
If the FEC had an inspector general which took 3% of all campaign donations and gave them similar powers then I think that would keep a lot of people more honest. Right now the FEC doesn't do diddly squat and the politicians like it that way. It's the worst kind of "self-regulation".
Clifford
Footballguy
Wouldn't 3 percent of all donations be something like 50m a year? Might want to knock that down a bit at the federal level.
In all cases we're asking the fox to run the henhouse. I don't think there is any will in Washington to stop or even slow down the gravy train. Hell they have the Supreme Court working to feed them more too.
All in all it feels like a rigged system. The billionaires get the politicians elected and then have their lobbyists write the bills that these elected officials will try to get passed. So essentially money buys the possibility of literally being able to write your own laws.
In all cases we're asking the fox to run the henhouse. I don't think there is any will in Washington to stop or even slow down the gravy train. Hell they have the Supreme Court working to feed them more too.
All in all it feels like a rigged system. The billionaires get the politicians elected and then have their lobbyists write the bills that these elected officials will try to get passed. So essentially money buys the possibility of literally being able to write your own laws.
timschochet
Footballguy
Great questions.
My main answer is that both liberals and conservatives painted a picture of Barack Obama in 2008 which didn't really exist. Progressives saw him as one of them, and loved him; conservatives saw him (and still see him) as an extreme progressive, and hated him. Of the two groups, progressives have woken up to reality- they still like him, but they know now that he's a centrist politician and always was. Many conservatives have not woken up to this reality, which is unfortunate for them.
As far as some of the things you mention: the NSA, the DEA, etc.- remember how I wrote that random chance is the most important factor in human affairs? These things have very little to do with President Obama, and he has very little power to stop them. They are products of the growth in certain technologies combined with changes in attitude after 9/11. They will improve over time, or they will get worse over time, again through a random grouping of events impossible to predict at present. Obama just happens to be President at the moment when these items are causing concern.
timschochet
Footballguy
It may feel that way, but it isn't. There are many conflicting interests when it comes to lobbying efforts, and it's just not as easy as you think it is.
Here's one example, among many: for decades now, large corporations have wanted tort reform- especially insurance companies who are tired of paying out big judgments. So these corporations have thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at politicians, mostly Republicans, to try and get tort reform passed. But trial lawyers, who have made billions from the insurance companies, hate the idea of tort reform. So they throw their own hundreds of millions of dollars at politicians, mostly Democrats, to stop any tort reform from happening. And this money keeps both parties afloat.
Clifford
Footballguy
And you say I get my facts wrong. He is the commander in chief. He authorized drone strikes.
The Department of Justice controls the DEA. He could end every single drug raid tomorrow with an executive order, and has been quite open about the orders to raid marijuana clinics being ordered by his office.
Also, I'm not listing anything anyone said about him. I am listing the words that came right out of his mouth, that I stood up and cheered, in UAB's Basketball Arena. I was not reading an editorial or listening to a talk show. I was listening to the man, himself, tell us what he would do if we voted him into office.
So is he a baldfaced liar, or did he adopt totally different values once in office, or was he being controlled?
The Department of Justice controls the DEA. He could end every single drug raid tomorrow with an executive order, and has been quite open about the orders to raid marijuana clinics being ordered by his office.
Also, I'm not listing anything anyone said about him. I am listing the words that came right out of his mouth, that I stood up and cheered, in UAB's Basketball Arena. I was not reading an editorial or listening to a talk show. I was listening to the man, himself, tell us what he would do if we voted him into office.
So is he a baldfaced liar, or did he adopt totally different values once in office, or was he being controlled?
timschochet
Footballguy
There is also political pluralism. You might want to read up on Robert Dahl, who wrote about this at length in the 1950s. It still exists and is far more powerful than a few billionaires in terms of political influence. The basic idea is that, among the public, interested parties on a specific issue needn't form a majority of voters- they can be a minority, so long as they are a loud minority absolutely devoted to their issue.
A good example is gun control. After Sandy Hook, polls demonstrated that a large majority of Americans approved of Obama's plan of introducing certain moderate gun control measures. But the problem with that large majority was that they didn't care enough about the issue to make it a priority when it came to either voting or donations. Meanwhile, the minority of Americans who opposed any gun control were far more unified; they were willing to make it a priority for voting, and they were willing to donate funds to politicians who agreed with them. The result was predictable; Congress ignored the majority's wishes and went with the minority, who in practical terms was much more powerful.
A good example is gun control. After Sandy Hook, polls demonstrated that a large majority of Americans approved of Obama's plan of introducing certain moderate gun control measures. But the problem with that large majority was that they didn't care enough about the issue to make it a priority when it came to either voting or donations. Meanwhile, the minority of Americans who opposed any gun control were far more unified; they were willing to make it a priority for voting, and they were willing to donate funds to politicians who agreed with them. The result was predictable; Congress ignored the majority's wishes and went with the minority, who in practical terms was much more powerful.
timschochet
Footballguy
First off, I didn't say you got your facts wrong. I said that you lacked facts to back up your assumptions, which I disagree with.Clifford said:
Yes, Obama could change the direction of every previous administration with an executive order. If he did so, he would go down in history as a unique President, one who defied public opinion in such a stark manner. The only modern equivalent would be Harry Truman, who desegregated the armed forces by executive order. But even then a lot of very loud people had to push for it before Truman did it. Obama is no Truman; he has never made a single move ahead of the public. Look no further than his evolving stances on gay issues. However, I don't see how you can criticize Obama for this, since I challenge you to find a President in the last 50 years who has moved ahead of the public.
As far as his speech to you- I don't know what he said. Politicians give lots of different speeches to different crowds which sound like they are telling you what you want to hear. But when you go back and read the transcript, you find that the words are very carefully crafted to give some kind of out. I doubt he explicitly lied to you (but again, I wasn't there.)
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
My first thought was to agree with you about the 3% figure, that it would be too much, but consider this:Clifford said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/political-consultants-2012-campaign-big-money_n_1570157.html
That was for just 150 consultants, and was just partial for the 2012 federal election cycle. And it doesn't include state and local races, so think of how much money is spent in all elections everywhere on consulting. I heard a speech by **** Morris a long time ago (this was before Obama, not political, just a business event, so he wasn't talking about R or D issues, just consulting) and he said that the political consulting business was over $8 billion per year. My guess is today that is more like $12-15 billion.
A lot of these consultants are nothing more than money funnelers, from the consultants that money can go anywhere, to companies owned by them, their friends, to friends of politicans or the politicians themselves. One third of all donations go to consultants.
Another place that money, and money that is not tracked, goes is property. Politicians or companies they or their friends control can receive interests in property, or businesses, worth millions in dollars and there is no trace of their ownership, or the trace really needs work to find.
Personally, to me, the arguments about the USSC cases take the eye off the ball. It's not a crime to give money to a politician if you think he or she should win and can do good things. If Michael Moore wants to create a corporation to make a movie saying that George Bush is a no good dirty liar then though I may disagree with that I believe it's important he be able to do that even though technically it's the corporation that's speaking (and that was the issue in Citizens United). - However it is a crime to give money from a politician and then receive influence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford
Footballguy
Please show the opinion polls showing public opinion strongly in favor of drone strikes, NSA spying program, and DEA raids on medical marijuana clinics.
If you craft a speech knowingly giving yourself an "out" which allows you to do the opposite of the intent of your actual message, you are a liar, period. You don't fool anyone, you just satisfy yourself that you didn't technically lie.
So I guess your argument is that he never actually believed in anything he ran on. Maybe, seems weird given his bg. In terms of what he actually said:
Shut down Gitmo in his first term
End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Restore American Civil Liberties and abuses thereof, He specifically mentioned ending the NSA spying program
timschochet
Footballguy
There is also the possibility, Clifford, that he changed his mind. Perhaps when Obama got into office and met with the NSA (for example) and learned what they were actually doing, he decided that it was in America's best interests to continue.
Clifford
Footballguy
Yeah, spineless hack seems pretty likely too. But we aren't debating the merits of his presidency or his worthiness of the office. Tim, have you read the article in the OP? I haven't finished it but it would be interesting to see if the passages on Norcross change your perspective on how much power is really with the people.
Similar threads
