Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

People who listen to 24 hour news stations or watch CNN (or even Fox News) on a regular basis are fine by me. At least they know what's going on. 

 

[Slapdash]

It's not a ridiculous claim. To disprove it you would have to come up with an example of a President who used a federal agency for his personal benefit but wasn't caught doing so. Which you can't do, since if you had proof of such a thing it would mean the President was caught (by "caught" I mean exposed by the media in some fashion). 

And my main point was that while this does happen, it does not happen on a regular basis and I strongly doubt it would ever happen with the NSA, which is about as independent as any federal agency. Thus I find Dodd's prediction that Hillary will use the NSA to destroy her political enemies to be unfounded and absurd. 

Oh, so this is another example of you making up your own definitions of words.  Get a load of this guy

 

[The Commish]

now this....this is elitism.  

It is. But note that it's not an elitism based on class or wealth or position or race or even ability- any of the traditional ways we think of elitism- it's elitism based purely on interest and knowledge. If you're uninterested in politics, if like Sarah Palin you don't read newspapers, if your main source of news is Drudge or the National Enquirer, I don't want you making decisions. I would never try to stop you, but I don't want you. Is that so wrong? 

Why does this distinction matter to you?

 

[Slapdash]

Informed: people who parrot whatever their chosen media outlet tells them, as long as it is a mainstream media outlet

 

[The Commish]

This coming from the guy that often says....."I heard it on the radio"

People who listen to 24 hour news stations or watch CNN (or even Fox News) on a regular basis are fine by me. At least they know what's going on. 

See....if I were picking who could and couldn't vote, these people who rely on our 24 hour news media would be automatically disqualified.  There's a reason I was using the phrase properly educated above.

 

[Slapdash]

It sounds like the "caught" definition also needs the mainstream media caveat

 

[timschochet]

Why does this distinction matter to you?

Because my version of elitism doesn't exclude anybody. You want to be part of my elite? No problem, spend some time learning about what's going on, our system of government, American ideals and history, and welcome aboard! 

 

[The Commish]

There is certainly a discussion to be had about our system and processes of nominating candidates. Frankly I find the insistence upon having these discussions now, prior to Nov. 9th, to be a distraction from the point. The system, the process, the third-party moralist discussions, are distracting from the fact that we have to elect Hillary Clinton president first, to do the right thing for the country right now. Because of the realistic, binary outcome we're faced with in 21 days, this is the primary discussion right now IMO.

Historically speaking, the discussion is never had because as soon as the election is over, everyone forgets about the problems of the nomination process until two turds are nominated yet again. 

Another reason I bring this stuff up during the early parts of election cycles and keep bringing it up.  It's like an engineer having a picture of their failed widget laying in a lump of molten metal after the prototype went severely wrong on their desk as a reminder of what not to do while designing the next iteration.  

 

[timschochet]

It sounds like the "caught" definition also needs the mainstream media caveat

Yes it does. I don't believe World Net Daily, why should I? Democracy Now has a little more credibility but not much. 

If it didn't happen in the mainstream media, it didn't happen. That's been my working rule for my entire adult life, and I see no reason to change it. 

 

[Politician Spock]

There is no power elite. There are no people secretly deciding what's going to happen. Most things that happen are as big a surprise to our leaders as they are to us. 

I agree with this. There is no one, or small group of people, with elite power.

There are however people and small groups that have made ####loads of wealth by funnelling money as covertly as possible to those that have power so that they benefit from the results of doing so. The problem is they typically don't cross the legal line, but when they do, those involved when crossing it know to shut the #### up about it.

Anyone who thinks this doesn't go in is the epitome of naive. It's human nature. Our system, as great as it is, is not immune to this. 

 

[The Commish]

Why does this distinction matter to you?

Because my version of elitism doesn't exclude anybody. You want to be part of my elite? No problem, spend some time learning about what's going on, our system of government, American ideals and history, and welcome aboard! 

Come on Tim!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You want to be part of my elite? No problem, spend some time learning about what's going on...

You need to backtrack and recall this is an argument by you about how the public should not have access to a good deal of official documentation.

 

[shader]

Yes it does. I don't believe World Net Daily, why should I? Democracy Now has a little more credibility but not much. 

If it didn't happen in the mainstream media, it didn't happen. That's been my working rule for my entire adult life, and I see no reason to change it. 

That's just sad 

 

[BeaverCleaver]

If it didn't happen in the mainstream media, it didn't happen. 

This is why people accuse you of having your head in the sand. 

 

[shader]

OK. Give me an example please. 

My history is a little fuzzy, but if I recall the Manhattan Project had a lot of secrecy around it for quite some time. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I agree with this. There is no one, or small group of people, with elite power.

There are however people and small groups that have made ####loads of wealth by funnelling money as covertly as possible to those that have power so that they benefit from the results of doing so. The problem is they typically don't cross the legal line, but when they do, those involved when crossing it know to shut the #### up about it.

Anyone who thinks this doesn't go in is the epitome of naive. It's human nature. Our system, as great as it is, is not immune to this. 

I blame that scene in the Godfather where Michael asks Kay "who's being naive now?" for posts like this. You don't get a free pass on poorly articulated, unsupported conspiracy theories just by pointing the finger at doubters and saying they are the naive ones.

Of course there are people who use some of their money to lobby politicians in an effort to protect or enhance their wealth.  And there are certainly some cases of outright bribes to government officials.  But the impact of those sort of things on the big picture are negligible IMO. Who are these people funneling money, and to whom do they funnel it?  How did they get the money to "funnel" in the first place?  Are you talking about government contracts?  Appropriations?  Constraining regulations or enforcement?  How are they evading the extensive mechanisms intended to ensure fairness and openness in these processes?

 

[Politician Spock]

What's not quite that simple Tim?  Populism is the battle between entrusting the direction of a country to the people vs entrusting the direction of the country to an elite few.  Whatever you're talking about here isn't populism.  Now I am thinking you think populism is "doing what everyone else is doing" or "the popular opinion based on emotion" or some such.  I don't really know, you're all over the place it seems.  In this paragraph you're talking about people who are willing to throw away their rights to be lead by the government.  That's lazy, yes, but it's not populism.  As a matter of fact, it's more elitism than anything.  Why you aren't happy with that is beyond me....fewer engaged with fewer making the decisions.  

I'm not sure you want to go down the path of those "willing to to chuck all our ideals away"....there's plenty of that going around all over Washington DC.  That is, if you can get people to agree on what the "American Ideals" are in the first place, which would be a fun exercise.

To Tim, populism is the belief that government is run by secret people who give politicians their marching orders. There are people who believe that, like Alex Jones and his listeners, John Birch Society members, etc.... So when Tim talks about populism, he is referring to something real.

However, he mistakenly lumps far more people into the populism category than deserve to be labeled as such. That is a problem Tim suffers from on in a lot of discussions. Instead of debating Tim about one's position, one ends up debating Tim about two positions: the position one holds, and the position Tim has categorized them into. It's kind of strawman arguing, but more of a miscategorization than a strawman. Regardless, it's annoying as hell when he does it.

The people Tim is miscategorizing don't believe politicians get marching orders from an elite few. They believe money is corrupting politics. Politicians aren't getting marching orders. What they are getting is back room deals. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours goes on daily, and 99.999% of the people aren't "rich" enough to be invited to those deal making sessions. Hillary is the epitome me of politicians who engage in that, and she and her supporters are like "well, that's how politics gets done". If you don't like it, and call it out for what it is, they call you a populist. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Another reason I bring this stuff up during the early parts of election cycles and keep bringing it up.  It's like an engineer having a picture of their failed widget laying in a lump of molten metal after the prototype went severely wrong on their desk as a reminder of what not to do while designing the next iteration.  

Agreed, but I do think there's a necessary discussion for this after the election as well, and I pledge to not fall into this trap of ignoring the discussion come Nov. 9th. So I'll responsibly vote for Hillary for the good of the country so Trump doesn't somehow get elected, and then have the system and process discussion without being distracted. My concern is that discussions like this can be intended to sort of drag down enthusiasm for the current election at hand. I know you're not a Trump supporter, and neither am I obviously, but if I did support Trump, this type of argument right now before the election would be a tactic I would use to dampen enthusiasm for Hillary.

 

[Politician Spock]

I blame that scene in the Godfather where Michael asks Kay "who's being naive now?" for posts like this. You don't get a free pass on poorly articulated, unsupported conspiracy theories just by pointing the finger at doubters and saying they are the naive ones.

Of course there are people who use some of their money to lobby politicians in an effort to protect or enhance their wealth.  And there are certainly some cases of outright bribes to government officials.  But the impact of those sort of things on the big picture are negligible IMO. Who are these people funneling money, and to whom do they funnel it?  How did they get the money to "funnel" in the first place?  Are you talking about government contracts?  Appropriations?  Constraining regulations or enforcement?  How are they evading the extensive mechanisms intended to ensure fairness and openness in these processes?

Your opinion is naive.

 

[timschochet]

My history is a little fuzzy, but if I recall the Manhattan Project had a lot of secrecy around it for quite some time. 

You think that's an example of the power elite? 

Also that sort of secrecy would be impossible today. I give you the Pentagon Papers, and more recently the NSA revelations. And Hillary's emails. There are very few secrets. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Your opinion is naive.

Of course.  After all, what would I know about how the government sausage is made?  Surely your expertise on the legislative and administrative processes far exceeds mine. That's why you are able to respond to my request for more specificity in what you allege, right? 

Here's my questions again, in case you missed them:

Who are these people funneling money, and to whom do they funnel it?  How did they get the money to "funnel" in the first place?  Are you talking about government contracts?  Appropriations?  Constraining regulations or enforcement?  How are they evading the extensive mechanisms intended to ensure fairness and openness in these processes?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Of course.  After all, what would I know about how the government sausage is made?  Surely your expertise on the legislative and administrative processes far exceeds mine. That's why you are able to respond to my request for more specificity in what you allege, right? 

Here's my questions again, in case you missed them:

Who are these people funneling money, and to whom do they funnel it?  How did they get the money to "funnel" in the first place?  Are you talking about government contracts?  Appropriations?  Constraining regulations or enforcement?  How are they evading the extensive mechanisms intended to ensure fairness and openness in these processes?

Why not look at an actual corruption investigation to arrive at this? These are thing I've seen at least in LA:

- Property transfers by means of shell corporations with counter letters or unfiled/unregistered shareholder agreements.

- Hiring private companies that the politician has ownership stake in through intermediaries. (This IMO is actual 'Pay to Play').

- Use of shell companies as pass-throughs for consulting fees or the like. These largely don't show up on published personal tax returns.

- Land purchases outside the US and foreign bank deposits and transfers.

- Multiple shell companies that make illegally numerous campaign donations from one source.

- Payment in cash for unregistered lobbying.

- Hiring politicians when they leave government as lobbyists or their consultants, relatives or friends while still in it.

Note all of this is outside the campaign finance system, that's why I think by and large the people who live outside the system don't really care about CU or McCain Feingold type regulation, and may actually prefer it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Of course.  After all, what would I know about how the government sausage is made?  Surely your expertise on the legislative administrative processes far exceeds mine. That's why you are able to respond to my request for more specificity in what you allege, right? 

Here's my questions again, in case you missed them:

Wall Street.

Of all the crap that has been revealed about HIllary recently, the worst one was when she told Wall Street behind closed doors that because they know the industry better than DC does, they're best suited to fixing the problems, despite the fact that she says in her campaign that she is going to hold Wall Street accountable. I'm sure the money flowing from Wall Street to her campaign and the democratic party has nothing to do with why she is a two faced liar. 

The gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Wall Street is still taking the same risks today that they were taking in 2008. All DC has done has kicked the can down the road while the Federal Reserve did three rounds of quantitative easing, which was nothing more than a drug to help us not feel the pain of the sickness the system still suffers from. The last thing we need is politicians telling Wall Street they are best suited to fix our problems. Even worse, a politician who believes that while lying to the voters that she believes otherwise. And why does she do that? Because backroom deals that 99.999% of the people aren't invited to is how politics get done... at least according to HIllary and her supporters. It's true that is how politics has been getting done... BUT THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!

And no, I don't think Trump is the answer. He's just as bad.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why not look at an actual corruption investigation to arrive at this? These are thing I've seen at least in LA:

- Property transfers by means of shell corporations with counter letters or unfiled/unregistered shareholder agreements.

- Hiring private companies that the politician has ownership stake in through intermediaries.

- Land purchases and foreign bank deposits and transfers.

- Multiple shell companies that make illegally numerous campaign donations from one source.

- Payment in cash for unregistered lobbying.

Well I was speaking about things on the federal level, and even on the state level I think using Louisiana as an example of a typical state is kinda silly, like using Chicago as an example of a typical city's politics. 

But regardless, when I say "big picture" I mean guiding important legislation and regulation. Certainly money can influence the process by which those things happen, but I don't think it happens in the covert, underhanded way that he implied.  It's more about large trade groups making donations to those who protect their interests. Not "people and small groups" who are "covertly funneling money."

 

[RCon]

You can't prove otherwise. You can assume all you want that Presidents are secretly using federal agencies to destroy opponents, but there are very few actual examples. 

All CEOs and other executives that have performed illegal insider trading have been caught.  You can't prove otherwise.

All politicians that have traded favors for cash have been caught.  You can't prove otherwise.

Really, this is about as moronic an argument as have ever been made on these forums.

 

[Koya]

 There are big money people who secretly make big decisions, influence laws, decide important matters, etc.

While most conspiracies are proven wrong, there are conspiracies that do happen, and there are secrets.

I actually don't think it is nearly as blatant and coordinated as you suggest - and actually far more sinister and deep rooted, yet far more transparent, too.

These "big decisions" imo, are not made by some cabal. Some enclave of the controlling elite meeting in a dimly lit room.

Rather, there is an oligarchal  structure that creates a self sustaining circle of power.  Those with power and access, over time, generally take advantage of the current system. They learn to game it, and they utilize their power to retain the status quo so long as it continues to help them (and the status quo generally helps those currently in power, obviously).

So, those that learn to game the system also garner more power and influence, so when adjustments are made (legislative or otherwise), they are guaranteed a seat at the table.  They are able to push back and when they can not, are primed to adjust to new realities... created with their influence... better than others.  

The rules of banking, for example, are such that the big powerful banks are slated to become moreso, and competition and new forces pushed to the side.  They don't need to sit in a room, along with the politicians and other power elite... they just need to continue to "do their job" and preserve the status quo.

The result is that self sustaining prophecy by which those in power are best suited to retain and grow that power.  Unfortunately, the individual players don't much matter. Take out a top banker or a few dozen - or see entire historic firms fail (whily others get propped up)... the system remains.  It's not as if you can target and "take out" the 500 most influential people, and certainly not some group of uber powerful 50 individuals, and then we have a chance for an even system.

The system is there to first survive. It's lesson #1 of just about any being, organization, effort, what have you.  By protecting itself, the system by definition protects those with the most power in it, influence, benefit from that system because it becomes a reciprocal relationship. The system depends on the behaviors of large swarths of people and those people depend on the system.

The cosmic ballet, continues. 

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

What Spock is saying is a good example of how Tim is both right and wrong.  Spock would probably consider himself "a high information" voter.  Tim would probably call Spock a high information voter.  But Spock is, in fact, misinformed not only as to the content and import of HIllary's speeches, but also as to the very real facts that she was addressing.  The people on Wall St. are probably the most informed about how Wall Street avoids or circumvents regulation.  To the extent the Treasury or the SEC are informed, they are informed in large part because they draw on people from Wall St.  We'd have a very hard time enforcing meaningful financial and securities regulation if we had to staff Treasury and the SEC with a bunch of finance and securities neophytes.  So even if we restricted the franchise to so-called high information voters, they'd be voting based on misinformed opinions. 

 

[Slapdash]

If it didn't happen in the mainstream media, it didn't happen.

Pretty much the best example I've seen of your naivete to date. 

At least you post things like this so others learn never to take you seriously

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wall Street.

Of all the crap that has been revealed about HIllary recently, the worst one was when she told Wall Street behind closed doors that because they know the industry better than DC does, they're best suited to fixing the problems, despite the fact that she says in her campaign that she is going to hold Wall Street accountable. I'm sure the money flowing from Wall Street to her campaign and the democratic party has nothing to do with why she is a two faced liar. 

The gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Wall Street is still taking the same risks today that they were taking in 2008. All DC has done has kicked the can down the road while the Federal Reserve did three rounds of quantitative easing, which was nothing more than a drug to help us not feel the pain of the sickness the system still suffers from. The last thing we need is politicians telling Wall Street they are best suited to fix our problems. Even worse, a politician who believes that while lying to the voters that she believes otherwise. And why does she do that? Because backroom deals that 99.999% of the people aren't invited to is how politics get done... at least according to HIllary and her supporters. It's true that is how politics has been getting done... BUT THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!

And no, I don't think Trump is the answer. He's just as bad.

Not sure I understand your answer.  So "Wall Street" is funneling money to Clinton and in exchange she'll adopt new hands-off regulations for their industry, or will pull back enforcement efforts? Is that what you're going with, even though Wall Street has a long history of bipartisan but GOP-leaning donations and as of last fall had given five times as much to Jeb Bush as they did to Clinton? 

Do you have evidence of this beyond a candidate giving a speech during her campaign tailored to garner support from her audience?  After all you're the one calling anyone who doubts your assertion "naive," I think you have the burden of articulating this a little more clearly.

 

[RCon]

You want to be part of my elite? No problem, spend some time learning about what's going on...

You need to backtrack and recall this is an argument by you about how the public should not have access to a good deal of official documentation.

You can be part of the elite as soon as you learn what's going on.  But if you're not part of the elite, you're not allowed to know anything.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well I was speaking about things on the federal level, and even on the state level I think using Louisiana as an example of a typical state is kinda silly, like using Chicago as an example of a typical city's politics. 

But regardless, when I say "big picture" I mean guiding important legislation and regulation. Certainly money can influence the process by which those things happen, but I don't think it happens in the covert, underhanded way that he implied.  It's more about large trade groups making donations to those who protect their interests. Not "people and small groups" who are "covertly funneling money."

That is on the federal level. My own Congressman was convicted and sent to jail.

I should have included bundling because that is also a big deal and that is 'in the system'.

In terms of legitimate or legal influence IMO the impact is in politicians and even bureaucrats viewing industries or corporations as constituents.

I can point you to one example - the Pharma exemption from federal negotiation of drug prices. Louisiana's own Billy Tauzin carved that out and it was set in stone by the ACA.

 

[Politician Spock]

Not sure I understand your answer.  So "Wall Street" is funneling money to Clinton and in exchange she'll adopt new hands-off regulations for their industry, or will pull back enforcement efforts? Is that what you're going with, even though Wall Street has a long history of bipartisan but GOP-leaning donations and as of last fall had given five times as much to Jeb Bush as they did to Clinton? 

Do you have evidence of this beyond a candidate giving a speech during her campaign tailored to garner support from her audience?  After all you're the one calling anyone who doubts your assertion "naive," I think you have the burden of articulating this a little more clearly.

I never said Clinton's personal accounts are the recipient of these deals. Her campaign? Yes. JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, Morgan Stanley, Google, Time Warner, etc, etc... are her top donors. The democratic party? Yes. Wall Street owns both parties. And this is just the money Wall Street spends to ensure politicians they want are in place. Then money gets funneled in the backroom deals. Why does government buy tanks the generals say they don't need? Because in exchange for the government buying tanks we don't need, the company will ship guns off the record to rebels in a country where the politicians want the leader overthrown but don't want any record of being involved.  

 

[msommer]

See....if I were picking who could and couldn't vote, these people who rely on our 24 hour news media would be automatically disqualified.  There's a reason I was using the phrase properly educated above.

"My elites are better than your elites!"

 

[timschochet]

What Spock is saying is a good example of how Tim is both right and wrong.  Spock would probably consider himself "a high information" voter.  Tim would probably call Spock a high information voter.  But Spock is, in fact, misinformed not only as to the content and import of HIllary's speeches, but also as to the very real facts that she was addressing.  The people on Wall St. are probably the most informed about how Wall Street avoids or circumvents regulation.  To the extent the Treasury or the SEC are informed, they are informed in large part because they draw on people from Wall St.  We'd have a very hard time enforcing meaningful financial and securities regulation if we had to staff Treasury and the SEC with a bunch of finance and securities neophytes.  So even if we restricted the franchise to so-called high information voters, they'd be voting based on misinformed opinions. 

Some of them, sure.

but I'd much rather debate and discuss issues with highly intelligent guy like Politician Spock, even if I disagreed with him profoundly, than with an ignoramus like Donald Trump. And I'd want Politician Spock to have more of an input because he tries to pay attention and I think his heart is in the right place. 

 

[timschochet]

All CEOs and other executives that have performed illegal insider trading have been caught.  You can't prove otherwise.

All politicians that have traded favors for cash have been caught.  You can't prove otherwise.

Really, this is about as moronic an argument as have ever been made on these forums.

But I didn't make any such argument. 

All I wrote is that most Presidents who use federal agencies for personal power are exposed. I don't think that's moronic at all. I think it's rather paranoid to assume otherwise. 

 

[timschochet]

Still though- and I want to keep emphasizing this point- the main difference between me and Commish, Slapdash, Pol. Spock et. al., is that I believe our current system works and that it generally produces the best outcome. It needs to be tinkered with, but not uprooted. 

And specifically, even with all of the problems with this latest election cycle, if it produces Hillary as our next President that is a good result. 

 

[Politician Spock]

But I didn't make any such argument. 

All I wrote is that most Presidents who use federal agencies for personal power are exposed. I don't think that's moronic at all. I think it's rather paranoid to assume otherwise. 

I don't think it's paranoid to believe something that's happened before will probably happen again.

My favorite line from the movie The Firm:

Bill DeVasher: "I get paid to be suspicious when I've got nothing to be suspicious about."

 

[TobiasFunke]

I never said Clinton's personal accounts are the recipient of these deals. Her campaign? Yes. JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, Morgan Stanley, Google, Time Warner, etc, etc... are her top donors. The democratic party? Yes. Wall Street owns both parties. And this is just the money Wall Street spends to ensure politicians they want are in place. Then money gets funneled in the backroom deals. Why does government buy tanks the generals say they don't need? Because in exchange for the government buying tanks we don't need, the company will ship guns off the record to rebels in a country where the politicians want the leader overthrown but don't want any record of being involved.  

Yeah, this is the part I take issue with.

Complain all you want about the role of money in politics up front, and I'll agree with a decent amount of it.  But this sort of vague, unsupported conspiracy stuff seems dangerous to me, and when too many people indulge it we end up with Trumpism.

If we're buying military equipment we don't need, it's most likely because (1) military contractors make political donations that encourage the continued spending, and (2) because if we stop lots people lose their jobs, and doing stuff that makes lots of people lose their jobs is kind of a loser politically. Which sucks, sure. But that's a far cry from alleging that all 535 legislators along with everyone in DPAP and the weapons manufacturer's government contracting office (not to mention the rebels receiving the weapons) are all in on a huge but somehow never leaked conspiracy to pay off military contractors with unneeded purchases in exchange for illegally supplying the rebels with arms.

 

[Politician Spock]

Still though- and I want to keep emphasizing this point- the main difference between me and Commish, Slapdash, Pol. Spock et. al., is that I believe our current system works and that it generally produces the best outcome. It needs to be tinkered with, but not uprooted. 

And specifically, even with all of the problems with this latest election cycle, if it produces Hillary as our next President that is a good result. 

I have ZERO problem with the system, at least as the system is defined by the US Constitution.

I have a problem with how people have learned to game the system. The democratic and republican parties being two prime examples. Unlike Tim, I don't view the parties as being the system. I view them like I view alliances in the CBS TV show survivor. They form as a way to game the system. They aren't the system, and sometimes they need to be blindsided. 

Both the democratic and republican parties need a good blindside move. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Yeah, this is the part I take issue with.

Complain all you want about the role of money in politics up front, and I'll agree with a decent amount of it.  But this sort of vague, unsupported conspiracy stuff seems dangerous to me, and when too many people indulge it we end up with Trumpism.

If we're buying military equipment we don't need, it's most likely because (1) military contractors make political donations that encourage the continued spending, and (2) because if we stop lots people lose their jobs, and doing stuff that makes lots of people lose their jobs is kind of a loser politically. Which sucks, sure. But that's a far cry from alleging that all 535 legislators along with everyone in DPAP and the weapons manufacturer's government contracting office (not to mention the rebels receiving the weapons) are all in on a huge but somehow never leaked conspiracy to pay off military contractors with unneeded purchases in exchange for illegally supplying the rebels with arms.

I have little doubt Hillary armed the Syrian rebels. If you don't believe it, then I can see why you'd come to a different conclusion about how government works. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I have little doubt Hillary armed the Syrian rebels. If you don't believe it, then I can see why you'd come to a different conclusion about how government works. 

I doubt anything that is not supported by clear evidence.

But that's irrelevant, because even if you assume that she did, how would she have arranged for this with the military contractors as you allege? She had zero control over appropriations at the time and was not the Defense Secretary under whom DPAP serves. Are you alleging that she was collecting political donations and funneling that money to those military contractors? If so what does "the government buying tanks the generals say we don't need" have to do with anything?  Explain this to me.

After all, you're the guy who just a half hour ago protested being "lumped in with" those who think that "Alex Jones and his listeners, John Birch Society members, etc ... " who you called "people who believe that government is run by secret people who give politicians their marching orders." How are they different from this?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But I didn't make any such argument. 

All I wrote is that most Presidents who use federal agencies for personal power are exposed. I don't think that's moronic at all. I think it's rather paranoid to assume otherwise. 

Now you can probably think of examples where it has happened in the past - Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, Bobby Kennedy to Martin King, Woodrow Wilson to Eugene Debs....

The people aren't any better now, our knowledge of the past is better and so are our transparency rules. 

 

[Politician Spock]

I doubt anything that is not supported by clear evidence.

But that's irrelevant, because even if you assume that she did, how would she have arranged for this with the military contractors as you allege? She had zero control over appropriations at the time and was not the Defense Secretary under whom DPAP serves. Are you alleging that she was collecting political donations and funneling that money to those military contractors? If so what does "the government buying tanks the generals say we don't need" have to do with anything?  Explain this to me.

After all, you're the guy who just a half hour ago protested being "lumped in with" those who think that "Alex Jones and his listeners, John Birch Society members, etc ... " who you called "people who believe that government is run by secret people who give politicians their marching orders." How are they different from this?

It's established fact that we provided humanitarian aid and military gear to the Syrian rebels. The question was whether we were arming them too. When ISIS showed up in Iraq pointing American made weapons at Iraq's army (which caused them to fold like a napkin) it was pretty obvious ISIS had gotten those weapons from Syrian rebels. There is no doubt in my mind that we supplied Syrian rebels with arms, in addition to the humanitarian aid and military gear the federal government admits too. The only reason I have to doubt that given what we observed unfold is Hillary denies it. But even in denying it, she can't provide a good explanation as to how ISIS used our weapons against Iraq's army. 

I know this is not enough to convince you. I don't care. Nothing you've said could make me believe otherwise. She's a corrupt politician, and more crap like that is going to happen when she is president. And again, no Trump is not any better. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's established fact that we provided humanitarian aid and military gear to the Syrian rebels. The question was whether we were arming them too. When ISIS showed up in Iraq pointing American made weapons at Iraq's army (which caused them to fold like a napkin) it was pretty obvious ISIS had gotten those weapons from Syrian rebels. There is no doubt in my mind that we supplied Syrian rebels with arms, in addition to the humanitarian aid and military gear the federal government admits too. The only reason I have to doubt that given what we observed unfold is Hillary denies it. But even in denying it, she can't provide a good explanation as to how ISIS used our weapons against Iraq's army. 

I know this is not enough to convince you. I don't care. Nothing you've said could make me believe otherwise. She's a corrupt politician, and more crap like that is going to happen when she is president. And again, no Trump is not any better. 

Even if all of this is 100% true ... you brought it up in connection with shady backroom deals made by super-rich Americans.  THAT was what I took issue with- your claim that these shadowy backroom deals by people using their vast wealth to exert undue influence on big policy decisions are common, and that those who doubted you were naive. Specifically, here you seemed to allege that we were buying tanks we didn't need so that military contractors would illegally arm foreigners, apparently including Syrian rebels.

So I'll ask again ... where's the evidence of that in this case?  How did it work exactly?  Or, failing that (which would already make your posts exactly like those you are trying to distance yourself from) how could it have worked, specifically? Forgive my naivete, but I'm just not seeing how it all fits together.

 

[renesauz]

Let me address your last point first because I really think you have misunderstood me (which I'll freely acknowledge may be my fault.) I want ipeople interested and knowledgeable about political issues to have more influence than those who are not. I despise populism. The more the general public, which hates politics, are disinterested in what's going on, I believe the better off we are. But there are interested and knowledgeable people in every state, of every persuasion. And they all deserve equal amounts of say. Iowa and New Hampshire have far too much influence in deciding who our next President will be. That seems like a no brainer to me. 

As far as "all the other things that need to be addressed" I'm not sure of any of it, because as you know I hold that the current system works fairly well. In most cases it produces a good outcome- I believe that is true even this year because in the end Hillary Clinton will, IMO, make an excellent President. The problems I currently see are almost solely with the base of the Republican Party, and not with the overall system. So none of this specific discussion is very important to me. Things are good. 

Would you "despise populism" if the electorate was properly educated on politics in this country?  Personally, I believe that the anger/hatred is misplaced.  People have very real and valid reasons to hate politics in this country and it doesn't seem like our politicians really care.  They are happy being responsible to those paying them.  Makes their job easier, but it contributes significantly to the gap that keeps growing and growing.  

It's easy to say, "well, you don't want to be engaged, fine....keep your mouth shut".  You'll never convince me that the fewer people involved in the process the better.

Painful though it is to say...Commish is dead on here. Tim's vision is an oligarchy. People don't understand politics, but they do understand elites making decisions that benefit elites while they go nowhere. And if we ignore the causes of the populism we see today, we're likely to see more of that type of populism tomorrow.

 

[Politician Spock]

Even if all of this is 100% true ... you brought it up in connection with shady backroom deals made by super-rich Americans.  THAT was what I took issue with- your claim that these shadowy backroom deals by people using their vast wealth to exert undue influence on big policy decisions are common, and that those who doubted you were naive. Specifically, here you seemed to allege that we were buying tanks we didn't need so that military contractors would illegally arm foreigners, apparently including Syrian rebels.

So I'll ask again ... where's the evidence of that in this case?  How did it work exactly?  Or, failing that (which would already make your posts exactly like those you are trying to distance yourself from) how could it have worked, specifically? Forgive my naivete, but I'm just not seeing how it all fits together.

You think weapons makers just shipped them to Syrian Rebels for ####s and giggles?

 

[renesauz]

Bull####. I'm not as cynical as you.  

Did you ever see All The President's Men? One of my favorite movies (it will show up on my list later.) A key message from that movie is that in Washington, secrets are hard to keep. Too many people talk. This is true even more now, in our internet age, than it was 40 years ago. 

There is no power elite. There are no people secretly deciding what's going to happen. Most things that happen are as big a surprise to our leaders as they are to us. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

You think weapons makers just shipped them to Syrian Rebels for ####s and giggles?

The burden's not on me, amigo.  You're the one simultaneously claiming that you're not one of those crazy Infowars conspiracy theory types and calling me "naive" for challenging your assertion that "people and small groups that have made ####loads of wealth by funnelling money as covertly as possible to those that have power so that they benefit from the results of doing so. The problem is they typically don't cross the legal line, but when they do, those involved when crossing it know to shut the #### up about it." 

So explain it to me. Who are the people and small groups in this case? To whom are they covertly funneling money, and how?  What benefits are they receiving in return?  How is the secrecy of this plan being assured given the number of people involved in military contracting decisions, a group which generally does not include the former Secretary of State who you seem to be alleging is at the center of this? What evidence of this do you have that separates you from the Infowars types you don't want to be "lumped in" with?

 

[msommer]

You think weapons makers just shipped them to Syrian Rebels for ####s and giggles?

At this point you should be concentrating on making your point - explaining you evidence for the shady back room deal about the tanks and the Syrian rebels being armed.

we'll  while you gather your thoughts for this no doubt well substantiated assertation

 

[Politician Spock]

The burden's not on me, amigo. 

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I've never considered you to be an open minded person at all. It would be a waste of my time and effort to try. So yes, the burden is on you, because the only reason I'm conversing with you is that you might convince me of something (given I'm an open minded person). Care to try?