Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice Democracy's (very excited)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    The convicted either occurred or they didn't, I doubt even breitbart would invent a conviction.

    I'm far from Cenk's word is absolute truth, I don't know where you got it from.

    Let lay it out for to clearly. I concider accepting massive corporate donations an act of corruption in of itself there is no way that just free money, corporations don't just do that. And no sometimes they don't always get what they want, but they usually do get sometjing for what they spend or the money dries up. Your being niave.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
      The convicted either occurred or they didn't, I doubt even breitbart would invent a conviction.
      The conviction absolutely happened. Go check a decent source or 20.

      I'm far from Cenk's word is absolute truth, I don't know where you got it from.
      You're aping what he says without demonstrating any knowledge of the actual facts on the ground here. Cenk says the Democrats need to be purged because everyone that doesn't meet his purity model are inherently corrupt... which is what you're arguing.

      You're not questioning anything coming out of the TYT echochamber, and citing them repeatedly as proof of your points. That's where I got that from.

      I concider accepting massive corporate donations an act of corruption in of itself there is no way that just free money, corporations don't just do that.
      Remember, accepting donations from corporations is illegal in the US. Those donations don't actually go to candidates... they got to campaigns.. and can do so without the candidates say so.

      As well, a graph you cited earlier showed a distinct trend in this: massive donations are either given to both parties equally by corporations that want to stay at the table, or are vastly given to Republican candidates.

      There's something to the fact that most massive corporate donations to Democrats come from companies that are giving equally to both major parties. It's a very different point for those corporations than trying to "buy" candidates (something your own links actually discuss a bit too).

      And no sometimes they don't always get what they want, but they usually do get sometjing for what they spend or the money dries up.
      Sure. So where's the proof of what they got being contrary to the liberal or progressive policies Democrats have campaigned on? Because that's part of the crux of the issue. Buying influence is bad, sure, but are they getting some pork barrel spending or a sweet federal contract, or are they actually getting policy written for them?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
        Your being niave.
        ‚ÄčAside from the typo you are crossing the line into insult/personal attack territory. Dial it back please.


        Onyx Path Forum Administrator
        Posts in this color are moderator posts
        Posts in this color mean a Great Old One has driven me mad.
        Forum Terms of Use
        the Contact Us link.

        Comment


        • #79
          https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=taA3tbmMZOE

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
            Is "voted with Trump" our only metric for corruption? And what makes the democrats named in this video "corporatist"?


            On the frontier of the Wild South, there's only one woman with the grit to take on its most dangerous outlaws and bring them Back Alive, or Maybe Dead.

            Avatar by K.S. Brenowitz

            Comment


            • #81
              It's also pointless statistics. He's using 19 votes, 15 of which are just cabinet nominations (and the one vote to let Mattis get a waiver to be considered) which the Democrats can't stop.

              There's no evidence of corruption in that video. And the closet definition of "corporate" Democrat seems to just be the centrist/moderate Democrats, esp. ones in very Republican leaning states. And, you know, if your a Democratic Senator and your state has a lot of Republicans in it... they voted for you because they expect you to not be a super hardline progressive and represent them too. That's not corruption... that's called doing your job.

              There's also a mistake made by calling these "Blue Dog Democrats." The Blue Dog Democrats are an actual organization, but just in the House. And their membership has shrunk to insignificant levels (and Nancy Pelosi has regularly proven capable of keeping them in line when they were at the height of their numbers anyway). The Blue Dogs are pro-business, but again, that's not inherently corrupt. They ran on pro-business centrist or even slightly right leaning on fiscal issue platforms and got elected. The people that elected them said, "yeah, do stuff that's good for those companies," because that's what they said they were going to do.

              If we had a European style parliamentary system, these people wouldn't be Democrats, sure. But that's not our system, and our system means the parties accept having a range of members along their ideological spectrum because it's better to have a Democrat that votes with the party 75% of the time, than a Republican that votes with the Democrats 20% of the time.

              None of this actually gets to a metric to objectively label people corporate Democrats based on being bought by corporations.

              Comment

              Working...
              X