Suspicions confirmed.

[PLC1]

A forthcoming book called The Confessions of Congressman X,purportedly written by a sitting (and rumored to be Democratic) congressman, promises to be an anonymous revelation of everything terrible you've always suspected about America's representatives in Washington. Choice quotes about Congress include:

• "Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that's lavished upon them."
• "My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything."
• "Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost."

• "The average man on the street actually thinks he influences how I vote. Unless it's a hot-button issue, his thoughts are generally meaningless. I'll politely listen, but I follow the money."
• "Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works."
• "It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification."

No surprises there, at least not to most of the members of HOP.

source

 

[dogtowner]

Lol

No, nothing earthshattering there.

Wanna bet we find that they spend 90% of their time fundraising and .01% of their time reading the laws they pass?

 

[PLC1]

Lol

No, nothing earthshattering there.

Wanna bet we find that they spend 90% of their time fundraising and .01% of their time reading the laws they pass?

I think we already have. This from 60 Minutes:

Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Lol

No, nothing earthshattering there.

Wanna bet we find that they spend 90% of their time fundraising and .01% of their time reading the laws they pass?

Did you know that they are required to spend 30 to 40 hours a week acting as telemarketers for themselves, and for the party that belong to?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...p-members-congress-from-asking-for-money.html

 

[Zanna]

Did you know that they are required to spend 30 to 40 hours a week acting as telemarketers for themselves, and for the party that belong to?

Wow, that sounds so much like a pyramid scheme...Vote for Avon!

 

[Reddie]

I like it the admission that the self-absorbed sheep are easy to manipulate. Question though is if the average Joes/sheep are being manipulated who are the puppeteers? Can we identify the puppeteers? Before we do our thoughts or what we want matters not to the politicians who themselves are puppets.

 

[PLC1]

I like it the admission that the self-absorbed sheep are easy to manipulate. Question though is if the average Joes/sheep are being manipulated who are the puppeteers? Can we identify the puppeteers? Before we do our thoughts or what we want matters not to the politicians who themselves are puppets.

Good question: Just who are the puppeteers? Who is pulling the strings and making things happen, or not happen, in Washington? It should be the voters, the people of this great country, but is it? Seems to me that money has a lot to do with it.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Good question: Just who are the puppeteers? Who is pulling the strings and making things happen, or not happen, in Washington? It should be the voters, the people of this great country, but is it? Seems to me that money has a lot to do with it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/308343/

 

[Lagboltz]

I like it the admission that the self-absorbed sheep are easy to manipulate. Question though is if the average Joes/sheep are being manipulated who are the puppeteers? Can we identify the puppeteers? Before we do our thoughts or what we want matters not to the politicians who themselves are puppets.

There are a number of puppeteers. One strong group of puppeteers are the lobbyists. The NRA has amazing control over the gun laws. Wall Street is another puppeteer. Hillary among others is one of their puppets.

The Supreme Court increased the number of puppeteers with "Citizens United" ( a real misnomer).

So it seems that the puppeteers are the corporations of the US.

 

[Lagboltz]

Lincoln's Getysburg address ends with,
"... government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I think it did perish, it is now,
government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

 

[dogtowner]

Lincoln's Getysburg address ends with,
"... government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I think it did perish, it is now,
government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

And oddly enough Abe the Whig started it.

 

[BigRob]

There are a number of puppeteers. One strong group of puppeteers are the lobbyists. The NRA has amazing control over the gun laws. Wall Street is another puppeteer. Hillary among others is one of their puppets.

The Supreme Court increased the number of puppeteers with "Citizens United" ( a real misnomer).

So it seems that the puppeteers are the corporations of the US.

Citizens United is completely misunderstood. It was absolutely the correct ruling. Even the former executive director of the ACLU called how Democrats characterize it as "liberal delusion." Wanting to go back to the days before Citizens United is wanting to go back to the days of more "dark money" and more restrictions on free speech.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Citizens United is completely misunderstood. It was absolutely the correct ruling. Even the former executive director of the ACLU called how Democrats characterize it as "liberal delusion." Wanting to go back to the days before Citizens United is wanting to go back to the days of more "dark money" and more restrictions on free speech.

Better back up there. When you qualify a group of people as a "person", and at the same time disqualify an individual as a "person", then you are not understanding the concept of what a "person" is. For instance, are not the prisoners of GITMO "persons", and entitled to rights we normally grant to persons? Is the babe in the womb a "person" with rights?

Of course, Citizens United did NOTHING to end "dark money" in politics. In fact, if anything it increased it. Of course, now it is called "undisclosed donations"

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/21/five-years-citizens-united/

 

[BigRob]

Better back up there. When you qualify a group of people as a "person", and at the same time disqualify an individual as a "person", then you are not understanding the concept of what a "person" is.

A modern economy cannot function without the concept of corporate personhood. That was not a new development under Citizen's United. The idea that Citizens United suddenly made "corporations people" is simply wrong, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what the case was actually about.

For reference:
Here is the holding from ScotusBlog: "Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast."

Here is an overview of the case from Wiki:
In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA".[4] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.

This was a case about removing arbitrary time frames in which groups could run express advocacy or electioneering communications. That timeframe has never made any sense, and let us not forget that it was never applied evenly. Newspapers for example (which are organized as corporations) could always expend money to write editorials that amounted to express advocacy. Why couldn't some other group too? Can you defend it?

For instance, are not the prisoners of GITMO "persons", and entitled to rights we normally grant to persons? Is the babe in the womb a "person" with rights?

As noted, the case is not about "corporate personhood."

Of course, Citizens United did NOTHING to end "dark money" in politics. In fact, if anything it increased it. Of course, now it is called "undisclosed donations"

No it didn't. SuperPAC's (which came about from a different case to be technical) are required to disclose their donors. If you call that "dark money" you are an idiot. And prior to Citizens United social welfare groups already existed...as did 527's (which are now defunct really). Nothing changed. The only thing that changed was that arbitrary restrictions on electioneering were removed, and rightfully so.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

A modern economy cannot function without the concept of corporate personhood. That was not a new development under Citizen's United. The idea that Citizens United suddenly made "corporations people" is simply wrong, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what the case was actually about.

For reference:
Here is the holding from ScotusBlog: "Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast."

And indirectly that is giving money to the candidate. I rememeber when the right wing used to whine about, and still do, unions supporting candidates. Now it is corporations, and all is fine. As to political spending being a form of free speech, that once again is a product of the courts, and legislators. Hostpriocally speaking, the Founders opposed corporations supporting political figures, or events.

This was a case about removing arbitrary time frames in which groups could run express advocacy or electioneering communications. That timeframe has never made any sense, and let us not forget that it was never applied evenly. Newspapers for example (which are organized as corporations) could always expend money to write editorials that amounted to express advocacy. Why couldn't some other group too? Can you defend it?

As noted, the case is not about "corporate personhood."

It is to the extent of expanding the concept of "personhood", and corporations. While the Hillary film may have been the tool used, the end result is the same just as other cases seek to expand it even further:

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/hobby-lobby-argument

No it didn't. SuperPAC's (which came about from a different case to be technical) are required to disclose their donors. If you call that "dark money" you are an idiot. And prior to Citizens United social welfare groups already existed...as did 527's (which are now defunct really). Nothing changed. The only thing that changed was that arbitrary restrictions on electioneering were removed, and rightfully so.

So, you are saying that Citizens United did not create yet another class of "anonymous" donors? Anyway, you are yet another really boring idiocrat:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/citizens_united.php