Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Grab her right in the p***y

  1. #61
    I like to post Landro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,595
    Cartoon is 10 years old and still relevant


  2. #62
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan View Post
    *Washington, and other high profile elected officials, can clearly be "bought" in the sense that money provides access, and defines who the official is friends with, and this will in turn greatly influence their positions. Our system as a whole, however, is (weirdly) resistant to this problem, and has been muddling though it for well over 200 years already.
    There's an important nuance to be drawn here: When talking about the influence of money in Washington, we're talking almost exclusively about political donations to support friendly and 'accessible' politicians: Keep me happy or I won't finance your re-election campaign. This is distinct from traditional corruption, which personally lines the pockets of politicians in exchange for doing what the payor wants.

    But, seen in that light, I'm not sure how 'resistant' the American system is to it. If you look at post-enlightenment democracies, the actual collapses have tended not to relate to the 'influence of money' in that sense, and of those that have persisted, the US shows more indicia of plutocratic influence than its comparitors. I could point to a lot of examples of corporate interests getting preference over good public policy, to the detriment of the average American...but to avoid getting bogged down in arguments about guns, healthcare, or tax policy, let me instead point to Mickey Mouse. and the ongoing series of copyright law reforms to protect Disney's revenue streams.

    And, in the wake of Citizens United, you can only expect it to get worse. Other countries impose limitations on political financing - limiting or prohibiting corporate donations; limiting the amount a person or party can spend on a single campaign, etc. But the bar keeps getting raised on the cost of an American election campaign.

    Of course, neither Trump nor Clinton is a solution to this particular problem. Clinton's a pretty typical politician, beholden in many ways to the corporate interests that finance her political campaigns. Trump's claims of self-financing are pretty dubious, too, and in any event he actually raises the likelihood of, ahem, 'traditional corruption'. He's always been pretty happy to play the game on the donor's side, including donations to attorneys general who were reviewing files affecting his businesses, but he's also been known to self-deal with money that's not exactly his in the first place - for instance, paying fines out of funds in his charity's coffers. He also doesn't appear to know the meaning of the phrase 'blind trust' - traditionally, a president will hand his assets over to an independent third party to manage over the course of his administration, without knowing how those assets are being managed. Trump, by contrast, intends to have his children manage his assets, and one would reasonably expect him to continue to be active in operating the Trump Organization while being president, despite the overt conflict of interest it would generate, as he assesses the majority of the net worth of the organization as being connected to his own personal brand. (We've seen this even during the campaign, where he has used campaign-funded events to hawk Trump-affiliated products.) Electing a President who is literally his own corporate interest is hardly a way to get Washington out of the pocket of corporate interests.

    Sanders looked like a solution, but the truth is that the problem is self-perpetuating. Sanders never could have funded a competitive presidential campaign through his grassroots donations. I'm slightly hopeful (though not holding my breath) that his involvement with a Clinton administration might facilitate a push toward incremental electoral reform.

    Quote Originally Posted by Selephant View Post
    You can come to Canada Palem, we'll take you :).
    Isn't it a little premature to start a refugee program for Americans? (Frankly, given the number of "I want to move to Canada" comments following events like SCOTUS protecting gay marriage, I'm more concerned about accepting American refugees than Syrian refugees... Not that I have a problem with Palem, of course.)

  3. #63
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ocala, FL, USA
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Landro View Post
    Looks like the US elections are over now
    Only thing Trump has said that I agree with 100%
    Long live Mehul!

  4. #64
    I like to post Landro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,595

  5. #65
    Post Demon Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Landro View Post
    ROFL :D

    Well at least "good ol' Adolf" built the Autobahn which is still of use to most Germans.
    The Drumpf proclaims to build a wall, which will in all likelihood be just as useful as most great walls have been historically, ie not particularly. Hadrian's wall didn't terribly help the Romans and the Great Wall didn't realy help the Chinese against Genghis Khan nor what later became the Qing dynasty.
    Maybe in 1900-2200 years the Great Trump Wall can also become a great source of tourism :P
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #66
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    7
    Hey Germany how is your Immigration Policy working out.

  7. #67
    Scribe
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    OSU
    Posts
    292
    Victors get to write history, maybe Adolf wasn't as bad as he's made out to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4obeqaxhRs

    @chanain There's two sides to the Citizen's United decision. The unintended consequence was the decision to allow money from corporation's be designated as free speech towards political candidates. The side of it that Hillary wants reversed is what allows independent filmmakers to produce films on her like 'Clinton Cash' and 'Hillary's America'. She benefit's immensely from one aspect of it, but her intention was to censor the free speech making critical documentaries on her.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •