You're rght - I put the quotation mark in the wrong place. To quote you properly, I should have written "legal" bribery, not "legal bribery." My bad.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're rght - I put the quotation mark in the wrong place. To quote you properly, I should have written "legal" bribery, not "legal bribery." My bad.I did not write "legal bribery" If you cant even get a quote correct, how can you figure out politics?
thanks. I am for eliminating lobbying altogether because it is a form of bribery, not much different than your topic. My point is that the whole system walks a fine line between SOP and bribery. This topic will go away, and in a few months there will be a report stating no laws were broken. Disguising as that sounds, it will happen....You're rght - I put the quotation mark in the wrong place. To quote you properly, I should have written "legal" bribery, not "legal bribery." My bad.
The right of people to lobby their legislators to address their grievances is in the Constitution. I don't know if you could do away with this altogether or if you should.thanks. I am for eliminating lobbying altogether because it is a form of bribery, not much different than your topic. My point is that the whole system walks a fine line between SOP and bribery. This topic will go away, and in a few months there will be a report stating no laws were broken. Disguising as that sounds, it will happen....
I've given a lot of thought on the lobbying issue in general - and to be honest, I don't have a concrete solution. I think as long as there are people in power there will be those who seek their favor.thanks. I am for eliminating lobbying altogether because it is a form of bribery, not much different than your topic. My point is that the whole system walks a fine line between SOP and bribery. This topic will go away, and in a few months there will be a report stating no laws were broken. Disguising as that sounds, it will happen....
Addressing grievances is another aspect of this, for sure - and I'm glad you brought it up. We absolutely NEED to be able to do this, and are guaranteed the right to do it in the Constitution, I agree.The right of people to lobby their legislators to address their grievances is in the Constitution. I don't know if you could do away with this altogether or if you should.
I'm with the stricter regulations crowd on this.
Addressing grievances is another aspect of this, for sure - and I'm glad you brought it up. We absolutely NEED to be able to do this, and are guaranteed the right to do it in the Constitution, I agree.
I guess when I think of "lobbyists" I tend to think more in negative terms of those who are addressing their selfish "interests" as opposed to "grievances" of more positive self-interest - addressing wrongs done to them, etc. Both admittedly are generalizations. Anyway - I agree.
Disproving or disapproving?As for the topic, I don't have much of a problem with this, CNN in fact has a video about this (that whole no left covering it is bs) and in it they are disproving of it even.
Disproving or disapproving?
No, that's called politics, and every sitting president has done so. Why the sudden urge to attack it when it is Obama in power?Well, yeah it is- when the job is contingent on not running for office against another candidate (Arlen Spectre) the administration wants to win.
You find that funny? You find humor in this administration bribing a sitting member of congress?
FWLIW - the administration doesn't think it's funny. In fact they're finding it quite "mumming," - at least they know what they did was not only wrong, but criminally so.
Just as Hillary Clinton was offered a job and it wasn't a bribe......You apparently acknowledge he was offered a job (i.e. your first post), but don't think it was a "bribe."
I agree, and it is, which is why I only generally addressed it [lobbying] - not wanting to make an issue out of what people's motives are for lobbying. The primary point was about "undue" lobbying in general - nothing more.America is about the freedom to go for your "selfish" reasons or your non-selfish ones. You may view certain lobbying as negative, but everyone is always lobbying for their own interests and their almost always positive to themselves, it's very much a matter of perspectives.
My post #40 goes further into the specifics of why I want to see this sort of stuff stop. Is it "illegal" to do what they did? If it isn't, I think it ought to be - but that's just me, just my opinion.As for the topic, I don't have much of a problem with this, CNN in fact has a video about this (that whole no left covering it is bs) and in it they are disapproving of it even.
Personally it seems like a commonly used business strategy, recruit your competition. We can call many things a bribe if you want to, and when we get further information I may call this as well, as far as what we know now I simply see someone from the White house offering someone a job based on political motives... No politician or political group ever does anything for political motives right lol. If they broke a law then they should get hammered, if they didn't then they shouldn't. This nation is about freedom as long as you don't break laws and I'm for that freedom. Now said WH person could be fairly criticized, we do in fact have freedom of speech, heck people criticize people for things that don't even make sense so at least this is a perspective most people should be able to understand from both sides.
So you don't want an investigation of Sestak specifically, you want an investigation of the practice as a whole. Fair enough. I personally don't support an investigation in either case, but at least you're consistent.I would support a Justice Department investigation of these practices in general. I wouldn't support ONLY an investigation of the Cheney affair (and not, say of the Sestak affair) - but if the investigation looked into what both parties are / were doing, I would support that, yes - because I think it needs to stop.
I hear what you're saying. But I think the expectation that the White House shouldn't influence elections around the country is an unfair expectation. The president shouldn't care who wins anywhere else? The president shouldn't try to get the best candidates that support his position and give him more leverage in Congress? The president should have no say at all? Should the president not campaign on anyone's behalf? The notion that the president should be uninvolved and uninfluential in nationwide elections isn't realistic, I don't think. I think there are problems in our democracy, but I don't think "too much White House influence" is one of them.I don't want the White House attempting to influence the legislative mix with these sort of practices. I'm fine if they want to speak on behalf of this candidate or that, or voice their support for - but offering compensation to a candidate so they won't run against "their" candidate is imho wrong because it unduly influences candidacies by bypassing the citizenry of the individual states who would otherwise determine, via the caucus process who they want to run for office.
I have no problem with the president stumping for specific candidates, I really don't. As individual citizens themselves, they have every right to be able to do that, whether they're president or not.I hear what you're saying. But I think the expectation that the White House shouldn't influence elections around the country is an unfair expectation. The president shouldn't care who wins anywhere else? The president shouldn't try to get the best candidates that support his position and give him more leverage in Congress? The president should have no say at all? Should the president not campaign on anyone's behalf? The notion that the president should be uninvolved and uninfluential in nationwide elections isn't realistic, I don't think. I think there are problems in our democracy, but I don't think "too much White House influence" is one of them.
none. Bill Clinton made the call
White House Asked Bill Clinton To Talk To Joe Sestak About Senate Run
The offer was made by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel through a prominent intermediary -- former President Bill Clinton -- during the months of June and July of 2009. The White House initiated the conversation, which occurred over phone. It would have allowed Sestak to remain in the House of Representatives while advising the president
I see the distinction, but I think it's an artificial one. To me, the analogy of president selecting candidates is like a CEO selecting products. I can lobby Pepsi to offer me Grapefruit-flavored soda, but the CEO ultimately decides what choices I'm going to get. And then I can vote (with dollars) whether to buy what they give me or go to Coke or Dr Pepper or whoever. I can lobby a singer to do the songs *I* want him to play, but ultimately he/she decides what album to put out, and I vote yea or nay on buying the album.If the citizens want to put forth A, B, and C as candidates for congressional office, and the president campaigns for B, I'm fine with that.
But if the executive branch exerts its influence such that only B and C are available to run, because it got A to step out of the race, I'm not at all fine with that. The executive branch has neither the right nor the privilege to determine what my choices will be for whom to vote.
Do you see the difference? I'm trying to articulate it as best I can, because I think the distinction is a very important one.
I understand the analogie but I don't think any of them are apt - each is an apples-oranges comparison in my mind.I see the distinction, but I think it's an artificial one. To me, the analogy of president selecting candidates is like a CEO selecting products. I can lobby Pepsi to offer me Grapefruit-flavored soda, but the CEO ultimately decides what choices I'm going to get. And then I can vote (with dollars) whether to buy what they give me or go to Coke or Dr Pepper or whoever. I can lobby a singer to do the songs *I* want him to play, but ultimately he/she decides what album to put out, and I vote yea or nay on buying the album.
This year I decided it was time to get involved in the process. I went to the caucuses, I went as a delegate to the county assembly, and then I went as a delegate to the state assembly. I had opportunity to vote at each level for the candidates my precinct (the 3 of us who showed up) wanted to run.I can try to influence what candidate runs for the Democratic seat, but ultimately NDCC, the President, the state Democratic party, and others are going to whittle my choices down, possibly to one and only one person, and then it's up to me to decide whether to vote for that person, for someone else, or stay home. I just don't see it as a crisis of democracy that a Democratic president has more influence over a state Democratic candidate (or Republican president on a state Republican candidate) than I do. If Democrats and Republicans were acting to prevent people, willing to jump through the necessary hoops, to get on a ballot as an independent, to me THAT would be a problem. But Democrat officials deciding Democrat candidates that I then choose to support or not? Nothing wrong with that to me.
Mr. Hillary was the message boy for obambi.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?