ShitShow at DOJ Today: Rule of Law Possibly Dead

[NineSpine]

Well, it fundamentally isn't. You're making up your own definition for a term that already has meaning.



For the most part, yes. I don't believe any are engaging in shadowy backroom deals that violate basic ethics or the law. Things like bribery. That's what "corruption" actually means, not "making decisions predicated upon a different set of priorities than my own".

I rarely disagree with you, but I do here. Massive political donations are bribery, regardless of whether they are legal.

[Toppy]

The choice is between "perpetuate system of oppression that has been using trappings of 'freedom' and 'democracy' for so long that many people started to think injustice is necessary part of it" and "actually change things" (with no guarantees that it will be for the better).

And, obviously, Russia is on the side of change here. Because it doesn't like current situation, and certainly doesn't like current establishment still stuck in Cold War mindset.

I like how when Russia got brought up in the thread, Shalcker almost immediately pops up.

Just a reminder that they are a total Russian shill. At this point, wouldn't be surprised paid.

[AeneasBK]

I rarely disagree with you, but I do here. Massive political donations are bribery, regardless of whether they are legal.

I also was stumped by the "money being more important than people isn't necessarily corruption" line, but I know next to nothing about these things.

[Shalcker]

I like how when Russia got brought up in the thread, Shalcker almost immediately pops up.

Just a reminder that they are a total Russian shill. At this point, wouldn't be surprised paid.

I'm just Russian, i'm not "shilling" for it.

I don't need to be paid to talk about my country, just like Americans here aren't paid to talk about USA.

[Edge-]

I rarely disagree with you, but I do here. Massive political donations are bribery, regardless of whether they are legal.

Bribery wouldn't fit by a longshot. There's a fair discussion about the corrupting influence of money in politics, but that's something Democrats have, and are actively working to address.

[NineSpine]

Bribery wouldn't fit by a longshot. There's a fair discussion about the corrupting influence of money in politics, but that's something Democrats have, and are actively working to address.

If I give politicians money in order to secure their votes on issues for me, that's bribery, no matter how you slice it.

The democratic party establishment does not want to do ANYTHING about that whatsoever.

[Edge-]

The democratic party establishment does not want to do ANYTHING about that whatsoever.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...s/house-bill/1

I'm getting tired of linking this again and again to folks who keep shouting "BUT DEMOCRATS ARE THE SAME!"

They're not.

[Templar 331]

Define "go against", because historically kings and tyrants weren't dethroned/deposed with lots of bellyaching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...olutionary_War

And only you mentioned dethroning. Trump will be out of office once his, hopefully single, term is up.

[Drutt]

I rarely disagree with you, but I do here. Massive political donations are bribery, regardless of whether they are legal.

Spot on.

A corporation like AT&T donating millions to candidates who then vote for AT&T's agenda when required is corruption, pure and simple. They're donating that money because they get something from it in return. Candidates are beholden to their donors, and those donors largely aren't the people.

[Jehct]

The Rule of Law ended once Shmumpf became president. Now since I didn't get what I wanted I will continue to be a piece of shit to anyone that doesn't / hasn't agreed with my political preference. WARREN 2020!

[Rukh]

The Rule of Law ended once Shmumpf became president. Now since I didn't get what I wanted I will continue to be a piece of shit to anyone that doesn't / hasn't agreed with my political preference. WARREN 2020!

I'm sad to see Warren's chances tanking. I'll still probably vote for her if she's still in, but my hopes aren't high. Still will enthusiastically vote for whomever the democratic candidate ends up being.

[Endus]

I rarely disagree with you, but I do here. Massive political donations are bribery, regardless of whether they are legal.

Money in politics is an issue when there's a tit-for-tat arrangement. That makes it bribery.

Without that, it's not an issue.

Ideally, all political donations would be required to be anonymous, so no kickbacks could conceivably occur, and I'd agree with that, but we need to be clear about why and how money can be a corrupting influence, because it isn't the money itself. It's that the money is being used as a tool to apply unlawful pressure to get what one wants; bribery.

[NineSpine]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...s/house-bill/1

I'm getting tired of linking this again and again to folks who keep shouting "BUT DEMOCRATS ARE THE SAME!"

They're not.

Yes, I understand that democrats enthusiastically presented this bill once they knew it wouldn't pass the senate, while they curiously refused to do so when they could have passed it. Don't be naive. The parties are not the same, but on this particular issue, they are.

[Rukh]

I feel like ultimately money will always be somewhat a corrupting influence. The problems that have occurred is because we reached a place where essentially any organization can spend unlimited money on "speech" which makes the common citizen's voice virtually microscopic. If you have an constituency of 10k people and maybe a few will spend a total of 30k on lobbying you, are you going to listen to that or the megacorp that spends 10 mil on organizations that help your re-election? Seems obvious.

In the US we've turned money directly in to political power. When the gap between the rich and everyone else is so drastic, on orders of thousands of magnitude, that essentially creates an oligarchy.

[NineSpine]

Money in politics is an issue when there's a tit-for-tat arrangement. That makes it bribery.

Without that, it's not an issue.

Ideally, all political donations would be required to be anonymous, so no kickbacks could conceivably occur, and I'd agree with that, but we need to be clear about why and how money can be a corrupting influence, because it isn't the money itself. It's that the money is being used as a tool to apply unlawful pressure to get what one wants; bribery.

The fact that this form of bribery is legal in America does not make it not bribery. Here is the definition of a bribe:

"persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."

There is no requirement of illegality in that definition. It is a typical component paired with dishonesty, but that doesn't mean that it is required. When a corporation spends $100,000 on a politician in order to secure their votes, that's a bribe.

[Edge-]

Yes, I understand that democrats enthusiastically presented this bill once they knew it wouldn't pass the senate, while they curiously refused to do so when they could have passed it. Don't be naive. The parties are not the same, but on this particular issue, they are.

The last year they controlled the House and Senate was 2010, so there hasn't really been a chance to do much on this and it wasn't as big of an issue back then. The fact that this was passed is evidence that Democrats are at least trying, even if McConnell is the crypt keeper.

[NineSpine]

The last year they controlled the House and Senate was 2010, so there hasn't really been a chance to do much on this and it wasn't as big of an issue back then. The fact that this was passed is evidence that Democrats are at least trying, even if McConnell is the crypt keeper.

I'm glad they fooled you into thinking they are genuinely interested in this, but they aren't. I 100% promise you that if democrats take control they will not do this (unless sanders is president and forces the issue) and I bet they even give republicans back the fillibuster so that they have an excuse.

[Edge-]

I'm glad they fooled you into thinking they are genuinely interested in this, but they aren't. I 100% promise you that if democrats take control they will not do this (unless sanders is president and forces the issue) and I bet they even give republicans back the fillibuster so that they have an excuse.

Cool, so Democrats are all corrupt and can't be trusted in Congress, but somehow Sanders, if he's president, will "force the issue" and get this Democratic party that you say has no interest in campaign finance reform to...pass campaign finance reform?

Your argument is inherently contradictory and nonsensical.

[NineSpine]

Cool, so Democrats are all corrupt and can't be trusted in Congress, but somehow Sanders, if he's president, will "force the issue" and get this Democratic party that you say has no interest in campaign finance reform to...pass campaign finance reform?

Your argument is inherently contradictory and nonsensical.

I said the democratic establishment, which is the bulk of the party. Yes, there is a progressive wing genuinely interested in these things, but I’m not going to give the whole party credit for the work of the progressive wing.

[Edge-]

I said the democratic establishment, which is the bulk of the party. Yes, there is a progressive wing genuinely interested in these things, but I’m not going to give the whole party credit for the work of the progressive wing.

So, how is Sanders gonna make this happen, then? How will he magically convince Republicans, if they hold the Senate, to even consider a bill? How will he get "establishment Democrats", who are the majority of Democrats in the House, to even draft or propose a bill?

Your entirely argument is nonsensical and inherently contradictory, dude.

It requires the premise that Democrats as a whole, because the "establishment" folks are the majority, don't have any interest in this contrary to the fact that HR1 exists. Why would this change under a Sanders presidency?