More Hunter Biden Bribe taking for Dad.

[Skoob]

Or a family member is simply prostituting out the families last name while not passing any money to anybody else and using it themselves.
Which is a lot more likely. To think otherwise and to exclude this possibility would not only be naïve, but downright asinine

It's almost like Democrats can do no wrong and to suggest otherwise would be akin to blasphemy.
The left never ceases to amaze.

 

[Valcazar]

What campaign finance reform, term limits(beyond the Presidency, which was to KEEP A POPULAR PROGRESSIVE OUT), or other significant change has occured in say the last 50 years? Or even 75? At the Federal level.

Last one I can think of was when ME TOO ended the practice of Congress paying for all the sexual harassment settlements. And even that one was in response to Donald Trump coming in office.

First off, campaign finance reform isn't the anti-corruption things we were talking about.

Secondly, the term limits weren't imposed to KEEP A POPULAR PROGRESSIVE OUT.
FDR was already dead.
They were in reaction to him, yes.
Which, btw, might make you want to rethink your whole "term limits are an anti-corruption measure" if you think they were actually designed to keep progressives out.

But to answer your question.

The FEC was created just under 50 years ago.
There was Ethics reform in the late 80s.
McCain-Feingold is less than 25 years old.
About 10 years ago they expanded the definition of "relative" to exclude more people from being hired by someone in Congress.
( A federal official, including a Member of Congress, cannot appoint, promote, or recommend for appointment or promotion any “relative” of the official to any agency or department over which the official exercises authority or control.)

I'm not sure why you would consider a reform done "in response to Donald Trump coming in office" as some kind of disqualifier, btw.
Using the political environment to push through reforms is a good thing.

 

[Butler1000]

First off, campaign finance reform isn't the anti-corruption things we were talking about.

Secondly, the term limits weren't imposed to KEEP A POPULAR PROGRESSIVE OUT.
FDR was already dead.
They were in reaction to him, yes.
Which, btw, might make you want to rethink your whole "term limits are an anti-corruption measure" if you think they were actually designed to keep progressives out.

But to answer your question.

The FEC was created just under 50 years ago.
There was Ethics reform in the late 80s.
McCain-Feingold is less than 25 years old.
About 10 years ago they expanded the definition of "relative" to exclude more people from being hired by someone in Congress.
( A federal official, including a Member of Congress, cannot appoint, promote, or recommend for appointment or promotion any “relative” of the official to any agency or department over which the official exercises authority or control.)

I'm not sure why you would consider a reform done "in response to Donald Trump coming in office" as some kind of disqualifier, btw.
Using the political environment to push through reforms is a good thing.

And yet corruption has gotten worse. You aren't claiming it's much better are you?

 

[mandrill]

And yet corruption has gotten worse. You aren't claiming it's much better are you?

What's your evidence for that statement?

 

[mandrill]

That makes no sense. What is has is a large Oligarchy by Corporation.

Huh???

 

[basketcase]

Amazing how long the Butler campaigns go on. At least he's not still going on about Hillary having people assassinated still.

 

[Valcazar]

What's your evidence for that statement?

You've been here long enough to know Butler doesn't need anything as tawdry as evidence.
Not when there is a narrative he believes.

I do like him tipping his hand that his belief is that everything is useless and everyone should accept corruption and never pass laws because they would never make anything better though.

 

[Frankfooter]

And yet corruption has gotten worse. You aren't claiming it's much better are you?

New documentary out, you're gonna love it.

'From Russia with Lev' Official Trailer

MSNBC Films presents “From Russia with Lev,” executive produced by Rachel Maddow and directed by Billy Corben. Featuring former Trump insider Lev Parnas, the new documentary pulls back the curtain on the Ukraine scheme that got the former President impeached the first time. Watch “From Russia...

www.msnbc.com

 

[Butler1000]

You've been here long enough to know Butler doesn't need anything as tawdry as evidence.
Not when there is a narrative he believes.

I do like him tipping his hand that his belief is that everything is useless and everyone should accept corruption and never pass laws because they would never make anything better though.

And once and an exaggerated strawman.

 

[Valcazar]

And once and an exaggerated strawman.

Yes, mocking you involves exaggeration.

But, let's be honest.
You claim to want laws and regulations passed to change things, and insisted none have been done for 50 years.
When it was pointed out that you were wrong, you claimed that corruption is worse now.

You've said repeatedly is that because the system is corrupt, there is no way the system can be reined in - they won't allow it.
The history of both the United States and Canada stands in contrast to that, as laws have been repeatedly passed to do just that.
Your answer is that things are just worse.

That you believe laws won't work is a reasonable conclusion given what you've said.

Now, if you want to back up your "Corruption is worse now" you are free to.
You will have to define "as compared to when" of course.
You would have to provide evidence and look at things that aren't clear black and white simple comparisons.

These aren't things you are interested in doing in my experience.

 

[Butler1000]

Yes, mocking you involves exaggeration.

But, let's be honest.
You claim to want laws and regulations passed to change things, and insisted none have been done for 50 years.
When it was pointed out that you were wrong, you claimed that corruption is worse now.

You've said repeatedly is that because the system is corrupt, there is no way the system can be reined in - they won't allow it.
The history of both the United States and Canada stands in contrast to that, as laws have been repeatedly passed to do just that.
Your answer is that things are just worse.

That you believe laws won't work is a reasonable conclusion given what you've said.

Now, if you want to back up your "Corruption is worse now" you are free to.
You will have to define "as compared to when" of course.
You would have to provide evidence and look at things that aren't clear black and white simple comparisons.

These aren't things you are interested in doing in my experience.

Passing laws and passing EFFECTIVE laws are two very different things. The fact that Trump hasn't been charged, let alone Pelosi and numerous others is clear signs.

And it's also about enforcement. Every once in a while a sacrificial lamb will be thrown out or if some one gets too flagrant in it, but c'mon, you know it's happening and to say otherwise is pure gaslighting.

So stop with the semantics bullshit.

 

[Valcazar]

Passing laws and passing EFFECTIVE laws are two very different things. The fact that Trump hasn't been charged, let alone Pelosi and numerous others is clear signs.

Clear signs that things used to be less corrupt?

Interesting.
Make your argument.

And it's also about enforcement. Every once in a while a sacrificial lamb will be thrown out or if some one gets too flagrant in it, but c'mon, you know it's happening and to say otherwise is pure gaslighting.

So stop with the semantics bullshit.

Ahh, the "Even when things happen, it just proves that they aren't happening" dodge.

We're back to "Butler knows its true because Butler believes it is true".

As expected.

Also a return to "there is no point in passing laws" --> in this case because they won't be enforced.
But again, best to just give up and not do anything.

 

[Butler1000]

Clear signs that things used to be less corrupt?

Interesting.
Make your argument.



Ahh, the "Even when things happen, it just proves that they aren't happening" dodge.

We're back to "Butler knows its true because Butler believes it is true".

As expected.

Also a return to "there is no point in passing laws" --> in this case because they won't be enforced.
But again, best to just give up and not do anything.

Whatever dude.

You ate arguing that Congress isn't corrupt. Good luck with that.

 

[Valcazar]

Whatever dude.

You ate arguing that Congress isn't corrupt. Good luck with that.

I'm not arguing that Congress isn't corrupt.
What a silly statement.

It is nice to see you just give up when asked to back anything up with more than feels.
Nice bow on the thread before I go on vacation.

 

[squeezer]

Oh no, Hunter BIden again, NOOOOOOOOOO, the real crooked son in law is about to blow up.

ps....I have dibs on Ivanka!!!!

BREAKING: Jared Kushner Scandal Threatens To BLOW UP Trump Campaign

 

[mandrill]

Passing laws and passing EFFECTIVE laws are two very different things. The fact that Trump hasn't been charged, let alone Pelosi and numerous others is clear signs.

And it's also about enforcement. Every once in a while a sacrificial lamb will be thrown out or if some one gets too flagrant in it, but c'mon, you know it's happening and to say otherwise is pure gaslighting.

So stop with the semantics bullshit.

That's silly. Politicians get charged all the time from both parties, the latest being Mayor Adams. Menendez got charged and got kicked out by the Dems.

The problem seems to lie more frequently in the GOP where flagrantly corrupt pols like Paxton in TX are not only immune to impeachment, but can destroy any honest pol who attempts to bring them to justice.