The Thread of Democrats

[Forty Two]

duplicate -

[L'Emmerdeur]

Nasty woman questions the way things are in the US Congress.

'Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Explains Our Broken System'

[pErvinalia]

Trolling well I see. 5 Unnecessary posts.

What are you on about? I'm posting about democrats in the thread of Democrats. How are they "unnecessary?"

Ironically it's Dutchy who is trolling. Again.

[JimC]

Yeah, but Dutch trolls are the bestest trolls evah!

[Scot Dutchy]

Why write five separate posts? Cant his mind handle more than one subject at one time. Cunt suffers from the same.
Whether it is not on the exact subject does not really matter does it? They are words after all.
Typical non native speakers.

[Forty Two]

Why write five separate posts? Cant his mind handle more than one subject at one time. Cunt suffers from the same.
Whether it is not on the exact subject does not really matter does it? They are words after all.
Typical non native speakers.

There were two posts on 2/7 before you posted your nonsense about 5 posts. I can't merge posts from three different days into one.

And typically, it's customary to respond to another person's post by limiting the discussion to that post. It's not normal to respond to multiple people or address multiple topics in one post. It's easier to respond to posts by addressing one person, rather than multiple people. And, it's confusing to address a person's post, and then diverge into another topic entirely.

Anyway, you'd complain about the reverse, because all you do is bitch and moan about everything, when you're not bragging. If I took my last 5 posts and combined them into one omnibus post, you'd sit there yipping about that.

Lastly, why would you care? You don't even read my posts anyway.... right?

[Forty Two]

Nasty woman questions the way things are in the US Congress.

'Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Explains Our Broken System'

She's funny. She thinks the descendants of Spanish colonials and conquistadors are "descendants of native peoples." Descendants of the English, no, of course - they're the meanie white oppressors. All the Spanish did, in her mind, is come here and teach everyone to speak Spanish.

In the video she plays a game. She wants play the bad guy and get away with as much "bad stuff" as possible. You're going to help me "legally get away with as much as possible - ideally to advance my interests at the expense of the American people" -- "I've enlisted all of you as my co-conspirators, and you're going to help me legally get away with all of this..." -- of course, her premise is incomprehensible, because she doesn't start out with suggesting what the hypothetical bad guy is getting away with here that is illegal. She just says "a lot of bad things" and "self-interest at the expense of the American people." Well - that tells us nothing - but we just assume that she wants to something illegal that is unspecified, and she wants the government to try to help her - that's the hypothetical.

Th"en she asks, "If I want to run a campaign that is entirely funded by political action committees, is there anything that prevents me from doing that?" The answer is "no." She Guevara then says "so, there's nothing stopping me from being entirely funded by a PAC?" She doesn't wait for an answer. But, of course, the fact that nothing prevents her campaign from being "entirely funded by PACs" doesn't mean PACs are not limited in the amounts they can contribute to campaigns.

The rule about PACS is as follows: Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows: (a) $5,000 to a candidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections); (b) $15,000 to a political party per year; and (c) $5,000 to another PAC per year. And, lastly, PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party.

PAC money is generally spent in the last bit, "independently of a candidate or political party" -- meaning they are things like "issue ads" where a PAC finances an advert that talks about abortion, pro or con, but does not specify a party or a candidate. Freedom and liberty allows people to publish material about political issues they support. There is nothing wrong with that.

Then she talks about Trump's payments to women, and she says "so I can do whatever I want - I can pay people off, and that's considered "speech" - that money is considered speech." She's rambling all over the place, and clearly doesn't know what she's talking about. Trump's payments were not considered "illegal" because settling claims and buying confidentiality is not now and never has been illegal, and it's actually common in almost any legal dispute and business transaction to have things like confidentiality agreements, non-disparagement clauses, etc. When a company settles, say, a sexual harassment claim, they will invariably make that payment conditional on the complaining person agreeing to keep the matter confidential, and not go around disparaging the company about it. That's neither wrong, nor immoral.

And, the reason it's not a campaign finance violation is not because the payment is considered speech. It's because the payment is not considered a campaign contribution. If AOC were sued for harassing a fellow bartender on the job, and in the same year she was elected to Congress she settled the case, paid $25,000 and included a confidentiality clause in the agreement, that wouldn't be a campaign finance violation either, and if her lawyer fronted the payment and she reimbursed the lawyer, it's not a campaign finance violation.

Then she says "I use my dark money funded campaign to pay off people to get elected..." -- well, THAT would not be legal. If you're using campaign money to pay off someone, and did not disclose the payment, then it would be a campaign finance violation.

She moves into the realm of idiocy - she says "O.k., so now I'm elected and I'm able to make laws..." (words to that effect) - "so," she asks, "are their any limits on the laws I can touch or the laws I can write or influence, especially based on the special interest funds that I accepted?" (paraphrasing) lol. Ummm... dipshit... you're asking if a legislator -- an elected Member of Congress - is limited on what laws he or she can vote for or introduce into Congress because of who donated money to the campaign? Really?

The person responding to her says, obviously, no there is no limit. And, then Ocasio says "so there's no limit, I can be totally funded by oil and gas, and big pharma and there's no limit to that [the legislator's ability to draft, introduce and write legislation]..." -- I mean, what fucking limit would she have? That she herself would not be able to vote on legislation involving any person or entity who donated to her campaign? What an insipid and fatuous undertaking this is on her part.

Further, yes she can be "totally funded by oil and gas..." -- if her campaign coffers are limited to the maximum donation limits.

She also refers to oil and gas interests and big pharma, but the biggest PACs are labor union PACs. Democrats rely more heavily on PAC money than Republicans. (Historically, more than 90% of labor PAC contributions have gone to Democrats.)

Plainly, she doesn't understand the distinction between campaign funds and PACs, and doesn't understand the limits imposed.

She then asks, 'is there anything that prevents me from owning stock in an oil or gas company....and then writing laws to deregulate that industry that could cause the stock prices to soar..." -- (implicitly, she acknowledges that deregulating the industry is good for companies in that industry, because the stock price will soar, lol, but that's another issue) - "so, I could do that the way our current laws are set up?" The individual answering the question looks at her a little incredulously.... shakes his head and says "yes" --and he looks around -- seems like he's amazed by the idiocy of the question.

Then "my last question, is it POSSIBLE that any of this applies to our current government and our current public servants, right now?" And, the guy answers... of course, yes.

Ummm -- what applies to our current government? PACs exist. PACs can raise money. PACs can contribute (max $5k to campaigns). PACs can spend money on promoting causes and issues that aren't directly supporting a candidate. Sure. Both parties have them. The Democrats get way more PAC money than Republicans, generally speaking. And, people settle issues with confidentiality agreements and they make payments sometimes. Oh, and also, legislators, elected by constituents, are not subject to limitations on the kinds of laws they can write and vote for.

Her conclusion - she thinks she has established from that that "we have a system that is fundamentally broken." Apparently, she wants PACs not to be allowed to run issue advertisments (e.g. for or against abortion), she wants people not to be allowed to have confidentiality agreements when they settle disputed claims, and if a candidate takes campaign contributions from someone ,she wants there to be a limitation on the kind of legislation that legislator should be allowed to be involved in creating or voting for.

I mean, if anyone watched and listened to that and didn't come away with additional proof that this person is a fucking moron, then you either didn't listen to it, or you are just as dumb as she is.

[Tero]

Trump's payments were not considered "illegal" because settling claims and buying confidentiality is not now and never has been illegal.

yeahbut he did not pay them, he used Cohen and corporations. If he had made a payment to Stormy Daniels in his name we would have eventually found out. But we found out anyway. Illegal campaign contribution!

LOCK HIM UP!

[Tero]

Plus she is right. Broken system. Lobbying has all the weight, votes very little. Use votes to ban or approve abortion. No it's all $$$$.

[laklak]

Anybody looking into this "Green New Deal" thingy that AOC is flogging? It's brilliant, and the only chance the planet has. OK, it may be a bit ambitious, but most worthwhile things are. I'm particularly chuffed with getting rid of fossil AND nuclear power, 99% of all automobiles, cow farts, and all air travel within 10 years. As an added bonus, both food and money will be FREE! Not just for those unable to work, but those who are unwilling. That's me in a goddamn nutshell, I'm unwilling as fuck to work. And free education for life, no matter what you want to study. I'm going to study Abiding with Doobies and Beer. I figure it will take maybe 20 years to get my PhD.

AoC for Prez!

[Cunt]

I'm going to study Abiding with Doobies and Beer. I figure it will take maybe 20 years to get my PhD.

AoC for Prez!

Dr. Laklak...would you put my thing in your mouth? If you suck it, it'll feel good...

[laklak]

I'm a vaper, man. Too old for that harsh smoke.

[Cunt]

Why write five separate posts? Cant his mind handle more than one subject at one time. Cunt suffers from the same.
Whether it is not on the exact subject does not really matter does it? They are words after all.
Typical non native speakers.

If you find it upsetting, why not complain about it ineffectually? If it's good enough for the US Democratic party, it should be good enough for you.

(see, these two posts were unrelated, so rather than blend them, which may have confused you, I separated them. This should offer you another opportunity for Democrat-like whinging!)

[Cunt]

I'm a vaper, man. Too old for that harsh smoke.

HERESY!

My kids and their asshole friends use vape rigs. Me and the smart old folks burn them with normal fire, and ancient infrastructure.

Like MEN.

[Tero]

On the green thingie:
The Democrats are a party for people that don’t want to work. The Republicans are for people who don’t have to. (Cowboy philosopher)