tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
I'd take the money too. Then I wouldn't give them shit, unless I really believed in it.
You don't think that ever happens?
CO-06: Why Jason Crow represents everything that's wrong with the DCCC and Establishment Democrats
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
You don't think that ever happens?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile Bernard got another vacation house. Our Revolution™ (No Refunds).
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Is that something new?
The only thing that's new is the endorsement of it by a right wing SCOTUS.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't give you money if you did that
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Relatively new, yes. 1970s
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Oh, there was money in politics long before that.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
That's just inaccurate.
I told you before, the company I worked for gave equal money to both sides in senatorial races.
They didn't always get what they wanted from either side.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Yes, but there were constitutional limits put in place that would prevent the kind of financial takeover from corporations and special interests we see today. The dismantling of those limits began in the 1970s
Why would someone fund a politicians campaign that didn't agree with the issues said politician supports? What was the reasoning behind your company donating to both?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I don't think it happens much if any time. That's why I don't trust either establishment party.
If you do that, you don't get the money for the next election; the guy who primaries you does.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So because it was wrong then means it isn't now?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So they can lobby both sides and get what they want no matter who wins, Pad.
That's not a hard one to figure out.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Do you think they could have been donating to both to ensure their special interest takes priority regardless of the outcome of the election?
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Except they didn't get everything they wanted.
I suspect a lot of them don't get what they want. That doesn't stop them from trying.
And some just have specific political news and throw money at them.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Sure. But it didn't always work out for them.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How would you know if their investment did or didn't work out for them?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Because I know what they wanted.
And I saw their import dumping trade cases fail because they were profitable.
You guys think in terms of theory.
'If somebody is giving money, they're getting something'.
I see things from actual experience. And they (the donor) didn't get what they wanted all the time.
And I have no doubt others (donors) didn't get what they wanted.
I guarantee it.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm quoting this string of posts because it doesn't make sense to me..
First, I asked you why someone would give a politician money that they didn't agree with
You responded basically 'idk'
Then I asked you if maybe it would be so that either way they come out on top?
You agreed with the possibility followed by a caveat that it might not always pay off...
Sure, I'll agree, maybe not 100% of the time, but the overwhelming majority of the time it does, by far. A firm spends a couple million bribing (lobbying) a politician and receives a tenfold return on investment. Getting what they paid for is the rule, not the exception. There is data to back this up.
In your experience, have you ever given money to someone for nothing and expected nothing in return? (aside from charity)
Do you believe the assertion that corporations and special interests fund political campaigns for 'tax write offs'?
Is it outside the realm of possibility that corporations and special interests fund political campaigns expecting a return on their investment?