Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

This would be the death knell for the GOP

pjstroh
pjstroh
Mar 18, 2016
12:43am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
People who support Citizens United and classify money as "free speech" dont have any business complaining about pay-for-play politics. And neither do people who complain when super-pacs are scrutinized for their tax-exempt status. Know anybody like that on this thread?

The current Democrat in the White House and both Democrats running for the White House support legislatively killing Citizen's United. Thats not far enough and much more needs to be done. But lets not kid ourselves. Democrats have the higher ground on this issue....even if that higher ground is still in the swamp.
In other words...."Yeah our politicians are owned by the lobbyists too...but we're better than the Republicans because some of our politicians who are owned by the lobbyists are against our politicians being owned by the lobbyists."


As usual - Alanleroy has to translate English to Strawman before he can make an effective argument on any topic.

Hillary has a superpac and its raking in millions for her campaign...and so did Obama. I think their pacs raised more cash than any of their opponents. It is not in their best personal interest to remove that support from which they benefit....but they are for removing it anyway because ....I dont know....maybe they give a shit? Whats your explanation for their support against their own interest?

And like I said - its not good enough. But lets be honest about recent history. Republicans pursued a law case that opened the floodgates of special interest money while Democrats fought against it. Top Republicans openly celebrate special interest money as free speech while Democrats call it corruption. Or as home-town-ref, Alanleroy, would say - they both share the same position on lobbiest money




Boilerman
Boilerman
Mar 18, 2016
12:55am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Why courts and grand juries grant immunity:

Immunity from Prosecution

State and federal statutes may grant witnesses immunity from prosecution for the use of their testimony in court or before a grand jury. Sometimes, the testimony of one witness is so valuable to the goals of crime prevention and justice that the promise of allowing that witness to go unpunished is a fair trade. For example, a drug dealer's testimony that could help law enforcement to destroy an entire illegal drug-manufacturing network is more beneficial to society than is the prosecution of that lone drug dealer. Although the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants witnesses a Privilege against Self-Incrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted prosecutors to overcome this privilege by granting witnesses immunity. Prosecutors have the sole discretion to grant immunity to witnesses who appear before a grand jury or at trial.

States employ one of two approaches to prosecutorial immunity: Use immunity prohibits only the witness's compelled testimony, and evidence stemming from that testimony, from being used to prosecute the witness. The witness still may be prosecuted so long as the prosecutor can obtain other physical, testimonial, or Circumstantial Evidence apart from the witness's testimony. Transactional immunity completely immunizes the witness from prosecution for any offense to which the testimony relates.

Ref: The Free Dictionary - Legal Dictionary

i.e. Immunity is granted to compel testimony from a presumed knowledgeable witness of criminal activity against someone else who remains subject to prosecution for that criminal activity.
Just because The Hillary's personal Information Technology Guru has been granted such immunity does not prove that the criminal activity is related to The Hillary. It could be somebody else altogether. And this goes for anyone else who may have been granted immunity. Their proximity to The Hillary may just be coincidental.

DonDiego presumes everyone innocent until conviction.


Boilerman
Boilerman
Mar 18, 2016
12:57am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Why courts and grand juries grant immunity:

Immunity from Prosecution

State and federal statutes may grant witnesses immunity from prosecution for the use of their testimony in court or before a grand jury. Sometimes, the testimony of one witness is so valuable to the goals of crime prevention and justice that the promise of allowing that witness to go unpunished is a fair trade. For example, a drug dealer's testimony that could help law enforcement to destroy an entire illegal drug-manufacturing network is more beneficial to society than is the prosecution of that lone drug dealer. Although the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants witnesses a Privilege against Self-Incrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted prosecutors to overcome this privilege by granting witnesses immunity. Prosecutors have the sole discretion to grant immunity to witnesses who appear before a grand jury or at trial.

States employ one of two approaches to prosecutorial immunity: Use immunity prohibits only the witness's compelled testimony, and evidence stemming from that testimony, from being used to prosecute the witness. The witness still may be prosecuted so long as the prosecutor can obtain other physical, testimonial, or Circumstantial Evidence apart from the witness's testimony. Transactional immunity completely immunizes the witness from prosecution for any offense to which the testimony relates.

Ref: The Free Dictionary - Legal Dictionary

i.e. Immunity is granted to compel testimony from a presumed knowledgeable witness of criminal activity against someone else who remains subject to prosecution for that criminal activity.
Just because The Hillary's personal Information Technology Guru has been granted such immunity does not prove that the criminal activity is related to The Hillary. It could be somebody else altogether. And this goes for anyone else who may have been granted immunity. Their proximity to The Hillary may just be coincidental.

DonDiego presumes everyone innocent until conviction.



Boiler does not presume everyone innocent until convicted, however he does believes that the courts should do so.
Boilerman
Boilerman
Mar 18, 2016
1:01am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
People who support Citizens United and classify money as "free speech" dont have any business complaining about pay-for-play politics. And neither do people who complain when super-pacs are scrutinized for their tax-exempt status. Know anybody like that on this thread?

The current Democrat in the White House and both Democrats running for the White House support legislatively killing Citizen's United. Thats not far enough and much more needs to be done. But lets not kid ourselves. Democrats have the higher ground on this issue....even if that higher ground is still in the swamp.
In other words...."Yeah our politicians are owned by the lobbyists too...but we're better than the Republicans because some of our politicians who are owned by the lobbyists are against our politicians being owned by the lobbyists."



Very well stated.


Boilerman
Boilerman
Mar 18, 2016
1:04am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
People who support Citizens United and classify money as "free speech" dont have any business complaining about pay-for-play politics. And neither do people who complain when super-pacs are scrutinized for their tax-exempt status. Know anybody like that on this thread?

The current Democrat in the White House and both Democrats running for the White House support legislatively killing Citizen's United. Thats not far enough and much more needs to be done. But lets not kid ourselves. Democrats have the higher ground on this issue....even if that higher ground is still in the swamp.
In other words...."Yeah our politicians are owned by the lobbyists too...but we're better than the Republicans because some of our politicians who are owned by the lobbyists are against our politicians being owned by the lobbyists."


As usual - Alanleroy has to translate English to Strawman before he can make an effective argument on any topic.

Hillary has a superpac and its raking in millions for her campaign...and so did Obama. I think their pacs raised more cash than any of their opponents. It is not in their best personal interest to remove that support from which they benefit....but they are for removing it anyway because ....I dont know....maybe they give a shit? Whats your explanation for their support against their own interest?

And like I said - its not good enough. But lets be honest about recent history. Republicans pursued a law case that opened the floodgates of special interest money while Democrats fought against it. Top Republicans openly celebrate special interest money as free speech while Democrats call it corruption. Or as home-town-ref, Alanleroy, would say - they both share the same position on lobbiest money



Since Trump hasn't taken bribes in return for any governmental favors, and since this is very important to PJ, I'm certain that PJ and other Liberals on this board will be supporting The Donald.

alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Mar 18, 2016
1:15am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
People who support Citizens United and classify money as "free speech" dont have any business complaining about pay-for-play politics. And neither do people who complain when super-pacs are scrutinized for their tax-exempt status. Know anybody like that on this thread?

The current Democrat in the White House and both Democrats running for the White House support legislatively killing Citizen's United. Thats not far enough and much more needs to be done. But lets not kid ourselves. Democrats have the higher ground on this issue....even if that higher ground is still in the swamp.
In other words...."Yeah our politicians are owned by the lobbyists too...but we're better than the Republicans because some of our politicians who are owned by the lobbyists are against our politicians being owned by the lobbyists."


As usual - Alanleroy has to translate English to Strawman before he can make an effective argument on any topic.

Hillary has a superpac and its raking in millions for her campaign...and so did Obama. I think their pacs raised more cash than any of their opponents. It is not in their best personal interest to remove that support from which they benefit....but they are for removing it anyway because ....I dont know....maybe they give a shit? Whats your explanation for their support against their own interest?

And like I said - its not good enough. But lets be honest about recent history. Republicans pursued a law case that opened the floodgates of special interest money while Democrats fought against it. Top Republicans openly celebrate special interest money as free speech while Democrats call it corruption. Or as home-town-ref, Alanleroy, would say - they both share the same position on lobbiest money


Hillary Clinton leads in donations from lobbyists

DNC Rolls Back Obama ban on donations from federal lobbyists

Health Insurance and Drug lobbies continue to fuel Hillary's campaign.

Do as I say, not as I do. Of course the leading Republican candidate claims to not take money from PACs or Lobbyists.

I don't see any candidate arguing for Term Limits and an end to the revolving door between Government Jobs and these Lobbying firms, so it's hard to believe the Democrats or Republicans are serious about ending the influence peddling in Washington DC. But dream on PJ. Talk is cheap.
pjstroh
pjstroh
Mar 18, 2016
1:19am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman


Since Trump hasn't taken bribes in return for any governmental favors, and since this is very important to PJ, I'm certain that PJ and other Liberals on this board will be supporting The Donald.


You're right. Donald Trump has not received any bribes - he just openly confesses to giving them and expecting to get something back in return. If you believe the giver of a bribe is less scummier than the receiver then Donald Trump is an awesome role model. Congratulations on your pick.



pjstroh
pjstroh
Mar 18, 2016
1:24am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII



I don't see any candidate arguing for Term Limits and an end to the revolving door between Government Jobs and these Lobbying firms, so it's hard to believe the Democrats or Republicans are serious about ending the influence peddling in Washington DC. But dream on PJ.


Thats because the Rupert Murdoch News sources you get your centrist information from don't point out how your false equivalencies are just that:

Hillary supports legislation ending the revolving door in Washington

Facts aren't only cheap - they're free. You just need to know how to use the internet.
alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Mar 18, 2016
1:48am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII



I don't see any candidate arguing for Term Limits and an end to the revolving door between Government Jobs and these Lobbying firms, so it's hard to believe the Democrats or Republicans are serious about ending the influence peddling in Washington DC. But dream on PJ.


Thats because the Rupert Murdoch News sources you get your centrist information from don't point out how your false equivalencies are just that:

Hillary supports legislation ending the revolving door in Washington

Facts aren't only cheap - they're free. You just need to know how to use the internet.
Soooo, the person who leads in donations from Wall Street intends to end the revolving door between Wall Street and DC Regulators by ending Golden Parachutes? Oh yeah. That's tough. Naïve much?

Is this the same Hillary whose husband Bill supported and signed into law the repeal of Glass Steagall? The same Hillary who rakes in high 6 figure speeches to these same bankers....and what did she actually say to these folks in her expensive speeches? How can you possibly believe she's serious about ending influence peddling in Washington. She says this shit at the same time she's having $1000 a plate fundraisers with the evil lobbyists. It's just pathetic.

We need Term Limits. We need to ban former Government Employees from working for Lobbying firms and the reverse....Period. What we're getting is nice political rhetoric from the bought and paid for political class.

And...I'll add that malibber2 is exactly right when he states that many in the Republican establishment would rather Hillary get elected than to risk Trump potentially disrupting their perpetual cash cows. Some of those highly paid 'political consultants' might actually have to start doing productive work for a change.

pjstroh
pjstroh
Mar 18, 2016
3:05am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII

I don't see any candidate arguing for Term Limits and an end to the revolving door between Government Jobs and these Lobbying firms, so it's hard to believe the Democrats or Republicans are serious about ending the influence peddling in Washington DC. But dream on PJ.


Thats because the Rupert Murdoch News sources you get your centrist information from don't point out how your false equivalencies are just that:

Hillary supports legislation ending the revolving door in Washington

Facts aren't only cheap - they're free. You just need to know how to use the internet.
Soooo, the person who leads in donations from Wall Street intends to end the revolving door between Wall Street and DC Regulators by ending Golden Parachutes? Oh yeah. That's tough. Naïve much?

Is this the same Hillary whose husband Bill supported and signed into law the repeal of Glass Steagall? The same Hillary who rakes in high 6 figure speeches to these same bankers....and what did she actually say to these folks in her expensive speeches? How can you possibly believe she's serious about ending influence peddling in Washington. She says this shit at the same time she's having $1000 a plate fundraisers with the evil lobbyists. It's just pathetic.

We need Term Limits. We need to ban former Government Employees from working for Lobbying firms and the reverse....Period. What we're getting is nice political rhetoric from the bought and paid for political class.

And...I'll add that malibber2 is exactly right when he states that many in the Republican establishment would rather Hillary get elected than to risk Trump potentially disrupting their perpetual cash cows. Some of those highly paid 'political consultants' might actually have to start doing productive work for a change.


OK - so you've now backpedaled your argument from saying Hillary doesn't have a platform of reigning in special interest groups..... now you concede she does but you just don't believe her. OK, fine. I cant help you with that or the fact that you wont acknowledge Trump's 1.5 million in pay-for-play contributions over the last 10 years.

And I'm not sure what data you've seen that shows freshmen officials being less influenced by special interest money than veteran officials. Talk about naive. You wont find a bigger puppet of the Koch brothers anti-climate data talking points than freshman Senators, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

But the fact remains....if you had a bill to kill Citizen's united and the revolving door in Washington Democrats and the sitting president would sign it today. Republicans would not.
Democrats create the bill Alan supports....but Alan cant acknowledge it
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now