WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

RandFan said:
When govts act in the best interest of the rich and powerful to the detriment of ordinary citizens that is of interest to me. BTW: Bachman had a shot. Rich people like to gamble and paying for a candidate to win the presidency can buy an awful lot of influence.
Click to expand...

Governments have been acting in the "best interest of the rich and powerful" for thousands of years. It's the nature of the game. You're not going to change it.
 
RandFan said:
I'm talking about political donations. Money has a corrupting influence. Daylight is a great disinfectant. So, again, why not?

The rich and powerful spend a lot of money on politics. Why? Are they stupid or are most of them getting something for their money?
Click to expand...

Maybe they think they are doing it to help the country. They may have a different view than you on what is good for their country but that does not mean their motives are worng. (Of course there are some people who donate to both parties expecting to have some sort of control)

What about all the wealthy people who donate lots of money to the party that supposedly will hurt them financially? Why did Bill Maher give $1,000,000?

What about people who spend tens of millions of dollars on their own campaigns?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Governments have been acting in the "best interest of the rich and powerful" for thousands of years. It's the nature of the game. You're not going to change it.
Click to expand...
I have already told you I'm not interested in that straw man.

America was unique in that it separated powers and gave some power to the American people. The rich and powerful want it all for themselves. I accept that the rich and powerful will always have power. That's fine. Citizens have to be vigilante to keep any power that we have and to keep in check the rich and powerful. It can happen. The 60s were a watershed moment. I'm not going to shrug my shoulders and give in because the rich and powerful are demanding ever more. If you want to do that then that's your prerogative.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Maybe they think they are doing it to help the country. They may have a different view than you on what is good for their country but that does not mean their motives are worng. (Of course there are some people who donate to both parties expecting to have some sort of control)
Click to expand...
I'm happy to grant you your premises. Doesn't change anything. Mao thought that what he was doing was good for his country. In the process he starved tens of millions. I'm not simply a play thing for the rich and powerful. That wasn't the intent of the founders. No one knows exactly what is best. So we give everyone a say so in governing. That's all. Good intentions won't necessarily help me.

What about all the wealthy people who donate lots of money to the party that supposedly will hurt them financially? Why did Bill Maher give $1,000,000?

What about people who spend tens of millions of dollars on their own campaigns?
Click to expand...
I don't know what your point is.

I want some semblance of parity. Right now the GOP is winning the war of power. It's effectively reducing the numbers of those who are likely to vote Democrat from voting by laws that are not needed. They are spending more and more of their money and getting more and more for it. What can I do against that but speak out? Right. Well, guess what I'm doing?

I'm not faulting them. I don't hate the rich and I don't need to demonize or resent them. I want a change in the system to swing the pendulum back closer to the center. I want to stop the disenfranchisement of voters and reduce the corrupting power of money.

Let me ask you a question, do you think that money can corrupt politicians?
 
RandFan said:
I'm happy to grant you your premises. Doesn't change anything. Mao thought that what he was doing was good for his country. In the process he starved tens of millions. I'm not simply a play thing for the rich and powerful. That wasn't the intent of the founders. No one knows exactly what is best. So we give everyone a say so in governing. That's all. Good intentions won't necessarily help me.

I don't know what your point is.

I want some semblance of parity. Right now the GOP is winning the war of power. It's effectively reducing the numbers of those who are likely to vote Democrat from voting by laws that are not needed. They are spending more and more of their money and getting more and more for it. What can I do against that but speak out? Right. Well, guess what I'm doing?

I'm not faulting them. I don't hate the rich and I don't need to demonize or resent them. I want a change in the system to swing the pendulum back closer to the center. I want to stop the disenfranchisement of voters and reduce the corrupting power of money.

Let me ask you a question, do you think that money can corrupt politicians?
Click to expand...

You asked a question and I was simply answering the question.
The rich and powerful spend a lot of money on politics. Why? Are they stupid or are most of them getting something for their money?
Click to expand...
And my answer was they are mostly doing it (both democrat and republican donors) because they are supporting the people who are doing what they believe is best for the country.

Of course I believe money can corrupt politicians.
My personal belief is there should be a limit on political contributions.
 
eeyore1954 said:
You asked a question and I was simply answering the question.

And my answer was they are mostly doing it (both democrat and republican donors) because they are supporting the people who are doing what they believe is best for the country.

Of course I believe money can corrupt politicians.
My personal belief is there should be a limit on political contributions.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Thanks.
 
RandFan said:
"Consent of the governed". For my consent I need to know how forces are trying to corrupt my government. I don't really care what you "need". It's not salient to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. For my consent, I don't care who donates whatever to whoever's campaign. It's not relevant.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Of course it is. For my consent, I don't care who donates whatever to whoever's campaign. It's not relevant.
Click to expand...
Transparency reduces the corrupting power of money. It's damn relevant to many of us who actually care about the process and the potential for corruption.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, refers to the benefits of openness and transparency.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that you don't get that but asserting that it isn't relevant doesn't make it so, and by itself, assertion make for very poor argument. I can at least tell you why transparency is good from a historical perspective. I can tell you why transparency works. I don't simply assert that it is relevant as that would be to simply take a contrary position. There's little point to the automatic gainsaying of a position.

But, you disagree. Fine. Thanks for your contributions. If you have nothing more than you don't care that money and lack of transparency tends to have a corrupting influence then I suppose there is not much more to talk about.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Transparency reduces the corrupting power of money. It's damn relevant to many of us who actually care about the process and the potential for corruption.

I'm sorry that you don't get that but asserting that it isn't relevant doesn't make it so, and by itself, assertion make for very poor argument. I can at least tell you why transparency is good from a historical perspective. I can tell you why transparency works. I don't simply assert that it is relevant as that would be to simply take a contrary position. There's little point to the automatic gainsaying of a position.

But, you disagree. Fine. Thanks for your contributions. If you have nothing more than you don't care that money and lack of transparency tends to have a corrupting influence then I suppose there is not much more to talk about.
Click to expand...

Well, not only do you have to influence Congress to change campaign laws (ironically without donating too much money to do it), you also have to convince the Supreme Court. I wish you well. I'll check back in about 60 years to see how you are doing.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Well, not only do you have to influence Congress to change campaign laws (ironically without donating too much money to do it)
Click to expand...
You play the rules as written. Nothing at all ironic about it. But I'm not so sure that too much money is needed. Money is just a lubricant to make things faster and easier. It gives the edge (a sizable one) to those who have it. But power and money doesn't always get its way. Civil rights were not won by having the most money or even parity with the opponents.

...you also have to convince the Supreme Court. I wish you well. I'll check back in about 60 years to see how you are doing.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I appreciate your best wishes. Yeah, good things are often difficult. Many who fought for civil rights knew that change would not come in their lifetimes. Life for some isn't about "just me" and "just now". I'm very grateful to the visionaries of the past who did not simply care about the here and now. In any event, given the dramatic trends I would say two decades tops. But it's worth fighting for regardless.
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
Damn those rich people! I wish I was one.:boxedin:
Click to expand...
I thought the reason that they want to make it hard for some people to register was so us others could register three or three hundred times and it'd look clean as a whistle. What did they figure this out?
 
AlBell said:
Unknown, no, no, probably. Now what?
Click to expand...
Thanks. I have to confess that I'm not sure of my original train of thought. At the moment it looks like a non sequitur. If so then good cop. If I should grasp my original point then I will revisit it. If it stands as irrelevant then let me assure it was not intentional. Sorry.
 
Walker *NOT* Implicated in Criminal Probe!

This just in:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said:
Milwaukee County Judge Dennis Cimpl said Wednesday he would not step aside from hearing a criminal case against a county appointee of Gov. Scott Walker, arguing his signing of a recall petition against Walker wasn't evidence of bias.

The embezzlement case against Kevin Kavanaugh has nothing to do with Walker, Cimpl said...
Click to expand...

I guess the judge in the case would probably know, wouldn't he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom