Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Brilliantly Exposes Culture of Corruption.

[_Chap]

Leaving aside the usual mental ramblings of sg, I'll take time to comment on this bit:

forget about the notion that her "bad guy" got elected to begin with and just blame it on the "special interests" that you don't agree with...because your scheme of special interests only exploit "good guys".

The 'bad guy' in the OP began his work before the election, by getting himself a very large amount of funding from businesses who wanted laws changed in their interests: in doing that, the businesses in question were pursuing their legal duty to use their assets to promote the interests of their stockholders by all legal means. There is no doubt that candidates with very large amounts of money at their disposal tend to win elections, in comparison with those that do not. Did the Founding Fathers intend elections to be decided that way, do you think?

The bad guy's badness resided in the fact that he got the funding that helped assure his election by convincing the businesses in question that, if elected, he would give priority to their interests over other interests - such as those of US citizens in general. In effect, he sold himself to the businesses in question. Do you think that the Founding Fathers expected legislators to do that?

[_subgenius]

The 'bad guy' good guy not in the OP began his work before the election, by getting himself a very large amount of funding from businesses who wanted laws changed in their interests: in doing that, the businesses in question were pursuing their legal duty to use their assets to promote the interests of their stockholders by all legal means. There is no doubt that candidates with very large amounts of money at their disposal tend to win elections, in comparison with those that do not. (see also Beto?)

FIFY, now explain your ethical issue ?

Did the Founding Fathers intend elections to be decided that way, do you think?
The bad guy's badness good guy's goodness resided in the fact that he got the funding that helped assure his election by convincing the businesses in question that, if elected, he would give priority to their interests over other interests - such as those of US citizens in general. In effect, he sold himself to the businesses in question. Do you think that the Founding Fathers expected legislators to do that?

Fixed it again...and then I got to the bold emphasis mine….who determines these "interests" in the scenario you are creating here?

And as far as what our Founding Fathers expected (apart from the blatantly obvious living document stuff - I would say that their OBVIOUS writing of the 1st Amendment shows their support of lobbying because people and corporations have the right to petition their government.
See the beuty of the Constitution is that it allows for "lobbying"' but prevents such a thing from subduing the will of the people....blah blah blah...read the Federalist Papers for yourself, Madison reasonably lays out how "competing factions" prevent tyranny.
(spoiler alert: faction then is like special interest group now)


You Brits should be proud that we are still your most successful colony.

[_subgenius]

This is a window into subs’s inconsistent and confused mind:

But hey, forget about the notion that her "bad guy" got elected to begin with and just blame it on the "special interests" that you don't agree with...because your scheme of special interests only exploit "good guys".

Because if someone is elected, then they either aren’t capable of any bad action, or can be excused of it after the fact.

Unexpectedly, this only applies to politicians that he likes. ; )

You, as usual, are in over your head....enroll in that community college yet?

[_canpakes]

You, as usual, are in over your head....enroll in that community college yet?

Hmm. That Dunning-Kruger syndrome is working you strongly, today.

Maybe someone should humor, you, though. I’ll bite. Let’s take a class together in atmospheric phenomenon, or perhaps WWII history. You can tell the prof about your rainbow theories, and discuss your doubts about the holocaust. I’ll bring popcorn.

[_Chap]

And as far as what our Founding Fathers expected ... I would say that their OBVIOUS writing of the 1st Amendment shows their support of lobbying because people and corporations have the right to petition their government.

Let's see:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you have a different version with 'corporations' in it?

And if you think that the Founding Fathers prophetically foresaw the rise of multi-billion dollar corporations with the power to pay legions of lobbyists to swamp the political process with money, and said to themselves, 'Yeah, we're fine with that", I suppose you also think that the second amendment was meant to give you the right to have a nuclear weapon on the wall above your fireplace.

[_subgenius]

It appears that the corruption Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has actually "exposed" gets called by the name Saikat Chakrabarti.

The irony of her speech from the OP ....

[_Kevin Graham]

Thomas Jefferson hated corporations.

"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." - Thomas Jefferson

Unequal Protection: Jefferson Versus the Corporate Aristocracy

Very few people are aware that Thomas Jefferson considered freedom from monopolies to be one of the fundamental human rights. But it was very much a part of his thinking during the time when the Bill of Rights was born. In fact, most of the Founders never imagined a huge commercial empire sweeping over their land, reminiscent of George R. T. Hewes’s “ships of an enormous burthen” with “immense quantities” of goods. Rather, most of them saw an America made up of people like themselves: farmers...

The first large privately owned corporation to rise up in the new United States during the presidential terms of Jefferson (1801 to 1809) and Madison (1809 to 1817) was the Second Bank of the United States. By 1830 the bank was one of the largest and most powerful private corporations and, to extend its own power, was even sponsoring its directors and agents as candidates for political office.

In President Andrew Jackson’s annual message to Congress on December 3, 1833, he explicitly demanded that the bank cease its political activities or receive a corporate death sentence—revocation of its corporate charter. He said, “In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions.”

Jackson succeeded in forcing a withdrawal of all federal funds from the bank that year, putting it out of business. Its federal charter expired in 1836 and was revived only as a state bank authorized by the State of Pennsylvania. It went bankrupt in 1841.

Although thousands of federal, state, county, city, and community laws of the time restrained corporations vastly more than they are today, the presidents who followed Jackson continued to worry out loud about the implications if corporations expanded their power.

In the middle of the thirty-year struggle, on March 10, 1827, James Madison wrote a letter to his friend James K. Paulding about the issue:

"With regard to Banks, they have taken too deep and too wide a root in social transactions, to be got rid of altogether, if that were desirable….they have a hold on public opinion, which alone would make it expedient to aim rather at the improvement, than the suppression of them. As now generally constituted, their advantages whatever they be, are outweighed by the excesses of their paper emissions, and the partialities and corruption with which they are administered"

[_Kevin Graham]

It appears that the corruption Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has actually "exposed" gets called by the name Saikat Chakrabarti.

The irony of her speech from the OP ....

There has been no corruption exposed. You're an idiot.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[Guest]

Which border officer did Trump steal the jacket from?