Wow! I like how this is starting out...

That said, Listen and others here and elsewhere need to recognize that Big Money is a metaphor, and stop defending it. The overwhelming majority of people who use the metaphor aren't anti-business or far-left socialists... just sick of the corruption of everything from our elections to foreign policy and everything in between.

Yep, spoke too soon!

And if we use Neil's definition:

Let's call it what it is - corruption.

i.e. Politicians selling power for their own gain.

When have I ever defended corruption? I took issue with people calling Hillary Clinton a "'Big Money' candidate" because that translates to "CORRUPT candidate" and I haven't seen enough evidence presented to support believing that everything associated with her is corrupted.

When in the Senate, Hillary represented NY, which made Wall St. one of her constituents. People claim that she isn't truly a "liberal" or that she is more "Republican-lite" than Democrat, but the fact is that she and Bernie voted the same way 93% of the time. She had a better progressive voting record than 80% of her fellow senators.

There are those on the left that have been just as intent on damaging Hillary Clinton's reputation as those on the right have. It wasn't until 2010 that I bothered to investigate whether the image of Hillary that I had formed over the years was based on rhetoric or facts. If you want to point out when we see signs that she has sold her soul with the legislation that she introduced in Congress, I would gladly consider it.

But don't blame me when you go beyond your own definition for Big Money and label someone that way and I ask you to defend your characterization.

Balthy isn't agreeing with you in principle even.

He is paying lip service to the problem while defending it as necessary, and his bacteria "argument" ends with a suggestion that those who see the problem with corruption are the ones who need to evolve because he and his ilk will not... despite the massive evidence of their repeated failure... which I believe he referred to as a "crust build up".

Unwarranted optimism about the defenders of the corrupt status quo actually supporting efforts to address the corruption is not a path to success... see Obama, Barack.

A

Corruption is of course accurate, but noting the source is necessary when it is being defended.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perezs-bank-friendly-record-could-kneecap-the-democratic-party/

That article is a perfect example of the future of the Democratic party if the Obama/Hillary Big Money defenders get their way...

... just like Republicans.

A

The "unilateral disarmament" excuse only maintains its effectiveness when you win.

In any case, "Dems have to be corrupt because Repubs are corrupt" is an immoral justification... continuing a disturbing pattern.

A

Q: You discuss the “spinning of truth” that’s common practice in modern politics. What are the most frequent tactics employed?

In ten seconds, Clinton went from denying a sordid sex scandal to bashing President George H. W. Bush on the economy. But more than that, he was actually pointing at Bush’s recession as the reason poor Ms. Flowers had to debase herself in the press. In this way, Clinton did all of the following simultaneously: got back to the message, “It’s the economy, stupid;” dismissed Flowers as a gold digger; and delivered it all with an air of compassion for his accuser that would satisfy the liberal female voters he needed to win the Democratic nomination. That kind of unparalleled spin talent deserves respect.

So "big money" is a metaphor! Thank goodness!

Because, if I might use a metaphor, I'd been under the impression that the left would have us go into battle without tanks, because tanks require far too many petroleum products in great quantity, and profligate use of petroleum products is counter to all that we stand for and believe in. Besides, our enemy has a great number of tanks and lots of oil, and we don't want to be anything like our adversary. Speaking metaphorically, of course.

Or to use another metaphor: they would have us bring books to a knife fight.

The overwhelming majority of people who use the metaphor aren't anti-business or far-left socialists... just sick of the corruption of everything from our elections to foreign policy and everything in between.

Agreed. And those are issues that concern everyone, myself included. Alas, the process by which a society roots out corruption is a necessarily time-consuming one, if it is to be done correctly. Simply 'throwing the bums out', as they say, rarely works, as you haven't changed at all the dynamic that produced the corruption in the first place. This has been noted by a wide variety of commentators, from Orwell (Animal Farm) to the Who (Won't Get Fooled Again).

Hear that, Michale? The incremental shift of Trump toward the policies of his predecessors has already begun. Note how many times he begins to say, 'we already have laws that cover that..' in the future.

Recently I saw a video of a bacterium in a petri dish which had one half filled with a substance that nourished it - enough that no bacterium would ever lack nourish. The other half of the dish was filled with a substance that was toxic to bacteria, right at the point of contact. The nourishing side filled very quickly with bacteria, and when that side had filled, some few tried to venture into the toxic side, and predictably died. But the bacteria kept trying, probing, mostly dying. So many died initially that a crust built up at the border, impeding further progress. But eventually, by using every strategy available, including changing its own DNA, that bacterium was eventually able to colonize that entire petri dish. I imagine they had a little celebration afteward, and downed some serious amino acids.

The moral of the story? Well, perhaps that, if you are really serious about taking on a huge task like changing half your world, you need to realize that it could take a very long time, involve many losses, and eventually require that you fundamentally change yourself.

I don't know at all how this relates to solving our political differences, but I really do like the metaphor.

I'll try to find a link.

Let's call it what it is - corruption.

i.e. Politicians selling power for their own gain.

Thank you.
The delusion that entrenched Big Money and progressive policies can work together is a nasty one.

Big Money expends tremendous resources to perpetuate that delusion, and to counter the massive amounts of evidence that show the delusion to be false.

The second delusion that socially progressive Dems like Hillary and Obama and Biden and Pelosi and Schumer and and and who pursue right wing economic and foreign policies still qualify as progressive is the crux of the problem the Democrats face.

Hillary's reluctant embrace of an actually progressive agenda for the campaign while maintaining her loyalty to Big Money wasn't convincing... at least for crucial voting blocs.

The irony is that single payer health care, investment in green energy, spending on infrastructure, policies that support or maintain good jobs, regulation of banks to prevent exploitation and fraud, ending or reducing the misallocation of resources on unnecessary wars, and investment in education are all progressive policies that would be great for businesses too.

Eliminating the burden of health care costs alone would be a financial boon that would make most US businesses more competitive too... but the Big Money interests who currently profit have sufficient control over both parties to prevent it... harming Americans and most businesses at the same time.

To be fair, specific or just accurate, Listen isn't wrong in theory... it's the practice where entrenched Big Money stands in the way of progressive policies where it goes wrong.

Green energy interests would just be different Big Money from the oil companies... doctors and hospitals would still make Big Money even if we cut out the insurance middlemen who provide no health care... the construction companies who build roads, bridges and modernized water and waste systems would still make Big Money if we spent money on infrastructure instead of war.

Big Money as the problem should be defined more accurately to help voters distinguish between the crony capitalism problem we face and the corrupted politicians who serve it and actual capitalism.

It's not the accumulation of wealth that is the problem, it's how that wealth is currently being used to the detriment of most American citizens by preventing progress.

That said, Listen and others here and elsewhere need to recognize that Big Money is a metaphor, and stop defending it. The overwhelming majority of people who use the metaphor aren't anti-business or far-left socialists... just sick of the corruption of everything from our elections to foreign policy and everything in between.

A

Will he next dismantle the statue of Liberty?

"President Trump is not the fool ya'all claim.."

Even an Earth clock on Vulcan can be right at least two times out of every day.

"When my wife first came to Vulcan she adjusted the clock until midnight and noon corresponded to Vulcan midnight and midday. The other times are meaningless."

Ambassador Sarek, from the novel The Vulcan Academy Murders.

(Kirk, McCoy, Spock and Sarek discussing Amanda's antique grandfather clock brought from Earth and now located in Sarek's and Amanda's home on Vulcan.)

Only time will tell if someone like McMaster can help to change that.

Given this, there is only one of 2 possible conclusions..

1. McMaster DOES suffer fools like President Trump...

OR...

B. President Trump is not the fool ya'all claim..

Given the afore mentioned FACTS (Trump's success in business and in politics) and given Occam's Razor, it's likely that B is the correct answer...

"Simple logic"
Admiral James T Kirk

neilm [7]

Seriously. If McMaster can't whip the animals into shape and cull the herd, he'll leave the tent before it implodes into itself.

This, of course, will ultimately depend on 45 and whether or not PT insists on cultivating the type of chaos in which cons like him thrive.

Do you think that between Maddis and McMaster they can start to break the clown show that is Bannon and Miller?

Yes. In fact, it would not surprise me in the least if McMaster has already set the wheels in motion for Bannon's "demotion." McMaster chews up guys like Bannon and Miller and spits them out. He does not suffer fools, and he doesn't have to because he is truly intelligent and will wipe the floor with the bozos and clowns. :)

On the flip side, we will know just how hopeless Barnum and Bannon's 1-Ring Circus is if/when McMaster decides to resign. Seriously. If McMaster can't whip the animals into shape and cull the herd, he'll leave the tent before it implodes into itself.

Somebody needs to get 45 to grow up fast.

The moronic lying has to stop (crowd sizes, winning in a landslide, etc.).

The lightweight ignorance needs to be trained out (e.g. watching Fox News tabloid journalism on Sweden and believing it).

The childish relationship with the press has to end (they are going to keep telling the truth - they aren't suddenly going to accept unverified nonsense he wants the to print - except Breitbart and Fox News of course).

Pence is hopeless - he believes his own ragtag of crazy, which is why Indiana Republicans were so happy when they thought they'd got rid of him.

Tillerson is suspect - he is obviously an adult, but the whole Exxon/Russia multi-trillion dollar deal is undermining his credibility. Plus he is not meant to be hanging out in the White House, he is meant to be on the road.

McMaster is a good choice. His investigation into the role of political interference with the decisions of the military during the Vietnam era make me hope he will do what is right for America, not 45.

Speaking from personal experience, McMaster is an excellent choice. He does not suffer fools like 45, and he is an expert at human nature and knowing how to handle people. I've known him since he was commissioned to 2nd Armored Division, Fort Hood. You want to know anything about United States history (not the revisionist history but the actual history) ask McMaster. He taught history at West Point for a few years. You simply cannot go wrong with an M1A2 tank commander.

Tom Cotton is a fanboy of McMaster and recommended him to PT, and credit where credit is due, he has chosen wisely. :)

Will pathetic 45 threaten to defund CPAC? Or, like Quebec, will he continue to ignore right wing hate?

Milo Y. is basically a provocateur who is following the Kardashian path to wealth. Falling for his schtick is dumb. Laughing at him and pointing out his attempt to con his right wing marks is far more effective than trying to stifle him - that is exactly what he wants.

He was a right wing hero until today - he blew it and so he is suddenly issuing apologies and insisting he was taken out of context.

Bye bye Milo.

Very accurate depiction of Washington DC and South Carolina.

JL