Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 17, 2018, 05:21:23 PM
Criminal? No. Ethically and morally wrong? Yes.

What is ethically or morally wrong about supporting a political organization that shares your agenda?  Or don't you believe in freedom of speech?

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 18, 2018, 08:08:42 AM
What is ethically or morally wrong about supporting a political organization that shares your agenda?  Or don't you believe in freedom of speech?

The voters are supposed to decide. Not a few party insiders.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 05:20:51 PM
The voters are supposed to decide. Not a few party insiders.

I don't know what country you are referring to, but that has never been the way it works in the US.  Money has always been part of politics in the US, and it is neither unethical or immoral.  It is called free speech and free association, which has been protected by the US Constitution since at least 1791.

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 18, 2018, 06:12:25 PM
I don't know what country you are referring to, but that has never been the way it works in the US.  Money has always been party of politics in the US, and it is neither unethical or immoral.  It is called free speech and free association, which has been protected by the US Constitution since at least 1791.

Okay.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 05:20:51 PM
The voters are supposed to decide. Not a few party insiders.

And how do the voters decide?  Just blithely walk into a booth and punch down a few hanging chads?

The voters need information. Information comes by way of means which cost money. People contribute to their favorite candidates so the candidate can get their message out. People also group together in various types of political organizations so their contributions can achieve the most bang for their buck.  Those organizations choose a candidate to support; they do not support them all equally. There is nothing wrong with that - even when the support comes from the party national committees, which are the largest of political organizations.

Quote from: zewazir on May 18, 2018, 07:09:34 PM
And how do the voters decide?  Just blithely walk into a booth and punch down a few hanging chads?

The voters need information. Information comes by way of means which cost money. People contribute to their favorite candidates so the candidate can get their message out. People also group together in various types of political organizations so their contributions can achieve the most bang for their buck.  Those organizations choose a candidate to support; they do not support them all equally. There is nothing wrong with that - even when the support comes from the party national committees, which are the largest of political organizations.

That is exactly right.  When I was running my business I did not have the time to devote to national issues that concerned me and my business.  However, by joining the National Association for the Self-Employed I had a lobbyist advocating for me in DC.  I am also a strong proponent of the Second Amendment and for that reason I make regular contributions to the NRA so that they may challenge the constitutionality of local, State, and federal laws when they infringe on that amendment.  They also give money to State and national candidates that support the Second Amendment.  I'm not able to be in hundred different places at the same time, but with my contributions to various PACs I can.  If I relied on just my vote, nothing would ever get done.

Quote from: zewazir on May 18, 2018, 07:09:34 PM
And how do the voters decide?  Just blithely walk into a booth and punch down a few hanging chads?

The voters need information. Information comes by way of means which cost money. People contribute to their favorite candidates so the candidate can get their message out. People also group together in various types of political organizations so their contributions can achieve the most bang for their buck.  Those organizations choose a candidate to support; they do not support them all equally. There is nothing wrong with that - even when the support comes from the party national committees, which are the largest of political organizations.

They vote. If you have no problem with the second most powerful person in the House minority telling a candidate give up now because we are going to bury you then you are truly f**ked. Just bend over.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 07:31:02 PM
They vote. If you have no problem with the second most powerful person in the House minority telling a candidate give up now because we are going to bury you then you are truly f**ked. Just bend over.

Rep. Hoyer can ask anything he wants.  Whether or not the other guy accepts what Rep. Hoyer has to say is another story.  Judging by the recording, it did not sound like the candidate was very interested in heeding Rep. Hoyer's advice.  Keep in mind that the candidate is also a Democrat, just like Rep. Hoyer.  Had Rep. Hoyer attempted to put the same political pressure on a Republican candidate, guess what the response would be.   

There are a lot of candidates that will ignore the pressure put on them by PACs.  They typically don't win, but at least they stood up against the pressure.  It could be, and has been, much worse in US politics than just political pressure.

That reminds me of a candidate we had not long ago running against Sen. Murkowski.  All the PACs and even the Alaskan GOP were telling him to withdraw because he couldn't win.  However, Joe Miller beat Sen. Murkowski in the GOP Primary.  Which removed her from the State ballot.  She was forced to run as a write-in candidate because Joe Miller ignored the political pressure being put on him.  He still lost the election, but he stood against the political pressure - and it was considerable.

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 18, 2018, 07:42:13 PM
Rep. Hoyer can ask anything he wants.  Whether or not the other guy accepts what Rep. Hoyer has to say is another story.  Judging by the recording, it did not sound like the candidate was very interested in heeding Rep. Hoyer's advice.  Keep in mind that the candidate is also a Democrat, just like Rep. Hoyer.  Had Rep. Hoyer attempted to put the same political pressure on a Republican candidate, guess what the response would be.   

There are a lot of candidates that will ignore the pressure put on them by PACs.  They typically don't win, but at least they stood up against the pressure.  It could be, and has been, much worse in US politics than just political pressure.

Yes, a republican sitting down with Hoyer is plausible.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 07:31:02 PM
They vote. If you have no problem with the second most powerful person in the House minority telling a candidate give up now because we are going to bury you then you are truly f**ked. Just bend over.

If the MANNER in which the message was sent is what bother's you, I'd say unbunch the undies. The fact that they felt it necessary to send in the "big gun" to tell a no-name upstart to back down just demonstrates to me the dems are a gnat's eyebrow from full-on panic. And people in a panic do not think straight - not even the smart ones.  That's good for our side.

But the bottom line is the support of one candidate over another in primary elections is not only nothing new, there is also nothing wrong. The party national committee's main function is to select candidates that can win in the general election. And to do so, they have to choose who gets the cash in the primaries, and who get a red tag in their locker. All normal, and (surprisingly, this time) above-the-board behavior. When it comes to the content of the message, if they can get their candidate in without a long- expensive, mud-slinging primary, they'll be the stronger in the general. And that is plain smart strategy.

Being progs, most will end up toeing the line to the DNC, in the hopes of being given the official nod the next time. (or the next, or next, etc.) Progs are, after all, fully indoctrinated into the ruler/follower system whether they enter politics or not.

OTOH, they don't HAVE to capitulate; as has been proven by a number of TEA sponsored candidates who told the RNC to upstick it edgewise when told they did not have a chance against the party selection.

Funny thing: when the TEA candidate won the primary, they ended up with all kinds of RNC cash during the general campaign, even after a lot of blustering they wouldn't get a thin.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 07:48:36 PM
Yes, a republican sitting down with Hoyer is plausible.

I can think of several republicans who would think nothing of having a sit-down with Hoyer.

Quote from: zewazir on May 18, 2018, 10:56:30 PM
I can think of several republicans who would think nothing of having a sit-down with Hoyer.

Discussing a campaign?

I think the point Boo is making, is the party machine has the final say regardless of what the voting constituent wants.
The gop'E has been fucking us for decades, which is why we're in the mess we're in. Remember how the party fucked Cruz?
OK, this was one of those unique times when they actually screwed themselves and wound up giving us trump, a guy they feared less than Cruz.

I was livid but wasn't the least bit surprised, this is party politics, the RNC has the money that buys and kills candidates and they were very afraid of a principled candidate that would more than likely disrupt their money machine.
AS bad as the machine is, they totally screwed themselves, they helped put a man in office that played their own game against them, that was pure genius, and now that he's in he's taking down not only the Dim corruption but the Establishment as well, then again, there is no line of delineation between the two so-called party's, they both operate towards a leftist goal.

Boo has a solid point, I don't know why anyone would argue against it unless you liked the status quo of the gop'E continuing a leftward move.
Sad, that we've all become so accustomed to party politics that we stopped having an issue with them quashing our voice under the guise of the First Amendment.

Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2018, 05:38:40 AM
I think the point Boo is making, is the party machine has the final say regardless of what the voting constituent wants.
The gop'E has been fucking us for decades, which is why we're in the mess we're in. Remember how the party fucked Cruz?
OK, this was one of those unique times when they actually screwed themselves and wound up giving us trump, a guy they feared less than Cruz.

I was livid but wasn't the least bit surprised, this is party politics, the RNC has the money that buys and kills candidates and they were very afraid of a principled candidate that would more than likely disrupt their money machine.
AS bad as the machine is, they totally screwed themselves, they helped put a man in office that played their own game against them, that was pure genius, and now that he's in he's taking down not only the Dim corruption but the Establishment as well, then again, there is no line of delineation between the two so-called party's, they both operate towards a leftist goal.

Boo has a solid point, I don't know why anyone would argue against it unless you liked the status quo of the gop'E continuing a leftward move.
Sad, that we've all become so accustomed to party politics that we stopped having an issue with them quashing our voice under the guise of the First Amendment.

The party national parties have become so powerful in overall politics because we, the voters, have been letting them do our jobs for us. OTOH, as I have pointed out, the establishment machine can, and has been put back in its place by active voters. Ultimately the final say still belongs with the voter, NOT the party machine, IF the voter bothers to get out there and actually participate.  The numbers of TEA supported congress critters put in over the GOPe's picks is proof enough of that.

The system has most assuredly been corrupted. But that does not make the system itself a bad thing; any more than the obvious corruption of the Republic makes the Republic a bad thing. It is an unfortunate, but very real, very necessary fact that political campaigning involves massive amounts of money. The national committees have massive amounts of money. The people, as individuals, do not. (with the exception of a very few.)

The Citizens United decision was a very important one, because it did go a significant distance in evening the playing field again. For a long time, the party national committees did hold a vastly unbalanced degree of power, because the People were severely limited in what they could do to support a candidate, while the national committees could throw what ever assents they wanted at any particular race. The demoncrap side is even worse because while they had shut down the ability of the people to organize large organizations with associated large amounts of campaign funding, they had arranged so unions and other socialist bent groups could toss all their cash and influence in the mix, unfettered by anti-constitutional regulation.

That no longer holds true. With the Citizens United decision in place, the People have the freedom to associate as they wish, and use the power behind those associations to support the candidates they desire. Again, the successes of TEA in getting non-establishment candidates nominated is proof it can work.

Tillemann does not HAVE to capitulate to Hoyer's demands; again showing that the party committees do NOT have the "final say" in who gets the nomination, despite their enormous influence. Hoyer is, of course, pushing undesirable candidates to drop their bid because expensive, contested primaries can end up harming the nominee in the general election. But in the end, any decision to capitulate or defy Hoyer's less-than-politic "suggestion" is up to Tellemann, and those who support him. I hope Tillemann ends up telling Hoyer to pound sand.

One last point: the national committees have their vast amount of cash because the People give it to them. They do nothing to generate their funding themselves. The People, and any organizations of the People, can end that simply by refusing to give to party coffers, and instead give directly to the campaigns of those candidates they desire. OF course the socialist unions and such will continue to pump their funds into the DNC. But that is their CHOICE - to give away their voice to their political masters.  That still does not make the system itself a bad thing.

Quote from: zewazir on May 19, 2018, 07:57:00 AM
The party national parties have become so powerful in overall politics because we, the voters, have been letting them do our jobs for us. OTOH, as I have pointed out, the establishment machine can, and has been put back in its place by active voters. Ultimately the final say still belongs with the voter, NOT the party machine, IF the voter bothers to get out there and actually participate.  The numbers of TEA supported congress critters put in over the GOPe's picks is proof enough of that.

The system has most assuredly been corrupted. But that does not make the system itself a bad thing; any more than the obvious corruption of the Republic makes the Republic a bad thing. It is an unfortunate, but very real, very necessary fact that political campaigning involves massive amounts of money. The national committees have massive amounts of money. The people, as individuals, do not. (with the exception of a very few.)

The Citizens United decision was a very important one, because it did go a significant distance in evening the playing field again. For a long time, the party national committees did hold a vastly unbalanced degree of power, because the People were severely limited in what they could do to support a candidate, while the national committees could throw what ever assents they wanted at any particular race. The demoncrap side is even worse because while they had shut down the ability of the people to organize large organizations with associated large amounts of campaign funding, they had arranged so unions and other socialist bent groups could toss all their cash and influence in the mix, unfettered by anti-constitutional regulation.

That no longer holds true. With the Citizens United decision in place, the People have the freedom to associate as they wish, and use the power behind those associations to support the candidates they desire. Again, the successes of TEA in getting non-establishment candidates nominated is proof it can work.

Tillemann does not HAVE to capitulate to Hoyer's demands; again showing that the party committees do NOT have the "final say" in who gets the nomination, despite their enormous influence. Hoyer is, of course, pushing undesirable candidates to drop their bid because expensive, contested primaries can end up harming the nominee in the general election. But in the end, any decision to capitulate or defy Hoyer's less-than-politic "suggestion" is up to Tellemann, and those who support him. I hope Tillemann ends up telling Hoyer to pound sand.

One last point: the national committees have their vast amount of cash because the People give it to them. They do nothing to generate their funding themselves. The People, and any organizations of the People, can end that simply by refusing to give to party coffers, and instead give directly to the campaigns of those candidates they desire. OF course the socialist unions and such will continue to pump their funds into the DNC. But that is their CHOICE - to give away their voice to their political masters.  That still does not make the system itself a bad thing.

Your point? Nothing you said refuted any point I made, or were you just reiterating what I said in more detail?