General Discussion

MedusaX

(1,129 posts)

38. It is a vicious circle...

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 08:33 PM

Apr 2017

The current state of campaign funding practices demands that a candidate have access to substantial financial resources....
Those who are willing and able to provide such financial backing do so with the expectation that the candidate they support will be of benefit, should they win.
The typical candidate-- who is willing to be financed knowing that it comes with an expectation of ... shall we say 'future acts of appreciation'-- is not likely to possess the integrity that the citizens deserve from their elected leader.

Conversely, those who truly embody the ideal qualities and who would diligently serve in the best interest of the nation--
would never agree to be financed ...
Even though they would never allow the expectation of influence to actually influence their actions,
it is simply unacceptable to accept financial support knowing that it is accompanied by an 'expectation' that they have no intention of meeting.

So as long as campaigns require big money and those with big money can find a candidate to accept their support.. it is unlikely that anything will change.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

130 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why should we ever nominate ANYONE from a wealthy family again? [View all] Ken Burch Apr 2017 OP

The Roosevelts and Kennedys were from wealthy families and Nixon was not Chasstev365 Apr 2017 #1

I acknowledged the good points of the Roosevelts and the Kennedys. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #6

I agree with you about the wealthy of today! Chasstev365 Apr 2017 #19

Yeah. That would be cool. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #23

Exactly... whathehell Apr 2017 #127

Its not about money. Its about heart and humility. Love and compassion. All of which it seems caroldansen Apr 2017 #2

Agreed about Trump. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #8

I disagree Hamlette Apr 2017 #76

With this approach we are sure to lose more seats in the next election. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #3

JFK was marginal? tirebiter Apr 2017 #4

What if they become rich BainsBane Apr 2017 #5

It would depend on the values they lived by while doing so. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #10

So wealth is negotiable? BainsBane Apr 2017 #15

just like how we can overlook japanese internment JI7 Apr 2017 #18

It was people in the 1940s who overlooked that. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #30

people that supported Trump did overlook such things JI7 Apr 2017 #32

I'm not saying we should try for the votes of people who actually AGREE with Trump Ken Burch Apr 2017 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author LanternWaste Apr 2017 #123

THe right values would be support of workers rights, peace, social and economic equality Ken Burch Apr 2017 #24

bs. why should only straight white men benefit from corporations JI7 Apr 2017 #26

Didn't say they should...just that they DO. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #28

lol . some "fellow activists" supported trump JI7 Apr 2017 #34

And I don't defend them for doing so. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #43

It's really sad and ignorant that you actually believe that nonsense mythology Apr 2017 #77

+1 betsuni Apr 2017 #89

Romney is wealthier than trump but i Would take Romney over trump JI7 Apr 2017 #7

because Nixon and Reagan were just so great JI7 Apr 2017 #9

I didn't say ALL non-rich people were saints. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #11

whatever. Clinton would have been a great president. JI7 Apr 2017 #14

And I campaigned for her in the fall, so why would you think I disagree with that? Ken Burch Apr 2017 #45

i see no reason to discriminate. May the best person for the country win. lunasun Apr 2017 #12

What if Malia Obama wanted to run for office? What about one of Bill Gates' kids? LisaM Apr 2017 #13

The people you listed there are mainly ok(don't know anything about Bill's kids) Ken Burch Apr 2017 #31

Well, people need to run. LisaM Apr 2017 #46

there is no "we". JI7 Apr 2017 #16

Yes there is. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #33

no. many who are not in the 1 percent do not support rights for others JI7 Apr 2017 #36

It's about uniting with the ones who are open to that. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #40

i am already United with those who care regardless of money JI7 Apr 2017 #42

Is there a reason you don't want a stronger coalition for change? Ken Burch Apr 2017 #55

i deal in reality JI7 Apr 2017 #83

So do I. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #85

not really. you dismiss what many others want JI7 Apr 2017 #86

I support what you want. Always have. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #90

why are you telling me ? why you tell the trump supporters ? JI7 Apr 2017 #91

I'm respectfully responding to your post. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #95

i voted for sanders but now i see that clinton was the far better candidate with actual policies to JI7 Apr 2017 #96

You have the right to your views, obviously. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #100

should japanese americans look for someone like roosevelt ? JI7 Apr 2017 #17

Shhh BainsBane Apr 2017 #22

We ALL agree that the Japanese internemnt and Jim Crow were abominations. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #41

we should nominate debbie wasserman schultz . She doesn't have much wealth JI7 Apr 2017 #20

Naughty! wildeyed Apr 2017 #25

Once people go down the road of "class traitor" or other stuff like that Foamfollower Apr 2017 #21

I meant it as a compliment. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #35

And when I saw that language, I stopped reading right there. Foamfollower Apr 2017 #39

What is so terrible about mentioning class? Ken Burch Apr 2017 #54

I just want to see the tax returns. wildeyed Apr 2017 #27

Amazingly kind of you. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #29

There was no dismissiveness intended there. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #37

At some point you are going to have to stop blaming others for your own words. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #62

It is a vicious circle... MedusaX Apr 2017 #38

When you said: "What 2016 taught us is that nothing we did in the past works anymore." guillaumeb Apr 2017 #44

There's no contradiction between saying our campaign didn't work and ALSO saying Ken Burch Apr 2017 #48

I appreciated your reference to the 50 state strategy. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #50

Yeah...our ground game was supposed to take care of everything this fall. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #51

Taking for granted that any state that supported Obama would be won by a Democrat. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #56

That probably did happen. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #59

Yes, the disloyalty meme IS very popular. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #61

So you would be opposed to elizabeth warrren running ? JI7 Apr 2017 #47

Like FDR, she doesn't put her own class first. That's a huge difference. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #49

she voted for Reagan JI7 Apr 2017 #84

And then admitted she was totally wrong, Ken Burch Apr 2017 #92

who do you think we have nominated that we should not have nominated ? JI7 Apr 2017 #94

It's not about anyone personally. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #97

so what is the point of your OP ? JI7 Apr 2017 #98

1984 - the book: dominant theme is the filthy rich keep the poor oppressed using endless war nt msongs Apr 2017 #52

Emotionally I agree but logical I don't delisen Apr 2017 #53

There aren't any Eleanor Roosevelts or Bobby Kennedys anymore Ken Burch Apr 2017 #57

The worthiness of E Roosevelt was not realized when she was first on the national scene delisen Apr 2017 #63

With JFK, charm and charisma played a huge role. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #70

Carter was well enough off, as was Kerry. But I agree, the wealthy should be looked at closely. Hoyt Apr 2017 #58

Do you seriously think all rich people are like Trump?! lunatica Apr 2017 #60

Should we also limit our voters to the non-rich? delisen Apr 2017 #64

There's not that many rich voters, so even if that were possible-and it isn't-it wouldn't harm us. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #101

except the non rich that voted trump did more harm than any rich that didn't JI7 Apr 2017 #110

"we will need a candidate unlike any we have ever nominated anymore"? George II Apr 2017 #65

Actually, neither was. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #107

Exactly my point, you said though that.... George II Apr 2017 #119

Well, there once was a Joe Biden we could have had. And a John Edwards who doomed his own career. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #66

Edwards talked a good talk BainsBane Apr 2017 #68

I'm not so sure infidelity is a good way to judge a person's attitude about the poor. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #69

No, when he went to work for a hedge fund to learn about financial markets & poverty tammywammy Apr 2017 #71

I'm a Democrat because I believe in the haves helping the have-nots. I can draw a distinction WinkyDink Apr 2017 #120

This was before the infidelity became known BainsBane Apr 2017 #75

agree, and he is the one who said he joined the hedge fund to learn about poverty JI7 Apr 2017 #82

I felt the same way. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #87

Biden kept dooming his OWN career, too. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #73

Many people still don't forgive him over the Anita Hill issue. As to the plagiarized speech... PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #105

We need people from all levels to run. alarimer Apr 2017 #67

I worked on a house campaign for a middle class business owner. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #74

Yes, being wealthy gives you a great advantage in time. n/t PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #106

NC state reps get $13k a year Worktodo Apr 2017 #111

In practice, I know it isn't easy. alarimer Apr 2017 #118

This is where we should be able to rely more on the DNC... NCTraveler Apr 2017 #121

seems a sure fire way to become disappointed ... JHan Apr 2017 #78

When you call Kennedy a hard line cold warrior is that a complaint? GulfCoast66 Apr 2017 #79

Because they might be the best candidate? onenote Apr 2017 #80

The wealthy and the wealthiest are completely out of touch with humanity. democratisphere Apr 2017 #81

How about those who spend two years working in the Peace Corps? Are they all completely pnwmom Apr 2017 #114

Who are "those"? Chris Mathews? democratisphere Apr 2017 #115

I was thinking of this person: pnwmom Apr 2017 #130

This has to be about a Clinton, but the only one who comes close to being raised in wealth betsuni Apr 2017 #88

It's not about a Clinton. It's about whoever we might consider in the future. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #93

The only ones being "raised in luxury" are the vulgar rich like Trumps and Kardashians. betsuni Apr 2017 #99

i'm wondering the same thing JI7 Apr 2017 #102

I think this game is called Extreme False Equivalency. betsuni Apr 2017 #103

I think you are spot on. nt. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #122

Ridiculous broad brush nini Apr 2017 #104

Elected officials have low low salaries Worktodo Apr 2017 #108

You've got a valid point. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #109

Yeah I worked for a guy many years ago... Worktodo Apr 2017 #112

Suppose that a person from a wealthy family had worked hard his whole life pnwmom Apr 2017 #113

It's easier (and more comforting I guess) to beg for scraps than to have the people lead ck4829 Apr 2017 #116

I care more get the red out Apr 2017 #117

This one took a little effort. lol. Just kidding. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #124

Let's judge folks by the content of their character and not the size of their assets. DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2017 #125

Because that might be our best available option at the time. Orsino Apr 2017 #126

Your dismissal of FDR as a "class traitor" and a "one off," whathehell Apr 2017 #128

I might support Bill Gates if he ever ran... tinrobot Apr 2017 #129