2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: New Hillary Scandal Checks All the Boxes on the Clinton Controversy Bingo Card [View all]samson212
(83 posts)I think the most important thing, particularly at this point in the election cycle but really all the time, is to try to get at the truth. If the people who want to represent us are doing things we don't agree with, we have to hold them accountable. That doesn't mean that we hate them, or that they haven't passed a "purity test", just that we need transparency and disclosure when possible!
I agree that politics is an expectation game, but I don't agree that the level of purity that I'm looking for doesn't exist. I'll admit that it's a pretty high bar. I don't generally think that politicians will measure up in my mind; I'm used to being disappointed. In 2008, I was very excited by the idea that we could get a candidate (Obama) that talked the right talk. Unfortunately, he wasn't the progressive I'd hoped for. That's not to say that I hate him, or that I repudiate him, just that I have been disappointed by the gap between my expectations and what he delivered.
All that said, Bernie Sanders is a candidate that lives up to my expectations. I had not heard the story about pressure on a bank to give a loan. Are you talking about the thing I with the catholic church that I just found out about from google? That article is from Heat Street, which, according to Inquisitr, is owned by News Corp. Fox News is also all over this story, as has been the Daily Caller. Without a more in-depth investigation, I'm going to assume that this is a right wing manufactured scandal. As for Bernie's taxes, yes, he released some of them, which showed that there's no there there. I have seen them. Why do you think this keeps coming up? Do you think he's hiding something?
Anyways, as you said, no politician is perfect. I can't think of anybody that comes closer to disproving your point than Bernie, but I suppose you're right, nonetheless. No one is perfect.
I, unfortunately, agree 98% with the rest of your post. It's a sad state of affairs we've got. The system we have selects for participants who can play by insane rules, and work towards goals that are completely divorced from those that a rational government should have. However, I think you're wrong that you have to play the game to get the power to change the system. The thing that I (and hopefully a whole bunch of voters) have realized over this election cycle is that we already have the power to change the system. We just have to stand up and make it happen, instead of waiting till election day to vote for a candidate who we hope will do it for us. That candidate would have to play by the rules. And that's not how you win a fixed game.
See, money only works as a cudgel in politics when individual voters aren't directly holding their elected officials accountable. If more voters were members of party committees, the platform would necessarily reflect more accurately the will of the electorate; if more people ran in local primaries, there was more choice available to the voters; if there were more citizens in each Congressman's office each day than there were corporate lobbyists, it wouldn't matter how much those lobbyists had given to the Congressman. And as for fundraising, as the Sanders campaign has demonstrated, individual voters actually have more than enough money in their collective pockets to outspend even the most determined political machine.
Wow. I got way off topic on that one. Anyway, thanks for being a rational person and wanting to have a conversation. It's refreshing.