Politics in America

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I know, I know. Rush, Fox, MSNBC are all real. The ideological divide is real. However, I still say, this is what is real. The self interests of the wealthy meeting the self interests of the powerful. Ideology? Phony ideology is no where to be found. Amazing that corruption can be so overt. No, actually it is not when you consider the majority of us have more faith in ideology than our own moral compasses and critical thinking abilities. Most of us are as phony as our ideology. Whether you believe in conservatism or liberalism, if your belief is unconditional, YOU are the problem. Stop watching and listening to the propaganda. Start looking at the truth. Justice and representation are for sale. Government is for sale. There is no party or ideology who wants to change that, only exploit it for their own purposes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/06/harry-reid-sheldon-adelson_n_6277000.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

WASHINGTON -- Billionaire casino magnate and GOP sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson wants a big favor from Capitol Hill, and he’s looking to the top Democrat in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to help him.

Adelson, the chairman of Las Vegas Sands Corp., is best known for spending tens of millions of dollars in recent years to help elect Republicans, largely through super PACs and “dark money” groups. It’s not a stretch to say that he is partly responsible for the fact that come January, Reid will surrender the majority leader’s gavel to a Republican, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell.

For the next few weeks, however, Reid is Adelson’s best hope for accomplishing one of the billionaire’s top goals: to prohibit online gambling anywhere in the United States. The question is why would the Senate’s top Democrat, known for railing against the influence of conservative billionaires in American politics, be willing to stick his neck out for Adelson.

The answer lies back home in Nevada, where in two years Reid will run for re-election in what is already shaping up to be a tough battle. As a powerful figure in Nevada politics with money to burn, Adelson could do a lot to back Reid's opponent -- or not.

But first, Adelson wants the Democrat to help close a loophole in federal law that allows the states to operate and regulate online gambling. Thus far, New York, Delaware, Nevada and New Jersey have adopted some form of Internet gambling, with a half-dozen other states weighing similar measures. Adelson, whose billions come from his empire of brick-and-mortar casinos, wants to ban online gambling in the U.S.

On Capitol Hill, his crusade against Internet gambling has split the powerful casino lobby in two, with Adelson on one side and just about everyone else on the other. For major companies like MGM Grand and Caesar’s Entertainment, online gaming looks like a new source of revenue to help them weather a major downturn in the casino industry.

But Adelson doesn't see it that way. He has bankrolled a group called the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling and hired powerful lobbyists like former Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) and former New York Gov. George Pataki ® to press Congress for a ban. Adelson has also brought conservative Christian groups into the coalition, including branches of Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, the same group that took millions of dollars from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's casino clients in exchange for mobilizing opposition to gambling.

In the spring of 2014, the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling scored a victory when Adelson's usual allies, the Republicans, introduced the Restore America’s Wire Act, a bill that would amount to a federal ban on Internet gaming. But then a surge in conservative opposition to RAWA culminated in last month's cancellation of a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill.

Below is a typical ad from the Adelson-backed coalition, emphasizing the dangers of online gambling to families.

If RAWA isn’t enshrined into law before Dec. 31, it will need to be reintroduced when the newly elected Congress convenes in January, a delay that would give its powerful opponents, which include both many major casinos and the Fraternal Order of Police, more time to marshal their forces. This is where Reid comes in.

In order to avoid a government shutdown, Congress needs to pass an omnibus spending bill, bundling many separate appropriations measures, before Dec. 11. Given the size and complexity of omnibus bills, they are typically crafted behind closed doors by congressional leaders, who often engage in horse-trading over pet projects until the very last minute. This kind of process is perfect for moving Adelson's online gaming ban.

In recent weeks, his army of pro-RAWA lobbyists fanned out across Capitol Hill offices, including those of the two lawmakers with the greatest influence over the omnibus bill: Reid and his House counterpart, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

“I know [Reid and Boehner] have had some discussions to some degree about when legislation could move and the need to address the issue,” Adelson’s chief lobbyist, Andy Abboud, told the industry journal Gambling Compliance in mid-November. “It’s just not clear as to when the timing will be."

Reid is usually a reliable backer of the casino industry as a whole, critical as it is to his home state's economy. But last week, he told Gambling Compliance that he was still deciding whether to take action on RAWA before the end of the year. “We’ll have to see,” Reid said, noting that he had “talked to [RAWA sponsor Sen.] Lindsey Graham and others” about his options. “We’ll have to see what the House does,” Reid said.

The fate of the online gambling ban could serve as a barometer of how much Reid is willing to do to help out one wealthy businessman, even over the objections of other powerful Nevada interests.

Should RAWA be inserted into the omnibus spending bill, it would bolster suspicions on Capitol Hill that the fiery Democratic leader and the conservative billionaire have struck a bargain to help one another -- specifically, that Reid will help Adelson accomplish his priority in Congress, and in exchange, Adelson won't spend his money to bolster Reid's opponent in 2016. Reid is likely to face Nevada’s Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, who was re-elected in November by a margin of more than 20 percentage points.

Many in Washington did a double take earlier this year when Reid defended Adelson on national TV. Speaking in May about the millions of dollars Adelson had spent building support for RAWA at the state level, Reid told MSNBC, "I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money; he's in this because he's got certain ideological views. Don't pick on [Adelson]. He's not in it to make money.”

Representatives for Reid and Adelson declined to comment on whether their bosses had a political truce. But in an interview last month with Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston, Abboud went out of his way to characterize Reid and Adelson's relationship as a warm one -- and RAWA as a done deal.

"Mr. Adelson and Senator Reid have a very genuine friendship," Abboud told Ralston. As for RAWA's prospects, he was supremely confident. "The die is cast on this," Abboud said. “The cake is baked.”

If true, that should please Adelson. The casino magnate has made billions of dollars from gambling over his lifetime, and he could make billions more if he manages to quash the competition in cyberspace.

In return for an online gaming ban, it's probably unrealistic to imagine that Adelson would publicly back a Democrat like Reid for re-election. But it's not a stretch to imagine a repeat of 2010, when the billionaire donated just $2,400 to Reid's Republican challenger, Sharron Angle, whom Reid defeated handily.

If Sandoval runs for Reid's seat in two years, Adelson could be forced to choose between two lawmakers he likes: the popular governor, whose PAC received $300,000 in contributions from Adelson in late October of this year, and Reid, the sitting senator who may have one big chance left to show Adelson that he has the billionaire's back.

[TheBlueVue 177]

SO, you provide a link to the huffington puffington post as the definitive arbiter of the truth?

Let me just respond by saying; I am utterly flabbergasted and shocked by the idea that a rich businessman would ally himself with those who could help him protect his interests! SHOCKED! Even though Adelson used to be a democrat, he's a republican now so he's an evil man, right?

Reckon wonder why Reid doesn't vilify Adelson like he does the Koch brothers? Heres 3 things about Adelson the huffington puffington post didn't

mention:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/08/the-democrat-loving-sin-hating-sheldon-adelson-you-dont-know/

[icanthearyou 4,463]

SO, you provide a link to the huffington puffington post as the definitive arbiter of the truth?

Let me just respond by saying; I am utterly flabbergasted and shocked by the idea that a rich businessman would ally himself with those who could help him protect his interests! SHOCKED! Even though Adelson used to be a democrat, he's a republican now so he's an evil man, right?

Reckon wonder why Reid doesn't vilify Adelson like he does the Koch brothers? Heres 3 things about Adelson the huffington puffington post didn't

mention:

http://www.washingto...-you-dont-know/

You have no problem with a government that is for sale? Your issue is with the Huffington Post? Thank you.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Funny how every time I see one of these ' don't believe the idealouges ', it all ends up with the same thing - be a Leftist. Only they don't CALL it that. Instead, we get something like ' The No Labels ' party. Sounds simple. Straight forward, but here's the kicker.

Leftist and Conservatives actually believe different things.

The Left believe the govt should provide, and that " citizens " are entitled to goods and services, merely because of their existence. 'The common good ' is a term which has been twisted to mean everyone deserves goodies from the govt.

Conservatives, in contrast, believe in freedom, self determination, and the rule of law. There is a sense of charity and duty, to be sure, but how much should be up to the individual, not some official or bureaucrat in D.C.

[channonc 466]

Wow. I guess post #2 & #4 of this thread prove ICHY's hypothesis.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Funny how every time I see one of these ' don't believe the idealouges ', it all ends up with the same thing - be a Leftist. Only they don't CALL it that. Instead, we get something like ' The No Labels ' party. Sounds simple. Straight forward, but here's the kicker.

Leftist and Conservatives actually believe different things.

The Left believe the govt should provide, and that " citizens " are entitled to goods and services, merely because of their existence. 'The common good ' is a term which has been twisted to mean everyone deserves goodies from the govt.

Conservatives, in contrast, believe in freedom, self determination, and the rule of law. There is a sense of charity and duty, to be sure, but how much should be up to the individual, not some official or bureaucrat in D.C.

The words become hollow when you objectively observe actions.

[JoeBags7277 734]

And, I present to you exhibit A on why we're doomed. In response to a fairly well thought out post about a legitimate concern, one attacks the source, the other offers a highly caricaturized oversimplification of the two wings.

Government is for sale, has always been for sale, and will always be for sale. Strange bedfellows will be made, Ralph Reed will happily play his role as a pawn and send his foot soldiers out to do Adelson's bidding- a scenario that has played out dozens and dozens of times in our history- and deals will be made behind closed doors that directly contradict the public positions of our representatives. It ain't changing anytime soon. That's why as much as we can get away with should be taken out of the hands of government, and placed back in the hands of the community, the family, the individual, and ultimately, the market that has to respond to all of the aforementioned.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

And, I present to you exhibit A on why we're doomed. In response to a fairly well thought out post about a legitimate concern, one attacks the source, the other offers a highly caricaturized oversimplification of the two wings.

Government is for sale, has always been for sale, and will always be for sale. Strange bedfellows will be made, Ralph Reed will happily play his role as a pawn and send his foot soldiers out to do Adelson's bidding- a scenario that has played out dozens and dozens of times in our history- and deals will be made behind closed doors that directly contradict the public positions of our representatives. It ain't changing anytime soon. That's why as much as we can get away with should be taken out of the hands of government, and placed back in the hands of the community, the family, the individual, and ultimately, the market that has to respond to all of the aforementioned.

I agree. This fundamental corruption is part of our history. However, it has come out from behind closed doors. Apparently,,,, now it is legal. Worse than that, we the people accept it (as long as it is our side doing it, of course). I firmly believe that the greatness of our country comes, in large part, from the basic concept that our government promotes the interests of the vast majority, not a select few. When I see such a blatant sell out, with such obvious selfish motives, I feel as though I have been slapped in the face. Is everything we teach young people about our country just a bunch of BS? Do we really believe in the principles we claim or, do we believe in some phony ideology pumped into us by the continuous streams of propaganda?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Wow. I guess post #2 & #4 of this thread prove ICHY's hypothesis.

What exactly does posts 2 and 4 prove?

The OP is titled "Politics in America" and then uses the Huffington post one of THE most liberal e-rags on the internet to make a point

Here's my point of view. Unless you've been isolated and living under a rock for your entire life, surely you're aware of the age old adage "He who has the gold also makes the rules" Are you? That fact of life is true in any form of govt, at all times in history, and not just current politics in America. Itchy can always be counted on to post stuff that he believes supports his condescension and "above it all" self professed superiority but ,more times than not, its usually just some tired left wing anti-business drivel with nothing new to say just like this piece is.

Personally, I favor the makers over the takers 100% of the time in all situations. Sheldon Adelson's efforts are neither problematic nor anything new and certainly not reflective of an indigenous problem of politics in America that the thread was presumably set up to expose.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Wow. I guess post #2 & #4 of this thread prove ICHY's hypothesis.

What exactly does posts 2 and 4 prove?

The OP is titled "Politics in America" and then uses the Huffington post one of THE most liberal e-rags on the internet to make a point

Here's my point of view. Unless you've been isolated and living under a rock for your entire life, surely you're aware of the age old adage "He who has the gold also makes the rules" Are you? That fact of life is true in any form of govt, at all times in history, and not just current politics in America. Itchy can always be counted on to post stuff that he believes supports his condescension and "above it all" self professed superiority but ,more times than not, its usually just some tired left wing anti-business drivel with nothing new to say just like this piece is.

Personally, I favor the makers over the takers 100% of the time in all situations. Sheldon Adelson's efforts are neither problematic nor anything new and certainly not reflective of an indigenous problem of politics in America that the thread was presumably set up to expose.

Thank you again. I at least appreciate the honesty in your hypocrisy. Nice epitaph for democracy and capitalism.

[homersapien 11,393]

SO, you provide a link to the huffington puffington post as the definitive arbiter of the truth?

I missed the part where ICHY said or even implied that. Can you please highlight it for me?

[homersapien 11,393]

Funny how every time I see one of these ' don't believe the idealouges ', it all ends up with the same thing - be a Leftist. Only they don't CALL it that. Instead, we get something like ' The No Labels ' party. Sounds simple. Straight forward, but here's the kicker.

Leftist and Conservatives actually believe different things.

The Left believe the govt should provide, and that " citizens " are entitled to goods and services, merely because of their existence. 'The common good ' is a term which has been twisted to mean everyone deserves goodies from the govt.

Conservatives, in contrast, believe in freedom, self determination, and the rule of law. There is a sense of charity and duty, to be sure, but how much should be up to the individual, not some official or bureaucrat in D.C.

You couldn't be more wrong. Your "understanding" is self-delusional. Self delusional thinking is often a result from being exposed to propaganda.

Lib-er-al \ Lib"er*al\, Adj.:

1. Favoring political and social reforms trending towards democracy and personal freedoms for the individual; advocating reform or progress in education, religion, etc.

2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; not bigoted.

3. Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

4. Describing democratic forms of government, as distinguished from monarchies, oligarchies, fascism, etc.

[JoeBags7277 734]

Wow. I guess post #2 & #4 of this thread prove ICHY's hypothesis.

Personally, I favor the makers over the takers 100% of the time in all situations. Sheldon Adelson's efforts are neither problematic nor anything new and certainly not reflective of an indigenous problem of politics in America that the thread was presumably set up to expose.

As well you should. However maybe you should define the terms more appropriately. By using rent seeking on a grand scale to stifle competition and obtain wealth that would otherwise elude him through an open market, Adelson fits more neatly into the taker class. It is a fallacy to use the size of one's bank account as the sole factor in whether they're a maker or a taker.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Wow. I guess post #2 & #4 of this thread prove ICHY's hypothesis.

Personally, I favor the makers over the takers 100% of the time in all situations. Sheldon Adelson's efforts are neither problematic nor anything new and certainly not reflective of an indigenous problem of politics in America that the thread was presumably set up to expose.

As well you should. However maybe you should define the terms more appropriately. By using rent seeking on a grand scale to stifle competition and obtain wealth that would otherwise elude him through an open market, Adelson fits more neatly into the taker class. It is a fallacy to use the size of one's bank account as the sole factor in whether they're a maker or a taker.

I disagree. Most business people prefer control as much of their enterprises as possible. He clearly says he doesn't think internet gaming is a wise move because its hard to know who is doing the gaming...children, people with a gambling problem etc. What I see more than anything in this thread, is people who resent those with sufficient wealth to be effectively engaged in policy making. I have no problem with it AT ALL.

Yet at the same time, they have absolutely no problem with illegal aliens voting. This is an interesting divergence of interests at the very minimum. The functionally illiterate affecting public policy...thats cool, just no rich people..period!

[DKW 86 7,431]

You couldn't be more wrong. Your "understanding" is self-delusional. Self delusional thinking is often a result from being exposed to propaganda.

Lib-er-al \ Lib"er*al\, Adj.:

1. Favoring political and social reforms trending towards democracy and personal freedoms for the individual; advocating reform or progress in education, religion, etc.

So "Your Version of Liberals" advocate for more personal freedoms? Wow. And the rest of us just see a federal govt hellbent on taking away our personal freedoms.

2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; not bigoted.

If the Federal Govt mandates an orthodox or authoritarian view, you would support it 100%.

3. Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

As long as they 100% agree with your views...

I remember back around 1970 when Liberals actually supported free speech open mindedness, and free thinking.

If i were to describe 21st Century DC Liberalism in one word, it would be DOGMATIC.

[homersapien 11,393]

You couldn't be more wrong. Your "understanding" is self-delusional. Self delusional thinking is often a result from being exposed to propaganda.

Lib-er-al \ Lib"er*al\, Adj.:

1. Favoring political and social reforms trending towards democracy and personal freedoms for the individual; advocating reform or progress in education, religion, etc.

So "Your Version of Liberals" advocate for more personal freedoms? Wow. And the rest of us just see a federal govt hellbent on taking away our personal freedoms.

2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; not bigoted.

If the Federal Govt mandates an orthodox or authoritarian view, you would support it 100%.

3. Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

As long as they 100% agree with your views...

I remember back around 1970 when Liberals actually supported free speech open mindedness, and free thinking.

If i were to describe 21st Century DC Liberalism in one word, it would be DOGMATIC.

That's not "my version" of liberals. (Why is it in quotes?) It represents what I believe and aspire to. And I am not all that different from most of my liberal friends.

You are perfectly free not to believe me. It would be hardly surprising. After all, half the people on this forum are so steeped in their Rush Limbaugh paradigms they are prepared to even deny science! I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, which for many on this site, would be a fool's errand anyway. I just enjoy making counterpoints, if not just playing devil's advocate.

However, you sparked my curiosity in your reference to dogma. I imagine it has something in common with the blather common to the aforementioned paradigms, but I'd like to hear specifically from you what you have in mind.

So can you please give me an example of liberal dogma that's something other than a neo-conservative rhetorical talking point? Maybe something that can be supported with references to make the case?

[DKW 86 7,431]

1) Dogma: "Any criticism of Obama/PPACA is simply raced based."

2) Anyone that doesnt agree with you 100% "is lost in a Limbaugh paradigm." really open minded of you there.

homer, when most of us outsiders look at the DC/Hollyweird Limousine Liberal Politicos we see several things:

1) They "say" they support the common man yet behind the curtains they are really talking like Dr Gruber.

2) They lust for power. You take the Carbon Credit Trading Lottery out of the AGW Debate and 50% or more of the passion dies.

3) DCHLLPs say they were against Wall Streeters crimes in 2008-2009 yet did big freakin zero except cash the checks when they took over DC.

DCHLLPs are all talk and no action. And the Party of the Elites win yet another round against us all.

[autigeremt 6,652]

Our country is so divided right now that it will take a real unifier to change it. I don't know if he/she is out there but the nation needs it. And it needs to be a freedom lover not a party lover.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Our country is so divided right now that it will take a real unifier to change it. I don't know if he/she is out there but the nation needs it. And it needs to be a freedom lover not a party lover.

I agree. However, neither party promote a climate where something other than a party lover can reach that point.

[homersapien 11,393]

1) Dogma: "Any criticism of Obama/PPACA is simply raced based."

2) Anyone that doesnt agree with you 100% "is lost in a Limbaugh paradigm." really open minded of you there.

homer, when most of us outsiders look at the DC/Hollyweird Limousine Liberal Politicos we see several things:

1) They "say" they support the common man yet behind the curtains they are really talking like Dr Gruber.

2) They lust for power. You take the Carbon Credit Trading Lottery out of the AGW Debate and 50% or more of the passion dies.

3) DCHLLPs say they were against Wall Streeters crimes in 2008-2009 yet did big freakin zero except cash the checks when they took over DC.

DCHLLPs are all talk and no action. And the Party of the Elites win yet another round against us all.

1) That's absurd. There are many things wrong with Obama care, starting with the fact it incorporates the for-profit insurance industry.

2) That's simply a misrepresentation of what I said. The fact is many on this forum do mimic the same sort of hate-filled drivel that Limbaugh spouts. The rest of your post proves this: DCHLLP's define liberalism? :-\ Do the Halliburton type military contractors define conservatism?

You are simply illustrating my point.

[DKW 86 7,431]

1) Dogma: "Any criticism of Obama/PPACA is simply raced based."

2) Anyone that doesnt agree with you 100% "is lost in a Limbaugh paradigm." really open minded of you there.

homer, when most of us outsiders look at the DC/Hollyweird Limousine Liberal Politicos we see several things:

1) They "say" they support the common man yet behind the curtains they are really talking like Dr Gruber.

2) They lust for power. You take the Carbon Credit Trading Lottery out of the AGW Debate and 50% or more of the passion dies.

3) DCHLLPs say they were against Wall Streeters crimes in 2008-2009 yet did big freakin zero except cash the checks when they took over DC.

DCHLLPs are all talk and no action. And the Party of the Elites win yet another round against us all.

1) That's absurd. There are many things wrong with Obama care, starting with the fact it incorporates the for-profit insurance industry.

2) That's simply a misrepresentation of what I said. The fact is many on this forum do mimic the same sort of hate-filled drivel that Limbaugh spouts. This very point is a good example.

The rest of your post simply proves my point on this. DCHLLP's define liberalism? :-\ Do the Halliburton type military contractors define conservatism?

You are simply illustrating my point.

My point is that the Party of the Elites are on both sides of the Aisle.