that's true.

Follow the money

http://www.businessinsider.com/priso...-states-2016-7

and IF you could follow it further, you will find some pol or pols that are benefiting from the direction of that spending, money doesn't move unless one or several of these c#$%suckers benefit from it.

And judges, Prosecutors, Police chiefs and the poster boy Rudy Giulani who by the way seems to have lost his fastball. I wonder how many times this thought goes through someones head. "You mean if we lock someone up we get more money and our stock price goes up?"

This is from a few months ago:


County officials across Mississippi are warning of job losses and deep deficits as local jails are being deprived of the state inmates needed to keep them afloat. The culprit, say local officials, is state government and private prisons, which are looking to boost their own revenue as sentencing and drug-policy reforms are sending fewer bodies into the correctional system.

“If they do not send us our inmates back, we can’t make it,” said one county supervisor.

The state guaranteed that the local jails would never be less than 80 percent occupied, and the locals would get a 3 percent boost in compensation each year.

I find the last paragraph quite telling. Only one way to stick to that guarantee.

As the wave of mass incarceration begins to recede, the Mississippi controversy has local and state officials talking openly about how harmful locking up fewer people up will be for the economy, confirming the suspicions of those who have argued that mass incarceration is not merely a strategy directed at crime prevention. “Under the administrations of Reagan and Clinton, incarceration, a social tool used for punishment, also became a major job creator,”

Frightening.

It is astounding to me that anyone that believes this (and mark me down as an absolute YES as well) would not be thrilled to support a candidate whose sole purpose of leaving a successful and lavish lifestyle is to come to Washington to fix it.

He has single-handedly changed the Republican party platform. Never gave an inch when it comes to positions on trade deals (which both sides are in bed together on), illegal immigration, replacing ACA with something that actually works, etc - EVERY POSITION that the right kicks and screams about, had their chances to vote down, and yet happily went along with because it maintains the status quo and by extension protect the money that owns them. Leading by example, never bending on principles, and displaying the kind of leadership so desperately needed in Washington, HE is bringing THEM to his positions - not the other way around.

What insurance lobby, Big Pharma/AG/Oil lobby, and Banking institutions funded his primary bid? None. He owes no one - which is precisely how you fix Washington - from the outside with zero influence peddling.

:tro:

worth listening to more than once...

We have got to get together and show the money men they need us too. We need to get all this damn money out of politics. Because a lot of us dont have money, and thus cannot buy a say.
How?
What if everyone stayed home from work a few days...a big national strike. Shut the emmer effer down? Would that do anything?
How do we get changes made? Any ideas?

Here is a timeline i found in a google search, when i asked money in politics.

https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/...ey-in-politics

Candidates eschew public funding these days because it limits them so much financially.
And like they showed when pols have to fundraise. Easier to get a bunch of money fast if you just call the top couple donors. Takes a lot more work to call all the little folks. But then those rich ones, well they want aomething in return.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GFVKMTJUos

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/21/8-w...oney-politics/

Ways to help get money out of politics.

Unfortunately those that would implement this are the ones benefitting from it staying the same. Same as hiring the fox to guard the hen house and then asking them to implement changes since your hens are disappearing.

Donald Trump Puts Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall Act Into 2016 Republican Party Platform

Well, you can put this huge and under-reported Trump platform position in the AFFIRMED PREDICTION column.

Anyone thinking Donald Trump is not intensely serious about America-First economics just got a massive dose of reality. Specifically demanded by Donald Trump himself:

“We support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which prohibits commercial banks from engaging in high-risk investment,” said the platform released by the Republican National Committee

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...agall-s-return

Trumps son may have just won him the election. can I vote for him?;)

I'm looking forward to Ivanka's speech this evening as well - All of his kids are exceedingly intelligent, well spoken and confident. Not an accident.

Letting Ted Cruz show his ass when he knew no endorsement was coming was another stroke of genius. Dude just basically committed career self-immolation by displaying what a petulant, self-absorbed, self-serving blowhard he really is.

But for a moment back to reinstating Glass-Stegall - That is the type of stuff that makes the bought and paid for Inside Washington crowd sh1t themselves over.

Doing the right thing without being influenced by the Banking Cartels.

Actually something you'd expect Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to demand from Hillary Clinton whist she laughs in their faces.

The party is not ever going to be unified. There is a tiny fringe element that will never be satisfied. The majority of sensible Republicans recognize the fact that this party needs radical change to stay relevant. And that is fine. Independents and working class Dems are crossing over in droves.

It's called growth, and while the Dems mire themselves in backwards-thinking socialism, there is a movement afoot.

Well we agree on a couple things, Cruz is an a-hole, there is a reason as a sitting senator he could garner no support from other senators. Trump has a fine family, very impressive. His pick for VP was inspired, hard guy to personally dislike. Having said all that, Trump has yet to detail his vision and tonight's speech is one I won't miss. Bottom line, I'm not in love with Democratic policies but they beat the hell out of conservative Republican ones.

Agree with everything you say here especially regarding Cruz.. Having said that I want to be devils advocate here. If you were in Cruz's position having signed a pledge but Donald severely insulted your wife and father. Knowing that knocking him out is not an option what would you do. Me personally would decline to speak. I wouldn't endorse him but would not show up the party like that. Sort of like Kasich did.

I can see some of this - but to be fair, I think that the media has a way of hyper-inflating virtually everything he says or does.

Case in point - I don't necessarily buy the notion that Trump severely insulted his wife. It was a political counterpunch that the media, led in part by Megyn Kelly, refused to allow to die what should have been a relative quick death.

If you recall the entire tawdry exchange was initiated by Ted Cruz when Cruz or, according to his Super PAC (without his knowledge of course, *wink, wink*) decided to place billboards all over Salt Lake City in advance of the Utah primary of an old modeling photo of Melania in a provocative pose:



Trump's response was to retweet a tweet from a supporter which made the case that "Heidi ain't exactly Melania".

That was it. Was it presidential? No. Borderline misogynistic? Perhaps. But really, at the end of the day, wasn't it really much ado about nothing, if we're being honest? He (or a staffer) retweeted a stupid tweet. That's it.

It was the likes of the #NeverTrump pitbulls, - SE Cupp, Amanda Carpenter, Megyn Kelly, Mika Brzezinski, et al. that refused to let this die a natural, quick death and beat the drum ad nauseum.

When it is all boiled down, it may have been construed as any number of things, but an *Attack on Heidi* is not one of them, in my mind's eye.

As for his father - the fact that he was a communist soldier with direct ties to Fidel Castro, for whatever reason, was and still is completely glossed over by the MSM (I can only imagine why :rolleyes:).

Whether that was him in that grainy old photo or not, will never be known. Cruz (regardless if true) will deny it to his grave, as will his father. Rafael Cruz has every right to sue the Enquirer for defamation of character and had purportedly expressed an interest in doing so , yet....crickets... Draw your own conclusion.

In all reality, Trump causally "putting it out there" was pure politics, and something Cruz would have done in a heartbeat should the shoe had been on the other foot.


So, I realize it's a long way to go to say I disagree with the notion that any of the 16 that signed a pledge to support Trump (Especially Kasich) should get a pass. If you cannot be trusted at your word, then why should anyone believe anything you might say in the future?

Cruz may well have caused his career to implode. I have no complaints if that is the case. But, yeah, he should not have spoken. But it is cruz, and he cannot stand to not be seen. Big miscalculation.

Hope so! He and his old man need to be fitted for straight jackets!

not many politicians get 100% support. but I think he has managed to cause almost unanimous dislike among his senate colleagues.

He's also just a bad guy. But I think his old man makes Louie Ghomert look sane!:eek:

Cruz was blocked from Sheldon Adelson's Donor Suite after speech.

Billionaires Sheldon and Miriam Adelson refused to let the senator from Texas enter their donor suite after his controversial address, according to a person familiar with the circumstances. CNN first reported the episode.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattves...trump-n2195523

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. The dumbass chopped off his own head.

Somer - I know better than to preach to you :) but His position papers and platform are available for anyone who is interested at his website. He is more transparent that HRC, who has said/committed to nothing but the same old tired, failed platitudes that have been regurgitated ad nauseum for the past 8 years.

There is little to gain in providing specifics as it locks you into a position that requires fluidity and gives your opponent a foothold to attack. That is precisely why HRC hasn't done, and will never do the same.

Ask yourself...don't answer me...just ask yourself.... to name 3 actual accomplishments of HRC in the past 30 years of *service to our nation*. If you can come up with one - just one - that she initiated and saw through - start to finish - I'd be astonished to hear about it.