The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[PureX]

It's unsurprising to me that you can't spell "straight".

It's also unsurprising that you don't know this....

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

www.law.cornell.edu

Except that isn't how it's done. So it's an empty law. It's done through corporate campaign contributions that are being called free speech. And by offering politicians after-office jobs for huge salaries corrupting their replacement. And by giving their family members do-nothing jobs that pay big money. And by taking politicians and their families on expensive all paid vacations. And by paying huge sums for them to give 'talks'.

Politicians rake in millions doing all these things, routinely, and it ain't the working people that's paying them. And the rich corporations and 'think tanks' that are paying them are not doing it without expecting to gain even more for their money in return. And it's all completely legal. Because when you make the laws, you can make them so you can do as you please. Bribery in politics is now not only legal, it's absolutely commonplace. And I am sure you know this. Yet for some reason want to mislead people, anyway. And that's just sad.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you make charges against other posters, but then won't back them up.

When I try with some posters,
I discover that they can't or
won't infer what's intended.

It's ironic that you won't back
up your claims when I ask.
You expect it only of others.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would not legalize it for minor crimes like shop lifting, or the poor by temptation .


However the wealthy and powerful and criminals can be as dangerous as the the people you mention.
I would like to think it could be permitted by a judge in chambers. However I would not trust the American legal system nor the police.
So it is probably. A nonstarter.

You see a different set of civil liberties for the
wealthy & the poor....with less for the wealthy?

I limit legal entrapment to public servants, who
would agree to it as a condition of office.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that isn't how it's done. So it's an empty law.

So you say...without evidence.
But I did prove your claim wrong.
But pay attention....I propose giving teeth to the law.
Let's set traps for malefactors, & put them in prison.

 

[Heyo]

So you say...without evidence.

Without evidence? You say there are no super PACs? You say Thomas wasn't wined and dined and not held responsible. You say Trump or his family didn't benefit from dealings with foreign entities far beyond what would be commercially sound? (And you may throw in Hunter Biden's engagement with Burisma.)

 

[PureX]

So you say...without evidence.
But I did prove your claim wrong.
But pay attention....I propose giving teeth to the law.
Let's set traps for malefactors, & put them in prison.

Ah, there it is, yet again. The rabbit-hole demand for "proof" that you have no intention of ever recognizing or accepting. And that you could have found on your own if you had ever had the slightest interest in looking for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Without evidence? You say there are no super PACs?

Evidence that bribery is legal should be more
than just citing legal kinds of influence.

You say Thomas wasn't wined and dined and not held responsible. You say Trump or his family didn't benefit from dealings with foreign entities far beyond what would be commercially sound? (And you may throw in Hunter Biden's engagement with Burisma.)

I don't say any of the things you claimed.

Why are you ignoring my advocating for
entrapping those who would offer, & those
who would accept bribes. I want them
prosecuted & imprisoned. That should be
common ground.
Instead you bicker over the existence of
PACs is evidence that bribery of public
officials is legal.
Don't try to win against an argument I'm
not making.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, there it is, yet again. The rabbit-hole demand for "proof"....

Heaven forbid that you should
support anything you claim.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You see a different set of civil liberties for the
wealthy & the poor....with less for the wealthy?

I limit legal entrapment to public servants, who
would agree to it as a condition of office.

There are differentials now.
We do not treat the poor man who steals some food the same as some one who embezzled thousands of Pounds.
Many sentences and charges are value related.

It would be most unusual for the police to even attend a shoplifting or burglary, these days unless someone was injured.

Your idea is to treat people differently according to who they work for. That is not equality in law.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are differentials now.

De facto differences.
But you propose de jure differences.
That would be unconstitutional.

Your idea is to treat people differently according to who they work for. That is not equality in law.

Yes, & this inequality under the law already occurs.
There are different levels of legal surveillance for
workers in sensitive jobs, eg, military, NSA, CIA.

 

[Heyo]

Evidence that bribery is legal should be more
than just citing legal kinds of influence.

I don't say any of the things you claimed.

Why are you ignoring my advocating for
entrapping those who would offer, & those
who would accept bribes. I want them
prosecuted & imprisoned. That should be
common ground.

For entrapping those who accept bribes, it has to be illegal to accept bribes.
You deny that bribing, if done without a written and signed tit-for-tat contract, is bribery.

That is the point of debate. There are too many "legal kinds of influence". Why should anyone engage in illegal bribery when there are enough legal ways? (Which are still bribery by common definition, even so they are not by legal definition.)

 

[Revoltingest]

For entrapping those who accept bribes, it has to be illegal to accept bribes.

It is.
I linked to a site about the law.

You deny that bribing, if done without a written and signed tit-for-tat contract, is bribery.

I didn't & don't make that claim.
This is going nowhere without
common ground.

 

[PureX]

Heaven forbid that you should
support anything you claim.

We both know you haven't the least bit of interest in any such support. That anything I offer you will immediately attack by any means you can muster. And that the whole point of asking for it is so you can drive the discussion away from the original point, and put me into a defensive position, where you get to then pretend you are the judge of whatever gets presented as "proof".

This is a very common tactic around here, this wholly dishonest insistence on "proof".

 

[Revoltingest]

We both know you haven't the least bit of interest in any such support.

Posters regularly tell me that.
Why?
It's an excuse to not support claims.

 

[Heyo]

This is going nowhere without
common ground.

Then let's find it.

Do we agree that people with money have ways to get on the good side of politicians that are now legal and shouldn't be?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do we agree that people with money have ways to get on the good side of politicians that are now legal and shouldn't be?

So you want to address your interests
before mine, eh. You entered a discussion
I had with another poster about the
illegality of bribery, using entrapment.
Do you really believe bribery is legal here?

 

[Heyo]

So you want to address your interests
before mine, eh. You entered a discussion
I had with another poster about the
illegality of bribery, using entrapment.

You thought it was about your proposal, @PureX already said that it wasn't about illegal bribery.

Do you really believe bribery is legal here?

Yes. You don't call it so, but the "legal kinds of influence" are a way to keep the politicians indebted to their donors. In most other countries, it would be illegal or at least highly questionable.
I'd also go as far to call the US a plutocracy.

 

[icehorse]

When I try with some posters,
I discover that they can't or
won't infer what's intended.

It's ironic that you won't back
up your claims when I ask.
You expect it only of others.

more bad faith, have a fine day.

 

[PureX]

Posters regularly tell me that.
Why?
It's an excuse to not support claims.

They can see through the cheap attempt at setting up the classic kangaroo court. .

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Nobody gets wealthy by working hard. You get wealthy by other people working hard - and you stealing their labour.
Taxes are just a way to not let you get away with all of your ill-gained money.

So paying people for their labor is stealing. Right.