White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
politics.slashdot.org
White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
1–10 of 70 posts
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#2And people wonder why I'm cynical about politics. If Dodd was investigated for this it would lead to an investigation of 99% of elected representatives--including, presumably, the ones doing the investigating (I assume a congressional investigation would be required). This is the way politics works in our country, we just like to pretend it has more integrity.
This might happen if we ever get campaign finance reform and term limits, right after hell freezes over.
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#3And people wonder why I'm cynical about politics. If Dodd was investigated for this it would lead to an investigation of 99% of elected representatives--including, presumably, the ones doing the investigating (I assume a congressional investigation would be required). This is the way politics works in our country, we just like to pretend it has more integrity. This might happen if we ever get campaign finance reform…
If Dodd was investigated for this, the MPAA bribery faucet would be turned off.
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#4Hate to say it, but that WH petition site is just bread and circuses.
Has any petition there led to an actionable response from the WH? Curious.
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#5And people wonder why I'm cynical about politics. If Dodd was investigated for this it would lead to an investigation of 99% of elected representatives--including, presumably, the ones doing the investigating (I assume a congressional investigation would be required). This is the way politics works in our country, we just like to pretend it has more integrity. This might happen if we ever get campaign finance reform…
Yeah it'll never happen. Too many people with too much to lose. There will be no investigation.
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#6I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat.
However, it was comments here on HN that made me question just how different it is from, say, me deciding not to contribute to a politician's campaign because I don't like what he has supported. My final feelings are that there's a sliver of difference because (a) I believe that my actions are for the greater good rather than my own self interest, and (b) I'm looking at a larger picture than lobbying over a single issue. But in the end, I've not been able to prove to myself that those differences are sufficiently objective and measurable to be able to sustain the complaint against Dodd.
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#7While I don't much like Chris Dodd, what, exactly has he done wrong?
Yes, he's said that MPAA members are going to be less likely to make campaign contributions to folks who don't vote the way the MPAA . So what?
Do any of you contribute to candidates who do things that you don't like? Or, do you contribute only to those who do things that you do like?
Why should MPAA members be any different?
I note that candidates make promises like "if elected, I'll work to repeal DADT" and organizations do fundraisers for candidates based on said promises.
How is this any different?
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#8While I don't much like Chris Dodd, what, exactly has he done wrong? Yes, he's said that MPAA members are going to be less likely to make campaign contributions to folks who don't vote the way the MPAA . So what? Do any of you contribute to candidates who do things that you don't like? Or, do you contribute only to those who do things that you do like? Why should MPAA members be any different? I note that candidates…
There's nothing illegal about it. That's why it's annoying as hell that people waste time on pointless crusades instead of focusing on real solutions.
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#9Hate to say it, but that WH petition site is just bread and circuses. Has any petition there led to an actionable response from the WH? Curious.
Depends on how you're defining "actionable."
I signed a petition against the White House's plan to put airport usage fees in place for general aviation, effectively charging pilots to talk to air traffic control. This is a Really Bad Idea (I'm happy to delineiate why in future comments if there is interest but for now I'll play the "I'm a pilot, trust me" card).
The response was just a politely verbose version of "f*ck you, we're going to do it anyway."
So I joined the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association PAC and started contributing money that I'm sure will be used to bribe the right people. Sad that it came to that, but the White House has decided that they have a good idea, logic be damned, so they're bulling ahead.
Re: White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
#10Well with my parliamentary wonk hat on they did not write their prop (the petition) within the rules that apply.
It could have been written to ask "why the appropriate law enforcement body is not taking action after MR X admitted committing bribery" which satisfies the "to address a problem" criteria
Though the we the people site is doing a useless job of having the rules front and centre and explaining then in plain english for non insiders.