money in politics

[sys]

i'm tired of looking for where i've argued this issue in other threads, so i am creating this dedicated thread.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/theres-nothing-better-than-a-scared-rich-candidate/497522/

[renocat]

Sys you are right on point.  I am tired of consultants.  Especially the gum.flappers on talk shows as pundits.  Rove and.his kindergarten white board is the worse.  I like.old.Axlerod.the.best.

[sys]

this thread is for cns casey, renocat sock.

[CNS]

You gotta @ a guy.  I am just now seeing this.  Will read later.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[CNS]

@sys

I haven't had the chance to get through the Atlantic article you posted, but here is one to look over for now.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/13/sugar


This is also discussed in the Fed Up documentary.  The doc specifically discuss how daily sugar intake recommendations were altered from the original govt report(by the govt), prior to publishing, to not only increase the recommended daily amt, but to also redact other warning information regarding their findings of the danger of sugar in the diet, all because a select group of corporations who grow/sell/use a crap load of sugar said to do so. 

In a past thread, that I don't want to spend the time to go find, I noted that I think we are arguing two or more possible things regarding money and politics.  I think it is obvious that money can effect policy. 

[chum1]

I wonder what the point of diminishing returns is here - especially for Clinton.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-clinton-outspending-trump-5-1-air-n651106