Is this shady or not?

[SP1!]

I have a hard time finding out if Dodd is doing something, if anything wrong here other than being a rich douchebag pretending to be a man of the people.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/02/24/how_politics_works_senator_christopher_dodd_and_hi s_cosy_irish_cottage?fark

First he gets a scuzbag pardoned and hes only be valuing a 10 acre estate on the Irish coast at $250K? Isnt that wrong on many levels for tax purposes?

I am actually confused as to what the big deal is if anything.

[scottinnj]

Dodd is really really unpopular in Connecticut right now, and this won't help.
In fact, from what I've heard, he's 2 points behind the "Republican to be named later" candidate he'll be running against in 2010.
The Democratic Party should be looking at a new nominee if they want to keep his seat in the blue. I'm fine with that personally, as it would be just bringing in new blood to the Senate and another part of the problem gone.
Both parties should be thinking about making changes like that. Too many of the people in office have been there so long they have just plain forgotten the real reasons they went to D.C. in the first place. Time to be bringing in some new thinkers and get some new ideas.

[epo]

Dodd is really really unpopular in Connecticut right now, and this won't help.
In fact, from what I've heard, he's 2 points behind the "Republican to be named later" candidate he'll be running against in 2010.
The Democratic Party should be looking at a new nominee if they want to keep his seat in the blue. I'm fine with that personally, as it would be just bringing in new blood to the Senate and another part of the problem gone.
Both parties should be thinking about making changes like that. Too many of the people in office have been there so long they have just plain forgotten the real reasons they went to D.C. in the first place. Time to be bringing in some new thinkers and get some new ideas.

Actually Connecticut needs TWO new senators in the blue column.

[scottinnj]

Actually Connecticut needs TWO new senators in the blue column.

Time to bump a certain thread back up epo?

[tanless1]

only that they hammerd and hammerd about " culture of corruption" and they were neck deep in the pool.

[epo]

Time to bump a certain thread back up epo?

I wish. If only he'd do something stupid so I could kick him!

[SP1!]

only that they hammerd and hammerd about " culture of corruption" and they were neck deep in the pool.

Thats what I was thinking mainly.

I wish people would wake up and see both parties are scummy as hell, Im sick of them both and really wish we had an actual choice in the US but the alternatives are either idiotic or too radical to take seriously.

I fully believe we will have to crash and burn before people see the bullshit this two party system has created.

[TheMojoPin]

I fully believe we will have to crash and burn before people see the bullshit this two party system has created.

It's always been a two-party system. Unless you're talking about a complete overhaul, fine, but continually bemoaning it like we need to get back to something we never had seems redundant.

It's also tiresome to see anyone dismiss politics as being too dirty. Politics are inherrently dirty. No amount of "starting over" or "cleaning house" is going to ever leave democratic politics "clean." That's not to say steps shouldn't always be taken to keep things from spiraling out of control, but talking about politics being "scummy" isn't some kind of bold statement or out of the box thinking, nor is it a reason to give up on the system.

[A.J.]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: he's going to get reelected.

[El Mudo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: he's going to get reelected.



Why.....I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!

[SP1!]

It's always been a two-party system. Unless you're talking about a complete overhaul, fine, but continually bemoaning it like we need to get back to something we never had seems redundant.

It's also tiresome to see anyone dismiss politics as being too dirty. Politics are inherrently dirty. No amount of "starting over" or "cleaning house" is going to ever leave democratic politics "clean." That's not to say steps shouldn't always be taken to keep things from spiraling out of control, but talking about politics being "scummy" isn't some kind of bold statement or out of the box thinking, nor is it a reason to give up on the system.
There were other political parties in the past whig, national union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States)? The difference is, these parties are inherently intertwined and neither one of them really want any change because it would kill their power base.

As for getting it back the way it was, yes I do, I want personal responsibility to be involved in their decisions, instead of them just bowing down to corporate demands, I want term limits and a ban on all the lobbying groups that permeate washington and further corrupt the stench of government.

Why.....I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!
Go ahead throw your vote away!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheMojoPin]

There were other political parties in the past whig, national union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States)? The difference is, these parties are inherently intertwined and neither one of them really want any change because it would kill their power base.

Man, this is the second time in the last couple days I've had to explain this.

I never said we've never had other parties besides the Republicans and Democrats...what I'm saying is we've never had a time where there were more than 2 clearly dominant parties to choose from. WHO those parties are has changed multiple times over our history, but our current choice between two clearly dominant parties is nothing new and just business as it's always been.

[topless_mike]

Man, this is the second time in the last couple days I've had to explain this.

I never said we've never had other parties besides the Republicans and Democrats...what I'm saying is we've never had a time where there were more than 2 clearly dominant parties to choose from. WHO those parties are has changed multiple times over our history, but our current choice between two clearly dominant parties is nothing new and just business as it's always been.

correct.
of course thers is the "independant" party, as well as the "green" and "libertarian", but they, although well known, are equilivant to your high school baseball team playing the yankees and then heading to shea.

[topless_mike]

It's always been a two-party system. Unless you're talking about a complete overhaul, fine, but continually bemoaning it like we need to get back to something we never had seems redundant.


technically, its a multi-party system, with 2 dominating parties.

correct me if im wrong, though.

[SP1!]

Man, this is the second time in the last couple days I've had to explain this.

I never said we've never had other parties besides the Republicans and Democrats...what I'm saying is we've never had a time where there were more than 2 clearly dominant parties to choose from. WHO those parties are has changed multiple times over our history, but our current choice between two clearly dominant parties is nothing new and just business as it's always been.

In essence you are right about that most of the time but there was a time when numerous parties were available on a local level, now the two parties dominate on a nationwide level with very few options. And any candidate in a party usually votes the way the national party tells them to instead of how they would locally with few exceptions, the one time I have ever seen a candidate lose was when max cleland lost because he was thought locally to suck the dems dick on topics those in the south that they didnt agree with locally.

[TheMojoPin]

technically, its a multi-party system, with 2 dominating parties.

Right.

[TheMojoPin]

In essence you are right about that most of the time but there was a time when numerous parties were available on a local level, now the two parties dominate on a nationwide level with very few options. And any candidate in a party usually votes the way the national party tells them to instead of how they would locally with few exceptions, the one time I have ever seen a candidate lose was when max cleland lost because he was thought locally to suck the dems dick on topics those in the south that they didnt agree with locally.

Eh, you'd have to dig back pretty past pre-"modern America" to find a wide slection of multiple parties on the local levels. Once the country began to become significantly urbanized after the Civil War, you really stopped seeing anything besides 2 main parties dominating all the political levels. You had an exception like the Populists or the Libertarians, but they're close enough to established parties then and now that they're primary issues were just co-opted. It's basically a catch-22...if a "3rd party" is too different from the major parties, people tend to stay away. If they're similar enough to one of the major parties they'll maybe get a decent movement but then lost all steam when their major issues are adopted by the party their similar to.

[Ogre]

Man, this is the second time in the last couple days I've had to explain this.

I never said we've never had other parties besides the Republicans and Democrats...what I'm saying is we've never had a time where there were more than 2 clearly dominant parties to choose from. WHO those parties are has changed multiple times over our history, but our current choice between two clearly dominant parties is nothing new and just business as it's always been.

Kinda like splainin it to a bunch of Special Olympians...oh wait. I am up next in the 50m dash:nono:

[Freakshow]

I don't a see a picture of LeSean, so i'm going to say not Shady...

http://okledokle.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/mccoy.jpg

[SP1!]

Eh, you'd have to dig back pretty past pre-"modern America" to find a wide slection of multiple parties on the local levels. Once the country began to become significantly urbanized after the Civil War, you really stopped seeing anything besides 2 main parties dominating all the political levels. You had an exception like the Populists or the Libertarians, but they're close enough to established parties then and now that they're primary issues were just co-opted. It's basically a catch-22...if a "3rd party" is too different from the major parties, people tend to stay away. If they're similar enough to one of the major parties they'll maybe get a decent movement but then lost all steam when their major issues are adopted by the party their similar to.

I would disagree, in poly science you could see there were plenty of other parties even as late as the 40s on a local level and one of our professors still believes the black lists was just the political machines way to scare all the other political parties into the background for fear they face a trial and public disgrace. In this day and age you rarely see any other political party on a ballot outside of the big 2, its a shame that grass roots political movements are dead and incidents get swept under the rug because they have all the power.

It sickens me and its a big reason why I get bitched at, I refuse to think either party is for the people and I have disdain for those who think otherwise. I have spent the past 18 years waiting for a president for the people, hell I voted for clinton the first time then lost interest later after a few shady moves. There was no way I was going to swallow obamas or the dems bullshit this time and it has proved me right, he was just a figure head so peolosi and the rest could push their agenda.