DNC 'pay to play'. You can find out how much an ambassadorship costs. Apparently the UK is the most expensive. This is the lame response from the DNC:

Quote:The DNC responded to the latest hack claim Tuesday through its Interim Chair Donna Brazile, who stated that the “DNC is the victim of a crime,” which she blamed on “Russian state-sponsored agents,” while also cautioning that the hacked documents were still being authenticated by the DNC legal team, as “it is common for Russian hackers to forge documents.”

Kyle of Secular Talk has a nice video on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJnFfD4-Nk

*shrug* Paying one's way into positions of power or authority has a long and storied tradition, and is not unique to the US. Rome required a certain level of income to become a Senator or a provincial governor (which amounts to the same thing in practical terms), and most of Europe has always put a direct price on military commissions. This is why you never see paupers commanding battalions.

Boru

Well the difference between now/here and then/rome.. It now/here a crime to 'pay to play.'

You had best read this, Rep, because you clearly do not have the first clue about the economics of the situation.  Who would pay $1 million to make a max of $180,000?  There is much more to it than that.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ambassador

Quote: The Economics of Being a U.S. Ambassador

Plum foreign postings come at a price for wealthy donors

"Good countries" ( Britain, France, Italy, Germany, etc.) receive ambassadorial postings by political benefactors of the administration for the typical reasons that rich fucks do anything.

Flea-ridden shitholes get career state department employees as ambassadors because rich fucks don't want to go to them.

As the old saying goes, correlation does not equal causation. Who would give that much money to a politician? Someone who is deeply involved in politics. Who gets nominated for positions? People who are deeply involved in the politics of an issue. Have we found a confounding variable? All this is evidence for is that these people are heavily involved in politics.

(September 18, 2016 at 12:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: As the old saying goes, correlation does not equal causation. Who would give that much money to a politician? Someone who is deeply involved in politics. Who gets nominated for positions? People who are deeply involved in the politics of an issue. Have we found a confounding variable? All this is evidence for is that these people are heavily involved in politics.

That's one way to spin it. Of course, in translation "deeply involved in the politics of an issue" means "willing to invest in political parties that are certain to return the favor when and where my private interests are concerned."

Anyone else find the DNC's attempts to make the Trump campaign into some sort of Soviet front -- yes, seriously, fear the Russians! -- a bit weird, and utterly annoying?

Really?  Seems to me that Drumpf is ready to blow Putin at the first opportunity.

First of all, it wasn't just positions as ambassadors that were handed out. And you would know that had you read the articles or watched the video. The corruption was far broader than that. Secondly, are you excusing not giving out positions in government based on merit alone? The most qualified person for the job should get the job and instead giving it to the highest bidder, yes?

So the spin is, not being happy with corruption (and money in politics in general) means I don't know anything about economics?

(September 18, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Really?  Seems to me that Drumpf is ready to blow Putin at the first opportunity.

Thank Hillary and Jesus that the McCarthyite Democrats are on it.