It's also pretty bold to imply that it's impossible for a candidate to fulfill some of their bread-and-circuses quota while also serving the interests of the people and organizations that own them.
Well... yeah, that would be pretty bold. Pretty sure the implication was that they're actually fulfilling most of what they're promising to (i.e. they've got a set of principles and they're sticking to them more than not), and not much beyond that. Not that anything at all is impossible. There's plenty of folks out there that are mostly principled and still somewhat corrupt, in any case. Don't exactly like that m'self, but it's bloody hard to find someone that
isn't the latter to some degree.
S'also worth noting you weren't exactly clear you
were talking about the ethics of campaign finance and split loyalties, though. Didn't look like NFO was really focusing on that, either. Point looked to me like the important bit was the principles or lack thereof, and that was certainly something the linked article gave a good showing of addressing.
In other words, the research suggests that roughly a third of campaign promises made by presidential candidates are boldfaced lies and pandering.
... or, as the article said, unable to fulfilled for one reason or another. Of which the reasons are many and oft don't actually boil down to corruption. Honestly, most of what I've seen over the years really did kinda' boil down to "reality intervened" (i.e. they got the logistics wrong, the political situation changed, etc., etc.) more than lying or pandering.
I get the general viewpoint y'all have on this, in no small part because the area I'm in actually
is corrupt as fuck, but you may be taking it further than appropriate.
So yeah. Candidates don't lie on the campaign trail and they can't benefit the people that fund them if they make even a trivial effort to serve the public.
2/3rds partial or full success rate is... not trivial, man. It's not perfect, but the point that was trying to be made is that it's more substantial than not. And in the face of the whole, y'know. Reality thing. That's pretty damn good. It's honestly somewhat
more impressive if they
are indulging in corruption at the same time, because it means they're managing that much while still porking the proverbial barrel. Does mean they'd be doing more if they weren't, but hell. It's something.
You bitch that they are unprincipled and dont care about what they say and then when I point out that is not true you bitch about changing the topic.
But c'mon, m, FD was bitching that they were insufficiently and/or inappropriately principled and didn't care about specific portions of what they say, not that they were lacking principles or concern entirely.