2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again (and only anecdotally), that's not my read on the Sanders and Warren advocates that I know face-to-face.

I should make clear that I don't know any face-to-face, and I'm going by anecdotal experience that's both limited, and presumably self-selecting. (OTOH, the comparisons with people I do know well personally, and that are Corbyn fans...)

For all practical purposes, Donald Trump has promised his Angry Joe the Plumber voter base a return to the 1950's Ozzie and Harriet days, when women and minorities were forced to accept 2nd class citizen roles in American society. What good will it do for the progressives to vote for a 3rd losing party, only to increase the likelihood that they will take 2 steps backward for every one step forward, while at the same time shaking their self-righteous ideological middle fingers at the Democrats, blaming them for the progressive 3rd party vote. It seems as counter-productive as shooting yourself in the foot, and then blaming others?

I think it's precisely that strategy. (I say "strategy"... quite wrongly.) It's hard to judge what's just aggravated venting, and what's reinforcing an ideological bubble would "validate" people in doing this, regardless.

If it turns out to be a blowout -- in either direction -- then the Nader scenario angst is of course moot. But I wouldn't want to take that as read...

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's a specious claim, even for you. Corporations don't act upon the will of their constituent workers, nor do they use their money. They act on the decisions made by their boards of directors, usually in accordance with what will net them the greatest profit and satisfy their shareholders (if they have them). The level financial weight that they can bring to bear on a political race is exponentially greater than that of the average person.

What do the workers have to do with it? Did the workers set up the corporation? No. Do the workers own shares in the corporation? No. It's the founders/owners/shareholders that get together to create the corporation. The corporation is supposed to act in their interests, not the interests of the workers.

It's votes that decide races, not money so their level of financial power is fairly irrelevant.

There are mechanisms for funding campaigns utilising public money as you well know. You seem to be in favor of the post Citizens United landscape, where anonymously funded SuperPacs can pour billions of dollars into campaigns, with the public having no idea who is buying the candidates or what their intentions are.

It's grand though, I look forward to meeting whatever candidates the Koch brothers or Soros are pushing every new election cycle. They have certainly shown themselves to be champions of liberty.

I'd rather not fund the political campaigns of people I vehemently disagree with. If people want to run a political campaign then they should get funding from the people that agree with them.

"buying candidates" is a pretty silly term. Donating to a political campaign is just a form of supporting a candidate. It's no different to putting a bumper sticker on a car or knocking on doors for a candidate.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The "non-partisan" FBI that revealed she broke the law, repeatedly and lied about it, repeatedly? Just as the 'non-partisan" AG, who coincidentally happened to meet the suspects husband, prior to the announcement of whether charges would be pursued. Totes legit.

Quite the triumph, that a candidate for the Presidency has avoided being indicted on felony charges. High fives all around!

*yawns*

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

What do the workers have to do with it? Did the workers set up the corporation? No. Do the workers own shares in the corporation? No. It's the founders/owners/shareholders that get together to create the corporation. The corporation is supposed to act in their interests, not the interests of the workers.


It's votes that decide races, not money so their level of financial power is fairly irrelevant.

Corporations are just people acting as a group. Corporations can't exist without the people that make them.

..........

definition of a corporation (from here : http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporation.html)

1.Firm that meets certain legal requirements to be recognized as having a legal existence, as an entity separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations are owned by their stockholders (shareholders) who share in profits and losses generated through the firm's operations, and have three distinct characteristics (1) Legal existence: a firm can (like a person) buy, sell, own, enter into a contract, and sue other persons and firms, and be sued by them. It can do good and be rewarded, and can commit offence and be punished.

(2) Limited liability: a firm and its owners are limited in their liability to the creditors and other obligors only up to the resources of the firm, unless the owners give personal-guaranties. (3) Continuity of existence: a firm can live beyond the life spans and capacity of its owners, because its ownership can be transferred through a sale or gift of shares.
2.Municipal authority of a town or city.
3.

A very large, usually diversified, firm.

Not quite the gathering of grass roots political interests that you seem to be trying to portray it as. There are plenty of avenues for businesses and other activist groups to garner attention for their issues. Washington is awash in lobbyists, who serve an important function by allowing those groups to push their goals. That is a normal and important aspect of any democratic process.

Allowing said businesses the ability to anonymously leverage unlimited amounts of money into the coffers of politicians annihilates any pretence of equality among the electorate.

"buying candidates" is a pretty silly term. Donating to a political campaign is just a form of supporting a candidate. It's no different to putting a bumper sticker on a car or knocking on doors for a candidate.

Spot on, a soccer mom's Clinton sticker is just like the tens of millions of dollars that Soros and similar benefactors dump into her campaign.

Hard to tell at this point whether you're trolling or if you genuinely believe that this practice is desirable.

I'd rather not fund the political campaigns of people I vehemently disagree with. If people want to run a political campaign then they should get funding from the people that agree with them.

Those campaigns can receive public funds, so you've likely already contributed through tax, whether you like it or not.

They should have a central system for public donation, indexed off of tax id and fully transparent, allowing "actual" people to donate to candidates or parties. No Super Pacs or Unions allowed. Let those entities pursue their agendas through their lobbyists. Would it clean up the whole system, no. It would be a start though.

*yawns*

The creative process is tiring certainly, probably a good thing that you've given up on it.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

definition of a corporation

So in other words, it's a group of people?

Allowing said businesses the ability to anonymously leverage unlimited amounts of money into the coffers of politicians annihilates any pretence of equality among the electorate.

No it doesn't. Everyone gets one vote.

Spot on, a soccer mom's Clinton sticker is just like the tens of millions of dollars that Soros and similar benefactors dump into her campaign.

Hard to tell at this point whether you're trolling or if you genuinely believe that this practice is desirable.

Yes I do find it desirable that people are allowed to donate to candidates they support. Do you have a reason, consisting of more than a Bernie Sanders soundbite, why they shouldn't be allowed to fund a political campaign?

Those campaigns can receive public funds, so you've likely already contributed through tax, whether you like it or not.

They should have a central system for public donation, indexed off of tax id and fully transparent, allowing "actual" people to donate to candidates or parties. No Super Pacs or Unions allowed. Let those entities pursue their agendas through their lobbyists. Would it clean up the whole system, no. It would be a start though.

Do you actually have a valid reason to curb people's first amendment rights other than an irrational fear of private funding of political campaigns?

The creative process is tiring certainly, probably a good thing that you've given up on it.

I just find your obsession with that issues both tiring and pathetic. I'd rather not devote anymore time to it.

alaimacerc

Suryavarman wrote: »

So in other words, it's a group of people?

Those are definitely other words, all right. And as we keep pointing out, ones with an entirely different -- and wildly incorrect -- meaning.

eire4

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm thinking this is maybe missing part of the key subordinate clause here, regarding exactly what the "claim" might be. Let me guess, it's the part where the "claim" is asserted to be one I wasn't actually making?



That'll be fine and dandy once people are voting remotely in line with these assertions. Not while it's in a 2.1 party system -- and isn't even the 0.1.

If one really believes there's no difference between President Trump and... well, pretty much any Null Hypothesis "anyone but Trump" scenario, actually, and one believes there's a strong benefit to voting Green -- or any vague approximation to this situation, indeed -- then doing so makes perfect sense. If one is in the group of "I wanted to vote Sanders, but now he's not getting the nomination, I'm going to sulk, claim who's president this cycle doesn't actually matter, and punishment-vote third party to make myself feel better"... then not so much.

I agree sadly the vast majority of Americans who will actually bother to vote will still vote for one of the 2 corrupt parties that have turned the US into what is now arguably an oligarchy. However both the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are actually getting some kind of numbers in recent polls when the corrupted MSM even bother to include them in polls which usually they do not. Plus the reality is that actual voter turnout in American elections is still pathetic a further indication that a large chunk of the American people have given up on a system that is clearly corrupted and rigged against them.

alaimacerc

eire4 wrote: »

I agree sadly the vast majority of Americans who will actually bother to vote will still vote for one of the 2 corrupt parties that have turned the US into what is now arguably an oligarchy. However both the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are actually getting some kind of numbers in recent polls when the corrupted MSM even bother to include them in polls which usually they do not. Plus the reality is that actual voter turnout in American elections is still pathetic a further indication that a large chunk of the American people have given up on a system that is clearly corrupted and rigged against them.

Best take-away I can manage from the above is that hopefully, more people on the Right buy into this "corrupt, corrupt, corrupt (repeat 'til fade)", etc, etc lark, and end up splitting that vote to the LP/CP/etc, than the Left do GP.

i.e. 2000 GE : tragic; 1992 GE : hilarious.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

So in other words, it's a group of people?



No it doesn't. Everyone gets one vote.



Yes I do find it desirable that people are allowed to donate to candidates they support. Do you have a reason, consisting of more than a Bernie Sanders soundbite, why they shouldn't be allowed to fund a political campaign?



Do you actually have a valid reason to curb people's first amendment rights other than an irrational fear of private funding of political campaigns?

I have no problem with people exercising their first amendment rights. I have a problem with corporations being allowed to do so, especially in an anonymous fashion.

Why should an entity that is not entitled to vote, be allowed to influence the electoral process? If the individual members of a group wish to donate, they should be able to do so, in a open and transparent fashion, using their personal funds.

I just find your obsession with that issues both tiring and pathetic. I'd rather not devote anymore time to it.

Nothing to do with your views being utter tripe and disingenuous nonsense.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have no problem with people exercising their first amendment rights. I have a problem with corporations being allowed to do so, especially in an anonymous fashion.

Why should an entity that is not entitled to vote, be allowed to influence the electoral process? If the individual members of a group wish to donate, they should be able to do so, in a open and transparent fashion, using their personal funds.

Corporations pay tax. I believe "no taxation without representation" was the mantra used by American revolutionaries. If corporations are expected to pay tax then they should be allowed to donate to candidates like anyone else is. Likewise shareholders are expected to pay tax due on their earning related to the corporation so they should be allowed to air their political views through the corporation.

Nothing to do with your views being utter tripe and disingenuous nonsense.

Nope. I just find you quite irrational on the matter and have no interest in engaging with you on the matter. You should try out the politics section on Reddit, you'll find many people willing to massage your justice boner on this particular topic there.

Black Swan

Currently Trump University founder Donald Trump is a defendant for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" in US District Court, State of California, and for alleged "fraud" in the State of New York. A 3rd case against Trump had been considered for alleged "fraud" in the State of Florida. AP reviewed thousands of pages of student complaints about Trump University filed with Florida State Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office, and you would think that Florida's AG would at least investigate Donald Trump or bring him to trial to adjudicate his guilt or innocence?

AP reported that on 7 September 2013 the Trump family foundation gave $25,000 to And Just for All, a political group supporting Florida State Attorney General Pam Bondi’s re-election just 4 days after Bondi decided not to investigate or bring Donald Trump and Trump University to trial in the State of Florida. Pam Bondi also endorsed Donald Trump during the March 2016 Florida Republican primary.

It had been reported by the Tampa Bay Times 8 June 2016 that 3 ethics complaints had been filed against Bondi "accusing her of unethical conduct for soliciting campaign donations from Donald Trump while her office was reviewing consumer complaints against Trump University." Now on Wednesday 6 July 2016 complaints have been filed with the State of Florida Inspector General Steve Rumph and Florida Commission on Ethics chair Stanley Weston to investigate Pam Bondi's decision not to prosecute Donald Trump for alleged "fraud," and the very timely Trump family donation to re-elect Bondi.

Does anyone see the craic when Donald Trump claims that America needs a president that is free of Washington corruption, when Donald Trump is NOW being tried in 2 states for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" (California), and alleged "fraud" (New York), and had been accused of "fraud" in the 3rd State of Florida, but coincidentally was not charged after a timely donation from him?

alaimacerc

Suryavarman wrote: »

Corporations pay tax. I believe "no taxation without representation" was the mantra used by American revolutionaries.

Votes for corporate persons! Congrats, you've just rationalised the reintroduction of the rotten borough. (Not that US congressional districting isn't pretty "rotten" already, but gerrymandering is one thing, this sounds like another entirely.)

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

Corporations pay tax. I believe "no taxation without representation" was the mantra used by American revolutionaries. If corporations are expected to pay tax then they should be allowed to donate to candidates like anyone else is. Likewise shareholders are expected to pay tax due on their earning related to the corporation so they should be allowed to air their political views through the corporation.

Corporations have no ability to vote, so that catchphrase doesn't fit. We should just forego the candidates altogether, have the corporations compete to hold office. Whichever one spends the most, gets in. A reasonable expression of their 1st Amendment rights.

Nope. I just find you quite irrational on the matter and have no interest in engaging with you on the matter. You should try out the politics section on Reddit, you'll find many people willing to massage your justice boner on this particular topic there.

I'm pretty deranged alright, expecting people who break the law to be held accountable for their actions.

InTheTrees

The days of corporate financing of elections are numbered.

The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that opened the door for shady unlimted money SuperPACS will be challenged.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/super-pacs-end-speechnow_us_577eb62be4b0344d514e83ab

InTheTrees

Suryavarman wrote: »

Do you actually have a valid reason to curb people's first amendment rights other than an irrational fear of private funding of political campaigns?

Its really time to be clear on what we're talking about.

PAC stands for Political Action Committee. They are bound by fairly strict rules.

When the Supreme Court decided in favour of Citizens United it opened the door to secret organizations that could use unlimited amounts of money, they were called "SuperPACS" and are the big problem in campaign finance right now.

The Supreme Court decision was made by the Conservative majority on the court. Since last janurary that majority is now gone and the decision could be over ruled very easily and the whole nightmare of SuperPACS will be gone. It doesnt take any work on behalf of the legislature just a decision by the court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

alaimacerc

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Supreme Court decision was made by the Conservative majority on the court. Since last janurary that majority is now gone and the decision could be over ruled very easily and the whole nightmare of SuperPACS will be gone. It doesnt take any work on behalf of the legislature just a decision by the court.

If you use that case as the "conservative litmus test", then it's gone from a 5-4 court to a 4-4 one. So the majority is indeed gone, but there's no majority to repeal it, either.

InTheTrees

alaimacerc wrote: »

If you use that case as the "conservative litmus test", then it's gone from a 5-4 court to a 4-4 one. So the majority is indeed gone, but there's no majority to repeal it, either.

Which is why its important to support Hillary Clinton because she will appoint judges that will make sure it is reversed.

Donald Trump has already stated he will appoint judges from the "Heritage Foundation's" approved list of super conservatives.

Manach

On the Citizen United case: From my understanding of general jurisprudance and short books like American Legal History by White, that the US consitution originalist readings of the constitution place a high emphasis on Freedom of expression. So placing an burden on how various interests choose to express their leanings would naturally enough face an uphill battle battle if it were read in that fashion. With the passing of Scalia whose excellent defence of that mode of original interpretation, could pick apart that broad range of freedom.

Inquitus

Manach wrote: »

On the Citizen United case: From my understanding of general jurisprudance and short books like American Legal History by White, that the US consitution originalist readings of the constitution place a high emphasis on Freedom of expression. So placing an burden on how various interests choose to express their leanings would naturally enough face an uphill battle battle if it were read in that fashion. With the passing of Scalia whose excellent defence of that mode of original interpretation, could pick apart that broad range of freedom.

Is there not also a second school of thought that notes the world has moved on since the constitution was written and it is best to interpret with with a modern mindset as opposed to Scalia's mode of original interpretation?

Manach

Inquitus wrote: »

Is there not also a second school of thought that notes the world has moved on since the constitution was written and it is best to interpret with with a modern mindset as opposed to Scalia's mode of original interpretation?

Yes - that would be the living constitution interpretation. It has been at the forefront of discovering a variety of implied rights present with an original text. Offhand, the right to privacy (not in US context) would be one such. There has always been an academic tussle between the two methods that is also reflected in political leanings. Offhand in the book, How Judges Think, the author states the living is more liberal while originalist more conservative.

K-9

@Suryavarman and AbusesToilets, cut out the personal digs at each other please. Attack the post and not the poster is a basic sitewide rule.

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

Does anyone see the craic when Donald Trump claims that America needs a president that is free of Washington corruption, when Donald Trump is NOW being tried in 2 states for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" (California), and alleged "fraud" (New York), and had been accused of "fraud" in the 3rd State of Florida, but coincidentally was not charged after a timely donation from him?

The thing is, and I think most of us are aware of this, Trump fans don't care. They don't care that he is up for multiple cars for fraud, they don't care that he may well be soon up on charges of repeatedly RAPING a 13 year old child and threatening her life if she ever told. They don't care that he is the undoubted biggest liar from either parties primaries (some on here even tried to claim it was a good thing that he lies...). They don't care that he is the most corporate and corrupt candidate of them all, even though that is typically what they claim to hate the most.

Because that's not the messaging that they are interested in. It is some of Trumps... other... messaging that appeals to them. The type of messaging that includes calling Mexicans a bunch of criminals and rapists, implying he has never met a good Mexican once in his life, calling for all Muslims to be denied entry, torturing countless innocent Muslims, and throwing every racist comment he possibly can out there, including using a star of David as a sign of money and corruption in recent days.

Not all, but for a large chunk that is pretty mcu the be all and end all of what they are interested in, having their "poor repressed" feelings on women and minorities feel legitimised.

InTheTrees

Manach wrote: »

On the Citizen United case: From my understanding of general jurisprudance and short books like American Legal History by White, that the US consitution originalist readings of the constitution place a high emphasis on Freedom of expression. So placing an burden on how various interests choose to express their leanings would naturally enough face an uphill battle battle if it were read in that fashion. With the passing of Scalia whose excellent defence of that mode of original interpretation, could pick apart that broad range of freedom.

The original decision meant superPACS didnt have the same limits on donations as regular PACs and resulted in the current situation. Justice kennedy originally said it would not result in corruption or the appearance of corruption. Plainly it has. That will have a bearing.

Simply making SuperPAC's conform to the same rules as PAC's would cure the problem and really wouldnt infringe on anybody's freedom of speech.

Christy42

Is there anything to be said for people getting equal funding from a public source (if they get on the ballot paper).

I mean why should it matter how rich you or your friends are? Not that I see this suggestion ever being implemented.

Black Swan

Is Donald Trump considering retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his VP running mate? If so, this appears to be his attempt to compensate for his ZERO background preparation to be CIC, as well as perhaps claiming that he will not make the same mistakes regarding classified emails that Hillary Clinton did? Plus having a general will be consistent with his get tough image he continues to project.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

Is Donald Trump considering retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his VP running mate? If so, this appears to be his attempt to compensate for his ZERO background preparation to be CIC, as well as perhaps claiming that he will not make the same mistakes regarding classified emails that Hillary Clinton did? Plus having a general will be consistent with his get tough image he continues to project.

Mattis was the name being floated last I heard, no? Would certainly be a more popular figure.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Mattis was the name being floated last I heard, no? Would certainly be a more popular figure.

Retired Marine General Jim Mattis appeared to have declined to run for president twice per 29 April 2016 Military Times, so would the former head of US Central Command now accept the 2nd spot behind Donald Trump, a person he must know has ZERO experience in governance having never held elected office? If I recall, the US Marines believe in over-preparation, not ZERO preparation before going into combat.

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

Retired Marine General Jim Mattis appeared to have declined to run for president twice per 29 April 2016 Military Times, so would the former head of US Central Command now accept the 2nd spot behind Donald Trump, a person he must know has ZERO experience in governance having never held elected office? If I recall, the US Marines believe in over-preparation, not ZERO preparation before going into combat.

Remember Ross Perots VP pick? A retired admiral and political novice who made some amusing blunders and became a bit of a joke.

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

Remember Ross Perots VP pick? A retired admiral and political novice who made some amusing blunders and became a bit of a joke.

Admiral James Stockdale was picked by Ross Perot as his 1992 running mate. He completely spaced-out during a national telly debate, embarrassing Perot, as well as his fruitless attempt to overcome the 2-party domination in American politics. All that Perot accomplished back then was to give the presidency to Bill Clinton, and keep Daddy Bush a one-term president. Perot was a pampered and privileged billionaire without governance experience, as is Donald Trump today. Interesting comparison.

PopePalpatine

I wonder what might have been had Perot entered the '88/'92 GOP nomination races.

Black Swan

All 29 month of June national polls, except for Rasmussen Reports (which predicted a Romney win 2012), showed Clinton leading Trump from 2% to 12%. The July Clinton vs Trump national polling organisations are beginning to report, with Clinton continuing to lead Trump except for Rasmussen Reports. As more polls report for July, will June repeat itself, or will Trump improve and perhaps lead? What's your guess for July?

Poll | Taken | Clinton | Trump
Economist | 2-4 July | 47 | 42
Reuters | 2-6 July | 44 | 33
Rasmussen | 5 July | 40 | 42

Late month of July and August polling can be tricky to guess from today's post. Generally and historically speaking, the nominee following a party national convention gets a boost in the national polls. But the GOP and DNC conventions are both held in July and only days apart: 18-21 July the Republicans will hold their convention in Cleveland Ohio, and the Democrats hold theirs 25-28 July in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. Who knows?

Disclaimer: See many cautions regarding polling on this thread.