Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yes. Sanders wants all elections to be publicly-funded and Citizens United overturned.
Clinton thinks that campaign financing is fine how it is now, and accepts millions of dollars in her various Super PA Cs from dozens of different special interests groups, including Wall Street, pharmaceutical companies, the fossil fuel industry, and fracking.
She even pays herself a salary through those Super PAC donations.
edited 10th Mar '16 10:33:03 AM by SolipsistOwl
People asking who would fund a candidate except Wall Street... except that Bernie Sanders is doing fairly well and I'm pretty sure Wall Street isn't funding him given his rhetoric against them. Hell, Trump's pretty much funded by his own damn ego and he's the Republican frontrunner.
You can usually tell what a candidate is going to be in favor of by who's donating to their campaign.
Wizard Needs Food Badly![]()
Nice of you not to mention that Clinton also calls for Citizens United to be overturned and supports publicly funded elections
(although haven't heard her talk about that lately).
Regarding the speaking fees, it's too bad that Clinton won't say it outright but frankly, like Bill, she commands huge speaking fees because she's a celebrity (First Lady turned Senator and Secretary of State). Sanders doesn't command those kind of fees and probably hasn't done that kind of public speaking much since up until recently he was a comparative nobody.
edited 10th Mar '16 10:38:57 AM by Hodor2
Pretty much.
Especially what baffles me when people defend the speeches with "Oh, she just uses the speeches to lie and pander to Wall Street." I don't care what's in the speeches anymore, but what in the love of fuck makes them think she's lying to her donors and not to them?
It's like when Trump voters defend his countless fraud cases. "Oh, he screwed them over, but he won't do the same to me, tee hee."
@ Owl: Sorry to break in, but what is your view on Larry Sanders
, Bernie's older brother?
X4 If Sanders picks up the nominee you can bet that Wall Street will throw money his way, they know it won't work but it's worth trying, worst come to worst they could end up discrediting Sanders by making him appear to be bought and paid for even if he's not.
edited 10th Mar '16 10:39:31 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Hodor 2: Clinton may say she supports publicly-funded elections, but she continue to receive the majority of their campaign contributions from special interests through Super PA Cs. Therefore, I don't believe she actually supports it.
@Greenmantle: I don't know enough about Larry Sanders to have a full opinion of him. I do know he's a bit more left-wing than his brother and he leans more Green Party than Labour or socialist.
edited 10th Mar '16 10:41:39 AM by SolipsistOwl
Hell, if we are talking about the "shoulds" i don't even think that there "should" be much of a political campaign at all. It is stupid. Inform people on what the candidates believe in and why through more efficient means than going in person and sieg heiling them up with cries about feminism, socialism, racism or China. Or in Jeb's case, begging them to.
But the "shoulds" are stupid and unrealistic.
As is the assumption that "Goldman sachs only donates to Clinton because she is in their pocket" as it just RUNS on the assumption that "Goldman sachs wants ALL TEH MONEYZ!!1!" whereas Goldman Sachs or any other foundation driver for Clinton (For example, Women's Self Worth Foundation, Operating Engineers Union, Carpenters and Joiners Union, or the American Federation of Teachers) benefits in absolutely no way from fucking up their competitors beyond repair.
What. You didn't know Women's Self Worth Foundations and Unions supported Hillary?
Well, perhaps Clinton should not take the money but what other offering does Moloch the great demon of greed take to keep that scent of brimstone coming from her if not burning sacrifices of briefcases full of 100$ bills?
Clinton is a celebrity, a former First Lady, former State Secretary, and a goddamn Juris Doctorate from Yale.
Sanders has a bachelor of arts in political science.
edited 10th Mar '16 10:56:18 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes@Hodor: I'd stilla argue it's unacceptable for politicians to be doing that; even if being paid by a group doesn't influence a politicians decision making process (and psychological studies seem to indicate it absolutely does), it's a very clear conflict of interest that wouldn't fly in pretty much any other field
All of those examples would be considered severe conflicts of interest in pretty much any field other than politics, and while I don't blame Clinton for not taking the moral high ground and refusing big money contributions, her campaign hasn't really emphasized campaign finance reform, and I can't say I'm surprised.
edited 10th Mar '16 10:57:13 AM by CaptainCapsase
So, Trump has decided to ramp up his hate-mongering campaign; by saying outright that "Islam Hates Us".
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/index.html
He might as well be ordering his supporters to start shooting up mosques.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Not at all.
Why do you think pharmaceutics fund medical researches, for instance? Do you think psychological research and other kind of stuff is funded only through the government?
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
More or less; there should be little to no private money involved in elections period; it creates way too many problems.
The American pharmeceutical industry is hardly a shining beacon of moral business practice, and even then, the rules regarding conflict of interest are quite a bit more stringent than in politics, at least as far as publishing research is concerned. It's also not really a comparable situation; you can pay a researcher as much as you want in the hopes of getting a certain result, but unless their methodology is seriously flawed (and that just wouldn't fly in any serious journals), no amount of money will change the outcome of the research.
edited 10th Mar '16 11:05:02 AM by CaptainCapsase
Re: Pittsburgh shooting. It was in Wilkinsburg, which is the hood and borders incorporated Pittsburgh, but is its own city. Its schools are being absorbed into Pittsburgh because of how terrible they are, though. There were multiple shooters, which combined with the location means it's likely crime/gang/vendetta related.
@ Capsase: I guess you wouldn't approve of the Labour Party
, which was founded by Trade Union Movement to represent its membersnote ?
Sanders' foreign policy stance is weak. He was more informed on world events back in the '70s and '80s, but that was when the U.S. economy was fairly stable. He began to re-focus his attention when the economy declined from then until now, so he needs to play catch-up on foreign policy.
A big one is that he supports a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine, despite growing realizations that a one-state solution is more likely.
My concern with Sanders on foreign policy is that he severely misunderstands Putin, thinking "he probably regrets Crimea".
But that's nothing compared to what shit Clinton gonna start with him, seeing how much of a warhawk she is. Shit that's going to hit our economy and me personally.
edited 10th Mar '16 11:09:11 AM by Luminosity
Yet, they still spend, or in your suggestion, waste hundreds of millions of dollars in this. Why? And if you still insist that it's the exact same in "almost any other" case, why not give your own examples since despite mentioning another cas this one was not "really comparable"?
How is glaxosmithkline, csl, Bayer and many others different? They all want the cure and they all certainly would benefit from being the sole discoverers for a vaccine but they spread this money to different research centers and donate to others independently
Why do they do this and why is that different from unions, a woman's foundation, and goldman sachs donating to clinton? Why are individual interests more important than massified delegated interests, instead of just as important?
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesWhy do you think pharmaceutics fund medical researches, for instance? Do you think psychological research and other kind of stuff is funded only through the government?
Consider for a moment the reason why you are arguing. Is it expressing frustration in a futile and overly emotional manner, or attempting calm rational discourse in order to convince people? Is it because you want to attack people because they disagree with you and that makes you dislike them (and you're right and they're stupid for thinking otherwise), or is everyone else being unreasonable and you're just trying to calm people down with logic?
Far be it from me to take the high ground here, but I think you should reconsider your approach if not your opinions.

And to me it looks like having actual standards.
Maybe I'm not a "political realist", but I think average citizens should be the overwhelmingly primary donation force of a candidate who's supposed to care about the average citizens.