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
That's not really a secret, is it...? Sometimes it feels like it's supposed to be.
I guess maybe I don't have much empathy...I have to admit it's hilarious and I don't take it seriously.
Heck I am not sure they are avoidable in any sort of group of more than. What. 50 peeps, prolly less. I am jsut saying that it is kinda funny to see if you see the paralels historically in latin america...and how they vary by a few hundred kilometers.
Look at Venezuela, a populist leader rose with the promise for the government to monopolize everything whereas farther up north Mexico is privatizing the shit out of a lot of things, because the sole act of concentrating power on one or on many seems to do little to dissuade lack of efficiency or corruption or anything.
I just mention it cuz it seemed to me like the discussion seemed to be going on a bit about how rated E for evil monopolies and such are and that i've seen that argument before, for both ways
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
It's not a secret, but it is something that "revolutionary" leaders like Bernie Sanders seem to ignore or at least paper over in their polemics. Sure, the proletariat could rise up en masse and vote the Republicans out of power, but then what? They don't suddenly become any smarter or more capable of running things effectively.
We need people like Krugman and DeLong making economic policy, but there's no way they could survive being put in positions of direct power.
edited 18th Apr '16 12:57:18 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The reality is, his average contribution is actually $27.88, but only if we blatantly ignore that the word 'average' encompasses more than just a mean! Shocking! What a dastardly, underhanded untruth by the Sanders campaign! How will he ever recover?! Thank you, WaPo, for this incredibly important piece of journalism!
edited 18th Apr '16 1:00:10 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.$27. My god, he's off by a whole 88 cents! If we take "average" to imply the median or mode that the word can also encompass, however, $27 should still be correct. Oops.
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.See this is why it's hard to take the Hillary campaign serious, as much as people accuse Bernie of shifty tactics stuff like this is just painful, combine it with the blatant lying on gun issues and the fact that any accusation of Hillary having issues is met with "You're a Bernie Bro, racist who's gonna defect to Trump any day now" and it's hard to have a serious discussion.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI see nothing in that article to suggest that the Clinton campaign is spreading disinformation about Sanders' donations, but it is true that he's got a little propaganda thing built up around it and is slyly manipulating people into giving exactly that amount in order to be able to keep it going.
Anyway, touting how much of your campaign money comes from small donors is basically a way to maintain populist credibility, much like Trump's "I don't take money from anyone; I don't need it" bluster on the other side. For the system to remain free of inducement, implied or otherwise, donations of any sort need to be stopped and campaigns funded from public money. That aside, if Sanders has staked it as a major claim of his platform, then analyzing that claim is responsible journalism.
Also, I don't have as much of a horse in the gun rights game as others, but Sanders is somewhat unique among Democrats in downplaying the issue.
edited 18th Apr '16 1:31:17 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Which is why I suggest it take the form of "in-kind" services rather than direct cash. Specifically, reservation of mandatory free airtime (basically, the government pays the fair market rate for ad space and lets the candidates run what they want there), an expense budget for promotional materials and mailings, salaries for registered staff (the government writes the paychecks, not the campaign), office space, the works.
The main problem there would be the people administering this system using political agendas to shut down candidates whom they don't like. Which is a very serious one, I might add.
Edited to add: I'd also like to see a national primary system similar to the above, with specific dates for each state (or for the nation as a whole), and mandatory participation for any party with a member of Congress or that received more than 10% of the popular vote in the most recent Presidential election.
edited 18th Apr '16 1:49:49 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
I don't think I would call it sly manipulation when the people supposedly being manipulated know exactly what they're doing and for what purpose they're doing it. Moreover, responsible journalism would have been fine, but actual attempts to manipulate via clickbait headlines and intellectually dishonest spin are atrocious.
Speaking of campaign cash flow, however:
NEW YORK – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign on Monday questioned “serious apparent violations” of campaign finance laws under a joint fundraising deal between Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
The questionable dealings were detailed in a letter from Brad Deutsch, the attorney for Sanders’ campaign, to U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the DNC. The letter questioned whether the Clinton presidential campaign violated legal limits on donations by improperly subsidizing Clinton’s campaign bid by paying Clinton staffers with funds from the joint DNC-Clinton committee.
Unlike Clinton’s presidential campaign committee, Hillary for America, the joint committee may accept large donations of up to $356,100. The first $2,700 of this amount is eligible for transfer to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 can be transferred to the DNC, with any remaining amount, up to $10,000, to each participating state party. According to public disclosure reports, however, the joint Clinton-DNC fund, Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), appears to operate in a way that skirts legal limits on federal campaign donations and primarily benefits the Clinton presidential campaign.
The financial disclosure reports on file with the Federal Election Commission indicate that the joint committee invested millions in low-dollar, online fundraising and advertising that solely benefits the Clinton campaign. The Sanders campaign “is particularly concerned that these extremely large-dollar individual contributions have been used by the Hillary Victory Fund to pay for more than $7.8 million in direct mail efforts and over $8.6 million in online advertising” according to the letter to the DNC. Both outlays benefit the Clinton presidential campaign “by generating low-dollar contributions that flow only to HFA [Hillary for America] rather than to the DNC or any of the participating state party committees.”
The questionable outlays “have grown to staggering magnitudes” and “can no longer be ignored,” Deutsch added.
The expenditures on advertising and fundraising are at best “an impermissible in-kind contribution from the DNC and the participating state party committees” to Clinton’s presidential campaign, the letter said. “At worst, using funds received from large-dollar donors who have already contributed the $2,700 maximum to HFA [Hillary for America] may represent an excessive contribution to HFA from these individuals.”
In addition, the joint committee has paid the Clinton campaign committee $2.6 million ostensibly to “reimburse” the Clinton presidential campaign staff for time spent running the joint committee. The unusual arrangement, Deutsch said, “raises equally serious concerns that joint committee funds, which are meant to be allocated proportionally among the participating committees, are being used to impermissibly subsidize HFA through an over-reimbursement for campaign staffers and resources.”
“While the use of joint fundraising agreements has existed for some time — it is unprecedented for the DNC to allow a joint committee to be exploited to the benefit of one candidate in the midst of a contested nominating contest,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager.
To read the letter, click here.![]()
This has been circulating for a while now, but it's definitely news that a campaign is officially saying something about it.
edited 18th Apr '16 1:52:47 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.![]()
Not something like the British Party Political Broadcasts?
edited 18th Apr '16 1:56:14 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnEven when that 'analysis' consists of claiming he's lying because he got his average off by less then a dollar if you use a different system of averaging? That's not analysis, that's lying to the public to try and discredit a candidate that you don't like.
Come on Fighter, when journalists are lying to try and discredit a candidate you shouldn't be defending them just because the candidate is Sanders, you're better then that.
edited 18th Apr '16 2:03:22 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAs for the gun thing, you're really ignoring the fact that the Clinton campaign have repeatedly lied about Vermont being responsible for New York's gun problems? Despite them being fact checked multiple times? If you don't have a dog in the gun fight fair enough, but don't you at least have a dog in the "people shouldn't lie about the fact to try and win" fight? Isn't that why you're so hard on Sanders all the time?
edited 18th Apr '16 2:05:43 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranObviously, I don't stand by those claims. I'm not happy about what the Clinton campaign has done, either. It shouldn't be a thing that the Democrats have to stoop to.
At the end of this process, we'll need someone who can govern. So far, Sanders hasn't done a lot to establish his credibility in that regard.
edited 18th Apr '16 2:15:31 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Lying comes with the territory: you have to be able to dissemble with a straight face in politics no matter how honest you claim to be. An honest politician, to borrow a phrase, is one who, once bought, stays bought.
Regardless, I care more about whether the economic, social, and international platform positions that Sanders espouses are backed up by credible plans to achieve them, and so far I haven't seen that.
That his supporters have eerie parallels with Trump's supporters in the way they treat criticism of their idol is disturbing to me as well, but I would overlook it if it weren't for the larger problems with his campaign.
edited 18th Apr '16 2:21:02 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
X3 Thing is the false claims need to be challenged, the Democratic Party can't let this kinda shit become the new norm, but anyone who disputes false claims by the Clinton campaign gets shouted down and dismissed. The Sanders campaign needs to show that he can govern, but there's not going to be given the opportunity to do that if they're being regularly held to a higher standard then the Clinton campaign.
Even here we're getting close to blanking all criticism of Clinton as Republican lies, and we'e meant to be a bastion of liberal thought.
See I've found Clinton supporters to be just as willing to go full Trump style when it comes to dismissing any and all criticism as lies by people out to get them, we get it in this thread even. The nutty Bernie and Trump supporters have been banned, but the folks who claim that all criticism of Clinton is Republican/Bernie Bro/Misogonistic lies, they're still around plenty, and they're still using the same dismissing language to ignore anyone who supports Sanders as Trump and Sanders supporters have used.
edited 18th Apr '16 2:27:42 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTrump Scoffs at Saudi Arabian Threats to Sell Off US Assets: ‘Let ‘em Sell ‘em!’.

Concentrations of power of any sort are subject to corruption, but they are also unavoidable in a nation of 300 million people. I'm not sure there is a perfect solution.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"