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
Perian you seem to have a misinterpretation of how corruption on Capitol Hill works. Most corporations when they want to buy influence they don't contribute to campaigns (that's pointless long term), they buy out lobbyists because...as it turns out...changing government policy is really, really difficult, no matter how much idiots like TYT think it's a direct quid-pro-quo.
New Survey coming this weekend!![]()
![]()
Of course, assuming that he gets a less hostile congress and things like that.
The problem is when people are dependent on big money donors to get elected. If Clinton is too hard on the fossil fuel sector, they'll simply back the Republican donor the next election. Why do you think there's so much controversy over big money in politics, and people saying that this is a serious issue? Even Clinton herself (or at least, a past version of herself), would agree with that:
This would be in contrast with these big money donors donating so much to the Clinton campaign.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:40:02 PM by Perian
Clinton would, I suspect, be as happy as any other politician not to have to suck up to big donors in exchange for the money she needs to run a viable campaign. Ask any politician about the time they waste fundraising. The problem is that, as long as the Supreme Court, via its Citizens United decision, holds that "money = speech" and "corporations are people", deep pockets are a simple necessity of winning.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:39:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
See, that's an argument I could get behind. Nevertheless, Bernie Sanders has shown that these big donations are not necessary for performing well, at least in a primary (of course, we don't know what would have happened in a general election). But of course, even if he was able to pull of this feat in the GE as well, making all candidates let their campaign depend on individual donations would be a terrible idea.
Clinton has flip-flopped so much on the issue that I don't know if she will ever address it. Overturning the Citizens United decision (and yes, I know that she has said that she's going to do that) will likely not be enough, but it will be a step in the good direction at least. This is exactly why people are so enthralled with the idea of a 'Sanders revolution', not because they want a violent overthrow of the system, but because they want to make the system more fair. And people simply don't trust Clinton with the issue, seeing that she's so dependent on these donors and even currently claims that they're no problem (I've also read that the current system of political donations has really taken off under the Clintons, but don't know my sources anymore and maybe I'm misremembering them, so feel free to prove me wrong on this one).
This is also interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/15/jimmy-carter-calls-for-return-to-publicly-financed-elections/
. Apparently political campaigns were publicly financed in the past (didn't know this). You can still receive public money, as long as you agree not to accept private donations.
And now I'm going to sleep
Yes, believe it or not, Obama was the first candidate to reject public funding so he could raise a larger war chest from donations. It was big news at the time, since he expected to have to compete with Romney, who would have effectively unlimited funding thanks to Citizens United.
That said, don't tell me that all the time Sanders spent soliciting cash from small donors was any less onerous and degrading than sucking up to big ticket donors (and Clinton had no shortage of small donors, either). Sure, it's nice when everyone's mailing you $25 checks, but there must be a better way. A return to publicly funded campaigns would be such a way, and I'd eat my hat if Clinton didn't support it, but Citizens United must be overturned before it'd be even remotely possible.
edited 16th Jun '16 2:20:52 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Clinton's VP shortlist has been leaked
. Warren, Kaine, Brown, Castro, Perez, Booker, Becerra, Garcetti, and (Tim) Ryan.
Warren has it if she wants it. The question is whether she wants it.
(I think Fox' Argument From Sexism was a rather dumb one. Yes, the country is ready for a two-woman ticket, especially against Trump.)
9 out of 10 of them wouldn't have voted anyway if Sanders weren't running, so they are self-selecting for political irrelevance.
edited 16th Jun '16 3:50:43 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
X3 It's a hotspot for angry Internet people calling themselves Bernie supporters, the no indication that they are actually representative of Bernie supporters generally, or that they themselves are genuine Bernie supports or even old enough to vote.
The percentage of Bernie (or Clinton) voters that are posting shit on social media is tiny, don't take the idiots as representative.
edited 16th Jun '16 3:54:15 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.” ~ CyranI'm seeing it a lot on Twitter too, but yeah, I do think it's almost certainly not a representative sample size. Also, I tend to figure that anyone talking about Clinton being off the ballot because she is indicted is likely a Trump supporter pretending to be a Sanders supporter (although you know, Horseshoe Effect and all).
An even more accurate statement is that it's a hotspot for far-left nutjobs. These are the types of people who are mostly likely to think in terms of "Bernie or Bust".
Leviticus 19:34Indeed. The far left has its share of nutjobs, just like the far right, and Bernie's campaign (like Trump's) brought them out of the woodwork. They don't participate in the political process other than to throw their shit, like monkeys, at the most convenient targets, so they can generally be ignored.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"These people have no interest in the democratic process, otherwise they would participate even if they weren't going to get their way every time. Remember, we put the Republicans' extremists in power in 2010, and our political system ground to a halt. I have no desire to repeat that, only from the left.
edited 16th Jun '16 4:45:27 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Moreover, there's no such thing a liberal extremist in the current US political system. By the standards of the rest of the developed world, the US is extremely right-wing dominated, and even the furthest left elected officials are at most center-left.
Furthermore, given how extreme the current GOP is, a continued deadlock is the only option; if anything meaningful gets through congress during Clinton's time in office, it will be because she caved to the GOP in the hopes of currying political capital to use on her own policy priorities, barring of course an unprecedented meltdown from Trump giving the democrats the House.
On another topic, I don't think it's necessarily fair to characterize Sanders as anti-trade; his opposition to NAFTA and the TPP is more on the grounds of the pro-corporate stipulations included in those deals and/or the rampant human rights violations perpetrated by other signators to such treaties.
edited 16th Jun '16 5:07:38 PM by CaptainCapsase
Why? It's not like these people can be coerced to join the political process through honeyed words. They distrust all that stuff, remember? I support Hillary so I'm a shill of the system, and therefore an enemy.

"getting things done" is also kind of iffy given a level of obstructionism that's kept us without a 9th Supreme Court Justice for four months now