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
Not sure that Citizens United could be overturned except by a Constitutional amendment, which the President has jack all power over.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:19:56 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Indeed, but there's nothing that would prevent them from making a decision that would overrule the previous ruling on Citizen's United. The issue is, that'd break strongly with precedent and tradition, which means you'd have a hard time getting justices to go along with it unless you appointed them.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:21:36 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Kostya I'm not saying that she's going to betray American people, I'm sure she will enact some progressive reforms, I'm just saying that these big donors heavily restrict her in what she is able to accomplish. And I think it's likely that Clinton, given her history on the issue, will do little to change that. And frankly, I feel uncomfortable that the same people who would condemn these practices when Republicans are involved with it, are suddenly okay with big money in politics if a Democrat benefits from it.
The big issue is the financial sector ties; they abandoned Obama in 2012, so Clinton is well aware of what will happen in 2020 if she rocks the boat, and compared to Obama, she's far less diversified in terms of where her funding is coming from, which would make the prospect of running without the backing of wall street very dicey.
Anyway, you're still looking at this backwards. Clinton publicly says she's going to do X. Since she's now made a campaign promise to the effect of "I will do X", if she doesn't do X, everyone who wanted X is going to turn on her — as will anyone who cares about politicians keeping their campaign promises on principle, even if they don't care about X specifically.
You can make campaign promises that you have no intention of keeping, but that only works for one election, then your political career is effectively over. Ask George H. W. "No New Taxes" Bush how that worked out for him.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:31:12 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien."And frankly, I feel uncomfortable that the same people who would condemn these practices when Republicans are involved with it, are suddenly okay with big money in politics if a Democrat benefits from it."
Oh, get off your high horse. Politics is about blood and guts, not idealism. American politics is warfare, and the Republicans are the enemy. Ensuring their defeat is paramount, no matter what the means.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:27:56 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
I was talking about that guy's dad, who was also George Bush (and is the one who said "read my lips: no new taxes"). Added the H. W. to my post to make that clearer.
Incidentally, it's not entirely Bush Sr's fault — it was the Democratic-controlled congress that raised taxes, not him. But still, he made a promise and wasn't able to deliver, which is considered one of the main reason he lost his reelection bid in 1992.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:34:36 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I'm skeptical that she'll be willing to give it her all in certain areas. Citizen's united sure, since it's something that was specifically meant to help the GOP "beat" the Clintons' campaign funding strategy, and perhaps even on healthcare, but that's not going to address the issues with the financial sector, the weakness of organized labor in the United States, and the ongoing centralization of wealth and power.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:41:36 PM by CaptainCapsase
What she did say was that she'd propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen's United. That's an easy promise to keep, the question for those who care about it will be whether she keeps pushing it.
Supreme Court overturning their precedent ruling happens extremely rarely, requires a test case to somehow be fought all the way to the top in spite of the precedent, the court to agree to hear it, etc. This can take years or decades. The only one I can think of where it worked is Brown v. Board of Education overturning "separate but equal". Getting the Constitution amended is almost as hard but overturning a court precedent through the court itself is probably harder.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:43:23 PM by Elle
You can't, but I consider those issues to be among the most pressing long term problems alongside climate change, and I am skeptical that Clinton is willing to take serious steps to combat them, even if the opportunity arrives. I'm willing to be proven wrong however.
edited 25th Jul '16 1:46:26 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Native Jovian Even if these people thought a Trump presidency would be disastrous for them (which I doubt, especially the private prison industry), in four years time another Republican is going to run against Clinton and she would like to keep these donors in order not to be outspended. As Captain Capsase pointed out, donors abandoning a candidate en masse already happened with Obama. (And I don't know what you mean with rational self-interest vs. ideology? The scenario I described had everything to do with rational self-interest). Of course, politicians need to keep their promises (her rhetoric on many of these issues is vague enough anyway), but that doesn't change the fact that having big money donors heavily restricts one's ability for reforms. Which is why the influence of money in politics is so often raised as an important issue.
BBC interviewed some of the Sanders protestors outside the convention. Its like a circus of ignorance and ideological fanaticism.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35422862
Nate Silver: Trump would likely win if election were held today.

@Cap Cap
Not too long ago, a lot of the narrative was that the Republican Brand was dead and buried. Suddenly, those same Oracles are saying that Trump is going to win and the world is on fire.