|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 05 2016 03:19 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 01:39 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 05 2016 01:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Let's be real, most of us would take 250K from GS to talk in a heartbeat  Anyways, Clinton doesn't really care about 600K. She expects to be paid because her time is valuable, but money is not really going to be a huge part in her decision. If she slaps down regulation on banks, is she gonna be like "oh no I won't get 200K gigs from GS anymore?". Not really. She may have been broke when she left the White House, but there are so many ways for her to get money that a few hundred thousand is a drop diluted in an ocean. There's no denying the optics aren't great, but the media is playing it up a lot more than it needs to be, but hey that's the media. Her and the Clinton Foundation get much bigger chunks of money from other sources, but no one ever says she's in the pocked of Bill Gates because they gave the Clinton Foundation 25M. + Show Spoiler +I have some friends at GS and other banks (and a lot of people I dislike work in IB as well) and this is how they get famous people to speak. There's an event, let's say a women in leadership thing for newly promoted female VP's (so they've survived 3 years as analysts). A MD or other exec serves on a nonprofit board with Hillary or is her friend or something. He/she called Hillary up and says "want to talk about your leadership to a group of young women?". Hillary says yes or no, then they tell their staff to sort out the dates, amount of honoraria, etc. I fully understand why it would cost a lot of money to get a famous person to speak to a group of people, regardless of the target audience. That's not so much a problem for me (I mean, it's still a fucking absurd amount of money, but whatever). But for me, in order for our political system to change, the incentive/funding structure needs an entire overhaul. It's not that I think Hillary will say "oh no I won't get their money anymore". It's more the concern that those who have given her (and other politicians, this is not a problem unique to her) massive sums of money for whatever reason will have their opinions and input weighted much more heavily than those who haven't given remotely comparable funds. It's not like this is a secret - it's a widely acknowledged aspect of our political system that lobbying and virtually unlimited campaign contributions tip the scales disproportionately in one direction. The fact that she can just shrug off $600k is one thing. What bothers me more is that of any of the candidates on either side, she's the one saying she'll fix the broken system while simultaneously reaping every benefit she can from it. Senator Dodd and Obama were up to their asses in donations from Wall Street. Senator Dodd and President Obama voted/signed into law Dodd-Frank which has successfully caused megacorps to divest their riskier wings to avoid designation as being a SIFI (systemically important financial institution) [see GE divesting Capital]. My point is, get over hypocrisy arguments. The rich and the powerful run this country (as they always have and always will). If you want to change things, you need to play in the realm of the rich and the powerful (have you seen the people the Republican primary candidates hang out with and rely on for their big donations?). The Democrats have a record of actually doing something about Wall Street (Dodd-Frank and the Holder DOJ suing and getting money from practically all of the megabanks). Compare this to the Republicans who are actively running on repealing Dodd-Frank and bringing us right back to 2008. // More on Dodd-Frank from KThug: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/half-a-loaf-financial-reform-edition/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
...No?
I'm aware that in general, Democrats are "harder" on Wall Street than Republicans are. And if Hillary win the Dem nomination, there is a high likelihood I would vote for her over her Republican opponent. But my argument in this case is not tailored directly to reigning in Wall Street.
My argument relates to how exceedingly simple it is for those with money, in any industry, to influence policy change. Wall Street is not the only industry that benefit strongly from this status quo. Our political finance system is horrendously corrupt, and it is widely acknowledged and unfortunately accepted.
So no, I will not "get over hypocrisy arguments". That's the entire fucking point.
|
Sadly there's no good solution to such a problem. Only a variety of sketchy ones we could try; and of course doing research into institutional design to try to make the system better in the future.
|
On February 05 2016 03:32 Plansix wrote:
People can complain about hypocrisy of trying to limit the amount of money in politics while accepting it, but it’s the game now. We don’t’ have state media. We don’t regulate the number of ads someone can buy. We don’t regulate much of the process of communication to voters. We barely regulate the requirements for third party to purchase a political ad or what happens if that third party commits fraud.
So expecting a candidate to hamstring themselves and also run isn’t that viable. Of course there are the Sanders of the world, but he is going to have to work with the democratic party if he gets the nomination and they take money from banks.
There is a problem with money an influence in the political process in the US that goes beyond free speech. It gets into “elections for media profit” and the volume of third parties eclipsing the candidates themselves. But to fix it, people gotta get elected. I would rather someone be up front about taking money from a bank than slipping it behind some third party because they are worried I won’t approve. People need to have a more nuanced opinion than “any money from big companies is bad, only no money from big companies is good.”
I second that. What matters to me, at the end of the day, is the positions and policies a candidate defends and fights for. I obviously agree with you that there is a huge problem with the current state of the role of money in politics, jcarlsoniv, but I think accusations of hypocrisy levied at Hillary are largely baseless.
|
On February 05 2016 03:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 03:32 Plansix wrote:
People can complain about hypocrisy of trying to limit the amount of money in politics while accepting it, but it’s the game now. We don’t’ have state media. We don’t regulate the number of ads someone can buy. We don’t regulate much of the process of communication to voters. We barely regulate the requirements for third party to purchase a political ad or what happens if that third party commits fraud.
So expecting a candidate to hamstring themselves and also run isn’t that viable. Of course there are the Sanders of the world, but he is going to have to work with the democratic party if he gets the nomination and they take money from banks.
There is a problem with money an influence in the political process in the US that goes beyond free speech. It gets into “elections for media profit” and the volume of third parties eclipsing the candidates themselves. But to fix it, people gotta get elected. I would rather someone be up front about taking money from a bank than slipping it behind some third party because they are worried I won’t approve. People need to have a more nuanced opinion than “any money from big companies is bad, only no money from big companies is good.” I second that. What matters to me, at the end of the day, is the positions and policies a candidate defends and fights for. I obviously agree with you that there is a huge problem with the current state of the role of money in politics, jcarlsoniv, but I think accusations of hypocrisy levied at Hillary are largely baseless.
Again, they're not specifically aimed at Hillary - it's a systemic issue.
I have the option of supporting a candidate who mirrors my views on this subject, so I do.
|
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said House Speaker Paul Ryan told them he backs a bill to restore portions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by the Supreme Court, but won't bypass his committee chairman to bring it the floor for a vote, The Hill reported.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) told The Hill that Ryan had signaled support for the Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), at a meeting with the group of black lawmakers Wednesday.
"So somebody was saying, 'Well, why don't you go tell your committee chair to do it?' " Cleaver said. "And he said, … 'Look, I can't do that.'"
According to The Hill, Ryan does not want to step on the toes of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), whose committee has jurisdiction over the legislation. Goodlatte has said that what's left of the Voting Rights Act is enough to protect the franchise and thus the bill is not necessary. Ryan, a former committee chairman himself, has expressed a commitment to a bottom-up approach to leadership that defers to committees on advancing legislation.
"He said, 'I told my own conference I'm not going to do it, so I'm not going to come up here and tell you anything differently. … I want it to be the product of the committee,' " Cleaver recounted, according to The Hill.
Source
|
On February 05 2016 03:58 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 03:49 kwizach wrote:On February 05 2016 03:32 Plansix wrote:
People can complain about hypocrisy of trying to limit the amount of money in politics while accepting it, but it’s the game now. We don’t’ have state media. We don’t regulate the number of ads someone can buy. We don’t regulate much of the process of communication to voters. We barely regulate the requirements for third party to purchase a political ad or what happens if that third party commits fraud.
So expecting a candidate to hamstring themselves and also run isn’t that viable. Of course there are the Sanders of the world, but he is going to have to work with the democratic party if he gets the nomination and they take money from banks.
There is a problem with money an influence in the political process in the US that goes beyond free speech. It gets into “elections for media profit” and the volume of third parties eclipsing the candidates themselves. But to fix it, people gotta get elected. I would rather someone be up front about taking money from a bank than slipping it behind some third party because they are worried I won’t approve. People need to have a more nuanced opinion than “any money from big companies is bad, only no money from big companies is good.” I second that. What matters to me, at the end of the day, is the positions and policies a candidate defends and fights for. I obviously agree with you that there is a huge problem with the current state of the role of money in politics, jcarlsoniv, but I think accusations of hypocrisy levied at Hillary are largely baseless. Again, they're not specifically aimed at Hillary - it's a systemic issue. I have the option of supporting a candidate who mirrors my views on this subject, so I do.
I wasn't specifically talking about you 
|
On February 05 2016 04:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said House Speaker Paul Ryan told them he backs a bill to restore portions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by the Supreme Court, but won't bypass his committee chairman to bring it the floor for a vote, The Hill reported.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) told The Hill that Ryan had signaled support for the Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), at a meeting with the group of black lawmakers Wednesday.
"So somebody was saying, 'Well, why don't you go tell your committee chair to do it?' " Cleaver said. "And he said, … 'Look, I can't do that.'"
According to The Hill, Ryan does not want to step on the toes of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), whose committee has jurisdiction over the legislation. Goodlatte has said that what's left of the Voting Rights Act is enough to protect the franchise and thus the bill is not necessary. Ryan, a former committee chairman himself, has expressed a commitment to a bottom-up approach to leadership that defers to committees on advancing legislation.
"He said, 'I told my own conference I'm not going to do it, so I'm not going to come up here and tell you anything differently. … I want it to be the product of the committee,' " Cleaver recounted, according to The Hill. Source
"not my responsibility" is his way of saying the tea party has him by the balls.
|
On February 05 2016 03:58 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 03:49 kwizach wrote:On February 05 2016 03:32 Plansix wrote:
People can complain about hypocrisy of trying to limit the amount of money in politics while accepting it, but it’s the game now. We don’t’ have state media. We don’t regulate the number of ads someone can buy. We don’t regulate much of the process of communication to voters. We barely regulate the requirements for third party to purchase a political ad or what happens if that third party commits fraud.
So expecting a candidate to hamstring themselves and also run isn’t that viable. Of course there are the Sanders of the world, but he is going to have to work with the democratic party if he gets the nomination and they take money from banks.
There is a problem with money an influence in the political process in the US that goes beyond free speech. It gets into “elections for media profit” and the volume of third parties eclipsing the candidates themselves. But to fix it, people gotta get elected. I would rather someone be up front about taking money from a bank than slipping it behind some third party because they are worried I won’t approve. People need to have a more nuanced opinion than “any money from big companies is bad, only no money from big companies is good.” I second that. What matters to me, at the end of the day, is the positions and policies a candidate defends and fights for. I obviously agree with you that there is a huge problem with the current state of the role of money in politics, jcarlsoniv, but I think accusations of hypocrisy levied at Hillary are largely baseless. Again, they're not specifically aimed at Hillary - it's a systemic issue. I have the option of supporting a candidate who mirrors my views on this subject, so I do.
As long as people are aware of where she is getting the money and isn’t straight up lying about it, I don’t’ see a problem. The argument that her view will be tainted just by receiving the funds requires a couple big leaps of logic and also deprives her of the ability to respond to that question. Rather than assuming all money corrupts the process, it is better to ask the candidate how the money influences their decision and judge their response.
As I said before, I prefer someone accept 60 million from banks and tell me exactly where it comes from and why the banks gave them all that money. And how they plan to stop the next candidate from needing/receiving 60 million.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is just the kill da banks wing getting in a tizzy
|
On February 05 2016 04:28 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 04:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said House Speaker Paul Ryan told them he backs a bill to restore portions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by the Supreme Court, but won't bypass his committee chairman to bring it the floor for a vote, The Hill reported.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) told The Hill that Ryan had signaled support for the Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), at a meeting with the group of black lawmakers Wednesday.
"So somebody was saying, 'Well, why don't you go tell your committee chair to do it?' " Cleaver said. "And he said, … 'Look, I can't do that.'"
According to The Hill, Ryan does not want to step on the toes of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), whose committee has jurisdiction over the legislation. Goodlatte has said that what's left of the Voting Rights Act is enough to protect the franchise and thus the bill is not necessary. Ryan, a former committee chairman himself, has expressed a commitment to a bottom-up approach to leadership that defers to committees on advancing legislation.
"He said, 'I told my own conference I'm not going to do it, so I'm not going to come up here and tell you anything differently. … I want it to be the product of the committee,' " Cleaver recounted, according to The Hill. Source "not my responsibility" is his way of saying the tea party has him by the balls.
While he puts the guy holding the bill up on blast. This might be a play to force the bill to a vote or show that Goodlatte forced Ryan's hand.
|
I'm gonna push for Sanders throughout the primary process because, in light of his "radical" platform, I thoroughly believe in the ability of the executive to "set the agenda" as to the character of the federal government. Sure, he's going to run into an incredible amount of resistance from various angles, but he'll be coming into Washington as a man who believes in the importance of a strong federal government and one would be mistaken to discount what can be done with executive agency direction during legislative deadlock. Will some of his grander schemes, like breaking up the big banks or "free" college, take some refinement and run headlong into the stark reality of how difficult it is to get things done in Washington? You betcha. That didn't stop some of our more notable presidents from getting elected on then radical ideas that squeezed their way into popular ideas as to how government ought to work, so why should it stop Sanders?
That said, I'll still vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination because harm reduction as a baseline voting principle seems like pretty solid ground to stand on.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On February 05 2016 04:35 oneofthem wrote:
it is just the kill da banks wing getting in a tizzy
Your waifu sucks.
|
farva, according to you who between Sanders and Hillary would have the best shot against the Republican nominee, whomever he ends up being? Do you see Sanders winning against Marco Rubio, for example?
|
I do. Although that would be his hardest general election MU
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Rubio won't be easy for Hillary either.
|
It's still amazing to me that as an European I am considered pretty right-wing, yet I would almost definitely vote for Bernie if given such power. I think actually the US here has an interesting opportunity to build modern socially conscious society without the burden of european history. It's whole up to you if you want to pick it up, but it could lead to something really unique. Basically it's all about realizing that money does not equal to freedom and working it out from there.
|
Natural gas has been leaking from Southern California Gas Company’s Aliso Canyon storage facility since last October, closing schools and forcing thousands of Porter Ranch residents to relocate. Now, Los Angeles County prosecutors say the company took too long to notify the proper authorities.
A criminal complaint filed Tuesday by LA County District Attorney Jackie Lacey alleges that SoCalGas not only illegally discharged air contaminants but also failed to immediately report the release of this hazardous material to some agencies, in violation of health and safety laws.
The complaint alleges that, between October 23rd and 26th of 2015, SoCalGas “failed, upon discovery, to immediately report a release or threatened release of hazardous material…to the California Emergency Management Agency and to the unified program agency.” It also charges the company with failing to notify the health hazardous materials division of the forester and fire warden.
In total, the utility faces four misdemeanor charges—the first criminal charges to emerge out of this months-long environmental crisis, which has been declared a state of emergency by California Governor Jerry Brown and drawn the attention of environmental activist Erin Brockovich.
“While we recognize that neither the criminal charges nor the civil lawsuits will offer the residents of Los Angeles County a complete solution, it is important that Southern California Gas Co. be held responsible for its criminal actions,” DA Lacey said in a statement.
A spokesperson for SoCalGas told The Daily Beast, “We have just been notified of this filing and we are still reviewing it. We have been working with regulatory agencies to mitigate the odors associated with the natural gas leak and to abate the gas leak as quickly as safety allows. We will defend ourselves vigorously through the judicial process.”
Source
|
pretty sure hillary would just obliterate all the republican candidates on policy issues
she needs to tighten up her answers though, she's been rambly
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if rubio is the candidate im not that confident. 45:55 vs hilldawg and 85:15
vs sanders
On February 05 2016 04:38 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 04:35 oneofthem wrote:
it is just the kill da banks wing getting in a tizzy Your waifu sucks.
i have to disagree
|
On February 05 2016 04:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 03:58 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 05 2016 03:49 kwizach wrote:On February 05 2016 03:32 Plansix wrote:
People can complain about hypocrisy of trying to limit the amount of money in politics while accepting it, but it’s the game now. We don’t’ have state media. We don’t regulate the number of ads someone can buy. We don’t regulate much of the process of communication to voters. We barely regulate the requirements for third party to purchase a political ad or what happens if that third party commits fraud.
So expecting a candidate to hamstring themselves and also run isn’t that viable. Of course there are the Sanders of the world, but he is going to have to work with the democratic party if he gets the nomination and they take money from banks.
There is a problem with money an influence in the political process in the US that goes beyond free speech. It gets into “elections for media profit” and the volume of third parties eclipsing the candidates themselves. But to fix it, people gotta get elected. I would rather someone be up front about taking money from a bank than slipping it behind some third party because they are worried I won’t approve. People need to have a more nuanced opinion than “any money from big companies is bad, only no money from big companies is good.” I second that. What matters to me, at the end of the day, is the positions and policies a candidate defends and fights for. I obviously agree with you that there is a huge problem with the current state of the role of money in politics, jcarlsoniv, but I think accusations of hypocrisy levied at Hillary are largely baseless. Again, they're not specifically aimed at Hillary - it's a systemic issue. I have the option of supporting a candidate who mirrors my views on this subject, so I do. As long as people are aware of where she is getting the money and isn’t straight up lying about it, I don’t’ see a problem. The argument that her view will be tainted just by receiving the funds requires a couple big leaps of logic and also deprives her of the ability to respond to that question. Rather than assuming all money corrupts the process, it is better to ask the candidate how the money influences their decision and judge their response. As I said before, I prefer someone accept 60 million from banks and tell me exactly where it comes from and why the banks gave them all that money. And how they plan to stop the next candidate from needing/receiving 60 million.
Everyone's views are tainted and influenced when given something material. That requires 0 leaps of logic. And she has been asked about it - it's not like you're going to ever get an answer from anyone saying "yeah, that large contribution is going to influence my decision" because that would be admitting to a quid pro quo exchange.
Even if we want to pretend it's not political corruption, it is a caliber of networking that the masses don't have access to, and as a result, the masses aren't getting sufficiently represented. The day after Iowa, Sanders raised $3M in 24 hours from small donations. In itself, it's a fairly impressive stat; but any of the super wealthy campaign contributors can sneeze and match that and more to their pick of the litter.
We can go 'round and 'round on this, but suffice to say that I don't trust a politician who utilizes this finance format to change it, Hillary or otherwise.
RE: Rubio - I agree that he likely poses the greatest general election threat for Sanders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
