|
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. |
WASHINGTON ― Instead of spending his morning in a hotly contested battleground state like Florida ― where Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton held an event encouraging people to vote early ― Donald Trump on Wednesday decided to promote his sagging brand at his glitzy new Pennsylvania Avenue hotel, just blocks from the White House.
Trump has made many unusual decisions this year, including campaigning in traditionally blue states like Connecticut, but this press conference was perhaps his most bizarre move. Over 200 journalists descended on the property at the Old Post Office, where they were handed promotional pamphlets about the hotel’s luxurious amenities before the GOP nominee and company executives launched into speeches about its perks.
“Today is a metaphor for what we can accomplish for this country, the same kind of thing,” Trump said as the ballroom’s massive crystal chandeliers glittered overhead. He said his successful real estate background shows he knows “how to work with government and get things done,” adding that his hotel ran “under budget” and “ahead of schedule.”
In fact, the project was completed a year later than originally scheduled.
After touting the new hotel, Trump briefly turned to topics of the day, including veteran care, infrastructure spending, education, the tax code and recent news of Affordable Care Act premium hikes.
“Obamacare is in a free-fall,” he said, then took a jab at Clinton. “It was called Hillarycare before it was called Obamacare.”
A contingent of Trump supporters sat in the audience, but there was little evidence that many were swing-state voters, who Trump badly needs to sway to his side. Instead, the crowd in and around the hotel consisted of a mix of curious onlookers, tourists and labor union picketers who staged a boycott outside the hotel.
Anna Bryson, a California Republican who flew in to see the nominee, shrugged off the unusual nature of the event.
“He should be here for today, but if you looked at his schedule, I was flabbergasted,” she told The Huffington Post in the hotel lobby, expressing surprise that Trump’s schedule included visits to North Carolina and Ohio later in the day.
Source
|
On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
I think you misunderstand, this wasn't a guilt by association thing, this was an answering a "stupid question" thing. I was merely pointing out that both sides do it (Democrats to a larger degree).
Ironically I literally had a commercial from a local Dem (named Hillary) talking about how taking money from the people "changes everything" playing on tv while typing this. Insinuating since her opponent takes money from the Timber industry he won't regulate it appropriately.
So Democrats are clearly making the insinuation that donations from those you claim to want to regulate won't influence your choices isn't believable, at least at the local level (as they have for decades there ans nationally). But at the presidential level that's had to stop for fear of simultaneously attacking their own candidate with their rhetoric.
But I wasn't. I was simply pointing out that what was being shown from Trump in that article won't/can't be attacked by Democrats without incriminating themselves. As such, it's unlikely to change, but I agree, it's stupid.
|
Private security guards who deployed dogs on protesters at a North Dakota oil pipeline demonstration were not properly licensed and could face criminal charges, according to a local investigation.
The Native American-led protests of the Dakota access pipeline received national attention in September when officers allegedly pepper-sprayed activists while guard dogs attacked protesters in a confrontation that was caught on video by news program Democracy Now!
On Wednesday, the Morton county sheriff’s office, which has been leading the police response to the demonstration and conducted mass arrests over the weekend, announced that it had investigated private guards working for the pipeline and determined that “dog handlers were not properly licensed to do security work in the state of North Dakota”.
The disclosure is significant at the ongoing pipeline protest, where members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and their supporters say police have become increasingly aggressive and militarized, using excessive force against peaceful, unarmed activists and targeting journalists for arrest.
Leota Eastman Iron Cloud, a Native American activist from South Dakota who has been at the protests for months, told the Guardian by phone on Wednesday that she was present when private officers brought dogs and mace and went after demonstrators on 3 September.
“We are here in prayer, and they came for war,” she said, explaining that she continued protesting even after she was hit with pepper spray. “I can’t believe that people out there can actually do this to other human beings.”
The tribe and other environmental and indigenous rights’ activists have argued that the planned $3.7bn oil pipeline, which would transport fracked crude from North Dakota to a refinery near Chicago, poses a major threat to the local water supply and to the cultural heritage of the Native Americans.
Opponents have challenged the project in court with little success. But the federal government, which provided initial approval of construction, announced last month that it would reassess its decision and delay issuing permits.
Source
|
On October 27 2016 06:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON ― Instead of spending his morning in a hotly contested battleground state like Florida ― where Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton held an event encouraging people to vote early ― Donald Trump on Wednesday decided to promote his sagging brand at his glitzy new Pennsylvania Avenue hotel, just blocks from the White House.
Trump has made many unusual decisions this year, including campaigning in traditionally blue states like Connecticut, but this press conference was perhaps his most bizarre move. Over 200 journalists descended on the property at the Old Post Office, where they were handed promotional pamphlets about the hotel’s luxurious amenities before the GOP nominee and company executives launched into speeches about its perks.
“Today is a metaphor for what we can accomplish for this country, the same kind of thing,” Trump said as the ballroom’s massive crystal chandeliers glittered overhead. He said his successful real estate background shows he knows “how to work with government and get things done,” adding that his hotel ran “under budget” and “ahead of schedule.”
In fact, the project was completed a year later than originally scheduled.
After touting the new hotel, Trump briefly turned to topics of the day, including veteran care, infrastructure spending, education, the tax code and recent news of Affordable Care Act premium hikes.
“Obamacare is in a free-fall,” he said, then took a jab at Clinton. “It was called Hillarycare before it was called Obamacare.”
A contingent of Trump supporters sat in the audience, but there was little evidence that many were swing-state voters, who Trump badly needs to sway to his side. Instead, the crowd in and around the hotel consisted of a mix of curious onlookers, tourists and labor union picketers who staged a boycott outside the hotel.
Anna Bryson, a California Republican who flew in to see the nominee, shrugged off the unusual nature of the event.
“He should be here for today, but if you looked at his schedule, I was flabbergasted,” she told The Huffington Post in the hotel lobby, expressing surprise that Trump’s schedule included visits to North Carolina and Ohio later in the day. Source
What if he doesn't care and just wants to dump as much election money into his own companies before Nov 8?
|
On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations?
Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago). Last I checked Bernie still had more donors than Hillary.
Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has).
Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the same system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm).
|
|
|
On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm).
But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system?
And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations.
They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. The moral high ground is a nice place to visit, but not a lot gets done up there.
|
On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. The moral high ground is a nice place to visit, but not a lot gets done up there.
GH believes that Bernie is such a superior candidate to Hillary that he would have beaten Trump without Super PAC's or a ground game like the Democrats currently have.
He thinks that Bernie is the one who could have been elected President without the corrupt finance system.
|
On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws.
Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins.
Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's.
And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary.
Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton.
On October 27 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. The moral high ground is a nice place to visit, but not a lot gets done up there. GH believes that Bernie is such a superior candidate to Hillary that he would have beaten Trump without Super PAC's or a ground game like the Democrats currently have. He thinks that Bernie is the one who could have been elected President without the corrupt finance system.
I think the favorability numbers show that pretty well on their own. Particularly when you look at Bernie's support outside of traditional Dem voters.
Hillary supporters vote for Bernie in a general against Trump, plus he gets more indy's than Hillary, and more Republicans. How that doesn't end up with better numbers than Hillary is on y'all.
|
On October 27 2016 06:46 Barrin wrote:Oh wow, haha. That kinda did the trick. I liked this part: Show nested quote +"After the Compromise, a few Democrats complained loudly that Tilden had been cheated. There was talk of forming armed units that would march on Washington, but President Grant was ready for that. He beefed up military security, and no one marched on Washington." Makes me want to learn more about how republicans and democrats supposedly switched roles in the past like 70 years or something like that. Show nested quote +"Whatever "deals" may or may not have taken place on the side, in formal legal terms, the election of 1876 was not decided by such acts, but by the official vote of Congress to accept the recommendations of the Electoral Commission they themselves had set up as a way out of the election impasse." A follow-up search shows this was the beginning of the Electoral College. Interesting. Maybe some serious change to the election process could end up happening after all? I wouldn't argue with more rigorous voter fraud regulations (although supposedly only a few dozen out of a billion votes are fraud). Hopefully violence can be avoided either way. I was only like 12, but I remember how even the 2000 election wasn't particularly graceful.
2000 was the era of voter apathy. No one was pumped about their options and the race was close. The DNC had trouble mobilizing people or making anyone care while the RNC was on the rise after Newt’s takeover of the house. There wasn’t much exciting about the election until Florida and the recount that lead to Bush v Gore(note: Despite Trump’s claim, Bush is the one who challenged the recount for using different methods for counting votes).
But in the end Gore conceded, even though he likely had more votes. But the ruling showed that the recount was being done incorrectly and could not be used, so the previous count stood. It was messy, but both sides were still invested keeping people’s faith in the system.
A lot of Democrats had some real flash backs to the apathy of 2000 when this race started. It has turned around as we came close to the end, but I was pretty scared up until the first debate.
|
On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton.
But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose.
Edit: All right, you edit makes it clear, you really don't understand what it takes to win a general election in 2016.
|
On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose.
Again he'd have more/about the same money as Trump. Hillary supporters aren't going to vote Trump, so they would vote Bernie (or abandon all the crap they said they believed while pushing Bernie supporters to vote Hillary).
|
On October 27 2016 06:28 Barrin wrote:
Fuck, I hate this election. Can someone show me a similarly bad U.S. presidential election so I can start feeling better about it?
Stakes so high, chances I'll make a difference so low (yet I have one of the better chances in the country), literally all the choices are terrible. GDI.
Jackson-Adams was undoubtably worse, with various calls of one candidate being a pimp for underage girls, one being the son of a mulatto whore, wife was a prostitute etc.
It's the politics we deserve, quite frankly.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 27 2016 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose. Again he'd have more/about the same money as Trump. Hillary supporters aren't going to vote Trump, so they would vote Bernie (or abandon all the crap they said they believed while pushing Bernie supporters to vote Hillary).
No, he wouldn't. Trump is mostly relying on the RNCs money to cover the costs in battle ground states. Hilary also raises money for down ballot candidates and other races, which the DNC needs to win to get their seats and pass any laws. Bernie has to do all these things or he won't receive the support of the down ballot candidates who need his national spotlight and media to help them.
Hilary supporters are going to stay home if he did what you want. Of course, I know Bernie is more experienced that you when it comes to politics, so that wouldn't happen. You are living in fantasy land if you think he could refuse super PAC funds(guess what, he can't, they are separate groups that he has no control over) or refuse all cooperate donations.
On October 27 2016 07:04 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose. I donno man, I think Bernie's "momentum" was a real thing. The more people that learned about him, the better he did. I question the idea that Hillary's supporters would've gone to Trump instead of Bernie. And that they might have not voted simply because Hillary wasn't in the race.
They wouldn't vote at all of Bernie magically managed to get her purged from the DNC. That is like saying "I won the nomination, fuck your decision and who you wanted! That person is banned and out forever, you were wrong! Vote for me in November!"
|
On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. The moral high ground is a nice place to visit, but not a lot gets done up there. GH believes that Bernie is such a superior candidate to Hillary that he would have beaten Trump without Super PAC's or a ground game like the Democrats currently have. He thinks that Bernie is the one who could have been elected President without the corrupt finance system. I think the favorability numbers show that pretty well on their own. Particularly when you look at Bernie's support outside of traditional Dem voters. Hillary supporters vote for Bernie in a general against Trump, plus he gets more indy's than Hillary, and more Republicans. How that doesn't end up with better numbers than Hillary is on y'all.
Bernie was never attacked in any real fashion. His numbers look good because no one cares about him enough to try and push the numbers down.
It might have worked but its a lot of ifs to get to the scenario you envision.
|
|
|
On October 27 2016 07:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose. Again he'd have more/about the same money as Trump. Hillary supporters aren't going to vote Trump, so they would vote Bernie (or abandon all the crap they said they believed while pushing Bernie supporters to vote Hillary). No, he wouldn't. Trump is mostly relying on the RNCs money to cover the costs in battle ground states. Hilary also raises money for down ballot candidates and other races, which the DNC needs to win to get their seats and pass any laws. Bernie has to do all these things or he won't receive the support of the down ballot candidates who need his national spotlight and media to help them. Hilary supporters are going to stay home if he did what you want. Of course, I know Bernie is more experienced that you when it comes to politics, so that wouldn't happen. You are living in fantasy land if you think he could refuse super PAC funds(guess what, he can't, they are separate groups that he has no control over) or refuse all cooperate donations. Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:04 Barrin wrote:On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose. I donno man, I think Bernie's "momentum" was a real thing. The more people that learned about him, the better he did. I question the idea that Hillary's supporters would've gone to Trump instead of Bernie. And that they might have not voted simply because Hillary wasn't in the race. They wouldn't vote at all of Bernie magically managed to get her purged from the DNC. That is like saying "I won the nomination, fuck your decision and who you wanted! That person is banned and out forever, you were wrong! Vote for me in November!"
So you're suggesting Trump is relying on the RNC for battleground states but Hillary isn't relying on the DNC? Or that there's nothing wrong with/a necessary evil skirting the limits by using this loophole?
I seem to remember when I brought this up way back when that we were assured that money wasn't going to support the candidate skirting campaign finance law.
As for the purge part, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Her losing the nomination doesn't "purge" her from the party. Hillary supporters surely wouldn't be so childish as to not vote, or waste their vote on someone else besides Bernie.
On October 27 2016 07:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. On October 27 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. The moral high ground is a nice place to visit, but not a lot gets done up there. GH believes that Bernie is such a superior candidate to Hillary that he would have beaten Trump without Super PAC's or a ground game like the Democrats currently have. He thinks that Bernie is the one who could have been elected President without the corrupt finance system. I think the favorability numbers show that pretty well on their own. Particularly when you look at Bernie's support outside of traditional Dem voters. Hillary supporters vote for Bernie in a general against Trump, plus he gets more indy's than Hillary, and more Republicans. How that doesn't end up with better numbers than Hillary is on y'all. Bernie was never attacked in any real fashion. His numbers look good because no one cares about him enough to try and push the numbers down. It might have worked but its a lot of ifs to get to the scenario you envision.
Do you honestly think there's anything about Bernie that would drive his numbers lower than the two lowest candidates in history?
Waiting for the BLM haters to condemn calls for violence. Or perhaps I should just presume all republicans support violence if they don't condemn people like Walsh and Clark?
Republicans on the verge of becoming a terrorist organization maybe?
|
I looked at the possible line of attack against Bernie. He had a child out of wedlock and he did the kind of things that college socialists with more idealism than common sense do. That paints the kind of picture of exactly the type of person he is already perceived to be. He'd do much better than Hillary or Trump on likability.
But Hillary is so ridiculously ungodly electable, that we can't risk choosing Bernie when there is so much at stake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
