|
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 January 27 2018 06:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
Wonder if this will impact the NAFTA discussions.
It has to. The best part is that Trudeau is running circles around the US. Compare what Trudeau and Trump have each accomplished in trade in the last year. You could argue Trump should want trade protections negotiated because otherwise Canada simply outmaneuvers the US over and over throughout his presidency. Trudeau simply has a better team right now.
|
On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker)
You can’t correct citizens united. It is reality. Money is speech. To limit money in politics, you need to come at it from a new angle. Unlimited, unregulated money is a threat to democracy and informed voters is a much better angle.
|
On January 27 2018 06:52 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:46 Toadesstern wrote:There's an update on the Bombardier vs Boeing tariffs: WASHINGTON/MONTREAL (Reuters) - Bombardier Inc shares jumped 15 percent on Friday after the Canadian plane maker won an unexpected trade victory against Boeing Co which means it can sell its newest jets to U.S. customers without heavy tariffs.
The decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission is the latest twist in U.S.-Canadian trade relations that have been complicated by disputes over tariffs on Canadian lumber and U.S. milk and U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to renegotiate or even abandon NAFTA.
Trump has not weighed in on the dispute personally, but he has often railed against what he sees as unfair international trade practices such as state subsidies hurting U.S. businesses.
The commission voted 4-0 on Friday that Bombardier’s prices did not harm Boeing and discarded a U.S. Commerce Department recommendation to slap a near 300-percent duty on sales of Bombardier’s 110-to-130-seat CSeries jets for five years. Boeing’s shares fell slightly.
“It’s reassuring to see that facts and evidence matter,” said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “This part of the trade policy process works unimpeded despite President Trump’s protectionist rhetoric.”
In a statement, Bombardier called the decision a “victory for innovation, competition, and the rule of law,” and a win for U.S. airlines and the traveling public.
Boeing said it was disappointed that the commission did not recognize “the harm that Boeing has suffered from the billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies that the Department of Commerce found Bombardier received and used to dump aircraft in the U.S. small single-aisle airplane market.”
Delta said it was pleased with the decision and looked forward to introducing Bombardier’s CS100 to its fleet.
Former ITC chairman Dan Pearson praised the decision. “Not a single commissioner was willing to buy Boeing’s arguments,” he said. “I think ‘America First’ is a policy of the White House and the Commerce Department. But it’s not the policy of an independent agency (like the ITC).”
The decision may end up helping Trump’s plan to boost U.S. jobs as the CSeries jets for U.S. airlines will be built in Alabama rather than Canada.
[...]
www.reuters.com I feel like Bombardier might've lost out in the overall picture, having half the CSeries taken over by Airbus for not much gain, but this is pretty damn good news regardless for them. Get wrecked Boeing
yeah I think had they known this the whole Airbus thing would not have happened in the first place. Obviously winning this and not having to rely on Airbus would have been the best possible outcome for them.
As it stands I think Europe is really happy about this.
Bombardier is still happy.
Trump probably pissed and thinking about how he can sell those planes built in Alabama being his masterplan all along.
This definitely isn't how Boeing wanted it. American Airlines on the other hand are probably quite happy about it so I don't think it's a big thing. Just looks really bad for Trump
|
On January 27 2018 06:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot.
But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things.
In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) You can’t correct citizens united. It is reality. Money is speech. To limit money in politics, you need to come at it from a new angle. Unlimited, unregulated money is a threat to democracy and informed voters is a much better angle.
Okay sure. But my point about saying this Russia obsession is justified (has value) because it will lead to substantial campaign finance reform being a completely unsupported pipe dream at best, stands.
|
On January 27 2018 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
Wonder if this will impact the NAFTA discussions. It has to. The best part is that Trudeau is running circles around the US. Compare what Trudeau and Trump have each accomplished in trade in the last year. You could argue Trump should want trade protections negotiated because otherwise Canada simply outmaneuvers the US over and over throughout his presidency. Trudeau simply has a better team right now.
Well, yeah. One of top people in our trade office is like a 20-something year old college grad.
|
On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker)
A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right?
But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct?
Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election.
|
On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot.
But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things.
In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election.
It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law.
The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well.
|
On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:
[quote]
In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well.
Because your asking the people who benefit from the current situation to fix it.
That's the problem with letting all that money into politics, once its in its damn hard to get out.
|
On January 27 2018 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again.
[quote]
Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked?
*screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well. Because your asking the people who benefit from the current situation to fix it. That's the problem with letting all that money into politics, once its in its damn hard to get out.
Now that might be a good argument to replace them all, but I don't think it influences my point.
|
On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:
[quote]
In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well.
That part is incorrect. Before citizens united, reporting requirements were far stricter and the amount of money going into elections was far less. The sea of money that Russia used to obfuscate their influence didn’t exist.
Also Facebook and Social media didn’t’ really take off yet.
|
Remember guys GH doesn't care about his points or ideas being legitimate. He just wants good ideas and complain about how they don't happen beacuse of "reality".
|
On January 27 2018 07:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again.
[quote]
Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked?
*screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well. That part is incorrect. Before citizens united, reporting requirements were far stricter and the amount of money going into elections was far less. The sea of money that Russia used to obfuscate their influence didn’t exist.
I'm presuming there's a lot of agreement already (that wasn't there at the start of this conversation) if that's the part you think is wrong.
How much money are you imagining Russia spent? What figures are you using for how much money was spent before and after CU? I simply don't buy the assertion that the increase in spending is the reason Russia was able to do what it did and had CU not been passed Russia wouldn't have been able to do what it did. I can't even imagine the example being considered.
On January 27 2018 07:31 Sermokala wrote:
Remember guys GH doesn't care about his points or ideas being legitimate. He just wants good ideas and complain about how they don't happen beacuse of "reality".
Think you're being just a little disingenuous with this. I don't think most people even know what the focus of this discussion was at this point.
To reiterate: P6 suggested following the Russia obsession still be valuable even without a recommendation from Mueller because Mueller investigating beyond Trump and the obsession on it would help address CU (which he asserted allowed Russia to do whatever they did) and campaign finance reform generally.
I disagreed with basically every point for the reasons mentioned, to which I've been told "campaign finance reform is hard" as if that's not part of my point in the first place.
Aside: + Show Spoiler +Sometimes people just reflexively disagree with me (and others) or certain arguments without actually understanding what the argument is and it results in quite a mess
|
On January 27 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 07:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well. That part is incorrect. Before citizens united, reporting requirements were far stricter and the amount of money going into elections was far less. The sea of money that Russia used to obfuscate their influence didn’t exist. I'm presuming there's a lot of agreement already (that wasn't there at the start of this conversation) if that's the part you think is wrong. How much money are you imagining Russia spent? What figures are you using for how much money was spent before and after CU? I simply don't buy the assertion that the increase in spending is the reason Russia was able to do what it did and had CU not been passed Russia wouldn't have been able to do what it did. I can't even imagine the example being considered.
If the amount is significant and wide spread, it doesn’t matter. The amount is supposed to be zero and should be caught before the election happens, not two year later. And this is the point. Prior to CU, groups like PACs needed to disclose where all their money came from and could not use that money to attempt influence an election in any way. Super PACs do not need to do that.
And again, GH, this is just my opinion. I am not going to argue this case before the Supreme Court. I feel that the best route long lasting campaign finance reform is arguing about preserving the voter’s ability to be informed. The quality of elections. The ability for the government to regulate elections to assure fraud does not take place. These are better, less abstract arguments that speech. It was my opinion long before this Russia investigation.
GH: We understand, but this discussion has moved to a full blown cross examination where I put in a lot of effort to answer and you post snarky dismissals about how you don’t agree.
|
On January 27 2018 07:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then?
What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before?
I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well. That part is incorrect. Before citizens united, reporting requirements were far stricter and the amount of money going into elections was far less. The sea of money that Russia used to obfuscate their influence didn’t exist. I'm presuming there's a lot of agreement already (that wasn't there at the start of this conversation) if that's the part you think is wrong. How much money are you imagining Russia spent? What figures are you using for how much money was spent before and after CU? I simply don't buy the assertion that the increase in spending is the reason Russia was able to do what it did and had CU not been passed Russia wouldn't have been able to do what it did. I can't even imagine the example being considered. If the amount is significant and wide spread, it doesn’t matter. The amount is supposed to be zero and should be caught before the election happens, not two year later. And this is the point. Prior to CU, groups like PACs needed to disclose where all their money came from and could not use that money to attempt influence an election in any way. Super PACs do not need to do that. And again, GH, this is just my opinion. I am not going to argue this case before the Supreme Court. I feel that the best route long lasting campaign finance reform is arguing about preserving the voter’s ability to be informed. The quality of elections. The ability for the government to regulate elections to assure fraud does not take place. These are better, less abstract arguments that speech. It was my opinion long before this Russia investigation.
You previously suggested the amount of money Russia spent would be "shocking" and help trigger this reform, so I disagree that you didn't suggest it's amount/significance "doesn't matter" to your argument.
I don't know what the PAC vs SuperPAC issues (ones I find important independent of this convo) have to do with what Russia did or the investigation though?
So it's my position that your argument that the obsession with every leak and fart about the investigation (particularly if Mueller doesn't even make a recommendation) is justified and has value because it will lead to campaign finance reform in a form that effectively addresses any of that, is unfounded and a bit ridiculous.
|
On January 27 2018 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 07:46 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds.
The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged.
So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well. That part is incorrect. Before citizens united, reporting requirements were far stricter and the amount of money going into elections was far less. The sea of money that Russia used to obfuscate their influence didn’t exist. I'm presuming there's a lot of agreement already (that wasn't there at the start of this conversation) if that's the part you think is wrong. How much money are you imagining Russia spent? What figures are you using for how much money was spent before and after CU? I simply don't buy the assertion that the increase in spending is the reason Russia was able to do what it did and had CU not been passed Russia wouldn't have been able to do what it did. I can't even imagine the example being considered. If the amount is significant and wide spread, it doesn’t matter. The amount is supposed to be zero and should be caught before the election happens, not two year later. And this is the point. Prior to CU, groups like PACs needed to disclose where all their money came from and could not use that money to attempt influence an election in any way. Super PACs do not need to do that. And again, GH, this is just my opinion. I am not going to argue this case before the Supreme Court. I feel that the best route long lasting campaign finance reform is arguing about preserving the voter’s ability to be informed. The quality of elections. The ability for the government to regulate elections to assure fraud does not take place. These are better, less abstract arguments that speech. It was my opinion long before this Russia investigation. You previously suggested the amount of money Russia spent would be "shocking" and help trigger this reform, so I disagree that you didn't suggest it's amount/significance "doesn't matter" to your argument. I don't know what the PAC vs SuperPAC issues (ones I find important independent of this convo) have to do with what Russia did or the investigation though? So it's my position that your argument that the obsession with every leak and fart about the investigation (particularly if Mueller doesn't even make a recommendation) is justified and has value because it will lead to campaign finance reform in a form that effectively addresses any of that, is unfounded and a bit ridiculous.
GH, I know you don't have any faith in the system. I'm not interested in renewing it. If you don't agree with my view on the subject and hopes that it leads to reforms, I'm ok with that. I don't control the media and what is covered and I don't really care to debate the "efficiency" of the coverage of Mueller.
|
On January 27 2018 08:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:46 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking
All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon.
I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well. That part is incorrect. Before citizens united, reporting requirements were far stricter and the amount of money going into elections was far less. The sea of money that Russia used to obfuscate their influence didn’t exist. I'm presuming there's a lot of agreement already (that wasn't there at the start of this conversation) if that's the part you think is wrong. How much money are you imagining Russia spent? What figures are you using for how much money was spent before and after CU? I simply don't buy the assertion that the increase in spending is the reason Russia was able to do what it did and had CU not been passed Russia wouldn't have been able to do what it did. I can't even imagine the example being considered. If the amount is significant and wide spread, it doesn’t matter. The amount is supposed to be zero and should be caught before the election happens, not two year later. And this is the point. Prior to CU, groups like PACs needed to disclose where all their money came from and could not use that money to attempt influence an election in any way. Super PACs do not need to do that. And again, GH, this is just my opinion. I am not going to argue this case before the Supreme Court. I feel that the best route long lasting campaign finance reform is arguing about preserving the voter’s ability to be informed. The quality of elections. The ability for the government to regulate elections to assure fraud does not take place. These are better, less abstract arguments that speech. It was my opinion long before this Russia investigation. You previously suggested the amount of money Russia spent would be "shocking" and help trigger this reform, so I disagree that you didn't suggest it's amount/significance "doesn't matter" to your argument. I don't know what the PAC vs SuperPAC issues (ones I find important independent of this convo) have to do with what Russia did or the investigation though? So it's my position that your argument that the obsession with every leak and fart about the investigation (particularly if Mueller doesn't even make a recommendation) is justified and has value because it will lead to campaign finance reform in a form that effectively addresses any of that, is unfounded and a bit ridiculous. GH, I know you don't have any faith in the system. I'm not interested in renewing it. If you don't agree with my view on the subject and hopes that it leads to reforms, I'm ok with that. I don't control the media and what is covered and I don't really care to debate the "efficiency" of the coverage of Mueller.
A separate argument as I pointed out before, we all agree that fixing campaign finance is going to be a hard push. My contention is your assertion that it justifies (gives value to) the obsession with Russia and the investigation. While the media is certainly a part of my critique, it very much applied to posters here as well.
Which is why I wanted to know what the people constantly posting about Russia or the investigation would consider the system working or failing and why. So I could understand what they think the value of the constant engagement in media and here on it is worth, beyond shits, giggles, and ratings.
|
On January 27 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 08:10 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:46 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money. I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well. That part is incorrect. Before citizens united, reporting requirements were far stricter and the amount of money going into elections was far less. The sea of money that Russia used to obfuscate their influence didn’t exist. I'm presuming there's a lot of agreement already (that wasn't there at the start of this conversation) if that's the part you think is wrong. How much money are you imagining Russia spent? What figures are you using for how much money was spent before and after CU? I simply don't buy the assertion that the increase in spending is the reason Russia was able to do what it did and had CU not been passed Russia wouldn't have been able to do what it did. I can't even imagine the example being considered. If the amount is significant and wide spread, it doesn’t matter. The amount is supposed to be zero and should be caught before the election happens, not two year later. And this is the point. Prior to CU, groups like PACs needed to disclose where all their money came from and could not use that money to attempt influence an election in any way. Super PACs do not need to do that. And again, GH, this is just my opinion. I am not going to argue this case before the Supreme Court. I feel that the best route long lasting campaign finance reform is arguing about preserving the voter’s ability to be informed. The quality of elections. The ability for the government to regulate elections to assure fraud does not take place. These are better, less abstract arguments that speech. It was my opinion long before this Russia investigation. You previously suggested the amount of money Russia spent would be "shocking" and help trigger this reform, so I disagree that you didn't suggest it's amount/significance "doesn't matter" to your argument. I don't know what the PAC vs SuperPAC issues (ones I find important independent of this convo) have to do with what Russia did or the investigation though? So it's my position that your argument that the obsession with every leak and fart about the investigation (particularly if Mueller doesn't even make a recommendation) is justified and has value because it will lead to campaign finance reform in a form that effectively addresses any of that, is unfounded and a bit ridiculous. GH, I know you don't have any faith in the system. I'm not interested in renewing it. If you don't agree with my view on the subject and hopes that it leads to reforms, I'm ok with that. I don't control the media and what is covered and I don't really care to debate the "efficiency" of the coverage of Mueller. A separate argument as I pointed out before, we all agree that fixing campaign finance is going to be a hard push. My contention is your assertion that it justifies (gives value to) the obsession with Russia and the investigation. While the media is certainly a part of my critique, it very much applied to posters here as well. Which is why I wanted to know what the people constantly posting about Russia or the investigation would consider the system working or failing and why. So I could understand what they think the value of the constant engagement in media and here on it is worth, beyond shits, giggles, and ratings.
It is the only show in town tonight. I discuss it because I am interested in the law and legal arguments around it. I'm also a recovering history teacher than deep into teaching civics. The Washington band is literally playing my song. But we also discussed DACA and opioids in the last week.
And if we are talking about the most recent release, firing the special counsel is what got Nixon impeached. Trump gave it the old college try and failed, but that doesn't change the fact that it is discussion worthy.
|
On January 27 2018 08:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 08:10 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:46 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2018 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker) A foreigner cannot contribute to a US election right? But a foreigner could pay a US company that then contributes to a super pac correct? Thats where CU allows foreign citizens and governments to influence the US election. It makes it easier with more direct influence and less potential oversight, but it's not as if the FEC is even willing to investigate, let alone punish, any of the potential violations of the already significantly loose law. The thing is that nothing Russia did would have been prevented before CU (even with enforcement) and congress's bill to specifically address what happened with Russia (Honest Ad Act) doesn't fix even the problem they knew they had and is going nowhere fast as well. That part is incorrect. Before citizens united, reporting requirements were far stricter and the amount of money going into elections was far less. The sea of money that Russia used to obfuscate their influence didn’t exist. I'm presuming there's a lot of agreement already (that wasn't there at the start of this conversation) if that's the part you think is wrong. How much money are you imagining Russia spent? What figures are you using for how much money was spent before and after CU? I simply don't buy the assertion that the increase in spending is the reason Russia was able to do what it did and had CU not been passed Russia wouldn't have been able to do what it did. I can't even imagine the example being considered. If the amount is significant and wide spread, it doesn’t matter. The amount is supposed to be zero and should be caught before the election happens, not two year later. And this is the point. Prior to CU, groups like PACs needed to disclose where all their money came from and could not use that money to attempt influence an election in any way. Super PACs do not need to do that. And again, GH, this is just my opinion. I am not going to argue this case before the Supreme Court. I feel that the best route long lasting campaign finance reform is arguing about preserving the voter’s ability to be informed. The quality of elections. The ability for the government to regulate elections to assure fraud does not take place. These are better, less abstract arguments that speech. It was my opinion long before this Russia investigation. You previously suggested the amount of money Russia spent would be "shocking" and help trigger this reform, so I disagree that you didn't suggest it's amount/significance "doesn't matter" to your argument. I don't know what the PAC vs SuperPAC issues (ones I find important independent of this convo) have to do with what Russia did or the investigation though? So it's my position that your argument that the obsession with every leak and fart about the investigation (particularly if Mueller doesn't even make a recommendation) is justified and has value because it will lead to campaign finance reform in a form that effectively addresses any of that, is unfounded and a bit ridiculous. GH, I know you don't have any faith in the system. I'm not interested in renewing it. If you don't agree with my view on the subject and hopes that it leads to reforms, I'm ok with that. I don't control the media and what is covered and I don't really care to debate the "efficiency" of the coverage of Mueller. A separate argument as I pointed out before, we all agree that fixing campaign finance is going to be a hard push. My contention is your assertion that it justifies (gives value to) the obsession with Russia and the investigation. While the media is certainly a part of my critique, it very much applied to posters here as well. Which is why I wanted to know what the people constantly posting about Russia or the investigation would consider the system working or failing and why. So I could understand what they think the value of the constant engagement in media and here on it is worth, beyond shits, giggles, and ratings. It is the only show in town tonight. I discuss it because I am interested in the law and legal arguments around it. I'm also a recovering history teacher than deep into teaching civics. The Washington band is literally playing my song. But we also discussed DACA and opioids in the last week. And if we are talking about the most recent release, firing the special counsel is what got Nixon impeached. Trump gave it the old college try and failed, but that doesn't change the fact that it is discussion worthy.
I mean I have my contentions with that, but it's a hellova lot better than the stuff about campaign finance reform.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
MEXICO CITY (AP) — When Jose David Aguilar Moran took over as Honduras’ new national police chief last week, he promised to continue reforming a law enforcement agency stained by corruption and complicity with drug cartels.
But a confidential Honduran government security report obtained by the Associated Press says Aguilar himself helped a cartel leader pull off the delivery of nearly a ton of cocaine in 2013.
The clandestine haul of more than 1,700 pounds of cocaine was packed inside a tanker truck that, the report says, was being escorted by corrupt police officers to the home of Wilter Blanco, a drug trafficker recently convicted in Florida and now serving a 20-year sentence.
Aguilar, who at the time was serving as chief of intelligence for Honduras’ National Police, intervened after a police official safeguarding the drugs was busted by a lower-ranked officer who had seized the tanker, the report says. The handcuffed officer called Aguilar, who ordered that the officer and the tanker be set free, says the report which was prepared by the Honduran Security Ministry’s Inspector General.
The U.S. street value of the cocaine involved could have topped $20 million
The incident raises questions about Honduras’ much-touted purge of corrupt police and the reliability of the administration of President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a key U.S. ally in the war on drugs.
As Hernandez swore in his new police chief, local media reported that he said Aguilar was chosen “with the utmost confidence” and would lead “a National Police that becomes a role model for the region.”
Source
|
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/
President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter.
The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency.
Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land.
|
On January 27 2018 10:37 Excludos wrote:http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/trump-launched-campaign-to-discredit-potential-fbi-witnesses/Show nested quote +President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter. Show nested quote +The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency. Just a shame Obstruction of Justice doesn't mean much in GOP land.
well, when many GOP voters don't care about the rule of law, not surprising their politicians don't either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
