Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 6/6/2016 at 12:01 AM, clarktrent said:

The thing is that big corporations lobby for more regulations and laws just because they are in bed with the politicians and can actually afford them. The smaller competitors would just go out of business.

This is definitely true, all the investment banks have former regulators working in high up positions, they know all the ins & outs of the various pieces of legislation, all the loopholes. Nothing wrong with regulation, but in the wake of the financial crisis the already shitty and complex legislation was made far worse (dodd-frank - though there is some good antitrust things in there, which Clinton supports btw).

  On 6/5/2016 at 11:55 PM, caze said:

boo hoo, corporations are evil, boo hoo

 

the US could really do with lowering its corporate tax rate to european levels (at least to the average, but more would be better).

that'd be fine so long as they did away w/all the loopholes and off shore tax havens etc.. US corporations get away with plenty of tax evasion legally.. i wonder what rate they actually pay once all the loopholes are considered?

the democratic campaign committee is a joke. they undid a bunch of rules to let the big dollars come in from lobbyists and SuperPACs.

but whatever.. it's no use arguing over. it's a fucking comedy.

Democracy is in a crisis. The financial sector has become so big and influential that decisions are made skirting the democratic process in favour of the interests of the finance industry. No matter the cost to people and the environment. Capitalism and democracy are starting to clash and things are going to get much worse.

And the corporate tax rates in the US might nominally be higher than European, but the effective tax rate is far lower due to effective tax planning and other loopholes that are exploited. So lowering tax rates aren't going to bring back manufacturing to the US. Why would it when things can be manufactured more cheaply overseas either way? Long gone are the days when industries and companies cared about the country they were based in. All that matter is the profit margins and making sure that the shareholders get their dividends.

The good thing about living in an oligarchy is that it doesn't really matter who wins the election. It's also a very bad thing. Unless Trump wins.

if the worst thing you can say about hillary is that she takes corporate money, maybe there's not much bad you can say about hillary

Trump winning would just make things get worse faster. Trump for President 2016!

Clinton represents the status quo.

"taking corporate money" implies a lot more than just that. money has strings.

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:23 AM, usagi said:

"taking corporate money" implies a lot more than just that. money has strings.

sure there is the potential for competing incentives but taking corporate money in itself does not conclusively demonstrate anything. it's extraordinarily difficult to be a contender without it. bernie is a fluke in that regard. basically, they all take it. 99% of them.

yeah yeah we get it you work for the democrats

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:27 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:23 AM, usagi said:

"taking corporate money" implies a lot more than just that. money has strings.

 

sure there is the potential for competing incentives but taking corporate money in itself does not conclusively demonstrate anything. it's also extraordinarily difficult to be a contender without it. bernie is a fluke in that regard. basically, they all take it. 99% of them.

 

that doesn't mean it's okay to take corporate money just because "99% of them" take it. in fact, that's the problem that the corruption is now considered normal and acceptable.

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:31 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:27 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:23 AM, usagi said:

"taking corporate money" implies a lot more than just that. money has strings.

 

sure there is the potential for competing incentives but taking corporate money in itself does not conclusively demonstrate anything. it's also extraordinarily difficult to be a contender without it. bernie is a fluke in that regard. basically, they all take it. 99% of them.

 

 

that doesn't mean it's okay to take corporate money just because "99% of them" take it. in fact, that's the problem that the corruption is now considered normal and acceptable.

 

in 2008 obama started out declining corporate money. at a certain point in the race he realized he faced a choice: dont take corporate money and lose, or take it and have a shot.

you pretty much dont have a shot if you dont take it.

bernie pulled off some magic by a combination of a stellar congressional career and some kind of old-guy desperation that caused him to promise a ton of crowd pleasers he could never have any remote hope of delivering

Interesting editorial in NYT on money in 2016 race:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/big-money-rearranges-its-election-bets.html

Most important bit is in the tail, I think.

  Quote

 

 

As the money torrent rises, it’s no coincidence that for the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires (268 of 534 House members), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Republican control of the agenda has snuffed out Democratic proposals to control or at least disclose the true extent of the wealth now driving elections. Theoretically, this election should be a forum for dealing with this open invitation to political corruption. Unfortunately, big money’s main effect on the campaign so far has been a frenzied pace to raise and spend more of it.

Regardless of the amounts of money involved, it might be more important to start creating more transparency about the actual influence of money on politics. My guess is, not voting for Hillary because of her donors might make things worse instead of better.

the rottenness of the system and the necessity of accepting dodgy donations to get ahead as a serious candidate still doesn't discount the potential pitfalls of doing so. what part of that is hard to understand? you encourage a system where corporate influence and lobbying is an endemic malaise, then you excuse it by saying it's just how things work? nonsense. nobody should be taking any donations, and campaigns should not cost hundreds of millions of dollars to run either. or start a year+ in advance. it's a circus all around.

at me?

so, you'd argue that a politician shouldn't take money if the politician needed it to make better policies for his/her constituents? i'd agree on paper. but that's a paper reality which in current day and age has become a fairy tale.

what would be more effective: vote for the politician who'd make policies that would make the involvement of money in politics more transparent, even if he/she took a substantial amount of money from donors. or not vote at all?

it surprises me how often people come to the conclusion that not voting is better than voting, btw. that's like saying that giving power to the people who do vote is better than to take control yourself. instead of not voting out of distrust of the political system, you might want to distrust the people who'd vote instead of you. every lost vote, means more power to the people who do vote.

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:56 AM, usagi said:

the rottenness of the system and the necessity of accepting dodgy donations to get ahead as a serious candidate still doesn't discount the potential pitfalls of doing so. what part of that is hard to understand? you encourage a system where corporate influence and lobbying is an endemic malaise, then you excuse it by saying it's just how things work? nonsense. nobody should be taking any donations, and campaigns should not cost hundreds of millions of dollars to run either. or start a year+ in advance. it's a circus all around.

major reforms are needed but you cant eliminate corporate money. it would never happen. anyone suggesting eliminating corporate money from politics is talking about a fantasy land.

not at you.

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:31 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:27 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:23 AM, usagi said:

"taking corporate money" implies a lot more than just that. money has strings.

 

sure there is the potential for competing incentives but taking corporate money in itself does not conclusively demonstrate anything. it's also extraordinarily difficult to be a contender without it. bernie is a fluke in that regard. basically, they all take it. 99% of them.

 

 

that doesn't mean it's okay to take corporate money just because "99% of them" take it. in fact, that's the problem that the corruption is now considered normal and acceptable.

 

there used to be rules in place. even recently they attempted to roll back some of the allowances for corporate money to flow but once the election process started they got tossed.

the fact that it takes a what.. 400 million? a billion? dollars to run for president is pretty disgusting. the election cycle is an industry in itself.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/

ugly reading material

  On 6/6/2016 at 8:06 AM, goDel said:

at me?

no

  On 6/6/2016 at 8:11 AM, usagi said:

not at you.

  On 6/6/2016 at 8:12 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 8:06 AM, goDel said:

at me?

 

no

 

that's a duo bonus!

on another note: my current bet is on a complete implosion on the gop-side when trumpy starts to show cracks. and my guess is hillary is the best candidate to shoot holes in trumps candidacy. and her recent couple of shots might already have begun the implosion process.

interesting election cycle, this is. :)

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:35 AM, very honest said:

in 2008 obama started out declining corporate money. at a certain point in the race he realized he faced a choice: dont take corporate money and lose, or take it and have a shot.

 

 

 

you pretty much dont have a shot if you dont take it.

 

bernie pulled off some magic by a combination of a stellar congressional career and some kind of old-guy desperation that caused him to promise a ton of crowd pleasers he could never have any remote hope of delivering

 

you're still repeating the same point. to be a politician; you need to be corrupt. bernie sanders is saying "we need to remove corruption from politics". bernie didn't pull off magic. he just appealed to people who payed attention and agreed that the corruption in washington is out of control.

i can understand you thinking politicians need to be corrupt otherwise they don't have a shot. it's been done for so long, people now accept corruption as much as they accept littering.

  On 6/6/2016 at 9:37 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:35 AM, very honest said:

in 2008 obama started out declining corporate money. at a certain point in the race he realized he faced a choice: dont take corporate money and lose, or take it and have a shot.

 

 

 

you pretty much dont have a shot if you dont take it.

 

bernie pulled off some magic by a combination of a stellar congressional career and some kind of old-guy desperation that caused him to promise a ton of crowd pleasers he could never have any remote hope of delivering

 

 

you're still repeating the same point. to be a politician; you need to be corrupt. bernie sanders is saying "we need to remove corruption from politics". bernie didn't pull off magic. he just appealed to people who payed attention and agreed that the corruption in washington is out of control.

 

i can understand you thinking politicians need to be corrupt otherwise they don't have a shot. it's been done for so long, people now accept corruption as much as they accept littering.

 

i disagree that accepting donations equates to being corrupt. i could accept a donation and not be corrupt. i bet you could too.

  On 6/6/2016 at 9:51 AM, very honest said:

i could accept a donation and not be corrupt.

lol. you're as good a presidential candidate as any.

  On 6/5/2016 at 10:20 PM, Vilwx said:

 

  On 6/5/2016 at 4:37 PM, sweepstakes said:

 

  On 6/5/2016 at 11:01 AM, Rubin Farr said:

Mike Judge creating new Idiocracy anti Trump campaign ads:

 

http://movieweb.com/idiocracy-anti-trump-ads-terry-crews-mike-judge/

I'd have to see these ads but I'm struggling to imagine them swaying anyone. I doubt most Trump supporters have seen Idiocracy and I'm guessing those who have either think it's condescending liberal bullshit, or think Camacho would make a badass president.

 

I definitely find myself talking about Idiocracy more and more often, though, especially in the context of Trump.

I live in a very conservative area and many of such people that are my age have seen Idiocracy, Team America World Police, etc etc. Family Guy (ugh) is especially popular with the young conservative crowd. I think people generally recognize that those works are satirical, but they don't seem to completely get it. A year or two ago I overheard a co-worker (at a place where I was one of three liberals that I knew of) comparing Barack Obama to Mister President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, claiming that our current president won votes by being a "rock star president" and I guess implying a lack of professionalism. I guess there is some kind of redneck equivalence between becoming president of a student law review in the second year of law school/being a law professor and attorney for a decade, and being a member of Lynyrd Skynyrd. I don't doubt at all that he is now a Trump supporter and believes that he is fully qualified as a candidate.

  On 6/6/2016 at 9:51 AM, very honest said:

i disagree that accepting donations equates to being corrupt. i could accept a donation and not be corrupt. i bet you could too.

so if corporations, banks and other organizations gave you $30 million in 16 months for "speeches" you wouldn't consider doing them a solid the next time they're in trouble? because you and i both know, banks and corporations aren't in business to give out money. they're in business to make money

also, let's say for example i came to your house and one evening and you invited a couple of friends over for a chat with one hitch: everyone gives me $353,000 that night. what do you suppose those friends would want for their money?

Clinton's policies on electoral reform:

- overturn citizen's united (i.e. the superpac ruling), via appointing new supreme court justices and a constitutional amendment.

- new laws for transparency in campaign donations, will use executive orders for use of private money in federal programs if congress acting the cunt.

- public funding for candidates, via a donor matching system for small donors, candidates who opt in have to limit the upper size on their individual donations

- lots of voter rights stuff

Sanders' policies are pretty much the same, though he doesn't seem to have gone into the same detail on his website.

Neither of them will be able to enact much of this without congress giving the go ahead though. I'd imagine Clinton has a better chance of convincing them, or at least working out some form of compromise, than Sanders ever would.