Politics Chaos in the Democratic presidential primary

[Denny Crane]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/sanders-campaign-threatens-to-sue-dnc-216942

Tension rapidly escalated throughout the day as the Democratic National Committee cut off Sanders' access to his own voter files, effectively crippling his field operation, and the senator retaliated by suing the party and accusing its leaders of plotting to hand the presidential nomination to Clinton.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Bernie gets cuckold'ed by his own party.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

Bernie gets cuckold'ed by his own party.

I knew it was coming. He's been doing too well.

 

[riverman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/sanders-campaign-threatens-to-sue-dnc-216942

Tension rapidly escalated throughout the day as the Democratic National Committee cut off Sanders' access to his own voter files, effectively crippling his field operation, and the senator retaliated by suing the party and accusing its leaders of plotting to hand the presidential nomination to Clinton.

He could always go independent

 

[MarAzul]

He could always go independent

Great idea.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Jim Webb: ‘The DNC Is Nothing More Than An Arm For The Clinton Campaign’

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/18/j...n-arm-for-the-clinton-campaign/#ixzz3ukCkds4d

 

[blue32]

Surprised she's not in jail... O nevermind ....

 

[Further]

I have no idea about this situation, but in general I think the parties have way too much power and say in the elections. Both for the Democrats and the Republicans. They design the rules to make it very difficult for non D's and R's to get in debates or get heard, they pick and choose who they will throw their weight behind and who they will let twist in the wind. And then they try and manipulate the voters to make sure that "their" candidate gets the nod. The Republican party is doing everything they can figure to thwart Trump because they are fearful of just saying you don't hold our values and push him into running independent. And with Hillary, the Democratic party is making sure she gets all the rules, structure and perhaps even other non-legal assists to make sure Sanders doesn't foil their plans.

It sickens me, and is a sign of a truly broken system. Our votes only mean something if we agree with the party powers.

 

[riverman]

I'm convinced we need to do away with the long campaign and shorten it to 6 weeks...over and done. This is an ugly field to vote for across the board, looks like I'll once again have to vote against the one I dislike the most, it's a shame and that does say the system is broken

 

[Further]

I'm convinced we need to do away with the long campaign and shorten it to 6 weeks...over and done. This is an ugly field to vote for across the board, looks like I'll once again have to vote against the one I dislike the most, it's a shame and that does say the system is broken

I think we just need to do away with the parties altogether. If there are no parties, then people will have to vote in accordance with who has the most similar values or policies instead of who captains their team. That, and campaign finance to limit influence. Those two changes would have the side effect of shorter campaigns.

 

[barfo]

Looks like the Bernie/DNC fight is already over...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I have no idea about this situation, but in general I think the parties have way too much power and say in the elections. Both for the Democrats and the Republicans. They design the rules to make it very difficult for non D's and R's to get in debates or get heard, they pick and choose who they will throw their weight behind and who they will let twist in the wind. And then they try and manipulate the voters to make sure that "their" candidate gets the nod. The Republican party is doing everything they can figure to thwart Trump because they are fearful of just saying you don't hold our values and push him into running independent. And with Hillary, the Democratic party is making sure she gets all the rules, structure and perhaps even other non-legal assists to make sure Sanders doesn't foil their plans.

It sickens me, and is a sign of a truly broken system. Our votes only mean something if we agree with the party powers.

Need background checks of some kind on something.

 

[HailBlazers]

#

I have no idea about this situation, but in general I think the parties have way too much power and say in the elections. Both for the Democrats and the Republicans. They design the rules to make it very difficult for non D's and R's to get in debates or get heard, they pick and choose who they will throw their weight behind and who they will let twist in the wind. And then they try and manipulate the voters to make sure that "their" candidate gets the nod. The Republican party is doing everything they can figure to thwart Trump because they are fearful of just saying you don't hold our values and push him into running independent. And with Hillary, the Democratic party is making sure she gets all the rules, structure and perhaps even other non-legal assists to make sure Sanders doesn't foil their plans.

It sickens me, and is a sign of a truly broken system. Our votes only mean something if we agree with the party powers.

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite. So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

This is not news, you say. Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

 

[Denny Crane]

#




Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

In other words, when people associate and lobby the government, they have more influence than individuals.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I love Bernie Sanders!

We know.

 

[Further]

In other words, when people associate and lobby the government, they have more influence than individuals.

In other words, when people have the capital to influence the elected officials they have the most sway.

 

[Denny Crane]

In other words, when people have the capital to influence the elected officials they have the most sway.

Unions have no influence?
Planned Parenthood has no influence?
I think they do, and to as huge a degree as any other organization.

 

[Further]

Unions have no influence?
Planned Parenthood has no influence?
I think they do, and to as huge a degree as any other organization.

They shouldn't have the ability to donate money to sway the officials. They should be able to lobby, just so far as meetings and perhaps being able to say they stand for their constituents, but they shouldn't be able to give thousands or millions of dollars. Right, Left and Center, the money is not how groups should be influencing. It's wrong and it's destroying our nation.

 

[Denny Crane]

They shouldn't have the ability to donate money to sway the officials. They should be able to lobby, just so far as meetings and perhaps being able to say they stand for their constituents, but they shouldn't be able to give thousands or millions of dollars. Right, Left and Center, the money is not how groups should be influencing. It's wrong and it's destroying our nation.

A pool of thousands of issue voters is influence.

The Unions think it necessary to take from the workers to fund political activity. Planned Parenthood pays big money for lobbying. Both get big concessions and cash from the government. Hell, Obama gave the union a car company.

Corporations represent their shareholders' interests.

Seems to me everyone's interests are being represented.

Vote for whoever is supported by your favorite organizations.

 

[Further]

A pool of thousands of issue voters is influence.

The Unions think it necessary to take from the workers to fund political activity. Planned Parenthood pays big money for lobbying. Both get big concessions and cash from the government. Hell, Obama gave the union a car company.

Corporations represent their shareholders' interests.

Seems to me everyone's interests are being represented.

Vote for whoever is supported by your favorite organizations.

You and I fundamentally disagree.

 

[Denny Crane]

You and I fundamentally disagree.

You and I wrote Planned Parenthood checks for $500M last year. And every year prior since 1970.

Cash money.

Obama gave a car company to the union that spent many millions and helped get him elected.

I think the disagreement is you want some oxen gored and I want all or none.

 

[Denny Crane]

Completely unscientific

 

[Further]

You and I wrote Planned Parenthood checks for $500M last year. And every year prior since 1970.

Cash money.

Obama gave a car company to the union that spent many millions and helped get him elected.

I think the disagreement is you want some oxen gored and I want all or none.

NO, I simply want money out of politics. So that $500 won't be what determines who gets a car company or anything else. Either PP is able to use logic and reason to persuade policy, or perhaps the threat that they have supporters who will vote in accordance with PP's best interest. But, not because PP is able to make big donations to the campaigns of certain candidates.

The car company can take the same, or a different route, I just don't think it should be based on favors possibly reliant on campaign assets. Hopefully with capital removed from politics, decisions will start to get made based on what's best for the electorate and not based on what's best for the donors.

 

[Denny Crane]

NO, I simply want money out of politics. So that $500 won't be what determines who gets a car company or anything else. Either PP is able to use logic and reason to persuade policy, or perhaps the threat that they have supporters who will vote in accordance with PP's best interest. But, not because PP is able to make big donations to the campaigns of certain candidates.

The car company can take the same, or a different route, I just don't think it should be based on favors possibly reliant on campaign assets. Hopefully with capital removed from politics, decisions will start to get made based on what's best for the electorate and not based on what's best for the donors.

With the amount of money the government spends comes a ridiculous amount of power. The government can buy Apple 4 times over with one year's worth of tax revenues.

As long as you give this kind of power to politicians, they're going to sell it. To Planned Parenthood and to GE.

The NRA has supporters who will vote in accordance with the NRA's best interests. Want that ox gored?

 

[Further]

As long as you give this kind of power to politicians, they're going to sell it.

So let's take that ability away. We are not doomed to repeat our past, but we must learn from it and change.

 

[Denny Crane]

So let's take that ability away. We are not doomed to repeat our past, but we must learn from it and change.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't "take it away" and have big government. It's impossible.

The system, with or without money, incentivizes politicians to do whatever they can to get reelected. The power they wield is so ham handed that the people (in any form: union, corporation, non-profit) have to have some ability to drive the process.

You're complaining about $2B or $3B in money spent on elections and all the lobbying when there's $16T spent in Obama's first term? It's money well spent. Without it, the candidates wouldn't be vetted much at all.

 

[Denny Crane]

Zoning commissioner walks into a bar. Tells the owner, "pay me or I'll zone the street in front of the bar as 10 minute loading zone."

The corollary, is you and I each own a bar and I pay the commissioner to zone the street in front of your bar as 10 minute loading zone.

Power at the local level. Multiply that by $trillions and you have the federal government.

 

[Further]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't "take it away" and have big government. It's impossible.

Don't see it as impossible at all. You are connecting two things that aren't connected. And, you are saying on one hand it's impossible to separate the money in politics from big govt, and on the other hand the money is so tiny comparatively that it's inconsequential. Those two hands don't jive.

But, let's take a look for a moment at what would happen if national elections (to start) were not donor driven. The elected politicians would still spend the money, they would still (even more so) try and appease the electorate, they simply wouldn't need to make stupid concessions to get the required money to run the campaign. Some stupid concessions would still need to be made to sway blocks of voters, but that Sheldon Allison or George Soros vote would be weighted the same, or at least closer to that of the average voter. Perhaps Sheldon and George would still have a modicum more sway than I do, mostly because they employee many people and so a politician might see them as valuable from that perspective, but not just because they have deep pockets to fund fund fund.

Small government politicians would find it easier to remain small government politicians, big government politicians would find it just as easy to be truer to themselves. But they could actually appropriate those funds where they felt it was most worthy, not into the pockets of those who had helped them get elected. Or at least, they could try and appropriate the funds in accordance with the wishes of the electorate and not in accordance of the pockets of the biggest donors. The sway of the NRA or the Teachers Union would still exist because they are huge organizations representing large blocks of voters, but that sway would be somewhat reduced because their power would end at the size of the voter block in not at the size of their pocketbook.

You tend to say that the 2-3B dollars is a pittance compared to the trillions the govt spends, so it doesn't matter, but the big problem is that it's those groups that spend that 2-3B are able to get preferential treatment in earning money off the Govt spending those trillions.

 

[riverman]

With the amount of money the government spends comes a ridiculous amount of power. The government can buy Apple 4 times over with one year's worth of tax revenues.

As long as you give this kind of power to politicians, they're going to sell it. To Planned Parenthood and to GE.

The NRA has supporters who will vote in accordance with the NRA's best interests. Want that ox gored?

I can buy 40 apples for about 3 bucks

 

[Denny Crane]

Don't see it as impossible at all. You are connecting two things that aren't connected. And, you are saying on one hand it's impossible to separate the money in politics from big govt, and on the other hand the money is so tiny comparatively that it's inconsequential. Those two hands don't jive.

But, let's take a look for a moment at what would happen if national elections (to start) were not donor driven. The elected politicians would still spend the money, they would still (even more so) try and appease the electorate, they simply wouldn't need to make stupid concessions to get the required money to run the campaign. Some stupid concessions would still need to be made to sway blocks of voters, but that Sheldon Allison or George Soros vote would be weighted the same, or at least closer to that of the average voter. Perhaps Sheldon and George would still have a modicum more sway than I do, mostly because they employee many people and so a politician might see them as valuable from that perspective, but not just because they have deep pockets to fund fund fund.

Small government politicians would find it easier to remain small government politicians, big government politicians would find it just as easy to be truer to themselves. But they could actually appropriate those funds where they felt it was most worthy, not into the pockets of those who had helped them get elected. Or at least, they could try and appropriate the funds in accordance with the wishes of the electorate and not in accordance of the pockets of the biggest donors. The sway of the NRA or the Teachers Union would still exist because they are huge organizations representing large blocks of voters, but that sway would be somewhat reduced because their power would end at the size of the voter block in not at the size of their pocketbook.

You tend to say that the 2-3B dollars is a pittance compared to the trillions the govt spends, so it doesn't matter, but the big problem is that it's those groups that spend that 2-3B are able to get preferential treatment in earning money off the Govt spending those trillions.

What would happen is democrats and republicans would divvy up the public money in ways to keep others from challenging them. Hillary would get 99% of the money, Sanders less than 1%. The concept of government controlling who has political speech is appalling.

You would still have other issues, like MSNBC being a 24/7 campaign ad for democrats and Fox News being one for republicans. That's a form of donation without actually writing checks. What are you going to do when all the people who donate now simply buy networks and newspapers to get their message out?

They still would take bribes, bribes, and more bribes.