President Donald J. Trump

[21st Century Man]

Campaign finance reform is essential. Politicians spend an  inordinate amount of time raising money while they are in office. And of course then the congress and senators are working for the donors, not their constituents. We need to get monied interests, influence peddlers and lobbyists out of Washington.

Well said!  I'm shocked that I actually agree with you.

[Value Of Pi]

Only because it hasn't turned out be true. Whether people vote democrat or republican they find things still going the same way, and that's whatever way big money wants us to go. Sometimes the mob is just the biggest and most powerful huddling together and sometimes it actually the mob (as in the mafias). If you fear the mob it's probably just because you're privileged enough to be on the ruling class side. Too bad you guys have had to prop up that side by robbing from little old ladies pensions and such.   :

You seem to be smart enough to understand what I'm talking about (you're a real doctor, aren't you?). So I guess the problem is that you're not very familiar with the original meaning of "mob" or aware of the fact that mobs of people have historically perpetrated so much violence and death on all kinds of societies. This has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats or politics in general. It's just about the difference between violent change and peaceful change.

So, if you want to comment on my point, then comment on the point I made, instead of attempting to totally change the meaning of what I've said. Very likely, we will have a contested Republican convention and at least one mob of people trying to affect the outcome and/or protest it. You can be on the side of supporting these mobs or not -- or supporting a candidate who tacitly supports the almost inevitable violence. (And if you want to volunteer your services to treat the injured, that's also your choice.)

[Dr. MD MD]

You seem to be smart enough to understand what I'm talking about (you're a real doctor, aren't you?). So I guess the problem is that you're not very familiar with the original meaning of "mob" or aware of the fact that mobs of people have historically perpetrated so much violence and death on all kinds of societies. This has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats or politics in general. It's just about the difference between violent change and peaceful change.

So, if you want to comment on my point, then comment on the point I made, instead of attempting to totally change the meaning of what I've said. Very likely, we will have a contested Republican convention and at least one mob of people trying to affect the outcome and/or protest it. You can be on the side of supporting these mobs or not -- or supporting a candidate who tacitly supports the almost inevitable violence. (And if you want to volunteer your services to treat the injured, that's also your choice.)

I understand the historical context. I'm just talking about what it's become since. There are lots of different meaning of it now, all relative to your particular perspective. However, if you think we're not living under mob rules now then I'd have to say you're deluded.

Of course, I'm not for violent change but historically speaking this has been the only thing that ever really and fundamentally changes a society in a more lasting way. I hope we can evolve past that somehow but I have no clue how.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE2iaNBqytY&nohtml5=False

[21st Century Man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE2iaNBqytY&nohtml5=False

ROTFLMAO!!!!

[Little Hater]

So I guess the problem is that you're not very familiar with the original meaning of "mob" or aware of the fact that mobs of people have historically perpetrated so much violence and death on all kinds of societies. This has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats or politics in general. It's just about the difference between violent change and peaceful change.

”The poor are collectively unseizable. They are not only the majority on the planet, they are everywhere and the smallest event speaks of them. This is why the essential activity of the rich today is the building of walls â€" walls of concrete, of electronic surveillance, of missile barrages, minefields, frontier controls, and opaque media screens.“

â€" John Berger

[TigerLily]

Well said!  I'm shocked that I actually agree with you.

Better order a brain scan, stat!

So what do you think about the rest of that post?

[21st Century Man]

Better order a brain scan, stat!

So what do you think about the rest of that post?

LOL. 

Well, Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans both do not want to any significant reform to campaign financing.  Most of the Republican base understand that the current system is corrupt and that corporations should be highly regulated in regards to how much they can contribute to a campaign.  Frankly, I'd outlaw corporate donations to campaigns.  As for Citizens United, I'll defer to you on that.  I'd have to read about it some more before I offered an opinion.   It is unfortunate that only Bernie has made campaign finance reform a campaign issue though I think Trump may be in the same camp as  Bernie when it comes to that.  My candidate has been relatively silent on the issue.  I would hope that he would feel the same as I do but he might not.  No voter is going to agree with where his/her candidate's stand on every single issue.

[CornyCrow]

Whether you're talking about Tea Party supporters, BLM supporters, Trump supporters or any other group of people which includes a sizeable portion of belligerant, misinformed hotheads, you're talking about the mob.

The mob, from ancient times until today, was the ruling class's worst nightmare. It's also everyone else's worst nightmare, because you have to remember that most people in the U.S. and other Western countries don't belong to either the ruling class or the mob. They're just trying to do the best they can without fighting on either side of a revolution.

The mob always wants radical change and they always want it right now, not tomorrow. They don't worry much about all the negative consequences of their actions. They're too busy trying to tear down everything they don't like to bother thinking about exactly how they'll pick up the pieces and build something better.

My suggestion is that besides criticizing the Establishment, people remember to fear the mob as well. The mob today comes with a variety of signs and righteous-sounding slogans but it's still a mob. And, at heart, it's just as bloodthirsty and unprincipled as any group of obvious savages rampaging through the streets in times past. The only thing stopping them is the law and the very formidable forces behind the law.

I vote for the law over the mob and peaceful change over chaos and revolution. I don't agree with TigerLily that our system allows for a bloodless revolution but I do think it's possible to shift the balance of power from the more corrupt to the less corrupt or non-corrupted. That's not a position which will sell on TV, however.

In order to institute a peaceful change we need a good number of people who agree.  For that to happen media coverage is important.  For media coverage we often require the hotheads doing and saying irrational things.     

[TigerLily]

LOL. 

Well, Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans both do not want to any significant reform to campaign financing.  Most of the Republican base understand that the current system is corrupt and that corporations should be highly regulated in regards to how much they can contribute to a campaign.  Frankly, I'd outlaw corporate donations to campaigns.  As for Citizens United, I'll defer to you on that.  I'd have to read about it some more before I offered an opinion.   It is unfortunate that only Bernie has made campaign finance reform a campaign issue though I think Trump may be in the same camp as  Bernie when it comes to that.  My candidate has been relatively silent on the issue.  I would hope that he would feel the same as I do but he might not.  No voter is going to agree with where his/her candidate's stand on every single issue.

I appreciate your considered comments. People who talk about wanting to take back the government; how you can't trust politicians; how politicians belong to the fat cats are essentially talking about campaign finance reform. Except for a few brave politicians, they will not talk about it let alone vote for it because in the current situation they need those fat cats to first run and then stay in office. To be in office they must break their oath to represent the people. Of course this leads to a corrupt government .Obviously,  Campaign finance reform is a very important issue to me. It may sound melodramatic but I think it's necessary to save our Republic. A very important start anyway.
I'm very glad that now you and I can have a fairly civil discourse and a respectful exchange of ideas.

Did you watch the video clip? It's congresspeople and senators talking about fundraising. Only 5 minutes long

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Fucking scary how this was predicted, right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/john-kasich-will-be-the-r_b_9638598.html

[Value Of Pi]

In order to institute a peaceful change we need a good number of people who agree.  For that to happen media coverage is important.  For media coverage we often require the hotheads doing and saying irrational things.   

I agree about the need for media coverage but giving the hotheads wall-to-wall coverage is getting riskier all the time. Whether it's the Tea Party shutting doen the government, BLM stopping commerce and feeding riots or a rabble-rouser like Trump threatening to take over the White House (all situations exascerbated by and even inspired by the 24-hour news cycle), things have gotten to the point where the damage these extremists can do is exceeding any possible benefit they can do the country by keeping issues in the news and at a fever pitch.

Whether it's fiscal responsibility, racial justice, immigration reform or any other hot-button issue, the problem is not a lack of public awareness. It's the fact that the political process is unable to overcome the divisiveness in the country. Not just the polarization and enmity in Washington D.C. but in every other corner of the USA. And the more inaction there is, the more extreme the extremists get. It's a vicious circle.

Somewhere between total complacency and the chaos of sudden, revolutionary change is a reasonable medium where we can make progress. We've had too much complacency and now we're seeing, with Trump and Cruz especially, the other extreme. The mob is always willing to empower guys like this to get what they want. So I'm just saying that as bad as our current problem of ineffective leadership is, we need to be just as worried about who and what an angry group of unthinking people may vote for.

[albrecht]

I appreciate your considered comments. People who talk about wanting to take back the government; how you can't trust politicians; how politicians belong to the fat cats are essentially talking about campaign finance reform. Except for a few brave politicians, they will not talk about it let alone vote for it because in the current situation they need those fat cats to first run and then stay in office. To be in office they must break their oath to represent the people. Of course this leads to a corrupt government .Obviously,  Campaign finance reform is a very important issue to me. It may sound melodramatic but I think it's necessary to save our Republic. A very important start anyway.
I'm very glad that now you and I can have a fairly civil discourse and a respectful exchange of ideas.

Did you watch the video clip? It's congresspeople and senators talking about fundraising. Only 5 minutes long

Not to be melodramatic but maybe we no longer have a Republic, much less a democracy (which it was never intended to be.) Maybe we can get back to one, but I tend to doubt it. Personally I advocate maybe breaking it up**, civilly per voting, into smaller parts where a few unelected (at least directly) people cannot dictate and rule roughshod over any legislature, Congress, president, governor, State, or people and where more rules aren't made by decree and regulatory procedures than by Congress or the State legislatures. There is no reason, fundamentally, not to do so and if anything it would result in more "representation" and "democracy." And, since the Federal government won't do it, the States could enforce laws and border protection and banking regulation, political campaign contributions, and even have, like ND, their own State Bank. Most countries are smaller than the US, and can be successful and happy. We could be several countries, or at least more powerful States as in the original Federal (or even prior) model. Take a few moments and peruse the Federal Register. I've posted before but, seriously, take a look.  Almost everything you can imagine is covered by some law or regulation or tax. And that doesn't include State, local, etc regulations and laws. There is no reason we must accept dictatorial rules by Executive agencies, the President, or a Court that often has expanded (could be argued even created) its own jurisdiction.
https://www.federalregister.gov/
here are just the new rules/laws proposed, this happens ALL THE TIME:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions[publication_date][is]=04%2F11%2F2016&conditions[type]=NOTICE

** "When in the course of human events......"

[CornyCrow]

I appreciate your considered comments. People who talk about wanting to take back the government; how you can't trust politicians; how politicians belong to the fat cats are essentially talking about campaign finance reform. Except for a few brave politicians, they will not talk about it let alone vote for it because in the current situation they need those fat cats to first run and then stay in office. To be in office they must break their oath to represent the people. Of course this leads to a corrupt government .Obviously,  Campaign finance reform is a very important issue to me. It may sound melodramatic but I think it's necessary to save our Republic. A very important start anyway.
I'm very glad that now you and I can have a fairly civil discourse and a respectful exchange of ideas.

Did you watch the video clip? It's congresspeople and senators talking about fundraising. Only 5 minutes long

John Oliver did a recent show which addressed the fundraising upon which most of the time in a Congress person's career is spent.

[TigerLily]

John Oliver did a recent show which addressed the fundraising upon which most of the time in a Congress person's career is spent.

That's where my clip is from.  pithy humor with a message

[WOTR]

Reform Bills have been introduced (by Democrats) but always voted down (by a majority of Republicans and Tea Party and a few Democrats).

It is really too bad that it was not a priority in 2009 / 2010 when the democrats held all three branches and the evil republicans could not have shot down campaign finance reform.  Or... Maybe they don't really want it?

(You will excuse me; but any time I hear how one side or the other are great and the other is to blame for blocking important reforms of any kind, I have to point out that the D's controlled it all 2009 -- 2010 and the R's 2003--2006.  Neither one has been "unable" to get what they actually felt was important through... Though it makes a nice narrative for both sides to claim that the other is to blame for blocking important legislation...)

You can hit this link to see a visual representation of the years that each party held each branch (kind of too bad they don't have the court on it.) http://wiredpen.com/resources/political-commentary-and-analysis/a-visual-guide-balance-of-power-congress-presidency/

[TigerLily]

Ok. Let me try to give this the Sredni Vashtar treatment. Without the snark

LOL. 

Well, Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans both do not want to any significant reform to campaign financing.

The clip I provided addresses this in the congresspeople and senators own words. Take 5 minutes to watch it. As far as both Democrats and Republicans not wanting change, please review Congress voting records. Particularly who initiates bills for reform and who votes against it

Most of the Republican base understand that the current system is corrupt and that corporations should be highly regulated in regards to how much they can contribute to a campaign.  Frankly, I'd outlaw corporate donations to campaigns. 

By Republican base I assume you are referring to voters who normally vote the Republican ticket. In a very large majority of cases, Republican voters are voting for the representatives who shoot down any campaign finance reform. For lulz check your congressperson's and senator's voting records on this issue

It is unfortunate that only Bernie has made campaign finance reform an issue

Yes it is

My candidate has been relatively silent on the issue.  I would hope that he would feel the same as I do but he might not.

You are correct. He doesn't. Check his record. Also I'm sure you remember his wife is a Goldman Sachs executive. Not that he is necessarily influenced by that... May I suggest you contact Senator Cruz's office and ask how he stands on the issue. And let him know this is an important issue to you

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=email_senator

No voter is going to agree with where his/her candidate's stand on every single issue.

Of course. It is a matter of priorities.  But to me and all the people who think government is corrupt, not doing it's job, not representing the people, it should be a priority. And you can use your voice to tell this to your candidate of choice.

I hope you don't feel like I'm singling you out, 21. I'm hoping people here who are disgusted with politics as usual will put down the gaming console, read this and give it some thought before voting

Well, that was time consuming. I don't know how SV does this so often. Editing posts must be his life

[VtaGeezer]

It is really too bad that it was not a priority in 2009 / 2010 when the democrats held all three branches and the evil republicans could not have shot down campaign finance reform. 

The Dems couldn't pass much then either.  When Obama took office, the Republicans, though a minority, could and did filibuster virtually every bill supported by Democrats so it took 60 votes to pass anything. No politician ever had the balls to do it before Mitch McConnell; the ultimate party hack who wipes his ass with the US Constitution. Harry Ried, another product of the bullshit that's Senate seniority, didn't have the balls to change the Senate rules. That's why passing Obamacare was like passing a legislative kidney stone and ended up as a welfare bill for the insurance industry. We're really fucked by our quaint little 18th Century system now. The unraveling is well underway.

[WOTR]

You will have to excuse me... I have a poor memory... But in 2009 or 2010 there was a reform law they wanted passed.  I seem to recall that it would limit or eliminate what government contractors (and businesses?) could contribute, but left unions and not for profit contributions untouched... Or maybe I am mistaken.  Either way, it was the R's who blocked it... But I seem to recall it being a little one sided.  It just seems that when you control all branches, if you need one vote (or two, or whatever it was) that it should not be that difficult to pass finance reform.  There were 3 or 4 laws in the 70's that managed such a feat with split government...

the OCCUPY bill defiantly left union contributions intact while banning business contributions.  It seems that if you want finance reform, it should level the playing field rather than tilt it in your favour (and then complain when it fails to receive support from the side whose $$ it would take while leaving "yours" intact.)

I'm siding with Zoo on this one... Burn it all down...

[GravitySucks]

The Dems couldn't pass much then either.  When Obama took office, the Republicans, though a minority, could and did filibuster virtually every bill supported by Democrats so it took 60 votes to pass anything. No politician ever had the balls to do it before Mitch McConnell; the ultimate party hack who wipes his ass with the US Constitution. Harry Ried, another product of the bullshit that's Senate seniority, didn't have the balls to change the Senate rules. That's why passing Obamacare was like passing a legislative kidney stone and ended up as a welfare bill for the insurance industry. We're really fucked by our quaint little 18th Century system now. The unraveling is well underway.

Harry Reid changed the rules to get Obamacare passed and it took some behind the scenes deal making. A bunch of corrupt bastards they all are.

http://www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare-became-law/

[WOTR]

Good old Wikipedia...

Yes, it was the disclosure act of 2010... And it would not have limited contributions or had any real reform.  It would have made them a little more transparent (disclose who paid for ads and the likes.)

And the other was the OCCUPIED bill... not really a serious reform either.  Reading the wiki entry it confirms my memory that it was supposed to cripple contributions to one party while leaving the others intact.

And that is it.  Thanks to your judicial branch allowing unlimited contributions and super PAC's you all appear to be screwed.  (Canada is not without it's problems- in particular some provincial elections where they outright sell access to the premiere in exchange for set contributions...)

[Value Of Pi]

Jeff Greenfield, one of the smarter political writers, has an article on Politico now about Cleveland which not only zeroes in on the main issue there but has implications for the question people here are asking: What kind of governmental system are we living under?

A sample:

"What may happen this year, then, is something not seen in well over half a century. If Republican primary and caucus voters have not delivered a decisive verdict, the delegates will find themselves wrestling with a root question: what is the purpose of a convention? If it’s to ratify, then picking a candidate from the sidelines while elbowing aside the two who between them will have won a huge share of votes and delegates seems completely unjustifiable. If the purpose is to deliberate, to resolve what voters have left unresolved, and to weigh as party members who would be the most effective advocate for the party as an institution, then the idea of bringing someone from off the bench seems a lot less heretical."

[21st Century Man]

Ok. Let me try to give this the Sredni Vashtar treatment. Without the snark
The clip I provided addresses this in the congresspeople and senators own words. Take 5 minutes to watch it. As far as both Democrats and Republicans not wanting change, please review Congress voting records. Particularly who initiates bills for reform and who votes against it
By Republican base I assume you are referring to voters who normally vote the Republican ticket. In a very large majority of cases, Republican voters are voting for the representatives who shoot down any campaign finance reform. For lulz check your congressperson's and senator's voting records on this issue
Yes it is
You are correct. He doesn't. Check his record. Also I'm sure you remember his wife is a Goldman Sachs executive. Not that he is necessarily influenced by that... May I suggest you contact Senator Cruz's office and ask how he stands on the issue. And let him know this is an important issue to you

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=email_senator
Of course. It is a matter of priorities.  But to me and all the people who think government is corrupt, not doing it's job, not representing the people, it should be a priority. And you can use your voice to tell this to your candidate of choice.

I hope you don't feel like I'm singling you out, 21. I'm hoping people here who are disgusted with politics as usual will put down the gaming console, read this and give it some thought before voting

Well, that was time consuming. I don't know how SV does this so often. Editing posts must be his life

That was a well thought-out post and I do appreciate the time that you took to post it.  I will have to do some research regarding who supports campaign finance reform and who doesn't.  Obviously you care deeply about the issue and I share your concern. 

With all that said, your main point is that government is corrupt.  Do you think more laws are going to fix this corruption?  I'm skeptical about that.  I'm with you 100% and it pisses me off  that our government is so corrupt.  I believe that government works best when it is closer to the people.  What I mean is that state and local governments should be in charge of policy regarding day-to-day issues that affect their constituents.  It is easier to try policies out and discard them if they don't have the support of the constituents. 

The Federal government should be on charge of of important issues that affect the nation as a whole like national defense.  Big government is an anathema to our society just as big corporations are.  I don't see Establishment Republicans as doing anything to reduce the size of government and that is what the base wants.  The United States is just supposed to be a union of states that have their own governments and the one thing that binds us all together is the Constitution.  Do not give the federal government more power than that which is outlined in the Constitution.  The 10th amendment needs to be followed to the letter.  If nothing else, you can see where I'm coming from.   That is not to say that the Constitution shouldn't be amended to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the Income tax.  I'm all for revisions when necessary as long as we follow the Constitution's guidelines for the amendment process.

Multiple processes need to be fixed that is for sure and let's get back to the basics.

[TigerLily]

Good old Wikipedia...

Yes, it was the disclosure act of 2010... And it would not have limited contributions or had any real reform.  It would have made them a little more transparent (disclose who paid for ads and the likes.)

And the other was the OCCUPIED bill... not really a serious reform either.  Reading the wiki entry it confirms my memory that it was supposed to cripple contributions to one party while leaving the others intact.

And that is it. Thanks to your judicial branch allowing unlimited contributions and super PAC's you all appear to be screwed.  (Canada is not without it's problems- in particular some provincial elections where they outright sell access to the premiere in exchange for set contributions...)

Yes. Well and thoroughly screwed. And not in a fun way. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5 (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy) to 4 (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor) vote on Citizens United ensconced and hugely expanded  the ability to influence government with nearly unbridled spending. Many experts say because of this ruling it may take a constitutional amendment to change this. Sucks big time
Anybody want to talk about notorious decisions by activist judges?

[GravitySucks]

Yes. Well and thoroughly screwed. And not in a fun way. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5 (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy) to 4 (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor) vote on Citizens United ensconced and hugely expanded  the ability to influence government with nearly unbridled spending. Many experts say because of this ruling it may take a constitutional amendment to change this. Sucks big time
Anybody want to talk about notorious decisions by activist judges?

Not unless you want a big flame war about Roe v Wade being a 1st amendment issue or anchor babies being included in the 14th amendment or Obamacare falling within the commerce clause.

OK,  I am going back to lurker mode. See you in a few days.

To be fair though, this type of discussion should be in its own thread.

[VtaGeezer]

Harry Reid changed the rules to get Obamacare passed and it took some behind the scenes deal making. A bunch of corrupt bastards they all are.

http://www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare-became-law/

Reid didn't change the filibuster rule until 2013 to break McConnell's embargo on approving Obama appointees.  Appointments may no longer be filibustered. 

[GravitySucks]

Reid didn't change the filibuster rule until 2013 to break McConnell's embargo on approving Obama appointees.

Did you read the article?  He changed the rules on reconciliation. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.

[albrecht]

Yes. Well and thoroughly screwed. And not in a fun way. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5 (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy) to 4 (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor) vote on Citizens United ensconced and hugely expanded  the ability to influence government with nearly unbridled spending. Many experts say because of this ruling it may take a constitutional amendment to change this. Sucks big time
Anybody want to talk about notorious decisions by activist judges?

The Court could simply take up another case involving similar issues and reverse "Citizen's United" itself. It has been done in the past. Especially with new appointees or if they start to see the problems of their former ruling is causing.
A recent example: is the Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and then over-turning and allowing sodomy with the later Lawerence v. Texas (2003) and the Citizen's United Decision itself some say (over turning Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (2003) & McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003.))

[VtaGeezer]

Did you read the article?  He changed the rules on reconciliation. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.

The article ignores the fact that Arlan Specter changed parties in mid-09 and became the 60th vote that would have killed a GOP filibuster.

[GravitySucks]

The article ignores the fact that Arlan Specter changed parties in mid-09 and became the 60th vote that would have killed a GOP filibuster.

But Kennedy died in the middle and Scott Brown we elected, giving them 59.