2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Decided that it's not funny anymore.
It was funny 15-20 years ago.
There is meaning in that.
Quote: 777This is a HUGE systemic problem in our democratic process and ALL ALL ALL politicians are guilty of legalized bribery under the current lobbying system. Even Trump ADMITTED he was/is a partner in crime in this process as a private citizen. And now as a presumptive GOP nominee, Trump is basically a politician and sooner or later he WILL be freely to commit legalized bribery acts.
SCOTUS stroked down limits on federal campaign donations (I think on the basis of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution???). The democrats are pushing hard on campaign finance reform, but then face stiff resistant by the republicans. The republicans are strongly against campaign finance reforms proposed by the democrats.
LEGALIZED BRIBERY is a huge problem in our democratic process. Does anyone here support Constitution amendment so that limits on federal campaign donations can be allowed? And what is your solution(s) to this huge problem in our democracy?
So...can we get rid of all group donations--unions and companies--and have a strict limit of $2,500 per election, per person to any political organization or individual?
I don't know the answer, just tossing something out to discuss...I do believe UNIONS should not be able to donate unfettered if CORPORATIONS have restrictions. A strict personal limit takes care of that.
Quote: RonCSo...can we get rid of all group donations--unions and companies--and have a strict limit of $2,500 per election, per person to any political organization or individual?
I don't know the answer, just tossing something out to discuss...I do believe UNIONS should not be able to donate unfettered if CORPORATIONS have restrictions. A strict personal limit takes care of that.
It is good idea or at least a good start. However, I'm afraid your suggestion or at least the elimination of group contributions will not pass the constitutional test, and will be strongly opposed by the union, NRA, GOA, PACs, GOP, and other special interest groups.
Your suggestion certainly will take "power" away and/or reduce influence from these groups. Let’s take the NRA as an example. Considering gun control/legislation/regulation (not gun abolishment) is constitutional (see links) and with strong public support for gun control/regulation, the NRA would have much less influence/power in BRIBING/CORRUPTING our politicians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-again-refuses-to-consider-weapons-bans/2016/06/20/d108abf6-34b7-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html
http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns
What's funny, (or not) is people would become completely use to it after awhile even if they did.
(like how the ads for medications often have a long list of side effects, dizziness, headaches, diarrhea, constipation, profuse sweating, difficulty breathing, fainting, nausea.....OKAY, I'll take it anyway and watch for that stuff maybe, duh)
Quote: TigerWuI have a better idea: Nobody gets any money at all for running for office. You get zero donations. On top of that, you don't get to spend any of your own money, either. If you're well-spoken, well-liked, and your policies make sense, then the media will give you plenty of coverage for free.
That would have absolutely handed the primary election to Trump this time. In fact, it did. Money was not an issue. There were better candidates but they got none of the air time because the "news" is not about "news" at all--it is about ratings. Covering a Kasich policy speech is not nearly as popular as getting some juicy Trump sound bites.
Quote: 777It is good idea or at least a good start. However, I'm afraid your suggestion or at least the elimination of group contributions will not pass the constitutional test, and will be strongly opposed by the union, NRA, GOA, PACs, GOP, and other special interest groups.
Your suggestion certainly will take "power" away and/or reduce influence from these groups. Let’s take the NRA as an example. Considering gun control/legislation/regulation (not gun abolishment) is constitutional (see links) and with strong public support for gun control/regulation, the NRA would have much less influence/power in BRIBING/CORRUPTING our politicians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-again-refuses-to-consider-weapons-bans/2016/06/20/d108abf6-34b7-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html
http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns
I don't think it would pass the Constitutional test but then we say we can put certain regulations on the Second Amendment constitutionally, why not the First? You already can't yell "fire" in a theater, for example. It is an interesting question and I am not even sure how I feel about it or how it fits with the Constitution...but I am pretty sure that any "reform" the Dems come up with will somehow be to their advantage. That's the rub....politicians deciding how to elect politicians. There are few "Statesmen"...they are most all "Politicians" interested mainly in keeping their position at all costs.
Quote: RonCI don't think it would pass the Constitutional test but then we say we can put certain regulations on the Second Amendment constitutionally, why not the First? You already can't yell "fire" in a theater, for example. It is an interesting question and I am not even sure how I feel about it or how it fits with the Constitution...but I am pretty sure that any "reform" the Dems come up with will somehow be to their advantage. That's the rub....politicians deciding how to elect politicians. There are few "Statesmen"...they are most all "Politicians" interested mainly in keeping their position at all costs.
Yes, we can have regulations (for example campaign finance reform favors by the democrats, Hillary, and FEW other republicans), and yes, I'm in favor of amending the constitution to make limits on campaign contribution constitutional, or regulation/legislation to eliminate the current lobbying laws where bribery is legal.
The republicans can propose its own campaign reform, and take the democrat proposal to come up with a compromise proposal/solution for all to vote on. What is the republican proposal wrt the campaign finance reform?
I think we shouldn't let him back into the country until 'we figure out what the hell is going on.'
Quote: RonCYes, because Trump has been saying that he wants to vet American Citizens...
Have you not been following what he's said about American Muslims and mosques?
The prospect of Trump's drunken whore mongering Secret Service detail facing off with the INS, or whatever we call it these days, would be worth a joke if it weren't so sad. It would be like the gun battle that everyone forgot to show up for ;-)Quote: ams288Trump is in Scotland promoting his golf club or something (there is some truly funny video from this morning of him talking about how nice the suites at his resort are before he mentions the Brexit vote).
I think we shouldn't let him back into the country until 'we figure out what the hell is going on.'
Quote: ams288Have you not been following what he's said about American Muslims and mosques?
Keep an eye on things? Aren't we supposed to keep an eye on things? If most of the talk about bad stuff goes on in mosques and there is a criminal investigation, what are we supposed to do? Ignore it?
I know...just love all of them...
Quote: 777This is a HUGE systemic problem in our democratic process and ALL ALL ALL politicians are guilty of legalized bribery under the current lobbying system. Even Trump ADMITTED he was/is a partner in crime in this process as a private citizen. And now as a presumptive GOP nominee, Trump is basically a politician and sooner or later he WILL be freely to commit legalized bribery acts.
SCOTUS stroked down limits on federal campaign donations (I think on the basis of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution???). The democrats are pushing hard on campaign finance reform, but then face stiff resistant by the republicans. The republicans are strongly against campaign finance reforms proposed by the democrats.
LEGALIZED BRIBERY is a huge problem in our democratic process. Does anyone here support Constitution amendment so that limits on federal campaign donations can be allowed? And what is your solution(s) to this huge problem in our democracy?
Two main reasons Trump appeal to his supporters are: 1) His America first's via race baiting, 2) He can't be bought because his campaign is self-funded.
But Trump is pretty much corrupt and self serving for his personal/business interest (but not in the interest of his "America First"), and interest of his donors/money bosses. He is now actively seeking/meeting with wealthy donors. You can have dinner, photo op, and shaking Bob Miller's tiny hand (tiny hand as described by Rubio) for a mere $25,000 or $50,000.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-wall-street-is-supporting-donald-trump-143903343.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-steps-up-wall-street-fundraising-efforts-1466724320
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-self-funding-payments.html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/donald-trump-business-spending-fec/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-self-funding-payments.html?_r=0
I'm not criticizing Trump for seeking money from wealthy donors, and he has every right to seek contributions from everyone. The point I'm making is Trump shady and he will be bought once he is in the position of power/authority.
Quote: 777Two main reasons Trump appeal to his supporters are: 1) His America first's via race baiting, 2) He can't be bought because his campaign is self-funded.
But Trump is pretty much corrupt and self serving for his personal/business interest (but not in the interest of his "America First"), and interest of his donors/money bosses. He is now actively seeking/meeting with wealthy donors. You can have dinner, photo op, and shaking Bob Miller's tiny hand (tiny hand as described by Rubio) for a mere $25,000 or $50,000.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-wall-street-is-supporting-donald-trump-143903343.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-steps-up-wall-street-fundraising-efforts-1466724320
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-self-funding-payments.html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/donald-trump-business-spending-fec/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-self-funding-payments.html?_r=0
I'm not criticizing Trump for seeking money from wealthy donors, and he has every right to seek contributions from everyone. The point I'm making is Trump shady and he will be bought once he is in the position of power/authority.
Yes, he'll be bought like all the rest of them....
Quote: 777
LEGALIZED BRIBERY is a huge problem in our democratic process. Does anyone here support Constitution amendment so that limits on federal campaign donations can be allowed? And what is your solution(s) to this huge problem in our democracy?
I'm with Tiger (I think it was him). The money is insane, and it is exactly what you call it. Legalized bribery. Limiting (or ending all together) these insane donations is a start, but I'd go much further.
Why is every politician a politician? Is it the desire to be hated? The love of performing thankless tasks? The challenge of solving the unsolvable, while also making almost everyone happy at the same time? Or is it the fact that being a pol makes one powerful, gives you access to some top notch perks, a salary that 90% of America will never obtain, and a lifetime of free healthcare?
You know where I see politicking sort of work, at least the way I think it should work? Rural America. The mayor don't get paid squat, the biggest perk is getting to ride in the El Dorado in the yearly Chamber of Commerce parade, and every action he makes is felt right where he s#$%s and eats. The people who attain this position are people who want to help people. They want to make their communities better. They're not in it for money or power because there IS no money or power. The reward is doing a good job, so doing a good job is the only goal.
It's these types of people you want/need in power. The VFD types. The people who view their community as family, because, let's face it, they pretty much are. The people who make "a rising tide raises all ships" a reality, and not some bastardized cliche.
I don't see that in .gov. I see elites pandering to elites. It's often said that a pols only job is to get elected. Once elected, his only job is to get reelected. Why is that? Well, because it's in their best interest. You work some 4hrs a day, 100 days a year, vote your own pay raises, get set for life in pension and health, f#$% yeah, I'd work my ass off to get reelected, too. Y'all? Ain't got time, I gots to gets mine.
They are PUBLIC SERVANTS. Not kings, not lords, not f#$%ing gods. They should get paid a pittance that accurately reflects their time spent and abilities necessary for the job. Say $60k for POTUS with $1.5k in pension after 4 years, and an app for COBRA upon their exit. Public service should be driven by people who have a passion for public service. People who are born leaders, who want to make a difference in their communities. Once you open the door for people to obtain actual wealth with bennies unheard of by the majority of the people they serve, all through what is legal bribery, the game is lost.
Just like the former Secretary of State and her fraudulent foundation.Quote: 777The point I'm making is Trump shady and he will be bought once he is in the position of power/authority.
As to your new by-line, I can only personally protect one monument at a time, and I am busy.Quote: rxwineKeep an eye out for someone who wants to end the business of Congress controlling their own raises.
As to your post, well, good luck with that, even if you know the truth.
You make a pact with Face, gonna be difficult. Then you come to me, I'm easyyyyyy.
I can't fathom why this would change anyone's mind on Trump or Hillary. If you were for Trump, you're still for him. Same with Hillary.
Quote: mcallister3200There are many people out there who aren't for trump or Hillary...most of them will choose one.
That's me right now. But Brexit has not swayed my leaning toward Trump at all.
If anything, it could be argued that in this particular time of uncertainty, people would be more likely to lean towards Hillary, since she is a familiar player. She's had a chip in the game for the last 20-something years. People might look towards her, regardless of any scandals, because she is a familiar face and could be seen as "politically comforting." The last thing most people want to do when things are going ass over teakettle is turn to a wild card, or the unknown; in this case, Trump.
No food substance needed here for the closeted one
In case of an erection that lasts for more than 3 hours.....
https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/94e75faa98abd65fe419df1b9b59e43a57293687efea20e2fef2c98dcc439af9_large
*WARNING YOU'LL NEVER GET THIS IMAGINE OUT OF YOUR HEAD.
May cause permanent erectile dysfunction or blindness.
Quote: soxfanI still think that Trump will win fairly easily, hey hey.
Bet? Hey Hey
I think Trump is way behind
How about even odds since you think John Miller will win fairly easily
Hey Hey lol
Quote: MoosetonYou're spamming seems kind of like con-ing.
Your*
Also, who's spamming?
Quote: MoosetonTerapined, your spamming seems kind of like conning.
This is a gambling board
On top of that
Its a board looking for advantage play
We also make bets on this board
I have made several bets on this board with several members
The best world here, 2 bettors on opposing sides that truly believe they have an advantage
I have read several posts here from Trump supporters that truly believe their candidate is ahead and will win.
OK
What's wrong with a bet with a Trump supporter that believes their candidate is ahead and will win and is taking advantage of ME.
I want to be taken advantage of by a Trump supporter that truly believes Trump has the advantage
Bet? :-)
Quote: MoosetonWhat's wrong is the obvious shark & snark your spewing with better odds everywhere else plus the gloating of 'My guys the favorite'. Combined together, it just looks childish.
If soxfan truly does believe that Trump will win easily, he should put his money where his mouth is.
He clearly knows something the pollsters/betting markets don't. He should be taking advantage of his divine knowledge and making money off of it.
Trump tweets:
Quote: realDonaldTrumpThe @ABC poll sample is heavy on Democrats. Very dishonest - why would they do that? Other polls good!
Ugh. It's 2012 all over again.
"The polls are skewed!"
Question is: who will have an on-air meltdown on Fox News when it turns out the polls weren't skewed this time around?
Quote: ams288If soxfan truly does believe that Trump will win easily, he should put his money where his mouth is.
He clearly knows something the pollsters/betting markets don't. He should be taking advantage of his divine knowledge and making money off of it.
Wrong. He should Kelly bet accordingly to his bankroll with the better odds availabile everywhere else. Do you even gamble or are just here to support your political purpose? I thought so.
Quote: MoosetonDo you even gamble or are just here to support your political purpose? I thought so.
I gamble.
But it's also fun to watch the righties on these boards slowly come to terms with the fact that they are on a sinking ship this election season.
Some have come to terms with reality. Some (like soxfan) are burying their heads in the sand and pretending Trump will win easily. So he should put his money where his mouth is... he knows something the rest of the world doesn't.
Quote: ams288I gamble.
But it's also fun to watch the righties on these boards slowly come to terms with the fact that they are on a sinking ship this election season.
Some have come to terms with reality. Some (like soxfan) are burying their heads in the sand and pretending Trump will win easily. So he should put his money where his mouth is... he knows something the rest of the world doesn't.
I can see the "right" losing in November and you can chirp all you want about it, but the fact is that we are all losing in this election due to the poor candidates the electorate has put forward, That is the process, and I respect it, but I don't honestly see Hillary being a great President...nor do I see Trump being one.
Quote: soxfanI wonder when Trump will make an issue of Clinton's close "friendship: with that evil piece of filth, Jeffrey Epstein? In any event, I still think that Trump will win fairly easily, hey hey.
The problem with that is Trump has a long association with him as well.Both have visited Fantasy Island.
Quote: RonCI can see the "right" losing in November and you can chirp all you want about it, but the fact is that we are all losing in this election due to the poor candidates the electorate has put forward, That is the process, and I respect it, but I don't honestly see Hillary being a great President...nor do I see Trump being one.
You are looking at it from your right-wing viewpoint though.
You think Obama was a bad president. I don't.
I think Hillary will be more of the same. That is a positive for me. So I don't see it as a "we all lose" scenario.
Quote: ams288You are looking at it from your right-wing viewpoint though.
You think Obama was a bad president. I don't.
I think Hillary will be more of the same. That is a positive for me. So I don't see it as a "we all lose" scenario.
I think Obama is worse than a bad President. i think he and Hillary have hurt our foreign relations and he is responsible for the rise of ISIL by leaving a void in Iraq. I know...he didn't get us INTO Iraq but they way he got us out left a void. His "economic recover" has been crappy for the most part--more part time jobs (with some help from Obamacare) and more underemployment...pretty much a fake recovery. President's lead; they don't spend years blaming their predecessor...they just work on fixing it. He was the "Blamer in Chief" for years. Heck, he didn't even do a good job at pressing for his policies when he had a huge advantage with control of both the House and Senate (I am thankful for that under performance).
I am more moderate than you give me credit for and you know that. I've given room for more compromise on issues than you ever have in these discussions.
Quote: RonCI think Obama is worse than a bad President.
See. You proved my point.
This election may be a lose-lose scenario for you. But maybe the 50+% of Americans who still approve of Obama will disagree with that analysis.
Pardon me while I skip back a post or two, and a few months in respect to the 'odds' on a bet. I don't remember any on the left offering 'even money even' bets when the Trump was truly a long shot. Maybe the Wizard once, might have even given up odds. Now we have challenges for even bet money when Trump is a little below Clinton in the polls. That doesn't sound like bettors to me, that sounds like political posters. Which is fine, this thread consists of political posters. BTW, those on the left that had bet against Trump getting this far, which looked like a good bet at the time, would be trying to figure out how to transfer funds to pay their losses about now. Everyone can keep teasing the other side, but this cycle has been full of surprises. I wouldn't advise betting more than you are willing to lose ;-)Quote: ams288I gamble.
But it's also fun to watch the righties on these boards slowly come to terms with the fact that they are on a sinking ship this election season.
Some have come to terms with reality. Some (like soxfan) are burying their heads in the sand and pretending Trump will win easily. So he should put his money where his mouth is... he knows something the rest of the world doesn't.
<edited> got my rights and lefts confused originally, I'm ambidextrous.
Quote: ams288See. You proved my point.
This election may be a lose-lose scenario for you. But maybe the 50+% of Americans who still approve of Obama will disagree with that analysis.
Whatever. If I give you a whole bunch of shit that isn't paid for and tell you it is all free, you'll like me, too. Obamacare is just the beginning of that. Once the huddled masses figure out they've been duped, he'll be make $250k per speech.
Quote: RonCWhatever. If I give you a whole bunch of shit that isn't paid for and tell you it is all free, you'll like me, too. Obamacare is just the beginning of that.
Our prior system wasn't based on withholding care so much as that being an illusion. We just provided expensive emergency care which too many people didn't pay for.
If you're going to do that, you might as well create a system that collects up front. Or at least that should be the ultimate feature, either that or truly deny people care who don't pay which we really didn't do. We just made them sicker and more expensive before they could get it free.
Quote: rxwineOur prior system wasn't based on withholding care so much as that being an illusion. We just provided expensive emergency care which too many people didn't pay for.
If you're going to do that, you might as well create a system that collects up front. Or at least that should be the ultimate feature, either that or truly deny people care who don't pay which we really didn't do. We just made them sicker and more expensive before they could get it free.
I don't think many disagree with the premise that the system had to change. The way it was changed is the issue.
Anyway, I have my thoughts about Obama and you folks have yours. We will see what history says after 20 years....
Quote: RonCWhatever. If I give you a whole bunch of shit that isn't paid for and tell you it is all free, you'll like me, too. Obamacare is just the beginning of that. Once the huddled masses figure out they've been duped, he'll be make $250k per speech.
Ah the old "Dems win because they give handouts" argument.
I don't agree with that premise, but if that's what it takes to win...
Quote: ams288Ah the old "Dems win because they give handouts" argument.
No, Obama won because he won. Fair and square. My belief is not necessarily that it wins elections--or Bernie might have done even better--but it can lift popularity until it becomes obvious that the costs were not worth the freebies overall. Maybe that is even why Bernie didn't do better--the costs of free college were scary enough to people to keep him from voting for it.
The other part of your statement--
--represents a very nearsighted approach. I really hope you don't actually feel that way...Quote: ams288I don't agree with that premise, but if that's what it takes to win...
