What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

lakerstan said:
My counter to this is that money can also be used against you, and give negative exposure - much of which may be based loosely on facts (see 99% of political ads).  I think money translates into influence of the electorate - and in turn, that means votes.
Click to expand...
Oh sure, but once you're up there it comes down to how you play the game. Trump's a master, I don't think anyone can really argue against it.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
On the topic of brokered convention who is a realistic candidate to be Trump's vice?  It's not going to be Cruz or Rubio.  What about Kasich?  Or is there another front runner and I haven't paid enough attention?
Click to expand...
After this weekend's criticism of Trump I don't know if Kasich would accept the nomination if offered. He would make quite a splash by publicly refusing. 

 
Mookie said:
I love everything that Bernie says, and agree with him completely on so many issues, but I can't see him getting anything done with this Congress.  Hillary's got my vote, but I'm not happy about it and know she's going to let me down by pandering to the middle.
Click to expand...
He already has, no reason to think he can't continue to work with both parties to get things done.

Over one 12-year stretch in the House, he passed more amendments by roll call vote than any other member of Congress. In the Senate, he secured money for dairy farmers and community health centers, blocked banks from hiring foreign workers and reined in the Federal Reserve, all through measures attached to larger bills....

Mr. Sanders has done much of his work with Republican partners, generally people with whom he has almost nothing in common, with the notable exception of the discrete issue or two on which they see eye to eye.

He worked with Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, to prevent foreign workers from replacing Americans at banks that have had a federal bailout, and with former Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who shared his zeal for monitoring the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Sanders’s most notable partnership with a Republican was also one of his greatest successes. In 2014, Mr. Sanders, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, worked out an accord with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, on a bill to expand veterans’ access to health care after a scandal involving veterans’ hospitals across the country.

The bill did something Republicans wanted: It allowed veterans to go outside of the official hospital system to get care under certain circumstances, while it expanded the government services that Mr. Sanders demanded.

“Given how liberal he is, it made the work hard,” Mr. McCain recalled last week. “But he was an honest liberal. I’ve worked with people who tell you they are going to do one thing and then do another, and Bernie did what he said. And he was very effective. It was the first real reform of the V.A. ever.”
Click to expand...
I hope this means Bernie can count on your vote now. ;)  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we don't really disagree too much, the differences seem nuanced. It's all in how much importance we put on the matter of campaign finance.

I'm asking this question because I don't know - what does an America without corporate funded campaigns look like? In my mind it looks like a lot more discussing the issues because you have to go out there and get support among the people, not promise to repay in kind to special interests.

 
hagmania said:
I think we don't really disagree too much, the differences seem nuanced. It's all in how much importance we put on the matter of campaign finance.

I'm asking this question because I don't know - what does an America without corporate funded campaigns look like? In my mind it looks like a lot more discussing the issues because you have to go out there and get support among the people, not promise to repay in kind to special interests.
Click to expand...
Fewer (awful) commercials one would hope.

 
What is the single most important reason you support your candidate?

I believe Bernie has integrity and will do what he believes is the right thing for all people.  He actually gives a damn about me and my family and wants to make our country great for everyone who lives in it.  It doesn't matter to me if I differ from him on issues or if I'm going to take a personal financial hit - he cares about everyone and I'm not sure I've believed that about any candidate ever.

 
hagmania said:
I think we don't really disagree too much, the differences seem nuanced. It's all in how much importance we put on the matter of campaign finance.

I'm asking this question because I don't know - what does an America without corporate funded campaigns look like? In my mind it looks like a lot more discussing the issues because you have to go out there and get support among the people, not promise to repay in kind to special interests.
Click to expand...
How do you know the causality doesn't run the other way?  For example, everyone agrees that candidates who receive money and endorsements from the NRA tend to vote against gun control.  Do they vote against gun control because they feel that they have to repay the NRA, or does the NRA support them because they oppose gun control?

When it comes to ideological issues and interest groups like the NRA, NARAL, unions, etc., I'm about 99.9% certain that it's the latter, not the former.  The only place where the causation is even interesting to debate is when it comes to relatively obscure issues involving the tax code, industry regulations, and the like,  Those are the sorts of things that interest groups care about a lot but that the public at large generally doesn't care about at all.  Those issues don't get discussed much now, and they wouldn't be discussed much under any sort of campaign finance system.  

 
Short Corner said:
Which means he will be getting that money paid back.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. First he has said he will not pay himself back. Second many campaigns end in the red. It could.take years so it isn't like.it went out and came right back. It's spent and it's his money which is what I was responding to.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
How do you know the causality doesn't run the other way?  For example, everyone agrees that candidates who receive money and endorsements from the NRA tend to vote against gun control.  Do they vote against gun control because they feel that they have to repay the NRA, or does the NRA support them because they oppose gun control?

When it comes to ideological issues and interest groups like the NRA, NARAL, unions, etc., I'm about 99.9% certain that it's the latter, not the former.  The only place where the causation is even interesting to debate is when it comes to relatively obscure issues involving the tax code, industry regulations, and the like,  Those are the sorts of things that interest groups care about a lot but that the public at large generally doesn't care about at all.  Those issues don't get discussed much now, and they wouldn't be discussed much under any sort of campaign finance system.  
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how to regulate monetary support once a politician is in office. And I'm not set out to demonize the groups in particular, a point in which I think Bernie rails on a bit too hard at times. It's my belief we get a better system of electing officials if these groups aren't part of the campaign process. *monetarily

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
Not necessarily. First he has said he will not pay himself back. Second many campaigns end in the red. It could.take years so it isn't like.it went out and came right back. It's spent and it's his money which is what I was responding to.
Click to expand...
If he has no intention of paying himself back then why the loan instead of just spending it?

 
timschochet said:
.What I don't understand about a brokered convention is simply this: let's say Trump doesn't have the necessary 1200 delegates to win. He's still going to have more delegates than anyone else right? So I simply can't see a situation in which he is denied the nomination in favor of somebody with less delegates (or in the case of somebody new, no delegates.) 

I mean I get that people keep talking about this but I don't know how this formula is going to work. 
Click to expand...
Why is it hard to understand?  If he doesn't have the votes to win he has to get them at the convention.  It's only a recent phenomenon that conventions weren't that much of a floor fight.  And if he doesn't have the amount to win before getting there than all that means is that he accumulated the most - but the winner isn't who accumulates the most in that sense.

 
timschochet said:
Will Obama's involvement in the campaign this summer hurt Trump or help him? 
Click to expand...
His numbers are relatively high and since he isn't running he can go.after Trump. Been clowning Trump at various speeches. I don't think it's good for Trump but not sure it's all that bad either

 
I am leaning either Gary Johnson or Write-in (Tulso Gabbard/JoeBiden/Mark Cuban would all be pretty good)

I believe that both of the leading candidates are a bit unhinged in different ways.  Outwardly, Trump is clearly more unhinged in things he says.  Inwardly, HRC is clearly more unhinged in things that she does.

Trump has no relevant experience, will say anything, and probably not be able to pass a civics test.  On a personal level, people do seem to like him.

HRC is experience, but as Bernie would say, it's "bad experience."  She will say anything and has gotten to the point where only half-hearted attempts are made to make it believable.  On a personal level, people don't seem to like her.

HRC scares me in the sense:

- war and peace decisions are a matter of personal political power and not the lives of soldiers

- selling of influence is pervasive...approved arms sales to the Middle East went by about 50% during her tenure...based on donations to the Clinton Foundation.  We're talking real military/Industrial/Govt complex stuff making the world a more dangerous place

- Libya is now, in the words of President Obama "a #### show."  A disastrous policy that has proliferated weapons ro groups like ISIS and Boko Haram.

- don't get me started on Syria....

- failure seems to follow her everywhere

- Rose Law firm -  a scandal plagued tenure...

- Hillarycare failed

- unremarkable Senate tenure marked by her infmous war authorization

- Handed and Arab Spring and there has been failure in Libya, Syria, Egypt etc  left things worse off than when she started

- put national security at risk with her unconventional email scheme to circumvent FOIA..

two terrible all-around candidates...

 
Short Corner said:
Campaign contributions are deductible last time I checked.
Click to expand...
According to Federal Election Committee statistics, 2012 presidential candidates received a total of nearly $602 million in donations. Add that to contributions to political parties, political action committees, and congressional candidates, and the total rises to over $4 billion. That figure tops many small countries’ GDP.

You may be wondering if you can deduct any contributions you made on this year’s tax returns.

The short answer is no. Campaign finance and tax deduction laws are complex. Most political contributions, for the obvious reason of creating a more politically disinterested tax system, are not tax deductible.
Click to expand...
Latest I could find

http://blogs.hrblock.com/2013/03/04/how-to-capture-political-contributions-on-your-tax-return/

 
whoknew said:
If there is a brokered convention, who do you think will be the favorite? 

Will it most likely be Cruz at that point?
Click to expand...
IF we are playing the hypo - game...... I think if there is a serious brokered convention fight - and not the Ford / Reagan type of "fight" that was fixed by the first ballot, but an all out fight for delegates, then that is where the power base of the party and its money is the 8 ton gorilla in the room and there is no chance they support Trump or Cruz. I think Kasich becomes someone that can pull enough dark horse votes out of the wind on that because he has the electability of being a governor of one of the top 3 most important states on the map.

And if not him, it would be someone not named Rubio.  I could see the party drafting someone - again, if we are playing this game.  There will be talk of this mystery person never being vetted by the American people - which is an empty attack because the American people don't vote in primaries enough to be allowed to make that argument, but still it does have some teeth and it would have to be someone that could withstand the Clinton onslaught.  It wouldn't be a Bush.  I wouldn't be Christie.  It wouldn't be anyone that ran this cycle.  But someone who already has run or is known to a lot of people in the party and the country.......

I'm rambling.  No I don't think Ted Cruz is the favorite for anything.  And I go back and forth with who I despise more in this cycle, him or Trump.

 
timschochet said:
After this weekend's criticism of Trump I don't know if Kasich would accept the nomination if offered. He would make quite a splash by publicly refusing. 
Click to expand...
Whoever is Trumps VP pick will be President within a year or 2 provided they are not someone like Sarah Palin. Kasich as VP would be a shoe in for the establishment to rally behind as they impeach Trump. The way Trump is working to gain the nomination will work with the yahoos, it may even gain him the Presidency, but it wont work in Washington..

 
timschochet said:
This is true- on paper. But the reality of the situation is, at least IMO, that if Trump is the guy with the most votes, and yet he is denied the nomination, there's going to be a riot. A rebellion like nothing we've ever seen. It will destroy the Republican party if that happens. Am I being overly dramatic here? 
Click to expand...
Not really.  It won't be pretty.  It might be necessary.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
IF we are playing the hypo - game...... I think if there is a serious brokered convention fight - and not the Ford / Reagan type of "fight" that was fixed by the first ballot, but an all out fight for delegates, then that is where the power base of the party and its money is the 8 ton gorilla in the room and there is no chance they support Trump or Cruz. I think Kasich becomes someone that can pull enough dark horse votes out of the wind on that because he has the electability of being a governor of one of the top 3 most important states on the map.

And if not him, it would be someone not named Rubio.  I could see the party drafting someone - again, if we are playing this game.  There will be talk of this mystery person never being vetted by the American people - which is an empty attack because the American people don't vote in primaries enough to be allowed to make that argument, but still it does have some teeth and it would have to be someone that could withstand the Clinton onslaught.  It wouldn't be a Bush.  I wouldn't be Christie.  It wouldn't be anyone that ran this cycle.  But someone who already has run or is known to a lot of people in the party and the country.......

I'm rambling.  No I don't think Ted Cruz is the favorite for anything.  And I go back and forth with who I despise more in this cycle, him or Trump.
Click to expand...
Hence the reason Mitt gave that speech about Trump a week ago eh?

 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
Whoever is Trumps VP pick will be President within a year or 2 provided they are not someone like Sarah Palin. Kasich as VP would be a shoe in for the establishment to rally behind as they impeach Trump. The way Trump is working to gain the nomination will work with the yahoos, it may even gain him the Presidency, but it wont work in Washington..
Click to expand...
And what high crime or.misdemeanors do you expect Trump to commit? You don't just get to impeach for funsies.

 
NCCommish said:
And what high crime or.misdemeanors do you expect Trump to commit? You don't just get to impeach for funsies.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

Clinton lied about a BJ.

I am sure it wont take Trump long to do something impeachment worthy. If he works against the establishment, they will turn on him provided the VP is someone they can work with. How many Republicans in congress cant stand Trump right now? Sure there are many that will goose step behind him because he has an (R) next to his name, but there are many with integrity left within the party

 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
Seriously?

Clinton lied about a BJ.

I am sure it wont take Trump long to do something impeachment worthy. If he works against the establishment, they will turn on him provided the VP is someone they can work with. How many Republicans in congress cant stand Trump right now? Sure there are many that will goose step behind him because he has an (R) next to his name, but there are many with integrity left within the party
Click to expand...
And did Clinton get impeached? And who really won that round? Hint it was Bill. And do really think the GOP wants to have 2 presidents impeached within a generation of each other? Lastly why would.the Democrats vote to.impeach Trump and let the GOP off the hook for their monster?

 
JML, I love you, but I don't think planning to impeach Trump beforehand is a serious discussion. 

Only two Presidents have ever been impeached; neither was removed from office. It's not an easy thing to do. 

 
hagmania said:
I think we don't really disagree too much, the differences seem nuanced. It's all in how much importance we put on the matter of campaign finance.

I'm asking this question because I don't know - what does an America without corporate funded campaigns look like? In my mind it looks like a lot more discussing the issues because you have to go out there and get support among the people, not promise to repay in kind to special interests.
Click to expand...
Well, for starters, being independently wealthy would be an even larger advantage than it is now.  Being "liked" by the media would be crucial.  I use the word liked in quotes because I don't know that coverage necessarily needs to be favorable.  Trump, for example, doesn't necessarily get much favorable coverage, but he gets by far the most coverage of any of the candidates.

 
NCCommish said:
Rich Conway said:
The internet takes time and money too.
Click to expand...
But the sources are too numerous for corporate America to own them all. Lots of great work being done and being influential.
Click to expand...
No, corporate America wouldn't own all the sources, but I think it's patently obvious that if we reduce the ability to fundraise for campaigns, that does two things: 1) gives a greater advantage to those who can self fund, and 2) gives more influence to the media.  Let me know if you disagree with either of those things.  As to how bad that is...  good question.  I'm not sure I know the answer, but I'm open to the possibility that the cure might be worse than the disease.

 
Rich Conway said:
No, corporate America wouldn't own all the sources, but I think it's patently obvious that if we reduce the ability to fundraise for campaigns, that does two things: 1) gives a greater advantage to those who can self fund, and 2) gives more influence to the media.  Let me know if you disagree with either of those things.  As to how bad that is...  good question.  I'm not sure I know the answer, but I'm open to the possibility that the cure might be worse than the disease.
Click to expand...
Public financing of elections seems to work other places. Not sure why it can't here. I really pay little attention to the mainstream media these days. They have been corrupted. They have also lost the millenial audience they desperately need. They will change or die. And if you want to self.finance that's your right but not sure that would be the huge advantage, if again, we have a well thought out public financing system.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I think money is a much bigger factor in non-Presidential races -- candidates for Senate and the House aren't on TV all the time like Presidential candidates.
Click to expand...
I would agree.  So in such races, limiting campaign fundraising gives an even larger advantage to the wealthy.  I would also argue that limiting campaign fundraising in such races would give an even greater influence to the media.

Personally, when we talk about money in politics, I'm far more concerned with cronyism than campaign funding.  For example, six-figure payments for speeches to family members of the candidate/representative.

 
If campaign finance reform is your #1 concern then I honestly don't see a huge practical difference between Hillary and Bernie. Either choice means liberal Supreme Court justices, which is really the only way that Citizens United ever gets repealed. I suppose that Bernie would represent a SYMBOLIC victory in this direction, but symbolism is all it is. 

 
Rich Conway said:
I would agree.  So in such races, limiting campaign fundraising gives an even larger advantage to the wealthy.  I would also argue that limiting campaign fundraising in such races would give an even greater influence to the media.

Personally, when we talk about money in politics, I'm far more concerned with cronyism than campaign funding.  For example, six-figure payments for speeches to family members of the candidate/representative.
Click to expand...
I understand your disdain for Hillary and her husband in this regard, but don't you think they're in a very unusual position? She is, after all, the wife of a former US President. Is the only way for Hillary to clear herself of the charge of corruption in your eyes to simply refuse to take ANY money for speeches? 

 
timschochet said:
JML, I love you, but I don't think planning to impeach Trump beforehand is a serious discussion. 

Only two Presidents have ever been impeached; neither was removed from office. It's not an easy thing to do. 
Click to expand...
Look, first of all he has to get the Republican nomination.

Then he has to have a sane VP choice, which is no given

THEN he has to win the Presidential nomination.

Only 1 of the 3 is likely at this stage, but this election is hardly like any other.

I know it is not easy to impeach, but he is not your traditional establishment candidate is he? If he continues to operate as he does when it comes to REAL decisions, not just hyperbole or empty slogans, there will be plenty within the Republican establishment that would be happy to deal with a reasonable VP rather than Trump. Whether they go with the Dallas option or impeachment is irrelevant. The members in congress are hardly likely to embrace him as an outsider and a borderline/fully across the border joke candidate. Business as usual works better without a loose cannon.

Presidents generally have the support of their party. This won't be the case with sane Republicans. All bets are off and they may not want to wait 4 years to do something about it if he cannot be worked with.

I know all the above is an outside shot, but it definitely is feasible.  

 
timschochet said:
If campaign finance reform is your #1 concern then I honestly don't see a huge practical difference between Hillary and Bernie. Either choice means liberal Supreme Court justices, which is really the only way that Citizens United ever gets repealed. I suppose that Bernie would represent a SYMBOLIC victory in this direction, but symbolism is all it is. 
Click to expand...
I think the symbolism is pretty important.  Nobody has run a campaign like Bernie is running.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pip's Invitation
The THIRD 100 from 1971. #1: Echoes
5 6 7
Replies
310
Views
18K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
Pip's Invitation
The Next 100 Songs from 1975, aka Sanbornpalooza. #1: Black Friday
9 10 11
Replies
527
Views
32K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
254K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top