US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Ustrello wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so we should be alarmed about the emails because this sort of thing should not be happening? Even though it happens with other people, namely republicans. I believe I have got that right.

So then, why is the Supreme Court seat still vacant? This sort of thing should not be happening. The only argument we have ever gotten for why they refuse to do their job is that "there is a precedent." When we look back, we see that there really isn't one and what they are referring to is something that everybody agrees is something that should not happen. So my question to you, Whembly, is why are you not opposing the current Republican congress for doing this? Why are you not talking about this as much as you are the email scandal?

Because whembly has a deep seated hatred for anything clinton

Correct.

I thought I made myself agonizingly clear...

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Mainly because it's his side and "politics is a bloodsport" or whatever cheeky catchphrase he lifted from his derposhere Twitter feed.

Or something. It doesn't matter, he either ignore the question (like he did a page ago when I asked him the same thing) or he'll engage in Simone Biles-level mental gymnastics to try to justify what he believes. Either way, it's a useless endeavor.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Hey, that's a point: didn't Farage complain when Obama visited the UK during the run-up to the referendum? Something about "stay out of our politics"?

**Dreadwinter**

whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so we should be alarmed about the emails because this sort of thing should not be happening? Even though it happens with other people, namely republicans. I believe I have got that right.

So then, why is the Supreme Court seat still vacant? This sort of thing should not be happening. The only argument we have ever gotten for why they refuse to do their job is that "there is a precedent." When we look back, we see that there really isn't one and what they are referring to is something that everybody agrees is something that should not happen. So my question to you, Whembly, is why are you not opposing the current Republican congress for doing this? Why are you not talking about this as much as you are the email scandal?

Because whembly has a deep seated hatred for anything clinton

Correct.

I thought I made myself agonizingly clear...

I'm not looking for a cheeky laugh. I want an answer here.

**jmurph**

Dreadwinter wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so we should be alarmed about the emails because this sort of thing should not be happening? Even though it happens with other people, namely republicans. I believe I have got that right.

So then, why is the Supreme Court seat still vacant? This sort of thing should not be happening. The only argument we have ever gotten for why they refuse to do their job is that "there is a precedent." When we look back, we see that there really isn't one and what they are referring to is something that everybody agrees is something that should not happen. So my question to you, Whembly, is why are you not opposing the current Republican congress for doing this? Why are you not talking about this as much as you are the email scandal?

Because whembly has a deep seated hatred for anything clinton

Correct.

I thought I made myself agonizingly clear...

I'm not looking for a cheeky laugh. I want an answer here.

But he did answer. In all fairness, Whembly has not been shy about this and it seems like there is a lot of ganging up and borderline personal attack going on.

**Dreadwinter**

jmurph wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so we should be alarmed about the emails because this sort of thing should not be happening? Even though it happens with other people, namely republicans. I believe I have got that right.

So then, why is the Supreme Court seat still vacant? This sort of thing should not be happening. The only argument we have ever gotten for why they refuse to do their job is that "there is a precedent." When we look back, we see that there really isn't one and what they are referring to is something that everybody agrees is something that should not happen. So my question to you, Whembly, is why are you not opposing the current Republican congress for doing this? Why are you not talking about this as much as you are the email scandal?

Because whembly has a deep seated hatred for anything clinton

Correct.

I thought I made myself agonizingly clear...

I'm not looking for a cheeky laugh. I want an answer here.

But he did answer. In all fairness, Whembly has not been shy about this and it seems like there is a lot of ganging up and borderline personal attack going on.

He did not answer me, he answered Ustrello. While he did provide an answer, it was not an answer to my question.

**Prestor Jon**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
sebster wrote:

I also think there's a big issue with the weird fixation only on foreign money. Big money is problematic, whether the person is foreign or American. You think the Koch brothers have your best interests at heart any more than a Chinese billionaire?

Arguably, the Chinese billionaire might actually be better concerned with our interests, as he likely wants to just continue manufacturing and selling stuff to Americans and American businesses rather than pushing any particular political ideology.

US citizens and corporations can pour money into political campaigns and buy access to candidates and incumbents with donations because the US Supreme Court ruled it legal in the Citizens United and McCutheon cases. Foreign nationals and corporations are not allowed to do so because such donations would violate FEC laws.

Do I think pouring money into political races is good for the system, political discourse and the nation as a whole? No I don't. I'd rather the system be run in a way that emphasizes issues and positions rather than whatever wealthy people/corporations/groups want to buy advocacy for but that isn't the system we have and we won't get it without new federal laws and overturned SCotUS precedents.

**Co'tor Shas**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Hey, that's a point: didn't Farage complain when Obama visited the UK during the run-up to the referendum? Something about "stay out of our politics"?

It is Farage. What else do you expect?

**whembly**

Dreadwinter wrote:
jmurph wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so we should be alarmed about the emails because this sort of thing should not be happening? Even though it happens with other people, namely republicans. I believe I have got that right. Yes. This ought to be a concern no matter what parties are involved.

So then, why is the Supreme Court seat still vacant? This sort of thing should not be happening. The only argument we have ever gotten for why they refuse to do their job is that "there is a precedent." When we look back, we see that there really isn't one and what they are referring to is something that everybody agrees is something that should not happen. So my question to you, Whembly, is why are you not opposing the current Republican congress for doing this? Why are you not talking about this as much as you are the email scandal? There's a gross distinction between entities excercising their enumerated powers, vs participating in a pay-to-play scheme.

One is very much political act. The other is damn shady as hell, if not criminal

Because whembly has a deep seated hatred for anything clinton

Correct.

I thought I made myself agonizingly clear...

I'm not looking for a cheeky laugh. I want an answer here.

But he did answer. In all fairness, Whembly has not been shy about this and it seems like there is a lot of ganging up and borderline personal attack going on.

He did not answer me, he answered Ustrello. While he did provide an answer, it was not an answer to my question.

Fair enough... see above.

**dogma**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Foreign nationals and corporations are not allowed to do so because such donations would violate FEC laws.

If the FEC consistently enforced it's definition of "foreign national" no Jew could vote, or donate to a political cause; yet they do.

**jmurph**

So that Trump ground game:
http://www.kare11.com/news/politics/trump-pence-not-yet-on-mn-ballot/307472506

Apparently, had not applied to be on the ballot by Wednesday. Seems like a curious strategy.

**Tannhauser42**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
sebster wrote:

I also think there's a big issue with the weird fixation only on foreign money. Big money is problematic, whether the person is foreign or American. You think the Koch brothers have your best interests at heart any more than a Chinese billionaire?

Arguably, the Chinese billionaire might actually be better concerned with our interests, as he likely wants to just continue manufacturing and selling stuff to Americans and American businesses rather than pushing any particular political ideology.

US citizens and corporations can pour money into political campaigns and buy access to candidates and incumbents with donations because the US Supreme Court ruled it legal in the Citizens United and McCutheon cases. Foreign nationals and corporations are not allowed to do so because such donations would violate FEC laws.

Do I think pouring money into political races is good for the system, political discourse and the nation as a whole? No I don't. I'd rather the system be run in a way that emphasizes issues and positions rather than whatever wealthy people/corporations/groups want to buy advocacy for but that isn't the system we have and we won't get it without new federal laws and overturned SCotUS precedents.

I certainly do not disagree with any of that. I think the point I was trying to make is that just because someone is American doesn't necessarily mean they really have Americans' best interests at heart. Which is the same thing Sebster was saying, i guess. Sorry, posting from my phone makes it harder to get my thoughts in order.

**Frazzled**

Dreadwinter wrote:
jmurph wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so we should be alarmed about the emails because this sort of thing should not be happening? Even though it happens with other people, namely republicans. I believe I have got that right.

So then, why is the Supreme Court seat still vacant? This sort of thing should not be happening. The only argument we have ever gotten for why they refuse to do their job is that "there is a precedent." When we look back, we see that there really isn't one and what they are referring to is something that everybody agrees is something that should not happen. So my question to you, Whembly, is why are you not opposing the current Republican congress for doing this? Why are you not talking about this as much as you are the email scandal?

Because whembly has a deep seated hatred for anything clinton

Correct.

I thought I made myself agonizingly clear...

I'm not looking for a cheeky laugh. I want an answer here.

But he did answer. In all fairness, Whembly has not been shy about this and it seems like there is a lot of ganging up and borderline personal attack going on.

He did not answer me, he answered Ustrello. While he did provide an answer, it was not an answer to my question.

One doesn't have to hate a political candidate to realize how fundamentally flawed and corrupt they are.*

*you can pretty much use this for, well every politician.

**d-usa**

At least Trump just keeps the money like any good old American.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-spent-55000-of-donor-funds-to-buy-thousands-of-copies-of-his-own-book-2016-8

**Goliath**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Hey, that's a point: didn't Farage complain when Obama visited the UK during the run-up to the referendum? Something about "stay out of our politics"?

Yes. Yes he did.

**Co'tor Shas**

Hillary Clinton Says ‘Radical Fringe’ Is Taking Over G.O.P. Under Donald Trump

RENO, Nev. — Hillary Clinton on Thursday delivered a blistering denunciation of Donald J. Trump’s embrace of the “alt-right” political philosophy, presenting his choice as an especially ominous turn in a presidential election full of them.

In her most direct critique yet connecting the Trump campaign to white nationalists and the conservative fringe, Mrs. Clinton is framing Mr. Trump’s run as unprecedented in modern politics.

“He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,” she said.

Asserting that a racially-charged and “paranoid fringe” had always existed in politics, she said, “it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone. Until now.”

The speech, at a community college here, comes one week after Mr. Trump named Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News, as his campaign chief. Mr. Bannon has eagerly described the site as “the platform for the alt-right” — a loosely defined and contested term often associated with white nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiment.

So it is that Mrs. Clinton is seeking to describe the “alt-right” to a national audience that may have little familiarity with it.

“The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump campaign represents a landmark achievement for the alt-right,” Mrs. Clinton said. “A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.”

Mrs. Clinton also noted that David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, was “jubilant” on his radio show recently while describing Mr. Trump.

“A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far dark reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military,” Mrs. Clinton said. “If he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?”

It is the kind of formal address that Mrs. Clinton has often pursued to communicate her general election message. She also set aside specific events to sternly criticize Mr. Trump’s plans for domestic and foreign policy, and took to the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., last month — the site of Abraham Lincoln’s “house divided” speech — to appeal to the country’s better angels.

For his part, Mr. Trump has often appeared to court the alt-right community — sometimes more winkingly than others — and his elevation of Mr. Bannon heartened many who identify with the movement.

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks also coincide with an attempted shift in strategy from Mr. Trump, who has spoken with more compassion about people in the country illegally and expressed a desire to win African-American support.

These attempts, which have come in front of predominantly white audiences, have more than occasionally offended minority voters. Mr. Trump has said African-Americans live in neighborhoods resembling “war zones,” struggle to get by on food stamps and constantly face down errant gunfire.

“What do you have to lose?” he has asked.

Mrs. Clinton’s team is straining to hold Mr. Trump to his statements from the Republican primary, reminding voters of his hard-line statements on immigration and arguing that his campaign has encouraged hate groups.

On Thursday morning, Mrs. Clinton posted a campaign video on Twitter featuring clips of white supremacists praising Mr. Trump. It also included a now-famous interview when Mr. Trump initially declined to disavow Mr. Duke.

Near the end of Mrs. Clinton’s video, these words appear: ““If Trump wins, they could be running the country.”

Her campaign has also moved to confront other Republicans with Mr. Trump’s most provocative statements.

John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, said that “Republicans up and down the ticket are going to have to choose whether they want to be complicit in this lurch toward extremism, or stand with the voters who can’t stomach it.”

Before the speech on Thursday, Mr. Trump’s campaign suggested that Mrs. Clinton was simply trying to change the subject. “Hillary Clinton’s attempt to delete the single worst week of her political career isn’t going to work,” said Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, citing controversies over Mrs. Clinton’s private email server and the Clinton Foundation.

At the same time, Mr. Trump’s campaign and Breitbart have reveled recently in conspiracy theories about Mrs. Clinton, suggesting she is in the throes of a health crisis.

In an appearance on Monday on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” Mrs. Clinton theatrically asked the host to check her pulse and opened a jar of pickles to demonstrate her strength.

“Make sure I’m alive,” she joked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speech.html

**whembly**

If he's so racist, why did she attend Trump's wedding?

Oh... right... he's one of Clinton's donors.

Seriously... this election pants-on-crazy.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
If he's so racist, why did she attend Trump's wedding?

I've been to a racist person's wedding because I know (lots) of racist people.

**d-usa**

It almost appears that if you know a lot of awful people, then you might be expected to appear at their social functions from time to time. I know it's true for me, and I'm far from influential in any sense of the word.

**feeder**

whembly wrote:
If he's so racist, why did she attend Trump's wedding?

Oh... right... he's one of Clinton's donors.

Seriously... this election pants-on-crazy.

This election has seen Trump digivolve from the byword for "rich jerk/successful business guy" to "toxic bigot/human dumpster fire", all by virtue of his spoken word.

I doubt she will get invited to his next wedding.

**Riquende**

Good to see the Clinton donor criticism has gone from 'political favours' to 'invited to their wedding'.

Maybe in a day or two we'll be down to "Hilllary Clinton knows some names of people who donated to the Foundation. Their names. Suspicious, no?"

Add some emoticons to suit.

**whembly**

Guys... the wedding wasn't that big of the deal.

It's the GOP candidate donated to Hillary and her Foundation in the past, in the politico link I posted earlier:

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump’s vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.

Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit.

If Trump tries to bring up the shady Foundation... her retort ought to be:

Spoiler:

Trump is boned.

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
Guys... the wedding wasn't that big of the deal.

It's the GOP candidate donated to Hillary and her Foundation in the past, in the politico link I posted earlier:

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump’s vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.

Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit.

If Trump tries to bring up the shady Foundation... her retort ought to be:

Spoiler:

Well... you donate $100,000 to my Foundation, what does that make you?

Trump is boned.

He probably only donated the money to the charity as a proxy for Putin so that Vladimir could get some face time with candidate Clinton.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
If he's so racist, why did she attend Trump's wedding?

The event was also attended by numerous other public figures. Billy Joel, Paul Anka and Tony Bennett performed, I would go.

**whembly**

So... I read Hillary's speech just now...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/transcript-hillary-clinton-alt-right-reno-227419

I think it's effective, in the sense the she's trying to appeal the non-Trumpers "vote for me or go home".

There's a potential problem, in the sense that she labeled all Trump supporters as the "alt-right"... which isn't correct. Thus, labeling the ~40% of Trump voters as sloppy racists may backfire.

I don't think so, unless Trump somehow takes advantage of this. (*breath*, try not to laugh too hard)

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
Guys... the wedding wasn't that big of the deal.

Then why are you making it a big deal?

whembly wrote:

It's the GOP candidate donated to Hillary and her Foundation in the past, in the politico link I posted earlier.

Alright? Why is that important? It seems like a conspiracy theory to me. Shades of Benghazi?

whembly wrote:

Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit.

Is that it? He clears that in a month.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Chinese company with American assets does indeed contribute to political process. However, the Chinese Billionaire himself should not be able to donate to any political process unless he, himself, is a citizens. We have laws for this now.

Chinese billionaire donates to US political campaign. This is illegal, terrible and a threat to democracy.

Chinese billionaire sets up American listed company. Chinese billionaire puts $1.3 million in that company. The company then donates $1.3 million to a US poltiical campaign. This is completely fine.

At least Koch brothers, George Soros, et el. should be able to do whatever they want within established laws.

Of course they can, it is legal. But if you think it doesn't have a distorting effect on democracy then you're absolutely kidding yourself.

This is the big issue with your political analysis right now - you just overlook so many basic problems... unless there is a Clinton involved and then you freak out likes it is the worst thing that has ever happened.

Prestor Jon wrote:
US citizens and corporations can pour money into political campaigns and buy access to candidates and incumbents with donations because the US Supreme Court ruled it legal in the Citizens United and McCutheon cases. Foreign nationals and corporations are not allowed to do so because such donations would violate FEC laws.

Yes, I think we all know the legality of the two situations. What I'd like to talk about is whether on a real, practical level, reliance on donations from domestic billionaires are actually less harmful to a democracy than donations from foreign billionaires. If they're not actually more harmful, why do we tolerate either?

Do I think pouring money into political races is good for the system, political discourse and the nation as a whole? No I don't. I'd rather the system be run in a way that emphasizes issues and positions rather than whatever wealthy people/corporations/groups want to buy advocacy for but that isn't the system we have and we won't get it without new federal laws and overturned SCotUS precedents.

Sure, and I accept that resolving that issue is going to be very difficult. The Citizens United ruling was problematic in a lot of ways, but it did start from a position of highlighting concerns with the old regime.

But Citizens United was decided 6 years ago. Since then the Democrats have formed a position that basically amounts to 'reverse Citizens United' with seemingly no effort to look for a new regime that might control political donations without threatening free speech. Meanwhile the Republicans' position seems to be 'something something Clinton, both sides, never forget Benghazi, no you shut up'.

whembly wrote:
If he's so racist, why did she attend Trump's wedding?

When the Clintons attended Trump's wedding he was just another obnoxious New York rich guy. Turning up to weddings like that is a basic part of the job of being a NY politician. At that time Trump had done nothing racist other some fairly objectionable stereotyping. Certainly his hiring practices didn't show any racism.

It is Trump's behaviour really since his involvement in the birther scandal that have been problematic. It is quite likely that Trump still isn't actually racist himself, he's just saying whatever stuff he thinks will work with certain groups of voters. He just happens to have adopted the GOP strategy of playing to the racists and the right wing lunatics, and turned that up to 11.

It means Trump is taking the Republican party to a very dangerous place, and this is something that should bother everyone. Unfortunately lots of people don't care, either because they are racist/crazy, or because it is all about cheering for Team Red.

Seriously... this election pants-on-crazy.

Pants-on-crazy? Wouldn't the situation where everyone is wearing their pants be the least crazy?

**reds8n**

Spoiler:

technically it's a defense I guess....

**LordofHats**

How is insulting the mentally handicapped an improvement over insulting the physically handicapped? It seems a paltry trifle of a difference who he was insulting. The behavior was ludicrous and unbecoming of someone who says they want to live in one of the most important houses in the world.

**kronk**

reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

technically it's a defense I guess....

Trump is an idiot. An offensive parody of a human being.