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 wrote: Stick to paper ballots... there's nothing stopping us from having the primary day (or election day) all done on one day.
There is a lot to be said for the travelling carnival style of primaries. It gives lower profile candidates a chance concentrate their limited resources on the smaller early states, to prove they have something about them with good results in those early states. Without that system then the only winners you'd see would be candidates who were already very well connected, and very well financed.
Very true and well stated. However, it's a system that does elongate the campaign season and I was only inferring that there's nothing stopping us from having the primary election held on one day.
Nothing is stopping us from having a Primary Day except the fact that the States can hold their primaries whenever they want and states like New Hampshire and Iowa enjoy the attention they get from being first and don't want to give it up. I'd be happy if we had a Primary Day but I don't see how we can convince all 50 states to actually do it.
whembly wrote: Stick to paper ballots... there's nothing stopping us from having the primary day (or election day) all done on one day.
There is a lot to be said for the travelling carnival style of primaries. It gives lower profile candidates a chance concentrate their limited resources on the smaller early states, to prove they have something about them with good results in those early states. Without that system then the only winners you'd see would be candidates who were already very well connected, and very well financed.
Very true and well stated. However, it's a system that does elongate the campaign season and I was only inferring that there's nothing stopping us from having the primary election held on one day.
Nothing is stopping us from having a Primary Day except the fact that the States can hold their primaries whenever they want and states like New Hampshire and Iowa enjoy the attention they get from being first and don't want to give it up. I'd be happy if we had a Primary Day but I don't see how we can convince all 50 states to actually do it.
It would be nice to shave 6 month of the campaigns by getting the states to agree with this. But I'm guessing that individual business lobbies in those states are making too much money from having a stretched out season.
It would be nice to shave 6 month of the campaigns by getting the states to agree with this. But I'm guessing that individual business lobbies in those states are making too much money from having a stretched out season.
I personally think that there would be a way to have a set campaign term, while still allowing for the "rolling" primaries and some of the other fairly unique things the US does for elections.
I do think that each voting period can, and should be a holiday (ie, primary day, and voting day) to provide the greatest possible opportunity to turn in paper ballots and get more voters involved.
But, I do think that you are right that businesses and their lobbies (not to even bring up the monsters of Citizens' United and McCutcheon) are benefiting too much from the way things are now.
Really seems like you're going to the old, disproved, argument that modern Democrats are even remotely similar to the Democrats before the 1960's.
Nothing of that sort.
That's the case where it was argued that african american weren't citizen...and thus didn't enjoy the protections recognized by the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
"[If black people were] entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which [Southern states] considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give the persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."
skyth wrote: Really seems like you're going to the old, disproved, argument that modern Democrats are even remotely similar to the Democrats before the 1960's.
In his post he explicitly mentioned the racism motivation without mentioning party at all even when another poster had floated that earlier. Not fair to cast shade for something Whembly clearly avoided doing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/03 17:39:58
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
It would be nice to shave 6 month of the campaigns by getting the states to agree with this. But I'm guessing that individual business lobbies in those states are making too much money from having a stretched out season.
I personally think that there would be a way to have a set campaign term, while still allowing for the "rolling" primaries and some of the other fairly unique things the US does for elections.
I do think that each voting period can, and should be a holiday (ie, primary day, and voting day) to provide the greatest possible opportunity to turn in paper ballots and get more voters involved.
But, I do think that you are right that businesses and their lobbies (not to even bring up the monsters of Citizens' United and McCutcheon) are benefiting too much from the way things are now.
And it's not even big businesses probably. I wonder how many mom & pop motels, diners, etc in some of the small early primary states make a large chunk of their living every four years during the primary season, with campaigns and media outlets living in those states. Rent for office space, cost of logistics, spending on ads, catering, etc etc etc. There is a lot of money made with these long campaigns, both in lobbying money spend on the politicians themselves, as well as the actual costs of running campaigns.
Wolfblade wrote: I disagree on whether or not the Russian meddling had any impact at all, it definitely had an impact, especially considering the somewhat recent indictments of 3 Russian companies and 13 nationals that were involved in a several years long plan (data gathering, ad campaigns, protests/group organizations/rallies, bots/trolls, etc starting after Trump went to Russia for the Miss Universe contest iirc), along with the hacking done by Russians in at least 7 states, there's no way they didn't influence the election. It also started back in 2014, well before the 2016 election primaries were even considered obviously. And while you're right we might not know the entire effect the hacking and campaign by the Russians might have had, we can certainly say they meddled and influenced the election, be it changing addresses or names so people couldn't vote without multiple forms of ID, or actually changing votes, which might be a little too brazen, and the former is certainly harder to prove was done maliciously instead of a records update by the actual person.
For the Russians to do all of that and NOT influence the election is just a silly notion at this point.
That's evidence that Russia worked to influence the election, which is not in dispute. I think we all know Russia worked to influence the election. The question is whether their work actually impacted individual's voting decisions. I think it is extremely likely that the Russian campaign had a meaningful impact, but we can't know for certain. Afterall, Russia spent a few million a month on their troll farm operation, but Trump and Clinton both spent about a billion on campaigning. Russia gets more bang for its buck because Russian labour is so much cheaper, but even then the amount Russia spent was a pittance compared to Trump and Clinton's campaigns. So in terms of the troll farm that ended up producing those indictments I doubt there was much impact.
The bigger question of Russian impact comes from their data hacks, and those produced a lot of media coverage negative to Clinton which may have had an impact, either in harming Clinton or in drowning out media time that might otherwise have focused on Trump's scandals. The problem though is that we can't ever point to a moment where a Russia driven story broke and Clinton dropped in the polls. This is because Russia ran those things as a drip feed and so they're hard to isolate because they were constantly coming. So there really is no clear evidence we can point to and say with any factual basis that Russia had impacted the polls by x%
It's true Trump and Clinton spent more campaigning, but how much of that was travel and other physical costs? Russia spent less because it didn't physically need to be there, or do anything in person. their efforts were all digitally focused (i.e. group/rally forming over facebook, or bots/trolls on basically any social media site). And while we can't say X% of votes were swayed, the evidence heavily points to Russian interference swinging the election (from the massive rally/group organization efforts on the part of the Russians, to the actual hacking, to the ads that reached over 126 million people on facebook alone). However, I think Mueller knows a lot more and as it comes closer to wrapping up his investigation I suspect we'll learn a lot more, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis which is why more hasn't been revealed.
Yet, France is a Republic and Germany is a Republic.
Because being a Republic has nothing at all to do with anything you are talking about. A Republic is a form of government with a non-hereditary Head of State who is elected by the public, that's it. That is all it means.
A Republic can have a presidential system, a parliamentary system, the head-of-state can be elected directly or indirectly.
In the case of the United States, we have a Presidential system based on a liberal democracy where we elect a council in the form of the electoral college who then picks the President. As far as us being a "republic", that is all it means.
As far as anything you are talking about, us being a Republic doesn't mean anything and makes us nothing special, especially since you are comparing us to other Republics, all while trying to make some sort of point that they are not really a Republic and are therefore different.
Once you figure out an actual argument based on actual things, maybe we can address the points you think you are making.
You still haven't address the question or the root of my argument. The federalist republic system in the U.S. DOES have ramifications because the laws are not applied equally across the citizenry. It is absurd that my health benefits cannot carry over across state lines, or that banking/financial accessibility is restricted between states. Drivers Licenses, car insurance, on and on and on.
Parliamentary democracies are not the same as a Federalist Republic - If the systems were the same, Trump wouldn't be president. That literally can't happen if a majority of votes are won by a party.
Additionally, my original point about the Fed. Rep. system was in response to someone asking why the US doesn't have multiple political parties. It's BECAUSE of the Fed. Rep. system and the way that politics are stratified and compartmentalized thus making it incredibly difficult (almost the point of impossibility) for alternative parties to obtain political influence.
Just imagine: If the far right were siphoned off into their own little political party, like in parliamentary democracies, the grown-ups who actually know how to efficiently govern a nation would easily be able to run the country while sufficiently ostracizing the ridiculous notions held my a clear minority of the population. But the US doesn't have this because it's a Fed. Rep. system so one of only two major political parties is currently being held to the whims of a distinct minority of their members who view their leader with messianic mysticism. This is not good for the nation at large.
So yes, the systems are drastically different, not all "republics" are the same, and that matters very much, both in application, and in the ramifications of said application.
750 WAAAGH Whazgog
750 33rd Agatheon Regiment
"HOW THE F&@% WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW; ILLEGAL OFFWORLD DEATH TOURNAMENTS WERE ILLEGAL?!?!"
"I HAVE ONE QUESTION AND ONE QUESTION ONLY TO ASK YOU: EXPLOOOOOSIONSSS?!?!"
When you stop pretending that any of your questions have anything to do with us being a republic, and stop pretending that other republics are different because you don't think they are republics, then your questions are worth answering.
But there is no point answering a question, when the very question is fundamentally flawed and based on a complete misunderstanding of the governments of all of the countries involved.
Additionally, my original point about the Fed. Rep. system was in response to someone asking why the US doesn't have multiple political parties. It's BECAUSE of the Fed. Rep. system
We don't have multiple political parties because we use a "first past the post system" with single-member districts, which almost always results in a two-party system. NOTHING about us being a republic forces us to use the system of elections we are currently using.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/03 19:24:39
skyth wrote: Really seems like you're going to the old, disproved, argument that modern Democrats are even remotely similar to the Democrats before the 1960's.
In his post he explicitly mentioned the racism motivation without mentioning party at all even when another poster had floated that earlier. Not fair to cast shade for something Whembly clearly avoided doing.
The post that was quoted that he responded to explicitly called out the Democratic Party. It's unattributed but I thought it was fron him.
Yet, France is a Republic and Germany is a Republic.
Because being a Republic has nothing at all to do with anything you are talking about. A Republic is a form of government with a non-hereditary Head of State who is elected by the public, that's it. That is all it means.
A Republic can have a presidential system, a parliamentary system, the head-of-state can be elected directly or indirectly.
In the case of the United States, we have a Presidential system based on a liberal democracy where we elect a council in the form of the electoral college who then picks the President. As far as us being a "republic", that is all it means.
As far as anything you are talking about, us being a Republic doesn't mean anything and makes us nothing special, especially since you are comparing us to other Republics, all while trying to make some sort of point that they are not really a Republic and are therefore different.
Once you figure out an actual argument based on actual things, maybe we can address the points you think you are making.
You still haven't address the question or the root of my argument. The federalist republic system in the U.S. DOES have ramifications because the laws are not applied equally across the citizenry. It is absurd that my health benefits cannot carry over across state lines, or that banking/financial accessibility is restricted between states. Drivers Licenses, car insurance, on and on and on.
Parliamentary democracies are not the same as a Federalist Republic - If the systems were the same, Trump wouldn't be president. That literally can't happen if a majority of votes are won by a party.
Additionally, my original point about the Fed. Rep. system was in response to someone asking why the US doesn't have multiple political parties. It's BECAUSE of the Fed. Rep. system and the way that politics are stratified and compartmentalized thus making it incredibly difficult (almost the point of impossibility) for alternative parties to obtain political influence.
Just imagine: If the far right were siphoned off into their own little political party, like in parliamentary democracies, the grown-ups who actually know how to efficiently govern a nation would easily be able to run the country while sufficiently ostracizing the ridiculous notions held my a clear minority of the population. But the US doesn't have this because it's a Fed. Rep. system so one of only two major political parties is currently being held to the whims of a distinct minority of their members who view their leader with messianic mysticism. This is not good for the nation at large.
So yes, the systems are drastically different, not all "republics" are the same, and that matters very much, both in application, and in the ramifications of said application.
To marginalize extremists we just need people to stop voting for them in primaries and elections. Voter apathy and low turnout aren't problems inherent to the Fed Rep system. As long as people are willing to limit themselves to only voting for (R) and (D) we're left with choosing the lesser of two evils in a prisoner's dilemma. We had a long stretch of years in the beginning of our national history wherein we had more than 2 political parties in our Fed Rep system, there are many reasons why we've become entrenched in the hyper partisan 2 Party system but the mere fact that we're a Federalist Republic isn't one of them.
I really think a bigger deal is being made out of this than should be. This is not the first time a major network has instructed its syndicates to spout out the company's opinions. Reading a form letter on air is a lot more common than you'd think.
I really think a bigger deal is being made out of this than should be. This is not the first time a major network has instructed its syndicates to spout out the company's opinions. Reading a form letter on air is a lot more common than you'd think.
I think the point is that it is denouncing fake news while coming off as fake news, and they are buying another broadcasting company and will be approaching monopoly territory quickly with 72 percent of homes being reached by their message.
djones520 wrote: I think the latest election where a state like Michigan and Pennsylvania went red kinda throws this on its head a bit. Both had spent the last 24 years going blue. I am slightly amused though, since this was the first election I didn't vote republican, and my state finally flipped.
This election the tipping point was Pennsylvania, which was interesting but not really out of the blue, Pennsylvania was also the tipping point in 1996. In between it was Colorado twice, in 2012 and 2008, in 2004 it was Iowa and in 2000 it was Florida, rather famously.
The exact set of states which are key to each election, and exactly which state turns out to be the tipping point changes with each cycle, but it works from a pretty narrow pool of states in general. It won't ever be Kentucky or Maryland, if those states flip it will only be in absolute landslide election.
So a system designed to increase the importance of small and mid-sized states has actually made most small and mid-sized states irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: It was 2016, so a while back. At any rate, I agree we'll never know if it did flip the election.
Impressed by your memory. I can't remember conversations I had last week.
But yeah, I think we agree. Given the closeness of the election then any impact would have flipped the result, and Russia most likely had an impact. But we can't really quantify the Russian impact, which makes it hard to say with absolute certainty that there was an impact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: A) he's totally right that much of the gun-control initiatives in the past were for racists reasons as the ex-slave holders didn't want their former slaves armed.
As I already explained, he's a bit right because racism certainly played a role in some guns proposals and some gun laws. But that's entirely meaningless because history is full of racism, and so racism played a role in lots of laws and proposed laws. 'some gun laws used to have racist motivations behind them" is exactly as meaningful as 'some laws used to have racist motivations behind them'.
B) The point here wasn't to distinctly state that "Gun Control = Racisms"...
That's the point. It doesn't directly state it, because it's obviously stupid. So instead it is left as the implied conclusion. Afterall, if there's no intent to link it to modern gun control, why mention it at all?
It's junky, dishonest debate. He shouldn't know better than to post it, you should know better than to try and defend it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I laughed too... all congress has to do is fund something he really REALLY likes (in this case the Defense Budget).
Uh... the Republicans are pretty keen on the increase in defense as well. That wasn't a quid pro quo to give Trump something. The whole omnibus is a Republican dream bill, with all the spending they love - look at the splash of money to help agriculture in rural states. Some Democrats got brought on by single items here and there, and mostly by commitments not to cut some Democrats preferred stuff.
I don't ever see him vetoing any GOP passed bills... and seriously doubt he'd do that to a Democratic passed bill. He'll be made out as an even more of a pariah, and he simply wants to be loved by all.
That's not true. Three bi-partisan Dreamer bills were brought to Trump, he rejected each, even though they gave him his money for his wall. On issues where Trump has a consistent position, which is basically immigration and arguably trade, he'll do his own thing. But anything else, especially if there's some level of understanding required, Trump gets grumpy but he rolls over and signs.
People talk about Trump playing to the angry, confused, older voter. That's not quite right. Trump is an angry, confused older person.
Very true and well stated. However, it's a system that does elongate the campaign season and I was only inferring that there's nothing stopping us from having the primary election held on one day.
I agree it could be shorted. There's a serious problem when people are sick of elections before the general has even started. I think there's a middle ground between the current process and running it all on a single day. Certainly most electioneering after Super Tuesday is pretty junky. By that point anyone who's going to be a real chance is already known, the favourite is known and so on.
So maybe the best thing would be to leave Iowa with its special place as the first primary, because history matters. Then you have New Hampshire, and maybe a couple of other states can be added to that to give some demographic and geographic balance. Then you roll in to Super Tuesday. After that you have one more election day, for everybody else. This was you give smaller players a chance to start in smaller states, raise funds and escalate if they perform well, but you also get those whole thing over and done with much quicker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: They should have done like the budget: be an independent branch of the government, come up with your own plan, pass it, and send it to Trump and let him do whatever he wants. If he vetoes something, then the Representatives and Senators are safe because they can say "we tried, he vetoed it". If they never send him anything, then they are the ones who failed.
If the Republican leadership puts up a bill giving residency status to Dreamers, then they reap the cost from the large anti-immigration faction in their base. But they gain nothing if Trump shoots it down, people angry at Trump's immigration stance won't bother drawing a distinction between Trump and his Republicans in congress, they'll vote against both.
So putting up a bill to get vetoed would angry much of their own base, while pleasing no-one. It's lose/lose, and so Republican leadership is right not to put up anything without Trump's commitment to sign.
d-usa wrote: It would be nice to shave 6 month of the campaigns by getting the states to agree with this. But I'm guessing that individual business lobbies in those states are making too much money from having a stretched out season.
As I said earlier, the current system means a less connected, lower profile candidates can actually compete on an even footing in early states. If they go nowhere then their backers have lost a couple of million. If they do well in Iowa and New Hampshire then they will attract new backers and be able to get the resources for a shot at good results on Super Tuesday. If they do well there then they'll be backed for the rest of the primary seasons.
But if there's a single day primary, then only people who are extremely well connected before the campaign will have the resources to advertise in all 50 states at one time. In 2016 the primaries would have been over before they began, with Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton holding about $100m each, they would have flooded the country with their message. Ted Cruz maybe could have reached half of Jeb's warchest if he'd really pumped his donors for cash, no-one else would have gotten 20% to compete with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfblade wrote: It's true Trump and Clinton spent more campaigning, but how much of that was travel and other physical costs? Russia spent less because it didn't physically need to be there, or do anything in person. their efforts were all digitally focused (i.e. group/rally forming over facebook, or bots/trolls on basically any social media site). And while we can't say X% of votes were swayed, the evidence heavily points to Russian interference swinging the election (from the massive rally/group organization efforts on the part of the Russians, to the actual hacking, to the ads that reached over 126 million people on facebook alone). However, I think Mueller knows a lot more and as it comes closer to wrapping up his investigation I suspect we'll learn a lot more, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis which is why more hasn't been revealed.
The cost of travel etc doesn't really matter. Afterall, if on-line spending was more effective then Clinton and Trump would have just stayed home and poured all their money in to on-line operations. But none of that really matters, end of the day Russia spent $1.25m a month on ads and its troll farm. That sounds like a lot, but even if we assume that amount was spent every month for the 18 months (which is a big overstatement), then we'd be talking about $22m, compared to Clinton and Trump expenditures of around $1bn each. There's no kind of efficiency that can boost the Russian spend up to being equal with something that's 100 times bigger.
That said, it isn't just about the scale of the Russian spend, arguing about it or trying to quantify it's scale is a needless distraction. Even in terms of Russia activity it is a side issue, because the most significant thing Russia did was the hacking.
The important thing to the Russia spend is that it gives clear evidence that Russia was active in the campaign, which is a crime in itself. We can then see their operations focused on operations to boost Trump, Sanders and Stein, so we have evidence that they had a strategy to harm Clinton's chances of winning. Which is important to establishing the motivations behind the Russian hacks of the DNC and Podesta, which were the really decisive operations undertaken by Russia.
It's largely strategic. Note the guy has already handed over emails and recordings of conversations that Mueller reportedly didn't already have. So while this isn't a deal to flip and turn state's, he has still become a co-operating witness. And of course, because he's already been sentenced he can no longer plead the 5th and can be compelled to testify, should he be required and become unwilling to do so.
The really interesting thing is that from Day One Mueller approached this thing using the same methodology he used to bring down the NY organised crime syndicates, and every part has fit so neatly. I mean, I thought I was pretty cynical on Trump from the get-go, but I never thought his organisation was functionally the same as a crime syndicate, but here we are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whazgog Da Despot wrote: You still haven't address the question or the root of my argument. The federalist republic system in the U.S. DOES have ramifications because the laws are not applied equally across the citizenry. It is absurd that my health benefits cannot carry over across state lines, or that banking/financial accessibility is restricted between states. Drivers Licenses, car insurance, on and on and on.
Parliamentary democracies are not the same as a Federalist Republic - If the systems were the same, Trump wouldn't be president. That literally can't happen if a majority of votes are won by a party.
Seriously dude, these terms you keep throwing around, they have actual meanings you need to learn.
You want know something fun, Australia is a parliamentary democracy, it also a Federalist system, but it is not a Republic. It isn't a Republic because the Queen is our head of state, and literally all 'Republic' means is that you don't have a hereditary head of state, even just a figurehead means you aren't a Republic.
Parliamentary democracy means the head of state is given power by the legislative, basically it means the elected members their pick one of their own to be the leader. So Australia and the UK are parliamentary democracies, but the US and France aren't, because their presidents are elected in processes seperate to the election of the legislature.
A Federalist system is one where there is a clear and formal seperation of powers between the central government and individual states. The US and Australian constitutions both have these formal separations of powers, making both system Federal.
Now we've hopefully got all of that sorted, to answer your question about gun control and Federalism, Australia has a Federal system, and regulation of guns is actually down to each individual state. So when Australia passed its gun control and buyback scheme in the 90s, it was actually a two step process, with the federal government passing laws to fund the buy back and regulations, and the states agreeing to a uniform set of gun laws, which each state then passed through their own state legislatures. It was quite a thing.
Those uniform gun laws actually just had their first possible pin prick, in Tasmania. During their recent election the Liberal Party (they're the right wing, conservative party in our system)
Additionally, my original point about the Fed. Rep. system was in response to someone asking why the US doesn't have multiple political parties. It's BECAUSE of the Fed. Rep. system and the way that politics are stratified and compartmentalized thus making it incredibly difficult (almost the point of impossibility) for alternative parties to obtain political influence.
No, the two party system in the US has nothing to do with being Federalist or a Republic. Federalism actually makes more parties more viable, as parties representing specific regions become more viable in a system with empowered state and regional governments.
The reason the US has a two party system is you have electorate based, single winner elections, and first past the post elections dominate. If you have proportional representation then minor parties would be able to gain some power and representation despite not being the most powerful party. And if you dropped first past the post for more prefential voting or run-off systems, then people would be able to support minor parties without forfeiting their say in who they prefer out of the two major party candidates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: Just replace youtube with youpak in the URL to view stuff that's regionally restricted.
I'll try that. Cheers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I really think a bigger deal is being made out of this than should be. This is not the first time a major network has instructed its syndicates to spout out the company's opinions. Reading a form letter on air is a lot more common than you'd think.
You're ignoring a few things. Sinclair has a market share like no other syndicate. Nor is Sinclair just giving the company's opinion, it's giving a particularly partisan opinion, as part of increasingly partisan coverage, prior to this company hired conservative pundits were required to be broadcast by local stations. And while an organisation like FOX News spouts similar partisan stuff, at least FOX built its presence with a new station, it added a voice, albeit a crazy voice, to the media environment - Sinclair isn't adding a new voice because its built its network by purchasing existing stations, replacing formerly local voices.
Now, personally I think the impact of this will be limited, because unlike say 30 years ago TV isn't the driver of opinion it once was. These days so much political info is spread through the media. I'm worried about this in the same way that I'm worried about a possible monopoly of the telegraph.
However, when you say this is the same as smaller syndicates, you're wrong.
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2018/04/04 04:34:17
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
It's largely strategic. Note the guy has already handed over emails and recordings of conversations that Mueller reportedly didn't already have. So while this isn't a deal to flip and turn state's, he has still become a co-operating witness. And of course, because he's already been sentenced he can no longer plead the 5th and can be compelled to testify, should he be required and become unwilling to do so.
The really interesting thing is that from Day One Mueller approached this thing using the same methodology he used to bring down the NY organised crime syndicates, and every part has fit so neatly. I mean, I thought I was pretty cynical on Trump from the get-go, but I never thought his organisation was functionally the same as a crime syndicate, but here we are.
I don't find it to be cynical. This is obviously a very serious matter, and was from the start. Accordingly it makes sense to approach it as methodically as possible, treat it as a organized criminal structure (because with Russian involved that's a good analogy) so if the investigation finds that there was no collusion everyone can be sure that is the case. If the most rigorous investigation possible produced no result, then nothing is going to produce any result and even hard Democrats could not reasonably dispute the result. If there was collusion, then obviously the approach is not only justified but needed. The ultimate point is that assuming there was collusion OR assuming there wasn't, Mueller's approach is the best method. Notably there are Republican congressmen out there with their heads still screwed on who fully support this very much because they feel there was no collusion.
Which leads into how any Trump supporter either supports the investigation, opposes it because they feel he is guilty, or opposes it because they are deluded. The disappointment is in how many people fall into the last category. I mean, if there was a desire to avoid exposing wrongdoing that they believed happened then at least there would be logic involved. A classic example of the old saying that maliciousness should never be assumed when a situation can be explained by stupidity.
Wolfblade wrote: It's true Trump and Clinton spent more campaigning, but how much of that was travel and other physical costs? Russia spent less because it didn't physically need to be there, or do anything in person. their efforts were all digitally focused (i.e. group/rally forming over facebook, or bots/trolls on basically any social media site). And while we can't say X% of votes were swayed, the evidence heavily points to Russian interference swinging the election (from the massive rally/group organization efforts on the part of the Russians, to the actual hacking, to the ads that reached over 126 million people on facebook alone). However, I think Mueller knows a lot more and as it comes closer to wrapping up his investigation I suspect we'll learn a lot more, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis which is why more hasn't been revealed.
The cost of travel etc doesn't really matter. Afterall, if on-line spending was more effective then Clinton and Trump would have just stayed home and poured all their money in to on-line operations. But none of that really matters, end of the day Russia spent $1.25m a month on ads and its troll farm. That sounds like a lot, but even if we assume that amount was spent every month for the 18 months (which is a big overstatement), then we'd be talking about $22m, compared to Clinton and Trump expenditures of around $1bn each. There's no kind of efficiency that can boost the Russian spend up to being equal with something that's 100 times bigger.
That said, it isn't just about the scale of the Russian spend, arguing about it or trying to quantify it's scale is a needless distraction. Even in terms of Russia activity it is a side issue, because the most significant thing Russia did was the hacking.
The important thing to the Russia spend is that it gives clear evidence that Russia was active in the campaign, which is a crime in itself. We can then see their operations focused on operations to boost Trump, Sanders and Stein, so we have evidence that they had a strategy to harm Clinton's chances of winning. Which is important to establishing the motivations behind the Russian hacks of the DNC and Podesta, which were the really decisive operations undertaken by Russia.
I disagree, I mean, the facebook ads alone reached 126 million people, roughly the same number as the total amount of people who voted, and again, a lot of the expenses can be chalked up to having to fly a bunch of people and equipment from place to place, then house and feed them. And note, I never said it was as effective. But why couldn't it be? Information gets around much more quickly, unlike 20-30 years ago where to hear a candidate's message you either had to go see them at a rally in person, or wait for hopefully true information to make it into whatever local paper/rumor mill is near you. I mean, anyone showing up to rally probably knows who they're gonna vote for, especially if they are cheering wildly in the crowd. Even if the online only efforts aren't as effective as personally campaigning somewhere, that doesn't mean the Russian efforts were meaningless, after all ad campaigns have been proven to work, as did their groups duping people into pro trump groups/rallies/etc.
It's largely strategic. Note the guy has already handed over emails and recordings of conversations that Mueller reportedly didn't already have. So while this isn't a deal to flip and turn state's, he has still become a co-operating witness. And of course, because he's already been sentenced he can no longer plead the 5th and can be compelled to testify, should he be required and become unwilling to do so.
The really interesting thing is that from Day One Mueller approached this thing using the same methodology he used to bring down the NY organised crime syndicates, and every part has fit so neatly. I mean, I thought I was pretty cynical on Trump from the get-go, but I never thought his organisation was functionally the same as a crime syndicate, but here we are.
It's not surprising really, the best way to take something down in this situation is to obviously start with the weakest link you can find and get them to flip and give up someone above them, then work on them and get them to give up someone above them. It's probably the best way to root out as much information as possible.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
The Roger Stone email to Sam Nunberg where Stone states his relationship with Julian Assange is out.
Spoiler:
Also out is the original authorisation Rosenstein gave to Mueller to investigate Manafort. Manafort applied in court that Mueller had no authority to investigate him, so in response Mueller's team provided the authorisation, with other parties under investigation redacted. The interesting bit, and the backfire against Manafort, is the authorisation is not just for Manafort's criminal activity in the Ukraine, but also for collusion with Russia. So now it's out there, plain as day.
Sorry, to clarify, I thought my prior impression of Trump was cynical. I had thought he was a lazy, half-brained braggart with impulse control of a toddler and no moral compass what-so-ever. So when we learned about his long string of shady and outright criminal actions I wasn't surprised at all. I thought my impression was on the more cynical side, but it turns out I wasn't cynical enough.
So I had thought this would play out like an Enron thing, where the dynamic was a lot of fairly straight white collar types panicking and attempting some haphazard cover ups but mostly being truthful and forthcoming with investigators because they're ordinarily straight people who get intimidated when federal investigators sit them down for a chat. I had thought most info would be fairly easy to access, because while the stuff was hidden, it was hidden within an org that was on the whole meant to be a lawful operation with normal record keeping. Did you watch Sam Nunberg's public meltdown, where he said he wasn't going to hand over emails, couldn't understand failure to do so could mean jail time, and then a day later handed over the emails that showed Roger Stone's contact with wikileaks? That dynamic was what I thought we'd see, albeit not always that funny.
I'm realising now I had no idea the actual nature of Trump's organisation and his people. A lot of people have been caught lying to the FBI, that's a contempt for the law that's more common with a seasoned criminal organisation, not a bunch of straights caught up in a white collar crime. The investigation is spending a lot of time trying to overcome firewalls that were built to hide connections and allow deniability - again that's something you see in criminal organisations. And these challenges are being overcome because in addition to the lying, it turns out a bunch of Trump's guys were running their own criminal ops before and during their time with Trump, giving Mueller leverage to flip them.
I'm not saying Trump is Gotti, obviously he's not running drugs or ordering people's deaths. But the org he is running and the way it is being dismantled is like a criminal syndicate. That is a hell of a thing, and way beyond the seriousness of what I thought we were facing early in the investigation.
Which leads into how any Trump supporter either supports the investigation, opposes it because they feel he is guilty, or opposes it because they are deluded. The disappointment is in how many people fall into the last category. I mean, if there was a desire to avoid exposing wrongdoing that they believed happened then at least there would be logic involved. A classic example of the old saying that maliciousness should never be assumed when a situation can be explained by stupidity.
I'm not sure I see a functional difference between people who genuinely believe there's nothing for Mueller to find, and people who want Mueller's investigation to end to prevent everything being found. That both groups exist in reasonably large amounts is terrifying, and a major challenge for your democracy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 05:51:01
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Well, criminals don't exactly hire straight laced people who are on the up and up. Criminals (especially those with an ego problem like trump) generally hire lackeys and minions who'll go along with whatever they're doing. I'm just waiting for Kushner or one of the younger trumps to be indicted and see how fast he either disowns them, or how loudly he complains it's unfair.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
I really think a bigger deal is being made out of this than should be. This is not the first time a major network has instructed its syndicates to spout out the company's opinions. Reading a form letter on air is a lot more common than you'd think.
I think the point is that it is denouncing fake news while coming off as fake news, and they are buying another broadcasting company and will be approaching monopoly territory quickly with 72 percent of homes being reached by their message.
Here's another take on the Sinclair scripting issue. It's a much deeper dive than Oliver's grab at low hanging fruit. There are multiple references to KOMO 4, the Sinclair channel in my area.
The Roger Stone email to Sam Nunberg where Stone states his relationship with Julian Assange is out.
Also out is the original authorisation Rosenstein gave to Mueller to investigate Manafort. Manafort applied in court that Mueller had no authority to investigate him, so in response Mueller's team provided the authorisation, with other parties under investigation redacted. The interesting bit, and the backfire against Manafort, is the authorisation is not just for Manafort's criminal activity in the Ukraine, but also for collusion with Russia. So now it's out there, plain as day.
Sorry, to clarify, I thought my prior impression of Trump was cynical. I had thought he was a lazy, half-brained braggart with impulse control of a toddler and no moral compass what-so-ever. So when we learned about his long string of shady and outright criminal actions I wasn't surprised at all. I thought my impression was on the more cynical side, but it turns out I wasn't cynical enough.
So I had thought this would play out like an Enron thing, where the dynamic was a lot of fairly straight white collar types panicking and attempting some haphazard cover ups but mostly being truthful and forthcoming with investigators because they're ordinarily straight people who get intimidated when federal investigators sit them down for a chat. I had thought most info would be fairly easy to access, because while the stuff was hidden, it was hidden within an org that was on the whole meant to be a lawful operation with normal record keeping. Did you watch Sam Nunberg's public meltdown, where he said he wasn't going to hand over emails, couldn't understand failure to do so could mean jail time, and then a day later handed over the emails that showed Roger Stone's contact with wikileaks? That dynamic was what I thought we'd see, albeit not always that funny.
I'm realising now I had no idea the actual nature of Trump's organisation and his people. A lot of people have been caught lying to the FBI, that's a contempt for the law that's more common with a seasoned criminal organisation, not a bunch of straights caught up in a white collar crime. The investigation is spending a lot of time trying to overcome firewalls that were built to hide connections and allow deniability - again that's something you see in criminal organisations. And these challenges are being overcome because in addition to the lying, it turns out a bunch of Trump's guys were running their own criminal ops before and during their time with Trump, giving Mueller leverage to flip them.
I'm not saying Trump is Gotti, obviously he's not running drugs or ordering people's deaths. But the org he is running and the way it is being dismantled is like a criminal syndicate. That is a hell of a thing, and way beyond the seriousness of what I thought we were facing early in the investigation.
Which leads into how any Trump supporter either supports the investigation, opposes it because they feel he is guilty, or opposes it because they are deluded. The disappointment is in how many people fall into the last category. I mean, if there was a desire to avoid exposing wrongdoing that they believed happened then at least there would be logic involved. A classic example of the old saying that maliciousness should never be assumed when a situation can be explained by stupidity.
I'm not sure I see a functional difference between people who genuinely believe there's nothing for Mueller to find, and people who want Mueller's investigation to end to prevent everything being found. That both groups exist in reasonably large amounts is terrifying, and a major challenge for your democracy.
Ah, I misinterpreted. At any rate, while we don't know yet what I suspect has happened is that Mueller tapped into Trump's business to make sure he had all the bases covered and realized that Trump's business is a rabbit hole of amoral and downright criminal activity. He has literally built his career on cutting corners through the law wherever it suits him, plenty of which I'm sure you've noted back in 2016. But that's just the stuff too minor to bother covering up. Trump's business has a very long history of sweeping documentation under the rug to keep it from surfacing in court, and while I can't say I have solid evidence on any one thing once someone goes through Trump's past with a fine-toothed comb it becomes readily apparent that the only way he has managed to make money is from illegal deals.
Think about it this way; Trump is (supposedly) running the country like he'd run his business and we can all see how poorly run that is. Isn't it strange that someone so clearly incompetent at management of any sort had a successful business for so long? It's one thing to have difficulty transferring business experience into the political sphere but we are talking a guy who by all indications cannot tell what is actually real (vs things he decides are real with no evidence whatsoever). How does someone like that ever manage a massive business competently enough to draw any profit all these years? How did it not start hemorrhaging money decades ago? Profits from reality TV & an economic system favoring the wealthy only go so far, leaving a margin with no readily available explanation to fill it.
However, this is only my opinion based on circumstantial evidence so I'd say it's merely a plausible theory at best.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/04 07:35:58
NinthMusketeer wrote: How does someone like that ever manage a massive business even competently, let alone well?
He didn't. Trump's business history is almost as much of a dumpster fire as his political career so far, and that's despite him making a habit of licensing his brand to other people and letting them take all of the risks and effort. Trump's image of a successful businessman is mostly because people can't tell the difference between the real Trump and the reality tv show character he played.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: I'm not sure I see a functional difference between people who genuinely believe there's nothing for Mueller to find, and people who want Mueller's investigation to end to prevent everything being found. That both groups exist in reasonably large amounts is terrifying, and a major challenge for your democracy.
IMO both are bad, but for different reasons. People who believe that there's nothing to find may be in some serious denial (or simply uninformed) but might at least be willing to admit that Trump needs to go if more stuff is found and a persuasive enough case is made. That's dangerous because ignorance is easily exploited, but it's potentially a fixable problem. People who want the investigation to end before it finds something know that Trump is guilty but are willing to reject the rule of law as long as it's Their Guy that might be guilty. That's a far greater threat, because they have made a conscious choice to dismantle the system to their own benefit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 07:25:41
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
NinthMusketeer wrote: How does someone like that ever manage a massive business even competently, let alone well?
He didn't. Trump's business history is almost as much of a dumpster fire as his political career so far, and that's despite him making a habit of licensing his brand to other people and letting them take all of the risks and effort. Trump's image of a successful businessman is mostly because people can't tell the difference between the real Trump and the reality tv show character he played.
Thanks for catching me on this, I phrased that wrong. I did not mean to suggest that the business had been run well but in hindsight that's pretty much what I said.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Ah, I misinterpreted. At any rate, while we don't know yet what I suspect has happened is that Mueller tapped into Trump's business to make sure he had all the bases covered and realized that Trump's business is a rabbit hole of amoral and downright criminal activity. He has literally built his career on cutting corners through the law wherever it suits him, plenty of which I'm sure you've noted back in 2016. But that's just the stuff too minor to bother covering up. Trump's business has a very long history of sweeping documentation under the rug to keep it from surfacing in court, and while I can't say I have solid evidence on any one thing once someone goes through Trump's past with a fine-toothed comb it becomes readily apparent that the only way he has managed to make money is from illegal deals.
Yeah, most of the corner cutting is, I mean its illegal but its also standard for the New York property scene. You know, stuff like Trump keeping black people out of his developments in the 1970s, abusing water rights on his New Jersey golf course, or Jared and Ivanka lying about occupancy rates to bring more buyers in to the struggling Trump SoHo... it's illegal but also fairly mundane stuff that is often not prosecuted, and if it is it's normally resolved with a fine that's way lower than it should be.
But from late in the campaign and after Trump won some much more outlandish stuff started being talked about. Russian money laundering, stuff like that. Now, as far as I know that stuff isn't proven, nor is there anything in the public that's more than circumstantial at this point, but whereas I had thought that stuff seemed way out there, now while that stuff isn't proven, it now fits with what we know.
Think about it this way; Trump is (supposedly) running the country like he'd run his business and we can all see how poorly run that is. Isn't it strange that someone so clearly incompetent at management of any sort had a successful business for so long? It's one thing to have difficulty transferring business experience into the political sphere but we are talking a guy who by all indications cannot tell what is actually real (vs things he decides are real with no evidence whatsoever). How does someone like that ever manage a massive business even competently, let alone well? How did it not start hemorrhaging money decades ago? Profits from reality TV & an economic system favoring the wealthy only go so far, leaving a margin with no readily available explanation to fill it.
Trump inherited a large swathe of NY real estate at the start of a multi-decade NY property boom. Just sitting still would have seen his assets grow to a couple of billion or more. He blew through most of that anyway, building up debt on those assets for Trump's other vanity projects - people talk about the casino and airline disasters, but Trump's poured just as much in to golf courses and they've probably never made a penny. But then, as Peregrine said, somehow despite being objectively bad at business, Trump somehow managed to convince a lot of people he was good at business, mostly by just repeatedly claiming that he was good at business. That led to the Apprentice, which made Trump $150m over its run, but even more lucrative for Trump was his shift to just selling his brand, licensing it to any condo or high rise that needed a profile raise to attract investors. Much like Trump's political career, this licensing process was remarkably failure proof, no matter how many 'Trump' properties fell apart even before a shovel hit the ground, there was always another developer and another batch of investors ready to pay a few million to use the Trump name.
So there was always a normal explanation for why Trump still had money after all the failures. But now it turns out maybe there was a lot more going on as well.
However, this is only my opinion based on circumstantial evidence so I'd say it's merely a plausible theory at best.
There's a lot of speculation at this point. We're all working on partial facts and trying to make sense of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 07:59:58
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Peregrine wrote: IMO both are bad, but for different reasons. People who believe that there's nothing to find may be in some serious denial (or simply uninformed) but might at least be willing to admit that Trump needs to go if more stuff is found and a persuasive enough case is made. That's dangerous because ignorance is easily exploited, but it's potentially a fixable problem. People who want the investigation to end before it finds something know that Trump is guilty but are willing to reject the rule of law as long as it's Their Guy that might be guilty. That's a far greater threat, because they have made a conscious choice to dismantle the system to their own benefit.
At the beginning of 2016 I would have agreed with you. But now I have little belief that that kind of ignorance is accidental. There's a culture among a fairly large group of people to put up walls to certain kinds of information, and now I think there is probably nothing so big those walls can't keep it out. So to me both groups are basically the same.
Another way to look at this, I think it is likely that at some point in the future it will be widely accepted that Trump did illegal stuff and was a generally crap president. But we won't get to that point by negative information coming out that bursts through the protective bubble, causing Trumpers to give up on their man, which leads to Trump losing office. Rather, it will happen after Trump is gone from office, however that happens, at which point Trump people will have no reason to pretend he's a competent president and non-criminal, they will drop the walls or move them to the next Republican leader, and Trump's support will drop away dramatically.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ouze wrote: In the US, I think once you have a certain net worth, it's no longer possible to fail like normal people. You just fail upward.
As long as you can afford the best lawyers (only the best, mind you), you can get away with almost anything.
It probably also helps to have millions stashed away in overseas banks.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Peregrine wrote: IMO both are bad, but for different reasons. People who believe that there's nothing to find may be in some serious denial (or simply uninformed) but might at least be willing to admit that Trump needs to go if more stuff is found and a persuasive enough case is made. That's dangerous because ignorance is easily exploited, but it's potentially a fixable problem. People who want the investigation to end before it finds something know that Trump is guilty but are willing to reject the rule of law as long as it's Their Guy that might be guilty. That's a far greater threat, because they have made a conscious choice to dismantle the system to their own benefit.
At the beginning of 2016 I would have agreed with you. But now I have little belief that that kind of ignorance is accidental. There's a culture among a fairly large group of people to put up walls to certain kinds of information, and now I think there is probably nothing so big those walls can't keep it out. So to me both groups are basically the same.
Another way to look at this, I think it is likely that at some point in the future it will be widely accepted that Trump did illegal stuff and was a generally crap president. But we won't get to that point by negative information coming out that bursts through the protective bubble, causing Trumpers to give up on their man, which leads to Trump losing office. Rather, it will happen after Trump is gone from office, however that happens, at which point Trump people will have no reason to pretend he's a competent president and non-criminal, they will drop the walls or move them to the next Republican leader, and Trump's support will drop away dramatically.
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.
Welcome to partisan politics, which is further exacerbated by the internet, 24-hr news cycle and particularly social media.
whembly wrote: Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.
You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
750 WAAAGH Whazgog
750 33rd Agatheon Regiment
