**President Trump 2018 Thread**

[GoSox05]

15 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

Ever watch a Maxine Waters, elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders speak man? 

 

 

Just a few examples, but that’s some scary ass shit right there.  That is the opposite of human progress right?  Like a person can’t listen to that stuff and think this is good.  Or that democratic socialist that won.  Holy crap that is scary stuff.  One only has to examine the simplest of economics to realize how stupid that is, and how that would brutally hurt 100s of millions of people.  But people support it over some social issues that get better every year

Waters, Warren and even Sanders are pretty center-left compared to most of the political parties in the world.  If they were in England, they would be the more conservative of the Labor Party.

Right wing politics in this country are so extreme that it makes anyone left of Mitt Romney look like a communist.

[NorthSideSox72]

12 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

What issues would you say the Democrats have that are worse than anything the Republican party is doing?

One of the most dangerous things going on right now is the "ahh both parties are bad" thing.  The Democratic party has problems and are generally inept, but the Republican Party is arguably one of the most extreme right wings parties in any democracy in the world.   Not a lot of major parties combine their nationalism and wanting to return to the gilded age. 

It's also not just Trump. 

 

On your first sentence - that's a straw man argument. No one has said that, certainly not me. In fact the very post you quoted I said the opposite - that right now I have far more problems with the GOP. I cited Trump as the leader of that, but didn't say he was the only issue. The GOP has run quite far to the right as a whole, which has enabled some of the festering racism and bigotry and general hatred that was simmering underneath in part of that party for some time, come to the surface.

Also you seem to be confusing "ahh both parties are bad" by assuming that statement always means the same thing. The only thing clear in it, which is absolutely true, is that both parties ARE bad. But you seem to also think it means that people who point out that obvious fact, are equivocating the two parties as the same. That is not what I am saying at all, and if you read my words you will see that.

The Dems are indeed pretty inept, but that can be said of both parties really, institutionally. That isn't even the main problem I was getting at. The main problem is systemic involving money and politics, and infects the whole system - therefore both parties (to varying extents for certain individual politicians). If you refuse to acknowledge that, you are forced to defend the indefensible.

 

[illinilaw08]

5 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

On your first sentence - that's a straw man argument. No one has said that, certainly not me. In fact the very post you quoted I said the opposite - that right now I have far more problems with the GOP. I cited Trump as the leader of that, but didn't say he was the only issue. The GOP has run quite far to the right as a whole, which has enabled some of the festering racism and bigotry and general hatred that was simmering underneath in part of that party for some time, come to the surface.

Also you seem to be confusing "ahh both parties are bad" by assuming that statement always means the same thing. The only thing clear in it, which is absolutely true, is that both parties ARE bad. But you seem to also think it means that people who point out that obvious fact, are equivocating the two parties as the same. That is not what I am saying at all, and if you read my words you will see that.

The Dems are indeed pretty inept, but that can be said of both parties really, institutionally. That isn't even the main problem I was getting at. The main problem is systemic involving money and politics, and infects the whole system - therefore both parties (to varying extents for certain individual politicians). If you refuse to acknowledge that, you are forced to defend the indefensible.

 

When we say "both parties are bad" we create an equivalency between them.  If all politicians are crooks, then people become disillusioned and don't vote - what do policies matter if everyone is terrible.  If all politicians are crooks, you open the door for Donald Trump to resonate because he's telling it like it is.  Leaving personal politics out of the equation, IMO, that narrative is dangerous and it leads to apathy.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

OTOH, it was Republicans who gave us Citizens United and now two additional Justices who will almost definitely uphold that ruling whereas Democratic appointees would have been more likely to overturn it. You can't fix "money in politics" with the Roberts Court's views on what Free Speech means for corporate and political spending. Just look at what they did a little after CU to the Montana law that was put in place during the Silver Barrons era to curb the rampant corruption--overturned as a free speech violation without even holding oral arguments. In as much as "who created the playing field" instead of "who's playing by the rules we've been given," it is decidedly not a symmetrical problem. Now couple the Roberts Court's views that "unlimited corporate and dark money spending is good" with their very recent ruling crippling union fundraising, and you've got an even more heavily tilted playing field.

A tangential issue is the Roberts Court's stance that "quid pro quo" political bribery has an essentially impossible to prove standard, which led to the recent acquittal of hilariously corrupt Dem Senator Menendez.

And now, thanks to the "sunk cost" stolen seat, we're pretty much guaranteed decades of a conservative majority Roberts Court that encourages and enables unlimited political spending.

Edited July 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

8 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

When we say "both parties are bad" we create an equivalency between them.  If all politicians are crooks, then people become disillusioned and don't vote - what do policies matter if everyone is terrible.  If all politicians are crooks, you open the door for Donald Trump to resonate because he's telling it like it is.  Leaving personal politics out of the equation, IMO, that narrative is dangerous and it leads to apathy.

 

 

I don't agree at all. Saying both parties are bad is acknowledging reality, and illustrating something they have in common. That is NOT the same as saying they are equal, or equally bad. That's not some subtle difference there either - it entirely changes the approach to discourse.

And if people are using "both parties are bad" as a reason to be apathetic, then that's really sad and uninformed. It should cause the opposite. Then again, let's be frank, it is the voting public that is giving us this mess too.

 

6 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

OTOH, it was Republicans who gave us Citizens United and now two additional Justices who will almost definitely uphold that ruling whereas Democratic appointees would have been more likely to overturn it. You can't fix "money in politics" with the Roberts Court's views on what Free Speech means for corporate and political spending. Just look at what they did a little after CU to the Montana law that was put in place during the Silver Barrons era to curb the rampant corruption--overturned as a free speech violation without even holding oral arguments. In as much as "who created the playing field" instead of "who's playing by the rules we've been given," it is decidedly not a symmetrical problem. Now couple the Roberts Court's views that "unlimited corporate and dark money spending is good" with their very recent ruling crippling union fundraising, and you've got an even more heavily tilted playing field.

A tangential issue is the Roberts Court's stance that "quid pro quo" political bribery has an essentially impossible to prove standard, which led to the recent acquittal of hilariously corrupt Dem Senator Menendez.

And now, thanks to the "sunk cost" stolen seat, we're pretty much guaranteed decades of a conservative majority Roberts Court that encourages and enables unlimited political spending.

CU is a decision I don't like because of what it has caused, but which I also have to agree with on a legal basis. It was the only way for it to go. The way to fix money in politics is for Congress and the President to act, which admittedly is a wolf in the hen house problem. But that doesn't make it unsolveable - it means we as a people need to push it.

 

[StrangeSox]

The Congress and the President can't act if the Roberts Court's interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct. State legislatures and governors can't act, either. We would literally have to amend the Constitution, specifically our 1st amendment free speech rights, to be able to pass and enforce any sort of campaign finance law that wouldn't run afoul of RC's position. Barring a major upheaval from Democrats like expanding and substantially reforming the SCOTUS, that position will hold for decades. We had a chance at overturning CU, restoring the Voting Rights Act, and striking down racial and partisan gerrymandering, but the GOP has put a stop to that for a long, long time.

If you agree with the Constitutional ruling in CU, then you're just going to have to be fine with money greatly corrupting our politics. There's not really a way around it, and it seems disingenuous to then hold the party that would love to overturn CU to task for playing by the rules that the GOP set. Unilateral disarmament would only mean that they would get crushed politically over and over again.

[illinilaw08]

7 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I don't agree at all. Saying both parties are bad is acknowledging reality, and illustrating something they have in common. That is NOT the same as saying they are equal, or equally bad. That's not some subtle difference there either - it entirely changes the approach to discourse.

And if people are using "both parties are bad" as a reason to be apathetic, then that's really sad and uninformed. It should cause the opposite. Then again, let's be frank, it is the voting public that is giving us this mess too.

There's too much nuance involved in that analysis.  If somebody says "all politicians are crooks" they aren't implicitly saying "but to varying degrees."  

I agree with you generally that people should dive deeper into that discussion, though.  I think, for example, that the Democratic Party is bad because the party itself is controlled by moneyed interests who too frequently try to pull the Party to the center on policy - a center that the Republican Party keeps dragging further to the right.  I obviously think that the Republican Party is many, many degrees worse at the moment.  But me saying "both parties are bad" still doesn't implicitly include the rest of the discussion...  

 

[illinilaw08]

21 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

The Congress and the President can't act if the Roberts Court's interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct. State legislatures and governors can't act, either. We would literally have to amend the Constitution, specifically our 1st amendment free speech rights, to be able to pass and enforce any sort of campaign finance law that wouldn't run afoul of RC's position. Barring a major upheaval from Democrats like expanding and substantially reforming the SCOTUS, that position will hold for decades. We had a chance at overturning CU, restoring the Voting Rights Act, and striking down racial and partisan gerrymandering, but the GOP has put a stop to that for a long, long time.

If you agree with the Constitutional ruling in CU, then you're just going to have to be fine with money greatly corrupting our politics. There's not really a way around it, and it seems disingenuous to then hold the party that would love to overturn CU to task for playing by the rules that the GOP set. Unilateral disarmament would only mean that they would get crushed politically over and over again.

Yeah, I went back and looked at the decision, and this is right.  Kennedy's opinion in Citizen's United says that independent expenditures on behalf of a party or candidate (as opposed to direct donations to the party or candidate) can only be regulated (ie, disclosure requirements), and cannot be capped or limited without running afoul of the First Amendment guarantee of a right to free speech.

Thus, Citizen's United CAN'T be overturned by legislation and would require either an amendment to the Constitution (which isn't going to happen) or for SCOTUS to change its mind of the issue (also not going to happen).  PACs and Super PACs are therefore the law of the land.  If you wanted money out of politics, you needed SCOTUS to be a little left of Kennedy when Citizen's United was decided.  

[StrangeSox]

The Montana case from 2012 (Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana) I linked on the last page is demonstrative of this. Kennedy's CU opinion has the infamous "we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" line. But back in the early 20th century, Montana enacted a campaign finance law specifically because the silver barrons were literally buying Senate seats (this was before Senate elections were popular elections and were instead chosen by state legislatures). They had very obvious and very apparent corruption. Montana had a history of why they needed this law that the state court documented extensively, and they still supported it and found it necessary. Leading up to the ruling, it was seen as a good test case for the SCOTUS to clarify their position in CU and lay out better guidelines of what is and isn't acceptable regulation.

Well, they did, though pretty glibly. They did not hold oral arguments on the case, and this was the entirety of their opinion:

 

Quote

PER CURIAM. A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13– 35–227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case. The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.

 

With Citizens United held as the law of the land, Congress (including state Congresses) cannot pass any sort of meaningful campaign finance reform. There is no way to possibly stop say, Sheldon Adelson or the Koch Brothers or Soros or any other billionaire from spending tens of millions of dollars if they so choose. And what we've seen in many elections and referendums since CU, money generally wins. It certainly helps quite a bit. Maybe a 5-4 court with Garland would have completely overturned CU. It would have most likely at least pared it back. But the Federalist Society ideologues that McConnell is busy packing both the SCOTUS and lower level federal courts with are staunchly in favor of the CU ruling. There's no chance of a Constitutional Amendment passing that would meaningfully restrict these "free speech" rights while not hampering others.

If we applied CU retroactively, Montana never would have been able to stop the Silver Barrons from buying up the legislature in the manner they did since, according to Kennedy, it's just not even conceivable that all this money could be corrupting or give the appearance of corruption. Sure, campaigns routinely do wink-and-nod illegal collaboration with "outside" groups and are never held accountable, but the 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court just still can't imagine how there's any corrupting influence from literally billions of dollars of funding.

Perhaps CU was correctly decided. Maybe it's just another flaw in a political system originally devised in the 1780's. But if it is correct, then decades of campaign finance law were wrong, and we have to live in an unlimited outside cash political environment where corporations have every right actual living, breathing people do and money really does equal speech.

Edited July 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

The one thing that you could do, even to make a dent in that, is require disclosure of who is paying for things. Kennedy specifically said Congress could do that. One party unanimously supported that. The other party unanimously opposed it. 

[NorthSideSox72]

58 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The one thing that you could do, even to make a dent in that, is require disclosure of who is paying for things. Kennedy specifically said Congress could do that. One party unanimously supported that. The other party unanimously opposed it. 

I am fully on board with doing that.

And I should clarify, it is true that to really, truly fix the money/speech entanglement problem, you'd need a Constitutional amendment to make that exemption. I'd be all in favor of that, and that process does start with Congress. I am fairly sure you could get an American voter super-majority and more than enough states to ratify it too. So again, what is really standing in the way is in fact Congress.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

2 hours ago, illinilaw08 said:

There's too much nuance involved in that analysis.  If somebody says "all politicians are crooks" they aren't implicitly saying "but to varying degrees."  

I agree with you generally that people should dive deeper into that discussion, though.  I think, for example, that the Democratic Party is bad because the party itself is controlled by moneyed interests who too frequently try to pull the Party to the center on policy - a center that the Republican Party keeps dragging further to the right.  I obviously think that the Republican Party is many, many degrees worse at the moment.  But me saying "both parties are bad" still doesn't implicitly include the rest of the discussion...  

 

I didn't say all politicians are crooks though. I said the parties are both corrupt. Plenty of people are part of companies or organizations that may be corrupt (or something less bad but still unappealing) that they still work for, but not everyone there is a problem. I am not sure why people keep missing this important distinction - maybe I am not describing it effectively.

 

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I didn't say all politicians are crooks though. I said the parties are both corrupt. Plenty of people are part of companies or organizations that may be corrupt (or something less bad but still unappealing) that they still work for, but not everyone there is a problem. I am not sure why people keep missing this important distinction - maybe I am not describing it effectively.

  

What you're missing is how they use you. How many times we heard about how terrible Hillary Clinton's email scandal was, including from you, and then all of a sudden no one cares again whether people have poor judgment about email, that's another great example. Because you need to keep balance, because both sides have to be corrupt, if 99% of people in one party defend a guy who covered up for a child molester, while in the other party someone takes too much money from a bank, we have to hear about how both sides are corrupt, when fixing one side fixes the problem.

Your "both parties are corrupt" is a "but her emails".

[illinilaw08]

2 hours ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I didn't say all politicians are crooks though. I said the parties are both corrupt. Plenty of people are part of companies or organizations that may be corrupt (or something less bad but still unappealing) that they still work for, but not everyone there is a problem. I am not sure why people keep missing this important distinction - maybe I am not describing it effectively.

 

You said, "But of course the scumbags in both parties in the Senate who just want to pile up as many short term wins as possible don't have the courage for such a thing."

[NorthSideSox72]

22 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

What you're missing is how they use you. How many times we heard about how terrible Hillary Clinton's email scandal was, including from you, and then all of a sudden no one cares again whether people have poor judgment about email, that's another great example. Because you need to keep balance, because both sides have to be corrupt, if 99% of people in one party defend a guy who covered up for a child molester, while in the other party someone takes too much money from a bank, we have to hear about how both sides are corrupt, when fixing one side fixes the problem.

Your "both parties are corrupt" is a "but her emails".

haha, what? You are comparing the acknowledgement of what is patently clear about both parties, to a specific and mostly empty political accusation against one person? Come on man, you can do better.

And who do you think is being used here?

 

12 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

You said, "But of course the scumbags in both parties in the Senate who just want to pile up as many short term wins as possible don't have the courage for such a thing."

Exactly. What is your point?

 

[illinilaw08]

Just now, NorthSideSox72 said:

haha, what? You are comparing the acknowledgement of what is patently clear about both parties, to a specific and mostly empty political accusation against one person? Come on man, you can do better.

And who do you think is being used here?

 

Exactly. What is your point?

 

You called the entire Senate "scumbags."  I'm not sure how different that is than calling all politicians crooks.  

My point is that calling all politicians crooks or scumbags creates a false equivalency between the parties - and between politicians within those parties.  If everybody is a crook, then only an outsider can possibly change things for the better.  

[Balta1701]

10 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

haha, what? You are comparing the acknowledgement of what is patently clear about both parties, to a specific and mostly empty political accusation against one person? Come on man, you can do better.

And who do you think is being used here?

 

After the last election, anyone who said a darn thing about how Hillary's emails showed bad judgment...they were used and abused and had things done to them so filthy I don't want to describe them. They used a minor thing related to how the state department couldn't handle their own email server to vilify a good public servant who would have been a hell of a lot better than this, and now the world no longer cares about email security anyway. We saw exactly how "Both sides are corrupt" played out in November 2016.

[StrangeSox]

It's also a matter of degree. What is the use of regularly needing to say "actually, both parties are corrupt!" if the scale of the corruption (or other political and policy issues) are orders of magnitude different? In practice, it provides plenty of cover for the increasingly radicalized party to continue and expand their actions under the cover of 'unbiased' "both sides are bad" coverage and analysis. Even beyond the potential jading effects on the average not-highly-partisan voter, it obliterates any real chance at nuanced understanding and discussion.

Instead, that sort of both-sideism leads to superficial understanding and inaccurate criticisms. In this thread, NSS, you've said that both parties don't want to do something about corrupting money in politics, but that's plainly incorrect. You haven't really responded to multiple people pointing out to you how that analysis doesn't hold up, but it's the crux of the "both sides" charge here. There are a limited number of things we can do in a CU world, and Democrats would like to do them while Republicans do not. Republican Justices will almost certainly fully uphold CU while Democratic Justices would be likely to weaken it. Yet the problem is the "scumbags" in "both parties." Isn't it pretty clear how that stance lets the party that has actually implemented those policies and opposed reform off the hook?

We see it over and over again. The sitting Republican President called for banning an entire religion; he's built concentration camps for children and he's proposed taking away AIDS funding to pay for it; they clearly stole a Supreme Court seat; he's called Nazis "Very Fine People" while engaging in the very same 'both sides' cover; they oppose any sort of campaign finance reform and celebrate CU and expansions of it to strike down state law; they engage in racial gerrymandering and widespread voter suppression; the GOP is the only major party to actively deny that global warming even exists let alone is caused by man; they have open white supremacists with important seats in the House. Where is the equivalent? What is the use of pointing out that the Democratic party is not perfect in response to the egregious problems within modern conservatism? 

That of course doesn't mean there is never room or reason to criticize Democrats, liberals, leftists, or anyone else. There's space and reason to do that now, just check out the infighting our very own Dem thread! But this is about the desire by a lot of moderates to reflexively reduce things to "both sides" at all times. Nuanced discussion requires careful thought, the opposite of that impulse. "Both sides" gives cover to bad faith actors, and it gives legitimacy to bad ideas.

Edited July 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

17 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

You called the entire Senate "scumbags."  I'm not sure how different that is than calling all politicians crooks.  

My point is that calling all politicians crooks or scumbags creates a false equivalency between the parties - and between politicians within those parties.  If everybody is a crook, then only an outsider can possibly change things for the better.  

I absolutely did not say the entire Senate is "scumbags". I said the scumbags in the Senate. Saying a drink has ice in it does not mean it is one big ice cube.

And frankly, I do think we need more outsiders. But that does not mean we need some buffoon like Trump.

 

10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

After the last election, anyone who said a darn thing about how Hillary's emails showed bad judgment...they were used and abused and had things done to them so filthy I don't want to describe them. They used a minor thing related to how the state department couldn't handle their own email server to vilify a good public servant who would have been a hell of a lot better than this, and now the world no longer cares about email security anyway. We saw exactly how "Both sides are corrupt" played out in November 2016.

Give me a break. I said all along, and it is still just as true now, that Clinton showed poor judgment in doing what she did. Because... she did. I also, for the record, voted for her anyway, because as flawed a candidate as she was, she was worlds better than the alternative. I might have considered 3rd party, except that none were viable and I didn't want to do anything that could encourage having the Orange Menace in office. How on earth does that mean I was "used and abused"? I went in with clear eyes, and frankly the only people who were used were those who fell into the fear traps set by TrumpCo.

 

[StrangeSox]

7 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I absolutely did not say the entire Senate is "scumbags". I said the scumbags in the Senate. Saying a drink has ice in it does not mean it is one big ice cube.

 

Democrats Reintroduce DISCLOSE Act to Combat Dark Money "Poison"

https://www.prwatch.org/news/2018/07/13366/democrats-reintroduce-disclose-act-combat-dark-money-poison

Quote

 

On June 27, Democrats in both chambers of Congress reintroduced the DISCLOSE Act to provide what the lead Senate sponsor, Sheldon Whitehouse (RI-D), calls "a commonsense solution to restore transparency and accountability in our political system."

The DISCLOSE Act of 2018 is the most recent iteration of a bill that Democrats have pushed since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which eliminated a century-old federal ban on political spending by corporations.

The "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act" (DISCLOSE) was first introduced in 2010 by Representative Chris Van Hollen and Senator Chuck Schumer. DISCLOSE passed in the House that year but a Republican filibuster threat doomed it in the Senate, despite support from 59 senators.

 

 

I think your argument in this thread is actually a perfect example of how the "both sides" mindset poisons our politics and benefits Republicans. Democrats in the House passed a bill to combat dark money in the wake of CU. They had 59 votes for it in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it.

Your response is to rail on the "scumbags" in "both parties" when it is very, very clearly one particular party that loves post-CU dark money flooding our political system and another party that tried to do what they could absent a constitutional amendment or overturning of CU. By insisting that it's "both sides," you completely let Republicans off the hook for their actual stances and actions while erasing the Democrats' efforts to change things.

Edited July 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

12 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

It's also a matter of degree. What is the use of regularly needing to say "actually, both parties are corrupt!" if the scale of the corruption (or other political and policy issues) are orders of magnitude different? In practice, it provides plenty of cover for the increasingly radicalized party to continue and expand their actions under the cover of 'unbiased' "both sides are bad" coverage and analysis. Even beyond the potential jading effects on the average not-highly-partisan voter, it obliterates any real chance at nuanced understanding and discussion.

Instead, that sort of both-sideism leads to superficial understanding and inaccurate criticisms. In this thread, NSS, you've said that both parties don't want to do something about corrupting money in politics, but that's plainly incorrect. You haven't really responded to multiple people pointing out to you how that analysis doesn't hold up, but it's the crux of the "both sides" charge here. There are a limited number of things we can do in a CU world, and Democrats would like to do them while Republicans do not. Republican Justices will almost certainly fully uphold CU while Democratic Justices would be likely to weaken it. Yet the problem is the "scumbags" in "both parties." Isn't it pretty clear how that stance lets the party that has actually implemented those policies and opposed reform off the hook?

The scale is not orders of magnitude though. The money-linked corruption seems pretty even to me. The reason I am much more angry at the GOP is that in addition to being so addicted to the money stream, they are ALSO (in many but not all cases) outright cruel to those who are not rich, white men.

There might be more Democrats willing to fix the money/speech entanglement and related problems. Or not. But frankly that is irrelevant, because the problem is structural. Honestly they all have to play that game to at least some extent. Some do more than others. Have you seen any significant number of legislators from either party make a real effort to change the laws so that politicians aren't constantly chasing the money? I've seen efforts around reporting who spent what, and that's good I suppose, but it's a band-aid on a bullet-riddled body. This has been a problem for years to decades, when there has been unified and mixed control over Congress and the White House, yet no one has stood up to do something real. That is the proof here.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

2 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Democrats Reintroduce DISCLOSE Act to Combat Dark Money "Poison"

https://www.prwatch.org/news/2018/07/13366/democrats-reintroduce-disclose-act-combat-dark-money-poison

 

I think your argument in this thread is actually a perfect example of how the "both sides" mindset poisons our politics and benefits Republicans. Democrats in the House passed a bill to combat dark money in the wake of CU. They had 59 votes for it in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it.

Your response is to rail on the "scumbags" in "both parties" when it is very, very clearly one particular party that loves post-CU dark money flooding our political system and another party that tried to do what they could absent a constitutional amendment or overturning of CU. By insisting that it's "both sides," you completely let Republicans off the hook for their actual stances and actions while erasing the Democrats' efforts to change things.

Funny you typed this while I typed my response just a moment ago. As I said, showing who is spending the money is good - I am all for it. But it is not a meaningful solution to the greater problem.

Do you want me to say the people who voted against that bill were wrong? OK, sure, they were wrong. I thought that was obvious. But there are very few in Congress willing to change the fundamental legal problem at play here.

 

[StrangeSox]

9 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

The scale is not orders of magnitude though. The money-linked corruption seems pretty even to me. The reason I am much more angry at the GOP is that in addition to being so addicted to the money stream, they are ALSO (in many but not all cases) outright cruel to those who are not rich, white men.

There might be more Democrats willing to fix the money/speech entanglement and related problems. Or not. But frankly that is irrelevant, because the problem is structural. Honestly they all have to play that game to at least some extent. Some do more than others. Have you seen any significant number of legislators from either party make a real effort to change the laws so that politicians aren't constantly chasing the money? I've seen efforts around reporting who spent what, and that's good I suppose, but it's a band-aid on a bullet-riddled body. This has been a problem for years to decades, when there has been unified and mixed control over Congress and the White House, yet no one has stood up to do something real. That is the proof here.

 

If we're talking in general, then yes the scale is absolutely orders of magnitude. 

If we're talking money in politics, then how is it irrelevant to your claim that the "scumbags in both parties" are preventing any change if...one party is routinely pushing for the extent of change allowed under CU and would appoint Justices likely to overturn CU while the other party strongly opposes those things? 

We used to have campaign finance laws. Republican Justices overturned them 5-4 in a manner that has severely limited what any hypothetical Congress can do short of a Constitutional Amendment. Democrats have proposed, multiple times, fixing what they can, though it is admittedly very limited by previously mentioned Republican Justices. 

How on earth does that ever equate to "scumbags in both parties?" I'm not sure what more the Democrats could even do at this point. They passed the limited measure allowed by CU through the House when they controlled and they had 59 votes in the Senate but were blocked by Republicans. The 4 liberals on the court still strongly reject the CU ruling, and a 5th liberal may have overturned it in a hypothetical future case. But that's still "scumbags in both parties." Okay. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

26 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Funny you typed this while I typed my response just a moment ago. As I said, showing who is spending the money is good - I am all for it. But it is not a meaningful solution to the greater problem.

Do you want me to say the people who voted against that bill were wrong? OK, sure, they were wrong. I thought that was obvious. But there are very few in Congress willing to change the fundamental legal problem at play here.

 

Congress. Can't. Change. It. As long as there is a conservative majority on the court, it cannot be changed without a Constitutional Amendment directly curtailing free speech rights. 

I guess the important question is what you imagine a non-scumbag supermajority could realistically do that would withstand the Roberts Court?

 

The people that voted for the bill in the House? 217 Democrats, 2 Republicans. In the Senate, it had support of all Democrats but was filibustered by Republicans. In 2012, it was voted on in the Senate again, and "failed" 51-44, thanks again to Republicans. Had it passed, the GOP-led House would never have even held a vote. So when you reduce it to "scumbags in both parties" and "the people who voted against" without noting that it was nearly unilaterally opposed by Republicans and supported by Democrats, you're again building a false equivalency that lets Republicans off the hook. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

18 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Congress. Can't. Change. It.

As long as there is a conservative majority on the court, it cannot be changed without a Constitutional Amendment directly curtailing free speech rights. 

I guess the important question is what you imagine a non-scumbag supermajority could realistically do that would withstand the Roberts Court?

Congress. Can. Change It. If they wanted to invest the effort - but they don't want that set of changes in reality. I said earlier how it (an amendment) could work, and would have no problem with the courts. Don't even need a super-majority - just need some will in Congress. I believe the rest of the process - the vote and the states - would take care of itself.

You are hoping for something unrealistic and legally twisted. The court, in my view, decided rightly. You hoping for some miracle court change just won't happen. I'm saying that as hard as a Constitutional Amendment seems - and it is - that path is actually the more realistic one and probably the only one that could ever work.