Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfhunter107]

Yeah, but she wasn't running for president at the time she gave the speech. 

[mainiac]

How the hell would you even measure that?

You can do a multi-variable regression analysis.  You have a variable for preferences of middle income, low income, high income, etc.  Then you see which one has a statistically significant ability to predict if a change in the law happens while controlling for the preferences of other groups.

So it is theoretically possible.  But it's also really subjective because you have to take a bunch of qualitative judgements and assign numbers to them.  There is also a lot of potential for omitted variable bias.

[Dorsidwarf]

The difference is that she's running for president, probably. Honestly, the money-in-politics thing is a massive issue in basically every "democratic" country on the planet.

I think I remember a study done for the USA showing that non-upperclass citizens (e.g. people who weren't wealthy) had no statistically significant influence on what policies and legislation were actually enacted.

By your metric, all people who take money for public speaking should be barred permanently from elected positions.

[mainiac]

By your metric, all people who take money for public speaking should be barred permanently from elected positions.

I never trusted Abraham Lincoln or Susan B. Anthony.

[UXLZ]

The difference is that she's running for president, probably. Honestly, the money-in-politics thing is a massive issue in basically every "democratic" country on the planet.

I think I remember a study done for the USA showing that non-upperclass citizens (e.g. people who weren't wealthy) had no statistically significant influence on what policies and legislation were actually enacted.

By your metric, all people who take money for public speaking should be barred permanently from elected positions.

Public speaking? Wouldn't we have the transcripts if it was public? Do closed-door meetings/presentations constitute public speaking in America?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Public speaking just means speaking before an audience.

[Frumple]

... though, it's probably worth noting. Again. Since it seems to be coming up, again. At least insofar as the raw payment for the speeching stuff. 100k is normal for significantly notable figures. 200k is normal for the upper ranges of that (over the entirety of their speaking career to date, the clintons average out to about 225 per appearance, if I'm remembering what I checked yesterday). Your normal relatively unknown speaker comes in in the 50-60k range. These aren't outlandish sums being bandied about.

And when you're talking people like a former POTUS, his first lady and a later secretary of the state, they're not unreasonable, either. You're trying to tap one of the most unique people on the planet, with a body of experience and breadth of connections that are bloody close to unmatched by anyone else alive, who are/were still significantly active. The fact of the matter is that that's some damned expensive time you're trying to book by any sane measure, and that would be true for pretty much anyone in any field, political, industrial, entertainment, academic, military, whatever, that was an equivalent figure.

[Phmcw]

And yeah, if you want something resembling democracy, not allowing your politician to take money from lobbies and interest group in any form is the bare minimum.

Did you know that Hillary Clinton wants to undo the citizens united court case that removed the limits on campaign finance?
Did you know that the original citizens united case was about a special interest group launching attacks on Hillary Clinton herself?

It's pretty poetic actually.  They started the whole travesty by attacking Hillary Clinton and she will probably be the one who puts an end to this.

No I didn't know. But I don't think that she really CAN change that. It's not in her interest anyway.

[UXLZ]

That's... Odd. Quite a silly combination of words with clear meanings don't work together properly.

Regardless, any politician who wants to make money from public speaking should make it truly public. Transcripts available, even if they're only released at a later date.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

And yeah, if you want something resembling democracy, not allowing your politician to take money from lobbies and interest group in any form is the bare minimum.

Did you know that Hillary Clinton wants to undo the citizens united court case that removed the limits on campaign finance?
Did you know that the original citizens united case was about a special interest group launching attacks on Hillary Clinton herself?

It's pretty poetic actually.  They started the whole travesty by attacking Hillary Clinton and she will probably be the one who puts an end to this.

No I didn't know. But I don't think that she really CAN change that. It's not in her interest anyway.

What? She wants to undo Citizens United. Arguing about whether she can, and thus determining that she won't, and thus that she doesn't want to, is so wrong I cannot even.

That's... Odd. Quite a silly combination of words with clear meanings don't work together properly.

Regardless, any politician who wants to make money from public speaking should make it truly public. Transcripts available, even if they're only released at a later date.

Really. Tell me more. Is this, say, a widely-known requirement? Or is it an ideal that nobody follows?

[UXLZ]

If that was the case I kind of wish she'd just say that.

"I'd love to release the speech, but X, X, X, X and X need to be consulted first."

But as it stands...

[misko27]

Guys guys  guys I know it's fun to argue about President-Elect Hillary Clinton's emails, but come on. Four years of that are open to you.

Well, there was one headline above all headlines after the debate. Trump refusing to say whether he will accept the results. What do you guys think of that? I was surprised, given he promised to endorse the Republican Nominee. I thought he'd go with the safe option here.

Obviously, Trump is not going to claim rigging if he wins. But when he loses, are we pretty much guaranteed that he'll go for rejection? Will he do it if it's surprisingly close, or if he gets hammered? What is a situation where he decides claiming rigging is a bad idea; or alternately, when does he decide to go for it?

[smjjames]

http://www.politico.com/video/2016/10/trump-says-hell-accept-elections-results-if-he-wins-061026 He's just so fucking selfish, which is no surprise really given that he's a narcissicist. Knowing about this just makes me feel angry and anxious about it because, well, Trump is fucking Trump....

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-election-results-kellyanne-conway-230080 If he had said what his campaign manager said, I'd accept that because it's at least reasonable, but instead he is just flat out saying he'll never accept the results otherwise. I mean, come on, this is just fucking stupid. Cases like Florida in 2000 I'd get, but ah I dunno.....

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/paul-lepage-trump-election-results-230099 Even LePage has called him out on it.

At those who have said that people have said 'AAA! It's rigged!' before, yes, there are people who blow off steam, but nobody has ever flat out said that they won't concede and previous times weren't having the bonfire being fed and stoked by someone the likes of Trump.

CNN looks at some of the legal stuff http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/challenge-presidential-election-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html If he is talking about the initial results (which might be what he is thinking of), yeah he can contest that state by state if they're really close like Florida close, Al Gore (or was it Bush? either way) did that for Florida in 2000. The unprecedented part is the final results as certified by the states, by the electoral college, and by congress.

10 new replies since I started wring this, ow.

[mainiac]

No I didn't know. But I don't think that she really CAN change that. It's not in her interest anyway.

I think she could.

Citizens United was decided on a 5-4 split.  Scalia was one of the 5 in the majority and he will be replaced by a justice appointed by the next president.

The majority opinion stated that they didn't think that their decision would open the door to coordination between political campaigns and special interest groups.  I believe the consensus among court watchers is that they believed this because there was a gas leak in the building because it's the most touchingly naive thing ever.  They were very wrong.  Every candidate has a SuperPac these days and there is coordination.

While the Supreme Court is traditionally reluctant to reverse it's earlier descisions, it does happen.  I think it's a good bet that the issue of campaign finance is going to come in front of the Supreme Court again once a ninth justice is appointed.  And I think a new precedent will be set.

Campaign finance is one of the few issues that still does cut across party lines in Congress.  Democrats can probably peel off enough republicans to get a new bill through Congress.  Then SuperPacs can go back to the shadows from whence they came.

Donald Trump doesn't want Citizens United reversed and absolutely wont nominate justices who want it overturned.  So if you want campaign finance reform, vote Clinton!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Obviously, Trump is not going to claim rigging if he wins. But when he loses, are we pretty much guaranteed that he'll go for rejection? Will he do it if it's surprisingly close, or if he gets hammered? What is a situation where he decides claiming rigging is a bad idea; or alternately, when does he decide to go for it?

Historically, a pattern emerges. Trump tends to claim things are rigged when it looks like he has bad odds. We even see this in the Republican primary, where his refusal to promise became big news and then fell out as Trump pulled ahead of the pack. Trump also promised to accept the results at the end of the first debate, when he and Hill Dawg were about even in odds.

There's just no way to tell what he'll do in the likelihood he loses, but what he already did is bad enough. I don't have any belief in most of the American mythos these days, but one of the few things we genuinely do have is about as good transitions of power as a nation can have. Even the Bush v. Gore debacle, all the way at the top, was accepted after the Supreme Court made their ruling. Trump has now put all of that in jeopardy by normalizing electoral brinkmanship.