Print

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

[hector13]

Donald Trump has no money to go the self-funding route.

Once we go through a few primaries the field will narrow.

[smjjames]

The idea is there wouldn’t be a time constraint,people would listen to the answers even if they took longer, since the longer scans were would hopefully provide more informstion

Yeah, but if you have 10 candidates and they take as much time as they need (think the typical town hall), I'm sure you realize how much time it's going to take to get through a single question. This is the main problem with the size of the debate field since it clashes right up against how long people are willing to pay attention to the debate vs selectively choose which candidate they want to hear as in a town hall and with how long networks are willing to set off a time slot. Though eliminating or minimizing ad breaks would definetly help.

The RNC attempted a three hour debate in 2016 which ended up being closer to 4 hours and appeared quite gruelling. The reality is that neither party has yet figured out how to deal with such massive fields in a way that is fair while making the debates effective.

Donald Trump has no money to go the self-funding route.

Once we go through a few primaries the field will narrow.

I believe he did self fund a little, but that was stuff like his jet and wasn't a full self-funding as Bloomberg seems to be going for.

Anyways, yeah, that was my point about freezing the requirements as they are. If artificially narrowing the field doesn't actually narrow the field all that much (those that have dropped out could arguably have done so due to factors unrelated to the debates, and there are many who haven't made recent debates who are still in), then narrowing the requirements further isn't likely to force any more to drop out between now and Iowa. Plus the mere fact that it's such a large field without an obvious frontrunner makes it worse because it slices up the numbers so thinly that it's hard (or impossible) to make a fair determination of who is viable and who isn't.

[Naturegirl1999]

I found a video about Medicare for All

[Iduno]

What's the actual problem here?  Is it fundamental ideological opposition to the federal government having power?  Is it cost?  A fear that there's no realistic way to ensure everyone gets theirs?  Ideological opposition to the idea of tracking people (SSNs already largely do)?  Fear of voter suppression?  For the last one at least, it seems like a free ID for everyone who is a citizen should be a fair solution.  No muss over trying to scrounge up a driver's license or whatever your local state or county considers a valid ID.

Honestly, it's probably because most actual illegal immigration is done at the corporate level, and they want to keep fake IDs cheap to cut costs.

walking out the door with no ID is a bigger fear for non-white people. It's actually more dangerous when you give police discretionary powers since they can selectively and invisibly target minorities with "obscure" powers, while the majority go "I don't see what the problem is?". So yeah, Bubba can walk down the street with no ID, no problem. But tell that to Jose.

Mostly it's white people. I remember a news story from a few years ago where a guy got put in prison for talking foreign, and not having his ID. Turned out he was CEO or something for one of the large car manufacturers, visiting to the opening of a new facility. I can't find the story right now, though.

[Frumple]

For what it's worth, I've heard suggestion that Bloomberg isn't running to win, but because the advertising and whatnot rules for candidates are a lot looser (and cheaper, for that matter) than for some other organizations. Seems that a fair amount of what he's doing so far isn't specific to playing himself up, but is instead more generic leftwing stuff or anti-GOP junk. So it's possible it's not an actual presidential run, but rather an end-run around some of the limitations put on non-candidates.

[nenjin]

I don't think the DNC would appreciate that, honestly. It's basically a non-candidate loose cannon. They have nothing to win, so they have nothing to lose, so they can say what they want and they're not really beholden to anybody. I'm not sure what the actual benefit would be of not actually trying to run. Sounds more like it would lead to even more confusion and noise and lack of consensus. Moreover, who would actually give money to such a "nonidate."

[Frumple]

Bloom's a several times over multimillionaire. He doesn't really need anyone else's money. Folks'd probably be willing to funnel some his campaign's way anyway, even if the DNC's like, "Yeah, we're not helping." Again, being able to funnel money around what little restrictions we have on campaigning isn't a small thing, and candidates get preferential treatment in some ways. An officially running non-candidate has its attractions.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I personally am quite overjoyed and the expansion of the backstab-ball of ruling class candidates. It can only help Sanders.

[nenjin]

Still seems like a destabilizing force IMO. At least all the candidates are united in their desire to win. (Although maybe not respect the process, Trump has shown that is a viable in-road with voters.)
 
Bloomberg would be more like a heckler who had enough money to pay the entrance fee, if he so desired, who would then have the freedom to dump all over the process or candidates.

Like, I'm not sure people throwing their hat in the ring with no intention of winning simply because their rich enough to do so is a good thing.

[hector13]

Like, I'm not sure people throwing their hat in the ring with no intention of winning simply because their rich enough to do so is a good thing.

Trump did it, and now we have a war-criminal-forgiving, Nazi-sympathizing, racist misogynist in the White House who is more than willing to abuse that position for their own personal gain. What’s not to like?

[Naturegirl1999]

Like, I'm not sure people throwing their hat in the ring with no intention of winning simply because their rich enough to do so is a good thing.

Trump did it, and now we have a war-criminal-forgiving, Nazi-sympathizing, racist misogynist in the White House who is more than willing to abuse that position for their own personal gain. What’s not to like?

(I know the question is rhetorical)
The opinion may have been formed by experiencing the 2016 election of the very person you speak of

[Frumple]

I'm probably fairly close to the antithesis of bloomb's camp so far as leftward folks go, but if (and it's conditional, I haven't exactly dug much into a DoA candidate that might just be using it to soapbox or whatever) what I had mentioned is accurate, it's not a case of him doing it "simply because they're rich enough to do so", it's them trying to leverage their resources in a particular way to signal boost what they apparently consider important. Candidates joining in the presidential run with zero intent to win isn't new, unusual, or even entirely unwanted -- having specific voices on the big person platform can do a fair amount to influence political discourse even if their chance of winning is fuckall and they know it, it can pave ground for a later attempt, etc., so forth, so on. Probably something approaching at least a plurality of current candidates are doing more or less exactly that.

Maybe it's extra distasteful when someone fairly blatantly buys their way into the process, but if they meet the minimum requirements for a run they meet the minimum requirements for a run. I'm not sure I'd want to see more restrictions put on that without some fucking massive campaign reform preceding it.

[PTTG??]

My wrath for this is the wrath against, for instance, two people who have colluded to drive exactly the speed limit, in parallel, on a two-lane highway.

Not illegal. Broadly should be illegal, yet it is hard to legislate fairly. Harms others in general and specific ways. And they not only should know better, but are actively sabotaging their own other interests to do this unwanted thing.

[smjjames]

My wrath for this is the wrath against, for instance, two people who have colluded to drive exactly the speed limit, in parallel, on a two-lane highway.

Not illegal. Broadly should be illegal, yet it is hard to legislate fairly. Harms others in general and specific ways. And they not only should know better, but are actively sabotaging their own other interests to do this unwanted thing.

Wouldn’t that mean one of them is driving the wrong way? Assuming we’re talking a highway with one lane on each side, equaling two, but maybe I’m misinterpreting.

[Rolan7]

From context it's clearly 2 lanes in one direction.  Sometimes the directions of a highway split for a while, if you want to picture it, but I think the meaning was clear

However, personally I see nothing at all wrong with going the speed limit in the left lanes.  I am aware enough to avoid it, because I have no intention of "harming" people, but...

It's the speed limit

Call me crazy, maybe I am, because it actually bugs me that people feel so entitled... sometimes extremely angry, even, about traffic in the non-rightmost lanes which dares to obey the law.  I think my brother called it "camping" the left lane?  Travel sucks, we're all doing it.  People don't have some right to speed.  The limit isn't only there for everyone's safety, it decreases gasoline usage.

If I were younger, maybe I would get in people's way.  But I'm too jaded to give a crap about justice.

But it annoys me when people get indignant about their right to break the law.  Like, wow...  It should be illegal to do the speed limit in formation?  It should be illegal not to accommodate your crime?  Okay sure.