|
Money laundering eh? No poo poo?
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
The always more, always worse refrain is worth restarting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Fixing the American system is very easy: get private money out of politics. Candidates should be able to use only public funds. Not even their own money. Cause as we all know, poor racists never vote. Or are we going to redo the "racism is a myth invented by the rich so they could steal those precious bus seats up the front" thing again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elizabethcrisp/status/875161900396556288
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Well the US has 10 times the population of Canada. Sorry I meant ~10 times per capita (!).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:33
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Other western countries manage to do these things. As mentioned before the US spends (very) roughly 10 times as much on federal elections than Canada, which is outrageous. I do agree it's not simple or easy, much like fixing America's broken healthcare system. I am not aware of any countries that entirely restrict political campaign finance to public funds. The ones that have public candidate financing have either a party-heavy parallel finance structure, or PACs like the united states. This is what's at issue under litigation over "private" and "use".
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Neutering the Electoral College would just require having more than enough states to push over the 270 EV total to sign onto the compact that allocates their EV to the popular vote winner. They're currently at 165. I don't understand why this is a good idea. Clearly, deep-red states are never ever going to sign on to this. If only blue states sign on, then the only possible effect it could have would be to hand over what might otherwise be Democratic EVs to the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:He has subpoena power, yes. He can use that to demand to see Trump's tax returns. Hey leakers You know what to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am not aware of any countries that entirely restrict political campaign finance to public funds. The ones that have public candidate financing have either a party-heavy parallel finance structure, or PACs like the united states. This is what's at issue under litigation over "private" and "use". From Wikipedia article on 2015 Canadian federal election : Wikipedia posted:Registered third parties[edit] So in Canada at least even private citizens and groups can only spend so much on election-related advertising. edit: This is on top of party spending limits of course. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Having missed a lot of pages, I just assumed talk about this story was banned or relegated to another thread, but nope, new Trump news so wild and crazy everyone has moved on already. Thank God for president Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:From Wikipedia article on 2015 Canadian federal election : Thats also how it was before Citizens United V. Clinton. All you'd be doing is taking things back to how it was pre-2009.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
So I feel like Muehler gave his team the go ahead to leak some stuff today, considering how much silence we had before today
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Petr posted:I don't understand why this is a good idea. Clearly, deep-red states are never ever going to sign on to this. If only blue states sign on, then the only possible effect it could have would be to hand over what might otherwise be Democratic EVs to the Republicans. It's better thought out than that. It doesn't kick in until they have more than 270 EVs. Once that happens the compact states determine the outcome entirely, other states be damned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
I like how right wingers claiming there's no evidence of wrongdoing seems to keep them compelled. Like theyre totally ignorant if how investigations work. Evidence is necessarily secret while depositions are collected. Hey I can't see your cards so you obviously have no hand, as if everyone were to subsist entirely in poo poo-talk just because trump is prez and that's how things work from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Petr posted:Hey leakers Trump has three emoluments lawsuits spinning up right now with two of them seeming actually serious. Even if they don't ultimately win one of them may lead to a lot of financial history getting spilled publically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:It's better thought out than that. It doesn't kick in until they have more than 270 EVs. Once that happens the compact states determine the outcome entirely, other states be damned. I guess that's relatively idiot-proof, though I'm not sure how we're going to get to 270 without the aid of states who would clearly see the compact as against their self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Petr posted:I don't understand why this is a good idea. Clearly, deep-red states are never ever going to sign on to this. If only blue states sign on, then the only possible effect it could have would be to hand over what might otherwise be Democratic EVs to the Republicans. No. If the compact reaches 270 votes then it makes the whole blue state red state thing superfluous. If it has reached 270 votes, it means that it includes at least some swing states that have agreed to assign their votes to the national vote winner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875166406417010688
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
lol@republicans https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/875166972614516737
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:47
|
|
Nocturtle posted:From Wikipedia article on 2015 Canadian federal election : Canada's electoral system operates through pre-election spending that persists into the election period (thereby evading limits), through nominally non-electioneering communications (identical to American 501s, why "election advertising", i.e., "use" is litigated), and a parallel party contribution and funding structure. Canada has analogous bundling, corporate, and PAC systems and related communication issues to the US. Private money is still a major function of political speech in that country. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
hope you like hearing about actually leaks, and, actually lynch https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/875166972614516737 e: goddamnit ew
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Trump has three emoluments lawsuits spinning up right now with two of them seeming actually serious. Even if they don't ultimately win one of them may lead to a lot of financial history getting spilled publically. Yeah, but...what then? What happens as a result of that coming to light?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:hope you like hearing about actually leaks, and, actually lynch  They still have nothing better than "Hillary, Hillary, Hillary"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:hope you like hearing about actually leaks, and, actually lynch I haven't read all that but what is the point of trying to discredit something if that thing is actually happening? What is the point of trump claiming comey told him he was not under investigation? Like the investigation would be cancelled if a guy who used to work at the FBI once said there was no investigation. It's almost as if the guy thinks he's still running a loving reality show or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Petr posted:I guess that's relatively idiot-proof, though I'm not sure how we're going to get to 270 without the aid of states who would clearly see the compact as against their self-interest. It does seem unlikely. It depends on what you mean by self-interest though. Are Texas' interests served better by having Republicans in the White House, or by being pandered to by presidential candidates? Because if it's the latter than the compact makes sense for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:It's almost as if the guy thinks he's still running a loving reality show or something. Congratulations, you've discovered the Trump Doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
skylined! posted:i believe this is a number you made up and await user ToxicSlurpee to confirm my suspicions, thus invalidating every argument you have ever made. Well that depends on how you define "inches." Do you mean imperial inches as used in the U.S. or, say, the inches (or other standard unit) used in, say, 17th century France? I'd argue that an "inch" can be nearly anything you want so my arm is simultaneously 24.3 inches and not 24.3 inches. Do any of us truly know what an "inch" is? Like all things it is illusory so we must also decide on which era said law defining said "inch" was drafted within and use that definition. We must also agree on the definition of "arm." Do you mean grasping appendage attached to a human body? Does one's arm length change if said arms are amputated? One could argue that a typical "arm" can be as little as 1 inch long in some cases. Also we must decide, for future precedent, what is included in said "arm." If you mean only the length of the bone (as the size of soft tissue can change over time; I have been gaining weight lately so the dimensions of my soft tissues have been increasing overall) then it is difficult or impossible to measure properly as one cannot directly access said bones. Does one include the hand? Where does one's "arm" end and one's "torso" begin? Can we even be certain said body parts exist? Can you prove that I even exist? How can anything truly exist when everything is made up of atoms which are almost 100% empty space. It can be argued that nothing has "length" as matter is so close to being entirely empty that we can treat it as if it didn't even exist in the first place. How does one measure that which does not exist? The comparison of legal print to arms is also ludicrous; how are you printing it? If it is printed in 0.0000001 point font on 5' x 5' paper it could potentially be as thick a stack of print as a hair. Conversely you could print it in 144 point font on post-it notes and get quite a long legal document indeed! If the arm does not exist you must acquit! (...it's about 27" long apparently, fingertip to shoulder joint, but I probably measured it badly)
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:I haven't read all that but what is the point of trying to discredit something if that thing is actually happening? They're trying to spin it to prevent what is almost certainly going to be an insanely long investigation from hurting them politically until the very last second. If Trump is in super deep poo poo, then why would we trust him to pass laws that help america or be trusted by foreign leaders (stop laughing). Plus he is the party now, just like how democrats were viewed as the party of Obama when he was in office
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Yeah, but...what then? What happens as a result of that coming to light? It potentially reveals shady and/or illegal dealings, which continue to sink Republicans' chances in 2018/20
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:I haven't read all that but what is the point of trying to discredit something if that thing is actually happening? His base is that dumb dude
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:I haven't read all that but what is the point of trying to discredit something if that thing is actually happening? They seriously seem to believe that if they can just get the public to not believe it, then it will shut down the investigation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:hope you like hearing about actually leaks, and, actually lynch Trying to have their cake and eat it too with respect to Comey's testimony. Comey is credible when talking about Clinton and Lynch, but not when talking about Trump. For some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:I haven't read all that but what is the point of trying to discredit something if that thing is actually happening? Talking points are just "what you should say when a reporter sticks a mic in your face and asks you about it". you have to have SOME response, and spur of the moment responses tend to be bad. so they went with these, which are...not good, but better than someone looking like a deer in the headlights and then saying "of course he can obstruct justice if he wants to, he's the president, we talked about it last night"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Well that depends on how you define "inches." Do you mean imperial inches as used in the U.S. or, say, the inches (or other standard unit) used in, say, 17th century France? I'd argue that an "inch" can be nearly anything you want so my arm is simultaneously 24.3 inches and not 24.3 inches. Do any of us truly know what an "inch" is? Like all things it is illusory so we must also decide on which era said law defining said "inch" was drafted within and use that definition. We must also agree on the definition of "arm." Do you mean grasping appendage attached to a human body? Does one's arm length change if said arms are amputated? One could argue that a typical "arm" can be as little as 1 inch long in some cases. Also we must decide, for future precedent, what is included in said "arm." If you mean only the length of the bone (as the size of soft tissue can change over time; I have been gaining weight lately so the dimensions of my soft tissues have been increasing overall) then it is difficult or impossible to measure properly as one cannot directly access said bones. Does one include the hand? Where does one's "arm" end and one's "torso" begin? Can we even be certain said body parts exist? Can you prove that I even exist? How can anything truly exist when everything is made up of atoms which are almost 100% empty space. It can be argued that nothing has "length" as matter is so close to being entirely empty that we can treat it as if it didn't even exist in the first place. How does one measure that which does not exist? the mountains in montana are also all just empty space
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Thank God that Trump is such an idiot that a Representative potentially being shot and killed doesn't take the news off him for too long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:55
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Well that depends on how you define "inches." Do you mean imperial inches as used in the U.S. or, say, the inches (or other standard unit) used in, say, 17th century France? I'd argue that an "inch" can be nearly anything you want so my arm is simultaneously 24.3 inches and not 24.3 inches. Do any of us truly know what an "inch" is? Like all things it is illusory so we must also decide on which era said law defining said "inch" was drafted within and use that definition. We must also agree on the definition of "arm." Do you mean grasping appendage attached to a human body? Does one's arm length change if said arms are amputated? One could argue that a typical "arm" can be as little as 1 inch long in some cases. Also we must decide, for future precedent, what is included in said "arm." If you mean only the length of the bone (as the size of soft tissue can change over time; I have been gaining weight lately so the dimensions of my soft tissues have been increasing overall) then it is difficult or impossible to measure properly as one cannot directly access said bones. Does one include the hand? Where does one's "arm" end and one's "torso" begin? Can we even be certain said body parts exist? Can you prove that I even exist? How can anything truly exist when everything is made up of atoms which are almost 100% empty space. It can be argued that nothing has "length" as matter is so close to being entirely empty that we can treat it as if it didn't even exist in the first place. How does one measure that which does not exist? OK, now you're just reaching 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
all the reporters are laughing about how the rnc talking poimts ranting against leaks ... got leaked
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:I haven't read all that but what is the point of trying to discredit something if that thing is actually happening? It's literally propaganda meant to confuse idiots dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:They're trying to spin it to prevent what is almost certainly going to be an insanely long investigation from hurting them politically until the very last second. If Trump is in super deep poo poo, then why would we trust him to pass laws that help america or be trusted by foreign leaders (stop laughing). Plus he is the party now, just like how democrats were viewed as the party of Obama when he was in office they're primarily playing to the suicide switch base as long as he can keep the hardcore supporters on board, republicans cant touch them. if 2018 comes and the republicans lose the house, than some poo poo is really gonna hit the fan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/875167045415043072 Bonus: https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/875069000291627009
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 03:03
|
|