US Politics: Shryke and Commodore agree (and other signs and portents)

[lokisnow]

I must congratulate republicans on the first amendment framing of the issue. It is succinct and effective, they've won. It also reduces dems to rambling ranging sputtering angry non rebuttals, also a win.

Great article on the upshot about campaigns and ground games, compared state by state in the Senate battlegrounds.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/upshot/evidence-suggests-democrats-are-running-the-better-campaigns.html

[aceluby]

It's free to you because someone else is bearing the cost of publishing.

Under the proposed amendment, spending for maintaining a message board that publishes political content could be prohibited.

This message board contains a thread that publishes posts attempting to influence elections. Under the proposed amendment, Congress could restrict the operators of this website from spending money to maintain and publish that content.

How is it 'attempting to influence elections'? Which elections exactly?

[awesome possum]

This message board contains a thread that publishes posts attempting to influence elections. Under the proposed amendment, Congress could restrict the operators of this website from spending money to maintain and publish that content.

No its not and no, they couldn't. But hey, operating from a state of faux-fear must be fun.

[Suttree]

But hey, operating from a state of faux-fear must be fun.

Is that related to Fox-fear? It's amazing how large the cross section of topics the phenomena can touch. At the very least it's first cousins to the type of inane reports that have people like tptwp flying in with "ZOMG IS is beheading people in the US" and then slinking away when they realize how absurdly wrong they were.

[Commodore]

No its not and no, they couldn't. But hey, operating from a state of faux-fear must be fun.

why do you think the ACLU opposes the amendment?

[awesome possum]

why do you think the ACLU opposes the amendment?

Nice attempted change of subject. Well if the ACLU opposes something then all liberal-leaning people must... would be the train of thought of someone who has been trained not to have a train of thought.

How about you address the questions about your claims for once? How exactly is this thread trying to influence elections? And how could Congress shut the entire message board down for that?

[MerenthaClone]

why do you think the ACLU opposes the amendment?

Possibly because the amendment as written is too broad but the concept behind it is sound?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Nice attempted change of subject. Well if the ACLU opposes something then all liberal-leaning people must... would be the train of thought of someone who has been trained not to have a train of thought.

He's clearly not saying that. Or if he is, then he's a lot dumber than I'm giving him credit for. How does what he said in any way imply what you accused him of saying? He's saying that ACLU's opposition is based on sound arguments that you should probably examine and are very similar to his. It may be an appeal to authority, but I think the ACLU's word should have some weight here.

How about you address the questions about your claims for once? How exactly is this thread trying to influence elections? And how could Congress shut the entire message board down for that?

I haven't read the previous 14 pages in this iteration of the thread very carefully, but every election year, there are people who say that they want to vote libertarian or Green and others who lambast them to essentially giving Republicans votes. How is that not trying to influence elections?

[aceluby]

So talking about elections at all constitutes influence?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

So talking about elections at all constitutes influence?

Yes. Which is why the amendment is so problematic.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The interpretation that funding an open forum on which anyone might say anything on nearly any topic constitutes an expenditure in support of a candidate seems pretty dubious to me. The expenditure in question is clearly to facilitate an open platform, not to support any one candidate.

[awesome possum]

He's clearly not saying that. Or if he is, then he's a lot dumber than I'm giving him credit for. How does what he said in any way imply what you accused him of saying?

His posting history?

I haven't read the previous 14 pages in this iteration of the thread very carefully, but every election year, there are people who say that they want to vote libertarian or Green and others who lambast them to essentially giving Republicans votes. How is that not trying to influence elections?

Well if people were to consider "lambasting" as influencing then you're spot on. However, I don't see the similarities. When someone here says they're voting libertarian or green and are lambasted, the way they are voting is being ridiculed and not being told to vote a different way.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The interpretation that funding an open forum on which anyone might say anything on nearly any topic constitutes an expenditure in support of a candidate seems pretty dubious to me. The expenditure in question is clearly to facilitate an open platform, not to support any one candidate.

But someone could argue that the moderation ( and board culture, which had been influenced by the admins) favors the Liberal side generally.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

But someone could argue that the moderation ( and board culture, which had been influenced by the admins) favors the Liberal side generally.

And I might even agree that that's true, but still it would be a stretch to call the expenditure in question- running the board- an expenditure made for the purpose of supporting a political candidate. I can't see how a court could accept that it is, though I'll grant that I have little to no actual legal knowledge, that's just a plain English interpretation.

[lokisnow]

Chait skewers the delusions of the blind and dumb DC cohort that think bipartisanship is a real thing that is just barely out of reach and we only needs try to reach a grand bargain and rainbows will fly out of the fingers of the blessed DC bipartisaners whilst unicorns praise them with song.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/washington-bipartisanship-nostalgia-is-eternal.html

Washington already has divided control. Now, to be sure, Republicans control just one chamber of Congress at the moment. Seib argues that the calculus might change if they win control of the other chamber as well.

For this to be true, you would have to imagine that there are deals that could be struck between the Republican House and President Obama that the Democratic Senate would block but that a Republican Senate would agree to. What reason is there to think that any such deal exists? Has Harry Reid actually blocked an agreement between John Boehner and Obama? Seib suggests two:

In a new era of divided government, the most intriguing possibilities would lie in two areas: overhaul of the immigration system and a revamping of the tax code, at least the corporate tax.

He does not explain how a Republican Senate would break the Boehner-Obama logjam on corporate tax reform, so that possibility remains hypothetical. On immigration reform, we don’t have to imagine what would happen. We know for certain that the Senate is not standing in the way of a Boehner-Obama immigration deal because the Senate already passed immigration reform — with 68 votes, no less.

Washington is awash in nostalgic memories of congenial dinner parties and tales of Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan knocking back drinks together, and largely blind to the cold rationalism undergirding its current circumstances. The good old days are not coming back.

Here is what is so telling. My argument is descriptive, not normative. I don't oppose bipartisan compromise on the merits. Indeed, I'd be fine with corporate tax reform, and extremely happy if Congress passed immigration reform. I am simply arguing that flipping the Senate would not improve the chances of such cooperation.

That Fournier confuses descriptive accounts with normative preferences tells us a great deal about his own confused analysis. He desperately wants bipartisanship, so he declares that it can happen, and rejects all analysis to the contrary. Indeed, he assumes that anybody who argues that his dream is unrealistic must be similarly motivated. He is completely immune to empirical persuasion. In this way, he is the ultimate incarnation of the cult-like faith in bipartisanship exhibited by his ideological tribe.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

And I might even agree that that's true, but still it would be a stretch to call the expenditure in question- running the board- an expenditure made for the purpose of supporting a political candidate. I can't see how a court could accept that it is, though I'll grant that I have little to no actual legal knowledge, that's just a plain English interpretation.

I'm not a Iawyer either, so I'll concede that the challenge might not hold. Nevertheless, I think the example of the board was to show that using money to promote speech to influence elections isn't just something that giant corporations do to pay less taxes, and is close to something that all of us do every day.

[Commodore]

How exactly is this thread trying to influence elections?

Members have created posts advocating the election of specific candidates and/or parties.

Money is being spent to perpetuate a message board that publishes these posts. Therefore, under the proposed amendment, that spending can be restricted (indeed prohibited) by Congress.

Remember, Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation that wanted to produce a movie critical of Hilary Clinton during a primary election. So is the ACLU, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood. Under the proposed amendment, any money they want to spend on political speech could be prohibited by Congress. They could also restrict spending from production companies like Simon and Schuster or Paramount Pictures if the work contained political advocacy.

[Wise Fool]

I'm sure a Congress that can't even pass a budget will be getting up in the grill of the ASOIAF forum. That's what the bill was about! Let's talk about how horrible that would be too.

[TrackerNeil]

Chait skewers the delusions of the blind and dumb DC cohort that think bipartisanship is a real thing that is just barely out of reach and we only needs try to reach a grand bargain and rainbows will fly out of the fingers of the blessed DC bipartisaners whilst unicorns praise them with song.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/washington-bipartisanship-nostalgia-is-eternal.html

Yeah, I enjoyed this too. Whenever I hear someone moan about the loss of bipartisanship, I usually challenge them to tell me exactly how this would be restored. I never get an answer.

Honestly, I don't think the problem with DC is a lack of bipartisanship; it's that one of the two major political parties is dysfunctional. If the Republicans started reacting rationally to political incentives, things would be much better.

[Fez]

If the Republicans started reacting rationally to political incentives, things would be much better.

Most Republicans in Congress are acting quite rationally; they are seeking to avoid being primaried. Now considering how unsuccessful every tea party primary was, except for David Brat, maybe they will discount the far right a bit more next year; but maybe not, fear is a powerful thing.