US Politics: Does the fat man singing count?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 hours ago, Leap said:

Sorry, perhaps I'm misreading this, but where in this article are her money ties to big business/foreign interest groups detailed?

As far as I can see, the only part of this article that mentions her personal finances is:

Now, I definitely think that this wage is inflated and that no self-respecting progressive could justify it, but I also suspect it's not particularly out of the ordinary for President of a major think tank in Washington. I don't know if she donates much money. 

 

By this logic no politician is tied to or influenced by big business either, since it's political campaigns, and not them personally, receiving donations. 

Of course, virtually no one on the left actually believes that. I suspect every single left leaning person in this thread would say they're in favor of reducing the influence of money in politics, in the abstract. Anyone want to tell me they think Citizens United was correctly decided? Or that they would oppose increased public financing of campaigns? 

Back to Tanden- the WaPo article makes clear that she was personally involved with soliciting donations. Her ties are through CAP, the institution that pays her substantial salary, and makes her an important player in Democratic politics. While she is President of CAP, her success is tied to CAP's. 

[Tywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Back to Tanden- the WaPo article makes clear that she was personally involved with soliciting donations. Her ties are through CAP, the institution that pays her substantial salary, and makes her an important player in Democratic politics. While she is President of CAP, her success is tied to CAP's. 

That's what presidents of basically every entity do. Basically every president of every university is looking to raise funds too. The key is, like in every other comparable situation, can they make sure that these donations don't lead to undue  influence. Some are good at this, others aren't. Such is life. 

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Of course, virtually no one on the left actually believes that. I suspect every single left leaning person in this thread would say they're in favor of reducing the influence of money in politics, in the abstract. Anyone want to tell me they think Citizens United was correctly decided? Or that they would oppose increased public financing of campaigns? 

Couldn't have said it better myself.  Do I think money in politics should be weeded out and campaign finance reform be aggressively pursued?  Absolutely.  Did I fault Obama for being the first presidential candidate to refuse matching funds in the general election simply because he could raise a shitload more money than McCain?  Nope.  This, btw, preceded Citizen's United.  Do I fault any politician for not disadvantaging themselves and instead accepting big money contributions - this still, btw, only deals with superPACs as hard money remains capped at $5 thousand?  Of course not.  Do I think office-seekers are necessarily beholden to moneyed interests in their policy preferences simply due to the fact they accept such contributions?  Not in the slightest.  If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them, you don't belong in this business.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

4 minutes ago, Leap said:

Well it seems fairly obvious to me that a political campaign is not the same thing as a job at a private think tank, and that one may be privately funded while another should not.

Regardless, beyond the point I already raised about the UAE, the article doesn't make any claim that the CAP changed its views based on the wishes of donors. If anything, it gives several examples of when CAP pushes policy to the detriment of its donors' interests. 

Soliciting donations was literally her responsibility at the think tank. Is that controversial? Is she somehow sullying herself by trying to get funding from non-progressive sources? Using corporate money to fund progressive agendas strikes me as rather Robin Hood-esque, and something we should congratulate her for. 

I didn't say they are the same. They share similarities. They both operate in the political sphere (to the extent that Tanden is poised to enter government on the basis of her think tank experience), and, more to the point, it should be clear that if we understand donations to be influential in one case there is no reason to believe they would not be influential in the other. That gets exactly at the question you raised- you couldn't see how Tanden was tied to big business or foreign interests through CAP. 

Another point of comparison: one of the reasons disclosure is required in the case of political campaigns, or that contributions are limited, and that many argue for going beyond that to public financing and much stricter regulation of outside spending, is that it is often very difficult to prove specific instances of influence. Certainly the parties involved will generally deny it. So you attack the appearance of impropriety as much as actual, proven impropriety. 

Finally, here is a specific example I remember reading about a while back:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/15/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-spending.html 

In interviews with The Times, no one described being threatened or coerced by Mr. Bloomberg or his money. But many said his wealth was an inescapable consideration — a gravitational force powerful enough to make coercion unnecessary.

“They aren’t going to criticize him in his 2020 run because they don’t want to jeopardize receiving financial support from him in the future,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at the good-government group Common Cause.

That chilling effect was apparent in 2015 to researchers at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group, when they turned in a report on anti-Muslim bias in the United States. Their draft included a chapter of more than 4,000 words about New York City police surveillance of Muslim communities; Mr. Bloomberg was mentioned by name eight times in the chapter, which was reviewed by The Times.

When the report was published a few weeks later, the chapter was gone. So was any mention of Mr. Bloomberg’s name.

Yasmine Taeb, an author of the report, said in an interview that the authors had been instructed to make drastic revisions or remove the chapter, and opted to do the latter rather than “whitewash the N.Y.P.D.’s wrongdoings.” She said she found it “disconcerting” to be asked to remove the chapter “because of how it was going to be perceived by Mayor Bloomberg.”

Other officials at the center disputed that account, arguing that there had been substantive reasons to revise or remove a section on police surveillance in New York from a report commissioned to examine right-wing groups targeting Muslims with explicit bigotry and conspiracy theories.

“Any and all edits to this report were done solely based on editorial and policy considerations,” said a spokeswoman, Daniella Gibbs Léger. The center, she added, had produced other content addressing policing in New York, including a “critical, hard-hitting video” on department policies under Mr. Bloomberg. A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg said his team was unaware of any dispute at the think tank.

But at least one senior official wrote at the time that there would be a “strong reaction from Bloomberg world if we release the report as written,” according to an email reviewed by The Times. And three people with direct knowledge of the situation said Mr. Bloomberg was a factor.

Alienating him might not have been a cost-free proposition. When the report came out, he had already given the organization three grants worth nearly $1.5 million, and in 2017 he contributed $400,000 more, according to Ms. Léger and the center’s limited public disclosure of its donors.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Texas sues Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a desperate attempt to continue the coup:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html

Even this Supreme Court won't touch it. One hopes.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Texas sues Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a desperate attempt to continue the coup

The difference in polarization from 2008 to 2020:  In 2008, Texas state Republicans want to secede; in 2020, Texas state Republicans want to kick other other states out.

[Fragile Bird]

10 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Texas sues Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a desperate attempt to continue the coup:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html

Even this Supreme Court won't touch it. One hopes.

I wonder if the AG figures he’ll be disbarred soon enough with regard to that FBI investigation mentioned in the story, so he may as well go all in so he can be rewarded by some rich Trump supporter with a job in the private sector.

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I wonder if the AG figures he’ll be disbarred soon enough with regard to that FBI investigation mentioned in the story, so he may as well go all in so he can be rewarded by some rich Trump supporter with a job in the private sector.

Maybe they're just not that good at math, but in the event that those states were barred from participating in the EC, Biden would still win 244-232.  Biden would also win a higher percentage of the popular vote, because all four of those states were to the right of the national vote (Biden +4.5). 

[IheartIheartTesla]

41 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Texas sues Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a desperate attempt to continue the coup:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html

Even this Supreme Court won't touch it. One hopes.

Even if they do decide to touch it, the decision to do so itself will take ages.

From what I've read, Alito and Thomas may agree to take it up, and I have no idea about Barrett.

[argonak]

33 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Maybe they're just not that good at math, but in the event that those states were barred from participating in the EC, Biden would still win 244-232.  Biden would also win a higher percentage of the popular vote, because all four of those states were to the right of the national vote (Biden +4.5). 

There's a lot of stupid people in the Trump camp, but behind the scenes there's a few clever ones too.  I wouldn't put it past them to have a few state legislatures secretly promising to overturn their election results if and only if it would actually make a difference in the election.  This is the sort of thing a smart man plays close to his chest.  

Although that could also just be the little conspiracy theorist in me, worried about the guys in trench coats.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Jenna Ellis, another member of Trump's band of loser lawyers, has (edit: allegedly) tested positive for COVID (and she was at a staff Christmas party on Friday). It would be hilarious if it werent so sad.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

 

[/u]Well this is interesting (well mildly terrifying). Texas is suing four other States claiming those other State’s lax election procedures infringe upon the citizens of Texas’ voting rights.  Texas seeks to block the Electoral College from voting on 12/14.  

What is really interesting is that this falls under the SCOTUS’ “orginal jurisdiction” and could allow more bulshyte from the Trump Campaign to make it before the SCOTUS:

 

https://www.aol.com/texas-asks-u-supreme-court-160839530-162356499.html?al_applink_data={"target_url"%3A"https%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.aol.com\%2Fnews\%2Ftexas-asks-u-supreme-court-160839530-162356499.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2xR3DpNHxQIFjTb0uVd-YtR2rNy4LlvONE7CfmsZjYOaGbsmCv7rWCBEE"%2C"extras"%3A{"fb_app_id"%3A183146218394780}%2C"referer_app_link"%3A{"url"%3A"fb%3A\%2F\%2F\%2F%3Fapp_id%3D183146218394780"%2C"app_name"%3A"Facebook"}}

[Guy Kilmore]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

[/u]Well this is interesting (well mildly terrifying). Texas is suing four other States claiming those other State’s lax election procedures infringe upon the citizens of Texas’ voting rights.  Texas seeks to block the Electoral College from voting on 12/14.  

What is really interesting is that this falls under the SCOTUS’ “orginal jurisdiction” and could allow more bulshyte from the Trump Campaign to make it before the SCOTUS:

 

https://www.aol.com/texas-asks-u-supreme-court-160839530-162356499.html?al_applink_data={"target_url"%3A"https%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.aol.com\%2Fnews\%2Ftexas-asks-u-supreme-court-160839530-162356499.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2xR3DpNHxQIFjTb0uVd-YtR2rNy4LlvONE7CfmsZjYOaGbsmCv7rWCBEE"%2C"extras"%3A{"fb_app_id"%3A183146218394780}%2C"referer_app_link"%3A{"url"%3A"fb%3A\%2F\%2F\%2F%3Fapp_id%3D183146218394780"%2C"app_name"%3A"Facebook"}}

Scott, I think you messed up posting your link.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Scott, I think you messed up posting your link.

Ya think?

[DireWolfSpirit]

Nvm

[Guy Kilmore]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ya think?

I think, I can say with about 70% certainty that he did.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Try this.  Still scary as it give the SCOTUS jurisdiction to issue orders to multiple States simultaneously:

https://www.aol.com/texas-asks-u-supreme-court-160839530-162356499.html?al_applink_data={"target_url"%3A"https%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.aol.com\%2Fnews\%2Ftexas-asks-u-supreme-court-160839530-162356499.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2xR3DpNHxQIFjTb0uVd-YtR2rNy4LlvONE7CfmsZjYOaGbsmCv7rWCBEE"%2C"extras"%3A{"fb_app_id"%3A183146218394780}%2C"referer_app_link"%3A{"url"%3A"fb%3A\%2F\%2F\%2F%3Fapp_id%3D183146218394780"%2C"app_name"%3A"Facebook"}}

[Fragile Bird]

I really wish Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin would get together and issue a lawsuit asking the Supreme Court to overturn the election results in Texas because of massive voter fraud. They have as much evidence as Texas has of voter fraud in their states.