Should US Style Capitalism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[Forty Two]

Exactly. Also State supreme courts. Dont forget those.

Trump does not have any relevance to State supreme courts, lol.

[Svartalf]

Interesting view of the situation jason.

[Svartalf]

Exactly. Also State supreme courts. Dont forget those.

Trump does not have any relevance to State supreme courts, lol.

but the red wave that pushed him to office does

[Forty Two]

State Supreme Court judges have nothing to do with the feds. Here in Florida, we have a Judicial Nominating Commission composed of persons appointed to staggered four-year terms, representing various interests. The Commission must submit to the Governor of Florida between three and six names for each vacancy on the court, from which the Governor selects the new Justice. The Florida Judicial Nominating Commission includes: a. Three members appointed by the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar from among Florida Bar members who are actively engaged in the practice of law with offices within the territorial jurisdiction of the affected court, district or circuit; b. Three electors who reside in the territorial jurisdiction of the court or circuit appointed by the governor; and c. Three electors who reside in the territorial jurisdiction of the court or circuit and who are not members of the bar of Florida, selected and appointed by a majority vote of the other six members of the Commission. Florida's method is a version of the "Missouri Plan" which is followed by like 17-20 states, and then another 20 have elections for judges. Five states are appointed just by the governor, and 7 are appointed by the State legislature.

Trump has carte blanche to appoint judges of the Washington DC Supreme Court, though. LOL. So, he's all over that one.

LOL. Oh, yes, the "red wave" is stacking state supreme court judgeships full of Trumpers. Trump can't be stopped! Everyone just gives him everything he wants! Nobody is agin' 'im!

[pErvinalia]

There is a fairly straightforward idea that would go to reducing the influence extreme wealth has on campaigning in democracies. Simply, no more campaigning funded privately. Every party gets a relatively small amount of money, proportional to its last vote, to use in brief, unemotional statements in the media listing its policies. No advertising techniques allowed, plain vanilla and factual only. No more spin doctors, no more lobbyists, no more bullshit. And may the best human being win...

Taxpayer funding of political campaigns is fundamentally wrong because in a free society, people ought not to be compelled to give their money to support political activity they would otherwise not support. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Also, spending limits-justified on the basis of “public” (taxpayer) funding-protect incumbents and disadvantage those who are not constantly involved in the world of politics. Career politicians would qualify for funding while outsiders and potential citizen legislators wouldn't, and they wouldn’t even be allowed to raise funds privately.

“There are many prices we pay for freedoms secured by the first Amendment; the risk of undue influence is one of them, confirming what we have long known: Freedom is hazardous, but some restraints are worse.” - Warren Burger.

Right now most people choose to speak politically by not giving to campaigns. They don’t want to, are not motivated to, they just don’t like any of the candidates enough to give one their money. But government funding of campaigns puts and end to saying no to politicians, and instead says, tough, we are all going to fund campaigns, like it or not.

Even worse, ....[the] Ku Klux Klan can rally their members and get who knows how many candidates into local, state, and federal elections, fueled by tax dollars. How fundamentally offensive to black voters to have their tax money going to support candidates who would deny them even human rights. Similarly, how unfair to use pro-choice taxpayers’ money to fund the campaigns of pro-life candidates.

https://reason.org/commentary/public-fu ... paigns-wo/

If you eliminate private campaign expenditures, then the soft money goes up -- i.e. they wink wink - don't support a "candidate" - they're just making informational advertisements to push a cause or an issue -- i.e., we don't see an ad for Jane Roe - we see an ad for Planned Parenthood and/or abortion rights -- or, we don't see an ad for Samuel Colt - we see an ad for the NRA and/or gun rights. Are we going to eliminate funding for political statements? No free speech on the precise area where free speech is considered the most important: political issues?

I hear what you are saying, but being in a civil society requires some commitments. And enabling a functional political system is certainly one of them.

[Forty Two]

Yes, but we should find a way to enable a functioning political system without requiring people to pay for political positions that they do not like or support, or entrenching political orthodoxy, which I think are downsides of political campaigns funded by taxpayer money.

Our Campaign Finance laws here in the US are a mess. Just look at the infamous Citizens United v FEC case that everyone screams about. Whatever one thinks of the decision - had the Court ruled the other way -- it would made it illegal for people to put out movies critical of political candidates within 30 days before the primary election (or 60 days before a general election)- even if the movie was wholly factual, true, accurate, and verifiable in every way. Not sure how that can be allowed and there still be a first amendment, because the time-frame, 30/60 days, is short, but there is no principled reason it couldn't be 90, 120, or 365.

Had Citizens United gone the other way, criticism of political candidates within 60 days of the general election would be silenced because that would be considered electioneering communications. There was no principled way to pars out the in crowd and the out-crowd - it would just be an arbitrary and capricious determination.

So, maybe there is a way to figure it out. But telling PETA they can't put out a film about Trump's horrible animal rights record within 60 days of a general election, for example, is not the way to do it. To me, 60 days before the election is exactly when people need to be informed about things like that.

[Scot Dutchy]

The Orange Individual 1 wont like this.

Democrats unveil ambitious reforms targeting voter suppression and ethics violations – as it happened

House Democrats plan to hold first vote on campaign finance reforms and automatic voter registration

The Dems nibbling at his feet and Mueller breathing in his face he will not like it.

Another Mueller indictment is apparently coming. Jerome Corsi, a friend of Roger Stone, and former writer for the conspiracy website InfoWars tells NBC News that he will be indicted for perjury.

[Forty Two]

More bullshit campaign censorship reforms from the Democrats and automatic voter registration is fine, as long as they verify eligbility to vote. Just automatically allowing anyone to register to vote would be like the Netherlands allowing someone to vote just because they're temporarily living there and got a driver license. It doesn't make sense. The only reason to do that is to allow people who aren't eligible to vote to be registered to vote.

Mueller has something between Jack and Squat when it comes to Russia-gate. There is absolutely nothing there. They revived the old saw about the payment to Stormy Daniels. It's not unlawful to pay a settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause to keep someone quiet. That's common. it's routine. In any sexual harassment settlement agreement for example, between an employer and a female employee, they include confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses that basically mean "if we pay you this $X settlement, you have to keep your yap shut about what happened." That's not illegal. And it's not illegal for Trump to use his own money to do it, and it's not illegal for his lawyer to front the money to do it. And, it's not a campaign finance violation, either, no matter how much the MSNBC crowd want to pretend that it is. And, and this is a big AND -- and, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that it was found to be an illegal campaign contribution, at most Trump would have to pay it back and MAYBE pay an equal amount as a penalty. That's what happened when Obama's campaign was found to be in violation of campaign finance rules.

When you guys hear this shit, understand that the anti-Trump propaganda is designed to imply that some wrongdoing has been found. There hasn't been. Nothing. Sure, there were guys like Manafort, who was nailed for non-Trump related stuff. And, there was Papadapoulous who was nailed for misstatements made to the FBI about nothing - same thing with Flynn - they made misstatements to the FBI that they themselves do not really admit were "lies" but they plea it out so that they can avoid a quarter million in defense costs and the risk that Mueller is going to put them at risk for the next couple of years, in and out of court. People can't stomach that shit ,and so when they are given the chance to just plea to something and be done with it, no jail time, and it's over - they do so. That's the reality. And, yes, Dutchy, that is a point on which you and I agree - the US federal criminal justice system is bonkers that way. People are hanged by the cost and expense, and arbitrary and capricious nature of the system.

[rainbow]

Corporate Cronyism:

Bankrupt Sears to pay $25.3M in bonuses to executives
Dec 14, 2018
By

Max Filby, Staff Writer


Sears, which filed for bankruptcy in October, is planning to pay out more than $25 million in bonuses to its top executives.

A federal judge has just signed off on the company’s request to pay bonuses to some of its high-ranking employees, reports the Chicago Tribune. Sears Holdings filed for Chapter 11 banruptcy protection in October after reportedly losing nearly $1.9 billion this year.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ba ... BPB4MoE3N/

[pErvinalia]

Fark.