Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argumemnon said:
We need a better analogy than a swamp overflowing, at this point.

You know, I would've thought the people who most wanted to avoid tax would be those with less money, not the filthy rich who shouldn't really care about losing chunks of dough they'll never use.
Click to expand...

Scrooge McDuck was less of caricature than originally thought.
 
Giz said:
Just wondering what systems you think are better? The Westminster system? That's about the only possible contender, seeing that America has been going since 1788 (as opposed to 1949 for Germany, 1958 for France, 1978 for Spain, etc).

And the Westminster system has it's own significant issues, I'd hardly rush to say that it is superior to the US constitutional system.
Click to expand...
The one huge problem with the US system is private campaign financing, which creates an oligarchy where 0.02% of the richest of the rich pick the nominees of both parties through campaign donations. Only after all candidates suit the oligarchy the People are allowed to choose among the oligarchy's picks.

Give each citizen to assign the same amount of tax money to candidates of their choice, disallow additional private campaign funding, and democracy will make a resounding comeback.
 
Giz said:
Just wondering what systems you think are better? The Westminster system? That's about the only possible contender, seeing that America has been going since 1788 (as opposed to 1949 for Germany, 1958 for France, 1978 for Spain, etc).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that Spain is still going ...
 
Oystein said:
...
Give each citizen to assign the same amount of tax money to candidates of their choice, disallow additional private campaign funding, and democracy will make a resounding comeback.
Click to expand...


I agree with your assessment in the first part, but I'm unclear on how this part would play out.

Above the very local gov't level, candidates become known primarily through media buys. How does a citizen know of a particular candidate to assign tax monies for campaigning, if they were precluded private fundraising prior to that point?

Sorry... now my brain hurts. :p
 
Jim_MDP said:
I agree with your assessment in the first part, but I'm unclear on how this part would play out.

Above the very local gov't level, candidates become known primarily through media buys. How does a citizen know of a particular candidate to assign tax monies for campaigning, if they were precluded private fundraising prior to that point?

Sorry... now my brain hurts. :p
Click to expand...


This is how it works in the UK, not perfect, but it is better than nothing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1983#Election_expenses

Election expenses[edit]
Sections 72 to 90 control the total election expenses that can be spent on behalf of a candidate.

During the time limit of the election, all money spent on the promotion of a candidate must be authorised by his election agent. This includes the cost of holding public meetings, organising public displays, issuing advertisements, circulars, or otherwise presenting the candidate's views and the extent or nature of his backing or disparaging another candidate. It does not include travel expenses from home or similar personal expenses.

The expenses limit for the campaign (which is enforceable due to it all having to be authorised by one person) is £100,000 for a parliamentary by-election, but is approximately £5,483 plus either 6.2p or 4.6p for every registered voter in the district.
Click to expand...
 
jimbob said:
This is how it works in the UK, not perfect, but it is better than nothing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1983#Election_expenses
Click to expand...


I get campaign finance limits, but I don't think that's what Oystein's statement was entirely proposing.
Then again... it's a tough sentence to parse, the misunderstanding may be my fault.

Give each citizen to assign the same amount of tax money to candidates of their choice, disallow additional private campaign funding, and democracy will make a resounding comeback.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The first Crime in the U.S. report released under Trump contains close to 70% fewer data tables than previous year.

Every year, the FBI releases a report that is considered the gold standard for tracking crime statistics in the United States: the Crime in the United States report, a collection of crime statistics gathered from over 18,000 law-enforcement agencies in cities around the country. But according to an analysis by FiveThirtyEight, the 2016 Crime in the United States report — the first released under President Trump’s administration — contains close to 70 percent fewer data tables1 than the 2015 version did, a removal that could affect analysts’ understanding of crime trends in the country. The removal comes after consecutive years in which violent crime rose nationally, and it limits access to high-quality crime data that could help inform solutions.

Published under the auspices of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the Crime in the United States report contains national data on homicides, violent crimes, arrests, clearances and police employment that has been collected since the 1960s. The UCR’s report is an invaluable resource for researchers who track national crime trends and is a rich reference database for journalists and members of the general public who are interested in official crime statistics. Among the data missing from the 2016 report is information on arrests, the circumstances of homicides (such as the relationships between victims and perpetrators), and the only national estimate of annual gang murders.

Changes to the UCR’s yearly report are not unheard of, and the press release that accompanies the 2016 report, which was published in late September, acknowledges the removal of some tables, saying that the UCR program had “streamlined the 2016 edition.” But changes to the report typically go through a body called the Advisory Policy Board (APB), which is responsible for managing and reviewing operational issues for a number of FBI programs. This time they did not.
Click to expand...
 
Trump will shrink Two Bears National Monument a Native American Sacred Site...in Utah.
Shows how much respect the Trump Regime (it does not deserve the term Adminstration) has for "Religiouss Freedom" if you are not a member of the American Taliaban.
 
Argumemnon said:
Be honest with yourself. Your victory is hollow because your "side" can't get anything done. Trump has managed to castrate the GOP.
Click to expand...
Lol
You believe he hasn’t gotten anything done because the media tells you this. I’m delighted in what he has done so far and he’s in the first year of four.
 
logger said:
Lol
You believe he hasn’t gotten anything done because the media tells you this. I’m delighted in what he has done so far and he’s in the first year of four.
Click to expand...

Oh? What major legislative achievement does he have?

And if "the media" is the source of our differences, where exactly do YOU get your information? Gee, right wing media, which I'm sure is entirely objective. :rolleyes:
 
Jim_MDP said:
I agree with your assessment in the first part, but I'm unclear on how this part would play out.

Above the very local gov't level, candidates become known primarily through media buys. How does a citizen know of a particular candidate to assign tax monies for campaigning, if they were precluded private fundraising prior to that point?

Sorry... now my brain hurts. :p
Click to expand...
I never claimed my proposal would be the last word :D But perhaps you got the gist: level the field by making campaign financing public and equal-opportunity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom