2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Day]

Should we really let California be the benchmark for anything though lmao

[Aerin]

I'm sure term limits would be a huge uphill battle, let alone legislation that "gets money out of politics." I put it in quotes because it's vague and encompasses such a huge amount, not that I don't agree with it.

I'm reading Steven Brills book about healthcare and how the ACA was passed. Even with both sides coming together and the momentum they had it was still a huge endeavor.

[Gredival]

The argument Im hearing is that it strengthens lobbyists to which I say why not do term limits + clean up all that money in politics if thats the problem. Any other time I would hear lobbying is "how it works". I also read it would be a cycle of people that dont have a clue how to govern in congress as if the current guys are doing such a stellar job. Cycle em out I say. Can't get much worse.

Imagine if the House Freedom Caucus ran the show in the House instead of Ryan. That's how it can get worse.

Also keep in mind that lobbying isn't just corporations scheming to get regulations repealed and what not. Organizations like the ACLU and the NAACP are technically lobbyists.

[Quicklet]

One example of how blindly changing the system can have unintended consequences: earmarks. Everyone thought it was a great idea to get rid of earmarks, because why wouldn't you want to reduce wasteful spending? In reality though, you reduced a tiny fraction of government spending and eliminated a lot of the bargaining chips that allowed much larger, important bipartisan packages to pass.

I wouldn't mind having earmarks back if it meant avoiding these perennial budget crises we've been having since the Tea Party (which is now dead) and the House Freedom Caucus came to power.

[Xantavia]

Yeah, I've heard a bunch of conservatives saying this today. I guess California tried this and it was a disaster, so I'm inclined to think it's better to focus on the money/lobbying side of the equation. Also, there's no way this would ever pass Congress so it's just a big F U to people like Paul Ryan and Paul Manafort.

I vaguely recall hearing about this on the radio the other day. It seems the biggest problem is that they were limited to X years in the house, and Y years in the senate. So state congressman would focus time/energy on getting elected to the other branch once their time was up. The solution proposed to that was they were only Z years in house/senate combined to give them more time to build connections and not worry about starting over when they switch.

[Gredival]

time to build connections and not worry about starting over when they switch.

This is one of the major arguments against term limits. In a bygone era, statesmen represented their constituents' interests ardently during the day but at night they would have dinner or go see a show with colleagues including a number from across the aisle. Those who stuck around Washington long enough built up personal relationships that could be leveraged when it came time for the sides to sit down and compromise.

This is why there used to be a gentleman's agreement not to go after the other party's leader. However that went bye bye when the GOP went after Daschle.

[Tyche]

One example of how blindly changing the system can have unintended consequences: earmarks. Everyone thought it was a great idea to get rid of earmarks, because why wouldn't you want to reduce wasteful spending? In reality though, you reduced a tiny fraction of government spending and eliminated a lot of the bargaining chips that allowed much larger, important bipartisan packages to pass.

I wouldn't mind having earmarks back if it meant avoiding these perennial budget crises we've been having since the Tea Party (which is now dead) and the House Freedom Caucus came to power.

David Plotz hammers this point on Slates political podcast all the time. He sells it quite well. It's a compelling point. As much as many don't want to admit it, there's got to be some quid pro quo to actually run an effective government or you'll get stonewalled more often than not.

[myreality]

Lol


http://www.sickchirpse.com/donald-trump-is-a-reptilian-

Donald Trump Is A Reptilian Shapeshifter And Here’s Why

[Quicklet]

Mark Cuban said tonight that he knows two additional women who have been sexually assaulted by Trump, one in 2000 and the other in 2014. They're unlikely to come forward publicly, but I think it's significant that we have an allegation from as recently as 2014 now.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-cuba...ropriate-with/

Short of new audio/video, it feels like the media has moved on from focusing on these stories for the most part. It will be interesting to watch and see if the really big Trump oppo drops tomorrow pre-debate.

[Deftscythe]

I also read it would be a cycle of people that dont have a clue how to govern in congress as if the current guys are doing such a stellar job. Cycle em out I say. Can't get much worse.

You might already know this, but it's worth pointing out that when people say new members of congress "wouldn't know how to govern" they don't mean they wouldn't know what legislation to introduce or how to lead, they mean it literally. The legal and procedural mechanics of making a proposal into law are complex and not immediately obvious.

[Quicklet]

Whole bunch of new polls out today. One of the most noticeable ones has Hillary up 4 in Arizona

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...rump/92339110/

[Olo401]

Rubio's really trying to hold onto that job he doesn't like.

[Ezek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irqLMTg-f_U

"Bar Room talk" is now a thing alongside "Locker Room talk".

This election needs to be over.

[Olo401]

So this happened..

[Uzor]

No Sir, I never planned to perform an act of terrorism. It was just a hypothetical bar room talk.

[Day]

You might already know this, but it's worth pointing out that when people say new members of congress "wouldn't know how to govern" they don't mean they wouldn't know what legislation to introduce or how to lead, they mean it literally. The legal and procedural mechanics of making a proposal into law are complex and not immediately obvious.

This argument makes it sounds like we are just going to elect schmucks off the street into congress. They guys that you would say "know what they are doing" are doing a bang up jorb.

[Deftscythe]

This argument makes it sounds like we are just going to elect schmucks off the street into congress. They guys that you would say "know what they are doing" are doing a bang up jorb.

Ey, I never said that was my position, I'm just clarifying that aspect of the argument. Personally I have no idea if term limits would be a positive change or not. The fact that the idea of enacting them gets laughed at because members of Congress wouldn't vote against their own interests despite the will of the people is a good argument for them. However, there's definitely something to be said for long-standing members being able to build up relationships and coalitions.

[Krandor]

The building up relations and coalitions goes in both ways though, especially with the heavily obstructionist style the GOP has been running.

Paired up with the restrictions on lobbying Trump put up yesterday, I think the term limits would be a good idea. But as others have said we would never see either gain the slightest bit of traction in the real world.

[Quicklet]

Rubio's really trying to hold onto that job he doesn't like.

Looks like somebody got some new polls back. It's a good statement (and really what most Republicans should be saying), but I don't think it saves him.

Wonder what the breaking point will be for Rubio to fully bail on Trump.

[Olo401]

Looks like somebody got some new polls back. It's a good statement (and really what most Republicans should be saying), but I don't think it saves him.

Wonder what the breaking point will be for Rubio to fully bail on Trump.

I don't think he needs to. Given the climate in this election, he's gonna win by like 10+ points because there's gonna be lots of Hispanics that will be splitting their vote in favor of him & Hillary. Could be wrong, who knows. I just think the 'stick with our own' factor is underestimated a bit.