Market politics

[Intl Professor]

You know Biden is 76, right ?

He will be 77 on November 20. Senior moment.

Mayor Pete has strategy on his side. Mind you I have great regard for Elizabeth but impeach now is too risky.

Love the conversation....but what does this mean?

It means in addition to a lizard life style before TV and computer screens, I've eaten myself to death. But I am sweet.

 

[alloverx]

No candidates over 60 please. Its a stressful job so I prefer someone slightly younger. 60+ is ok for vice-president.

 

[lolachampcar]

Money in politics is very bad. Much worse than you think it is.

Republicans have gone dark now. There is absolutely nothing I share with them in terms of values. Whether it is social, environmental, foreign policy or just basic respect for human beings. Infact they're explicitly saying people like me aren't even American and should not be in this country. So, bear with me when I don't appear both sided.

Let me ask you this - who is the politician who comes closest to your liking ?

BTW, you are confusing attacking politician and activists and attacking voters. I think doing the second like Hillary did was stupid. We have to speak for the 99% to isolate the greedy 1 percenters - knowing fully well that we can't convince all of the 99%.

Yes
Much worse than I think? I think not.

Money corrupts people. Dems and Reps are people. My conclusion is that a person that is good today when they are out of power and seeking office can be bad tomorrow when they have achieved the office and power then need to fund their ability to say in that position.

I'm not disputing anything you are saying about who "the good guys" are today. At the same time, I have vivid memories of a president lying under oath and being re-elected. I have vivid memories of his wife attacking the women speaking out about her husband's behavior and attempting to destroy their lives. I watched that person become Secretary of State. I also watched almost half the voting population elect one the biggest dirtbags we know.

What I take away from this is that we are broken. I'm not just singling out the basket of deplorables, I'm talking to you folks as well. I look in the mirror and ask what is it about who I have become that would tolerate corrupt management? Why do I tolerate money in politics? The answer - I shouldn't. I no longer do and I do not expect a savior candidate to come along and save me from myself.

Much worse than I think? I think not.

Justifying why your side is better will make you feel good about yourself and let you think you are doing something about the problem. My position is, although there is some truth to what you are saying, that I do not believe it will alter our trajectory. In fact, the more determined you become that you are right and you need to fight those others ever harder the more energy is added to the pendulum and the further it swings to the extremes. If that is your goal, then cool. Have at it. Just do not try to pass off that you are trying to fix the problem as all you are doing is adding too it (IMO of course).

I spend some time over on the MB Forums where I'm labeled a "Libritard" or something like that. Funny. The best way to discount what someone is saying is to simply put them in the other category.

Who is the politician that comes closest to my liking? That is easy.
It is the crop of people we invite to the party once money is removed from the process. I'll like every one of them. I'll listen to what they have to say and I'll vote accordingly.

(for now, M. Pete is knocking it out of the park every time he speaks - It will be interesting if he can keep it up - I'm just not sure the old portion of the voting public is ready for an openly gay president but then I did not think they were ready for a black one and was pleasantly surprised to see that they were)

 

[EVNow]

Yes
Much worse than I think? I think not.

Money corrupts people. Dems and Reps are people. My conclusion is that a person that is good today when they are out of power and seeking office can be bad tomorrow when they have achieved the office and power then need to fund their ability to say in that position.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. I think you are simply not as informed as you think you are.

The problem is - people using money from powerful economic interests to get elected. That paradigm changed only in 2016 with Sanders. So no point talking about Blue Dog democrats (Clintons). They are no better than Bushes. One of the first things Biden did after announcing the run is to go to a high dollar fund raiser - again no better than other politicians. What I'm saying is not partisan - it is based on what the politicians are doing. Are there any Republicans who are purely small dollar donations based ? When McCain ran in 2000 on this platform I supported him - but he lost his way after that.

In 2018 so many Dems refused to take PAC money or from big donors. 100s of them only relied on small donors. That big shift is because of '16 Sanders run. None of them owe anything to the big boys.

Do you know how much time a usual Rep spends a day begging for money ? Do you know there are small cubicles near the Capitol that they rent to make calls begging for money ? They start asking for money the day after they win the election ! The 2 year cycle along with this method of raising money has completely destroyed Democracy in the US. Campaign finance fix can't come soon enough. HR-1 bill is a good start. But obviously Republicans will never vote for it. Why ?

Look at what Seattle has done. They give vouchers to all the citizens to give them to the candidates of their choice - a great way to help candidates raise money and it depends entirely on who is popular with voters.

Seattle’s democracy voucher program is already sparking a lively election season

 

[JRP3]

Justifying why your side is better will make you feel good about yourself and let you think you are doing something about the problem. My position is, although there is some truth to what you are saying, that I do not believe it will alter our trajectory. In fact, the more determined you become that you are right and you need to fight those others ever harder the more energy is added to the pendulum and the further it swings to the extremes. If that is your goal, then cool. Have at it. Just do not try to pass off that you are trying to fix the problem as all you are doing is adding too it (IMO of course)

Clearly you are simply burying your head in the sand and outright ignoring the real people who are actually fighting for what you claim to believe. It's the same as saying you want EV's but won't support Tesla because they are a car company making cars, so they are really just like all the other OEM's. Your mind is completely closed of to reality, yet you like to pretend you have some deeper understanding. You don't.

 

[lolachampcar]

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. I think you are simply not as informed as you think you are.

Informed, nah. This is why I do not even attempt to debate the minutia of this or that candidate with a lot of folks on this forum. There are many here way more informed on this or that issue than I am. I mostly read and learn.

However, when it comes to identifying core issues that prevent forward movement, well that is where I have a track record on which I rely. Go ahead and think the Sanders savior is going to come along and fix things for you. I'm reasonably sure I know how that is going to turn out. He may be the best thing since sliced bread but the rest of the machine will eat him up (and I do know a little about off site smiling and dialing for cash).

It's really interesting that you point out to me just how bad money is yet you can not come to the simple conclusion that nothing else really matters until you address it.

 

[lolachampcar]

Clearly you are simply burying your head in the sand and outright ignoring the real people who are actually fighting for what you claim to believe. It's the same as saying you want EV's but won't support Tesla because they are a car company making cars, so they are really just like all the other OEM's. Your mind is completely closed of to reality, yet you like to pretend you have some deeper understanding. You don't.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. You do not see it yet you believe others have their head in the sand.

This divide is difficult to bridge. Good thing I'm hard headed.

 

[JRP3]

I'm hard headed

On that we agree. Doing the same thing over and over again would be either sitting home supporting no one, which seems to be your choice, or supporting the same types of mainstream politicians which have been in power for decades. Progressives are in fact doing something different, but to acknowledge that might cause you to have to take action instead of doing nothing besides saying "it won't work."

 

[EVNow]

No candidates over 60 please. Its a stressful job so I prefer someone slightly younger. 60+ is ok for vice-president.

That's just ugly ageism. I'd take an older wheel chair bound FDR any day over younger energetic GW Bush.

 

[EVNow]

It's really interesting that you point out to me just how bad money is yet you can not come to the simple conclusion that nothing else really matters until you address it.

Not true at all. Money is one of the basic issues - but not the only one.

I won't support a neo-Nazi just because he doesn't take (or get) corporate money.

I won't support a climate change denier just because he doesn't take (or get) corporate money.
​

I also won't support someone who is fine with mindlessly killing 1 Million Iraqis for no particular reason.

YMMV.

BTW, you have not given one politician's name from your preferred party who is serious about money in politics.

 

[wdolson]

That's just ugly ageism. I'd take an older wheel chair bound FDR any day over younger energetic GW Bush.

11 presidents have been over 60 the day of inauguration, including John Adams and Dwight Eisenhower. 4 lived more than 20 years after they left office, and Truman fell just shy of 20 years. Zachary Taylor and William Harrison died in office. 3 older presidents died in their 90s: Reagan, George HW Bush, and Gerald Ford. Ex-presidents are living longer. Nixon was the last ex-president to die before 90.

Donald Trump, George W Bush, and Bill Clinton were all born in 1946. The year with the most presidents born.

A bit of geeking from the Wikipedia page
List of presidents of the United States by age - Wikipedia

I don't think 60 is too old to be president. Even 70 might be OK depending on a person's health going in and their lifestyle. By the late 70s a person's health is more likely to go south suddenly. Though some people like my father keep chugging along with no issues for many years after that. He's 99 now, though he's definitely not up to anything strenuous.

Standing back from this there seems to be quite the stranglehold of the Boomers on the reigns of power. At this point the presidency and other high offices would usually pass to a younger generation. Currently Boomers are the leaders in Congress as well as president. Paul Ryan is GenX, but he's the only person younger than a Boomer to hold a top leadership position in Congress. Kevin McCarthy, the current House Minority leader was born in 1965 which is usually considered the cusp of Boomer/GenX.

There are 8 GenXers running for the Democratic nomination (born between 1965 and 1980), 3 Millennials, 7 Boomers, and 3 Silent Generation (born between 1930 and 1942). The GenX generation are in the age range for those usually running for president but while some of them are known, none are at the top of the polls. The top three in most polls are 2 Silent Generation candidates (Biden and Sanders) and 1 Millennial (Buttigeig).

I remember back around 2000 a Silent Generation friend noted that that the door was closed on any Silent Generation candidate becoming president. I haven't seen him in several years, I wonder what he thinks of the prospects of Sanders and Biden.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Yes
Much worse than I think? I think not.

Money corrupts people. Dems and Reps are people. My conclusion is that a person that is good today when they are out of power and seeking office can be bad tomorrow when they have achieved the office and power then need to fund their ability to say in that position.

I'm not disputing anything you are saying about who "the good guys" are today. At the same time, I have vivid memories of a president lying under oath and being re-elected. I have vivid memories of his wife attacking the women speaking out about her husband's behavior and attempting to destroy their lives. I watched that person become Secretary of State. I also watched almost half the voting population elect one the biggest dirtbags we know.

What I take away from this is that we are broken. I'm not just singling out the basket of deplorables, I'm talking to you folks as well. I look in the mirror and ask what is it about who I have become that would tolerate corrupt management? Why do I tolerate money in politics? The answer - I shouldn't. I no longer do and I do not expect a savior candidate to come along and save me from myself.

Much worse than I think? I think not.

Justifying why your side is better will make you feel good about yourself and let you think you are doing something about the problem. My position is, although there is some truth to what you are saying, that I do not believe it will alter our trajectory. In fact, the more determined you become that you are right and you need to fight those others ever harder the more energy is added to the pendulum and the further it swings to the extremes. If that is your goal, then cool. Have at it. Just do not try to pass off that you are trying to fix the problem as all you are doing is adding too it (IMO of course).

I spend some time over on the MB Forums where I'm labeled a "Libritard" or something like that. Funny. The best way to discount what someone is saying is to simply put them in the other category.

Who is the politician that comes closest to my liking? That is easy.
It is the crop of people we invite to the party once money is removed from the process. I'll like every one of them. I'll listen to what they have to say and I'll vote accordingly.

(for now, M. Pete is knocking it out of the park every time he speaks - It will be interesting if he can keep it up - I'm just not sure the old portion of the voting public is ready for an openly gay president but then I did not think they were ready for a black one and was pleasantly surprised to see that they were)

Okay, with this, I'm getting a clearer picture of what you're asking for. But it doesn't change the details.

The original phrase is, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". That's why the presidency isn't a dictatorship, and why there was a system of checks and balances. But we're seeing how complacency in government has resulted in the erosion of that check in power.

Money has simply been a means of attaining power. The vote is simply a means of granting someone power. If you changed the campaigning process to kisses, instead of money, then the "corrupting" influence becomes the gathering of kisses. It is ultimately about power, and we weren't ever supposed to just "trust" a political party with that power.

The reason why 80% of Americans were able to agree in WW2, is because there existed an existential threat against the country as a whole. With a common enemy, we can then agree on a direction. We currently can't agree on a common enemy.

So if you want to galvanize the nation into one direction, then pull a "A_Small_Talent_for_War", but actually want a resolution to government. There's nothing like an extinction-level event to get people to cooperate.

 

[EVNow]

11 presidents have been over 60 the day of inauguration, including John Adams and Dwight Eisenhower. 4 lived more than 20 years after they left office, and Truman fell just shy of 20 years. Zachary Taylor and William Harrison died in office. 3 older presidents died in their 90s: Reagan, George HW Bush, and Gerald Ford. Ex-presidents are living longer. Nixon was the last ex-president to die before 90.

Age is really a non-issue.

The fact is - a 18 month run for POTUS is a lot more physically strenuous than being in the office. You are simply not traveling as much. So, if someone can go through the rigors of primary & general election, they are healthy enough for the office.

fun fact : 1st war of Indian independence against the British was led by an 80 year old emperor, in 1857. He didn't die for another 5 years, even though imprisoned. Kept writing beautiful poetry. One would think the modern science has made people at least a bit healthier now.

 

[wdolson]

Okay, with this, I'm getting a clearer picture of what you're asking for. But it doesn't change the details.

The original phrase is, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". That's why the presidency isn't a dictatorship, and why there was a system of checks and balances. But we're seeing how complacency in government has resulted in the erosion of that check in power.

Money has simply been a means of attaining power. The vote is simply a means of granting someone power. If you changed the campaigning process to kisses, instead of money, then the "corrupting" influence becomes the gathering of kisses. It is ultimately about power, and we weren't ever supposed to just "trust" a political party with that power.

The reason why 80% of Americans were able to agree in WW2, is because there existed an existential threat against the country as a whole. With a common enemy, we can then agree on a direction. We currently can't agree on a common enemy.

So if you want to galvanize the nation into one direction, then pull a "A_Small_Talent_for_War", but actually want a resolution to government. There's nothing like an extinction-level event to get people to cooperate.

The book American Nations points out that the Japanese did something nothing else had done in US history before or since: get every culture in the US all pulling towards the same goal. There are some very deep rooted differences between the different cultures in the US. Some get along well enough there isn't any huge friction, but some are often at odds with the rest of the country. Slavery was a dividing issue early on, but the cultural differences go deeper than that.

Age is really a non-issue.

The fact is - a 18 month run for POTUS is a lot more physically strenuous than being in the office. You are simply not traveling as much. So, if someone can go through the rigors of primary & general election, they are healthy enough for the office.

fun fact : 1st war of Indian independence against the British was led by an 80 year old emperor, in 1857. He didn't die for another 5 years, even though imprisoned. Kept writing beautiful poetry. One would think the modern science has made people at least a bit healthier now.

I think the presidency eats at a person's conscience. Every president in the modern era has had to make decisions that literally got people killed. I think that's a factor why the job ages people, but hasn't really aged Trump much. Other presidents have sat up at night thinking about the lives they've ruined, Trump sits up at night worried about his image in the media.

 

[EVNow]

I think the presidency eats at a person's conscience. Every president in the modern era has had to make decisions that literally got people killed. I think that's a factor why the job ages people, but hasn't really aged Trump much. Other presidents have sat up at night thinking about the lives they've ruined, Trump sits up at night worried about his image in the media.

May be they should not be in the business of killing innocent people and ruining lives ? But I should confess in the last few decades I can't think of a single president who would have actually had a conscience.

BTW, I'm guessing Mike Gravel @88 is also out, if ageism is the answer ?

 

[durkie]

Mayor Pete has strategy on his side.

Does he? He famously won't articulate any policies. The Current Affairs review of his book killed any interest I had in him, at least until he can come up with something other than a rehashing of Obama's "Hope and Change": All About Pete | Current Affairs

Even his own website doesn't say anything about him, except that he's been in government longer than X other people. Okay.

 

[wdolson]

May be they should not be in the business of killing innocent people and ruining lives ? But I should confess in the last few decades I can't think of a single president who would have actually had a conscience.

BTW, I'm guessing Mike Gravel @88 is also out, if ageism is the answer ?

Mike Gravel is such a remote figure at this point I didn't know he was running until I looked at the list of candidates on Wikipedia.

Actually I think all presidents except Trump have had consciences. When you are making decisions at that level, there are a lot of pick an option from a list of bad choices. People with consciences can do terrible things when they think the ends justify the means.

And sometimes terrible things have to be done to people in the name of protecting everyone else. We can argue the specifics, but the Axis needed to be stopped in WW II for example. Some of the horrors along the way shouldn't of been done like Dresden.

Since WW II most acts of war by the US are questionable at best.

 

[neroden]

And there is the rub. You are so mad at those people that you refuse to work with fellow Americans to address what very well could be a mortal threat to our democracy. How far do you think those that would mess with democracy will get without the hand of money propping them up.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that you stop pursuing and voting for good people for public office. I'm suggesting we invite more of them to run for office on the left and right.

What do you even mean by "right" here?

I'm all for inviting more libertarian-minded people to run for office. That's sometimes considered "right wing", but is antithetical to Republican Party policies.

I'm all for inviting more people who believe in strong national security to run for office, but at this point the corrupt military-industrial-complex is our largest threat to national security, so people who really care about national security are considered left-wing now.

I'm all for inviting people with conservative values who want things to change slowly and value preserving the past to run for office, but they're called "conservationists" and "preservationists" and are considered left-wing now.

I'm all for inviting people who believe in privacy and "government out of my life" to run for office, but they're considered left-wingers now, since the right-wingers want to get up into women's wombs.

I'm all for inviting people who believe that morality should be at the center of our public discourse and that it is important to be a moral country, but they're *all* considered left-wingers now, as right-wing politicians promote lying and cheating and stealing and killing and pollution.

I'm all for inviting people who support functional free-market capitalism to run for office, but right-wingers and Republicans now push for crony capitalism and aristocracy.

My point in my previous comment is that, through most of history, "right-wing" means "anti-democratic" and "authoritarian" and I don't want to invite anyone with that attitude to run for office.

I don't see anything good remaining on the "right wing". When I talk to decent grassroots people who vote Republican, it invariably turns out that they don't actually agree with the Republican Party on ANYTHING, and have essentially just been hoodwinked.

Why would I want them to run as Republicans? I welcome them opening their eyes and running as independents or Democrats. When they do run as Republicans, they are invariably disillusioned by the total, unbreakable corruption of the Republican Party and eventually become independents anyway.

I guess if Republican happens to be a flag of convenience, in a state or city where the Republican Party is dead and buried like Massachusetts or NYC, then it's OK if someone like Charlie Baker or Michael Bloomberg wants to use the Republican Party line out of laziness. Both of them have nothing to do with the national Republican Party though and he is a left-winger by any American standard.

The thing is -- by any traditional measure, I'm politically conservative. But I'm not ignorant, I'm not stupid, and I'm not evil, so I'm not "right-wing" as we know it today in the US. The "right wing" has gone well off into the territory of delusional insanity, brainless cult status (deny science, deny evolution, deny global warming, deny reality in general). The best way to deal with such cults is unclear, but it is documented that shunning and ostracising them IS helpful.

 

[neroden]

Actually I think all presidents except Trump have had consciences.

Andrew Jackson probably didn't.

 

[neroden]

It's called shared beliefs. Rule of law. One voice one vote.

You folks have stopped just short of telling me money in politics is good.

Do you agree or disagree that we should have a money economy? I need to know in order to know which argument to make.

It is literally flat out impossible to take money out of politics as long as we have a money economy.

Just like it's impossible to get rid of commercial (paid) sex as long as we have a money economy -- many have tried, none have succeeded, over THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

If you're arguing that we should abolish money, well, Gene Roddenberry agreed with you when he created Star Trek, but that's a big project and you have to articulate a path for how we can get there.

If you're arguing that we should have a capitalist money economy and somehow prevent money from influencing politics, that's just ridiculous. It doesn't work. Money by its very nature will influence everything.

There are ways to make it better, including making sure that everyone has roughly the same amount of money (rather than some people having a billion times more money than others), and making everyone disclose when they're spending money on politics. But you can't stop money from buying influence -- nobody has ever succeeded and nobody ever will, because that's kind of what money is for, really.

I've watched the debt go up under both parties.

National debt is a fake, a phony -- learn some Modern Monetary Theory or just read Keynes.

The only way this gets fixed is to work together.

BS! That's what Obama tried. The only way this gets fixed is to crush the enemy.

There are actual bad guys, people who want to demolish democracy and create an inherited aristocracy which rules by fiat, and they have to be stopped. I'm happy to work with any grassroots Republicans or ex-Republicans who recognize this -- such as the "Republicans" on the NC electoral commission who agreed that the Republican who was stuffing the ballot box should NOT be allowed to take office -- but you have to recognize that Republicans like the one stuffing the ballot box control the Republican party now.

Are you one of the people who thought the only way to fix the problems in the 1930s was to work together with Tojo, Mussolini, and Hitler? Because there WERE people who thought that way, and they were WRONG.