aaronj

mr o said:

This is very unfortunate. It proves Bernie's and Trump's point that America is run by the establishment/corporations: There's no true Democracy in America if a handful of corporations can manipulate the outcome.

Having said that, Trump scares me a lot as well. It's not funny anymore.

>:x

What Bernie is talking about is both true and not true at the same time, though.  Yes, the monied class, whether corporations or individuals, have a disproportionate amount of influence in the political system.  That is not in dispute by anyone but those living in complete denial.  However, that disproportionate amount of influence is very much due to the public's dissociation from the political system.  So of course those with the ability to take advantage of the public's lack of both knowledge and engagement are going to do so.  It's like in sports: you attack the weak link.  In this case, that weak link is the public itself.

Now, if people would, for example, spend time learning about the actual issues, studying the candidates thoroughly, or even gain a basic understanding of how the government works in this country, they would be equipped with some of the tools needed.  They would then obviously have to get off their ample rear ends and go vote.  But none of those things are going to happen, it seems.  Actually, a series of strong arguments can be supported that it's all going in the opposite direction, and quickly.  

If you look at turnout numbers for eligible voters over the past decades, the last time that it reached 60% -- so not even 2 out of 3 -- was 1968, and that was 60.7%.  Consider that for a moment: even at the height of the Vietnam war and everything else that was going on in the United States, barely 60% of eligible voters even bothered to vote!

A poll done in 2014 showed that the number of people who were able to name the three branches of government was essentially equal to the number who couldn't name a single one: 36% to 35%.  So, just over 1 in 3 American citizens can name all three branches of the government, while just over 1 in 3 can't even name one.

When you start to think about these and other problems, is it any surprise that Wall Street, corporate interests, and other monied class forces would end up with the vast majority of the influence?  The citizenry is neither engaged enough, knowledgeable enough, nor interested in voting enough to exert the influence they easily could.  But they don't bother to better themselves, raise up their level of knowledge, or to even bother to vote.

I hate to play "Blame the Victim" card here.  But in this case the people need to take a good amount of the blame for how things have developed.  It is completely within the power of the citizenry to turn things around.  If they don't like the massive amounts of money in elections that is allowed by the Citizens United decision, for example, then vote against anyone who came out in support of SCOTUS' decision.  Or whatever the issue is.  

But they need to first know what these issues are, and most people can't be bothered.  They'd rather watch "Crisley Knows Best" or "The Voice" or "Toddlers and Tiaras" (assuming that's even still on).  So while I agree with Bernie and others are saying, and there's no disputing the facts, there's also no disputing that much of the blame needs to burdened by the citizens of the United States of America.  Democracy requires engagement.

apple ][ said:

jkichline said:

You might want to get out more and stop watching Fox News and listening to Trump.  Actually nearly all economies in the world are growing their middle class. Even China, despite the economic downturn is still growing their middle class while America is shrinking theirs.  Again, you might want to travel and see what is actually going on rather than taking the advice of a narcissistic sociopath.

If you think that I've been watching a lot of Fox, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. I find CNN to be more honest than Fox lately, even MSNBC sometimes. Fox messed up bigtime, and I think that they took significant longterm damage due to their outrageous behavior.

As for travelling, I travel plenty, and I'll be spending my summer vacation in a few European countries again this year, just like I did last year.

As for what Trump says, I don't have to agree with every word that comes out of his mouth. The USA needs a strong leader, the opposite of what we currently have.

Except that Trump isn't a "strong leader" -- or a leader at all.  Running a business is not in any way training for or predictive of success for being a successful elected official, let alone the President of the United States.  Agree with what he thinks or not, that's not the question.  He has no idea what he is getting into and makes it clear on a daily basis.  This is why he always answers questions with answers like, "I will get them to pay for it," or "I will get them do [whatever crackpot idea he has today]."  That's not the way it works, Mr. Trump.  You can't tell Congress "You're fired," for instance, if they don't do what you want them to do.  Same with the Supreme Court, state governments, and foreign nations.  

OK, haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if this has been addressed yet or not.  If so, my apologies.

Basically, this is the GOP "establishment" (I use quotation marks because it is becoming more and more questionable as to whether the "establishment" is still coherent enough to actually exist; but that's a different discussion) and others with money and influence getting together to try and sway the outcome of the GOP nominating process.  There is absolutely nothing wrong this, and this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in politics.  The only reason it is being reported on so vigorously during this cycle is because the media absolutely love Trump.  They know he generates clicks and the like, so they report on him -- or anything having to do with him -- as much as is possible.

OK, here's the real issue on the Republican side (the Democratic nomination is already locked up; despite the excitement and loads of money raised on the Sanders side, there is just no way he can possibly catch Hillary in the delegate count, as she already has a lead of ~700 and is only about 1000 away from sealing up a majority of the delegates):  In order to seal the majority of the delegates, a candidate must reach 1,237 on the GOP side of things.  It is an open question as to wether Trump will reach this number, and many people who study these things in depth believe he will fall short, and be left with only a plurality of delegates.  Why is this important, you may ask?

Well, here's why in the simplest possible terms.  At the conventions for each party, there is a First Ballot where the delegates MUST vote the way that they were sent to vote, based on the results of each state's primary or caucus.  So, if for example Trump won 12 delegates in some state and Cruz won the other 8, then the delegates for that state must vote that way.  Thus, if a candidate has a majority the First Ballot is also the final ballot.  Conversely, if the candidate in the lead only has a plurality then there are more ballots.  And on these ballots the delegates are NOT bound to vote any particular way.  Therefore, a candidate such as Ted Cruz could end up winning a Second Ballot or Third Ballot if enough of the delegates do not want Trump to be the candidate.  

And this does seem to be the way that many Republicans feel.  Keep in mind that although Trump leads in delegates (though not by very many over Cruz), he seems to have a built in ceiling in the primaries and caucuses of somewhere between 35% and 40%, more or less.  This is why Ted Cruz, for instance keeps repeating the line that "64% of Republicans don't want Trump as their nominee."  Given the results so far in most of the states, Cruz seems to be technically correct, if exaggerating just a tad.  So, if Trump doesn't reach that magic number of 1,237 delegates, there will be what is known as a "brokered" or "open" convention; and in that case it could easily go against Trump.

The reason the Republican "establishment" is so worried about this outcome is two-fold.  First, they feel (and most polls show) that Trump would get walloped in a general election against Clinton.  This would also mean that the 24 (if I remember correctly) GOP Senators who up for re-election, many of them in blue or purple states, would have a much harder time and the Republicans would almost certainly lose the Senate.  Granted, my math shows that it's likely that they will lose it anyways.  But a Trump nomination would make it nearly a forgone conclusion.  Second, there have been many Republican functionaries, pundits, and even elected officials who have talked about how the party is splintering and, in Peggy Noonan's words (she was Ronald Reagan's speech writer), "shattering."  Historian John Meecham has said that it's quite possible that George W. Bush will be the final Republican ever elected President of the United States (this has to do with the Electoral College, how Presidents are elected in the U.S., and all that jazz -- which is way beyond the scope of this post).

So, the GOP "establishment" has good reasons to want to stop Trump from being nominated.  The problem they have if they succeed, however, is they will be left with Ted Cruz who, amazingly, has come out of this nominating process fiasco looking practically sane.  He's loathed by his fellow GOP Senators in Washington, he has basically no friends or supporters among the party apparatchiks, but they may end up needing to support him if they are that determined to defeat Trump.  It's a Faustian bargain.  Cruz wouldn't do a whole lot better in the Electoral College than Trump would, and Hillary would still end up being the next President.  But he might be able to stop, or at least lessen the "shattering" of the GOP that will almost certainly be turned up to 11 if Trump is the nominee.

These are the sorts of considerations that bring these people together to strategize on how to defeat a particular candidate.  You don't think that the GOP would a time machine so they could back in time and choose anyone but Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election?  He lost 44 states and DC.

This is one great story, as has been said.  

It's truly amazing how one life affects another, and then millions of others.  This is a beautiful story, even if it is one about a death.  I hope he rests in peace.

SpamSandwich said:

Believe it or not, the UN has no jurisdiction over the US. His opinion is noted.

You do understand how these statements and amicus briefs work, right?