Ask me about the Democratic Party

[Rome]

Hey, all. Glad to be back to SC.

I am a very active member of the Democratic Party these days. I hold quite a few important, partisan offices in my area. I see a lot that goes on, the beautiful and the ugly. I thought I would answer any questions you folks might have, if you find yourself a little bit more on the outside.

[Hermit]

We can haz copies of all transcripts of speeches Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs staff and other Wall Street bankers, perlease, or would that be ?

[Rome]

Haha, I don't have that stuff.

[Hermit]

Bugger. I was hoping your important, partisan offices gave you enough leverage to winkle copies of them out for me. So far I have only seen a few excerpts that surfaced via those email leaks via Podesta's hacked laptop in 2016.

[Rome]

I could tell you how the party at the more local level deals with those issues.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote=""Hermit""]Bugger. I was hoping your important, partisan offices gave you enough leverage to winkle copies of them out for me. So far I have only seen a few excerpts that surfaced via those email leaks via Podesta's hacked laptop in 2016.[/quote]

Here are the “full” transcripts of those leaks. Presumably, the reason just these excerpts were leaked was because they were considered to be the most damning excerpts by the Russians or the Trump/GOP term or whoever stole them and then passed them along to Assange to publish, yes? So they should be jam-packed full of...whatever the hell they are supposed to be jam-packed full of. Do you see anything of any particular note in any of them?

Here is a video of one of her talks hosted by Goldman Sachs. Likewise, do you see anything in it of any note? Does she at any point swear an irreversible blood oath to destroy the poor and feed only the rich or something?


(View video on YouTube)

The reason why Clinton did not want to release any such transcripts (unless all candidates did the same) is precisely because of this nonsense. She knew from decades of experience that they would be cherry-picked to death and quotes taken out of context would be used against her, exactly like her comment about how gang members (NOT black children, gang members) were “super predators” and how although she personally believed marriage is between a man and woman (the part that was repeated over and over again), what her (and by extension, everyone’s) personal beliefs were on the matter should not ever factor in in regard to another person’s rights (the whole point of the speech and the part that is never shown).

Can you—or anyone—please explain exactly what is wrong with someone being paid for their informed opinions on various matters? Republican or Democrat. A speech is just that; a speech. It isn’t policy; it isn’t binding; it often has nothing to do with anything the host/sponsor is selling; it is literally just a person giving their own opinions about various topics.

It is also only allowed after the person has left office, so they are no longer in any position to be bribed (or whatever the hell the accusation is supposed to be against being paid to speak one’s mind).

So, aside from being typically boring affairs, what exactly is the mystical dark matter that being paid to speak in front of anyone entails?

ETA: Here is supposedly a complete list of all her speeches (and fees). She also gave speeches for:

1. The American Camping Association - Paid $260,000
2. Massachusetts Conference for Women - Paid $205,500
3. Advanced Medical Technology Association - Paid $265,000
4. Commercial Real Estate Women Network - Paid $225,500
5. Cardiovascular Resarch Foundation - Paid $275,000
6. Innovation Arts & Entertainment (twice) - Paid a total of $300,000
7. Let’s Talk Entertainment (twice) - Paid a total of $530,000
8. A&E Television Networks - Paid $280,000
9. Xerox Corporation - Paid $225,000
10. National Automobile Dealers Association - Paid $325,500
11. US Green Building Council - Paid $225,000
12. Mediacorp Canada, Inc - Paid $225,000
13. National Association Of Convenience Stores - Paid $265,000
14. American Society of Travel Agents - Paid $225,000

Etc., etc., etc. So does this mean she’s in the pocket of Travel Agents or of “Let’s Talk Entertainment” and would have done....what exactly? Sent a bill to Congress mandating everyone use a travel agent? Go to convenience stores? Let’s Talk paid her over a half million dollars for her to speak. And...?

[Roo St. Gallus]

Which is exactly how the kleptonomic plutocrats purchase electoral candidates of any stripe.

Somehow, morally dubious behavior becomes acceptable if "everybody does it"?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]Which is exactly how the kleptonomic plutocrats purchase electoral candidates of any stripe.[/quote]

What is? Giving a speech?

Somehow, morally dubious behavior becomes acceptable if "everybody does it"?

If that’s in reference to my post, what exactly is “morally dubious” about giving a speech? Have you ever given a speech? You are presenting your opinion on a topic. So what?

:d unno:

[Roo St. Gallus]

I have a fair idea of the Democratic Party functionality. I was a District Leader long enough to find out that it was not for me (about 6 months). I served another year, plus, as a member of the county central committee, before exiting for less involved status.

A decade after, I exited the party in total disgust after it was revealed that party functionaries had acted to protect their electoral 'golden boy', and consequently, machine boss, from prosecution for statutory rapes he committed as an elected official until the statute of limitations on his crimes ran out.

My recommendation: Stay the hell away from ALL political parties.

[Jobar]

Derail moved to SS.

[Roo St. Gallus]

So, Rome....

I assume that the Democratic Party is zealous about protecting its closed primary venues for electoral selections.

I wonder why it is that the taxpayers of the various states where primary elections are held are footing the bill for the selection of candidates of what are basically private organizations. Why is it that the electors are footing this cost?

Deciding who will be representing your party, or any party, at an upcoming general election should not be the fiscal responsibility of the public. It is the responsibility of the members of that private political organization, who should pay for that process out of their own pockets.

I would propose that all primaries be non-partisan for all entered candidates and the top two vote getters continue to a 'run-off' in the general election. All races non-partisan. Party affiliation never listed on the ballots.

[dancer_rnb]

Here in Texas I can vote in any primary I want to. But only one.
So last election I could have voted for Trump in the Republican primary, thinking there was no way he could be elected.

[Rome]

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]So, Rome....

I assume that the Democratic Party is zealous about protecting its closed primary venues for electoral selections.

I wonder why it is that the taxpayers of the various states where primary elections are held are footing the bill for the selection of candidates of what are basically private organizations. Why is it that the electors are footing this cost?

Deciding who will be representing your party, or any party, at an upcoming general election should not be the fiscal responsibility of the public. It is the responsibility of the members of that private political organization, who should pay for that process out of their own pockets.

I would propose that all primaries be non-partisan for all entered candidates and the top two vote getters continue to a 'run-off' in the general election. All races non-partisan. Party affiliation never listed on the ballots.[/quote]
Well, I think we should have the Proportional Representation system that most European nations have, which would essentially skip the primary process altogether (and result in a more balanced legislature).

That said, if we are going to have primaries, I think sorting it out based on party is better in terms of giving voters choices that are easier to understand. Also, the more you privatize the electoral process, the more powerful that makes the donors, and the opportunities for corruption rise as well. Elections and campaigns should all be publicly and equally funded.

[Roo St. Gallus]

But...Turning primaries over to political parties is privatizing them. Private organizations, the political parties, then determine who can, or can not, run to serve in a elected public office. And, those private organizations, the political parties, then make the entire public, not just their members, carry the cost of determining which of their soldiers will be their candidate. That sux.

[lpetrich]

Now that we've gotten into different voting systems, I wish to announce that I've implemented several of them: VotingAlgs.zip. I've implemented several preference-voting ones and proportional-representation ones -- just about all those that are mentioned in Wikipedia. It's all in the Python programming language.

[lpetrich]

As to primaries, it seems that the top-two system that some states now use is essentially a runoff election with the first round being the primary. But it isn't promoted as one, as far as I can tell.


That aside, if one wants some good choice in candidates, one ought to get involved in the primaries. The general elections are too limited, it seems to me.

[Rome]

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]But...Turning primaries over to political parties is privatizing them. Private organizations, the political parties, then determine who can, or can not, run to serve in a elected public office. And, those private organizations, the political parties, then make the entire public, not just their members, carry the cost of determining which of their soldiers will be their candidate. That sux.[/quote]
Voters would still have to carry the cost if we did a non-partisan primary, as you described.

[lpetrich]

Comparison of electoral systems -- compares a big list of them with a big list of features, like whether some system is cloneproof. Meaning that multiple candidates with similar voter appeal will nether help each other (teaming), hurt each other (spoiling by vote splitting), or affect other candidates (crowding).


FairVote is an activist organization that promotes instant-runoff voting and similar reforms. That's preference voting ("ranked choice voting") with the votes counted in sequential-runoff fashion. If no candidate gets a majority of top-preference votes, then the candidate with the fewest top-preference ones is dropped and the votes are then recounted with that candidate ignored. This is repeated until some candidate gets a majority.

[Roo St. Gallus]

[quote=""Rome""]

But...Turning primaries over to political parties is privatizing them. Private organizations, the political parties, then determine who can, or can not, run to serve in a elected public office. And, those private organizations, the political parties, then make the entire public, not just their members, carry the cost of determining which of their soldiers will be their candidate. That sux.

Voters would still have to carry the cost if we did a non-partisan primary, as you described.[/QUOTE]

True. But the elections themselves would be 'non-partisan' and all candidates in the primary would be 'non-partisan' candidates, all vying for a 'non-partisan' elected office. None would be denied entrance to campaigning for public office merely because they were not affiliated with any political party. In most circumstances, that cannot be said of races for public office.