Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Blur4stuff]

Any attacks on Biden from Trump supporters will never hold any weight because of the blatant corruption displayed by Trump and his family for the past three years. We know immediately that any Trump supporter complaining about Biden doesn't actually care about corruption, but just having their team win.

If any conservative honestly cared about corruption then calling for another investigation into Biden wouldn't be out of bounds if they had also been calling for Trump to be removed from office. They would want the remainder of this term filled by Pence.

[Shalcker]

Any attacks on Biden from Trump supporters will never hold any weight because of the blatant corruption displayed by Trump and his family for the past three years.

We know immediately that any Trump supporter complaining about Biden doesn't actually care about corruption, but just having their team win.

You can conceivably care about corruption and at the same time think that neither party is going to seriously deal with corruption in themselves - and thus the only hope to clamping down corruption is parties fighting each other (including Republican attacks on Biden).

[starlord]

You can conceivably care about corruption and at the same time think that neither party is going to seriously deal with corruption in themselves - and thus the only hope to clamping down corruption is parties fighting each other (including Republican attacks on Biden).

one of the very first thing the dems did was draft an anti corruption bill when they took the house.
i realize you probably arent super up to date with american legislation, being russian and all.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/05/68228...olic-first-act

Voter registration would be made easier.
Citizens could register online or get registered automatically, via data from driver's licenses or other government sources.
For federal elections, states would have to provide same-day registration and at least 15 days of early voting.
Election Day would be a federal holiday.

The bill would crack down on efforts to take voters off the rolls or prevent them from casting ballots.

Felons could regain their voting rights after finishing their sentences.

Federal elections would require paper ballots to prevent computer tampering.

State chief election officials couldn't get involved in federal campaigns.

The bill would declare an intent to revive core anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that were effectively shut down by the Supreme Court six years ago. It would also state that failing to vote isn't grounds for taking away a person's voter registration.

Provisions from the Disclose Act would expand the prohibition on foreign political money and mandate the disclosure of the big donors behind politically active 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.
Digital companies, like Facebook and Google, would have to set up public databases cataloging political ad purchase requests of $500 or more and create new measures to block ad buys by foreign nationals.

Presidential inaugural committees would have to disclose expenditures, in addition to the existing requirement for donor disclosure. This is a response to reports of unexplained spending by Trump's inaugural committee.

A new matching-fund program would support House candidates who agree to raise only small-dollar contributions. (Similar provisions for Senate candidates would have to come from the Senate.) The public financing system for presidential candidates, largely irrelevant since 2012, would be updated.

The bill would quash "sidecar" superPACs that support individual candidates.

Presidents and vice presidents would have to release their tax returns, something that happened routinely in past administrations but not in this one.

Presidents-elect would need ethics plans for their transition teams and would have to file financial disclosures within 30 days of taking office. The bill would tell presidents and vice presidents they should act as if they are covered by the conflict-of-interest law, which actually exempts them. Again, this wasn't an issue in previous administrations because past presidents did not have the volume of business entanglements that Trump has.
House members would be barred from serving on corporate boards. Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., is under indictment for allegedly using inside information he gained as a corporate board member.

House members would be forbidden to use taxpayer money to pay penalties for employment discrimination. Former Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, used $84,000 in federal funds to settle a sexual harassment claim by a former staffer, said he would repay it, but changed his mind after leaving office. Congress passed a bipartisan measure in December requiring members to pay out of their own pocket for some settlements and court judgments in sexual misconduct cases.

The Supreme Court would have to get a code of ethics, something it has never had.

The laws regulating foreign and domestic lobbying would be expanded.

[Shalcker]

one of the very first thing the dems did was draft an anti corruption bill when they took the house.
i realize you probably arent super up to date with american legislation, being russian and all.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/05/68228...olic-first-act
...
The laws regulating foreign and domestic lobbying would be expanded.

That's all nice and we have laws like that in Russia too; enforcement of them is another matter however.

And HR1 current state is "3/14/2019 Senate Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 39."
...and nothing since that. Don't know how fast Senate Legislative Calendar moves in general.

As far as i see, most points you mentioned are primarily going against Republicans (and behaviours generally linked to Republican states), not Democrats.
And, as i said above, i do not expect Republicans to clamp down on this stuff if they can get away with it, and that bill doesn't seem to come after Democrat practices.

So... you posted it in support of my position? Or am i missing some anti-Democrat angle in this?

[starlord]

That's all nice and we have laws like that in Russia too; enforcement of them is another matter however.

And HR1 current state is "3/14/2019 Senate Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 39."
...and nothing since that. Don't know how fast Senate Legislative Calendar moves in general.

As far as i see, most points you mentioned are primarily going against Republicans (and behaviours generally linked to Republican states), not Democrats.
And, as i said above, i do not expect Republicans to clamp down on this stuff if they can get away with it, and that bill doesn't seem to come after Democrat practices.

So... you posted it in support of my position? Or am i missing some anti-Democrat angle in this?

what "democrat practices" do you think should have been included?

[Shalcker]

what "democrat practices" do you think should have been included?

From Republican propaganda the obvious choice would be additional checks against non-citizen voting (even if that never actually happens in practice).

But my point isn't about "what should be included for bill to be completely bipartisan"; you should know it better then me.

My point is, as far as i see - Republicans are going after Democrats (like with Biden), Democrats defend (by running impeachment).
Democrats are going after Republicans (like the bill you mentioned), Republicans (likely) defend by stalling it as well.

Neither is going to purify themselves. Both should be encouraged to get their line of inquiry to proper conclusion.

[starlord]

From Republican propaganda the obvious choice would be additional checks against non-citizen voting (even if that never actually happens in practice).

But my point isn't about "what should be included for bill to be completely bipartisan"; you should know it better then me.

My point is, as far as i see - Republicans are going after Democrats (like with Biden), Democrats defend (by running impeachment).
Democrats are going after Republicans (like the bill you mentioned), Republicans (likely) defend by stalling it as well.

Neither is going to purify themselves. Both should be encouraged to get their line of inquiry to proper conclusion.

i guess i'm confused on how the anti corruption laws would not also apply to democrats? is that not ensuring less corruption?

[Shalcker]

i guess i'm confused on how the anti corruption laws would not also apply to democrats? is that not ensuring less corruption?

Which corrupt Democrat practices are they targeting specifically?

[starlord]

Which corrupt Democrat practices are they targeting specifically?

i don't know, you havent cited any.
all you have done is argue that corruption is the republicans "practice", and that general anti corruption bills target them specifically. doesnt do much for a "both sided enable corruption" narrative.

[Shalcker]

i don't know, you havent cited any.

So how can you tell it targets Democrats?

From all i know it could be entirely aimed at Republicans.

all you have done is argue that corruption is the republicans "practice", and that general anti corruption bills target them specifically. doesnt do much for a "both sided enable corruption" narrative.

It isn't "general" at all, about 75% (if not 95%) of stuff you quoted is clearly linked to Republican-related scandals.

[starlord]

So how can you tell it targets Democrats?

From all i know it could be entirely aimed at Republicans.

It isn't "general" at all, about 75% (if not 95%) of stuff you quoted is clearly linked to Republican-related scandals.

your premise was, "both parties arent doing anything to fight corruption", which is factually wrong.
yes, it makes sense that the party who engages in the most corruption would be affected by and against anti corruption legislation.

[Shalcker]

your premise was, "both parties arent doing anything to fight corruption", which is factually wrong.

No, my premise was both parties do little to fight corruption within themselves. They mostly attack the other side.

Which your partisan bill seems to prove.

yes, it makes sense that the party who engages in the most corruption would be affected by and against anti corruption legislation.

That would be fair if you could point, again, where Democrats are targeting themselves with that bill.

Or are you saying they are not engaged in any?

[starlord]

No, my premise was both parties do little to fight corruption within themselves. They mostly attack the other side.

Which your partisan bill seems to prove.

That would be fair if you could point, again, where Democrats are targeting themselves with that bill.

Or are you saying they are not engaged in any?

you seem quite aware of republican corruption, yet are mystified when called to name examples for democrats. wonder why that is?

should be pretty easy to point out "both sides" instead of generalized handwaving, if it was true.

[Blur4stuff]

It's a very clear difference between the two parties. Most of the time (not always) if a democrat steps out of line they get the boot. Even if they didn't necessarily deserve it. With republicans (again not always) they can do some of the most corrupt and illegal shit and supporters will just defend them anyway. There's no better example of this than Trump.

[Shalcker]

you seem quite aware of republican corruption, yet are mystified when called to name examples for democrats. wonder why that is?

So, you are saying they are white as snow?

should be pretty easy to point out "both sides" instead of generalized handwaving, if it was true.

Should be easy for you; you're US citizen, not me.

[Edge-]

So, you are saying they are white as snow?

If they're equally as corrupt, surely it would be easy to find multiple instances of said corruption, no?

Because what you used is a strawman argument. He never said they were perfect. That was you.

You're the one alleging they're just as dirty, it's on you to back it up with evidence.

[Shalcker]

It's a very clear difference between the two parties. Most of the time (not always) if a democrat steps out of line they get the boot. Even if they didn't necessarily deserve it. With republicans (again not always) they can do some of the most corrupt and illegal shit and supporters will just defend them anyway. There's no better example of this than Trump.

I remember a few voluntary resignations; when was the last time actual "boot" happened in Democrats with someone unwilling to resign?

...quick look seems to indicate that those who hold out can stay.

With examples like:
Consider that in New Jersey, Democratic senator Bob Menendez spent three years facing felony-corruption charges, simply refusing to resign. Those charges were later dropped after a hung jury and resulting mistrial, and Menendez still represents New Jersey.

- - - Updated - - -

If they're equally as corrupt, surely it would be easy to find multiple instances of said corruption, no?

Why exactly multiple? Some of the stuff mentioned on previous page comes from singular Republican scandals (though, obviously, not all).

Because what you used is a strawman argument. He never said they were perfect. That was you.

I never said they were perfect either. I just wanted him (or you, if you want) to point out what in the Democrat anti-corruption bill targeted Democrats.

Because without it my main point stands.

[Edge-]

I remember a few voluntary resignations; when was the last time actual "boot" happened in Democrats with someone unwilling to resign?

I can't think of any, and that fact speaks to Democrats being accountable and not needing to be forced out. Franken resigned willingly, even if that was a crock of horse shit.

Still not sure what point you're trying to make here other than, "Democrats are as corrupt/bad as Republicans but I have no evidence to support my assertion other than BOTH SIDES."

- - - Updated - - -

Why exactly multiple? Some of the stuff mentioned on previous page comes from singular Republican scandals (though, obviously, not all).

Multiple Republicans have been involved in corruption/scandals in recent years. But again, surely it would be easy to find instances of Democrats, no? Why haven't you posted any yet?

I never said they were perfect either.

No, you just put those words in the mouth of another poster who didn't say that.

I just wanted him (or you, if you want) to point out what in the Democrat anti-corruption bill targeted Democrats.

You have yet to establish that corruption is a problem within the Democratic party that needs to be tackled.

[docterfreeze]

Feels bad for the democratic senators that will have to stop campaigning to participate in the dog and pony show impeachment trial. At least yang is free.

[Shalcker]

I can't think of any, and that fact speaks to Democrats being accountable and not needing to be forced out. Franken resigned willingly, even if that was a crock of horse shit.

Follow the link - it speaks of those who didn't.

Still not sure what point you're trying to make here other than, "Democrats are as corrupt/bad as Republicans but I have no evidence to support my assertion other than BOTH SIDES."

Some Democrats are. Not every Republican is a criminal either.

Multiple Republicans have been involved in corruption/scandals in recent years. But again, surely it would be easy to find instances of Democrats, no? Why haven't you posted any yet?

Multiple Democrats were too. I have given link, what exactly is your argument against it?