Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Assume the Donks capture both houses of Congress and the presidency. Assume further that, among other freedom-crushing measures on their agenda, they persuade a pliable or “packed” SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. The Donks then set out to implement public funding of all federal elections. Question: how could such a system ever be implemented in a way that avoids entrenching the two major political parties and gives independent/third party candidates a fair shake?

This is a serious question, We have already seen how the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates has set such an arbitrarily high threshold for such candidates that you’ll practically never see a solid independent candidate on the debate stage ( Perot was the only exception that I can remember). How would tax dollars be allocated among candidates for federal office in public financing schemes? With the same arbitrary thresholds? If so, that’s just a gift to the duopoly at taxpayer expense that does precisely nothing to improve either the quality of the candidates or the free flow of political ideas.

Let me finish my beer and I will get back to you on this topic.....

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:42 am Assume the Donks capture both houses of Congress and the presidency. Assume further that, among other freedom-crushing measures on their agenda, they persuade a pliable or “packed” SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. The Donks then set out to implement public funding of all federal elections. Question: how could such a system ever be implemented in a way that avoids entrenching the two major political parties and gives independent/third party candidates a fair shake?

This is a serious question, We have already seen how the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates has set such an arbitrarily high threshold for such candidates that you’ll practically never see a solid independent candidate on the debate stage ( Perot was the only exception that I can remember). How would tax dollars be allocated among candidates for federal office in public financing schemes? With the same arbitrary thresholds? If so, that’s just a gift to the duopoly at taxpayer expense that does precisely nothing to improve either the quality of the candidates or the free flow of political ideas.

Why would you think that the bolded part would be part of the interest of either party? The implied goal of both parties are to win elections. And then stay in power. Period. There is no other, higher goal in mind. At least we got lucky at times in the past where quality candidates coincided with these goals, but that was happenstance.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:38 pm

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:42 am Assume the Donks capture both houses of Congress and the presidency. Assume further that, among other freedom-crushing measures on their agenda, they persuade a pliable or “packed” SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. The Donks then set out to implement public funding of all federal elections. Question: how could such a system ever be implemented in a way that avoids entrenching the two major political parties and gives independent/third party candidates a fair shake?

This is a serious question, We have already seen how the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates has set such an arbitrarily high threshold for such candidates that you’ll practically never see a solid independent candidate on the debate stage ( Perot was the only exception that I can remember). How would tax dollars be allocated among candidates for federal office in public financing schemes? With the same arbitrary thresholds? If so, that’s just a gift to the duopoly at taxpayer expense that does precisely nothing to improve either the quality of the candidates or the free flow of political ideas.

Why would you think that the bolded part would be part of the interest of either party? The implied goal of both parties are to win elections. And then stay in power. Period. There is no other, higher goal in mind. At least we got lucky at times in the past where quality candidates coincided with these goals, but that was happenstance.

*is



Otherwise I agree. They have no vested interest in giving a third party any type of fair shake, as it would cut into the pie they have divided up for themselves.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:38 pm

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:42 am Assume the Donks capture both houses of Congress and the presidency. Assume further that, among other freedom-crushing measures on their agenda, they persuade a pliable or “packed” SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. The Donks then set out to implement public funding of all federal elections. Question: how could such a system ever be implemented in a way that avoids entrenching the two major political parties and gives independent/third party candidates a fair shake?

This is a serious question, We have already seen how the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates has set such an arbitrarily high threshold for such candidates that you’ll practically never see a solid independent candidate on the debate stage ( Perot was the only exception that I can remember). How would tax dollars be allocated among candidates for federal office in public financing schemes? With the same arbitrary thresholds? If so, that’s just a gift to the duopoly at taxpayer expense that does precisely nothing to improve either the quality of the candidates or the free flow of political ideas.

Why would you think that the bolded part would be part of the interest of either party? The implied goal of both parties are to win elections. And then stay in power. Period. There is no other, higher goal in mind. At least we got lucky at times in the past where quality candidates coincided with these goals, but that was happenstance.

Boy ain't that the truth!

IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:40 am IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.

I agree that court packing could be disastrous. I would hope that the chaos and craziness could be tempered with a Trump loss in November, but I also fear that the Dems don't have much of a plan outside of just beating Trump so things could really go anywhere with a Dem victory, both good and bad. Interesting times indeed.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:52 am

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:40 am IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.

I agree that court packing could be disastrous. I would hope that the chaos and craziness could be tempered with a Trump loss in November, but I also fear that the Dems don't have much of a plan outside of just beating Trump so things could really go anywhere with a Dem victory, both good and bad. Interesting times indeed.

Packing the Supreme Court will place 2d Amendment supporters in a "use them or lose them" position. They will perceive any effort to pack the court as an attempt to reverse Heller and to re-interpret the 2d Amendment so it does not authorize a personal right to gun ownership. At that point, they will "use" them. When you look from where our members of our national guard and troops come, there is every reason to believe that they will largely be sympathetic to those who read the 2d Amendment as assuring a personal right.

And yes, I know many troops come from California and New York. But they are coming from the vast red geographical areas of those states -- not the blue urban areas.

Urban area New Yorkers and Californians are naive if they think they will be able to enforce their societal goals against the less populous areas of this nation without rebellion. This is a very dangerous, not interesting, time.

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:03 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:52 am

I agree that court packing could be disastrous. I would hope that the chaos and craziness could be tempered with a Trump loss in November, but I also fear that the Dems don't have much of a plan outside of just beating Trump so things could really go anywhere with a Dem victory, both good and bad. Interesting times indeed.

Packing the Supreme Court will place 2d Amendment supporters in a "use them or lose them" position. They will perceive any effort to pack the court as an attempt to reverse Heller and to re-interpret the 2d Amendment so it does not authorize a personal right to gun ownership. At that point, they will "use" them. When you look from where our members of our national guard and troops come, there is every reason to believe that they will largely be sympathetic to those who read the 2d Amendment as assuring a personal right.

And yes, I know many troops come from California and New York. But they are coming from the vast red geographical areas of those states -- not the blue urban areas.

Urban area New Yorkers and Californians are naive if they think they will be able to enforce their societal goals against the less populous areas of this nation without rebellion. This is a very dangerous, not interesting, time.

I don't think it gets that far. No one would be sending in people to round up the guns, no matter what the SCOTUS, even a packed one, does. And that's assuming that a packed SCOTUS even reverses Heller and re-interprets the 2nd amendment. You're reaching into hysteria level here right now, but I suppose that certainly matches the time we live in at the moment.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:08 am

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:03 am

Packing the Supreme Court will place 2d Amendment supporters in a "use them or lose them" position. They will perceive any effort to pack the court as an attempt to reverse Heller and to re-interpret the 2d Amendment so it does not authorize a personal right to gun ownership. At that point, they will "use" them. When you look from where our members of our national guard and troops come, there is every reason to believe that they will largely be sympathetic to those who read the 2d Amendment as assuring a personal right.

And yes, I know many troops come from California and New York. But they are coming from the vast red geographical areas of those states -- not the blue urban areas.

Urban area New Yorkers and Californians are naive if they think they will be able to enforce their societal goals against the less populous areas of this nation without rebellion. This is a very dangerous, not interesting, time.

I don't think it gets that far. No one would be sending in people to round up the guns, no matter what the SCOTUS, even a packed one, does. And that's assuming that a packed SCOTUS even reverses Heller and re-interprets the 2nd amendment. You're reaching into hysteria level here right now, but I suppose that certainly matches the time we live in at the moment.

The Southern states won't secede just because we elect Lincoln, they said.

People aren't going to wait until the Court actually reverses Heller.

All of the foregoing is very interesting, but nobody has answered my question yet. I can only infer that, as I suspected, public financing will just entrench the two main parties at taxpayer expense.

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:06 am All of the foregoing is very interesting, but nobody has answered my question yet. I can only infer that, as I suspected, public financing will just entrench the two main parties at taxpayer expense.

I hope not but I suspect you're right. Unfortunately we'll let it happen.

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:40 am IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.

So the GOP can pack the Supreme Court at will, but the Democrats can't?

If McConnell hadn't played politics and given Obama's nominees hearings and confirmations, there wouldn't be talk of "court packing". But as usual, the GOP can fuck over the country all they want, but it's the Democrats that are somehow the bad guys.


Oh, and IVY - Citizen's United was a horrid decision that SHOULD be overturned.


And public financing of elections (with no corporate donations allowed) is the only way to reverse the US from becoming a worse plutocracy than we already are.

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:04 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:08 am

I don't think it gets that far. No one would be sending in people to round up the guns, no matter what the SCOTUS, even a packed one, does. And that's assuming that a packed SCOTUS even reverses Heller and re-interprets the 2nd amendment. You're reaching into hysteria level here right now, but I suppose that certainly matches the time we live in at the moment.

The Southern states won't secede just because we elect Lincoln, they said.

People aren't going to wait until the Court actually reverses Heller.

Heller SHOULD be reversed. And reversing it just puts us back to where we were before it- and no one was grabbing guns then. A little Dramatic, aren't we?

dbackjon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:09 am

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:40 am IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.

So the GOP can pack the Supreme Court at will, but the Democrats can't?

If McConnell hadn't played politics and given Obama's nominees hearings and confirmations, there wouldn't be talk of "court packing". But as usual, the GOP can fuck over the country all they want, but it's the Democrats that are somehow the bad guys.

What GOP court packing? Are you referring to when the GOP Congress in 1869 moved the number from 8 to 9? You still haven't recovered from that move some 151 years ago?

And as for the politics, we've been over this before. It was a GOP led Senate. The Constitution says the Senate has to approve the pick from the President. The Senate was not going to approve Merrick Garland (a perfectly average justice - nothing special). I think they should've voted too just to have it on record, but the outcome was the same, they said no to Garland. Perfectly acceptable thing for a Senate to do. Obama didn't pick anyone else. They probably would've said no to anyone else as well, but again, that's what the Senate can do. The American voters were so upset about this that they returned a majority GOP Senate and they elected a GOP President.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:58 am The American voters were so upset about this that they returned a majority GOP Senate and they elected a GOP President.

The Electoral College elected Trump President. American voters voted for Clinton.

And, the entire Senate wasn't up for election in 2016. Democrats gained 2 seats (IL and NH).

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:14 pm

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:58 am The American voters were so upset about this that they returned a majority GOP Senate and they elected a GOP President.

The Electoral College elected Trump President. American voters voted for Clinton.

And, the entire Senate wasn't up for election in 2016. Democrats gained 2 seats (IL and NH).

Thank you. I have read the Constitution and am familiar with how our government is set up.

dbackjon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:11 am

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:04 am

The Southern states won't secede just because we elect Lincoln, they said.

People aren't going to wait until the Court actually reverses Heller.

Heller SHOULD be reversed. And reversing it just puts us back to where we were before it- and no one was grabbing guns then. A little Dramatic, aren't we?

I love when you keep saying something thinking it will become “the truth”...

And while you are currently correct that no one is grabbing guns RIGHT NOW, the democrats are setting up the playing field so they can start as soon as they can grab the Senate (if they keep the House).

Let’s start with HR 5717... here’s a link to this steaming pile of shit... https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... 373F723585

But to sum it up, HR 5717 will:

- Create a nationwide gun registry (makes it easier to confiscate guns)
- Ban almost all semiautomatic rifles (Whoops, Jon...I thought they were not going to “grab guns”...)
- Institute a federal Magazine Ban
- Implement national “Red Flag” gun confiscation (What happened to the 4th Amendment, Jon...out the door, I guess)
- Tax guns at 30% and ammo at 50% (Name one other legal product taxed at ridiculous rates)
- Ban people under 21 from exercising their Second Amendment rights (All Constitutional rights should be the same...voting, drinking, 2A)
- Ration guns by making it illegal to purchase more than one firearm in a 30-day period (What other legal items is rationed by the federal government?)
- Force “Safe Storage” requirements on gun owners (What, you going to have “Safe Storage” police raiding homes???
- Ban suppressors
- Force FFLs to spend massive amounts of money to comply with new “security” requirements (To drive small business out of business)
- Expand “Gun Free Zones” (These really work right now... )

If elected, Uncle Joe has already said he’s going to put Robert “You bet we’ll take your guns” O’Rourke in charge of implementing his gun policy...

So, if anybody cares about their Second Amendment rights, they had better keep the Senate in Republicans hands at minimum...

P.S. I think Republicans are just above whale shit...its just that the Democrats are lower than whale shit, so I have to hold my nose and support those with an (R) after their name...

Sorry, Ivy, for adding to the hijack of your thread...

But I could not let that clap trap go unchallenged

Col Hogan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:33 pm Sorry, Ivy, for adding to the hijack of your thread...

But I could not let that clap trap go unchallenged

No worries, Hogie. dback needs a new Midol scrip. He should be doing somersaults about the SCOTUS rulings on the LA abortion law and bringing gays and trannies within the scope of Title VII. But he only cherry-picks the rulings that go against his tribe. Typical.

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:43 pm

Col Hogan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:33 pm Sorry, Ivy, for adding to the hijack of your thread...

But I could not let that clap trap go unchallenged

No worries, Hogie. dback needs a new Midol scrip. He should be doing somersaults about the SCOTUS rulings on the LA abortion law and bringing gays and trannies within the scope of Title VII. But he only cherry-picks the rulings that go against his tribe. Typical.

Sorry if I sidetracked your discussion. I think you are 100%.

Just the mention of packing the court for political purposes gets my engines running though. Packing the court, so it becomes an effective rubber-stamp for the legislative objectives of either party, ends our three-branch system of government, and collapses the court into a de facto arm of the legislature. It is the worst thing that can happen to our federal government.

JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:35 am

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:43 pm

No worries, Hogie. dback needs a new Midol scrip. He should be doing somersaults about the SCOTUS rulings on the LA abortion law and bringing gays and trannies within the scope of Title VII. But he only cherry-picks the rulings that go against his tribe. Typical.

Sorry if I sidetracked your discussion. I think you are 100%.

Just the mention of packing the court for political purposes gets my engines running though. Packing the court, so it becomes an effective rubber-stamp for the legislative objectives of either party, ends our three-branch system of government, and collapses the court into a de facto arm of the legislature. It is the worst thing that can happen to our federal government.

In a rarity, I can agree full heartedly here with JJ - court packing, i.e. the purposeful manipulation of the SCOTUS to gain a desired policy outcome that wouldn't be possible without that purposeful manipulation, would be an absolute disaster of the structure of government.