SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the he's-in-but-does-he-have-a-chance dept.
TechDirt reports
Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
We've written a few times about Larry Lessig's somewhat wacky campaign for President, which was premised on the idea that it was a "referendum" campaign, where his entire focus would be to push Congress into putting in place serious campaign finance reform and then resigning from the Presidency. As we noted, the whole thing was a bit of a gimmick. And apparently that gimmick hasn't been working too well.
Earlier this month, Lessig noted that he was being shut out from the Democratic debates, despite being a Democrat running for President and polling roughly on par with a few of the other nobodies in the campaign. The problem is that the Democratic National Committee apparently chose to ignore the campaign and because it refused to officially "welcome" him to the campaign, pollsters aren't including him and thus he didn't have enough polling data to be invited to the debate.
[...] Late on Friday (not exactly the best time to announce anything but bad news...) Lessig announced that he's dropping the promise to resign, because while it may have gotten some attention as an initial gimmick, it was also dragging him down (including potentially keeping him out of the debates).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @03:46PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 24 2015, @06:23PM
Bernie has always refused to go negative in his campaigns.
Radio/TV host Thom Hartmann is an unflinching Democrat.
He refers to Democrats ragging on other Democrats as a circular firing squad and notes that it is a losing strategy for the party.
The Reds are doing more than enough of that on their own.
(We should note at this point the low comedy that is the performance of the Reds on the Benghazi committee.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @07:35PM
He refers to Democrats ragging on other Democrats as a circular firing squad and notes that it is a losing strategy for the party.
For the party. For Bernie Sanders and anyone who buys into the same beliefs, it's probably the only chance he has.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday October 24 2015, @08:41PM
A lot of people are ignoring her incompetence and illegal activities while Secretary of State because it is a Republican-only issue.
Yeah, either it's that, or it is a Republican-only issue because the Republicans are just making stuff up. Lying liars gotta lie!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday October 24 2015, @09:51PM
There's the nasty stuff they pulled on some crazy dude just because he made a YouTube video which could conveniently be blamed for the Benghazi attacks. Since, we have a number of private emails (including one to Chelsea Clinton) which indicate that Hillary Clinton didn't buy into the story she and her underlings were peddling at the time.
Then there's the ancient Bill Clinton-era crap like Hillary Clinton making $100k on cattle futures, White Water, or the abusive treatment of women harassed by her husband. There are decades of ill hidden skeletons.
I think we need to get rid of the brazenly corrupt politicians. Else why bother complaining about business corruption? It's just the same shit you vote for.
Personally, I think it would be great if Republicans and Democrats were to collect scalps from each other on these issues.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:41AM
Psst! khallow!! You forgot to mention Vince Foster!!! And the Contrails and the use of vinegar! And the Lizard people! Stay free, my brother!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @06:12AM
You wrote during that previous rant [soylentnews.org]:
But really it is the "moralistic argument" that seems to be at issue here. Certainly capitalist like Donald Trump, the Kock Bros, and Rupert Murdock are morally reprehensible in more ways that I as a mere human could recount. But you are right to point out that this is not the problem with capitalism. But just because the "greed" argument is invalid, that does not mean that there are not many other, and often structural, critiques of capitalism that still hold water. The "swag" argument on you side still makes no sense to me. Why is that a bad thing? I mean, if capitalism produces surpluses, why should these not be distributed? Win the lottery, yo! So we don't have to have a revolution?
I guess it's ok, if your tribe does it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:20AM
Not the point at all. All you say about Hillary is unsubstantiated. The Benghazi committee can find nothing to charge her with. You just seem to not like Hillary very much at all. Not very interesting.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:20PM
All you say about Hillary is unsubstantiated. The Benghazi committee can find nothing to charge her with.
Let's note two things about the Benghazi thing. First, the Benghazi committee only considered a small subset of Clinton's behavior from a narrow window of time and half the committee would not have charged Clinton under any circumstances short of say, brazenly murdering someone in public. Second, just because one doesn't get punished for an activity doesn't mean that it isn't immoral or illegal. The Benghazi thing was ludicrous. A damn YouTube video gets publicly blamed for a well-planned attack on a US ambassador by Clinton and her underlings while Clinton's private emails indicate she doesn't believe the story at all. That's lying to the public.
Then there's the silly law enforcement theater around the kook who had created the insulting video. The guy was a scammer and he did violate parole conditions in creating the video. So what? No reason for the rest of us to care.
You just seem to not like Hillary very much at all.
I don't like anyone who pulls that kind of crap for decades.
Not very interesting.
I apologize for our boring villains and your short attention span.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:16PM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:47AM
Yes! Amazing! Hillary has destroyed all the evidence! Of all the crimes! So obviously she is guilty, of something. It is just we don't know what, and we have no evidence. OK, khallow, I have been seriously trying to understand what is going on in your head, and I am massively failing! How can you take these Republican attacks as anything but what they are: Republican attacks? Of course there is no evidence! You may want to say that is because the She-Devil, Hillary "Rodham_Hussein" Clinton destroyed it, but there is no evidence of that other than there is no evidence against her! Do you not see what this is? You have assumed that Hillary is not a nice person, and everything you say tends to be a rather desperate attempt to prove that. So can you at least understand why myself and most other Soylentils find this tiresome? OK, frojack is down with it, although he feels dirty, and jmorris was already there before you were, and Runaway . . . oh, Runaway, well, we all know about Runaway. From Arkansaws, probably implicated in the whole "Whitewater" thing.
So again, no indictment, no crime. Your delusions and conspiracy theories are no substitute for a day in open court in front of the public. Like the Hague? International Criminal Court? Nah.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:42PM
Yes! Amazing! Hillary has destroyed all the evidence! Of all the crimes!
The obvious relevant point here is that her email server setup has allowed her to destroy evidence and deny FOIA requests with respect to her activities as Secretary of State.
So obviously she is guilty, of something.
Yes.
How can you take these Republican attacks as anything but what they are: Republican attacks?
By using reason and evidence. Really, just stop being a partisan dumbshit for once. And it's not like Clinton's loyal allies are to going to attack her. This is the real world. There will never be a perfect courtroom for convicting an active politician. Real crimes will near always be brought up by the partisan, biased enemies of a politician not allies. Competent neutral parties will be hard to come by.
You may want to say that is because the She-Devil, Hillary "Rodham_Hussein" Clinton destroyed it, but there is no evidence of that other than there is no evidence against her!
Real courts and diligent police would not give a potential defendant or hostile witness, months to years to destroy evidence once the court has learned of the existence of that evidence. And if the person then released only partial evidence while claiming they had released everything (which is a thing Clinton did), then that would subject the person to charges of obstruction of justice and perjury which can be felonies just on their own.
And your use of the term, "she-devil" is silly name calling (her sex or plane of origin is not relevant to her behavior). My concern is here that Clinton has committed a variety of crimes for an extended period of time. And you continue to thoughtlessly support her.
So can you at least understand why myself and most other Soylentils find this tiresome?
Oh, I understand tribe loyalty quite well. I don't respect it though.
My view is that if she becomes president, we will continue to see such relatively petty crimes of corruption and incompetence. We'll also see methodical suppress of evidence. And there's a good chance, we'll also see you excusing that behavior through to the end of her term(s) as president.