Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 246 posts

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#51

Post by AlwaysBCoding »

vvpan wrote: post #44

Nobody in this thread seems to be talking about the strange change of rules by the Democrats. Why did this change in rules come about? As I understand it was a retroactive change? Very odd.

Um... Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the DNC, was the co-chair of Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. It's no secret she wants Hillary to win the nomination.

It's actually a pretty fucked up system. The rules for qualification into the debates are decided by Wasserman Schultz and her alone, so the "rules" end up being in practice "will this make Hillary Clinton look good or bad?". Lessig's inclusion ran the risk of making Hillary look bad - by calling her out on her corporate donors - so he was excluded. Clearly this is not how we should have public debates about the future of our country.

For what it's worth, Wasserman Schultz is already under fire for restricting the Democrats to only 6 national debates. Almost every other executive in the party thought this was a bad move since it gives the Republicans significantly more airtime, but remember the rules are decided by Hillary Clinton's campaign co-chair.

Also Trump just called her out, which is pretty funny. http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-takes-aim-at-highly-neu...

I don't think she's going to keep her job.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#52

Post by coffeemug »

smacktoward wrote: post #39
michael_nielsen wrote: post #29

With all the critical "I-told-you-sos", this seems like a good time to quote Teddy Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, beca…

God, how I hate this quote. It's TR justifying his own worst qualities -- his impetuousity, his willingness to wade into things without thinking them through. Two years after he made that speech ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic ) he would wade into the 1912 Presidential election, where his major accomplishment was splitting the Republican vote and therefore handing the election to the Democra…

There are far more people in the world who will happily point out the obvious truth that if your undertaking doesn't succeed it will fail, than people who will give a rational analysis of why a given undertaking is a bad idea. Teddy Roosevelt's quote is addressed towards the former, not the latter.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#53

Post by beat »

As much as I love Lawrence Lessig, I'm glad for this. "Celebrity single-issue candidate" is a poor role for him, a terrible waste of his talents. He deserves better, and the Democratic Party would do well to recognize him for it. An explicit, high profile advisory role for either Bernie or Hillary (or whoever wins the nomination) would be fantastic. Maybe even a Cabinet seat.

But president? What's that supposed to accomplish? If you can't break out of the nerd ghetto, it's not relevant.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#54

Post by tptacek »

coffeemug wrote: post #52
smacktoward wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, how I hate this quote. It's TR justifying his own worst qualities -- his impetuousity, his willingness to wade into things without thinking them through. Two years after he made that speech ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic ) he would wade into the 1912 Presidential election, where his major accomplishment was splitting the Republican vote and therefore handing the election to the Democra…

There are far more people in the world who will happily point out the obvious truth that if your undertaking doesn't succeed it will fail, than people who will give a rational analysis of why a given undertaking is a bad idea. Teddy Roosevelt's quote is addressed towards the former, not the latter.

There's a sleight of hand happening in your comment. He's not saying "if you don't succeed, you'll fail". He's saying "if you don't succeed, you'll fail, and could harm the world in the process". But by reframing it in the most uncharitable possible way, you've made that sensible point sound ridiculous.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#55

Post by [deleted] »

tinco wrote: post #42

I'm not a citizen of the U.S. so maybe I'm missing something. Why is he not just switching to the Republican party? What's this nonsense about his ideals being more in line with the democrats? I thought the Republicans were all about the founding fathers and making sure the United States are not ruled by the old-rich?

[deleted]

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#56

Post by beat »

AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #51
vvpan wrote: post #44

Nobody in this thread seems to be talking about the strange change of rules by the Democrats. Why did this change in rules come about? As I understand it was a retroactive change? Very odd.

Um... Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the DNC, was the co-chair of Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. It's no secret she wants Hillary to win the nomination. It's actually a pretty fucked up system. The rules for qualification into the debates are decided by Wasserman Schultz and her alone, so the "rules" end up being in practice "will this make Hillary Clinton look good or bad?". Lessig's inclusion ran the risk…

What's interesting is that even Hillary is now complaining about the minimal debate schedule. It's denying Democrats a chance to make their case, not just to undecided Democratic primary voters, but to the nation in general. It rings even more true after the superb first debate, which made Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O'Malley all look really great (and with Webb and Chaffee both dropped out, future debates will be even better).

I think some of the poor decision-making for the restricted debate schedule was a reaction to 2008, when Democrats had 25 debates. It was distracting and exhausting. We're seeing it in comparison here, where the Republicans have far more candidates and a much busier debate schedule, which is winning them a lot of attention outside of Republican circles.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#57

Post by beat »

tinco wrote: post #42

I'm not a citizen of the U.S. so maybe I'm missing something. Why is he not just switching to the Republican party? What's this nonsense about his ideals being more in line with the democrats? I thought the Republicans were all about the founding fathers and making sure the United States are not ruled by the old-rich?

Contrary to the other reply, the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely different. It's very unusual for someone to feel comfortable just switching from one to the other suddenly.

And don't confuse rhetoric with reality. The Republican Party is pro-business and, more importantly, anti-government - almost anarchists these days. Lessig's dreams of regulating campaign spending by corporations and the wealthy fly directly in the face of what the GOP really cares about these days.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#59

Post by studentrob »

I'm conflicted or perhaps uninformed about what could be the real solution for reducing corruption in politics.

I am against corporations spending large sums of money to influence politics because in the long term the rights of individuals, particularly groups of individuals who do not have a lot of money, erode. This weakens our founding fathers' protections against tyranny of the majority.

I'm also very pro free speech on the individual level. And I feel if I ran my own company I would want to be able to advertise and even lobby for policies in which I believe.

Yet sometimes wealth comes from being at the right place at the right time, or wealth grows on wealth. And, in the interest of advancing society, I am not okay with our representatives being elected based on who threw them the most money. It's supposed to be one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.

Still, even without the super PACs, won't corporations simply find another way to spend money to influence politics? Is this how it worked before 2010? Do we benefit from the the current system by being able to actually track the donations?

Does anyone know in detail the solution Sanders or others have in mind?

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#60

Post by aamar »

nostromo wrote: post #35
aamar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? His plan[1] isn't to overturn or defy Citizens United; he wants to modify and enhance public funding of elections so that it doesn't pay (in general) for Congress to spend time fundraising. Also, the plan doesn't have broad support in Congress, but it is plausible; there are many in both parties who support it. Some cities and states[2] have viable parallel legislation enacted or in progress. [1] https://les…

Your comment is exactly right in identifying the key hurdle: congress. Not the executive branch; congress. Obama would have signed any of these bills as well. But there is no bill to sign, because congress doesn't support such a bill. Replace Obama with Lessig, and you have the exact same impasse we have currently. Lessig's old plan -- to change congress -- made more sense. But it failed.

Obama would sign a clean CFR bill, but he almost certainly wouldn't give up the Medicaid expansion or high top-rate taxes to do it. Lessig probably would strike a deal trading away something big; specifying it as his top priority signals this.
Post reply on HN