Larry Lessig: I'm All In • Hacker News Board

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#151

Post by hga » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:48 PM UTC

webXL wrote: post #149

jacobolus wrote: post #2

> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…

> That works if you’re a billionaire with universal name-recognition like Trump Ben Carson is #2 though. But that's probably also due to the "weak"* candidates. * I think you mean relatively unknown compared to a former first lady.

Both Trump and Carson are willing to move the Overton Window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) ... although I suppose it's telling that not being willing to do that is a defining characteristic of most if not all of those other candidates. The Republican base is beyond hungry for this, and for that matter playing by the other side's rules is a tried and true way to lose.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#152

Post by hga » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:51 PM UTC

zeckalpha wrote: post #150

Bud wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. I agree with that, of course. And perhaps if he wasn't wasting millions of dollars of donor money on running for President, his PAC could do more good. What if Lessig actually won? It wouldn't matter at all . You think the Republican Congress is going to pass sweeping campaign finance reform? Jesus Christ could return and be President and he wouldn't be able to make that happen, either. Lessig surely understan…

What would he need congress for? Some people run just to change the conversation, not to win.

In fact, that's been a successful third party tactic in times past: get successful enough and one or the other major parties will absorb it and much of its platform.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#153

Post by irishcoffee » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 8:51 PM UTC

GavinMcG wrote: post #137

irishcoffee wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If memory serves, the Democrats had the POTUS, the House, and the Senate in complete control for 2 years. Didn't get anything done. I may be incorrect about this, was a while ago.

When are you talking about? If it's Obama's first term, "complete" control would be a bit off – only 56 Dems in the Senate, and two left-leaning independents. Some aisle-crossing Republicans were needed for major legislation to pass. And major legislation certainly did pass: - Obamacare - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus package) - Dodd-Frank - Fair Sentencing Act - Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell…

Hmm, those are your examples?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/opinion/atlas-obamacare-poor-m...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/09/american-recovery-reinvestm...

Dodd-Frank = "Here, take my taxes and bail out the country. After that, create PMI. Even though I didn't cause the problem, in order to buy a house I now need to piss away 200-300 bucks a month that goes towards _NOTHING_ making it even harder to afford to own my own home." (Fuck yeah)

"Fair Sentencing Act. In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the sentencing disparity between offenses for crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1" (Thank Christ POTUS spent his valuable time analyzing the ratios of crack and coke, fuck yeah)

DADT, fully on board with this one. Sincerely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_o... (So more people can sue more people, b/c that was a problem before, excellent)

He is a failed 2-term POTUS. B/c of him, dems are destined to lose this election. He ran on change, funny how accurate he was.. 8 years later.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#154

Post by toyg » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

qrendel wrote: post #141

toyg wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, everyone has his personal list of priorities topped by "something without which everything else does not make sense". * campaign reform: "how can you discuss anything when your counterpart is crooked?" * climate change: "how can you discuss anything if your house is underwater?" * fracking: "how can you discuss anything when people are causing earthquakes?" * poverty: "how can you discuss anything whe…

The Democratic nomination has basically always been guaranteed for Clinton. Sanders, though I certainly prefer him over her, is basically a sideshow to make it look like the Democrats actually support liberal issues and aren't just a moderate deviation from the one-party system. If they didn't run anyone besides Clinton many people would consider supporting a third party or independent candidate, but having Sanders a…

> The Democratic nomination has basically always been guaranteed for Clinton.

That may or may not be, but second candidate with good numbers would have strong chances of getting a VP berth (for himself or a protégé). I don't see it as a conspiracy.

> Support for people who aren't likely to win the general election at least shows what issues are important to voters

Undoubtedly, but I think what Lessig is proving is that voters don't give a rat's ass about his issues. By continuing on this road I fear he's doing more harm than good to his cause. Even Nader's bid, which was much more realistic than Lessig's, did more harm than good to his movement in the long run.

> Supporting someone you disagree with more just because they're likely to win is truly "throwing your vote away"

The hard truth of First-Past-The-Post systems is that purism doesn't pay. A slightly-shaky alliance taking you to 40% trumps a purist core of 10% every day. That is an objective fact. It sucks, but you can't wish it away.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#155

Post by littletimmy » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 10:19 PM UTC

Gotadime wrote: post #122

littletimmy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false, because the Democratic party today encapsulates both the old Republican and the old Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is essentially an Eisenhower Republican (if you place her into any European country she's in their conservative party), and Warren/Sanders are the left wing group. The republican party of today is essentially a business lobby masquerading as a party. Place it into any European country, a…

Why does Europe always come up in these conversations, as if it's the litmus test for good policy? You do realize that's an entirely separate continent, with a different culture, history, and set of issues, right? Are you so ignorant to believe that the United States should actually be run like Europe? To say that the Republican Party of today is a business lobby is an absurd and I'll-willed attempt to deliberately o…

There is nothing ignorant in suggesting that the US should be run more like Europe. Northern European countries have higher living standards, and a pleasant lifestyle. The US has mass incarceration, poor healthcare, and gun violence.

The Republican party is financed by billionaires and corporations, which is perfectly in line with my comment that they are essentially a business lobby. What is one economic policy they have that is not pro-business?

That is not to say there are no good republican politicians; for example, John McCain is a good man. But the direction of the republican party today, with people like Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz, is decidedly psychopathic. Scott Walker is a borderline fascist. This is not a "political party" because it doesn't stand for people.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#156

Post by jellicle » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 11:34 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #138

jellicle wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem confused about cause and effect. The GOP started their policy of total obstructionism (no votes for any Democratic policies, period, regardless of merit) in December 2008, immediately after the elections. There were caucus meetings where this plan was laid out by leadership and agreed to by all members. I don't think you can blame the passage of the ACA in 2009 for an obstruction policy begun in 2008. Time o…

I think that deserves a Citation Needed, seeing as how I don't remember that, and to double check on the putative effect, I drilled down in Wikipedia's list of 15 major enacted laws for 2009 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#E... ) and found that 8 were passed with large bipartisan majorities in both houses, 2 with large Senate bipartisan majorities.

A history of Republican obstructionism:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_02/...

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#157

Post by hga » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 12:00 AM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #156

hga wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that deserves a Citation Needed, seeing as how I don't remember that, and to double check on the putative effect, I drilled down in Wikipedia's list of 15 major enacted laws for 2009 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#E... ) and found that 8 were passed with large bipartisan majorities in both houses, 2 with large Senate bipartisan majorities.

A history of Republican obstructionism: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_02/...

No, claims by disaffected Republicans that are thoroughly impeached by, you know, the actual on the record roll call votes I cited, and those just for 2009. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

And if you expected the Republicans to roll over and play dead on Obamacare, something they'd successfully fought since Harry Truman, then, well, it might come as a surprise to you, but that what we sent them to Washington to (not) do for 7 decades.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#158

Post by tonfa » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 12:13 AM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #116

wyldfire wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your all of your concerns. But what if all campaigns for office were funded with public money instead of private money? Seems like it would solve some of the stated problems without arguing over what some would call a "loophole" but others would recognize as "free speech."

It's a good idea, but I don't see how the details work. Would the government give out money to anyone who ran? How do you stop someone from using the funds for an election campaign that is indistinguishable from an audition for FoxNews or MSNBC contributor? No matter what the bar is for funding, the government would be picking winners and losers, right? Would you ban private donations to campaigns? What about private…

There's examples elsewhere. Eg France has public campaign financing (any candidate getting more than X% of votes gets reimbursed, and there is a ceiling on how much you're allowed to spend on campaigning) and pretty strict fairness rules for political advertisement and airtime during campaign time.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#159

Post by jack9 » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 4:46 AM UTC

hownottowrite wrote: post #110

jack9 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the role of the Presidency in United States politically and socially and image it projects to the world at large. Your comment is ironic to the core. The role of POTUS is not to serve the current system of contributors after the fact. That's the nature of the problem. The idea that POTUS is sancrosanct or even in a different class (projects to the world at large,…

It's hardly ironic. It's realistic, and your defense is simplistic at best. What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if war breaks out? What if a natural disaster strikes putting millions of Americans at risk? We have no idea because his Presidency is not about governing towards a better future but rather tearing down a system he doesn't like. Noble as his idea may sound on the surfac…

> your defense is simplistic at best.

Defense of what?

> What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if war breaks out?

He does what EVERY President does. 100 days or not (how are the # of days relevant? howabout 3! sounds a lot like political hand waving). What happens is surely that he makes a statement and the executive branch provides function. He's not a general, but he can make individual decisions just like any successor. His death or resignation doesn't cripple the country, as much as some might fantasize.

The complexity you are talking about is the same religious belief that portends that a POTUS is somehow holding the nation together. More irony, calling my characterization simplistic.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#160

Post by qrendel » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 8:21 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #154

qrendel wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Democratic nomination has basically always been guaranteed for Clinton. Sanders, though I certainly prefer him over her, is basically a sideshow to make it look like the Democrats actually support liberal issues and aren't just a moderate deviation from the one-party system. If they didn't run anyone besides Clinton many people would consider supporting a third party or independent candidate, but having Sanders a…

> The Democratic nomination has basically always been guaranteed for Clinton. That may or may not be, but second candidate with good numbers would have strong chances of getting a VP berth (for himself or a protégé). I don't see it as a conspiracy. > Support for people who aren't likely to win the general election at least shows what issues are important to voters Undoubtedly, but I think what Lessig is proving is th…

> The hard truth of First-Past-The-Post systems is that purism doesn't pay. A slightly-shaky alliance taking you to 40% trumps a purist core of 10% every day.

Disagree. What matters in the end are the policies, not the person. In Lessig's case, he wants campaign finance reform. If whoever gets elected takes that up as part of their platform, and does their best to implement it as president, then he's won. If he gets them to take up a diluted version of it, he's still partially won.

Sending the message that you'll only support candidates if they align with your biggest policy issues is effective. Electing candidates who don't support your big policy issues is not.

(Edit: The part about voters not caring about his issues may be valid. From TFA he seems to think otherwise, but I wouldn't be surprised if in fact mainstream voters are completely apathetic towards campaign finance reform.)