[blackjack21]

It's anything of value, and information can be exquisitely valuable.

In US law, it would have to be a copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret. "Political dirt" is covered by the First Amendment. Keep dreaming.

[QatzelOk]

Say what ? The dems dont want to win.

This is correct. Most of the Democratic Party are now rich, isolated oligarch ass-kissers who secretly admire how much distraction Trump is providing their class.

But the question in the thread title isn't "Do they want to win?" - The question is "What will they run on?"

As was mentioned earlier, the easiest tactic is to run on how scary and immoral the other candidate is. Since both candidates will be scary and immoral, this is one of the rare occasions where they don't have to lie.

The Dems and Repubs seem to be trying to underscore the importance of third parties. But in a winner-takes-all system, the Dems are better just losing and enjoying their tax cuts, and access to foreign loot, like they always do.

[late]

In US law, it would have to be a copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret. "Political dirt" is covered by the First Amendment. Keep dreaming.

As I have told you a number of times, the courts have ruled on this, also a number of times.

Since I have repeatedly told you this, you know you are not telling the truth.

And gaslighting.

[BigSteve]

As I have told you a number of times, the courts have ruled on this, also a number of times.

Since I have repeatedly told you this, you know you are lying.

And gaslighting.

I'm hoping you'll be kind enough to revisit post #15050775. You stated that a number of bills were forwarded to the Democrat-controlled Congress to the Senate. I asked what those bills were, and you've yet to respond.

If you don't know, just say so. If you refuse to answer, though, there will be no reason for anyone to believe you're simply not making up bullshit.

And I don't think anyone would be all too surprised at that...

[blackjack21]

As I have told you a number of times, the courts have ruled on this, also a number of times.

Since I have repeatedly told you this, you know you are lying.

And gaslighting.

The courts have never convicted anyone of receiving information as a campaign finance violation, since information is not a thing of financial value. Cite a case if you are so convinced. What you say is immaterial. What you cite could be material.

[Drlee]

Wrong again Blackjack:

An unnamed “senior Justice Department official” told the Washington Post that “[i]f you cannot quantify what the thing of value would be, then it’s fatal.”

This conclusion too is unsupportable.

For a campaign finance violation to be a crime, the “thing of value” must exceed $2,000 for a misdemeanor violation, or $25,000 for a criminal felony violation. The requested government investigation into Biden would almost certainly cost Ukraine over $2,000 to conduct, and it would absolutely be worth over $2,000 to Trump’s campaign.

But even if Justice Department attorneys truly believed that the solicited “thing of value” did not exceed $2,000 or $25,000, then it only means that Trump did not commit a prosecutable campaign finance crime. It does not mean, as a Justice Department spokesperson asserted, that “there was no campaign finance violation.”

[late]

The courts have never convicted anyone of receiving information as a campaign finance violation

since information is not a thing of financial value.

Interesting choice of words. While no one has been convicted, there are solid legal grounds for someone to get convicted, esp. in this case.

You mean like insider trading? There are a number of laws pertaining to information. They would also be part of the precedent for this case.

Either way, it would make for an interesting Supreme Court decision. If we get a real AG before the statute of limitations runs out.

[Finfinder]

This is correct. Most of the Democratic Party are now rich, isolated oligarch ass-kissers who secretly admire how much distraction Trump is providing their class.

But the question in the thread title isn't "Do they want to win?" - The question is "What will they run on?"

As was mentioned earlier, the easiest tactic is to run on how scary and immoral the other candidate is. Since both candidates will be scary and immoral, this is one of the rare occasions where they don't have to lie.

The Dems and Repubs seem to be trying to underscore the importance of third parties. But in a winner-takes-all system, the Dems are better just losing and enjoying their tax cuts, and access to foreign loot, like they always do.

Simply stated the Dems are running on
Keeping the status quo corruption and deep state
Raising taxes
Increasing Spending
Raising unemployment
Free shit for every Democrat voter

[blackjack21]

Wrong again Blackjack:

Unnamed officials is just another euphemism for fake news. The Department of Justice has already reviewed the whistleblower complaint and found it wanting.

Making a distinction between a "prosecutable campaign finance violation" and a "non-prosecutable campaign finance violation" is superfluous and irrelevant.

You mean like insider trading?

Insider information is directly related to finance. Political information is not. It's protected by the first amendment.

There are a number of laws pertaining to information.

Of course. I noted patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets among them. Classified material is another one, and that's related to state secrets, not commerce. However, campaign finance is about finance. It's authority comes under the commerce clause, because it is regulating money.

Either way, it would make for an interesting Supreme Court decision. If we get a real AG before the statute of limitations runs out.

The AG is not on the Supreme Court.

Most of the Democratic Party are now rich, isolated oligarch ass-kissers who secretly admire how much distraction Trump is providing their class.

I saw a Michael Bloomberg ad and found it hilarious that he's running on the effects of stop-and-frisk while apologizing for it simultaneously. Elizabeth Warren is selling "billionaire tears" mugs, and the Democrats are running no less than two billionaires now.

[late]

1) Unnamed officials is just another euphemism for fake news. The Department of Justice has already reviewed the whistleblower complaint and found it wanting.

2) Making a distinction between a "prosecutable campaign finance violation" and a "non-prosecutable campaign finance violation" is superfluous and irrelevant.


3) Insider information is directly related to finance. Political information is not. It's protected by the first amendment.


4) Of course. I noted patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets among them. Classified material is another one, and that's related to state secrets, not commerce. However, campaign finance is about finance. It's authority comes under the commerce clause, because it is regulating money.


5) The AG is not on the Supreme Court.

1)The DOJ is a joke these days, in any case we've had a bunch of more important witnesses say the same thing. At this point he's not relevant.

2) You wish. If a prosecutor can successfully argue the information has value, the case is won. Now reverse that, the idea that a major scandal had no value is idiotic.

3) The 1st does protect speech. It does not protect criminal activity. Unless you plan on overturning hundreds of thousands of criminal convictions.

4) The primary legal ground campaign finance laws are based on is the Constitution.

5) A real AG would take this to court, where it would wind up before the Supremes.

That was pathetic.

[blackjack21]

1)The DOJ is a joke these days, in any case we've had a bunch of more important witnesses say the same thing.

It's been a joke for awhile now. Corrupt is a better choice of words. As for witnesses, we haven't had any witnesses that have witnessed anything meaningful.

2) You wish. If a prosecutor can successfully argue the information has value, the case is won. Now reverse that, the idea that a major scandal had no value is idiotic.

So file a complaint then. Obama violated campaign finance laws too. They didn't impeach him either. He got fined. Try to keep things in perspective.

3) The 1st does protect speech. It does not protect criminal activity. Unless you plan on overturning hundreds of thousands of criminal convictions.

There aren't hundreds of thousands of campaign finance convictions to begin with.

4) The primary legal ground campaign finance laws are based on is the Constitution.

Well, that's basically true of any law. The point is how is it constrained? There is no federal general police power or federal general common law.

5) A real AG would take this to court, where it would wind up before the Supremes.

The AG rarely handles cases directly. So I doubt that would be the case. If you think there is a campaign finance violation, why don't you swear out a complaint or file a report?

That was pathetic.

Again, excessive use of pronouns makes for meaningless sentences. What is "that" in the foregoing sentence?

[late]

It's been a joke for awhile now.

You do love your fiction.

[Drlee]

@blackjack21 I saw a Michael Bloomberg ad and found it hilarious that he's running on the effects of stop-and-frisk while apologizing for it simultaneously. Elizabeth Warren is selling "billionaire tears" mugs, and the Democrats are running no less than two billionaires now.

And this is why the democrats are going to lose. They absolutely cannot stop with the circular firing squad. General question for the group. (If you are conservative or even think you are answer as if you had no other choice).....Of the democratic candidates running now, which could you rally behind, and why?

[Hindsite]

Either way, it would make for an interesting Supreme Court decision. If we get a real AG before the statute of limitations runs out.

You would obviously say the Supreme Court is illegitimate if they make a decision you don't like.

And this is why the democrats are going to lose. They absolutely cannot stop with the circular firing squad. General question for the group. (If you are conservative or even think you are answer as if you had no other choice).....Of the democratic candidates running now, which could you rally behind, and why?

Tulsi Gabbard because she isn't afraid to come on FOX News and Hillary Clinton accused her of being a Russian asset.

[blackjack21]

Of the democratic candidates running now, which could you rally behind, and why?

Tulsi Gabbard. She's willing to take on the Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush establishment in Washington. She has military experience. She sees the folly of the perennial "regime change" campaign. Besides, of the women running, she's the hottest.

[Rich]

So there's one thing I just don't get, if you're unhappy with Trump, I would have thought the best way to get rid of him was through the 2020 Republican primary or the 2020 Presidential election and if that failed then wait till January 2025 when his term limits run out.

But these super smart Democrats and Republican virtue signallers say that wouldn't be democratic. I guess I must be a bit stupid. Its like I've never been able to understand why the Thailand system is more democratic than the United States.

[late]

You would obviously say the Supreme Court is illegitimate if they make a decision you don't like.

Almost.

But I like the obviously part, if you are going to borrow, borrow from the best. I always do.

I would have to see how law profs reacted to it, esp. Prof Tribe. But my guess is it would have to be a politically motivated decision.

So sure, obviously

[QatzelOk]

Tulsi Gabbard because she isn't afraid to come on FOX News and Hillary Clinton accused her of being a Russian asset.

If an environmentalist ran for president, Killary would accuse them of being "an other-species asset." Her gangsterism is palpable and world-consuming.

I also love what Tulsi says to media. But how many times have we been conned by sweet-talking, peace-talking liars? She may get elected by American desperation on a Third-Party ticket - and then, in office, "realize" that the secret to ending wars is to bomb Iran and a few other "trigger nations." Or some other type of Obama-giving-crooked-banksters-what-they-want moment.

Like when he explained how Libya just had to be bombed because otherwise Gaddafi would assassinate "the peaceful students" within days. His pre-elected speeches involved "helping the marginalized" and then he went on to start two new wars and destabilize a host of Latin American countries using very racist hosts.

[Hindsite]

So there's one thing I just don't get, if you're unhappy with Trump, I would have thought the best way to get rid of him was through the 2020 Republican primary or the 2020 Presidential election and if that failed then wait till January 2025 when his term limits run out.

But these super smart Democrats and Republican virtue signallers say that wouldn't be democratic. I guess I must be a bit stupid. Its like I've never been able to understand why the Thailand system is more democratic than the United States.

The Democrats might call you stupid and a racist, among other things, but what they don't realize is that you have common sense and they don't.

[Robert Urbanek]

What Democrats may run on:

Medicare for all who want it; but you can keep your current insurance. Allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. Or, as an alternative, reinforcing Obamacare, unless court decisions make that untenable.

More money spent on infrastructure and public works, perhaps with a hiring preference for those displaced from manufacturing and mining jobs.

More subsidies and regulations favoring a green economy, with the promise that these new industries will employ many people.

Repealing tax breaks for the rich.

My own advice would be for Democrats to avoid cultural issues: abortion, LGBT rights, cultural appropriation, mandatory diversity, etc. as these are hot button issues that mobilize the right and antagonize economically liberal but culturally conservative blue-collar workers.

Other than a promise to work with other nations on climate change issues, I think the Democrats are going to have a hard time nailing down a cohesive foreign policy.

I think the Democratic nominee should also be able to explain what tradeoffs he or she would be willing to do if the Republicans retain the Senate.