[bradfordarner]

Of course, the irony is that Trump, an ardent capitalist and pursuer of wealth, ran on a platform of decreasing the influence of money in politics. According to his 100 day plan, he is going to put a number of serious barriers on lobbying.

I found this out after the election. It wouldn't have changed my vote had I known about it before the election (way too many other issues with Trump) but, at the very least, it is a hope that maybe something good will come out of this presidential cycle.

[throwaway729]

> he is going to put a number of serious barriers on lobbying

All of the most influential people in his transition team are family members, career politicians, or industry lobbyists/partisans.

Trump's plan doesn't decrease the power of money in politics; it concentrates the power of money by neutering other forms of influence.

[blowski]

The UK government is in the process of doing this as well. Charities are not allowed to lobby government with raised funds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35509117

[chasing]

He literally had working on his campaign the guy who headed Citizens United, the group behind the court case that allowed tremendous amounts of unchecked money into the political system.

Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics.

[r_smart]

To me this is a really interesting problem. Imagine for a moment that you became the president. The people you pick to do things is really important. You have to choose from: People you've relied on who will need time to build expertise; people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem, but are also knowledgeable in how to operate it, and people who are part of the problem and incompetent.

To me, it seems you have to pull from the first two groups and hope you can use the people you know and trust and your own influence to get the necessary change from the people who have been thus far malignant, but know important things like how to get votes, how to draft legislation, etc.

This is where every presidential candidate succeeds or fails, and most of them end up failing. I feel like it would be hard to argue that Obama wasn't completely co-opted by monied interests as he took office. The finance sector got their claws into him from the beginning.

[chasing]

> ... people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem...

Not everyone who works in government is part of the problem. Many of them are working very hard to solve real problems. No one's perfect -- that's for sure -- but I'm worried we're throwing out very talented and well-intentioned babies with our bathwater.

And the Trump administration, such as it is, has already proven that the government doesn't have a monopoly on corruption. The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass. Weird.

[r_smart]

I'm sure some of them are good people trying to do good things. I'll spare cynical rejoinders and just concede the point. I think many people would agree that there aren't very many of them in the government. There are of course various axioms about people seeking power and the corrupting effects of power.

>The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s

Yes! The public doesn't have anybody from group A to choose from, and essentially always gets to choose from group B or C. The hope is that we might get lucky one day and get someone for the group you brought up. We want the D.

[chasing]

There will never be a candidate who does exactly what you want. Bernie would've pissed his supporters off for some reason or other had he been elected. We have to pick from an array of imperfect options. Whichever candidate you feel is the perfect candidate, when put in power, they will make choices you don't like. And we all have to realize the difference between sloganeering and governing.

Which is why I really dig guys like Obama who have academic credentials and seem to understand the problems they will face. Then, at least, if they do something I don't want I can look at that decision and ask why they felt it was the best one.

Hillary wasn't perfect. So we screamed about it as a nation and, well, now look at the mess we've gotten ourselves into.

To quote a certain orange individual: "Sad!"

[r_smart]

>Whichever candidate you feel is the perfect candidate, when put in power, they will make choices you don't like

I forget where I heard it, but there was a comment about Trump that was something to the effect of: The office of the President is so powerful that in essence the position itself controls whoever is in it. To that end, results can't really vary as much as people think. There is also out there, somewhere on the internet, an essay written by a European leader who garnered the mantle of power despite deep reservations and wrote about the effect holding the position had on him. I wish I could remember who he was / where he governed. It is a really amazing piece. Maybe someone else on here knows what I'm talking about?

>Which is why I really dig guys like Obama who have academic credentials

An immoral act is an immoral act. You just get fancier rationalizations. I don't see the advantage. I actually think it's a disadvantage. To some extent Obama's charisma has kept people from being overly critical of a lot of the terrible things that can be laid at his feet, whereas, if it was still G.W. Bush he'd have been excoriated.

>now look at the mess we've gotten ourselves into

It seems to me to be an error to treat this being bad as a foregone conclusion. Maybe yes, maybe no. Time will reveal.

[dragonwriter]

> The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass.

I would argue that the election results show that most people don't give him a pass, it just happens that those that do have a favorable geographic distribution.

[cmdrfred]

> Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics

If you wanted to fix it, do you vote for the person who said he wants to change it or the person who profited from that system for decades? Both parties need to end if you want change on this.

[chasing]

Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in.

Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections.

[cmdrfred]

>Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in.

We didn't have corruption prior to Citizens United? Here's my purposed rule, if you take a nickel from a company you don't get to vote on anything that would effect them. No way in hell the neo-cons or the neo-liberals in Washington pass that.

>Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections.

That might be changing. People are pissed at the establishment. This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost.

[chasing]

> That might be changing.

Maybe! But now there's going to be even more monied interests spending hard to make sure it doesn't.

> This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost.

This is neither here nor there. Simply spending money isn't the issue.

[klipt]

> According to his 100 day plan

His 100 day plan says a lot of things, like 'cut taxes for the middle class', but if you look at his actual tax plan most of the benefits go to the top 1% and many middle class earners (especially single parents) will see their taxes increase: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/...

I wouldn't trust his 100 day plan further than I can throw it.

[user837387]

The guy lies and lies and lies. The only way to know what he is really going to do is to wait for him to do it. However, calling him the smartest, most powerful, and most beautiful person ever seems to go a long way with him so I would at least try that to try to get him on your side. Problem is, everybody seems to know that he is a sucker for complement.

[pasquinelli]

This is why I say there's no excuse for voting trump. "According to his hundred day plan..." you have no reason to believe a word he says and every reason not to. afaic, voting for trump's like buying a car off him, or lending him money, or attending his university, or signing an employment contract with him, and so on. He says what he needs to.

[r_smart]

Step two is to demonstrate how these claims don't apply to the other choice.