[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.

[mercer]

> 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.

Are you referring to Václav Havel?

> "With your permission, I would like to take advantage of my unusual experience and try to cast a critical eye of an intellectual on the phenomenon of power as I have been able to observe it so far from the inside, and especially on the nature of the temptation that power represents." - Václav Havel on the temptations of political power[1]

and

> "Someone who forgets how to drive a car, do the shopping, make himself coffee, and place a telephone call is not the same person who had known how to do those things all his life. A person who had never before had to look into the lens of a television camera and now has to submit his every movement to its watchful eye is not the same person he once was.

He becomes a captive of his position, his perks, his office. What apparently confirms his identity and thus his existence in fact subtly takes that identity and existence away from him. He is no longer in control of himself, because he is controlled by something else: by his position and its exigencies, its consequences, its aspects, and its privileges."

[1]: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html

[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.