US Presidential Candidates

Biochem, Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, is also one of our biggest media owners. Our mainstream media has a definate right wing lean. But uderstandably focuses on the loudest or most outrageous or 'biggest' of the candidates.
Most of what we Australians learn comes from us actually chasing it, or watching Fox/CNN/MSNBC whatever on pay tv.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

pokermind wrote:Hmm 4 of the 11 souses mention Republican candidates or 36% of the news sources, while 8 of the eleven mention the Democrats or 72%, and 10 of 11 or 91% tends to show there is media bias rather conclusively.

You're misreading the chart.

That is a chart of where Democrats, Independents and Republicans mainly say they choose to get their news from. The fact that Democrats get their news from a wider variety of sources and Republicans all watch Fox doesn't mean the news is biased against Republicans. It just means Republicans like watching Fox. (Mostly because the entire purpose of Fox's existence is to tell Republicans what they want to hear.)

Here, the primary money provider for parties (and personal campaigning isn´t common), is the state subsidies based on votes in last election and total members(and no, that´s not something to try to rig because even when its unintentional it gets big headlines and gets discovered soon).

That actually wouldn't help here because of the freedom of speech laws. Basically if I wanted to buy a TV ad and announce that candidate X is the worst presidential candidate in US History, I have every legal right to do that. His/her opponent has no legal way to control what I say other than politely asking me to stop because I have freedom of speech.

However, other than a few billionaires most of us don't have the kind of money to do that. That is where the superpacs and 527s come in. Basically a group of citizens with an agenda in common (oppose candidate X or issue driven support pro-life for example) pool their money and use their pooled money and freedom of speech to say we as a group oppose candidate X or we as a pro-life group issue a report card on how the candidates support our agenda. They have the freedom of speech to do so with as much of their money as they choose.

So actually the money that the candidates raise themselves isn't so bad. The candidate is accountable for how the money is raised and spent.

The independent money (billionaires personal spending plus superpacs and 527s) is independent of the official campaigns but if they help their candidate win, the candidate will owe them as much as they owe the people who donated to them directly.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/527cmtes.php

Public funding of elections would only remove the donations to the candidates themselves. Because of freedom of speech, people and groups would still be able to independently support candidates.

biochem wrote:Wouldn't it be nice if Donald Trump caught some mysterious disease resulting in an 18 month long case of laryngitis?

For a little thread comic relief, the Trump campaign just tweeted (then hastily deleted after some commentary started coming back) this campaign pic:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ascree ... .28_pm.jpg


Those soldiers they put in the lower right are, oopsie, Waffen SS.

It's one thing to have the opposition photoshop Nazi associations onto your image, but having your own campaign do it? Priceless.

Interesting graphic on where the various Republican presidential candidates line up relative to the various subsections of the Republican party. I disagree that Trump is a Tea Party candidate. He doesn't stand for their beliefs. But I suppose they didn't have a category for bored Billionare Reality TV stars.

biochem wrote:That actually wouldn't help here because of the freedom of speech laws.

And in what way are those actually relevant considering that USA has slightly weaker freedom of speech laws than my own country?

biochem wrote:Basically if I wanted to buy a TV ad and announce that candidate X is the worst presidential candidate in US History, I have every legal right to do that. His/her opponent has no legal way to control what I say other than politely asking me to stop because I have freedom of speech.

The same is true here. Unless of course it´s to the point where it becomes criminal slander.

biochem wrote:However, other than a few billionaires most of us don't have the kind of money to do that. That is where the superpacs and 527s come in.

I´m actually quite well aware how they work yes.

biochem wrote:The independent money (billionaires personal spending plus superpacs and 527s) is independent of the official campaigns but if they help their candidate win, the candidate will owe them as much as they owe the people who donated to them directly.

Yes, which is why that would fall under corruption laws. Which is one of the reasons that sort of campaigning is mostly unheard of here. There´s always some from LO(unions) and employer/company organisations, but they´re very very careful not to step over the lines between support and corruption.

A bribe is a bribe.

gcomeau wrote:
For a little thread comic relief, the Trump campaign just tweeted (then hastily deleted after some commentary started coming back) this campaign pic:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ascree ... .28_pm.jpg


Those soldiers they put in the lower right are, oopsie, Waffen SS.

It's one thing to have the opposition photoshop Nazi associations onto your image, but having your own campaign do it? Priceless.

Hilarious.

And just today there was also some noting about a Mexican doing some not so flattering "rendition" of Trump... I´ll leave the rest to peoples online search skills, lets just say its a very NSFW "toy" made in his likeness.

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
For a little thread comic relief, the Trump campaign just tweeted (then hastily deleted after some commentary started coming back) this campaign pic:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ascree ... .28_pm.jpg


Those soldiers they put in the lower right are, oopsie, Waffen SS.

It's one thing to have the opposition photoshop Nazi associations onto your image, but having your own campaign do it? Priceless.

Hilarious.

And just today there was also some noting about a Mexican doing some not so flattering "rendition" of Trump... I´ll leave the rest to peoples online search skills, lets just say its a very NSFW "toy" made in his likeness.

Trump just filed his financial disclosure forms. Depending who you believe on the valuation of his assets he is worth $4-9 billion. Which means he can fund the entire $120 million it takes to run a primary campaign out of his own personal pocket change and we will be treated to Trump Trump Trump until he finally gets bored enough to quit. Which won't be anytime soon, he's having the time of his life with all the media attention and couldn't care less if 99% of it is negative.

On the bright side, he is keeping the comedians employed.

Trump is funding his entire campaign out of his own pocket?

OMG! He's Lex Luthor in disguise!

Michael Everett wrote:Trump is funding his entire campaign out of his own pocket?

OMG! He's Lex Luthor in disguise!

He must. No one is going to donate. I enjoy seeing him force the immigration issue into the spotliight. Many do. They just won't donate to the rich guy who can do it all himself. He'll even tell you so.