Republicans in Breach of Contract? A new political standard?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Like I said in my other reply though, out of all 535 members of congress only one answers to you, and only one answers to me. What you or I see as corruption in the other 534 members is those members representing their constituents interests. In the case of the 100 Senate members, they're looking after their state interests and in the case of the House, they're looking after their own districts.

It's a system where not only are we going to dislike what the other members are doing, but it's practically built into the system that we're supposed to dislike what they're doing.

The easiest way to sum up how congress works is like this: You have a bunch of groups, each looking after their own interests. Sometimes a lot of self interest will align and we get a new law. Most of the time though you just have gridlock.

I think that's where this lawsuit is really going to fail. The man in this case donated to the party and to a bunch of politicians, but those groups don't answer to him. He has a single representative, and that's the only person that answers to him. Therefore, that's the only person he could file a fraud claim against. Even then though, broken campaign promises don't result in fraud because congress is an elected body. All his Rep has to do is say he tried and others disagreed. The burden of proof would be on the man trying to argue otherwise.

That's not to say that I think Congress is perfect. I see a lot of ways in which it could be improved in terms of organization and how laws are built.

If I were going to suggest any fixes to Congress that are "easy" to implement, I think the best fix available to us is something that wouldn't even require internal changes. We simply need to elect people with more diverse backgrounds. We don't need 150 doctors, 150 lawyers, and 150 political science majors. Lets get a wide range of professions in there, so that they can build off of different viewpoints. A few tradespeople, some engineers, some software people, some teachers, some scientists, and so on.

If we could do that (and it's a big part of what I mean when I say, elect better people) I think we would see a change in how Congress runs overnight.

a reply to: Aazadan

I honestly didn't know about Wounded Warrior... thank you for the heads-up.

The RNC, like the DNC, develops a platform to run on, and members of the RNC, like the DNC, are in essence pledging loyalty to that platform in return for inclusion in the party and the campaign assistance that comes with it. That's a far shot from a contractual obligation, but it is also not completely outside the realm of legal jurisdiction either.

The lawsuit probably won't prevail, I will grant that. But if the question is "does it have legal footing," then I would say if enough deviation from the advertised platform can be evidenced, there is a possibility it does.

Sort of like looking at at sheer 1000-foot cliff and thinking "That's unclimbable!" No, it might have never been done, but it might possibly be done; it would just be extremely difficult.

TheRedneck

If this old guy feels let down after donating to the republicans, just imagine how those rich folks and foreign nations feel after the $Millions they donated to Hillary!

I am sure though that Bill and Hillary had something in the small print about it all being non-refundable.

a reply to: Aazadan

You're absolutely right about the representation issue, but remember that he is not suing representatives; he is suing the party. The party is not constitutionally answerable to anyone. All the party does is provide a venue for the various members to organize and provide campaign assistance. That last part is where he might have some basis for the lawsuit. If the RNC can be shown to have advertised repeal of a law as a major plank in their platform, knowing that there was no actual consensus to do so, then they committed fraud toward the voters that contributed finances to the effort. Had no money changed hands, the RNC would not be liable under any legal theory I know of, but since money was accepted under false pretenses, they could be.

Again, I do not think the lawsuit will prevail. But I do believe he has legal grounds to bring it, and the media attention it can generate could be far more damaging to the RNC than any financial award.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, right I had gotten mixed up since reading the article. I thought he was going after the person and the party. Going after the party is difficult. A recent shift in my views is that I now see parties as lobbying companies. At a high level they're indistinguishable. They provide money in exchange for supporting a certain policy position.

I'm still not seeing fraud. The party did try to tackle the ACA but it didn't go through. Are they any more responsible for how people vote than the ACLU is when they lobby for something and fail? I think that any fraud case would require at the minimum, an issue being made a core part of the platform and then zero effort spent on it. And even then you would still need to prove intent to defraud, rather than perhaps circumstances which prevented it.

All of this raises an uncomfortable point too about the influence of money in politics. Accepting this lawsuit is in effect accepting that a large donation to a political body should result in the legislation you want. It's an agreement that private individuals can buy policy. Something that a lot of people disagree with.

a reply to: Aazadan

Are they any more responsible for how people vote than the ACLU is when they lobby for something and fail?

I think that's going to be the $10,000,000,000...000 question.

It's a seriously steep hurdle this guy has undertaken, but just taking it is major IMO. One snowflake starts an avalanche, but no snowflake is ever expected to start an avalanche.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rnaa

well its funny ol john ran on the promise to repeal or replace obama care. now when he has the chance he dont due to personal reasons alone. H e was heard later to done this intentionally to be spiteful. Brain tumor cant get rid of him fast enough.

a reply to: yuppa

I don't think it's appropriate to wish that on anybody... but I won't shed a single tear if/when the voters say "enough of McCain!"

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: yuppa

I don't think it's appropriate to wish that on anybody... but I won't shed a single tear if/when the voters say "enough of McCain!"

TheRedneck

True. but he already has one. and i hear its in operable correct? if thats the case he is just going to get worse and it would be a mercy for him to check out now anyway.

But its too late to remove that part from that post so ill just say i was pissed and didnt think.

a reply to: yuppa

Everybody's human.

Believe me, I'm POd at him right now too. I never did like McCain. He seems to be riding that wave of glory from long ago. I'll give him kudos for his service, but not for anything he's done since he got back.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have the opposite opinion. I think he's a bit too quick to call for military action, but his record is a long one full of compromises. He's the sort of guy who could get bipartisian things done. In the past 15 years he has been so popular he was the head of the party, and so unpopular they tried to kick him out. That says to me that he's been able to exist largely outside of ideological tunnel vision and hero worship.

Most Republicans, at least those with power, are in collusion with the Democrats and the Globalists. If you thought they were going to keep their promises to the American people that elected them, you don't understand what's really happening. I don't think you can pass a law criminalizing politicians who don't follow through on their promises, because sometimes it is subjective, or out of their control, but I do wish citizens would pay more attention to their representatives, that way the corrupt bums could be thrown out, legally through the voting process.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: rnaa

well its funny ol john ran on the promise to repeal or replace obama care. now when he has the chance he dont due to personal reasons alone. H e was heard later to done this intentionally to be spiteful. Brain tumor cant get rid of him fast enough.

You are correct, and I voted against him for that reason. I've always liked McCain, though he lost a lot of credibility when he allowed Palin to be shoved down his throat in 2008. I wouldn't have wanted him as President, but as my Arizona Senator he was pretty good, until then.

A politician's pledge to 'repeal and replace' SHOULD only be held if the replacement is better than the repealed. The purpose is to improve not simply destroy. Today's GOP has been taken over by the destructionists who have no intention of governing.

I believe that a lot of Republicans understand this, even though they continue to back the destructionists. Simply put they are afraid of the money lined up against them and would rather put keeping their job ahead of serving their country. McCain is no longer afraid of that money because he won't be running again.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have long held that the next Constitutional Amendment needs to establish a system of popular initiative, referendum, repeal and recall at the national level. Once upon a time, our Representatives and Senators were statesmen, dedicated to the ideals of serving the people (at least superficially, which is 1000% more than we have today.)

Now, the People need a more direct method for taking care of their own national business, since the corporate prostitutes in Washington DC have no interest in it.

IMO.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have long held that the next Constitutional Amendment needs to establish a system of popular initiative, referendum, repeal and recall at the national level. Once upon a time, our Representatives and Senators were statesmen, dedicated to the ideals of serving the people (at least superficially, which is 1000% more than we have today.)

Now, the People need a more direct method for taking care of their own national business, since the corporate prostitutes in Washington DC have no interest in it.

IMO.

On this occasion, I fully agree.
There should be a process whereby the people can remove officials - for example a statewide super majority.
Only then will politicians realise who their boss is.

I also think the US needs to do something to fix their election process - quite why an election has to take 18 months I really don't know (as much as I enjoy the process). The continual nature of US elections makes for a hotbed of partisanship.

a reply to: UKTruth

Agree. Massive national election reform is also needed, and not the sporadic and money-wasting efforts we saw after the Election of 2000.

We have the technology to insure that every vote is genuine, that it matters, and that it registers.

But that's another issue for another day, eh?

Good to agree with you on something.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We do, it actually wouldn't be that hard. I've detailed a software based system here before that has the ability to both preserve an anonymous vote and create a publicly available record. The abbreviated version of such a system is that we embrace electronic voting. Each voter is given a random electronic key at the time they vote, said key is linked to the vote cast. When votes are counted, each person can use their key to check their vote in the database and ensure it was tallied and counted the way they intended.

Such a system would make election fraud virtually impossible as the entire database of voting results would be public information: How many voted for who, total votes, even total votes by precinct. With those end results being what are tabulated in the end. Yet, we would still be able to let each vote be accountable to the person who made it to be sure it's legit. If votes were flipped from one candidate to the other, we would know.

Deep down, I'm hoping someone designs this system. It would be decentralized, and an online system that doesn't rely on network security. If no one makes it, I intend to sometime in the next couple years... at which point I would make it open source.