Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 500299)

"An international conference on money laundering and financial crimes begins today in Florida, at a time when the topics are under intense scrutiny thanks to the Panama Papers.

There is also renewed attention on big bills.

Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary, has been pushing for a global agreement to stop issuing high-denomination notes, and the European Central Bank is considering eliminating the 500-euro note.

The idea is to make it harder for corrupt politicians, drug cartels, tax evaders and terrorists to make large cash transactions that don’t generate electronic records.

Few of us use the $100 bill, and hardly any Europeans come across the 500-euro note on a regular basis.

But lawbreakers would much rather carry a five-pound stack of 500-euro notes, worth $1 million, than a 110-pound pile of $20 bills worth the same amount. (We don’t have that kind of money, but these researchers weighed the bills.)

The U.S. stopped issuing $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000 bills in 1969.

While the notes remain legal tender, any still floating around are most likely fakes."

Summers (just for Sebby): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...it_nn_20160411

500 Euro Note: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/bu...=74468950&_r=1

Here's the paper Summers references: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/m...it_nn_20160411

TM

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 500267)

No. That's not good enough. I want to vote for someone I believe will do a good job and someone who thinks the same things I think are important are important. Wendy's is better than McDonald's, but I don't buy my lunch at either place.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 500297)

They can change their mind. Or they can tip the scale and give the nomination to the loser in popular votes - by design.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 500297)

They can change their mind. Or they can tip the scale and give the nomination to the loser in popular votes - by design.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 500300)

and tell Hank to get his clown suit on.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 500295)

I see your point, but it is pretty much entirely the fault of "I hire the best people" Donald Trump. I think that the Cruz campaign is playing by the rules in a much more honorable way than Trump surrogates who suggest the violent intimidation of delegates in Cleveland to get their way. And I think that, generally speaking, the rules on the R side are much more fair.

On the Dem side, for example, Bernie won Wyoming with 56% of the vote. But because of the way the delegates are allocated and super delegates, Bernie and Hillary ended up with a 7-7 split on the proportional delegates. And Hillary had already picked up the 4 super delegates. So Bernie won 56% and came in second in the state by 4 delegates. That is an entirely different problem than we have on the R side, and is a lot more contrary to the will of the voters, is it not?


Oh and for the weekend update, Trump is getting his ass handed to him in the selection of the bound delegates in North Carolina. Cruz swept CO and Indiana and went 11 for 12 in Iowa. And quite humorously in CO, where there were several hundred people running to be delegates and they were identified by number only on the ballot, Trump's "best people" put 5 of 13 wrong numbers, and included unpledged delegates and a Cruz supporter on its voter recommendations. The alternate slate also included numbers of Cruz supporters. Then the campaign put out an updated slate, but still included the Cruz supporter on it. Only a real crack campaign apparatus tells people to vote for the other guys in multiple states. It's not the rules that are the problem. The problem is the Trump campaign. To his credit, he did shut out Cruz delegates in Michigan over the weekend from the important rules committees, because the Kasich delegates who said they would vote with the Cruz people turned. Further evidence that Kasich remains only to do Trump's bidding.

As I was saying last week regarding NY and how a lot of Trump supporters won't be able to vote for him... it came out this weekend that Ivanka and Eric Trump can't vote for their father because they didn't change their voter registration by last October. Oops.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 500312)

We lawyers appreciate the way that knowing how to play the process can give you a tactical advantage, and in a race where no one is the clear winner, a tactical advantage may be enough. But most people think that the person who gets the most votes should be the winner, and are apt to see a process that rewards clever tactics as inherently flawed. Trump is running against, in part, government institutions that reward and advantage those who know who to play the inside game, and if the GOP finds a way to exploit process to make someone else the nominee, his voters are going to be royally pissed. As a Democrat, I take some delight in that, but there you go. You are right that the primary process has similar flaws on the Democratic side, but this time around they seem to be somewhat less material, even if Susan Sarandon feels otherwise.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 500313)

But the basic rule is clear. It takes a majority of the delegates to win on the first ballot. Period. Empirically, Donald Trump has received a larger delegate premium (number of delegates relative to the % of the popular vote) than has Cruz. Nothing that Cruz is doing will matter if Trump wins on the first ballot, the vast majority of delegates Cruz is "winning" lately are bound to vote for Trump on one or more ballots. You can't receive 37% of the vote and then act as if it is unfair that you are not being treated as the winner of a majority. I understand that if the rules said the plurality vote gets the win, that he would have a valid complaint, but the rules have never said that. But his problems are not all due to the superior Cruz organization -- Trump's problems in Indiana are due to a form of wholly organic #NeverTrumpism. The problem for Trump, is he has had a recent stretch of missteps and gaffes, and on top of it has been losing. A lot. Perhaps his campaign would be doing better if he put less effort into whining and more into winning.

I agree it's kind of sucky the CO GOP didn't have a primary or preference straw poll, but that was known last summer. And Trump declined to appear at the CO convention in order to spend more time in NY. You don't see Kasich bitching about it.

ETA: Trump supporters released the home address and phone number of the Chair of the CO GOP, who has now received thousands of threats of bodily injury and death, among other things. And yet it is the Trump campaign who accuses Cruz of Gestapo tactics. Because, as you well know, the Gestapo was infamous for its uncanny knowledge of GOP delegate election rules.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 500314)

You, and other Republicans, seem rather put out that Trump is a whiny obstructionist.

I'm just going to let that comment sit there.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 500313)

ETA: Trump supporters released the home address and phone number of the Chair of the CO GOP, who has now received thousands of threats of bodily injury and death, among other things.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 500315)

And elections have consequences.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 500299)

"An international conference on money laundering and financial crimes begins today in Florida, at a time when the topics are under intense scrutiny thanks to the Panama Papers.

There is also renewed attention on big bills.

Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary, has been pushing for a global agreement to stop issuing high-denomination notes, and the European Central Bank is considering eliminating the 500-euro note.

The idea is to make it harder for corrupt politicians, drug cartels, tax evaders and terrorists to make large cash transactions that don’t generate electronic records.

Few of us use the $100 bill, and hardly any Europeans come across the 500-euro note on a regular basis.

But lawbreakers would much rather carry a five-pound stack of 500-euro notes, worth $1 million, than a 110-pound pile of $20 bills worth the same amount. (We don’t have that kind of money, but these researchers weighed the bills.)

The U.S. stopped issuing $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000 bills in 1969.

While the notes remain legal tender, any still floating around are most likely fakes."

Summers (just for Sebby): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...it_nn_20160411

500 Euro Note: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/bu...=74468950&_r=1

Here's the paper Summers references: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/m...it_nn_20160411

TM

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 500315)

I don't see how he's obstructionist. He has every right to do what he's doing (except for the part where he accuses Cruz of coordinating with his Super Pac or intimidating or bribing delegates with no evidence). He's just whiny.

And elections have consequences. So perhaps Trump should try winning some.