Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

3,801 to 3,850 of 4,260 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | next > last >>

bugleyman wrote:


Call me when the Green Party candidate beats the Republican candidate by 3 million votes. Hell, call me when the Green Party is ANYTHING but a spoiler. Until then, you're wasting everyone's time. EDIT: No, you're worse than wasting time; you're advocating the very position which helped get us Trump in the first place.

Perhaps you guys were only talking about presidential elections, I'm not sure, but I wanted to post this:

Meet the Mayor Who’s Using Eminent Domain to Fight Foreclosure

Which is four years old. Since then, I believe, McLaughlin hit the mayoral term limit and was elected to the city council.


Fergie wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Just out curiosity, which outcome are you happiest with?
Iraq (heavy intervention)
Libya (moderate intervention)
Syria (little to no intervention)

Check out the Axis of Evil, and Beyond the Axis of Evil.Take out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, then Cuba, Libya, and Syria. I think it is safe to say that both political parties of the US are taking a variety of steps to dominate these countries, some more direct then others.

Not the question I asked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was guilty of it in my "Partial State of the Resistance Report" also when I referred to Trump bombing Al-Shayrat as "the bombing of Syria", but the American campaign against ISIS in Syria has been going on for three years and, I don't believe, doesn't qualify as "little to no intervention."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quote:
That would be nice. I'd love a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics as well.
And I'd like a pony. preferably a flying one.
Well the state houses aren't nearly as bought as the senate and congress, why would it be so hard to get the state houses to call for a nation convention? It's never been used but it's possible. I mean most people hate the corruption and two-thirds of the states seems possible.

It's possible and it's absolutely terrifying.

Whatever your theory on state houses being less bought, Republicans currently control nearly enough states to call such a convention and ratify anything it produced. Any such convention would produce a Republican wishlist - likely enshrining corporate free speech, freedom to discriminate in the name of (Christian) religion, voter suppression, "small government", etc, etc.
I'm sure ALEC and the Koch brothers have an outline all ready to go.


Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.

I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Just out curiosity, which outcome are you happiest with?
Iraq (heavy intervention)
Libya (moderate intervention)
Syria (little to no intervention)

Check out the Axis of Evil, and Beyond the Axis of Evil.Take out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, then Cuba, Libya, and Syria. I think it is safe to say that both political parties of the US are taking a variety of steps to dominate these countries, some more direct then others.

That doesn't really answer Irontruth's question....


I skipped it when Nancy Pelosi joined Bernie Sanders as a white man's progressive candidate, but this bit of backtracking is too rich to let pass:

DNC Chair Tom Perez to Meet With Pro-Life Democrats


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Just out curiosity, which outcome are you happiest with?
Iraq (heavy intervention)
Libya (moderate intervention)
Syria (little to no intervention)
Check out the Axis of Evil, and Beyond the Axis of Evil.Take out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, then Cuba, Libya, and Syria. I think it is safe to say that both political parties of the US are taking a variety of steps to dominate these countries, some more direct then others.
That doesn't really answer Irontruth's question....

It really isn't worth answering.

Irontruth [to Guy Humual]: You're judging Obama by his worst actions.
Fergie: Those aren't his worst actions.
Irontruth: Don't you know I'm a pacifist! Do you want to masturbate?!?
Fergie: I like masturbation.
Irontruth: Which of these terrible situations do you like best?

I mean, I remember when Irontruth was hitting Citizen Moonrunner with non sequiturs for a laugh, but...

(Whatever happened to Citizen Moonrunner? Did he get banned again? LazarX, K(e)rensky, all my favorite politrolls are disappearing!)


Well, it really does make sense. (Maybe aside from the pacifism and masturbation.)

Of course, if you really see no difference between our invasion of Iraq and our intervention in the ongoing conflict in Syria, them I'm really not sure what to say. One can be unhappy with our actions in Syria and still acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was the greatest foreign policy disaster in decades - leading among other things to the current crisis in Syria.

Any US president we are at all likely to have would have intervened in Syria. Some sooner and much more forcefully than Obama did. Iraq was a pet project of Bush and his neocon team. One that few others would have done. (And yeah, we can also complain about Clinton's sanctions, but it's still not on the same scale.)

Even if someone really wants a pacifist president, committed to no military interventions, it would seem reasonable to prefer one who leans toward the smaller scale and avoids the worst disasters.


Except that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the topic came up out of a listing of Obama's* "worst actions" that didn't include his military actions, not a comparison of Democratic versus Republican war-mongering.

*Woops, and Bill's.


I apologize for not making an exhaustive list of Obama's worst actions.

That said, I'm never going to bother making that list, because someone will always complain that something was left off, or claim that a good thing was actually a bad thing, so it would really just be a list of all the things he's done. If you want to be annoyed in the future, I will bookmark this post and link it for you.


I'm not annoyed, I'm just recapping the conversation.


Irontruth wrote:

I apologize for not making an exhaustive list of Obama's worst actions.

That said, I'm never going to bother making that list, because someone will always complain that something was left off. If you want to be annoyed in the future, I will bookmark this post and link it for you.

Yeah, but murdering US citizens with an army of robots that roam the skies seems like a pretty big one to miss.


BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I apologize for not making an exhaustive list of Obama's worst actions.

That said, I'm never going to bother making that list, because someone will always complain that something was left off. If you want to be annoyed in the future, I will bookmark this post and link it for you.

Yeah, but murdering US citizens with an army of robots that roam the skies seems like a pretty big one to miss.

please go here for apology.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I apologize for not making an exhaustive list of Obama's worst actions.

That said, I'm never going to bother making that list, because someone will always complain that something was left off. If you want to be annoyed in the future, I will bookmark this post and link it for you.

Yeah, but murdering US citizens with an army of robots that roam the skies seems like a pretty big one to miss.
please go here for apology.

I mean, you could have just linked me back to my own post, which would have been funnier actually.


I'm not trying to be funny.

Shadow Lodge

Guy Humual wrote:


We're living in a new age, and socialism is thriving in Europe. It's harder to sell people on the idea that countries with less money can have free education, public healthcare, shorter work weeks, longer vacation, childcare, etc, while in america, even though businesses are pulling in record profits and the wealth gap continues to grow, there just ins't enough money to pay a living wage or guarantee healthcare. People will only be pacified for so long.

Not really. America is the greatest nation in the world. If things are going better elsewhere, it MUST be because you're unsustainable. Like greece.

GREEEEECE!
Obamaghaznibirthcertificate!

You are trying to make a rational, evidence based policy to an electorate that is either uncaring about information if not outright hostile to it: because they've had a lifetime of indoctrination by people who make oodles of money doing things that are bad for the country and it's people, and people that know things and can think is bad for that business model.

Quote:
Even with the new right wing Supreme court justice?

He replaced Scalia. If anything the court probably moved left just because they stopped making scalias.

Quote:
2/3rds of state houses is possible.

No. it is not. More than half of states are republican. New york, which voted for hillary by 22 points, has a republican house of the legislature that would block this.

Quote:
Even tradtional republicans hate corruption, and not every state house in the country is owned by the Koch brothers or other big money interests.

Enough of them do. You Don't get it. If you need a 66% of a vote to get rid of you, you don't buy 100% of the vote or 50% of the vote you buy 35% of the vote and you're safe.

You don't even need to do that. You just need to buy a percentage point or two of votes in the right places, and you're safe.

Quote:
Nothing is possible if you don't try.

Your insistence that we are not trying because your solution is magical fairy dust and ours is remotely workable is both insulting and demeaning. I think it's fair to say at this point that we have a better idea of how the system works than you do, and as you can't explain how some great leap forward is supposed to happen, incremental change appears to be a neccesary step. If you want to insult people for thinking that , have a better argument that your great leap forward is remotely workable.

You really are asking someone to build you a house when they're not allowed in the toolshed. It's not fair to complain that they're not getting results. (mind you, i have had bosses make that complaint


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

I apologize for not making an exhaustive list of Obama's worst actions.

That said, I'm never going to bother making that list, because someone will always complain that something was left off, or claim that a good thing was actually a bad thing, so it would really just be a list of all the things he's done. If you want to be annoyed in the future, I will bookmark this post and link it for you.

Definitionally, you can't make a list of his worst actions. Worst is a superlative, so he can only have committed one worst action. I think it was the time he confused the Jedi mind trick with the Vulcan mind meld, but then I've always been a stickler about the Star Wars/Star Trek division.

Have you guys even seen the Star Trek Discovery trailer? I took one look at those two cloaked figures walking across the desert landscape and was all, "OMG, I think I saw this trailer back when it was for The Force Awakens; ONLY IN DONALD F**KING TRUMP'S AMERICA!!!11!'


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
2/3rds of state houses is possible.

No. it is not. More than half of states are republican. New york, which voted for hillary by 22 points, has a republican house of the legislature that would block this.

Quote:
Even traditional republicans hate corruption, and not every state house in the country is owned by the Koch brothers or other big money interests.

As I said above, it would be quite possible to get a Constitutional Convention called, but it would be completely dominated by Republicans. They are within a handful of seats of holding enough state houses to ratify whatever it produces. Which could be anything. Once you call a Convention, you're not limited to some particular amendment you call it for.

We wouldn't kick out corporate money, we'd have shiny new Constitution written by ALEC and the Kochs.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


We wouldn't kick out corporate money, we'd have shiny new Constitution written by ALEC and the Kochs.

and then end up with a dragon for president, elves dwarves and deckers?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


We wouldn't kick out corporate money, we'd have shiny new Constitution written by ALEC and the Kochs.
and then end up with a dragon for president, elves dwarves and deckers?

As I understand it, the dragon was a pretty good president. I'd go for it.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.

I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.

Well if the lobbyists are getting the same result with less money what else could you conclude?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.
I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.
Well if the lobbyists are getting the same result with less money what else could you conclude?

Only if you agree they're getting the same result. A conclusion you appear to reach because you don't like either result. It seems clear to me that the results aren't the same - either as far as their effects on me and mine or for the donor class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back to Voting Rights from a couple of pages back.

Lowell residents file suit alleging at-large elections discriminate

Readers of my Fun-Timey thread might recognize Professor Sue and the awesomely-named Vladimir Saldaña. Fahmina Zaman I've never had reason to mention; she hangs out with our commie crew sometimes, was a Democratic state delegate last year, and, most importantly, takes some of the most titillating cosplay selfies that I have ever seen (the green woman from Guardians of the Galaxy, that one-eyed woman from Futurama, Velma from Scooby-Doo etc., etc.). I don't know any of the others.

Anyway, this has been brewing for a while. No expert myself, but apparently, at-large elections were one of the mechanisms for defending segregation and were one of the verboten forms of political organization in states formerly affected by the Voting Rights Act's special scrutiny.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quote:
That would be nice. I'd love a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics as well.
And I'd like a pony. preferably a flying one.
Well the state houses aren't nearly as bought as the senate and congress, why would it be so hard to get the state houses to call for a nation convention? It's never been used but it's possible. I mean most people hate the corruption and two-thirds of the states seems possible.

It's possible and it's absolutely terrifying.

Whatever your theory on state houses being less bought, Republicans currently control nearly enough states to call such a convention and ratify anything it produced. Any such convention would produce a Republican wishlist - likely enshrining corporate free speech, freedom to discriminate in the name of (Christian) religion, voter suppression, "small government", etc, etc.
I'm sure ALEC and the Koch brothers have an outline all ready to go.

You're assuming that conservatives are the same at all levels of government. That they're all cool with legalized bribery. I have a hard time believing that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quote:
That would be nice. I'd love a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics as well.
And I'd like a pony. preferably a flying one.
Well the state houses aren't nearly as bought as the senate and congress, why would it be so hard to get the state houses to call for a nation convention? It's never been used but it's possible. I mean most people hate the corruption and two-thirds of the states seems possible.

It's possible and it's absolutely terrifying.

Whatever your theory on state houses being less bought, Republicans currently control nearly enough states to call such a convention and ratify anything it produced. Any such convention would produce a Republican wishlist - likely enshrining corporate free speech, freedom to discriminate in the name of (Christian) religion, voter suppression, "small government", etc, etc.
I'm sure ALEC and the Koch brothers have an outline all ready to go.
You're assuming that conservatives are the same at all levels of government. That they're all cool with legalized bribery. I have a hard time believing that.

It was in the Republican Party platform.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.
I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.
Well if the lobbyists are getting the same result with less money what else could you conclude?
Only if you agree they're getting the same result. A conclusion you appear to reach because you don't like either result. It seems clear to me that the results aren't the same - either as far as their effects on me and mine or for the donor class.

So take fracking then, is the ground water less contaminated if it's done under Democrats?


The First Amendment: Constitutionally Protected Speech

Quote:
The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders. We support repeal of federal restrictions on political parties in McCain-Feingold, raising or repealing contribution limits, protecting the political speech of advocacy groups, corporations, and labor unions, and protecting political speech on the internet. We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.
I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.
Well if the lobbyists are getting the same result with less money what else could you conclude?
Only if you agree they're getting the same result. A conclusion you appear to reach because you don't like either result. It seems clear to me that the results aren't the same - either as far as their effects on me and mine or for the donor class.
So take fracking then, is the ground water less contaminated if it's done under Democrats?

Yes

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
You're assuming that conservatives are the same at all levels of government.

Why would they be different... and when does the magical transformation take place?

For example... Sarah Palin started out as Mayor of Wasilla. Then Governor of Alaska. Then Vice Presidential candidate. Then Fox News pundit.

At which point in that series do you suppose she 'changed'?

Personally, I'd say that she seemed like the same horrifically inept and bigoted person the entire time.

Sovereign Court

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.
I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.
Well if the lobbyists are getting the same result with less money what else could you conclude?
Only if you agree they're getting the same result. A conclusion you appear to reach because you don't like either result. It seems clear to me that the results aren't the same - either as far as their effects on me and mine or for the donor class.
So take fracking then, is the ground water less contaminated if it's done under Democrats?
Yes

Does anyone live on federal land?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quote:
That would be nice. I'd love a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics as well.
And I'd like a pony. preferably a flying one.
Well the state houses aren't nearly as bought as the senate and congress, why would it be so hard to get the state houses to call for a nation convention? It's never been used but it's possible. I mean most people hate the corruption and two-thirds of the states seems possible.

It's possible and it's absolutely terrifying.

Whatever your theory on state houses being less bought, Republicans currently control nearly enough states to call such a convention and ratify anything it produced. Any such convention would produce a Republican wishlist - likely enshrining corporate free speech, freedom to discriminate in the name of (Christian) religion, voter suppression, "small government", etc, etc.
I'm sure ALEC and the Koch brothers have an outline all ready to go.
You're assuming that conservatives are the same at all levels of government. That they're all cool with legalized bribery. I have a hard time believing that.
It was in the Republican Party platform.

Look at the policy differences in states dominated by Republicans as opposed to Democrats. Look at the state level voter suppression. Republicans have been passing ALEC written legislation verbatim at the state level for years. If anything, many state Republicans are worse than the national average.

Hell, look at what states have (or had) their own campaign finance laws.

And I'm sure not all conservatives are the same. But we're talking elected Republicans and that's a distinct breed.


Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.
I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.
Well if the lobbyists are getting the same result with less money what else could you conclude?
Only if you agree they're getting the same result. A conclusion you appear to reach because you don't like either result. It seems clear to me that the results aren't the same - either as far as their effects on me and mine or for the donor class.
So take fracking then, is the ground water less contaminated if it's done under Democrats?
Yes
Does anyone live on federal land?

People live downstream of federal land.

Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
You're assuming that conservatives are the same at all levels of government.

Why would they be different... and when does the magical transformation take place?

For example... Sarah Palin started out as Mayor of Wasilla. Then Governor of Alaska. Then Vice Presidential candidate. Then Fox News pundit.

At which point in that series do you suppose she 'changed'?

Personally, I'd say that she seemed like the same horrifically inept and bigoted person the entire time.

I'm sure when McCain tapped her to be his VP he was expecting that . . .

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.
I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.
Well if the lobbyists are getting the same result with less money what else could you conclude?
Only if you agree they're getting the same result. A conclusion you appear to reach because you don't like either result. It seems clear to me that the results aren't the same - either as far as their effects on me and mine or for the donor class.
So take fracking then, is the ground water less contaminated if it's done under Democrats?
Yes
Does anyone live on federal land?
People live downstream of federal land.

Usually it's the ground water we're worried about though. Steams and rivers are ground water and might not be getting contaminated, but the ground water, especially well water, that's highly susceptible to fracking contamination.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

Look at the policy differences in states dominated by Republicans as opposed to Democrats. Look at the state level voter suppression. Republicans have been passing ALEC written legislation verbatim at the state level for years. If anything, many state Republicans are worse than the national average.

Hell, look at what states have (or had) their own campaign finance laws.

And I'm sure not all conservatives are the same. But we're talking elected Republicans and that's a distinct breed.

From what I'm seeing 37 states have campaign donation limitations. 12 allow unlimited money. Some states, like Maine, Kansas and Alaska limit contributions to under $500 for state legislatures.

Shadow Lodge

Guy Humual wrote:
From what I'm seeing 37 states have campaign donation limitations. 12 allow unlimited money. Some states, like Maine, Kansas and Alaska limit contributions to under $500 for state legislatures.

That's directly to the campaign. You don't give to the campaign. You give it to the "Citizens concerned about hillary clinton being a lizard person" super pac and they run clips with her face super imposed on the V baby for a month straight. There's no limit on that, and states CAN"T put a limit on that via citizens united. The superpac has no trace of the money coming in or going out, the only thing they can't do is collude with the candidate *wink wink nudge nudge*

it really is this bad


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
From what I'm seeing 37 states have campaign donation limitations. 12 allow unlimited money. Some states, like Maine, Kansas and Alaska limit contributions to under $500 for state legislatures.
That's directly to the campaign. You don't give to the campaign. You give it to the "Citizens concerned about hillary clinton being a lizard person" super pac and they run clips with her face super imposed on the V baby for a month straight. There's no limit on that, and states CAN"T put a limit on that via citizens united. The superpac has no trace of the money coming in or going out, the only thing they can't do is collude with the candidate *wink wink nudge nudge*

Different question.

I was suggesting he look at which states tried to limit money's influence on campaigns and which party was more responsible for those, to help him figure out which party was more likely to continue to work for such limits. He only looked at the first part, possibly because there were so many. :)

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
From what I'm seeing 37 states have campaign donation limitations. 12 allow unlimited money. Some states, like Maine, Kansas and Alaska limit contributions to under $500 for state legislatures.
That's directly to the campaign. You don't give to the campaign. You give it to the "Citizens concerned about hillary clinton being a lizard person" super pac and they run clips with her face super imposed on the V baby for a month straight. There's no limit on that, and states CAN"T put a limit on that via citizens united. The superpac has no trace of the money coming in or going out, the only thing they can't do is collude with the candidate *wink wink nudge nudge*

Different question.

I was suggesting he look at which states tried to limit money's influence on campaigns and which party was more responsible for those, to help him figure out which party was more likely to continue to work for such limits. He only looked at the first part, possibly because there were so many. :)

Well, I did try to google it, but I had other things to do. So your country is f@+@ed.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
From what I'm seeing 37 states have campaign donation limitations. 12 allow unlimited money. Some states, like Maine, Kansas and Alaska limit contributions to under $500 for state legislatures.

That's directly to the campaign. You don't give to the campaign. You give it to the "Citizens concerned about hillary clinton being a lizard person" super pac and they run clips with her face super imposed on the V baby for a month straight. There's no limit on that, and states CAN"T put a limit on that via citizens united. The superpac has no trace of the money coming in or going out, the only thing they can't do is collude with the candidate *wink wink nudge nudge*

it really is this bad

I remember that, Colbert Report was great :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

~Bangs my head against the wall~

That is probably the biggest threat to Democracy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Support for Nixon just days before he resigned remained over 50% in the republican party. Let that temper your expectations of how he'll poll in various parts of the country.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Support for Nixon just days before he resigned remained over 50% in the republican party. Let that temper your expectations of how he'll poll in various parts of the country.

Yeah, this is why I say that as bad as conservative politicians and media are... they're just a reflection of conservative voters. The people themselves are the problem... and thus the only real way to make things better is to get the people to change. Which is difficult, but not impossible.

Sovereign Court

Things like this are not helping the future of the dem party.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes. Attending a forum about "Why You Should Join the Socialists" will be much easier on the brain than, for example, a panel debating the merits of Vivek Chibber's defense of the Brenner thesis against the criticisms of the Subaltern Studies crowd.

What does that mean?

Beats me.

Heh. I was just putzing around on the Jacobin website and I saw an advertisement for the launching of a new, spin-off journal, Catalyst. I follow the link and was delighted to read

"Catalyst is a beautiful print journal published by Jacobin and edited by Robert Brenner and Vivek Chibber."


Established Labor Is Pissed At Seattle’s New Left

Have to go back to the AT&T picket line soon, but a quick skim through this indicates it's juicy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Support for Nixon just days before he resigned remained over 50% in the republican party. Let that temper your expectations of how he'll poll in various parts of the country.
Yeah, this is why I say that as bad as conservative politicians and media are... they're just a reflection of conservative voters. The people themselves are the problem... and thus the only real way to make things better is to get the people to change. Which is difficult, but not impossible.

Part of it is just the psychology of how humans make decisions. Once we make a decision, our brain spends a lot of time rationalizing and reinforcing that decision. For the people who voted for Nixon, changing their opinion of him would mean admitting that they made a mistake, which is something humans aren't exactly prone to doing.

It's part of the reason why we shouldn't expect support among republican voters to change any time soon, or even independent voters. Over time, as they get further and further away from the decision (voting) there becomes space for them to change their minds. Particularly when faced with making a new decision (voting). A lot of America doesn't follow politics very closely, except in the run up to an election. Afterwards though, they just go back to their daily lives and expect politics to fade into the background. To those of us who pay attention to politics more intently every year this seems really strange, but that doesn't change the fact that that is how a lot of people approach politics.

Now, these past two weeks feel different from the seemingly endless stream of b$#%!+~& that's been happening, but it's important to realize that this is going to be a slow process. Even if the FBI investigation does continue in good faith, it isn't going to be fast, and this could take months or even a couple years to fully resolve. Don't compare poll numbers from this week to 6 months ago, wait a few more months to let revelations continue to happen and for this to sink it. Allow for time to separate people from the election.


What I'd expect to find over time is not so much people willing to admit they voted for Trump and were wrong, but fewer and fewer people willing to admit to voting for Trump in the first place.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Of Relevance:

California Democrat Senator Feinstein feels the heat from the left

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IDK the folks I know who voted for Trump dont give a f. They know he is a monster and dont care. Its why they voted for him. Whether it was to "shake things up with an outsider" or simply they were tired of "all this PC business" they wanted the Donald. When things started going pear shaped they just tuned out.

3,801 to 3,850 of 4,260 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.