You might be surprised at how deeply entrenched Evangelicalism or Christian Fundamentalism is in Washington politics, as well as the military.
–Heard of the Fellowship (The Family, as it’s also called)?
My sketchbook thread:
"Describe how it matters to you if a president is white or not."
Maybe not so much to me, but to black and hispanic people I think it is rather important. Alienating hispanic people so pointlessly where even GWB had some grasp surely was a suicidal move for Romney.
"Name one evangelical president. Name one evangelical CONGRESSMAN."
if i may, let me replace 'evangelical' with 'batshit crazy religious nutbag who thinks we're in the endtimes' and my point stands. and dont be deliberately obtuse; even if the figureheads are moderate, the republican party is the party of choice for the religious right. who lets be charitable, are insane.
Ill hand over to Republican Congressman Broun, who thinks.. well, Ill let him talk.
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; November 7th, 2012 at 02:25 PM.
To the very top post. God dammit seriously not again with the fucking RFID chip bullshit again. Some people I swear...... Before jumping on the end of days bullshit bandwagon. Here, a link to the actual law. Instead of listening to idiots shouting about old bills.
If you find something in there about mandatory implants do tell.
Last edited by JFierce; November 7th, 2012 at 02:34 PM.
It's always this sort of guy that gets caught with a hooker and a bag of coke.
Last edited by Kolbenito; November 7th, 2012 at 02:59 PM.
But it's all relative. Most of us here can agree I think that at least most of Christianity is crazy. Catholics, Mormons, they believe some crazy shit. What matters is if they intend to legislate that shit on the people
sb's sb: Crit it! Hurt it! Make it cry!
Bleed for the republican party my heart does not.
Anyway no matter how much they alienate women, gays, blacks, hispanics, atheists and people worried about climate change, they will always happily be in the pocket of big business so theyll never starve.
As far as winning elections with actual humans, it remains to be seen whether the evolution sceptics can change, or fail.
I think the most powerful force in politics is boredom. People will grow so bored the incumbent they vote in the new comer regardless of what his manifesto says. Remember the Hope poster? The Hope for Change? Another way of saying you hope for change is that you fear things will stay the same.
At least, thats what I think.
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; November 7th, 2012 at 03:48 PM.
Personally this election had little chance of making any dramatic grand scale changes.
But just the fact that several states legalized same sex marriage with an actually majority vote. 3/4 times I believe. Then the fact that several states legalized marijuana. Colorado and Washington legalized it even for recreational. Gives at least a bit of good from it all. This is going to spark up some interesting issues. Especially if it's taken to the Supreme Court which makes a verdict. One state sets a legal precedent then it's just going to be a landslide for the others since the economic growth will start to landslide since Weed is a big economic cash cow which during hard economic times other states won't be able to afford to ban it. It's like some states banning alcohol while others don't. The state with the ban will be losing big money. I've never even smoked but still think it's ridiculous.
But either way apparently it takes ridiculously hard times to start getting peoples heads out of their asses to finally realize they shouldn't have a say in how others live their lives. If it has absolutely no effect on your personal life and isn't harmful to others who gives a fuck frankly.
Most of the country is slightly right of center, I'm one and most people I talk to think some taxation and some help from the government is okay. The republicans have pushed people like me to the alternative which is Obama, Before Reagan I rarely voted Dem After Reagan's first term I rarely Voted Repub. The republicans need to clean out the whack jobs from their party to be successful. I think they will win the next election because the dems got nothing moderate in the wings. The problems with both parties is they win a majority and then the nut jobs think we want that extreme agenda, no, people don't. People want to make money, go home have an adult beverage, have sex with their partner and let their kids grow up safe and have a better life than they did. Most people don't care about all that other stuff unless it happens to them personally. That's pretty much it, to the extent government allows that to work people are happy.
People act like nothing has been done in the Obama administration but he has made sweeping changes compared to most presidents.
No no, of course things take time. When I was referring to grand scale changes. I was talking about the standstill in congress, and the overall state of Washington. I was expecting another divide of the house, senate and Pres (which technically happened, we'll see if they can cooperate or not this time around) without anything interesting happening.
Just my opinion obviously. I just think being in a poor state of affairs may have helped some individuals take a good look around and realize there are more important things than worrying about others sexual preferences or smoking a joint. People aren't going to change their minds all at once especially not certain states. But seriously how often do votes on something like gay marriage pass 3 out of 4 times. or not just one but 2 states passing recreational weed. It was just a pleasant surprise when I was expecting more of the same.
People are also just getting older and generations with moderate views are at the age where they start to care about this stuff. I think it is a possibility the country will become more liberal on social issues as time marches on and not less.
If it weren't so entangled by lawyers...aka politicians....we really need the party system revamped. The argument about whether someone is D or R enough is ridiculous. To say it's all Republicans ruining everything can go look at California where it's highly Democratic and it's unmanageable.
On the other hand looking at the Republicans running for office on the national level wasn't helping the nation either.
We don't need to worry about if one is too conservative, or not. We need more flexibility.
It's ok to be against taxes on certain issues, be for abortion and other philosophies that don't fit a party line of a D or R.
I have “fond” childhood memories of this, then, land-o-[selective] liberty. I was a child living in the US (born in Germany) with parents that could have been (in 16 States) arrested and thrown in jail for being interracially married, including in my father’s home State of Virginia, where his mother, sisters and relatives (extending back to slaves) lived.
Where does free speech factor into it? It's just a way of preventing private monetary interests from affecting the outcome of elections, and allow parties without access to wealthy sponsors to have the same chance of being elected as anyone else.Money buys elecctions more easily when the masses are easily swayed. Say you have one candidate backed by corporate interests, one candidate backed by union interests, and one candidate representing the little guy with just the federal funding but he's allowed in debates. Isn't this a much better solution than limiting free speech.
I doubt that's really the problem. There are a lot of alternative models in used in a lot of different countries you could base it on. I would rather assume that the main issue is that nobody actually bothers to try, and that changing the current system wouldn't benefit any of the people currently in power.
Honestly it's very easy to rectify a good deal of the finance system. Make it fucking transparent for gods sake.
Know what companies donate and where. Don't allow infinite (quite often) anonymous super PAC bullshit where money = speech. 80% of donors were from wealthy individuals which as we've seen in this years race was just a bombardment of ads.
MSNBC so I trust their opinion about as much as Fox News in often cases but it's still pretty much how it is with the general point being people can spend as much money as possible towards campaigns. Pretty much another step to buying campaigns.
Speaking of campaign finance, apparently the Romney machine didn’t spend enough money.
The Wall Street Journal article:
How Race Slipped Away From Romney
“…Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.”
Last edited by bill618; November 8th, 2012 at 08:59 PM.
"Whether we are talking about self-funded campaigns like McMahon's (which have always been legal) or super PACs (which became possible thanks to Citizens United and a subsequent appeals court decision), money can't buy you love. It can buy you, at best, an opportunity to be heard, but if voters don't like what you are saying all the airwave-clogging negative advertising in the world will not deliver an electoral victory. In addition to McMahon's double fiasco, striking illustrations of this point from the 2012 election cycle include Wil Cardon, who spent $8 million of his own money on the Republican primary in the Arizona Senate race and lost to Jeff Flake by 48 points; Eric Hovde, who lost the Republican Senate nomination in Wisconsin to Tommy Thompson despite outspending him by 2 to 1; and John Brunner, who outspent Todd Akin by 3 to 1 in the contest for the Republican Senate nomination in Missouri but lost by six points. "Money is a necessary condition for electoral success," Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, tells the Times. "But it's not sufficient, and it's never been."
That's why it's silly to talk about "buying" elections, as if the biggest spender automatically wins. At the end of the day, we are still talking about speech, which works only if it persuades."
Having parties without access to wealthy sponsors to have the same chance as anyone else would be a great thing, but like TASmith said, there is not simple or fair solution. Stopping money from private monetary interests would an upper hand to those with their hands in public interests. And the question of candidates can compete with those buying votes with governments handouts to private and public interests alike remains as well.
sb's sb: Crit it! Hurt it! Make it cry!
It all comes down to the Golden Rule-- "the people with the gold make the rules."
The Obamas and the Romneys are both part of "The 1%.*"
(See generally, Thorstein Veblen's The Theory Of the Leisure Class.) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/833/833-h/833-h.htm
*I think this was a very effective meme from 2011 from a movement that just turned out to be kind of silly.
Last edited by Kamber Parrk; November 9th, 2012 at 01:21 AM. Reason: citation
Personally I don't think the issue is even who wins and the statistics opposed to simply the effects of the way the system now is.
This was the most expensive election in history. Honestly who cares which spent more. The effect is not as grand on the public once both candidates reach a certain amount of spending. But that amount of spending is still huge on both sides.
Funny thing is from this election on it's going to get even worse. The greater issue meaning many candidates are still in donors pockets. Once you reach elections that are in the multi-multimillions it doesn't matter who's running they owe somebody something big. Pretend elected officials owe nothing to their donors and your naive (as arrogant as that sounds but seriously? Elections do cost ass tons of money and you think people give that kind of money without expecting anything? People call big donations investments for a reason). So who cares you vote Republican that Republicans in somebodies pockets for the issues in their self interest, vote Democrat same exact thing. It's more so about people holding more influence than the average person with their representatives.
Until they make things transparent on donations, backdoor deals will be even more rampant since Colbert showed how twisted the Super PAC rules are
As pessimistic a view that is. May not happen in many cases even but it makes it quite possible.
Last edited by JFierce; November 9th, 2012 at 03:14 AM.
Thats a good place to call it I think.
Thanks for watching!
Maddow in 2016?