Jerrydevil Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 My link "One side wants my guns, the other wants my porno magazines, and they're not getting either of them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Is Rick about to lose it? It certainly looks like he is getting a bit frazzled. I anxiously await his total meltdown that removes him from any future elected office permanently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Is Rick about to lose it? It certainly looks like he is getting a bit frazzled. I anxiously await his total meltdown that removes him from any future elected office permanently Y'argh!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Dose Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Still gotta let it play out. Florida was a big win for Romney, but there's been a lot of twists and turns already. I'm not willing to say it's "inevitable" yet. As I said. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 As I said. . . The process is playing out. Unfortunately, by the time the New Jersey primary rolls around, we will have less candidates to vote for. C'est la vie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghdi Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 The process is playing out. Unfortunately, by the time the New Jersey primary rolls around, we will have less candidates to vote for. C'est la vie. What is left to play out? Do you think that any of the remaining candidates (Gingrich and Paul) have any sort of chance? Romney is the de-facto nominee. And he will lose in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Dose Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The process is playing out. Unfortunately, by the time the New Jersey primary rolls around, we will have less candidates to vote for. C'est la vie. That Romney is the Republican nominee is a forgone conclusion. It was basically inevitable for a couple of months, but now it's over and all of the fundraisers, conservative groups, etc. have moved on to preparing for the general election. Your point about NJ brings up something that burns me. Our primary process makes no sense. A first grader could tell you that it's unbalanced and not fair. "Iowa must always vote first." WHY?! Who the hell came up with that rule? It also takes far too long. How it should work: States are grouped into 4 groups (I say non-regional, others have told me it should be 4 sections of the country). First year, Group 1 votes in the last week of January, Group 2 two weeks after that, etc. Four years later, Group 2 votes first, then 3, 4, 1. Quick, clean, fair to candidates and voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 That Romney is the Republican nominee is a forgone conclusion. It was basically inevitable for a couple of months, but now it's over and all of the fundraisers, conservative groups, etc. have moved on to preparing for the general election. Your point about NJ brings up something that burns me. Our primary process makes no sense. A first grader could tell you that it's unbalanced and not fair. "Iowa must always vote first." WHY?! Who the hell came up with that rule? It also takes far too long. How it should work: States are grouped into 4 groups (I say non-regional, others have told me it should be 4 sections of the country). First year, Group 1 votes in the last week of January, Group 2 two weeks after that, etc. Four years later, Group 2 votes first, then 3, 4, 1. Quick, clean, fair to candidates and voters. Primary processes are internal party matters. I would imagine that party bigwigs want a system where a nominee is chosen relatively quickly to avoid attrition, even if it makes the primaries in a lot of states meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 One side benefit of the system is that we allow dbags like Santorum plenty of pulpit time to show how much of a complete d!ck they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 That Romney is the Republican nominee is a forgone conclusion. It was basically inevitable for a couple of months, but now it's over and all of the fundraisers, conservative groups, etc. have moved on to preparing for the general election. Your point about NJ brings up something that burns me. Our primary process makes no sense. A first grader could tell you that it's unbalanced and not fair. "Iowa must always vote first." WHY?! Who the hell came up with that rule? It also takes far too long. How it should work: States are grouped into 4 groups (I say non-regional, others have told me it should be 4 sections of the country). First year, Group 1 votes in the last week of January, Group 2 two weeks after that, etc. Four years later, Group 2 votes first, then 3, 4, 1. Quick, clean, fair to candidates and voters. Of course it's not fair and balanced, but that was never the intent. As with everything in politics it all comes down to schmoozing, political parties are "smart" enough to know that you give special treatment to swing states (or states that have traditionally been swing states) to try and curry favor, or at least keep pace with your rivals. Really at the end of the day what the primaries are all about is getting the most electable vetted candidate that their side can muster while ticking off as little of the electorate as possible. What bothers me about all this is the length, I hate how we are constantly in election cycles. I would prefer 9/6/3 year terms for senate/pres/house but not allow politicians to run consecutive terms and to put limits on advertising / marketing to 2-3 months before the election, and primary stuff the 2-3 before that. That's a pipe dream though that would require a constitutional amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 What bothers me about all this is the length, I hate how we are constantly in election cycles. I would prefer 9/6/3 year terms for senate/pres/house but not allow politicians to run consecutive terms and to put limits on advertising / marketing to 2-3 months before the election, and primary stuff the 2-3 before that. That's a pipe dream though that would require a constitutional amendment. Most Senate and House seats are never in play so perpetual election cycles are, for the most part, not issues there. (Notice how you very rarely see ads for New Jersey congressional races). You could have a six year term for President and it wouldn't change that, or at the very most at the margins. The office is way too powerful (too much so I would argue), so people will dump as much of their resources as they can, and as early and often as possible. I also categorically reject limits on political advertising or marketing. You would have to start carving out exceptions to the First Amendment, which has served this country pretty well. Just think through the consequences. Think it's allright for the FEC to say monitor political blogs or newspaper editorials that have nice or bad things to say about politicians? That type of in-kind "advertising" or "marketing" doesn't come free. The only campaign financing laws that I could support would be limits on direct contributions to politicians running for office, which are designed, not to balance the playing field (if that is at all possible), but to curb quid pro quo type of corruption. Really, the biggest sin of spending on political campaigns is how annoying the tv ads are. However, the Constitution does not require that my television watching experience be more enjoyable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 The only campaign financing laws that I could support would be limits on direct contributions to politicians running for office, which are designed, not to balance the playing field (if that is at all possible), but to curb quid pro quo type of corruption. Did you change your mind on this recently? I thought you were opposed to those kinds of restrictions too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Did you change your mind on this recently? I thought you were opposed to those kinds of restrictions too. I don't think so. What I said was that I rejected the idea of placing limits or abolishing contributions to so-called Super PACs, which are independent of the actual political campaigns. That is, if a corporation or a rich guy wants to endorse and spend money on buying ads that say vote for this guy and vote against that guy, it has every right to do so (the same as a media corporation has every right to control its content, whether you like that content or not). Even the dissenters in Citizens United justified restrictions on that type of thing in that they "level the playing field" rather than combating corruption or the appearance of corruption, which is only a significant enough problem when a campaign receives direct funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Most Senate and House seats are never in play so perpetual election cycles are, for the most part, not issues there. (Notice how you very rarely see ads for New Jersey congressional races). You could have a six year term for President and it wouldn't change that, or at the very most at the margins. The office is way too powerful (too much so I would argue), so people will dump as much of their resources as they can, and as early and often as possible. I think all politicians, especially those in the house are quick to throw a wrench in the works to make a populist stand rather then do what they think is right for the country. I didn't arbitrarily increase the term limits, they go hand in hand with not allowing consecutive terms so that once elected your only obligation is do what you think is best for your constituents. Because you can't get re-elected there is no reason to drum up and grand stand over minor issues. I also categorically reject limits on political advertising or marketing. You would have to start carving out exceptions to the First Amendment, which has served this country pretty well. Just think through the consequences. Think it's allright for the FEC to say monitor political blogs or newspaper editorials that have nice or bad things to say about politicians? That type of in-kind "advertising" or "marketing" doesn't come free. The only campaign financing laws that I could support would be limits on direct contributions to politicians running for office, which are designed, not to balance the playing field (if that is at all possible), but to curb quid pro quo type of corruption. We would just disagree here, the first amendment is constantly regulated in other ways that most of us consider safe and sound practices. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded room, you can't call 911 just to chit chat, you cant say "fvck" on television, etc etc. Is this one more thing to regulate? sure but it doesn't mean that it's not for the greater good overall. If you can't have campaign advertising X number of time before an election you can't have the ever increasing campaign lengths. By having 20+ month long campaigns you force the current politicians to be on the defensive about everything they are doing rather then focusing on the governing. I would prefer not to tinker with the first amendment, but there is precedent there and I don't really see how you could shorten campaign season any other way (if there was I would support it though). Really, the biggest sin of spending on political campaigns is how annoying the tv ads are. However, the Constitution does not require that my television watching experience be more enjoyable. We really disagree here. I don't want a president who runs around at fundraisers and stump speeches during his last year because he needs to keep pace with his opponent. I want them to govern, and I think the best way to do that is give them nothing else to focus on. Edited April 16, 2012 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 We would just disagree here, the first amendment is constantly regulated in other ways that most of us consider safe and sound practices. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded room, you can't call 911 just to chit chat, you cant say "fvck" on television, etc etc. Is this one more thing to regulate? sure but it doesn't mean that it's not for the greater good overall. If you can't have campaign advertising X number of time before an election you can't have the ever increasing campaign lengths. By having 20+ month long campaigns you force the current politicians to be on the defensive about everything they are doing rather then focusing on the governing. I would prefer not to tinker with the first amendment, but there is precedent there and I don't really see how you could shorten campaign season any other way (if there was I would support it though). I'm not really a Constitutional originalist (or at least I am, except when I'm not), but the types of things you're talking about are traditional limitations ("fighting words", obsenity, or say publishing the D-Day invasion plans a week before) that have always existed. Campaign spending limitations are a direct limitation on political speech, which, is a special category of speech if there ever was one. If you're ever going to weigh into that territory, you have to have a very, very good reason to do so that can't be accomplished by any other means. In my view, simply wanting to do away with perpetual campaigning is not good enough, and not by a long shot. Like I say, the New York Times, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, the Nation, National Review are all media corporations (some of which have billions and billions of dollars in cash) that express political views, and all, in effect, publish things that say vote for this guy or don't vote for that guy. Yet it would be unthinkable for the government to fine them for doing so, or to tell them how much they can pay opinion writers. That they're "journalists" does not entitle them to special protections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I'm not really a Constitutional originalist (or at least I am, except when I'm not), but the types of things you're talking about are traditional limitations ("fighting words", obsenity, or say publishing the D-Day invasion plans a week before) that have always existed. Campaign spending limitations are a direct limitation on political speech, which, is a special category of speech if there ever was one. If you're ever going to weigh into that territory, you have to have a very, very good reason to do so that can't be accomplished by any other means. In my view, simply wanting to do away with perpetual campaigning is not good enough, and not by a long shot. Like I say, the New York Times, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, the Nation, National Review are all media corporations (some of which have billions and billions of dollars in cash) that express political views, and all, in effect, publish things that say vote for this guy or don't vote for that guy. Yet it would be unthinkable for the government to fine them for doing so, or to tell them how much they can pay opinion writers. That they're "journalists" does not entitle them to special protections. I didn't suggest limiting campaign spending nor was I suggesting regulating the political coverage of media outlets and their staff. Some simple rules that regulate when political ads (ie. I'm XXX and I approved this message" or "XXX in 2012") can be placed on public airwaves or domains is not really not as egregious as you are trying to make it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) lol i got fshnookered! Edited April 20, 2012 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moustic Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I dunno about your 2012... But our is finished... (and we won ; ) ) Vive la France ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I dunno about your 2012... But our is finished... (and we won ; ) ) Vive la France ; ) So are you happy with the results or just that well-endowed females participate in the political process in your land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I didn't suggest limiting campaign spending nor was I suggesting regulating the political coverage of media outlets and their staff. Some simple rules that regulate when political ads (ie. I'm XXX and I approved this message" or "XXX in 2012") can be placed on public airwaves or domains is not really not as egregious as you are trying to make it out to be. I think what you're proposing goes beyond "simple rules that regulate." I have no problem with forcing a candidate's campaign ads to come with a disclaimer, "I'm X and I approve this message." You get into a gray area when you start forcing third-parties to do the same, although I'll admit there's some wiggle room. I don't want to have a situation where, say, the FEC can serve a subpoena seeking disclosure of the author of an anonymous political blog on the grounds that information is needed to determine whether the blogger receives funding from a George Soros or Koch brothers supported entity. The special rules for "public airways" serve no purpose anymore, except as a legal formality. Virtually everyone in this country has access to cable, satellite and/or the internet. I don't see why a special exemption to the First Amendment should be given to "public airways." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moustic Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 So are you happy with the results or just that well-endowed females participate in the political process in your land? Come on ! Boobs are secondary... I'm french... i'm over this ! oh wait... But all together.. i'm happy about the result of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Francois Hollande = disaster. Austerity doesn't care about elections, and the French people will find that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I will watch what happens in France with interest. Time will tell if this is the right move for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Dose Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I wonder if we had had a Republican government if we would have followed the austerity route that Europe took. And if we had, would we be building toward some sort of socialistic backlash like France just had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) Facebook is kind of driving me INSANE! Obama came out personally supporting game marriage because he was about to go on a fund raising tour in Hollywood. I mean REALLY! And who give a rats ass about Romney's prep school pranks? And I even believe he doesn't remember them. How much sh!t are you flabbergasted your old high school friends don't remember? They both have the same agenda - there will be no change in the balance of power if either is in office. I wish people would STFU and read what they post. If Obama said what Romney did he'd be brilliant and vice versa depending on which political party the whiner thinks best represents his side -- but wake up for goodness sake! They're both on the SAME side and it's not first and foremost ours. Ok -- vent over Nice rack, mous! Edited May 11, 2012 by Pepperkorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts