Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:52:42

you had a series of pretty embarrassing posts last night.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:54:42

traderdave wrote:"MacArthur out-spent Belgard by self-funding his campaign to the tune of $5 million, while raising a bit over $500,000 in outside contributions as of mid-October. Belgard raised $1.5 million, entirely from donors and political committees."

WRT the discussion of "better candidates" in the old thread, the situation will not change until this kind of thing is solved. When a candidate can write a personal check for $5m, what chance does the average Joe/Jane have at winning the seat? This is probably just one example of hundreds across the country. I am not naive; I know that money = power but it does not have to be that way. Some really bright, hard-working, true civil servants are simply locked out of the game and our towns, states and country is worse off because of it.

I'd guess their spending was pretty even if you just look at what was spent in the general. Don't think MacArthur got any edge yesterday from running attack ads on Lonegan back in May. Outside spending in the district was also just about even at $1.5 mil for Republicans and $1.8 mil for Democrats. MacArthur and allies might have outspent her by a little in the general, but it was close enough.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 13:12:07

pacino wrote:Sheldon Adelson (remember him?) got his group to fund the anti-medical marijuana side in Florida. HE DOESNT EVEN LIVE THERE.

Because of Adelson’s outsized influence, only about 15 percent of the money raised by the no campaign has come from within the state. In contrast, about 91 percent of the money raised by the yes campaign was raised in-state. Nineteen out of every 20 contributors to People United for Medical Marijuana listed a Florida home address. A review of campaign finance data shows about 80 individuals or organizations have contributed to the no campaign, while roughly 5,600 have donated to the yes campaign. (Note: some may be double-counted due to typos or slight differences in how their names were entered.)

This especially bothers me considering that Florida's wonky process requires a 60% passage rate. So despite roughly 58% of Floridians voting for it, the measure did not pass. It's almost impossible to pass an even slightly controversial measure in that type of climate.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 14:11:16

A 60% supermajority to amend a constitution isn't really a terrible thing.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 14:18:33

CalvinBall wrote:you had a series of pretty embarrassing posts last night.

I thought my posts last night were fine. Going back and rereading I'm amazed at my self restraint.

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 15:36:42

Sen. Inhofe, denier of human role in climate change, likely to lead environment committee

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

by **SK790** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 15:41:38

jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:you had a series of pretty embarrassing posts last night.

I thought my posts last night were fine. Going back and rereading I'm amazed at my self restraint.

Amazing

by **pacino** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 15:42:28

CalvinBall wrote:Sen. Inhofe, denier of human role in climate change, likely to lead environment committee

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

let's not get hyperbolic about it!!!!! :ce:

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 15:42:30

inhofe graduated high school, served in the army for a year, worked for a life insurance company that eventually went bankrupt, got a BA at the age of 40 and is the leading politician on the environment which he has 0 professional experience dealing with outside the political world.

by **SK790** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 15:43:30

CalvinBall wrote:Sen. Inhofe, denier of human role in climate change, likely to lead environment committee

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

So glad to have the grand ol party and their deniers of facts back in charge. Woo, go America.

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 15:44:16

Inhofe often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because "God's still up there" and it is "outrageous" and arrogant for people to believe human beings are "able to change what He is doing in the climate."[36]

that isnt even sound christian doctrine. i hate this country.

by **pacino** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 15:46:25

CalvinBall wrote:
Inhofe often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because "God's still up there" and it is "outrageous" and arrogant for people to believe human beings are "able to change what He is doing in the climate."[36]

that isnt even sound christian doctrine. i hate this country.

both sides

by **SK790** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 16:11:29

can't think of a single verified way that humans have ever affected the atmosphere.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 16:13:13

SK790 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:you had a series of pretty embarrassing posts last night.

I thought my posts last night were fine. Going back and rereading I'm amazed at my self restraint.

Amazing

I've written some stupid things on this distinguished message board, but I was well behaved last night. I have no idea what you or Calvin are talking about.

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 16:15:57

I don't recall you being bad. At "worst" I recall you being drunk (presumably) and gloating (definitely).

by **Phred** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 16:18:11

CalvinBall wrote:
Inhofe often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because "God's still up there" and it is "outrageous" and arrogant for people to believe human beings are "able to change what He is doing in the climate."[36]

that isnt even sound christian doctrine. i hate this country.

I need to run for office. I feel that I should be able to win a popularity contest against this guy.

by **Squire** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 16:18:14

jerseyhoya wrote:
SK790 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:you had a series of pretty embarrassing posts last night.

I thought my posts last night were fine. Going back and rereading I'm amazed at my self restraint.

Amazing

I've written some stupid things on this distinguished message board, but I was well behaved last night. I have no idea what you or Calvin are talking about.

Agree with this. Can't imagine you didn't get it 10 times worse back in 08 and 12.

by **SK790** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 16:18:26

jerseyhoya wrote:
SK790 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:you had a series of pretty embarrassing posts last night.

I thought my posts last night were fine. Going back and rereading I'm amazed at my self restraint.

Amazing

I've written some stupid things on this distinguished message board, but I was well behaved last night. I have no idea what you or Calvin are talking about.

I'm sorry, but the way you treat it like a sporting event really disgusts me and it's not really up to you to decide how other people perceive you.

by **traderdave** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 16:20:40

CalvinBall wrote:
Inhofe often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because "God's still up there" and it is "outrageous" and arrogant for people to believe human beings are "able to change what He is doing in the climate."[36]

that isnt even sound christian doctrine. i hate this country.

Yeah, his thoughts are interesting (i.e. strange) considering Pope Francis just said this two weeks ago:

Therefore the scientist, and above all the Christian scientist, must adopt the approach of posing questions regarding the future of humanity and of the earth, and, of being free and responsible, helping to prepare it and preserve it, to eliminate risks to the environment of both a natural and human nature.

Pope Francis also said that destroying the environment was a "grave sin against God the creator".

by **td11** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 16:21:02

SK790 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
SK790 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:you had a series of pretty embarrassing posts last night.

I thought my posts last night were fine. Going back and rereading I'm amazed at my self restraint.

Amazing

I've written some stupid things on this distinguished message board, but I was well behaved last night. I have no idea what you or Calvin are talking about.

I'm sorry, but the way you treat it like a sporting event really disgusts me and it's not really up to you to decide how other people perceive you.

[crashes through wall]
[clears throat]

borth sides dough it

Archived

Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.