So. Pete Hoekstra of 'Debbie Spend-It-Now' infamy won his primary in Michigan.
Let the bloodbath begin.
That's a win-win race for the Dems.
???
Unless you mean we'll be electing a pretty good Senator and beating a gigantic asshole.
We either get a Dem in the seat, or a crazy, gaffe-prone Republican, a.k.a. "the best Democratic fundraiser that exists."
Also, the crazier the party gets, the easier it is to marginalize them.
Yes, we will get a gaffe-prone republican that is crazy enough to marginalize.
IN POWER.
Win-Win!
Hoekstra is losing most match ups prior to him being elected, I can't imagine he'll suddenly start winning those after he gets the actual nom. Thad McCotters seat might also flip blue because the Reindeer herder that won the primary is a fucking 9/11 truther.
Fair enough, I'm just pointing out it is hardly win-win simply because the NEXT election becomes easier.
So. Pete Hoekstra of 'Debbie Spend-It-Now' infamy won his primary in Michigan.
Let the bloodbath begin.
That's a win-win race for the Dems.
???
Unless you mean we'll be electing a pretty good Senator and beating a gigantic asshole.
We either get a Dem in the seat, or a crazy, gaffe-prone Republican, a.k.a. "the best Democratic fundraiser that exists."
Also, the crazier the party gets, the easier it is to marginalize them.
Yes, we will get a gaffe-prone republican that is crazy enough to marginalize.
IN POWER.
Win-Win!
Hoekstra is losing most match ups prior to him being elected, I can't imagine he'll suddenly start winning those after he gets the actual nom. Thad McCotters seat might also flip blue because the Reindeer herder that won the primary is a fucking 9/11 truther.
Fair enough, I'm just pointing out it is hardly win-win simply because the NEXT election becomes easier.
Hoekstra does not look to be elected though... he won the primary but he still has to go against the sitting Senator and most people know him as the racist douche with the horribly racist ad.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I read it as someone claiming to have voted in past primaries despite not being eligible, and wondering how to do it again. But OK, benefit of the doubt: applied.
most dem primaries are not closed..... so what you think is a thing is not a thing.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I read it as someone claiming to have voted in past primaries despite not being eligible, and wondering how to do it again. But OK, benefit of the doubt: applied.
most dem primaries are not closed..... so what you think is a thing is not a thing.
Speaking of Florida, which according to AMFE is closed. It's all there for you to read, just a few posts up.
So. Pete Hoekstra of 'Debbie Spend-It-Now' infamy won his primary in Michigan.
Let the bloodbath begin.
That's a win-win race for the Dems.
???
Unless you mean we'll be electing a pretty good Senator and beating a gigantic asshole.
We either get a Dem in the seat, or a crazy, gaffe-prone Republican, a.k.a. "the best Democratic fundraiser that exists."
Also, the crazier the party gets, the easier it is to marginalize them.
Yes, we will get a gaffe-prone republican that is crazy enough to marginalize.
IN POWER.
Win-Win!
Hoekstra is losing most match ups prior to him being elected, I can't imagine he'll suddenly start winning those after he gets the actual nom. Thad McCotters seat might also flip blue because the Reindeer herder that won the primary is a fucking 9/11 truther.
Fair enough, I'm just pointing out it is hardly win-win simply because the NEXT election becomes easier.
Part of it is also 'we can tar everyone else with this guy' as well.
Not that this makes it better, but he acknowledges that this is "a fantasy" and "will never happen". Doesn't make him not an asshole, but at least a realistic asshole.
Not that this makes it better, but he acknowledges that this is "a fantasy" and "will never happen". Doesn't make him not an asshole, but at least a realistic asshole.
Doesn't matter. It's an unacceptable stance for a Senatorial candidate to hold, period. In a sane world, this should end his campaign.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There are a number of people who honestly buy that the direct election of Senators is a worse system than the patronage and graff we have before. A couple on this board even.
Talking to these people about this is like arguing with a poorly programmed retarded robot.
There are also some of us who would like to abolish the Senate entirely!
Fucking Senate.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Abolish the Senate to empower the House is a far less idiotic position than let Governor's and state legislatures appoint Senators to empower States Rights.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't agree with it, but it is far far far faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar and away a different sort of beast.
There are a number of people who honestly buy that the direct election of Senators is a worse system than the patronage and graff we have before. A couple on this board even.
Talking to these people about this is like arguing with a poorly programmed retarded robot.
Considering I live in the state that was one of the major catalysts for the direct election of Senators, I'd like to smack the derp out of them.
Abolish the Senate to empower the House is a far less idiotic position than let Governor's and state legislatures appoint Senators to empower States Rights.
Agreed on it being less idiotic, but still stupid, than going back to a less democratic system.
I wouldn't mind looking into redoing things. Mainly we need to get the partisan biases behind redistricting stymied, I don't think you can get rid of them completely but they are playing too much of factor in how things are done. We also need to move things back so that influence between cities, rural areas and buttfuck no wheres are a little more even. Right now I'd argue that cities are getting the short end in the senate. Rural areas probably have to much influence in the Senate and possible a little to much in the house (each state gets at least one). Buttfuck no wheres should get some consideration but they seem to have way more influence than they should in both chambers (likely to the point of detrimental when it comes to the Senate).
So at the moment I'm watching to see if Wisconsin Republicans are dumb enough to not vote for Tommy Thompson for Senate. Currently 33.8 to 30.8 with 33.5 reporting for Thompson.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Eric (I think?) Hovde who's the Tea Party favorite. Then some dude named Neumann and one of the Fitzgerald brothers that run the Wisconsin legislature running fourth.
Tammy Baldwin is the Democratic nominee, who will probably be the subject of this fall's most outrageous campaign ads (as a super badass military veteran).
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Well Baldwin seems like she's a pretty good candidate judging from her Wiki page, but she's got a tough battle to face, I think Wisconsin is gonna go Republican this November.
I believe the polls currently show her tied or leading, and once she's got a single target to hit with ads that's bound to get better. Unless you mean for Romney, in which case ahahahahaa.
Abolish the Senate to empower the House is a far less idiotic position than let Governor's and state legislatures appoint Senators to empower States Rights.
If I could reform the government with magical Emperor of the Universe powers, I would keep the two bodies of congress but still make some changes.
For the House, I would have 400 members. Elections to the House would be counted nation wide, with a modified primary/general system.
Where we currently have a primary to pick those member of a party who we want to see in the general, we would instead have a nationwide vote for party. Every party that got voted for would get 1 seat in the house for every quarter of a percent of the national vote they got.
Once you figured out how the seats were to be divided, then you could hold your votes to see which party members get the seats.
As for the senate, I would have the 100 seats divided up percentage wise according to percentage of the population that had classifications of professions.
If 5% of your registered voters were food service workers than the food service unions could send 5 people to the Senate.
There are probably holes in the idea, but that is what is in my head.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Well Baldwin seems like she's a pretty good candidate judging from her Wiki page, but she's got a tough battle to face, I think Wisconsin is gonna go Republican this November.
WI is not going for Romney. I'd bet at least 5 internets.
Or if you're Mitt, $10,000.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
Hey so I'm a student in Mass and a new voter. I've lived out of the country for most of my life and mostly only paid attention to Presidential politics. But now, since I'm an actual voter, I figure I should read up on the other levels.
Does anyone have a good article on Warren/Brown's policies? I'm very left leaning, so I'd probably vote for Warren anyway, but I'd like to have a good idea of who these candidates actually are.
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
Hey so I'm a student in Mass and a new voter. I've lived out of the country for most of my life and mostly only paid attention to Presidential politics. But now, since I'm an actual voter, I figure I should read up on the other levels.
Does anyone have a good article on Warren/Brown's policies? I'm very left leaning, so I'd probably vote for Warren anyway, but I'd like to have a good idea of who these candidates actually are.
That may be a mistake. I've heard several times that Brown is on Obama's speed dial, and that he is constantly in secret meetings with kings and queens. He also was one of the first and only people to see the Osama photos. Pretty important guy.
We can safely ignore foreign policy, as they're both neophytes. Warren probably rubber stamps Obama, Brown would rubber stamp Romney. Hooray.
Brown is basically pro-bank. That's where his money comes from, that's how he's voted. That's his fundamental interest. Preserve banking power. He sometimes makes noises about being pro-gay and some moves towards centrism, which is how I understand he's running (not mentioning he's a Republican).
Warren is ... the opposite of that. The banks HATE her. She's the person behind the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which basically is set up to make sure the banks aren't bilking card holders and people who take out loans with misleading claims, fine print, etc. etc. etc. They just fined Capital One a rather large sum of money last week sometime. She's a fairly conventional liberal Democrat on other things, but on economics she really knows her stuff and is good at getting that stuff done.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I take it your choice in regards to US Representative was fairly easy to make or are you focusing familiarizing yourself with each race, one at a time?
I take it your choice in regards to US Representative was fairly easy to make or are you focusing familiarizing yourself with each race, one at a time?
The latter, mostly because Warren versus Brown kept coming up more.
Apparently John R. Olver's my rep.
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
Hey so I'm a student in Mass and a new voter. I've lived out of the country for most of my life and mostly only paid attention to Presidential politics. But now, since I'm an actual voter, I figure I should read up on the other levels.
Does anyone have a good article on Warren/Brown's policies? I'm very left leaning, so I'd probably vote for Warren anyway, but I'd like to have a good idea of who these candidates actually are.
That may be a mistake. I've heard several times that Brown is on Obama's speed dial, and that he is constantly in secret meetings with kings and queens. He also was one of the first and only people to see the Osama photos. Pretty important guy.
To add context to this, Death of Rats is joking. The things he mentioned are all bullshit statements Brown has made. Brown has a history of being self-important and basically declaring that he sets the agenda in the senate.
Brown is, as a person, a bit more moderate than Warren would be, but both will toe the party line 99% of the time.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Hey so I'm a student in Mass and a new voter. I've lived out of the country for most of my life and mostly only paid attention to Presidential politics. But now, since I'm an actual voter, I figure I should read up on the other levels.
Does anyone have a good article on Warren/Brown's policies? I'm very left leaning, so I'd probably vote for Warren anyway, but I'd like to have a good idea of who these candidates actually are.
That may be a mistake. I've heard several times that Brown is on Obama's speed dial, and that he is constantly in secret meetings with kings and queens. He also was one of the first and only people to see the Osama photos. Pretty important guy.
To add context to this, Death of Rats is joking. The things he mentioned are all bullshit statements Brown has made. Brown has a history of being self-important and basically declaring that he sets the agenda in the senate.
Brown is, as a person, a bit more moderate than Warren would be, but both will toe the party line 99% of the time.
This is misleading as all get out.
Brown is more moderate toward the centre from the right and Warren leans to the left. "More moderate" is meaningless outside of primaries wihtout these qualifiers.
Hey so I'm a student in Mass and a new voter. I've lived out of the country for most of my life and mostly only paid attention to Presidential politics. But now, since I'm an actual voter, I figure I should read up on the other levels.
Does anyone have a good article on Warren/Brown's policies? I'm very left leaning, so I'd probably vote for Warren anyway, but I'd like to have a good idea of who these candidates actually are.
That may be a mistake. I've heard several times that Brown is on Obama's speed dial, and that he is constantly in secret meetings with kings and queens. He also was one of the first and only people to see the Osama photos. Pretty important guy.
To add context to this, Death of Rats is joking. The things he mentioned are all bullshit statements Brown has made. Brown has a history of being self-important and basically declaring that he sets the agenda in the senate.
Brown is, as a person, a bit more moderate than Warren would be, but both will toe the party line 99% of the time.
This is misleading as all get out.
Brown is more moderate toward the centre from the right and Warren leans to the left. "More moderate" is meaningless outside of primaries wihtout these qualifiers.
This is also bullshit. Brown is a hard right Republican who talks like he's a moderate.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
Fair enough, I'm just pointing out it is hardly win-win simply because the NEXT election becomes easier.
Hoekstra does not look to be elected though... he won the primary but he still has to go against the sitting Senator and most people know him as the racist douche with the horribly racist ad.
pleasepaypreacher.net
most dem primaries are not closed..... so what you think is a thing is not a thing.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Speaking of Florida, which according to AMFE is closed. It's all there for you to read, just a few posts up.
Part of it is also 'we can tar everyone else with this guy' as well.
I hear what you libs are saying, but Elisabeth Warren is not an indian. So vote Brown!
pleasepaypreacher.net
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
No man better lives up to his name.
Not that this makes it better, but he acknowledges that this is "a fantasy" and "will never happen". Doesn't make him not an asshole, but at least a realistic asshole.
Doesn't matter. It's an unacceptable stance for a Senatorial candidate to hold, period. In a sane world, this should end his campaign.
Talking to these people about this is like arguing with a poorly programmed retarded robot.
Fucking Senate.
Considering I live in the state that was one of the major catalysts for the direct election of Senators, I'd like to smack the derp out of them.
Agreed on it being less idiotic, but still stupid, than going back to a less democratic system.
I wouldn't mind looking into redoing things. Mainly we need to get the partisan biases behind redistricting stymied, I don't think you can get rid of them completely but they are playing too much of factor in how things are done. We also need to move things back so that influence between cities, rural areas and buttfuck no wheres are a little more even. Right now I'd argue that cities are getting the short end in the senate. Rural areas probably have to much influence in the Senate and possible a little to much in the house (each state gets at least one). Buttfuck no wheres should get some consideration but they seem to have way more influence than they should in both chambers (likely to the point of detrimental when it comes to the Senate).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Tammy Baldwin is the Democratic nominee, who will probably be the subject of this fall's most outrageous campaign ads (as a super badass military veteran).
If I could reform the government with magical Emperor of the Universe powers, I would keep the two bodies of congress but still make some changes.
For the House, I would have 400 members. Elections to the House would be counted nation wide, with a modified primary/general system.
Where we currently have a primary to pick those member of a party who we want to see in the general, we would instead have a nationwide vote for party. Every party that got voted for would get 1 seat in the house for every quarter of a percent of the national vote they got.
Once you figured out how the seats were to be divided, then you could hold your votes to see which party members get the seats.
As for the senate, I would have the 100 seats divided up percentage wise according to percentage of the population that had classifications of professions.
If 5% of your registered voters were food service workers than the food service unions could send 5 people to the Senate.
There are probably holes in the idea, but that is what is in my head.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
WI is not going for Romney. I'd bet at least 5 internets.
Or if you're Mitt, $10,000.
Does anyone have a good article on Warren/Brown's policies? I'm very left leaning, so I'd probably vote for Warren anyway, but I'd like to have a good idea of who these candidates actually are.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
That may be a mistake. I've heard several times that Brown is on Obama's speed dial, and that he is constantly in secret meetings with kings and queens. He also was one of the first and only people to see the Osama photos. Pretty important guy.
We can safely ignore foreign policy, as they're both neophytes. Warren probably rubber stamps Obama, Brown would rubber stamp Romney. Hooray.
Brown is basically pro-bank. That's where his money comes from, that's how he's voted. That's his fundamental interest. Preserve banking power. He sometimes makes noises about being pro-gay and some moves towards centrism, which is how I understand he's running (not mentioning he's a Republican).
Warren is ... the opposite of that. The banks HATE her. She's the person behind the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which basically is set up to make sure the banks aren't bilking card holders and people who take out loans with misleading claims, fine print, etc. etc. etc. They just fined Capital One a rather large sum of money last week sometime. She's a fairly conventional liberal Democrat on other things, but on economics she really knows her stuff and is good at getting that stuff done.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Apparently John R. Olver's my rep.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
To add context to this, Death of Rats is joking. The things he mentioned are all bullshit statements Brown has made. Brown has a history of being self-important and basically declaring that he sets the agenda in the senate.
Brown is, as a person, a bit more moderate than Warren would be, but both will toe the party line 99% of the time.
This is misleading as all get out.
Brown is more moderate toward the centre from the right and Warren leans to the left. "More moderate" is meaningless outside of primaries wihtout these qualifiers.
Does anyone think that a Democrat from Massachusetts would be a hard right candidate?
This is also bullshit. Brown is a hard right Republican who talks like he's a moderate.