I find that depressing as hell honestly. If you add up the people who will vote for McCain because of Bush and the people who won't, its a net negative of 31 percent. Meanwhile, there is a 32 percent net negative of Jeremiah Wright.
That's right, politically enabling the man who systematically ruined our nation over 8 years hurts you less than attending a church that has a bombastic reverend.
Well, public property does get currently taken and given to private individuals in order to develop things 'for the public interest'. In CA, that's getting contested--supposedly--on the June ballot with a couple of eminent domain propositions (both are flawed, but 98 is malicious in sneaking in the removal of rent control into the definition of 'taken', while 99 hardly does anything but clarify the letter of the law).
Does it even really matter whether or not I vote for or against 99?
Yes, it does, because these two propositions have mouthbreather clauses. If they both pass, the one with more 'yes' votes wins, and 99 (a strict definition of intention) will override 98's most egregious sneakiness (trying to redefine the act of renting property as having your property 'taken').
Oh right right, 99 will override 98 if it gets more votes even if 98 passes. Ok, I'm pretty opposed to rent control so NO98/YES99. got it.
Argh. So Clinton is confirmed as being 20 million in debt. She is open to the idea of loaning herself more money, but they "haven't needed it yet"
... If you're 20 million in debt, you need money. There's no way to claim you're financially solid when you owe people that much money (even if half of it is owed to yourself). Don't normal campaigns quit when they're flat broke?
Oh right right, 99 will override 98 if it gets more votes even if 98 passes. Ok, I'm pretty opposed to rent control so NO98/YES99. got it.
Why are you opposed to rent control?
I said it wrong. I'm opposed to the bill that opposes rent control. I'm at work so I'm thinking about what I'm supposed to be writing for work as I'm writing interwebz posts, and sometimes I get a little confused. Woops? :oops:
Well, I guess if you're betting on her getting elected, you may as well sell them now, since they'll end up contraband eventually? I recall her being very pro-regulation when it came to video games a couple of years back. I haven't seen her talk about it recently though. Is that because of the quagmire that is Mr. Thompson, that she's too busy talking about health care, or is it a change of heart?
I find that depressing as hell honestly. If you add up the people who will vote for McCain because of Bush and the people who won't, its a net negative of 31 percent. Meanwhile, there is a 32 percent net negative of Jeremiah Wright.
That's right, politically enabling the man who systematically ruined our nation over 8 years hurts you less than attending a church that has a bombastic reverend.
How the hell is that beautiful?
You're doing it wrong. Ignore that first column (or add it to the second rather than subtracting from the third), those people have already made up their mind. What you should be seeing is that more people see McCain's association with Bush to be a negative than Obama's relationship with Wright.
Oh right right, 99 will override 98 if it gets more votes even if 98 passes. Ok, I'm pretty opposed to rent control so NO98/YES99. got it.
Why are you opposed to rent control?
It uses limited resources to subsidise middle income people moreso than the poor who actually need the help. Ensures a progressively worse level of disrepair as maintenance becomes increasingly less affordable for the landlord. Promotes remaining in a rental situation rather than purchasing a home and thus building equity (which should recieve the bulk of subsidies). Plus it reduces the tax revenue that a city can use for needed projects since people get around having the rent increase when they move around with various means.
It isn't as detrimental to a city as rampant speculation, but it isn't a plus.
Hey, what the percentage of Obamas warchest that comes from small donors? The $200 and less people?
I'm trying to prove to my cousin he's a cock juggling thundercunt.
These are hardly political fat cats. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less, and 41 percent have given $25 or less, according to the Obama campaign. Overall, he has raised 45 percent of his money in small contributions. Hillary Rodham Clinton's figure is 30 percent, Republican John McCain's is 23 percent.
Oh right right, 99 will override 98 if it gets more votes even if 98 passes. Ok, I'm pretty opposed to rent control so NO98/YES99. got it.
Why are you opposed to rent control?
It uses limited resources to subsidise middle income people moreso than the poor who actually need the help. Ensures a progressively worse level of disrepair as maintenance becomes increasingly less affordable for the landlord. Promotes remaining in a rental situation rather than purchasing a home and thus building equity (which should recieve the bulk of subsidies). Plus it reduces the tax revenue that a city can use for needed projects since people get around having the rent increase when they move around with various means.
It isn't as detrimental to a city as rampant speculation, but it isn't a plus.
I don't want to break too far from this, I think real estate speculation has been a lot worse for our situation. There are a couple of issues here as far as CA goes:
1) There is no suggestion or implication that the subsidies will magically replace what rent control tries to do now. It would be great if all the developers sitting on their hands with a thousand empty estate homes suddenly started building low-income housing, but they won't and will not. They certainly aren't incentivized to do it with Prop 98--they just justify axing rent contol with the same 'oh, who needs rent control? There are plenty of programs for people who need them' line. What I've seen is movement towards senior housing, but hardly anything for lower-income housing. And that's important, because...
2) Right now, it's not worth it in many CA metropolitan areas if you're a first-time homeowner trying to break into the market; being 'poor' here has a much higher threshold. If you are 'middle class' in a major CA city, you're most likely living in an apartment unless you have dual incomes, and the tightened loan requirements (and high cost of living) make it exceptionally difficult for single-income families to break through to the average home. At least the median price is drifting back down.
Anyway: Enforce the subsidies, improve them, and make the creation of low-income/senior housing mandatory (or percentage-based). Then remove rent control. Not the other way around.
"All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about," Clinton said Sunday night, "if he actually cares about it."
"All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about," Clinton said Sunday night, "if he actually cares about it."
The word hung in the air only for a moment.
"More likely, if she cares about it," she added.
How many more attributes does she need to be a poster child for the bitch stereotype?
"All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about," Clinton said Sunday night, "if he actually cares about it."
The word hung in the air only for a moment.
"More likely, if she cares about it," she added.
It reminds me of the ending to Executive Orders where the Judge calls Jack Ryan the President in his ruling and puts the matter to rest.
SithDrummer on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
The buzz these days is that American politics may be entering a “postpartisan” era, as a new generation finds the old ideological quarrels among baby boomers to be increasingly irrelevant. In reality, matters are not so simple. Far from being postpartisan, today’s young adults are significantly more likely to identify as Democrats than were their predecessors. Along with colleagues at the Brookings and Hoover institutions, we recently completed a comprehensive study of the nation’s polarization. Our research concludes not only that the ideological differences between the political parties are growing but also that they have become embedded in American society itself.
Large events made some increase in polarization inevitable. In the wake of the Vietnam War, the post-World War II foreign-policy consensus collapsed. Less than a decade after President Nixon declared that “we are all Keynesians now,” stagflation and soaring interest rates spawned the controversial tenets of supply-side economics. Social movements and the Supreme Court put long-suppressed, highly divisive cultural issues back on the public agenda.
But polarization has proceeded even further than these shifts made necessary. The great majority of voters now fuse their party identification, ideology and decisions in the voting booth. The share of Democrats who could be called conservative has shrunk, and so has the share of liberal Republicans. The American National Election Studies asks voters a series of issues-based questions and then arrays respondents along a 15-point scale from -7 (the most liberal) to +7 (the most conservative). These data indicate that 41 percent of the voters in 1984 were located at or near the midpoint of the ideological spectrum, compared with only 28 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of voters clustering toward the left and right tails of the spectrum rose from 10 to 23 percent.
Most strikingly, political polarization has become akin to political segregation. You are less likely to live near someone whose politics differ from your own. It’s well known that fewer states are competitive in presidential races than in decades past. We find similar results at the county level. In 1976, only 27 percent of voters lived in landslide counties where one candidate prevailed by 20 points or more. By 2004, 48 percent of voters lived in such counties.
What accounts for the decline of ideologically mixed localities? Bill Bishop, a journalist, and Robert Cushing, a sociologist, who have studied this issue, stress that the age of “white flight” to the suburbs is over. Instead, during the past two decades, many whites have moved to one group of cities and many blacks to another. Meanwhile, young people have deserted rural and older manufacturing areas for cities like Austin and Portland. Places with higher densities of college graduates attract even more, so that the gap between such communities and less-educated areas widens further. Zones of high education, in turn, produce more innovation and enjoy higher incomes, generating communities dominated by upper-middle-class tastes. Lower-educated regions, by contrast, tend to be more family-oriented and more faithful to traditional authority.
Not surprisingly, this demographic sorting correlates with a widening difference in political preferences. What’s more, according to Bishop and Cushing, once a tipping point is reached, majorities tend to become supermajorities. This is consistent with the findings of recent political science and social psychology: individuals in the minority of their group tend to shift their views toward the majority, while members of the majority become more extreme in their views. In such circumstances, discussions within groups often intensify, rather than moderate, the underlying polarization.
Our study shows that this geographical sorting worsens polarization in several ways. When counties become more homogeneous, it becomes harder to use redistricting to create more competitive Congressional districts. (Recent research indicates that gerrymandering accounts for, at the very most, one-third of noncompetitive districts in the House of Representatives.) When states become more homogeneous, presidential campaigns begin by conceding a large number of contests to the opposition, disheartening their supporters in those states and increasing the majority’s electoral advantage. Polarization feeds on itself.
Because politics is a contact sport, hard-hitting partisan competition is unavoidably part of the game. A party system that differentiates sharply between alternatives has virtues, not the least being that it engages more voters, offers clearer choices and enhances accountability. But hyperpartisan politics also do damage, not least to public trust and confidence in government — and many Americans understandably yearn for less polarization. Because the underlying structure of our politics remains so deeply divided, the 2008 election may not requite their wish.
There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for "public use." But apparently that standard has been "evolving" too.
It was probably a Freudian slip. (I hope.)
But it was bad enough that the McCain website has altered their version of the video, cutting out the flip-flop of the Fifth Amendment's intention (you can still see the proper text in the transcript). Also, the flubbed intro is skipped over, though that's not an issue.
The term he was looking for was "public purpose", unless he is as retarded as he sounds.
Savant on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for "public use." But apparently that standard has been "evolving" too.
It was probably a Freudian slip. (I hope.)
But it was bad enough that the McCain website has altered their version of the video, cutting out the flip-flop of the Fifth Amendment's intention (you can still see the proper text in the transcript). Also, the flubbed intro is skipped over, though that's not an issue.
The term he was looking for was "public purpose", unless he is as retarded as he sounds.
There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may be taken only for "public use."
There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for "public use." But apparently that standard has been "evolving" too.
It was probably a Freudian slip. (I hope.)
But it was bad enough that the McCain website has altered their version of the video, cutting out the flip-flop of the Fifth Amendment's intention (you can still see the proper text in the transcript). Also, the flubbed intro is skipped over, though that's not an issue.
The term he was looking for was "public purpose", unless he is as retarded as he sounds.
There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may be taken only for "public use."
In other words, he got it completely backwards.
"Public purpose" != "public use". Public purpose is more general, and refers in the case to not just the government taking property for its use, but also for transferring it to another private party on the grounds of economic expansion and increased tax returns. The decision in Kelo was, pardon my French, fucking stupid, but McCain isn't helping himself here.
Savant on
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Oh Plouffeykins.
Big news today: for the first time since this campaign began, Barack Obama has taken the lead among superdelegates.
We've won more elected delegates, more states, and more votes than Senator Clinton. But until yesterday we trailed among Governors, Members of Congress, and Democratic Party leaders -- the so-called "superdelegates" who have a vote in the nominating process.
As it stands, we have 281 superdelegates who have committed to cast their convention votes for us. That includes 23 since last Tuesday's elections, and 3 who switched their support from Senator Clinton. We have just 150 delegates to go before Barack Obama clinches the nomination.
But Senator Clinton intends to compete vigorously in the remaining contests; at the same time we face increasing attacks from Senator McCain and the Republican attack machine.
Barack needs your support to close out this nomination and start building for the general election.
Now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign. Please make a donation of $25 today:
Given the long history the Clintons have with the Democratic Party, it's no surprise Senator Clinton maintained her superdelegate lead for so long.
But right now it's clear that the Democratic Party is uniting around Barack's candidacy.
Here's what a few superdelegates who recently changed their support had to say:
"After careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that Barack Obama can best bring about the change that our country so desperately wants and needs."
- Rep. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
"He has shown he can connect with Democrats, Republicans and independents across this country."
- Kevin Rodriquez (VI)
"It's time to come together as a party and support Sen. Obama and prepare for a victory against John McCain in November."
- Del. Jennifer McClellan (VA-71)
We need to act quickly to encourage the remaining superdelegates to join us and close out this race. And we need to start building now to beat Senator McCain this November.
Tomorrow, voters in West Virginia -- where Senator Clinton has an enormous lead -- will head to the polls.
On Wednesday, Barack will continue to have an insurmountable lead in states, votes, and delegates.
He will also have the endorsements of more superdelegates than Senator Clinton -- a clear sign that Democrats across the country and throughout the party are ready for a new kind of politics.
This grassroots movement, funded by more than 1.5 million individual donors, has supported Barack when he was up and when he was down.
Now, the nomination is in sight, and it's because of you.
Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Donate
Gold'd awesome part.
Hakkekage on
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Okay, but again, that's not the key flub.
You're saying it's lousy as it is.
I'm saying that if it said 'NOT be taken for "public purpose"', it'd be even worse.
1. Soldier on all the way to Denver like a sore loser.
2. Make Obama give her a job to make her go away. VP, Cabinet, or at least support for the 2010 NY governor race.
3. Make Obama give her money to go away, to pay off her debts.
4. Make the superdelegates drag her away.
5. Charles Rangel and Stephanis Tubbs-Jones defect, reinforcing the Hillary-as-racial-divider message and poisoning any future she might have within the party.
6. She just gives up already.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Can we expect Clinton to concede after Michigan and Florida are settled?
It depends on how they're settled I would imagine. I don't expect her to bow out unless put under a lot of pressure from the party. Someone large will either have to publicly ask for it, or they'll have to threaten her senatorial position. As long as she can make at least a halfway convincing argument for staying in the race, she'll stay in.
Posts
Hilarious.
"THIS THING FUCKIN' SUCKS!"
Man that kid is dumb.
I find that depressing as hell honestly. If you add up the people who will vote for McCain because of Bush and the people who won't, its a net negative of 31 percent. Meanwhile, there is a 32 percent net negative of Jeremiah Wright.
That's right, politically enabling the man who systematically ruined our nation over 8 years hurts you less than attending a church that has a bombastic reverend.
How the hell is that beautiful?
Why are you opposed to rent control?
... If you're 20 million in debt, you need money. There's no way to claim you're financially solid when you owe people that much money (even if half of it is owed to yourself). Don't normal campaigns quit when they're flat broke?
Well, I guess if you're betting on her getting elected, you may as well sell them now, since they'll end up contraband eventually? I recall her being very pro-regulation when it came to video games a couple of years back. I haven't seen her talk about it recently though. Is that because of the quagmire that is Mr. Thompson, that she's too busy talking about health care, or is it a change of heart?
You're doing it wrong. Ignore that first column (or add it to the second rather than subtracting from the third), those people have already made up their mind. What you should be seeing is that more people see McCain's association with Bush to be a negative than Obama's relationship with Wright.
Not sure what to make of this.
I'm trying to prove to my cousin he's a cock juggling thundercunt.
Barack Obama is rapidly replacing Johnny Depp as the mancrush of choice?
That's a little overboard. If by a little I meant a lot.
It uses limited resources to subsidise middle income people moreso than the poor who actually need the help. Ensures a progressively worse level of disrepair as maintenance becomes increasingly less affordable for the landlord. Promotes remaining in a rental situation rather than purchasing a home and thus building equity (which should recieve the bulk of subsidies). Plus it reduces the tax revenue that a city can use for needed projects since people get around having the rent increase when they move around with various means.
It isn't as detrimental to a city as rampant speculation, but it isn't a plus.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10223.html
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Roughly 50% of actual monies donated, but 90% of all donors.
Which, given the massive amount of cash he has in comparison with other elections, if he was solely on the <$200 he'd still be out spending McCain.
...
Uh
Wow.
I just started laughing uncontrollably.
I don't want to break too far from this, I think real estate speculation has been a lot worse for our situation. There are a couple of issues here as far as CA goes:
1) There is no suggestion or implication that the subsidies will magically replace what rent control tries to do now. It would be great if all the developers sitting on their hands with a thousand empty estate homes suddenly started building low-income housing, but they won't and will not. They certainly aren't incentivized to do it with Prop 98--they just justify axing rent contol with the same 'oh, who needs rent control? There are plenty of programs for people who need them' line. What I've seen is movement towards senior housing, but hardly anything for lower-income housing. And that's important, because...
2) Right now, it's not worth it in many CA metropolitan areas if you're a first-time homeowner trying to break into the market; being 'poor' here has a much higher threshold. If you are 'middle class' in a major CA city, you're most likely living in an apartment unless you have dual incomes, and the tightened loan requirements (and high cost of living) make it exceptionally difficult for single-income families to break through to the average home. At least the median price is drifting back down.
Anyway: Enforce the subsidies, improve them, and make the creation of low-income/senior housing mandatory (or percentage-based). Then remove rent control. Not the other way around.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
It's like a BO episode of the Boondocks.
AP article:
How many more attributes does she need to be a poster child for the bitch stereotype?
We shouldn't use that stereotype at all. There are enough legitimate issues with Clinton, there's no need to go to the well labeled "misogyny".
The term he was looking for was "public purpose", unless he is as retarded as he sounds.
Uh, no.
In other words, he got it completely backwards.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
"Public purpose" != "public use". Public purpose is more general, and refers in the case to not just the government taking property for its use, but also for transferring it to another private party on the grounds of economic expansion and increased tax returns. The decision in Kelo was, pardon my French, fucking stupid, but McCain isn't helping himself here.
Gold'd awesome part.
NNID: Hakkekage
You're saying it's lousy as it is.
I'm saying that if it said 'NOT be taken for "public purpose"', it'd be even worse.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Six ways Hillary can drop out. In short:
1. Soldier on all the way to Denver like a sore loser.
2. Make Obama give her a job to make her go away. VP, Cabinet, or at least support for the 2010 NY governor race.
3. Make Obama give her money to go away, to pay off her debts.
4. Make the superdelegates drag her away.
5. Charles Rangel and Stephanis Tubbs-Jones defect, reinforcing the Hillary-as-racial-divider message and poisoning any future she might have within the party.
6. She just gives up already.
It depends on how they're settled I would imagine. I don't expect her to bow out unless put under a lot of pressure from the party. Someone large will either have to publicly ask for it, or they'll have to threaten her senatorial position. As long as she can make at least a halfway convincing argument for staying in the race, she'll stay in.