The Clinton campaign releases a new PA commercial, targeting Obama's "clingy" comments.
The commercial has all the sophistication and subtlety of a SwiftKids ad.
No, really, I mean it. Go watch it for yourselves. But don't blame me when you gouge out your eyes in response.
That happened when she won in NY with her "habib the taxi guy" comment. Maybe it was after she was elected? I dunno. I just know my screen is in brail.
edit:
Seriously though. 7 months to go and I don't think it's going to be an issue. All she's doing is showing herself as more and more a hypocrite. Like I told my buddy, she should have kept quiet and let McCain fire off on Obama this round because a Clinton calling anyone an "elitist" is going to backfire in a bad way.
edit again:
Actually the Ad wasn't that bad. I feel O.K. saying this because I know its just a campaign reel. Those people are very good at what they do. They're like lawyers, but more evil....maybe not more evil. Definately as evil.
But Obama's a lawyer too...
I never said he wasn't evil. Just not as evil as the other lawyers. Or at least I like him more than the other kind of evil.
I'm taking my LSATs in June....because I have hopes that secretly I am the anti-christ. I just need my powers to come to fruition.
Hembot on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
[Elton] John, a foreign national, cannot under federal law make any contribution to a federal, state or local election campaign. [Judicial Watch], in a letter from its president, Tom Fitton, described Mr. John’s appearance at the fund-raiser as an “in-kind contribution from a foreign national.”
Wouldn't going to Popular Vote only ensure that candidates only focus on and pander to major population centers? Won't Rural America get screwed?
Actually, "Rural America" is pretty screwed as it is if there's a big city in the same state. Take New York. Every county in the state north of NYC (well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but close) was solidly red in the last couple Presidential elections. NYC is so solidly blue that nobody bothers to campaign in the state.
I worked 60 hours last week and haven't had more than 10 seconds to sit down and think about anything non-work related let alone politics related. What have I missed? Gallup has Obama kicking ass. PA polls are narrowing. Hillary tried to make a stink about some bitter comment, but people audibly booed her for it. Anything else?
I worked 60 hours last week and haven't had more than 10 seconds to sit down and think about anything non-work related let alone politics related. What have I missed? Gallup has Obama kicking ass. PA polls are narrowing. Hillary tried to make a stink about some bitter comment, but people audibly booed her for it. Anything else?
Yeah. People think we won't have to pander to Ohio anymore if we go non-electorate despite small states chaining together a strong nomination in favor of Obama. To a degree I agree with them...though it's really just less pandering instead of no pandering.
Hembot on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
No, they didn't, and the Clinton campaign paid for all the venue costs. But the event was advertised as an Elton John concert with all the proceeds being donations to the campaign (the best seats were priced at $2,300 for a reason!). As such, his performance could be seen as a non-monetary contribution to the campaign.
According to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals," it is illegal for any foreign national to "make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value... in connection with a Federal, State or local election." The Washington Times reported March 27, 2008, that a "1981 FEC decision prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a U.S. Senate campaign."
No, they didn't, and the Clinton campaign paid for all the venue costs. But the event was advertised as an Elton John concert with all the proceeds being donations to the campaign (the best seats were priced at $2,300 for a reason!). As such, his performance could be seen as a non-monetary contribution to the campaign.
According to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals," it is illegal for any foreign national to "make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value... in connection with a Federal, State or local election." The Washington Times reported March 27, 2008, that a "1981 FEC decision prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a U.S. Senate campaign."
It's probably being billed as an Elton John endorsement concert.
So coincidentally, a blogger over at Kos works for the Philadelphia Daily News and was in on the editorial board meeting that the candidates do with all these papers, he asked if an Obama Administration would prosecute the Bush White House for torture and whatever else:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
That's about the right answer politically.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited April 2008
Well, the DNC has filed in the court in DC over the McCain matter, so I would expect this other group to as well if they are serious.
I suspect they are not serious.
As for this Elton John thing, I would regard his services as being a thing of value.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
So coincidentally, a blogger over at Kos works for the Philadelphia Daily News and was in on the editorial board meeting that the candidates do with all these papers, he asked if an Obama Administration would prosecute the Bush White House for torture and whatever else:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
That's about the right answer politically.
Yeah. It's also a good one not to get assasinated with because Bush needs to buy time at the shred- *ducks under his desk* Did the door to my office just rattle? OHSHIT
So coincidentally, a blogger over at Kos works for the Philadelphia Daily News and was in on the editorial board meeting that the candidates do with all these papers, he asked if an Obama Administration would prosecute the Bush White House for torture and whatever else:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
That's about the right answer politically.
I, personally, think Obama should also start talking about treason charges after he gets into office to put the fear into the GOP. Hell, I wish that Ford had ended the imbroglio by having Nixon shot rather than pardoning him.
So coincidentally, a blogger over at Kos works for the Philadelphia Daily News and was in on the editorial board meeting that the candidates do with all these papers, he asked if an Obama Administration would prosecute the Bush White House for torture and whatever else:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
That's about the right answer politically.
I, personally, think Obama should also start talking about treason charges after he gets into office to put the fear into the GOP. Hell, I wish that Ford had ended the imbroglio by having Nixon shot rather than pardoning him.
Bah. The democractic congress will do that for him. If anything they're going to be the loudest so they can pressure him for snippets of top secret info they can use to burn as many members of the GOP as possible. Obama shouldn't go back on his word and that's change. A witch hunt isn't change. That's what we did in Iraq right? I think his answer while political aligns closely with his overall message and why I like him.
Hembot on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Wouldn't going to Popular Vote only ensure that candidates only focus on and pander to major population centers? Won't Rural America get screwed?
Actually, "Rural America" is pretty screwed as it is if there's a big city in the same state. Take New York. Every county in the state north of NYC (well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but close) was solidly red in the last couple Presidential elections. NYC is so solidly blue that nobody bothers to campaign in the state.
Just a for-instance.
That's why it's the greatest fucking city on earth baby. Whoooo! (I'm actually across the river in Jersey...but.)
I want to meet the person that was completely for Obama until that "clingy" comment. He has had few gaffes, where Hillary has made so many.
Or just how do you compare the clingy comment to "mis-speaking" about sniper fire. You just can't.
The funny thing is that when Obama says that unemployed white people in post-industrial wastelands "turn to god or guns or xenophobia" we have collective breathless outrage, but if he says the same things about black people in inner-city wasteland, he receives pained agreement from white America.
Wouldn't going to Popular Vote only ensure that candidates only focus on and pander to major population centers? Won't Rural America get screwed?
Isn't rural America getting screwed already? I mean, how much more electorally irrelevant are states like Wyoming going to be under a popular vote system than they are now?
Lawndart on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Wouldn't going to Popular Vote only ensure that candidates only focus on and pander to major population centers? Won't Rural America get screwed?
Well, ideally, yeah.
It'd be one more incentive to get them to move to major population centers.
Funny thing is that your voice gets smaller in the "local area" of large population centers. In a village you have more local say....so the only reason you'd move would be so you could be advertised to?
I think the internet has gone a long way in making the popular vote a more viable option. You can still be in a rural town but be active politically.
So coincidentally, a blogger over at Kos works for the Philadelphia Daily News and was in on the editorial board meeting that the candidates do with all these papers, he asked if an Obama Administration would prosecute the Bush White House for torture and whatever else:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
That's about the right answer politically.
I, personally, think Obama should also start talking about treason charges after he gets into office to put the fear into the GOP. Hell, I wish that Ford had ended the imbroglio by having Nixon shot rather than pardoning him.
Bah. The democractic congress will do that for him. If anything they're going to be the loudest so they can pressure him for snippets of top secret info they can use to burn as many members of the GOP as possible. Obama shouldn't go back on his word and that's change. A witch hunt isn't change. That's what we did in Iraq right? I think his answer while political aligns closely with his overall message and why I like him.
I'm not saying to actually bring the charges against Bush, just release a few legal opinion memos to scare the truth out of everybody.
So coincidentally, a blogger over at Kos works for the Philadelphia Daily News and was in on the editorial board meeting that the candidates do with all these papers, he asked if an Obama Administration would prosecute the Bush White House for torture and whatever else:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
That's about the right answer politically.
I, personally, think Obama should also start talking about treason charges after he gets into office to put the fear into the GOP. Hell, I wish that Ford had ended the imbroglio by having Nixon shot rather than pardoning him.
Bah. The democractic congress will do that for him. If anything they're going to be the loudest so they can pressure him for snippets of top secret info they can use to burn as many members of the GOP as possible. Obama shouldn't go back on his word and that's change. A witch hunt isn't change. That's what we did in Iraq right? I think his answer while political aligns closely with his overall message and why I like him.
I'm not saying to actually bring the charges against Bush, just release a few legal opinion memos to scare the truth out of everybody.
If he does that with access to all the top secret info people will say now he's covering something up or just slandering the low popular opinion of Bush to make himself look better.
Wouldn't going to Popular Vote only ensure that candidates only focus on and pander to major population centers? Won't Rural America get screwed?
Well, ideally, yeah.
It'd be one more incentive to get them to move to major population centers.
Funny thing is that your voice gets smaller in the "local area" of large population centers. In a village you have more local say....so the only reason you'd move would be so you could be advertised to?
I think the internet has gone a long way in making the popular vote a more viable option. You can still be in a rural town but be active politically.
The current paradigm of rural votes being weighted so heavily isn't so excellent, as I see it. It gives us situations like farm lobbies and rural areas being politically extremely (and disproportionately) powerful.
Wouldn't going to Popular Vote only ensure that candidates only focus on and pander to major population centers? Won't Rural America get screwed?
Well, ideally, yeah.
It'd be one more incentive to get them to move to major population centers.
Funny thing is that your voice gets smaller in the "local area" of large population centers. In a village you have more local say....so the only reason you'd move would be so you could be advertised to?
I think the internet has gone a long way in making the popular vote a more viable option. You can still be in a rural town but be active politically.
The current paradigm of rural votes being weighted so heavily isn't so excellent, as I see it. It gives us situations like farm lobbies and rural areas being politically extremely (and disproportionately) powerful.
I don't think I was clear...which makes your response confusing. If what you say is that farmers now have to much power I agree. I've read some articles in magazines over the past few months about how most of the farmers providing us with food are millionaires with tons of land and enough machinery to run the farm with very few people.
This could mean we screw the farmers more...but that's because the smart ones bought all the land from the stupid ones and sent them packing to urban areas. They're subsidized so heavily that it's not like we're putting them out in the cold either..and no person in their right mind would really want to fuck over their food supply anyway. See those riots in Egypt eh?
So coincidentally, a blogger over at Kos works for the Philadelphia Daily News and was in on the editorial board meeting that the candidates do with all these papers, he asked if an Obama Administration would prosecute the Bush White House for torture and whatever else:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
That's about the right answer politically.
I, personally, think Obama should also start talking about treason charges after he gets into office to put the fear into the GOP. Hell, I wish that Ford had ended the imbroglio by having Nixon shot rather than pardoning him.
Bah. The democractic congress will do that for him. If anything they're going to be the loudest so they can pressure him for snippets of top secret info they can use to burn as many members of the GOP as possible. Obama shouldn't go back on his word and that's change. A witch hunt isn't change. That's what we did in Iraq right? I think his answer while political aligns closely with his overall message and why I like him.
I'm not saying to actually bring the charges against Bush, just release a few legal opinion memos to scare the truth out of everybody.
If he does that with access to all the top secret info people will say now he's covering something up or just slandering the low popular opinion of Bush to make himself look better.
All they'll have to say is what they're looking for and how it could be prosecuted as high treason.
So if cities were pandered to instead of farm country, what would political pandering look like then?
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
Posts
I never said he wasn't evil. Just not as evil as the other lawyers. Or at least I like him more than the other kind of evil.
I'm taking my LSATs in June....because I have hopes that secretly I am the anti-christ. I just need my powers to come to fruition.
Is it bad I want to smack everyone who uses 'out of touch" as a real phrase
Actually, "Rural America" is pretty screwed as it is if there's a big city in the same state. Take New York. Every county in the state north of NYC (well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but close) was solidly red in the last couple Presidential elections. NYC is so solidly blue that nobody bothers to campaign in the state.
Just a for-instance.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Yeah. People think we won't have to pander to Ohio anymore if we go non-electorate despite small states chaining together a strong nomination in favor of Obama. To a degree I agree with them...though it's really just less pandering instead of no pandering.
No, they didn't, and the Clinton campaign paid for all the venue costs. But the event was advertised as an Elton John concert with all the proceeds being donations to the campaign (the best seats were priced at $2,300 for a reason!). As such, his performance could be seen as a non-monetary contribution to the campaign.
I would be interested in reading the court filings. If they don't file, not much interested in the finger-pointing.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It's a complaint to the FEC. As such, nothing will likely come of it. Here's a pdf of the complaint.
It's probably being billed as an Elton John endorsement concert.
That's about the right answer politically.
I suspect they are not serious.
As for this Elton John thing, I would regard his services as being a thing of value.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Yeah. It's also a good one not to get assasinated with because Bush needs to buy time at the shred- *ducks under his desk* Did the door to my office just rattle? OHSHIT
I, personally, think Obama should also start talking about treason charges after he gets into office to put the fear into the GOP. Hell, I wish that Ford had ended the imbroglio by having Nixon shot rather than pardoning him.
Bah. The democractic congress will do that for him. If anything they're going to be the loudest so they can pressure him for snippets of top secret info they can use to burn as many members of the GOP as possible. Obama shouldn't go back on his word and that's change. A witch hunt isn't change. That's what we did in Iraq right? I think his answer while political aligns closely with his overall message and why I like him.
That's why it's the greatest fucking city on earth baby. Whoooo! (I'm actually across the river in Jersey...but.)
mayhill fowler (the person who broke the bitter story on huffington post) donated 250$ to fred thompson last year
then she donated over 2000$ to barack obama (which helped her get into the fundraiser)
all of her stories have a constant anti-obama spin
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=fowler&fname=mayhill&search=Search
interesting
She needs a target. He pays her salary basically. It is intriguing though.
EDIT: A better question would be how much Ariana Huffington paid her for the bitter story.
Or just how do you compare the clingy comment to "mis-speaking" about sniper fire. You just can't.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Well, ideally, yeah.
It'd be one more incentive to get them to move to major population centers.
"My plump and unattractive wife and I are frustrated, disappointed and have a long-term sense of unease because we were called bitter."
The funny thing is that when Obama says that unemployed white people in post-industrial wastelands "turn to god or guns or xenophobia" we have collective breathless outrage, but if he says the same things about black people in inner-city wasteland, he receives pained agreement from white America.
Isn't rural America getting screwed already? I mean, how much more electorally irrelevant are states like Wyoming going to be under a popular vote system than they are now?
Funny thing is that your voice gets smaller in the "local area" of large population centers. In a village you have more local say....so the only reason you'd move would be so you could be advertised to?
I think the internet has gone a long way in making the popular vote a more viable option. You can still be in a rural town but be active politically.
I'm not saying to actually bring the charges against Bush, just release a few legal opinion memos to scare the truth out of everybody.
Hillary Clinton has been fighting for Pennsylvania her whole life, you guys. She came out of the womb fighting for Pennsylvania.
If he does that with access to all the top secret info people will say now he's covering something up or just slandering the low popular opinion of Bush to make himself look better.
You have already completely failed at observation if you think this.
The current paradigm of rural votes being weighted so heavily isn't so excellent, as I see it. It gives us situations like farm lobbies and rural areas being politically extremely (and disproportionately) powerful.
The first time she threw up, it was to knock the ashes off a cigarette.
I don't think I was clear...which makes your response confusing. If what you say is that farmers now have to much power I agree. I've read some articles in magazines over the past few months about how most of the farmers providing us with food are millionaires with tons of land and enough machinery to run the farm with very few people.
This could mean we screw the farmers more...but that's because the smart ones bought all the land from the stupid ones and sent them packing to urban areas. They're subsidized so heavily that it's not like we're putting them out in the cold either..and no person in their right mind would really want to fuck over their food supply anyway. See those riots in Egypt eh?
edit:
confusing to me.
All they'll have to say is what they're looking for and how it could be prosecuted as high treason.
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
I'm not excellent at counterfactuals, but I strongly suspect it would look pretty much like the urban pandering we have today.