• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manos: The Hans of Fate

Banned
B-Dubs said:
I'm talking about the big money donations, like when a billionaire give a few million. Sure they might get some heat, but if your going to speak loudly (give millions of dollars) then you need to be aware of the ramifications. The way I'm looking at it is like if you give a whole lot it isn't much different than buying the commercial yourself. Right now it's just a way for the uber-wealthy on both sides to be able to give as much as they want with no repercussions. There is no real way for someone like me to match giving millions of dollars without there being some sort of repercussions and it's unfair that the wealthy can do so without worry.
Click to expand...
But I'm not talking about the big money donations. I'm talking more about the anonymity and not ability to match. That said certain pooled groups could match depending on issue and what race.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
But I'm not talking about the big money donations. I'm talking more about the anonymity and not ability to match. That said certain pooled groups could match depending on issue and what race.
Click to expand...

There is a large difference between 1 guy giving 10 million and a million guys giving $10 each. The guy giving the million likely doesn't need to worry about his job, otherwise how could he give 10 million? Frankly it's unfair that his voice gets to be louder or just as loud as groups of people. What happened to 1 man 1 vote? I've got no problem with anonymity for the small guy, but if a single person is the reason a candidate can stay in the race then we've got a problem. I mean look what happened in the republican primary, if Mitt hadn't buried Newt with ads in Florida (both his own and superPAC ads) he may well have won that state and changed the tone of the race. The fact that one man or woman has that power and doesn't need to stand up and say they support the candidate is the problem. One anonymous man shouldn't be able to change the course of an election, if you want that power you should have to deal with it's ramifications as well.
 
M

Manos: The Hans of Fate

Banned
B-Dubs said:
There is a large difference between 1 guy giving 10 million and a million guys giving $10 each. The guy giving the million likely doesn't need to worry about his job, otherwise how could he give 10 million? Frankly it's unfair that his voice gets to be louder or just as loud as groups of people. What happened to 1 man 1 vote? I've got no problem with anonymity for the small guy, but if a single person is the reason a candidate can stay in the race then we've got a problem. I mean look what happened in the republican primary, if Mitt hadn't buried Newt with ads in Florida (both his own and superPAC ads) he may well have won that state and changed the tone of the race. The fact that one man or woman has that power and doesn't need to stand up and say they support the candidate is the problem. One anonymous man shouldn't be able to change the course of an election, if you want that power you should have to deal with it's ramifications as well.
Click to expand...
I see your point but how do you legally distinguish that and not violate the Equal Protection Clause?
 
T

thatbox

Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
That's fine just as long as you don't think he can just store product (if he even keeps any) in the trailer. He most liked wants to make side money...and get stuff shipped with no transfer needed (but you can have that as the primary reason). Plus ATF will inspect his facility and audit him regularly.
Now if you think he'll let straw purchases occurs and shit like that then by all means object.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean. The trailer full of guns already exists. He tinkers in it while listening to Glenn Beck. If you say those are his rather that stuff he's selling, you're probably right. But still, I'm uncomfortable with a trailer full of guns to start with, even moreso when the owner pays attention to talk radio. And then his address is presumably going to be associated with gun sales in some database and on packages which could credibly pique the interest of bad dudes looking to steal guns who might then hit the second amendment motherlode. It's just a bummer, is all. An Obummer, even. Hillary would have gotten rid of these things by now!


RDreamer said:
I guess 18,000 people came out to see Obama in Milwaukee today. Pretty good turnout, I'd say.
Click to expand...

Walking back already! /oblivioninotthreads
 
M

Manos: The Hans of Fate

Banned
thatbox said:
Well, I mean. The trailer full of guns already exists. He tinkers in it while listening to Glenn Beck. If you say those are his rather that stuff he's selling, you're probably right. But still, I'm uncomfortable with a trailer full of guns to start with, even moreso when the owner pays attention to talk radio. And then his address is presumably going to be associated with gun sales which could credibly pique the interest of bad dudes looking to steal guns who might then hit the second amendment motherlode. It's just a bummer, is all. An Obummer, even. Hillary would have gotten rid of these things by now!




Walking back already! /oblivioninotthreads
Click to expand...
If it's any consultation he most likely will just being doing transfers which means his name will be known by friends ank FFL listing online and not a storefront and thus far less likely to be know or targeted. Nothing wrong though with being upset if he leaves guns in the trailer that isn't in a garage. Even if he's hunting and going on a trip and cleaning or handloading you bring stuff in when done.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Oh shit, one of my tweets got retweeted by Josh Marshall! :D

Where you at, PD?! Huh? WHERE YOU AT?!
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Heh:

kTnIr.jpg
Click to expand...
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
New FL Poll, O 48 - R 47%

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...times-fla-poll-barack-obama-48-mitt-romney-47

The good news for Romney? Fifty-two percent of Florida voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction and only 43 percent say it's on the right track.
Click to expand...

BUT

Most troubling for the former venture capitalist and Massachusetts governor, his central argument — that he's best equipped to turn around the economy — is falling short. Florida voters are evenly divided on whether they trust Romney or Obama more to improve the economy, with independent voters giving Obama the edge.
Click to expand...
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Oblivion said:
Just gonna drop this here:

227814_10151034027781167_1751175249_n.jpg
Click to expand...

"If people would pay attention, Obama couldn't win."

It can never be "people aren't going to buy the bullshit this time around."

As I keep saying, the GOP continually assumes the electorate is mentally handicapped. They lack total self-awareness and this is their downfall. It's like a tragic Greek character and hubris.
 
F

Forever

Banned
Black Mamba said:
"If people would pay attention, Obama couldn't win."

It can never be "people aren't going to buy the bullshit this time around."

As I keep saying, the GOP continually assumes the electorate is mentally handicapped. They lack total self-awareness and this is their downfall. It's like a tragic Greek character and hubris.
Click to expand...

Fox News is a red meat butcher shop for the base. They're not aiming at the general electorate. They're telling a specific audience what they want to hear.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
The best part of that:

"With the internet, it is possible to live in an alternate universe. You can avoid reality."
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Watched the game today with another Mormon buddy of mine and we naturally talked a bit about politics. I was happy to know that he was anti-Romney. He said he was voting Obama, which I can't fault him for, whereas I told him I was probably voting 3rd Party.

See, Mormons can be rational people, too!!
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
AlteredBeast said:
Watched the game today with another Mormon buddy of mine and we naturally talked a bit about politics. I was happy to know that he was anti-Romney. He said he was voting Obama, which I can't fault him for, whereas I told him I was probably voting 3rd Party.
Click to expand...
Jill Stein?
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Nate Silver said:
The reason is that we are now getting to the point where a neutral day in the polls can be thought as being ever-so-slightly favorable to Mr. Obama, since he leads in the race and since Mr. Romney now has only 45 days to make up the deficit. This will be especially true over the course of the next week or so, during which time the penalty that the model has been applying to Mr. Obama’s polls because of the potential aftereffects of the Democratic convention will phase out.

Another way to look at this: Mr. Obama’s win probability in our “now-cast,” which is our estimate of what would happen if the election were held today, is 95.8 percent. (The “now-cast” also does not apply the convention bounce penalty to Mr. Obama’s polls.) As Election Day draws nearer, the forecast will converge toward the now-cast, until eventually they are exactly the same on Nov. 6.
Click to expand...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...among-pollsters-on-enthusiasm-gap/#more-34875

Plenty of time!
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
I see your point but how do you legally distinguish that and not violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Click to expand...

I don't understand where this is coming from. IANA lawyer, but I don't think there's any 14th amendment problem with saying "if you put more than $5000 towards political speech, you have to disclose" (or "you just can't put more than $5k towards political speech").

It's true that the opposite would run into equal protection problems. Requiring disclosure for (or just banning) spending less than $5000 but not for spending more than $5000 clearly disadvantages people who don't have $5000 to spend (and it's going to be pretty easy to show disparate impact there).

But requiring disclosure only after some reasonable threshold doesn't disadvantage a specific group. The 1% can easily just give less than the threshold and get just as much out of that donation as the 99% get out of their donations. This isn't like gay marriage where "gay men are allowed to marry women just like straight men, so where's the problem?" won't fly. The equal protection argument here is like arguing that the 14th amendment requires allowing polygamy, because one man one woman marriage disadvantages the especially attractive or rich who could marry more people.

The main obstacle to anything like this is (the Court's interpretation of) the first amendment, not the fourteenth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
3K
sharp weiner replied
  • Poll
Palworld has, once again, highlighted the on going deficiencies in PC Game Pass and the Xbox app on Windows 11 (Windows Central)
Hardware Platform 2 3
111
13K
Unknown Soldier replied
Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League |OT| Sent to Die
18 19 20 21 22
1K
67K
T-0800 replied
[PC Gamer] How Cyberpunk 2077 clawed its way back from disaster to complete one of the greatest redemption arcs in gaming history
Opinion News 2
99
8K
EDMIX replied
[Verge] Google canceled its next Pixelbook and shut down the team building it
News Business
48
3K
01011001 replied
Top Bottom