Support NeoGAF

[BotoxAgent]

I didn't watch it but from the blurbs I read on DailyKos Elections, Hagan wasn't very good and neither was Tillis (they were both just repeating the same talking points), but Tillis got to a point where he started mansplaining and calling her "Kay" while blaming her for ISIS. Overall Hagan seemed to have "won" while not doing a great job herself and the local media has been talking about Tillis' tone which can't help him with women voters.

wow, dat direspect. :/

 

[B-Dubs]

I didn't watch it but from the blurbs I read on DailyKos Elections, Hagan wasn't very good and neither was Tillis (they were both just repeating the same talking points), but Tillis got to a point where he started mansplaining and calling her "Kay" while blaming her for ISIS. Overall Hagan seemed to have "won" while not doing a great job herself and the local media has been talking about Tillis' tone which can't help him with women voters.

Well, letting your opponent implode while doing nothing yourself is one way to win a debate.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Well, letting your opponent implode while doing nothing yourself is one way to win a debate.

Please proceed, governor.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Well, letting your opponent implode while doing nothing yourself is one way to win a debate.

This seems to be the Democratic m.o.

 

[thepotatoman]

"Really?"

I guess they thought about it for a moment.

(link for those that missed it)

 

[PhoenixDark]

"Really?"

And she still refuses to debate Peters. Anyone noticed how detached most Koch candidates seem from whatever state or district they're running in? Land isn't some Michigan newcomer, yet I just don't get the impression she is running about Michigan. I saw multiple ads from her about the Keystone pipeline this weekend, and various "Gary Peters is in the pocket of a California billionaire" ads, but none of it was connected to Michigan. Whereas Peters is hammering her on pollution and lost jobs directly connected to Michigan.

Hell, Land can't even talk about being a woman without sound awkward. Her strategy seems to be the paint GOP concerns as women concerns, which isn't working. Yes women are concerned about jobs...but they're also concerned about abortion, contraception, child care, etc.

Speaking of that California billionaire ad, it's interesting to see the GOP attempt to flip the "class warfare" attacks back on democrats. I just don't see it working.

 

[ErasureAcer]

And a new Survey USA poll in Kansas coming later today!

Can't wait to see what they are.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

"Really?"

 

[Aaron Strife]

Speaking of that California billionaire ad, it's interesting to see the GOP attempt to flip the "class warfare" attacks back on democrats. I just don't see it working.

You're right. I think anyone on whom "class warfare" appeals would work is probably already a staunch Democrat who hates the GOP.

That's also why I don't think the GOP is going to score much from a weak economy. If it were a slam dunk for them then they'd have a solid lead against all the red state senators as opposed to being tied or slightly ahead. Sure, the Obama recovery has been middling, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone argue we're worse off now than we were under Bush. And when Hillary runs, she'll get to tap into 90s nostalgia for anyone old enough to remember.

Can't wait to see what they are.

It's amazing to think that this could really save the Democrats' Senate majority if the red states' lean beats out the incumbents. It could even help Landrieu - if Dems and Orman make up 50 and they go with someone like Heitkamp as majority leader, Landrieu can run on that and voting for a moderate, consensus candidate for leader against an asshole like McConnell.

You know I feel like this was about the same time in 2012 when Akin bombed and sunk the GOP's chances of winning the senate majority.

 

[Aaron Strife]

SurveyUSA poll results for Kansas are out!

Orman leads Roberts by 1, 37-36. Taylor is still pulling 10%. It's good that Orman can still lead in a 3-way, but that's obviously still a problem.

Davis leading Brownback for governor 47-40 which will never stop being hilarious.

Schodorf leading Kobach 46-43 for Sec. of State. Yum.

 

[Wilsongt]

Ray Rice beat his wife because Obama.

Fox News host Andrea Tantaros wasted no time during Monday's episode of "Outnumbered" directing anger at President Obama and the Democrats over a video reportedly showing NFL star Ray Rice punching his then-fiancee in an elevator.

"I wanna know, where is the President on this one?" Tantaros asked, after a brief throat-clearing about the NFL's obligation to react to the tape.

"My question is — and not to bring it back to politics but — this is a White House that seems to bring up a 'war on women' every other week. A White House that's very concerned about the NFL, concussions, etc., prescription drugs in locker rooms," she said.

 

[ErasureAcer]

SurveyUSA poll results for Kansas are out!

Orman leads Roberts by 1, 37-36. Taylor is still pulling 10%. It's good that Orman can still lead in a 3-way, but that's obviously still a problem.

Davis leading Brownback for governor 47-40 which will never stop being hilarious.

Schodorf leading Kobach 46-43 for Sec. of State. Yum.

Roberts needs to get that 6 percent Libertarian vote for Batson...or else he's surely finished if Taylor's name is removed and still likely finished even if Taylor's name isn't removed.

 

[Mario]

Ray Rice beat his wife because Obama.

Why hasn't the President commented in the last day on everything bad that happened which was brought to our attention in the last day?! We don't want Big Government involved in anything, but they should be involved in everything!

Anyway, the Whitehouse commented...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/white-ho...n-violence-against-women-cannot-be-tolerated/

 

[thepotatoman]

SurveyUSA poll results for Kansas are out!

Orman leads Roberts by 1, 37-36. Taylor is still pulling 10%. It's good that Orman can still lead in a 3-way, but that's obviously still a problem.

Davis leading Brownback for governor 47-40 which will never stop being hilarious.

Schodorf leading Kobach 46-43 for Sec. of State. Yum.

Still a lot of time for voters to learn that Taylor is not running, but also a lot of time for Roberts to paint Orman as a democrat. Will be very interesting.

 

[benjipwns]

omg

I thought you said you weren't an AnCap.

I'm not but I just go with it if somebody calls me that or libertarian because well, it's close enough for hand grenades. (And I'm an evolutionary, not a revolutionary if we were to get serious and rap about policy. *turns chair backwards*)

But you sign an Emancipation Proclamation and they vote for fiscally liberal leaning Democrats for a century. Then you pass Civil Rights Legislation and they flip to Republican for a half century.

This is a convenient version of history.

The Democrats were so fiscally conservative you guys would call them insane teabaggers until 1896 (and they were voting Democratic instead of Whig for a generation for just this reason, the Whigs were ambivalent about slavery) when they hijacked the Populists platform, it wasn't until the 1930s that the party fully committed to democratic fascism (both parties drifted from progressivism after Wilson tarred it so badly until Hoover revived it) and a huge wing of the party continued to be not only highly socially conservative but in power in the South until the 2000s. The northeastern "progressives" weren't strained out of the levers of power in the Republican Party until late into the 1980's.

Ross Perot took from both parties remember on a socially progressive, fiscally conservative platform.

Spoiler

Standard disclaimer about the parties actually being anything but progressive-conservative since 1896.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The Senate voted today to advance the Udall Amendment to the First Amendment by a vote of 79-18. It will now be debated before inevitably being put out to pasture as the bad idea it is.

Here's some words of wisdom from Senator Reid, as quoted in the Politico article linked to above:

We’re faced with a choice: Keep the status quo or change it.

Well...

Yeah.

 

[theprodigy]

Well, letting your opponent implode while doing nothing yourself is one way to win a debate.

works well enough when running against Republicans it seems

 

[benjipwns]

Here's some words of wisdom from Senator Reid, as quoted in the Politico article linked to above:



Well...

Yeah.

FALSE CHOICE

 

[JesseEwiak]

The Senate voted today to advance the Udall Amendment to the First Amendment by a vote of 79-18. It will now be debated before inevitably being put out to pasture as the bad idea it is.
.

Yes, because rich people deserve a larger megaphone simply because they have more money.

 

[thepotatoman]

I just noticed the wording of the question of the SurveyUSA poll:

"If there were an election for US Senate today, and Democrat Chad Taylor’s name still appeared on the ballot even though he no longer wants to run, and the other names on the ballot were Republican Pat Roberts, Independent Greg Orman, and Libertarian Randall Batson, who would you vote for?”

So they included the information of Taylor dropping out in the question itself. I wonder what sort of biases that adds to the numbers, and how so many people would stick with Taylor even after being told he dropped out.

Also:

Orman gets 52% of the Democratic vote, 42% of the independent vote, and 26% of the Republican vote.

But he's still totally going to caucus with the Republicans if he wins, right?

 

[benjipwns]

Yes, because rich people deserve a larger megaphone simply because they have more money.

Freedom of the press breh'lady

 

[Oblivion]

As fast-food workers demonstrate nationwide for a $15 hourly wage, and congressional Republicans fight off a $10 federal minimum, little SeaTac has something to offer the debate. Its neighbor, Seattle, was the first big city to approve a $15 wage, this spring, but that doesn’t start phasing in until next year. SeaTac did it all at once. And, though there’s nothing definitive, this much is clear: The sky did not fall.

“SeaTac is proving trickle-down economics wrong,” says David Rolf, the Service Employees International Union official who helped lead the $15 effort in SeaTac and Seattle, “because when workers prosper, so do communities and businesses.”

Oh sure, seems like things are going well now. But give it a little while and companies will be fleeing to Somalia before you know it!

 

[speculawyer]

Nah, I'm against taxes that hit the poor hardest.

We SHOULD just eliminate the corporate tax. And the capital-gains tax. And the payroll tax. Those all "trickle down" taxes more than they trickle down monies. But we SHOULD eliminate them anyway. And 95% of government spending. And the state as a whole.

Obligatory.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Freedom of the press breh'lady

If Billionaire Bob wants to start or buy a newspaper, more power to him. If he wants to start a whole TV channel proving Obama's a Muslim, again, more power to him. If he wants to organize actual people instead of just spending moeny on ads, again, more power to him. But, the regulation of advertising isn't limiting the freedom of the press.

 

[Metaphoreus]

If Billionaire Bob wants to start or buy a newspaper, more power to him. If he wants to start a whole TV channel proving Obama's a Muslim, again, more power to him. If he wants to organize actual people instead of just spending moeny on ads, again, more power to him. But, the regulation of advertising isn't limiting the freedom of the press.

One of my problems with the proposed amendment (since you so politely asked) is that it doesn't define the term "freedom of the press," and the two most likely meanings of that term render the amendment either pointless or intolerable. If it's using that term to mean the same thing as it means in the First Amendment, then its reference to "press" is to the technology of mass communication, and it's restrictions are basically eviscerated by the exception. On the other hand, if it's using the phrase "freedom of the press" in a more modern sense, then its reference to the press probably refers to something like the news media, and the amendment gives the government the power to, among other things, ban books outright if they are published by some business not part of the news media (such as a publishing house, for instance). In either event, the proposed amendment is a bad idea.

But set that complaint aside. Think about what you just said. Only those wealthy enough to buy a television station or newspaper are entitled to publish their thoughts freely under your proposed system. Your proposal harms the very people you purport to be helping--indeed, it harms all but the most wealthy in society--by restricting their ability to speak to one another through political advertisements.

 

[JesseEwiak]

But set that complaint aside. Think about what you just said. Only those wealthy enough to buy a television station or newspaper are entitled to publish their thoughts freely under your proposed system. Your proposal harms the very people you purport to be helping--indeed, it harms all but the most wealthy in society--by restricting their ability to speak to one another through political advertisements.

Yes, because when I think of an area where middle class people can spend money easily and get their voice heard, it's through political advertisements. But, anyway, I'd also repeal most of the Telecommunications Act so there'd be forced media deconsolidation, so ya' know, maybe 8 corporations didn't own 90% of the media in this country.

If you want your voice heard, join a political party. Or join a movement that will get people out to vote your preferred policy/political party. Again, the vast majority of the rest of the civilized world has these same regulations, and yet, there is even more of a diversity of opinion in their political spheres than in the US.

But, no, I'm not limiting speech. I'm saying, if you want to step outside and yell about how Obamacare is the most evil thing in the history of the world, go ahead. But, no, you don't have the inherent right to spend tens of millions of dollars in advertisements saying the same thing on TV every ten seconds as well.

I'd also ban all political ads until six weeks before an election, so I'd also "limit" speech anyway.

 

[benjipwns]

Obligatory.

Yeah, the communist state really fucked that one up, thankfully the period of "private security forces" saw great growth in the standard of living, though we'll have to see about the new government.

If Billionaire Bob wants to start or buy a newspaper, more power to him. If he wants to start a whole TV channel proving Obama's a Muslim, again, more power to him. If he wants to organize actual people instead of just spending moeny on ads, again, more power to him. But, the regulation of advertising isn't limiting the freedom of the press.

So the only "wrong" the Koch Brothers have committed is fund 30 second ads? If they paid for an entire channel or bought up all the newspapers and radio stations in the country and filled it with propaganda, that's cool. But put an ad on the air and woah, we're falling into plutocracy!

the amendment gives the government the power to, among other things, ban books outright if they are published by some business not part of the news media (such as a publishing house, for instance)

Look, the government would never do this. (Just don't ask Justice Kagan.)

Yes, because when I think of an area where middle class people can spend money easily and get their voice heard, it's through political advertisements.

And when I do, I think of multi-billion dollar corporations like News Corp or the NYT.

But, no, I'm not limiting speech

Right, you're most specifically limiting press.

But, no, you don't have the inherent right to spend tens of millions of dollars in advertisements saying the same thing on TV every ten seconds as well.

But you do have the inherent right to spend tens of billions of dollars producing Fox & Friends, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, The Rush Limbaugh Show, etc.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yes, because rich people deserve a larger megaphone simply because they have more money.

Yes, because when I think of an area where middle class people can spend money easily and get their voice heard, it's through political advertisements.

Come on, dude. I'm trying to have an honest conversation here, and your tone isn't helping.

 

[Gotchaye]

So the only "wrong" the Koch Brothers have committed is fund 30 second ads? If they paid for an entire channel or bought up all the newspapers and radio stations in the country and filled it with propaganda, that's cool. But put an ad on the air and woah, we're falling into plutocracy!

"All the newspapers and radio stations in the country" would be a problem, but in general I'm perfectly fine with people spending whatever they want to create opt-in speech. If your audience is listening to what you have to say because they want to hear what you have to say, that's great. So, like, even though Rush Limbaugh has enormous political influence and is hugely more able to get his voice heard than the typical person, he has that influence by virtue of people deciding that they want to hear what Rush has to say. Likewise Fox News isn't something that I'd want campaign finance reform to go after. It is a problem that people watch Fox and listen to Rush, but not a problem which is appropriately solved by trying to silence them.

Opt-out speech strikes me as a lot less worthy of protection. It's not nearly as important to be able to get people to listen to what you have to say even though they don't care or don't want to listen to you. Maybe besides some really limited right to make clear that you exist so that people who want to seek out your ideas can do so.

 

[JesseEwiak]

"All the newspapers and radio stations in the country" would be a problem, but in general I'm perfectly fine with people spending whatever they want to create opt-in speech. If your audience is listening to what you have to say because they want to hear what you have to say, that's great. So, like, even though Rush Limbaugh has enormous political influence and is hugely more able to get his voice heard than the typical person, he has that influence by virtue of people deciding that they want to hear what Rush has to say. Likewise Fox News isn't something that I'd want campaign finance reform to go after. It is a problem that people watch Fox and listen to Rush, but not a problem which is appropriately solved by trying to silence them.

Opt-out speech strikes me as a lot less worthy of protection. It's not nearly as important to be able to get people to listen to what you have to say even though they don't care or don't want to listen to you. Maybe besides some really limited right to make clear that you exist so that people who want to seek out your ideas can do so.

Also, I'm for media deconsoliation, which would stop anybody of any political bent to dominate the airwaves.

Come on, dude. I'm trying to have an honest conversation here, and your tone isn't helping.

Don't say silly things like limiting political advertising will hurt average people and I won't say silly things back. But, frankly, my tone is, "corporations, unions, and political parties have no inherent right to spend millions of dollars on political advertisements using the public airwaves."

 

[benjipwns]

Opt-out speech strikes me as a lot less worthy of protection. It's not nearly as important to be able to get people to listen to what you have to say even though they don't care or don't want to listen to you.

It is opt-in. The owner of the press has opted in to publish your statement.

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, the communist state really fucked that one up, thankfully the period of "private security forces" saw great growth in the standard of living, though we'll have to see about the new government..

Government? Who needs that? Just Guns & Freedom!

 

[benjipwns]

Ray Rice beat his wife because Obama.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-carson-defends-ray-rice-dont-start-demonizing-this-guy/

During an appearance with Steve Malzberg on NewsMax TV, Dr. Ben Carson shared his opinions on the matter, in essence defending Rice and laying near equal blame on Palmer.

“I’m hopeful they will get some help for him,” Carson said, after being asked whether he agreed with the moves today by the team and the league. “I mean, obviously anyone who would do something like that needs some help.”

“And let’s not all jump on the bandwagon of demonizing this guy,” Carson continued. “He obviously has some real problems, and his wife obviously knows that, because she subsequently married him. So they both need some help. So rather than just jumping on a punitive bandwagon, let’s just see if we can get some help for these people.”

I'm worried Tillis is going to pull a Jesse Helms like ad at the last minute.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/...ate-candidate-wont-commit-to-supporti#44ih635

Thom Tillis, the Republican candidate for Senate in North Carolina, wouldn’t commit to supporting Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, if both of them win this fall.

“I’m not going to look past the most important election and that’s the election in November,” he told BuzzFeed News on Saturday. “I think there are a number of people in Republican caucus who would be great leaders and it would be great for them to be in that position.”

Government? Who needs that? Just Guns & Freedom!

It's okay to admit you don't know anything about the history of Somalia.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Don't say silly things like limiting political advertising will hurt average people and I won't say silly things back. But, frankly, my tone is, "corporations, unions, and political parties have no inherent right to spend millions of dollars on political advertisements using the public airwaves."

Don't pretend like you're only responding in kind to sarcasm on my part. Your first response to me--before I had a chance to critique your proposal--was sarcasm without substance.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Do you really not see how restricting the right to broadcast a political opinion to those with the finances to purchase a newspaper or television station harms those without such finances? Maybe I misunderstand you, though. Do you propose to restrict advertising only by individuals? Or also by groups of individuals? Your latest response makes me think you must have meant the former.

Oh, and I don't think you understand what the word "tone" means.

 

[benjipwns]

It's obviously much more expensive to run a political ad than to run a metropolitan broadcasting station or newspaper. The common folk can only afford the latter.

 

[speculawyer]

It's okay to admit you don't know anything about the history of Somalia.

The past is merely prologue. They are free of taxes & government . . . it is goddamn utopia, right?

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-carson-defends-ray-rice-dont-start-demonizing-this-guy/

Seems the only thing conservatives hate more than black men are black women.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Don't pretend like you're only responding in kind to sarcasm on my part. Your first response to me--before I had a chance to critique your proposal--was sarcasm without substance.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Do you really not see how restricting the right to broadcast a political opinion to those with the finances to purchase a newspaper or television station harms those without such finances? Maybe I misunderstand you, though. Do you propose to restrict advertising only by individuals? Or also by groups of individuals? Your latest response makes me think you must have meant the former.

Oh, and I don't think you understand what the word "tone" means.

My proposal is publicly funded campaigns, with equal funding for all candidates, with some time of refundable deposit (let's say $25,000) that you get returned to you as long as you get x percentage of votes (let's say 1%) to weed out the crazies.

Aside from that, no other funding. If unions want to help out, get your fellow union members out to vote. If a CEO wants to move the needle, I don't know, get his country club buddies out to vote.

 

[benjipwns]

The past is merely prologue. They are free of taxes & government . . . it is goddamn utopia, right?

Somalia has a government now and it's attempting to be the first to claim the entire region successfully. It previously had a Communist government that was horrific, barely held power over the region and then collapsed.

During the inbetween period, standards of living improved significantly. If you lived in Somalia you would have much preferred it to the previous ten thousand years.

It's because the entire political culture of Somalia has its roots in a polycentric system of dispute resolution. The multiple central governments that have claimed authority over the whole of the Horn of Africa during the last 1500 years have never been as relevant to the day to day lives of Somalians as their local judges. And it's been to the harm of both those claimants and the citizens when it's tried to replace the Xeer system, as the Communists most obviously proved. (Because of Communist doctrine to eliminate such competing systems, not the fact that they were also dicks.)

As for utopia, utopia is impossible, so stop chasing it.

My proposal is publicly funded campaigns, with equal funding for all candidates, with some time of refundable deposit (let's say $25,000) that you get returned to you as long as you get x percentage of votes (let's say 1%) to weed out the crazies.

Or to "weed" out those who threaten the existing power structure.

Aside from that, no other funding. If unions want to help out, get your fellow union members out to vote. If a CEO wants to move the needle, I don't know, get his country club buddies out to vote.

If the NYT publishes a column by me are they funding my campaign? If Fox News gives me an interview or hell, an entire show to present my views are they funding my campaign? What about just reporting who supports me or doesn't?

 

[JesseEwiak]

Or to "weed" out those who threaten the existing power structure.

If you can't get 1% of the vote after being given equal money to the "mainstream" parties, then you aren't threatening anybody.

If the NYT publishes a column by me are they funding my campaign? If Fox News gives me an interview or hell, an entire show to present my views are they funding my campaign? What about just reporting who supports me or doesn't?

Well, since I'll also be reinstating the Fairness Doctrine if I'm dictator, your opponent has to be on for the same amount of time on Fox News and newspapers make endorsements all around the world without the destructive properties that American-style campaigning has, as long as the media is not consolidated under few owners.

 

[benjipwns]

If you can't get 1% of the vote after being given equal money to the "mainstream" parties, then you aren't threatening anybody.

Uh, we have two corporations with monstrous resources at command of our politics. That's not going to change with public funding.

Well, since I'll also be reinstating the Fairness Doctrine if I'm dictator, your opponent has to be on for the same amount of time on Fox News and newspapers make endorsements all around the world without the destructive properties that American-style campaigning has, as long as the media is not consolidated under few owners.

And if I have 300 opponents?

Really, all you're doing is shifting any need for financial wealth to fully the need for political wealth and elite connections.

You're destroying a free press, freedom of association and the right to petition for anyone outside the political class in order to restrengthen the "smoke-filled rooms" of yesteryear. And this will somehow be better because well, I don't know, you've internalized Moses Hess I guess.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Uh, we have two corporations with monstrous resources at command of our politics. That's not going to change with public funding.

If by resources, you mean history, then yes? If by resources, you mean money, not so much. They'll have to follow the same rules.

And if I have 300 opponents?

Then maybe news organizations will prioritize away from just giving handjobs to candidates on-air to actually covering policy if they actually have to cover every opponent equally.

Really, all you're doing is shifting any need for financial wealth to fully the need for political wealth and elite connections.

You're destroying a free press, freedom of association and the right to petition for anyone outside the political class in order to restrengthen the "smoke-filled rooms" of yesteryear. And this will somehow be better because well, I don't know, you've internalized Moses Hess I guess.

It's weird. These same restrictions are in other countries, yet, they have a far more varied group of policy positions within their political system than we do. Yet, us, with all our "freedom", are limited to few choices.

 

[benjipwns]

If by resources, you mean history, then yes? If by resources, you mean money, not so much. They'll have to follow the same rules.

No, I mean resources. In-kind contributions. An infastructure. Ties and connections. A massive hierarchy. Real estate. On and on...

Then maybe news organizations will prioritize away from just giving handjobs to candidates on-air to actually covering policy if they actually have to cover every opponent equally.

Why would a news organization cover policy?

It's weird. These same restrictions are in other countries, yet, they have a far more varied group of policy positions within their political system than we do. Yet, us, with all our "freedom", are limited to few choices.

There's not a single "modern democracy" that bans private donations and provides entirely equal public funding to all candidates that I'm aware of.

There certainly are a lot fewer countries with FPP governing every level of their elections though.

 

[Akainu]

Obligatory.

i don't know man thats a lot of black people.

 

[cooljeanius]

NH state primaries for this year's elections are today (September 9). The Democratic ballot was pretty boring; wish I could've voted on the Republican one so I could vote against Scott Brown twice... I would've gone for Jim Rubens for Senate and Andrew Hemingway for governor on a Republican ballot, but never really made up my mind in the Garcia/Lambert/Lawrence race though...

 

[percephone]

No, I mean resources. In-kind contributions. An infastructure. Ties and connections. A massive hierarchy. Real estate. On and on...


Why would a news organization cover policy?


There's not a single "modern democracy" that bans private donations and provides entirely equal public funding to all candidates that I'm aware of.

There certainly are a lot fewer countries with FPP governing every level of their elections though.

Some provinces in Canada limits political donations and publicly funds registered parties proportionally to the votes.

Also, only voters can donates.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Bill Maher was on Letterman last night. Surprisingly his campaign to flip a district was never mentioned. Who should he choose GAF? The Winner(Loser) is announced this Friday. Kline is beatable especially since it seems Dayton will cruise to victory in MN. Hickenlooper is in a dead heat so maybe trying to turn out more Democratic votes there in CO is a better bet by defeating Coffman. The Texas dude is a joke and only won by 1% last time...so I doubt it will go to him. Clay Aiken is a polarizing figure in NC I could only imagine being gay and all which will make it tough for him to win.

So my guess is it will be Kline of Coffman as the winner with Coffman with the slight edge as it's Colorado after all and Maher loves his cannabis.

 

[alstein]

Bill Maher was on Letterman last night. Surprisingly his campaign to flip a district was never mentioned. Who should he choose GAF? The Winner(Loser) is announced this Friday. Kline is beatable especially since it seems Dayton will cruise to victory in MN. Hickenlooper is in a dead heat so maybe trying to turn out more Democratic votes there in CO is a better bet by defeating Coffman. The Texas dude is a joke and only won by 1% last time...so I doubt it will go to him. Clay Aiken is a polarizing figure in NC I could only imagine being gay and all which will make it tough for him to win.

So my guess is it will be Kline of Coffman as the winner with Coffman with the slight edge as it's Colorado after all and Maher loves his cannabis.

Aiken has no shot- his district is too gerrymandered.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Bill Maher was on Letterman last night. Surprisingly his campaign to flip a district was never mentioned. Who should he choose GAF? The Winner(Loser) is announced this Friday. Kline is beatable especially since it seems Dayton will cruise to victory in MN. Hickenlooper is in a dead heat so maybe trying to turn out more Democratic votes there in CO is a better bet by defeating Coffman. The Texas dude is a joke and only won by 1% last time...so I doubt it will go to him. Clay Aiken is a polarizing figure in NC I could only imagine being gay and all which will make it tough for him to win.

So my guess is it will be Kline of Coffman as the winner with Coffman with the slight edge as it's Colorado after all and Maher loves his cannabis.

Man I hope they pick Kline.

 

[Coriolanus]

https://mises.org/journals/aa/AA1946_VIII_1.pdf

(Read pg 38-39)

Where Would the Money Go?

Suppose the corporation income tax werere moved, where would the money go that is now paid in taxes? That depends. If the industry is highly competitive, as is the case with retailing, a large share would go in lower prices, and a smaller share would go in higher wages and in higher yield on savings invested in the industry. If labor in the industry is strongly organized, as in the railroad, steel, and automotive industries, the share going in higher wages would tend to increase. If the industry is neither competitive nor organized nor regulated -of which industries there are very few - a large share would go to the stockholders. Insofar as the elimination of the present corporation income tax would result in lower prices, it would raise the standard of living for everyone.

Heh.