Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Pretty much
Not even remotely close to being true.
/Pot is bad for you.
Pretty much
Not even remotely close to being true.
/Pot is bad for you.
Possibly but in the sense he is using it I strongly disagree. I believe in jesus but I am for gay marriage. I am living proof that he is full of ****.
It isn't just the bible bangers who are against gay marriage, although in this country they're the majority of the religious groups who are for it. The religious objection is the biggest one, other than the "ugh, it's sick" types. Because there isn't much of a rational objection past that.
The religious objection is far from rational. Religion itself is irrational. We've got the nuts running the nuthouse.
The religious objection is far from rational. Religion itself is irrational. We've got the nuts running the nuthouse.
I'm tolerant about everybody. Except those religious ********, what a bunch of loons.
One of the main reasons we're so stuck with two parties is that no one will vote for a 3rd-party candidate because it will take votes away from the major-party candidate who actually has a chance. So if I dislike both the D and R candidates, and like a 3rd-party more, I'm still going to vote R or D so I can help install the lesser of two evils. Voting for the 3rd-party guy is just like throwing away my vote.
Why not have a system like France's, where there's a first and second round? First round you get to vote for any candidate you want, and when the second round narrows it to two candidates, you still get to vote for the lesser of two evils. That would actually make third parties viable.
Why not form a "blue dog" republican coalition and have labor support actual labor candidates?
Then we can treat the president like the puppet he (she) is. It drives me up the wall that labor unions give to the New Corporate Party to oppose the Old Corporate Party. Give all the money to labor democrats and forget the presidency.
A moderate republican coalition may be harder since there isn't a money pool behind it, but I think it could form in places like Minnesota.
I doubt labor money can compete with corporate money to the extent of making a third party viable. Reforming the contribution system (and imposing stricter limits) seems like the best solution.
I'm thinking more of a intra-party coalition that brings sanity back to each side. Labor provides a **** load of money and should be able to pick up at least as many candidates as the Tea Party has. It makes zero sense for labor unions to pool their money in with corporate interests that are at odds with them.
And yes, labor can compete with corporate interests: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
Interesting. I wonder why that solution is not discussed more often.
--Timothy Taylor (my new favorite blogger)Like many of my policy ideas, most people agree with only half of it--and they disagree about which half.
The best presidents are always the ones who are moderates.
Terrible political move by Obama. I`m pretty surprised he did it. People for gay marriage were already going to vote for him - but there`s alot of moderate types on the Obama/Romney fence that could get pushed over to the Romney side because of this.
Yeah, but at least if Obama loses he won't be viewed as a complete weenie.
I still view him as such, regardless. One half-assed gestures does not make up for 3 years of pandering.