IIRC, that was already a plank in the party platform.
Bill Clinton: The world’s most adorable statesman.
I further apologize, off in the weeds policy wonkism basically. But the US is middle of the pack among developed countries infrastructure spending as % of GDP, not particularly a laggard. Among my hopeless dreams of pragmatic centrism is an eventual effort to focus on the efficiency of government funding of infrastructure, not just ‘more’. Otherwise I agree with the comment you responded to: saying a civil engineer profession organization is an interested party is not impugning anyone personally. It is, and at least at the margins its analysis has to be taken with a grain of salt for that reason. But my main point is the first one, is infrastructure spending focused enough on the most infrastructure with the lowest burden (in tax dollars), or is it focused on too many other things (political favors, redistributing income, other social justice goals)?
At the RNC, did they screen a short film or inspirational montage about Trump’s life, like the DNC did with Hillary? It seems like that’s become pretty standard at conventions, but I didn’t see them do anything like that with Trump. Then again, I may have just missed it.
I don’t think so since a number of political analyst types I follow on Twitter noted the “missed opportunity” when Clinton’s was going on.
I have a hard time thinking it was a missed opportunity rather than a calculated decision. Even if I try to be as neutral as possible, I can’t see how they could spin out his life story sympathetically. Even if we take out all the tabloid stuff and the $10 mill loan from Daddy Trump, what would the voice over be talking about? “He’s great at making deals”? Ok, but often when making deals you kind of have to be a dick. And these deals are basically making luxury hotels, casinos and golf courses - not exactly endearing to the common voter. There’s no real life long fight to “make America Great Again” except random quotes over the years about how we are getting ripped off by allies and mocked by enemies - with no real work done or even attempted. Basically, his whole campaign is “we need a tough talking jerk in charge for a while”. Do you really want a video of how he’s been a tough talking jerk his whole life?
My wife donated the same as I did. But there is always donation in kind: volunteer, man the phones, do the door knocking, register voters. We’ll be doing that as well, as we are both committed to making sure that that morally and ethically bankrupt vulgarian never gets within sniffing distance of the presidency.
Obviously, you just play the existing video clip of America’s folk hero, Biff Tannen.
You missed it. It was fascinating because it included a lot of footage from Cheetoface’s younger days when he had human hair. Quite different to the hair-shaped bird’s nest perched on top of his head now.
She won’t stay throwed! — Watch Emanuel Cleaver’s amazing “She Won’t Stay Throwed” riff at the DNC.
Trump is an "80s movie bully – Donald Trump | Mediaite
Let’s be honest: if Americans all voted based purely on the quality of the convention, Clinton would win every state in the Union, and states and provinces from other countries would send electors in an attempt to cast additional votes. It’d be 538-0, and no one state would be close.
I do not believe in my observational lifetime - I started becoming aware of politics circa 1980 - that there has been such a massive, ridiculously apparent delta in quality between two conventions. It was not a comparison between two candidates or two visions for the USA; it was a comparison between a party that loves its country and the people who live in it and wants to improve things, and a party that demonstrated essentially none of that and only wants to improve a despicable man’s ego.
As a result, I think this is actually going to be a fascinating litmus test for future reference; how much does the quality of a convention matter in today’s polarized politics? We know that conventions produce bounces. We know that in recent years the bounce has been less than it used to be, probably because of 24-hour news availability. (Back in the day you couldn’t see this stuff all day every day.) But we don’t really have an example that I can think of - not in my time, anyway - where one convention was really well done and the other was a zeppelin crash.
If in fact we see Clinton bounce up in the polls by a lot, we will know convention quality really matters, because it would be difficult to ascribe that to anything else. If her bounce is the modest 3 points or so we usually have seen in the last few elections, then convention quality really doesn’t matter.
I have also heard her say, at least twice, that she wants to appoint Supreme Court justices that will overturn Citizens United v. FEC, as if the concept of “settled law” only applies when the decisions go against the conservatives.
And just in case the post wasn’t sarcastic, there already is a constitutional amendment proposed - in fact, you get a choice:
House Joint Resolution 24:
*Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit Congress or any State from imposing content-neutral limitations on contributions or expenditures which are used to refer to a candidate for election for Federal office, including contributions or expenditures which are made independently from a candidate or a candidate’s campaign during such period as Congress or the State may establish which is proximate to the date of the election in which the candidate is running.
Section 2. Nothing contained in this article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.*
House Joint Resolution 46:
*Section 1. The Congress shall have power to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the contribution of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to a Federal office in the United States and to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the expenditure of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents used to support or purchase media advertisements intended to influence the outcome of an election for Federal office in the United States.
Whenever Congress should exercise such power, it must apply equally and uniformly to all individual persons recognized as citizens of the United States.
Whenever Congress should exercise such power on associations of citizens of the United States, it must apply equally and uniformly to all associations of citizens of the United States.
Section 2. Each of the several States shall have power to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the contribution of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to public office in the State and to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate expenditure of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents used to support or purchase media advertisements intended to influence the outcome of an election for public office or plebiscite in the State.
Whenever a State should exercise such power, it must apply equally and uniformly to all individual persons recognized as citizens of the State.
Whenever a State should exercise such power on associations of citizens of the State, it must apply equally and uniformly to all associations of citizens of the State.
Section 3. A person who is not a citizen of the United States, including an association of persons who are not citizens of the United States, a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent thereof, may not contribute funds or donate in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to public office in the United States or otherwise expend funds or donate in-kind equivalents in a manner intended to influence the outcome of an election for public office or plebiscite in the United States.
Section 4. The powers provided by this article are limited to the content neutral regulation of political contributions and political expenditures.
Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.*
House Joint Resolution 58:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States from imposing reasonable content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election expenditures, or from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.
Senate Joint Resolution 4:
(submitted by Bernie Sanders)
*Section 1. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons as citizens of the United States, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections belong only to natural persons in accordance with this Article.
Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of a public election by candidates, individuals, and associations of individuals, and the imposition of content neutral limitations on all such contributions and expenditures.
Section 3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.
Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to enforce this Article through appropriate legislation.*
Senate Joint Resolution 4 is a terrible idea.
I’m not sure how House Joint Resolution 46 improves on 46 except to say it has to apply equally to all citizens, which is, it seems to me, redundant, because the U.S. Constitution already has a part about equal protection of the laws.
The actual sound of her voice? I mean, aside from that mutated Midwest drawl and rollercoaster intonation, I cannot hear any tone to her speaking because it is drowned out by the sound of the demise of my wallpaper.
Can you tolerate the sound of Palin?
picture six is so adorkable. mr clinton’s new best buddy. i’m betting charlotte and aiden have have a few new buddies as well.
It really is horrible. It amazes me that Senator Sanders hasn’t seen the unintended consequences here. A referendum (and hence “public election”) dealing with freedom of religion - sorry, ACLU, you can’t run ads or send out flyers on that. It’s way too restrictive. Allowing Congress and/or the states to limit campaign contributions is a far, far better way of doing things… because if you fuck up with the your first law and, lo and behold, the ACLU can’t run an ad, then you can change the law - as opposed to a second Constitutional Amendment clarifying the first one.
The very fact that his wording contains subjective, angry terms suggests it’s more of an axe-grinding than a serious, reasoned attempt at Constitutional law. Section 1 has a pointless justification and Section 2 is just too many words to describe something that needs half as many.
Right winger Jedediah Bila of The View is drinking the Kool-Aid, trying to link Hillary to the Iran deal again.
expletive I can’t find it now and it may be gone (if I was his keeper, I’d have deleted it too). It was posted exactly when Hillary was speaking & it definitely contained the words “vaccine” and “autism”
I Knew I should have book marked it or taken screen shot of it…