Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Came from Corporations, Unions, Rich Business Folks who couldn't contribute /face limits to their contribution to candidates. Super PACs allow them to bypass such hurdles.
It went to political ads supporting or attacking certain candidates.
Unlikely there's much unspent cash, since the PACs knew when the election was, so they could budget accordingly to make sure the spent all by election day. Presumably, the Super PACs can keep the left over for the next set of elections...
edited 8th Nov '12 11:04:16 AM by CobraPrime
Tepublicans?
Ehem...
I'll reiterate that in foreign policy, Democrats have lately been similarly "at fault" as Republicans if you can call it that. NDAA was the fault of Democrats but not of the president. Patriot Act, I suppose you can say Democrats have inherited the blame. There's a reason why US, normally ranking high in democracy and living standards, ranks really low in privacy.
◊
Sigh... the tax compromise made me look up Grover Norquist again. Why can't he present the electoral news in a less biased manner?
Grover Norquist: Why 2012 Election Was Actually Good For GOP (VIDEO)
"The Republicans are as strong as they were after 2010, and that was considered a devastating body blow to the Obama administration and Democratic hopes," he said. "What's been crushing for Republicans is that they had hopes of taking the Senate and the presidency. That didn't happen."
He should realize that while statistics didn't change, the attitude sure has.
Oh, Karl Rove. You're soooooo silly.
Please go back to the hole you came from, and stop bothering us.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Karl Rove is a sore loser.
Indeed. I'm wondering if this will dissuade people from dumping cash into SuperPACs in 2014 and 2016.
edited 8th Nov '12 12:57:53 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
I think itsd more that Karl, as well as other pundits, literally did believe the insanity they were spewing and now are trying desperately to reconcile hard facts with a crashing worldview.
Thats true, but judging by projections, multiple PACS like crosroads succeeded in getting maybe 1 candidate elected. period.
edited 8th Nov '12 1:01:47 PM by Midgetsnowman
I'm reminded of a bit on QI about game theory. All else being equal, two corporations spending equal advertising dollars will cancel eachother out. So when the US government banned tobacco advertising, the tobacco companies had a lot of profit.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryThere's something that really pisses me off about this report on Social Security
. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I've read up on the issue, and as far as I can tell the "firewall" between Social Security funds and general revenue is almost entirely illusory.
That is, if Social Security runs a deficit, it is made up for out of general revenue. The "trust fund" is a number that exists only on paper and it has no real meaning. So why is everyone so paranoid about SS running out of money? As long as it draws from general revenue, it is literally impossible for that to happen unless the entire government runs out of money. Am I wrong?
Edit: Romney concedes Florida
, meaning that once the results are certified, Obama will have won 332-206. Apparently I was incorrect, or incorrectly informed: the margin for an automatic recount is 0.5%, not 1%; Obama is up by a bit over 0.6%.
edited 8th Nov '12 1:17:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: Where did you get the idea that the Trust Fund was illusory? The fund includes the payroll taxes collected, and government bonds that were purchased during surplus years. All that is projected to run out at some point in the future. Technically, I suppose Congress has the authority to put more money in there, either by increasing payroll taxes, or from some other source. There is no real plan to do either at the moment.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Only in Republican-land can someone correctly predicting the outcome of an election be a shill for the winning team.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Who re-approved the Patriot Act in 2009 with no scapegoat in question?
The Democrats. As it got out of committee with the clause in the bill. The idea that Republicans demanded the clause be added before they'd vote for it is, again, disingenuous...
There is equal blame to be handed out for both issues. Claiming otherwise is, for all intents and purposes, lying to make the side you prefer look better.
And yes. It could be said that some Democrats are against the measures. But it can equally be said that some Republicans are against the measures...
edited 8th Nov '12 11:05:15 AM by Swish