U.S. Politics

Page 180 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
The Hitch said:
Gallup was romney +6 for a significant time after the debate too and only came.back last 2 days.

In the meantime no other poll has moved to.obama and ibd even went from +6 obama last week to obama+2 obama now.

For a bounce a candidate should move up a bit in most if not all polls.
The TPM tracker is a poll of polls. Obama's jumped +2 over the past ~2 weeks. Considering that's an average over a number of polls, it's a pretty solid bounce.
 
VeloCity said:
The TPM tracker is a poll of polls. Obama's jumped +2 over the past ~2 weeks. Considering that's an average over a number of polls, it's a pretty solid bounce.
I don't know what system it uses since I've never used it myself but 538 is also poll of polls and most importantly rcp which has no system just average and neither have reflected any such increase for the president whatsoever.

It would be interesting to see why only tpm has reflected this but id guess that they use.some polls rcp disregards.

Either way id be hesitant to call it a bounce if other tracking averages are not really reflecting that.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
aphronesis said:
People don't vote on foreign policy? (And this is directed at ACF as well...).

Let's take one example after World War II; what's the name of that massive voting block in Brooklyn that, along with women and some--mostly black--"minorities" will keep the city democratic for the near-term future against the likely tendencies of many upwardly mobile young men working in finance, technology and professionalized service sectors? They most definitely vote on foreign policy.

I vote on foreign policy as much as anything else--as it impacts the rest of the world (and is linked to the economy, by the way).
The majority of voters do not base their vote on foreign affairs. People are far more worried about their own well being than foreign affairs. Aphronesis, go ask the average voters about if they are going to base their vote on health, jobs, economy, education or foreign affairs. I bet a large majority would say the first 4 options over foreign affairs and I don't blame those people for prioritising those areas of their lives as they directly affect the well-being of people. Foreign affairs does not directly affect people's well-being. No doubt Foreign Affairs is an important issue for a country, but not the average voter.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
The Hitch said:
I don't know what system it uses since I've never used it myself but 538 is also poll of polls and most importantly rcp which has no system just average and neither have reflected any such increase for the president whatsoever.

It would be interesting to see why only tpm has reflected this but id guess that they use.some polls rcp disregards.

Either way id be hesitant to call it a bounce if other tracking averages are not really reflecting that.
I don't see a bounce either. It just seems to level of, or return to a certain default (still close) race.

538 says today that the 'momentum (if there was one) has stalled'



Since we are getting close to the election, isn't it time to make some predictions here? The one who wins gets to appoint W as president.

Let me start:
-------------------
Obama wins
303-235; including OH, WI, IA, VA, CO, NV, NH, WI, PA
ceding FL, NC to Romney

Senate (current 53-47); total of 21 up for reelection.

categorized as tosser by RCP (10):

AZ: Open (R) --> R (Flake) -
CT: Open (D) --> D (Murphy) -
IN: Open (R) --> D (Donnelly) flip
MA: Brown (R) --> D (Warren) flip
MO: McCaskill (D) --> D (McCaskill) -
MT: Tester (D) --> R (Rehberg) flip
NV: Heller (R) --> D (Berkley) flip
ND: Open (D) --> R (Berg) flip
VA: Open (D) --> D (Kaine) -
WI: Open (D) --> D (Baldwin) -
------------------------------

Total gain for D +1; final senate distribution 54-46 (ME King - I caucuses with D)
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
The majority of voters do not base their vote on foreign affairs. People are far more worried about their own well being than foreign affairs. Aphronesis, go ask the average voters about if they are going to base their vote on health, jobs, economy, education or foreign affairs. I bet a large majority would say the first 4 options over foreign affairs and I don't blame those people for prioritising those areas of their lives as they directly affect the well-being of people. Foreign affairs does not directly affect people's well-being. No doubt Foreign Affairs is an important issue for a country, but not the average voter.
I think if you'd asked people in 2008 and 2004 in the US, you'd get a different response. Post-9/11 and being tough on terrorism 2004, or ending wars abroad 2008, were hot topics. It wasn't until close to election in 2008 that wall street went belly up and the conversation turned to the 'sound fundamentals' of the US economy.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Let me start:
-------------------
Obama wins
303-235; including OH, WI, IA, VA, CO, NV, NH, WI, PA
ceding FL, NC to Romney

Senate (current 53-47); total of 21 up for reelection.

categorized as tosser by RCP (10):

AZ: Open (R) --> R (Flake) -
CT: Open (D) --> D (Murphy) -
IN: Open (R) --> D (Donnelly) flip
MA: Brown (R) --> D (Warren) flip
MO: McCaskill (D) --> D (McCaskill) -
MT: Tester (D) --> R (Rehberg) flip
NV: Heller (R) --> D (Berkley) flip
ND: Open (D) --> R (Berg) flip
VA: Open (D) --> D (Kaine) -
WI: Open (D) --> D (Baldwin) -
------------------------------

Total gain for D +1; final senate distribution 54-46 (ME King - I caucuses with D)
Ok, what about the House?:p
 
Bala Verde said:
I don't see a bounce either. It just seems to level of, or return to a certain default (still close) race.

538 says today that the 'momentum (if there was one) has stalled'



Since we are getting close to the election, isn't it time to make some predictions here? The one who wins gets to appoint W as president.

Let me start:
-------------------
Obama wins
303-235; including OH, WI, IO, VA, CO, NV, NH, WI, PA
ceding FL, NC to Romney

Senate (current 53-47); total of 21 up for reelection.

categorized as tosser by RCP (10):

AZ: Open (R) --> R (Flake) -
CT: Open (D) --> D (Murphy) -
IN: Open (R) --> D (Donnelly) flip
MA: Brown (R) --> D (Warren) flip
MO: McCaskill (D) --> D (McCaskill) -
MT: Tester (D) --> R (Rehberg) flip
NV: Heller (R) --> D (Berkley) flip
ND: Open (D) --> R (Berg) flip
VA: Open (D) --> D (Kaine) -
WI: Open (D) --> D (Baldwin) -
------------------------------

Total gain for D +1; final senate distribution 54-46 (ME King - I caucuses with D)
I think its too hard to call the states. Still lots of undecided voters. Polls all over the place and the polls are often well wrong - eg 2000.

Obama doesnt have the enthusiasm like he did in 2000. Republicans have closed the gap in early votes though they still trail. Romney will use RNC get out the vote which should be superior to Mccain 08 but still well behind Obama.


For Obama i go Pensylvania (not even in play) and im pretty sure Wisconsin. I think he has about a 75% chance of Iowa and Nevada and a 60% chance of Ohio.

For Romney North Carolina (not even in play since it barely voted for obama last time when he won by 7%) and im pretty sure Florida (since its been trending Republican since 2000).

Virginia Colorado and New Hampshire are total tossup though.

New Hampshire should be Obamas since it went for Kerry in 04, but it has a heavy independent population (which Romney is winning whereas Bush relied on evangelical gotv) and Romney has some name recognition from the Boston market. He also has a smaller machine gap due to the immense focus Romney 12 put on it in January.

Virginia is probably slight Romney, even though Obama almost matched his national score there in 08, he didnt quite match it and I remember reading that a large number of moderate republican voters there broke heavily for Obama largely because of Palin.

Colorado, well, i was absolutely convinced this was going to be 1 of Obamas most solid states since he absolutely killed it there in 08. And yet, the polls suggest its dead even with maybe even a Romney advantage.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
VeloCity said:
Yeah, makes no difference who wins :rolleyes: Since you're sitting it out, you can just thank us later when Obama gets to appoint the next couple of SC judges instead of Romney.

Weren't you the one back on the old DPF forums who was always defending Armstrong? I do seem to remember that. Duped indeed.
Yeah, at this point it makes no difference. At that point it did. Try not to bust a spring thinking about that too hard. Also, don't hold your breath there will be 2 retirements in the next 4 years if he wins. And, I don't trust Obama as far as I can throw him. He's a trojan horse, or the reproductive organ of a female trojan horse.

Defend LA, of course but define the context. I still think he was the best during that time and I still think it was a level playing field. Defend him by saying he didn't dope? Not so much. Nice diversion, though history pertaining to things that impact our every day lives makes you look like the fool multiple times more than me. You are an enabler.

Now, run along and vote for some change lol.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
The majority of voters do not base their vote on foreign affairs. People are far more worried about their own well being than foreign affairs. Aphronesis, go ask the average voters about if they are going to base their vote on health, jobs, economy, education or foreign affairs. I bet a large majority would say the first 4 options over foreign affairs and I don't blame those people for prioritising those areas of their lives as they directly affect the well-being of people. Foreign affairs does not directly affect people's well-being. No doubt Foreign Affairs is an important issue for a country, but not the average voter.
Well, ACF, that's all touching, but we've covered that upthread. And. while I'd like to respect your input , you seem to be advocating absent labor and corporate reps. No?
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
aphronesis said:
Well, ACF, that's all touching, but we've covered that upthread. And. while I'd like to respect your input , you seem to be advocating absent labor and corporate reps. No?
Aren't I allowed to respond to your criticism of my comment? Just because I am in a different time zone to the rest of the posters in this thread does not mean I am not allowed to post. I am not sure how I am advocating those last two issues that you state, although I would be more than happy for you to explain them.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
ChrisE said:
Yeah, at this point it makes no difference. At that point it did. Try not to bust a spring thinking about that too hard. Also, don't hold your breath there will be 2 retirements in the next 4 years if he wins. And, I don't trust Obama as far as I can throw him. He's a trojan horse, or the reproductive organ of a female trojan horse.

Defend LA, of course but define the context. I still think he was the best during that time and I still think it was a level playing field. Defend him by saying he didn't dope? Not so much. Nice diversion, though history pertaining to things that impact our every day lives makes you look like the fool multiple times more than me. You are an enabler.

Now, run along and vote for some change lol.
You seem pretty disillusioned there, Chris. It would seem that I wasn't the one who got suckered into believing campaign promises - did you really believe all that hope and change stuff? Man. Did you not realize at the time that it was all just campaign fluff?

Anyway, yep, I will be voting for Obama. He's done a decent job so far, his social views are a lot more in line with mine, and most of all, unlike the Republican alternatives of this and the '08 election (and more and more the entire party), he's not insane.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
VeloCity said:
You seem pretty disillusioned there, Chris. It would seem that I wasn't the one who got suckered into believing campaign promises - did you really believe all that hope and change stuff? Man. Did you not realize at the time that it was all just campaign fluff?

Anyway, yep, I will be voting for Obama. He's done a decent job so far, his social views are a lot more in line with mine, and most of all, unlike the Republican alternatives of this and the '08 election (and more and more the entire party), he's not insane.
I mostly agree. I would not say that the dems are not insane. I would say they are not as insane. But if they (either one) expect me to believe the crap that they are serving up then they are ****ing crazy.
I would go on to point out that anyone with a net worth of less than a couple million who votes repub. is just a ****ing idiot.

Edit: I guess I can't disagree w/ ChrisE all that much. I would say however that it is time he sacked up and made a choice. Bad choice is still better that really awfully bad choice.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
VeloCity said:
You seem pretty disillusioned there, Chris. It would seem that I wasn't the one who got suckered into believing campaign promises - did you really believe all that hope and change stuff? Man. Did you not realize at the time that it was all just campaign fluff?

Anyway, yep, I will be voting for Obama. He's done a decent job so far, his social views are a lot more in line with mine, and most of all, unlike the Republican alternatives of this and the '08 election (and more and more the entire party), he's not insane.
Well obviously you know more than me in regards to US Politics but what makes you think that what Obama has done (or not done) will be any different than what he says he will do in the next four years?
 
auscyclefan94 said:
The majority of voters do not base their vote on foreign affairs. People are far more worried about their own well being than foreign affairs. Aphronesis, go ask the average voters about if they are going to base their vote on health, jobs, economy, education or foreign affairs. I bet a large majority would say the first 4 options over foreign affairs and I don't blame those people for prioritising those areas of their lives as they directly affect the well-being of people. Foreign affairs does not directly affect people's well-being. No doubt Foreign Affairs is an important issue for a country, but not the average voter.
In response to your later post, I'll answer this one. At no point did I say you shouldn't be posting, but time zone is not an excuse for not reading what others have written. f

So, which average voters? In the US. I can think of few who will place health at the top of their voting decision. Do you mean by health not dying and getting one's employer to pay for meds or to cover cancer expenses owing to the toxins and stress one has inflicted on their body since the mid-twentieth century? Then yes, "health" is an issue. Out of your four, economy is number one, no doubt, but again, economy is linked to foreign policy and will be evermore. What do you think was happening when G. Bush was busy pursuing isolationism and US exceptionalism and ultimately devaluing the dollar? What do think those with real financial means within the US were doing with their money while everyone else was consuming homes and other crap?

Jobs, based on what bland promises? Moreover, despite the high unemployment rate (which is only high for the US), I suspect that within the youth demographic probably half of the "unemployed" will not vote "jobs" because they know it's a red herring.

As to your fourth category: education, it's likely that few are going to vote for a candidate on the premise of education absent of their take on that candidate's foreign policy. Either for complex reasons or the most reactionary.

The reality is that for the past 35 years, at least, both parties with the collusion of the media have been persuading uninformed voters to align their affects and allegiances against their own best interests and that means that many out of the spectrum will vote foreign policy almost as much as anything else.

In the event, your original post said no one. So now we're down to "the majority"?

If people in the US consistently voted according to the priorities you outline--and thought about how they're achieved--the political landscape might look significantly different.

More than that, what your post is indicative of is the type of single issue voting that contributed to the divisive and dysfunctional state at which the US has arrived. One can't segregate issues and give them ratings or valences because reality doesn't move that way.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
aphronesis said:
In response to your later post, I'll answer this one. At no point did I say you shouldn't being posting, but time zone is not an excuse for not reading what others have written.
I never said that you did say that. I did read what others have read but I wanted to make my own response to your post. That is what a forum is about.:rolleyes:

So, which average voters? In the US. I can think of few who will place health at the top of their voting decision. Do you mean by health not dying and getting one's employer to pay for meds or to cover cancer expenses owing to the toxins and stress one has inflicted on their body since the mid-twentieth century? Then yes, "health" is an issue. Out of your four, economy is number one, no doubt, but again, economy is linked to foreign policy and will be evermore. What do you think was happening when G. Bush was busy pursuing isolationism and US exceptionalism and ultimately devaluing the dollar? What do think those with real financial means within the US were doing with their money while everyone else was consuming homes and other crap?
I understand that foreign affairs does involve the economy but many of the problems with the economy are internal systematic problems - therefore domestic economic problems. I think there would be plenty of people voting on what health policy supports them best. Health policy affects voters themselves and the people whom they love. It is obvious that they would both the economy and health affects American's daily lives. Foreign affairs issues such as the problems in the Middle East and nuclear warfare issues with Russia are not issues that would cross the majority of voters minds.
Jobs, based on what bland promises? Moreover, despite the high unemployment rate (which is only high for the US), I suspect that within the youth demographic probably half of the "unemployed" will not vote "jobs" because they know it's a red herring.
Whether the policies on jobs by Obama and Romney are any good is not the point. The point is that having a job is one of the most important things someone can have. As you would know, the problems with employment run a lot deeper than just the 8% unemployment rate in the US. The fact is, that if people see a policy that can deliver jobs to someone, they will get that person's vote, irrespective of their foreign policy.

As to your fourth category: education, it's likely that few are going to vote for a candidate on the premise of education absent of their take on that candidate's foreign policy. Either for complex reasons or the most reactionary.
So you really think that a family living in middle America is going to care about the type of education that their child receives over foreign policy? Give me a break.

The reality is that for the past 35 years, at least, both parties with the collusion of the media have been persuading uninformed voters to align their affects and allegiances against their own best interests and that means that many out of the spectrum will vote foreign policy almost as much as anything else.

In the event, your original post said no one. So now we're down to "the majority"?

If people in the US consistently voted according to the priorities you outline--and thought about how they're achieved--the political landscape might look significantly different.

More than that, what your post is indicative of is the type of single issue voting that contributed to the divisive and dysfunctional state at which the US has arrived. One can't segregate issues and give them ratings or valences because reality doesn't move that way.
No doubt has foreign policy has been a popular issue in America for example in the 2004 Presidential election but with the current state of America, issues more closer to home that affect the daily lives of Americans are going to be more important than what is happening in Iraq or Libya. You know what, one can segregate issues because that is what so many people do in all elections, not just in the US, but around the world.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
The Hitch said:
I think its too hard to call the states. Still lots of undecided voters. Polls all over the place and the polls are often well wrong - eg 2000.

Obama doesnt have the enthusiasm like he did in 2000. Republicans have closed the gap in early votes though they still trail. Romney will use RNC get out the vote which should be superior to Mccain 08 but still well behind Obama.


For Obama i go Pensylvania (not even in play) and im pretty sure Wisconsin. I think he has about a 75% chance of Iowa and Nevada and a 60% chance of Ohio.

For Romney North Carolina (not even in play since it barely voted for obama last time when he won by 7%) and im pretty sure Florida (since its been trending Republican since 2000).

Virginia Colorado and New Hampshire are total tossup though.

New Hampshire should be Obamas since it went for Kerry in 04, but it has a heavy independent population (which Romney is winning whereas Bush relied on evangelical gotv) and Romney has some name recognition from the Boston market. He also has a smaller machine gap due to the immense focus Romney 12 put on it in January.

Virginia is probably slight Romney, even though Obama almost matched his national score there in 08, he didnt quite match it and I remember reading that a large number of moderate republican voters there broke heavily for Obama largely because of Palin.

Colorado, well, i was absolutely convinced this was going to be 1 of Obamas most solid states since he absolutely killed it there in 08. And yet, the polls suggest its dead even with maybe even a Romney advantage.
Interesting to read how confidence within the Republican camp seems to be growing and they are now even predicting a decent Romney victory. From the admittedly limited coverage of this election, the mood is certainly shifting. Surely that it will be closer than what quoted post says as you would imagine that there would be a much lower vote turnout from some groups for Obama in comparison to 2008? Saw a Fox news interview (for the first time) and Newt Gingrich amongst other commentators, including some more left leaning people, who are worried about Obama's chances or think he is going to lose. Also interesting to note that according to some recent polls, the proportion of young people who will vote has declined but the elderly vote is staying constant. Surely that is bad for Obama and good for Romney?
 
auscyclefan94 said:
I never said that you did say that. I did read what others have read but I wanted to make my own response to your post. That is what a forum is about.:rolleyes:



I understand that foreign affairs does involve the economy but many of the problems with the economy are internal systematic problems - therefore domestic economic problems. I think there would be plenty of people voting on what health policy supports them best. Health policy affects voters themselves and the people whom they love. It is obvious that they would both the economy and health affects American's daily lives. Foreign affairs issues such as the problems in the Middle East and nuclear warfare issues with Russia are not issues that would cross the majority of voters minds.


Whether the policies on jobs by Obama and Romney are any good is not the point. The point is that having a job is one of the most important things someone can have. As you would know, the problems with employment run a lot deeper than just the 8% unemployment rate in the US. The fact is, that if people see a policy that can deliver jobs to someone, they will get that person's vote, irrespective of their foreign policy.

So you really think that a family living in middle America is going to care about the type of education that their child receives over foreign policy? Give me a break.



No doubt has foreign policy has been a popular issue in America for example in the 2004 Presidential election but with the current state of America, issues more closer to home that affect the daily lives of Americans are going to be more important than what is happening in Iraq or Libya. You know what, one can segregate issues because that is what so many people do in all elections, not just in the US, but around the world.
What I'm telling you is that the stance a family in MidAm has on foreign policy is going to inflect their take on education. And vice versa-- from the highest to the lowest.

Can you summarize some US health policies for me? Fighting over soda size?

People all over the world also do not disarticulate complex patterns of existence into directed sound bites. I can point you toward them if you're interested.

Also, I think it's significant that in term of foreign policy, you cite only the most militarily contentious examples.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Interesting to read how confidence within the Republican camp seems to be growing and they are now even predicting a decent Romney victory. From the admittedly limited coverage of this election, the mood is certainly shifting. Surely that it will be closer than what quoted post says as you would imagine that there would be a much lower vote turnout from some groups for Obama in comparison to 2008? Saw a Fox news interview (for the first time) and Newt Gingrich amongst other commentators, including some more left leaning people, who are worried about Obama's chances or think he is going to lose. Also interesting to note that according to some recent polls, the proportion of young people who will vote has declined but the elderly vote is staying constant. Surely that is bad for Obama and good for Romney?
Of course republicans are predicting a big romney win. Just like dems are predicting an obama blowout. They believe there are momentum and votes to be gained by convincing the world they are ahead.

Turnout among youth is down but because it.was a bit of a baby boom in the early 90's so there are more new voters than usual and youth makes up a bigger % of overall voters to start with even if apathy brings share of actual voters down.
Then again many of the original bbs are moving towards the "older" category so it may even it out a bit.

It is good news for romney that obama voters are not turning out in as high numbers as 2008 but gop lost that election by over 7%, so its obvious that the gop will see positive trends in a closer election, but that doesn't mean they won't just lose by less.

And an obama 08 voter not voting in.2012 is as far as the gop are concerned, a vote gained. A obama 08 voter convinced to..vote romney , is 2 votes gained.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
The Hitch said:
Today 3rd quarter gdp growth figures will be released. Could be a turning point.
2%. More then estimated (I think est was 1.3 or 1.7?). It is a number that should give (continued) confidence especially in light of the ongoing Eurocrisis which indoubtedly is a drag on the us economy. I duo t however it is a game changer.
 
Bala Verde said:
2%. More then estimated (I think est was 1.3 or 1.7?). It is a number that should give (continued) confidence especially in light of the ongoing Eurocrisis which indoubtedly is a drag on the us economy. I duo t however it is a game changer.
Yeah.

Well, there is still the October unemployment rate figure that will come out a couple days before polling day.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Well obviously you know more than me in regards to US Politics but what makes you think that what Obama has done (or not done) will be any different than what he says he will do in the next four years?
Not quite sure what exactly it is that you're asking, but again, for me, it's not just that I think Obama is a decent president and has done a good job - it's amazing to me how quickly people forget where this country was just 4 years ago when the Obama administration came in and implemented just some plain ****ing common sense - it's also to prevent the insane right-wing that has largely taken over the R Party to be making decisions for the country that could potentially extend for generations into the future. The easiest and most obvious example is the Supreme Court. Here's why conservatives are hoping for a Romney win:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/mitt-romney-supreme-court.php?ref=fpa

Replacing even one of the liberal justices with a conservative, legal scholars and advocates across the ideological spectrum agree, would position conservatives to scale back the social safety net and abortion rights in the near term. Over time, if a robust five-vote conservative bloc prevails on the court for years, the right would have the potential opportunity to reverse nearly a century of progressive jurisprudence. For all those reasons, conservative legal activists anticipate that a Romney win would be the culmination of their decades-long project to remake the country’s legal architecture.
There's a very good chance that one or more SC seats will open up over the next 4 years (and it will only take one to swing the balance of power one way or the other). Ginsburg is 79 and Breyer is 74 - liberal judges who'd be replaced by conservative ones by Romney, liberals by Obama. Scalia is 76 - he'd be replaced by a much younger conservative justice by Romney, a liberal one by Obama. Kennedy, a bit of a swinger, is also 76 - he'd also be replaced by a conservative by Romney, a liberal one by Obama.

And it's not just via the SC; a President Romney will also have a R-majority House. Hello Ryan budget, goodbye ACA, so long EPA, etc etc.

To put it very simply: given the choices that we have, I'd far prefer a President Obama to be making those decisions (eg SC justices) than a President Romney, and I'd prefer a Democratic Party that hasn't (yet) gone completely bat**** insane to be making those decisions than a Republican Party that has already largely gone bat**** insane. Really just comes down to that.

But hey, don't worry, it really won't make any difference if Obama or Romney wins, so we keep hearing :rolleyes:

EDIT: just today offers a good example:

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/264271-chevron-corp-gives-25m-to-gop-super-pac

The Citizens United decision may do more to undermine American politics than just about any recent SC decision, and it's a decision that's entirely the result of conservative judicial activism. You can expect more of that in a conservative SC - after all, according to Romney, corporations are people too :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS