US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2072

On June 30 2015 06:24 farvacola wrote:

This is a national election, dawg. Whether or not gun laws have anything to do with an act of mass violence is not the primary question.

Also, lol at "nothing to do." Your expertise on America's problem with gun violence speaks for itself.

On June 30 2015 06:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Didn't he get the gun illegally?

On June 30 2015 06:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
quick question about the supreme court. anyone know what happens if a justice recuses themselves and the remaining justices end up in a 4-4 split?

On June 30 2015 06:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
quick question about the supreme court. anyone know what happens if a justice recuses themselves and the remaining justices end up in a 4-4 split?

WASHINGTON -- It only took five months before the top donor to candidates, political party committees and political action committees in 2015 surpassed the giving of all top donors from the previous election cycle. This radical change in the amounts a single donor can give is all thanks to new contribution limits Congress slipped into the end-of-year omnibus budget legislation passed in December.

Warren Stephens, the owner of the Arkansas-based investment firm Stephens Inc., has given at least $800,000 in limited contributions to candidates, party committees and PACs through the end of May, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records. This total only includes contributions to committees accepting limited contributions (known as “hard money”) and excludes unlimited super PAC donations (known as “soft money”).

A perennial top donor to Republican Party politicians and political committees, Stephens gave $265,400 to politicians, party committees and PACs in 2014, which made him among the top 100 donors that year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. His $800,000 tops the more than $570,000 that hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer gave over the entire 2014 election cycle. (These totals don't even include giving to candidates after March, as the next disclosure date for candidates is July 15.)

This dramatic rise in individuals' limited contributions is a consequence of the creation of new party fundraising accounts for the six national party committees included in the spending bill.

The omnibus spending bill created a new account for building expenses within all six committees, and another for expenses related to a party nominating convention for the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. It also expanded the limits to the recount accounts held by all six. While donors are limited to giving $33,400 per year to a national party committee, the limits for these new or expanded accounts were set at $100,200. In total, a single donor can now give $801,600 per year to the party of their choice.

Donor giving has also increased thanks to the 2013 McCutcheon v. FEC ruling that invalidated aggregate campaign contributions limits. Previously, donors were capped from giving more than $123,300 in one election cycle to candidates, party committees and PACs. (These limits did not apply to super PAC giving.)

On June 30 2015 07:46 Jerubaal wrote:
Somebody remind me why the GOP is suddenly accountable for this clown? http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-donation-history-shows-democratic-favoritism/2011/04/25/AFDUddtE_story.html

Also, reminder, the birther conspiracy was started by Democrat supporters of Hillary.

The distribution of white supremacist propaganda in Whittier follows similar incidents in Orange County. Last week, about 100 homes in Fullerton received KKK fliers – also inside plastic bags with a rock and a piece of candy – criticizing blacks, Latinos and Jewish people, according to Fullerton police Sgt. Kathryn Hamel.

On June 30 2015 06:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
quick question about the supreme court. anyone know what happens if a justice recuses themselves and the remaining justices end up in a 4-4 split?

On June 30 2015 06:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
quick question about the supreme court. anyone know what happens if a justice recuses themselves and the remaining justices end up in a 4-4 split?

On June 30 2015 05:56 LuckyFool wrote:


I don't really follow this. What should he have done? wait a day before signing the bill? gun laws had nothing to do with the Charleston Massacre.

The Supreme Court's decision on Monday to uphold the constitutionality of Arizona's independent redistricting commission has some hoping their model could now pave the way for other states to adopt a less partisan way of drawing congressional lines.

"There are a lot of efforts around the country to try and get commissions enacted, and now I think those efforts are going to go full-steam ahead," said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at the University of Chicago who studies elections and redistricting. "Now that the Constitution has been cleaned up, the green light is definitely visible through this."

On June 29 2015 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:


Idk, I'm not comfortable with shifting the guilt onto the leadership. I mean there will always be fanatic racists or rabid segregationists. To be guilty you need to be actually conscious about what is wrong, and I assume the average Nazi leader was about as aware of his wrongdoings as a rabid dog.

It's pretty much only the 'moderates' who can make a difference. If you're 'just doing your duty' but you're aware that what you're doing is wrong at that moment you become guilty. So I don't really think you can grant the average soldier or civilian an absolution.