|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 15 2014 04:55 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 02:00 Wolfstan wrote:On March 14 2014 21:23 BallinWitStalin wrote:On March 14 2014 07:06 Roe wrote:On March 13 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 13 2014 02:27 Roe wrote:
When has american culture ever valued hard work? It's always been about innovating and creating new technology that reduces the amount of work we have to do...The business culture has always been about squeezing every penny and making things more efficient - not just doing your job and calling it a day. If you really value hard work you'd put a freeze on all technological and commercial progress. Automation (or whatever) and valuing hard work are not mutually exclusive things. I won't speak for the country as a whole, but a protestant / puritan work ethic was part of new england culture back before the US was the US. Automation is done because humans don't want to do hard work. This is blatantly false. I agree with Jonny there. Automation is done because it's profitable. If companies can pay a shitpile of poor people next to nothing to do the same task a series of expensive machines will do, the company isn't going to say "oh, shit, well these incredibly poor people don't want to work hard, so we'll waste money on these huge expensive machines instead". Just look at the export of manufacturing to the third world. It's not like those companies wanted to save Americans from working hard :/ I probably come at the issue from an entirely different angle than Jonny, though. "The value of hard work" is kind of a silly concept to begin with, I think it's a fucked up society that eschews the moral "value" of hard work but then allows the people with the most difficult, hard, and menial jobs to make wages (e.g. real value) barely enough to live off of so that they have to work twice as hard at two difficult, shitty jobs. Note that the people working these shit jobs are typically not the ones ranting about "American values of hard work", those people are usually wealthy people who, while undoubtedly working hard themselves (most of the time), don't have to work in the ridiculously depressing conditions described above. I view it as an ideology used to justify the privileged position the wealthy maintain at the expense of the poor. Those shit jobs will always exist, someone has to do them. People just construct ideological systems that don't require them to pay those people well, because the people working those shit jobs typically have less market power (low skill level resulting in a high labour supply). People who really value hard work would value minimum wage laws, so that all types of "hard work" are rewarded at monetary values adequate to maintain a decent standard of living. If you work 40 hours a week, you should be able to feed your family healthy food and house them in a decent shelter. And don't give me this shit about minimum wages destroying jobs, it's pretty much been demonstrated that's a falsehood under most conditions. Why do people advocate raising the minimum wage laws when the high cash positions on corporate balance sheets are showing investing in more jobs is a money losing proposition? Executives are finding there are better returns in buybacks, dividends, marketable securities and inflation eating cash positions then investing in production and employees. The minimum wage employee needs to find a way to be more useful to society than demanding that they get higher wages and social handouts. Minimum wage jobs are not meant for those seeking living wages. "Would you like fries with that?" should be asked by students, housewives, and seniors, not those from 25-60 in prime working years. Technology is great, it allows you to do more with less hours and people. The minimum wage is a form of transfer payments, the purpose of which is to put free money in the pockets of those who would otherwise not have much or not have any. The reason for this is not charity, it is that when you distribute income more equitably the economy as a whole benefits. Its much better for poor people to have some money, even at the expense of higher taxes, that they can pump back into the economy than for them to be destitute and have that money sit in the bank account of a wealthy individual. When there are better returns in financial instruments than in real output that is mostly just indicative of an unhealthy economy, or financial instruments that are being propped up by zero interest rates
There are different ways to give poor people more money than a minimum wage. A negative income tax for example.
|
France8650 Posts
On March 15 2014 17:33 Danglars wrote:
Nyxisto, I doubt any combination of agencies can even make useful headway in the first two youmention. I have yet to hear an argument for the necessity of the sheer size of some of these to the forwarding of their agenda. Let's see some solid steps towards pruning back the scope and mission of the NSA and the leviathan that is the EPA and its fervor with new regulations.
You doubt ? LoL Your arguments are always baseless it's amazing.
On March 15 2014 20:46 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 04:55 TheFish7 wrote:On March 15 2014 02:00 Wolfstan wrote:On March 14 2014 21:23 BallinWitStalin wrote:On March 14 2014 07:06 Roe wrote:On March 13 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 13 2014 02:27 Roe wrote:
When has american culture ever valued hard work? It's always been about innovating and creating new technology that reduces the amount of work we have to do...The business culture has always been about squeezing every penny and making things more efficient - not just doing your job and calling it a day. If you really value hard work you'd put a freeze on all technological and commercial progress. Automation (or whatever) and valuing hard work are not mutually exclusive things. I won't speak for the country as a whole, but a protestant / puritan work ethic was part of new england culture back before the US was the US. Automation is done because humans don't want to do hard work. This is blatantly false. I agree with Jonny there. Automation is done because it's profitable. If companies can pay a shitpile of poor people next to nothing to do the same task a series of expensive machines will do, the company isn't going to say "oh, shit, well these incredibly poor people don't want to work hard, so we'll waste money on these huge expensive machines instead". Just look at the export of manufacturing to the third world. It's not like those companies wanted to save Americans from working hard :/ I probably come at the issue from an entirely different angle than Jonny, though. "The value of hard work" is kind of a silly concept to begin with, I think it's a fucked up society that eschews the moral "value" of hard work but then allows the people with the most difficult, hard, and menial jobs to make wages (e.g. real value) barely enough to live off of so that they have to work twice as hard at two difficult, shitty jobs. Note that the people working these shit jobs are typically not the ones ranting about "American values of hard work", those people are usually wealthy people who, while undoubtedly working hard themselves (most of the time), don't have to work in the ridiculously depressing conditions described above. I view it as an ideology used to justify the privileged position the wealthy maintain at the expense of the poor. Those shit jobs will always exist, someone has to do them. People just construct ideological systems that don't require them to pay those people well, because the people working those shit jobs typically have less market power (low skill level resulting in a high labour supply). People who really value hard work would value minimum wage laws, so that all types of "hard work" are rewarded at monetary values adequate to maintain a decent standard of living. If you work 40 hours a week, you should be able to feed your family healthy food and house them in a decent shelter. And don't give me this shit about minimum wages destroying jobs, it's pretty much been demonstrated that's a falsehood under most conditions. Why do people advocate raising the minimum wage laws when the high cash positions on corporate balance sheets are showing investing in more jobs is a money losing proposition? Executives are finding there are better returns in buybacks, dividends, marketable securities and inflation eating cash positions then investing in production and employees. The minimum wage employee needs to find a way to be more useful to society than demanding that they get higher wages and social handouts. Minimum wage jobs are not meant for those seeking living wages. "Would you like fries with that?" should be asked by students, housewives, and seniors, not those from 25-60 in prime working years. Technology is great, it allows you to do more with less hours and people. The minimum wage is a form of transfer payments, the purpose of which is to put free money in the pockets of those who would otherwise not have much or not have any. The reason for this is not charity, it is that when you distribute income more equitably the economy as a whole benefits. Its much better for poor people to have some money, even at the expense of higher taxes, that they can pump back into the economy than for them to be destitute and have that money sit in the bank account of a wealthy individual. When there are better returns in financial instruments than in real output that is mostly just indicative of an unhealthy economy, or financial instruments that are being propped up by zero interest rates There are different ways to give poor people more money than a minimum wage. A negative income tax for example.
And considering the current debt, how would you finance that ? Nobody is ready to increase taxation on high income in the US, or in any occidental country.
|
On March 16 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +There are different ways to give poor people more money than a minimum wage. A negative income tax for example. And considering the current debt, how would you finance that ? Nobody is ready to increase taxation on high income in the US, or in any occidental country.
That's a fair point, though the budget situation has been improving quite a bit. A few years from now an expansion on that front could be very viable.
|
The war against Tesla continues:
If you want to buy a Tesla in the Garden State, after April 1 you’ll have to try your luck somewhere else.
New Jersey regulators caved to pressure from car dealers and decided on Tuesday to ban automakers that want to sell directly to customers from doing so in the state. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission rushed through a rule change and voted 6-0 to adopt this new regulation that mandates that all new car dealers get a franchise agreement if they want a state license to sell cars in New Jersey.
Electric automaker Tesla Motors had previously received licenses to operate two stores in the state, and had been selling cars directly to consumers for about a year.
The vast majority of cars in the U.S. are sold by automakers to dealers, who then sell the cars to consumers. Most state laws either require or encourage automakers to comply with this model. Since Tesla has a model of selling their cars online, but through official Tesla “showrooms,” this new rule destroys their sales model in the state. Tesla’s argument is that state laws requiring automakers to sell cars through dealers do not apply to them because the actual sale takes place online, with the Tesla brick-and-mortar store operating as a showroom to enable the company to actually sell their cars.
Local auto dealers see this as a threat to “cut out the middle man,” and are fighting across the country to ban direct sales — which some see as a sign of corruption. The New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers supported the rule, and with Tuesday’s decision, gained the support of the Christie Administration.
“Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the Legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law,” spokesman Kevin Roberts said in a statement on Tuesday. “This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3395091/new-jersey-banned-tesla/#
|
America. Land of the free.
So long as you can afford to bribe some politicians anyway.
|
On March 16 2014 04:38 Roe wrote:The war against Tesla continues: Show nested quote +If you want to buy a Tesla in the Garden State, after April 1 you’ll have to try your luck somewhere else.
New Jersey regulators caved to pressure from car dealers and decided on Tuesday to ban automakers that want to sell directly to customers from doing so in the state. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission rushed through a rule change and voted 6-0 to adopt this new regulation that mandates that all new car dealers get a franchise agreement if they want a state license to sell cars in New Jersey.
Electric automaker Tesla Motors had previously received licenses to operate two stores in the state, and had been selling cars directly to consumers for about a year.
The vast majority of cars in the U.S. are sold by automakers to dealers, who then sell the cars to consumers. Most state laws either require or encourage automakers to comply with this model. Since Tesla has a model of selling their cars online, but through official Tesla “showrooms,” this new rule destroys their sales model in the state. Tesla’s argument is that state laws requiring automakers to sell cars through dealers do not apply to them because the actual sale takes place online, with the Tesla brick-and-mortar store operating as a showroom to enable the company to actually sell their cars.
Local auto dealers see this as a threat to “cut out the middle man,” and are fighting across the country to ban direct sales — which some see as a sign of corruption. The New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers supported the rule, and with Tuesday’s decision, gained the support of the Christie Administration.
“Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the Legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law,” spokesman Kevin Roberts said in a statement on Tuesday. “This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3395091/new-jersey-banned-tesla/#
Those damned government regulations, stifling big businesses...
On March 16 2014 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:
America. Land of the free.
So long as you can afford to bribe some politicians anyway.
What does bribery and freedom have to do with it?
|
Dont worry Jonny. I dont expect you to get it
|
On March 16 2014 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 04:38 Roe wrote:The war against Tesla continues: If you want to buy a Tesla in the Garden State, after April 1 you’ll have to try your luck somewhere else.
New Jersey regulators caved to pressure from car dealers and decided on Tuesday to ban automakers that want to sell directly to customers from doing so in the state. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission rushed through a rule change and voted 6-0 to adopt this new regulation that mandates that all new car dealers get a franchise agreement if they want a state license to sell cars in New Jersey.
Electric automaker Tesla Motors had previously received licenses to operate two stores in the state, and had been selling cars directly to consumers for about a year.
The vast majority of cars in the U.S. are sold by automakers to dealers, who then sell the cars to consumers. Most state laws either require or encourage automakers to comply with this model. Since Tesla has a model of selling their cars online, but through official Tesla “showrooms,” this new rule destroys their sales model in the state. Tesla’s argument is that state laws requiring automakers to sell cars through dealers do not apply to them because the actual sale takes place online, with the Tesla brick-and-mortar store operating as a showroom to enable the company to actually sell their cars.
Local auto dealers see this as a threat to “cut out the middle man,” and are fighting across the country to ban direct sales — which some see as a sign of corruption. The New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers supported the rule, and with Tuesday’s decision, gained the support of the Christie Administration.
“Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the Legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law,” spokesman Kevin Roberts said in a statement on Tuesday. “This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3395091/new-jersey-banned-tesla/# Those damned government regulations, stifling big businesses... Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:
America. Land of the free.
So long as you can afford to bribe some politicians anyway. What does bribery and freedom have to do with it?
You are asking what bribery has to do with NJ banning Tesla?
|
On March 16 2014 04:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 16 2014 04:38 Roe wrote:The war against Tesla continues: If you want to buy a Tesla in the Garden State, after April 1 you’ll have to try your luck somewhere else.
New Jersey regulators caved to pressure from car dealers and decided on Tuesday to ban automakers that want to sell directly to customers from doing so in the state. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission rushed through a rule change and voted 6-0 to adopt this new regulation that mandates that all new car dealers get a franchise agreement if they want a state license to sell cars in New Jersey.
Electric automaker Tesla Motors had previously received licenses to operate two stores in the state, and had been selling cars directly to consumers for about a year.
The vast majority of cars in the U.S. are sold by automakers to dealers, who then sell the cars to consumers. Most state laws either require or encourage automakers to comply with this model. Since Tesla has a model of selling their cars online, but through official Tesla “showrooms,” this new rule destroys their sales model in the state. Tesla’s argument is that state laws requiring automakers to sell cars through dealers do not apply to them because the actual sale takes place online, with the Tesla brick-and-mortar store operating as a showroom to enable the company to actually sell their cars.
Local auto dealers see this as a threat to “cut out the middle man,” and are fighting across the country to ban direct sales — which some see as a sign of corruption. The New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers supported the rule, and with Tuesday’s decision, gained the support of the Christie Administration.
“Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the Legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law,” spokesman Kevin Roberts said in a statement on Tuesday. “This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3395091/new-jersey-banned-tesla/# Those damned government regulations, stifling big businesses... On March 16 2014 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:
America. Land of the free.
So long as you can afford to bribe some politicians anyway. What does bribery and freedom have to do with it? You are asking what bribery has to do with NJ banning Tesla?
No, I already know the answer is "nothing".
|
On March 16 2014 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Dont worry Jonny. I dont expect you to get it
No I get it. It's been cherry picked to whip a bunch of stupid people into action.
|
On March 16 2014 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 04:38 Roe wrote:The war against Tesla continues: If you want to buy a Tesla in the Garden State, after April 1 you’ll have to try your luck somewhere else.
New Jersey regulators caved to pressure from car dealers and decided on Tuesday to ban automakers that want to sell directly to customers from doing so in the state. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission rushed through a rule change and voted 6-0 to adopt this new regulation that mandates that all new car dealers get a franchise agreement if they want a state license to sell cars in New Jersey.
Electric automaker Tesla Motors had previously received licenses to operate two stores in the state, and had been selling cars directly to consumers for about a year.
The vast majority of cars in the U.S. are sold by automakers to dealers, who then sell the cars to consumers. Most state laws either require or encourage automakers to comply with this model. Since Tesla has a model of selling their cars online, but through official Tesla “showrooms,” this new rule destroys their sales model in the state. Tesla’s argument is that state laws requiring automakers to sell cars through dealers do not apply to them because the actual sale takes place online, with the Tesla brick-and-mortar store operating as a showroom to enable the company to actually sell their cars.
Local auto dealers see this as a threat to “cut out the middle man,” and are fighting across the country to ban direct sales — which some see as a sign of corruption. The New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers supported the rule, and with Tuesday’s decision, gained the support of the Christie Administration.
“Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the Legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law,” spokesman Kevin Roberts said in a statement on Tuesday. “This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3395091/new-jersey-banned-tesla/# Those damned government regulations, stifling big businesses... Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:
America. Land of the free.
So long as you can afford to bribe some politicians anyway. What does bribery and freedom have to do with it?
Regulations can be good or bad. Even you should realize that.
Politicians are bribed to maintain the status quo and those in power.
|
On March 16 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Dont worry Jonny. I dont expect you to get it No I get it. It's been cherry picked to whip a bunch of stupid people into action.
Why do you think New Jersey is discouraging Tesla's business model?
|
On March 16 2014 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 16 2014 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Dont worry Jonny. I dont expect you to get it No I get it. It's been cherry picked to whip a bunch of stupid people into action. Why do you think New Jersey is discouraging Tesla's business model?
Because it doesn't comply with their laws and regulations.
|
On March 16 2014 05:15 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 16 2014 04:38 Roe wrote:The war against Tesla continues: If you want to buy a Tesla in the Garden State, after April 1 you’ll have to try your luck somewhere else.
New Jersey regulators caved to pressure from car dealers and decided on Tuesday to ban automakers that want to sell directly to customers from doing so in the state. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission rushed through a rule change and voted 6-0 to adopt this new regulation that mandates that all new car dealers get a franchise agreement if they want a state license to sell cars in New Jersey.
Electric automaker Tesla Motors had previously received licenses to operate two stores in the state, and had been selling cars directly to consumers for about a year.
The vast majority of cars in the U.S. are sold by automakers to dealers, who then sell the cars to consumers. Most state laws either require or encourage automakers to comply with this model. Since Tesla has a model of selling their cars online, but through official Tesla “showrooms,” this new rule destroys their sales model in the state. Tesla’s argument is that state laws requiring automakers to sell cars through dealers do not apply to them because the actual sale takes place online, with the Tesla brick-and-mortar store operating as a showroom to enable the company to actually sell their cars.
Local auto dealers see this as a threat to “cut out the middle man,” and are fighting across the country to ban direct sales — which some see as a sign of corruption. The New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers supported the rule, and with Tuesday’s decision, gained the support of the Christie Administration.
“Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the Legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law,” spokesman Kevin Roberts said in a statement on Tuesday. “This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3395091/new-jersey-banned-tesla/# Those damned government regulations, stifling big businesses... On March 16 2014 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:
America. Land of the free.
So long as you can afford to bribe some politicians anyway. What does bribery and freedom have to do with it? Regulations can be good or bad. Even you should realize that. Politicians are bribed to maintain the status quo and those in power.
Yeah I know regulations can be good or bad. I've said so many times on this thread. "Those damned government regulations" was a jab at Think Progress for complaining about regulations holding back a business, something they're typically on the other side of.
As for bribery, you kinda need evidence of it. Tesla ain't a tiny mom and pop organization. Maybe they're the one bribing to gain special access. If so, it's working - their stock is through the roof.
|
If I were a Democrat I would run ads that Christie's organization is anti business. Too bad Democrats are spineless.
|
On March 16 2014 07:35 SnipedSoul wrote:
If I were a Democrat I would run ads that Christie's organization is anti business. Too bad Democrats are spineless.
Or they have some dignity left and just don't want to start running smear campaigns
|
Calling people on their bullshit is not a smear campaign.
Republicans constantly scream about letting the free market do its thing without government intervention.
|
BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) — Planned changes to the Republican Party's presidential selection process are part of a rebuilding process that will strengthen the GOP brand and hopefully make its presidential nominee more competitive in 2016, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told California Republicans on Friday, calling the GOP's current primary process "a complete disaster."
Priebus said shortening the primary process by moving up the national convention at which the nominee is typically selected to June and cutting the number of debates are "not an establishment takeover. This is using your brain. Everything's not a conspiracy."
"I think a traveling circus of debates is insanity in this party," Priebus told about 200 delegates. "We're proposing to have fewer than 10, and this time around, we're going to pick the moderators."
Priebus is proposing to hold just 10 debates for the would-be GOP nominees in 2016, compared with the 27 held ahead of the 2012 race in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was eventually selected as the party's nominee.
The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama's health care law.
Source
|
On March 16 2014 11:09 SnipedSoul wrote:
Calling people on their bullshit is not a smear campaign.
Republicans constantly scream about letting the free market do its thing without government intervention.
Ding ding ding!
|
On March 16 2014 11:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) — Planned changes to the Republican Party's presidential selection process are part of a rebuilding process that will strengthen the GOP brand and hopefully make its presidential nominee more competitive in 2016, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told California Republicans on Friday, calling the GOP's current primary process "a complete disaster."
Priebus said shortening the primary process by moving up the national convention at which the nominee is typically selected to June and cutting the number of debates are "not an establishment takeover. This is using your brain. Everything's not a conspiracy."
"I think a traveling circus of debates is insanity in this party," Priebus told about 200 delegates. "We're proposing to have fewer than 10, and this time around, we're going to pick the moderators."
Priebus is proposing to hold just 10 debates for the would-be GOP nominees in 2016, compared with the 27 held ahead of the 2012 race in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was eventually selected as the party's nominee.
The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama's health care law. Source
This is a bold move that is clearly aimed at being anti-teaparty. Tea party candidates tend to throw a huge fit and make their more reasonable counterparts look weak or lacking in fortitude. This will allow the GOP to basically make sure only a moderate will be able to make a big impact.
Edit: And with this in mind, am I the only one crazy enough to think that the GOP may end up needing to have a candidate who is pro gay marriage and pro marijuana legalization? I think this change to their primary may indicate that they are finding they need to have a democratic way of making sure that happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
