Moiraine

Why do you say this when you know what we type here has a direct impact on the field? You know better. Ok I guess multiple people beat me to this point.

I sure hope so. LOL...when you're coming off a 6-7 season, you can't have that kind of attitude about any of your opponents. Yes I can. There's an array of available data aside from "we went 6-7 last year". I'm sorry. Yes, one can have that attitude, but it's an attitude that sets yourself up for failure when you don't take your opponent seriously, especially when you come of a campaign where you lost to Pur-f*****g-due. Ah. Once again this really weird fan thing where some of us think that our attitude about the opponent has a big impact on how well the players perform. We're really important!!

I sure hope so.

Let's say there's an election, and the winner gets their way with the country. Let's assume any/all of us would get corrupted by this power, so 20% of all the $ goes to gold-plated mansions in every major city. Or whatever you want. That out of the way, what are your policies that would make the U.S. a better place and help its people on the whole? I'm gonna post mine. I'd like to see others but if not I guess this is just my blog post. NUMBER ONE (with a bullet) One of the following (a or b): a) I would make it illegal for corporations and their employees to be involved in writing policy. This is something that goes on a lot right now, and it's wrong. I would make extremely harsh punishments for people who are caught paying politicians to pass laws that help only corporations and hurt the public. (Or paying them to pass any type of law, really). Former employees of industries with laws potentially being passed about would be allowed on panels so they can give their two cents, but they can't currently be getting paid by any companies in those industries. - The last idea has to do with oil company employees or pollutant causing industries being involved in environmental policy. Soda/candy companies being involved in making health policy, etc. It's everywhere. It's wrong. b) If not option a, raise taxes on the rich/and or corporations who abuse the system by doing what I want to shut down in option a. What we need option a for is why I think taxes on the rich should be raised. It isn't an even playing field out there. They are paying for United States policy. They are paying our politicians. They are trying to buy elections. If they can get laws passed that help them get richer and hurt everyone else, they should be paying more taxes to make up for the damage they've done. The above is one of the biggest reasons I'm not a Democrat and never will be. I agree with a lot of what they claim they're for, but they haven't stopped the erosion of laws that kept these things from happening and I doubt they really plan to. I'm guessing they make a crapton of money from corporations and are bought off at the same rate as Republicans. I'm no expert on all of the laws that have changed but I know FECA started getting eroded in the 1970s and it's just kept getting worse from then. This is my number one issue. If money can buy policy, it doesn't matter if something harms the general public. If it makes someone a lot of money, it will be allowed. That's not right. One topical example of the above is that Hillary Clinton got a lot of money from drug companies as far back as the 1990s to shut down her fight for health care. My problem with the coverage on her now is that so many of the people up in arms about her various controversies are guilty of doing the same exact sh#t and acting like they're above it all. If she's guilty I want her in jail - but we need a complete overhaul of how things work. Lots more belong in jail if she does. 2. Scientists should be on science panels. If 1 out of 100 scientists think that humans don't breathe oxygen, and you're a politician who sides with that 1 scientist, you should not oversee the senate subcommittee on human lung research. I'm looking at you Ted Cruz. 3. I would undo this: H.R.1422 - EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2014 Directs the Board to ensure that: persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board because of affiliation with or representation of entities that might have a potential interest in the Board's advisory activities, and members do not participate in advisory activities that involve review or application of their own work. What this is saying is that people with corporate interests can be on the board and advise the EPA - for instance companies that pollute can help the EPA to make decisions about pollution laws, and researchers cannot advise the EPA on issues that are related to what they research. wtf? - I'm sure there are many other gems like this that I don't know about. 4. Funding for public schools would not be based on how much money people in the area make. If you have enough money and want to send your child to private school, you still have that choice. This is part of the reason the poor and especially minorities are kept down. They're not starting at the same place. 5. I would eliminate farm subsidies the way they currently are. Most farm subsidies go to huge, wealthy farmers who are making big profits. We're currently subsidizing corn. Corn mostly goes to ethanol, which I believe I heard still uses 80% of the oil to make as regular fuel, or corn syrup, or feed for McDonald's food. I'm not against government support for farmers because I know how unpredictable it is, so I would replace the current subsidies with disaster funding. The farmers who are just families doing it need something in place so if there's a drought or a hail storm they aren't just out of luck, because most farms get passed down families. If they don't have something like that, I'm not sure who's going to replace them. 6a. Food stamps could not be used for non-essentials, such as soda or potato chips. This would be really hard to put in place without a tax, because I believe most grocery stores differentiate between eligible items based on whether there's a tax on them or not. I know this idea is unpopular but I would also tax non-essentials. I would limit it to the obvious ones - those with 0 nutritional value whatsoever. So potato chips would not be taxed but soda would be. The taxes would go to health care. 6b. Food stamp income eligibility would remain the same but any places where work/charity are not required, it would now be required. In Nebraska it's required. I know this because I was on them for 1 year. They checked my eligibility at the start, after 6 months, and after 12 months (I was no longer eligible after 12 months 'cause I wasn't poor enough). I had to include all paystubs from all jobs to prove I had 20 hours and they usually only gave 5 days after mailing to submit my information. It was annoying to get all of the info together, which is a good thing. I don't think it's as easy to cheat the system, or as prevalent, as a lot of people think. 8. I don't think the Bible mentions anything about marriage certificates being handed out/overseen by the government. Since getting married gives you some benefits from the government, homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Oh wait, already solved. 9. Marijuana legalized nationwide - same rules for driving/etc. as alcohol. Age 21 because I believe it damages kids' brains. Taxes go mostly to healthcare and a little to researching the benefits of marijuana. 10. I would look into doing something, not sure what, about college education costs. College is not worth what it once was but it costs way more. Many jobs that once only required a high school degree, and which people with only high school degrees can still perform, now only look at applicants who have a college degree (see - administrative assistant). You almost have to have one now. This is why I don't think it's so crazy to at the very least talk about lowering the price somehow. I don't have a solid idea here but I don't agree with people who think it's batsh#t crazy to talk about it being free. High School is free. College is the new High School. There should at least be a dialogue here.

There are several articles out discussing the Brexit vote and how pollsters were so wrong and missed thr undercurrent of support. They also show the parallels with Trump and how the US election plays out. Nate Silver who claims to be an expert in predictions was 100% wrong about Trump? Why? Because his "scientific" approach uses past election results to predict future outcomes. If the past poll and election results were so far off in predicting the primaries, I think its going to rely on these same polls to predict the November results.He is an expert. The reason he was wrong is because it's probability. Explain to me why you put scientific in quotes. Statistics results are 100% correct if the analysts know what they're doing and there's random sampling. But if they don't have enough/the right variables to predict an outcome then there will be a smaller chance of the prediction being correct. When a claim is used making statistics it's always based off a probability of the thing happening. Not a surety. If the prediction turns out to be wrong it doesn't necessarily mean there was anything wrong with the method. It was always a probability for the thing to happen. There's always a chance it doesn't.

I saw one of Trump's campaign people yesterday saying over and over that Trump doesn't see color at all. That basically epitomizes how clueless Trump and his staff are. People are different. There is NO problem with "seeing color" and appreciating other peoples' cultures and differences. Most of the time when someone says they "don't see color," they're at the very least subconsciously racist or ignorant or have never been friends with someone who's not their own race. It's also something that very defensive people say. It's what people who are being accused of racism say because they hope it sounds good.

libtards dems and these nicknames are usually considered by their users to describe a person entirely. Once the word is used they're written off completely as a person.

Niles Paul

I'm real pissed off about these uniforms you guys. They're just like Iowa's. They have helmets and shoes and mouthpieces. Screw Adidas.

Neither of these are catch phrases, and they aren't exclusive to "lefties." Furthermore, there's an actual way to measure how educated someone is. You, like, see how much education they've received. I think what you meant is "more smarter than." Education doesn't automatically make someone any smarter than the next person.

Those of you who are backing Clinton - what do you do with this information? You can no longer keep on saying - Trump is worse. 1. He may not be worse (worse prepared for the office yes, but not worse corruption wise) You sure as hell can. I'd prefer to have Clinton as president from jail than Trump in the White House. Plus, if she gets impeached then we have Tim Kaine, which I'm fine with.

Our system is f*ed because this type of stuff happens everywhere. Maybe this will open the floodgates on what goes on with corporations buying off politicians and what lobbyists do. Maybe Clinton will get elected then impeached.

Dunno who that dude is but he looks very smug.

The Powell thing will amount to nothing, since neither can prove what was/wasn't said. In fact it's not relevant at all. Whether she got the idea from him telling her he did it that way or she just heard he did it that way, he in fact did it that way. We'll see what other dumb sh#t she did with the emails.

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias. However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda? The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down. Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump. I'm sure there were lots of reports on that. The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved. While Palin was not a good choice and I agree with that, this was press focused on the top of the ticket. If you choose not to agree with the bias or agree with how it's shown, so be it. Just as someone can argue there is no Fox News Bias, and no matter what data you present to them, they can simply refute that data or study claiming its inaccurate. I have heard some on here claim they believe Fox does have a bias but have not seen proof of that. Here are a couple quotes from the first article that your linked article links to, when it was only talking about McCain/Obama (after that it gets into detail on Palin):

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias. However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda? The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down. Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump. I'm sure there were lots of reports on that. The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved.

It cracks me up how he always brings up the NYT failing as if the internet has nothing to do with how newspapers are doing and the NYT is just bad at business. They get a lot of traffic on their website and are still the 2nd most read newspaper in the U.S.

Good idea. I posted something similar the first time someone (84HuskerLaw?) suggested this, but of course there was no response. California provides a lot of money and ranks as the 5th least dependent state on federal aid. According to businessinsider, "California is officially the 6th largest economy in the world." Maybe if 84HuskerLaw multiplies his offer by 100 it will only take Mexico 10 years to be the winner in that trade. Not that I cared about his/her opinion before but statements like these kinda show where he/she is coming from and the flaw/danger in being uber-Partisan.

It's no less moral than what we did before. In fact maybe it's more moral because when a drone is shot down no one dies. I imagine for their targets it's demoralizing getting killed without a chance to fight back.

1- Five groups or musicians. The Beatles Arcade Fire Interpol The Decemberists Smashing Pumpkins 2- Five other songs. Coldplay - Viva La Vida Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Jimi Hendrix - Castles in the Sand Silversun Pickups - Lazy Eye Cher - Turn Back Time 3- One genre, except these 5 (Rock, Country, Alternative, Hip Hop/Rap, & Pop) cannot be chosen. Please pick your 5 & 5 before adding the genre. Imagine that you might not get your genre... Jazz

I think they will. Between primary numbers and rally turnouts, some people are going to be pretty overwhelmed at the disparity on election day. It has been consistently shown that primary numbers and rally turnouts are not at all indicative of election day turnout. You have your models and I have mine. We'll see what happens in a few months. In the meantime, can we also add "stopping someone who seems mean!" and "electing someone who doesn't hurt my feels" to the list (in addition to my suggestion of "I'm not voting")? This can cover people who are only casually following the race. I know it seems like a joke, but...ya know! What are your models?

You probably are; it has more to do with POB and Tanner Lee. I thought Bush had moved to WR. But I'm pretty foggy on that. In which case he'd seen those signs awhile ago.

I have to wonder if one of the "signs" he's referring to is related to Keith Williams but I know I'm reading into things.