USPol April: Posting Cafe & Bakery (NOTE: Baby-killing gays need not apply)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPol April: Posting Cafe & Bakery (NOTE: Baby-killing gays need not apply)

«‹›176 »

Kitfox88: Aug 21, 2007; Anybody lose their glasses?

Crain posted:

Watching the video of the incident leads me to believe that the assholes were primarily ignoring her, and probably laughing at something else. Still horrible and deserving of some kind of reprimand, but not "Holy poo poo dude " evil.

In an attempt at honest disclosure I am not impartial here because I'm a rape victim myself, so the idea of someone ignoring a rape victim's story to dick around on their Ipad or whatever enough that they're called out by said speaker is pretty fuckin' bad.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 13:25

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Fried Chicken posted:

Gallup has a new poll out, uninsured rate fell again. It's down to 11.9% now, down 5.2 since the ACA went into effect at the end of 2013

Since we all know the ACA is completely terrible and useless and must be repealed, this must be due to a completely different miracle, and not a social insurance policy working as intended.

You'd think this is the case, but I don't think "reducing the number of uninsured" is something that the virulent anti-ACA people would view as a good outcome.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:13

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Family Values posted:

I like Krugman's answer to the 'both sides are basically the same' nonsense, and also the 'sincerity' double standard.

quote:

Now, some people won�t want to acknowledge that the choices in the 2016 election are as stark as I�ve asserted. Political commentators who specialize in covering personalities rather than issues will balk at the assertion that their alleged area of expertise matters not at all. Self-proclaimed centrists will look for a middle ground that doesn�t actually exist. And as a result, we�ll hear many assertions that the candidates don�t really mean what they say. There will, however, be an asymmetry in the way this supposed gap between rhetoric and real views is presented.

On one side, suppose that Ms. Clinton is indeed the Democratic nominee. If so, you can be sure that she�ll be accused, early and often, of insincerity, of not being the populist progressive she claims to be.

On the other side, suppose that the Republican nominee is a supposed moderate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. In either case we�d be sure to hear many assertions from political pundits that the candidate doesn�t believe a lot of what he says. But in their cases this alleged insincerity would be presented as a virtue, not a vice � sure, Mr. Bush is saying crazy things about health care and climate change, but he doesn�t really mean it, and he�d be reasonable once in office. Just like his brother.

This is going to be true and it's going to be terrible because it works.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:19

Amergin: Jan 29, 2013; THE SOUND A WET FART MAKES

Liberals already eating their own. Only took them a day.

One of the best snippets:

MICHELLE GOLDBERG posted:

... And as I said, she�s a kind of chameleon-like candidate who is, for better or worse, a person who often bows to political pressure. And so, this is the�this is the worst thing about her, but it also opens a potential opportunity for progressives, who can try to, I think, if they get organized and try to work within the system as opposed to working as spoilers, exert pressure on her from the other direction.

Man, y'all will call Romney a flip-flopper politico-droid but Hillary? She's just a "chameleon" - it's just pragmatism! Work with the system, not against it!

EDIT: Can we get :mitt:

but a Clinton version?

Amergin fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Apr 13, 2015

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:20

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

gradenko_2000 posted:

Referencing Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War and the "there wasn't really a Schlieffen Plan" theory was also a pretty big turn-off.

I've always felt sorry for Schlieffen, because the plan that bears his name actually probably would have worked to take France out of the war, if Moltke the Younger hadn't hosed around with it and made it 100% unworkable.

hobbesmaster posted:

Again, this kind of thinking is going to be quite common amongst democrats and it'll again be dangerous and wrong. Most democrats in congress voted for the Iraq war, most people in the country were for the Iraq war at the time based on lies the Bush administration told us. The only democrats you're going to find that didn't vote for it either were not in congress at the time or will be considered "too extreme" but the "independent" voters that will decide the election.

This. I'm much more affected by the fact that she can admit she was wrong on the issue, than the fact that she, like most other Democrats, made a major mistake in 2002.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:20

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Majorian posted:

I've always felt sorry for Schlieffen, because the plan that bears his name actually probably would have worked to take France out of the war, if Moltke the Younger hadn't hosed around with it and made it 100% unworkable.

I tend to doubt that, since Schlieffen himself admits, in the plan itself, that the math doesn't actually work and there'd need to be radical changes in either logistics, manpower, or (preferably) both for it even to have a shot.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:24

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

Kitfox88 posted:

In an attempt at honest disclosure I am not impartial here because I'm a rape victim myself, so the idea of someone ignoring a rape victim's story to dick around on their Ipad or whatever enough that they're called out by said speaker is pretty fuckin' bad.

Agreed. It's still bad.

Amergin posted:

EDIT: Can we get but a Clinton version?

No. Because gently caress you.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:28

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Crain posted:

Agreed. It's still bad.

Yes but the headline "Republicans LAUGH at rape victim" has a certain disingeunity to it, does it not?

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:29

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

zoux posted:

Yes but the headline "Republicans LAUGH at rape victim" has a certain disingeunity to it, does it not?

In all honesty this is probably one of the last things I'd want to play semantics over. Much less devil's advocate.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:30

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Amergin posted:

EDIT: Can we get but a Clinton version?

Hillary is many things, but she's not a robot.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:30

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Crain posted:

In all honesty this is probably one of the last things I'd want to play semantics over. Much less devil's advocate.

Sorry, my thing is smh at hyperbolic politicizing rhetoric no matter the source.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:32

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Majorian posted:

I've always felt sorry for Schlieffen, because the plan that bears his name actually probably would have worked to take France out of the war, if Moltke the Younger hadn't hosed around with it and made it 100% unworkable.

Trin Tragula posted:

The insane "THERE IS NO SCHLIEFFEN PLAN THERE WAS NEVER A SCHLIEFFEN PLAN WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA" guy is Terence Zuber, who likes to pass the time by getting into ridiculous arguments on that theme, and he isn't particularly fussy whether he does it with academics in the pages of a scholarly journal, or with any old Tom, Dick & Harry in an internet forum.

On the other hand, the idea that pops up quite frequently of von Moltke reaching into a filing cabinet on about July 15th 1914, pulling out a well-thumbed file marked "The Schlieffen Plan" in big letters, and attempting to follow it precisely, railway timetables and all, except for that bit about "keep the right wing strong!" has taken a serious kicking over the course of the last twenty years or so. (It doesn't help that the documentation that would let historians know exactly what they were thinking disappeared when the archives got bombed thirty years later.)

(Writing more about this, watch this space, it'll be useful when I get done trying to make the July Crisis interesting and can start revising and expanding August and September, which needs doing.)

Trin Tragula posted:

OK, so if I were to start writing blog entries today about the "Schlieffen Plan" (and it would have to be in quotation marks), it'd probably look something like this. Warning - wall-o-text follows.

In 1906, Alfred von Schlieffen retired as German CIGS, leaving behind him a number of different documents (even the question of whether or not they should be called "plans", with all that that word implies, is a Matter of Some Debate - they're often described instead as think-pieces) which in some way contain some ideas about various scenarios for a European war. If you squint hard enough and tilt your head to the side, you can see at least a few similarities in all of them with what eventually happened in 1914. Until the last years of the 20th century, no historian had actually seen them and they were assumed lost; IIRC they were found by accident in a completely different set of files by someone who was looking for something entirely unrelated. Terence Zuber then picked up on them and concluded that there was no such thing as "the Schlieffen plan". He then proceeded to tell everyone. In a very loud voice.

So, the first point to note is that of Schlieffen's various "plans", the ones that deal with a two-front war against Russia and France together (and possibly Britain as well) are fundamentally defensive. Which is interesting in itself; the traditional Schlieffen Plan narrative presents him as an inflexible single-minded cult-of-the-offensive berk. The German army deploys primarily to resist an offensive by one or other of France or Russia and evict them from Germany, then turns about and does the same thing on the other front, and then we go outwith the scope of the document.

Then there's the really interesting "plan", which is the one dealing with a one-front war against France. This one is offensive, and it assumes a larger army than Germany would have been likely to field (and is much larger than the one that was fielded in 1914). It's got the familiar curved arrows/revolving door concept. France mobilises on the border, the French Army kicks the door in and rushes into Alsace and Lorraine, they get stalled out by a combined German/A-H/Italian watch on the Rhine, and as soon as the French Army stops moving forward, the door keeps swinging round, having marched through the Low Countries, and kicks them firmly up the arse, cutting the French supply lines, besieging Paris, and eventually starting to squeeze the French army down into nothing on about the 40th day of mobilisation.

So von Schlieffen retires, von Moltke takes over, the years tick on, the Russians begin vastly expanding their army, and, under this reading, the General Staff starts to worry about their existing plans for a two-front war. They're both essentially defensive deployments that will probably be very good at not losing the war, but don't seem to offer too many opportunities to win it, at least not quickly.

The solution is to have their cake and eat it; the staff begins by bolting the revolving door from the France-only plan onto the two-front defend-against-France-first plan, looking for that quick western victory that will allow them to turn full force against Russia as soon as possible. What they come up with (we can infer from what actually happened) is naturally very different from Schlieffen's 1905 documents. With a two-front war, their allies will be busy dealing with Russia; that weakens the right wing because now you need more Germans defending on the Rhine. Then they get worried about letting the French so far into Alsace and Lorraine, strengthen the left again, and possibly start making plans to defend further forward. Somewhere in here the far right wheel through the Netherlands disappears entirely and only Belgian neutrality will be violated.

So now there's the question of the extent of the right wing's march into France. Until very recently it was absolutely unchallenged that the original intent was to encircle Paris (as in the 1905 one-front document), which was then changed on the fly to a march east of the city by von Moltke for reasons unknown but heavily speculated about, on about the last day of August. However, something that struck me when I was turning the end of the Great Retreat into blog posts is how absolutely knackered all the blokes on both sides were by the end of it, some of them literally with their boots wrecked and falling off their feet, and what this implies for the practicality of the 1914 plan. (By the route they took, the German First Army marched about 250-odd miles in 30 days and fought several actions.) A march around Paris would have left the Germans having to put even more miles on the legs of that strong right wing. It's recently been suggested that actually by 1914 the General Staff recognised that a march around Paris was beyond the endurance of their blokes or the reach of their supply lines, and never intended to do that at all; it's just been assumed that way because (among other things) from the French side it's easy to assume that if your enemy is marching in the general direction of your capital, he intends to attack it. It also allows people an easy explanation for why the war was in fact not won quickly, and Zuber argues that "The Schlieffen Plan" was invented almost out of whole cloth by apologists for the German staff to shift the blame from them. If only von Moltke had just followed von Schlieffen's magic stroke of genius without deviation, repetition, or hesitation!

So what we're left with from looking again at what the Germans actually did without preconceptions, is a heavily modified attack, which you might call the Moltke strategy or the Moltke-Schlieffen plan (or, indeed, whatever you like - I'm arriving at "the 1914 plan"). Calling it "the Schlieffen plan" is probably like calling the Race to the Sea by that name; but at the very least, the people who drew it up would have been familiar with Schlieffen's 1905 thinking, even if you think the 1914 plan didn't actually look much like any of it.

There are still plenty of grounds for critique and disagreement with what actually happened that don't revolve around "a bloo bloo Moltke changed the magic plan" or "a bloo bloo Moltke sent some men to the East too early" (which seems like a smelly red herring to me). For instance, the left wing was probably far too aggressive and defended too far forward considering what the right wing was doing, which made it much easier for the French army to meet the blow behind the Marne as the revolving door swung round towards their rear. (Whether this was designed by von Moltke or happened because the army commanders took a Russian approach to their orders in search of personal glory is an open question, owing to lack of documentation.)

Also, even if we assume that a march east of Paris was always the plan, I think it still probably asked far too much of the men of First Army to complete an encirclement while being completely shagged out and moving ever further from their supply lines; the French Army would likely have been able to retire south and avoid the big squeeze, although it's not too difficult to imagine a situation where they have to give up the Reims-Verdun-Nancy-Belfort line and leave the Germans in possession of much more of north-eastern France than they eventually ended up with. Given that, it may have been a better idea to march through much less of Belgium, and compensate by moving the German left back, which might not have provoked Belgium, which might have denied the British cabinet its easy casus belli... (You can keep going like this for a long time, and indeed, people have.)

So there seems now to be general agreement among specialists that the old idea of "The Schlieffen Plan" as a Teutonically inflexible and impractical plan, drawn up in arse-numbing detail by Schlieffen in 1905, and slavishly followed by unoriginal thinkers and duffers who were in love with their railway-timetables, is inaccurate. (Unfortunately, their ideas don't appear to have made it very far out of academic circles yet - finding the details of some of these arguments without access to academic journals and arse-clenchingly expensive books is very challenging.) There's plenty of room for disagreement still, but it's now revolving around answering the question of exactly what was happening, if it wasn't "The Schlieffen Plan" as popular culture knows it. Zuber and his supporters think that the actions of 1914 are so far removed from the documents of 1905 that Schlieffen's influence on the 1914 plan was minimal or non-existent. Opponents like Terence Holmes (yes, it's very annoying when the two figureheads are both called Terence) and Holger Herwig think that Zuber goes far too far with this theme and that there's considerable direct Schlieffen influence in the 1914 plan.

If you're not bored yet, there's that forum link to Zuber yelling like a cranky old grandfather at some Internet randoms (I got bored somewhere around page 20 of 36). He's also archived his side of his long-running bunfight with Holmes in the pages of War on History on his website.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:32

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

e: /\/\/\holy poo poo/\/\/\

Captain_Maclaine posted:

I tend to doubt that, since Schlieffen himself admits, in the plan itself, that the math doesn't actually work and there'd need to be radical changes in either logistics, manpower, or (preferably) both for it even to have a shot.

Where did he say that? :confused:

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:32

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

zoux posted:

Sorry, my thing is smh at hyperbolic politicizing rhetoric no matter the source.

Don't get your opponents elected because you want to be the smartest guy in the room. Think of the stupidity of voters if you plan to win big in the future Zoux.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:33

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Nonsense posted:

Don't get your opponents elected because you want to be the smartest guy in the room. Think of the stupidity of voters if you plan to win big in the future Zoux.

But that''s what supervillains do.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:33

Mitt Romney: Nov 9, 2005; dumb and bad

Fried Chicken posted:

Gallup has a new poll out, uninsured rate fell again. It's down to 11.9% now, down 5.2 since the ACA went into effect at the end of 2013

Since we all know the ACA is completely terrible and useless and must be repealed, this must be due to a completely different miracle, and not a social insurance policy working as intended.

What will that percentage look like when the supreme court removes subsidies in ~30+ states this summer?

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:34

A Shitty Reporter: Oct 29, 2012; Dinosaur Gum

zoux posted:

But that''s what supervillains do.

Save them from themselves, zoux. By any means necessary.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:36

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Mitt Romney posted:

What will that percentage look like when the supreme court removes subsidies in ~30+ states this summer?

There's a chance they might not, it depends on how politically expedient Roberts thinks it is.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:38

Kitfox88: Aug 21, 2007; Anybody lose their glasses?

Yall should have realized zoux was trolling the moment he made that 'guy runs over dog' post

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:39

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

zoux posted:

Yes but the headline "Republicans LAUGH at rape victim" has a certain disingeunity to it, does it not?

Oklahoma BANS college prep classes

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:39

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

Kitfox88 posted:

Yall should have realized zoux was trolling the moment he made that 'guy runs over dog' post

He's just watched the opening of House of Cards.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:40

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

zoux posted:

But that''s what supervillains do.

You mean Republicans?

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:43

ReidRansom: Oct 25, 2004

Amergin posted:

Liberals already eating their own. Only took them a day.

One of the best snippets:

Man, y'all will call Romney a flip-flopper politico-droid but Hillary? She's just a "chameleon" - it's just pragmatism! Work with the system, not against it!

EDIT: Can we get but a Clinton version?

I'm done with actual work for the moment, lemme see what I can cook up.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:45

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Majorian posted:

e: /\/\/\holy poo poo/\/\/\

Where did he say that?

In an addendum to his 1905 Great Memorandum, he said, "Make these preparations how we may, we shall reach the conclusion that we are too weak to continue operations in this direction. We shall find the experience of all earlier conquerors confirmed, that a war of aggression calls for much strength and also consumes much, that this strength dwindles constantly as the defender�s increases, and all this particularly so in a country which bristles with fortresses."

For his plan to work, he'd need about 8 more corps in northern France, which didn't have enough space or road capacity to make any use of them even if he had them.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:45

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Kitfox88 posted:

Yall should have realized zoux was trolling the moment he made that 'guy runs over dog' post

Only in USPol would calling out yellow journalism be considered trolling.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:52

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Majorian posted:

I've always felt sorry for Schlieffen, because the plan that bears his name actually probably would have worked to take France out of the war, if Moltke the Younger hadn't hosed around with it and made it 100% unworkable.

Well I think the Second World War shows there was some merit to the Schlieffen Plan, just that World War One didn't really have the technology to pull it off.

Though blaming Von Moltke had been popular since the end of the War but no plan survives contact with the enemy. Moltke couldn't forsee how easily the Russian Armies in Prussia would be dealt with, nor could he tell that Crown Prince Ruprecht offensive in Alsance would bog down as well. He made what looked like good calls at the time but didn't know they wouldn't be necessary. Even if they had taken Paris unless most of the French army would get trapped there is no reason the French Government wouldn't move and fight on till Paris was liberated, the 20th century was sort of the end of one am enemies capital falls the war is over.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:53

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Captain_Maclaine posted:

In an addendum to his 1905 Great Memorandum, he said, "Make these preparations how we may, we shall reach the conclusion that we are too weak to continue operations in this direction. We shall find the experience of all earlier conquerors confirmed, that a war of aggression calls for much strength and also consumes much, that this strength dwindles constantly as the defender�s increases, and all this particularly so in a country which bristles with fortresses."

For his plan to work, he'd need about 8 more corps in northern France, which didn't have enough space or road capacity to make any use of them even if he had them.

Eh, but here's the thing: Germany's objective wasn't necessarily to conquer France or take Paris. It was to deal enough of a psychological shock to the French government to get them to sue for peace early on. I think that goal would have been achievable if Moltke hadn't been such a puss and drained so much strength from the German right.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:53

Kitfox88: Aug 21, 2007; Anybody lose their glasses?

zoux posted:

Only in USPol would calling out yellow journalism be considered trolling.

Your posts in the chat thread are a better indicator tbh

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:54

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

zoux posted:

Only in USPol would calling out yellow journalism be considered trolling.

Everywhere else it would just be completely ignored, true.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 19:55

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Majorian posted:

Eh, but here's the thing: Germany's objective wasn't necessarily to conquer France or take Paris. It was to deal enough of a psychological shock to the French government to get them to sue for peace early on. I think that goal would have been achievable if Moltke hadn't been such a puss and drained so much strength from the German right.

I disagree but this is hardly the place to continue so we should probably let it go for now.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:01

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Joementum posted:

Quote of the morning, "If they get to nominate Hillary Clinton, why don't we get to nominate Dick Cheney? He has a much better record." ~ Bill Kristol

Say what you will about Dick Cheney, you know he's a man you can trust.

Because if you don't trust him fully, you can trust him to take you out back and shoot you.

Cheney: The right Dick to trust

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:03

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Captain_Maclaine posted:

I disagree but this is hardly the place to continue so we should probably let it go for now.

Fair enough, we can take it up in MilHist later.

Joementum posted:

Quote of the morning, "If they get to nominate Hillary Clinton, why don't we get to nominate Dick Cheney? He has a much better record." ~ Bill Kristol

This really is a perfect encapsulation of Bill Kristol: Earth's ambassador from Bizarro-Earth.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:09

site: Apr 6, 2007; Trans pride, Worldwide
Bitch

Hey migf, you'll have a second chance at money trumping all in Alaska come May. Americans for Prosperity is dumping money into the Republican runoff candidate and they're even bringing in people from the McCain (whether that's worth anything or not) campaign to help.

She had a 13% gap between her and the Dem frontrunner, so it'll be interesting how many points that money can buy her.

site fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Apr 13, 2015

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:10

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

site posted:

Hey migf, you'll have a second chance at money trumping all in Alaska come May. Americans for Prosperity is dumping money into the Republican runoff candidate and they're even bringing in people from the McCain (whether that's worth anything or not) campaign to help.

She had a 11% gap between her and the Dem frontrunner, so it'll be interesting how many points that money can buy her.

Here's the thing, there are different tranches of money in political campaigns. Money trumps all, especially when its the most appropriate money.

By that I mean that a dollar from a unique in-district contributor is worth $5 from an out-of-district contributor. When someone in your district contributes, they aren't merely a donor, they're now a stakeholder in your campaign.

So, who leads in campaign stakeholders up in ye frozen northlands?

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:13

site: Apr 6, 2007; Trans pride, Worldwide
Bitch

My Imaginary GF posted:

Here's the thing, there are different tranches of money in political campaigns. Money trumps all, especially when its the most appropriate money.

By that I mean that a dollar from a unique in-district contributor is worth $5 from an out-of-district contributor. When someone in your district contributes, they aren't merely a donor, they're now a stakeholder in your campaign.

So, who leads in campaign stakeholders up in ye frozen northlands?

Oil men and big land development/property owners for sure

Don't really know who donates most after that though

E: actually, who here knows where I can look up who donates? That's a good question.

site fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 13, 2015

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:16

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

site posted:

Oil men and big land development/property owners for sure

Don't really know who donates most after that though

E: actually, who here knows where I can look up who donates? That's a good question.

What level of election? If you ever work political finance, don't grab the tables for Federal contributions from FEC, as that would be a violation of campaign finance law. OpenSecrets is another place to look, and elections.*state*.gov will probably have state-level contribution database.

You're on your own for de-duping to figure out #unique contributors (in-district). I use ArcGIS for that, and it'll take about 2 days of computer once a quarter.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:28

Ralepozozaxe: Sep 6, 2010; A Veritable Smorgasbord!

My Imaginary GF posted:

Say what you will about Dick Cheney, you know he's a man you can trust.

Because if you don't trust him fully, you can trust him to take you out back and shoot you.

Cheney: The right Dick to trust

Please, when Dick shoots he aims for the face, that way the other guy knows it's coming.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:43

ReidRansom: Oct 25, 2004

OK well this is about as much work as I'm willing to put in on this.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:43

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

ReidRansom posted:

OK well this is about as much work as I'm willing to put in on this.

Would be better if it didn't turn green imo

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 13:25

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Radbot posted:

CFPB is largely bullshit - I guess it's nice that my credit card bills are much, much longer now, but not sure why it's important.

This is kind of an old post but as someone who works in the industry I want to assure you all that this just isn't true. You'd be shocked at some of the awful practices that have stopped because now there's someone in power that's actually paying attention.

Trust me, there's a reason Republicans want to kill it so badly.

# ? Apr 13, 2015 20:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPol April: Posting Cafe & Bakery (NOTE: Baby-killing gays need not apply)

«‹›176 »