What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

55. The Firm

John Grisham

1991,  432 pages

Legal Thriller

John Grisham's second novel, The Firm, made him world famous, and rightfully so since it's a terrific suspense thriller. A young lawyer fresh out of law school is lured to work in a small firm in Memphis for a large salary, only to discover that the firm is a front for the Mafia. Now the FBI wants him to spy on his bosses, and his life is in danger. 

Grisham writes with expertise, and if his characters aren't that deep, it doesn't matter since the story just keeps getting better and better. These early novels by Grisham (with the exception of The Chamber, which I found very disappointing) are his best, with one exception coming up a little later on this list. An exciting, fast paced story. 

Up next: Bryce Courtenay's terrific sequel to The Power of One.

 
54. Tandia

Bryce Courtenay

1991, 920 pages

Historical drama/coming of age

Tandia continues the story of Peekay from The Power of One, an English South African boy who wants to go to Oxford and become the Welterweight Champion of the World, Interspersed with Peekay's story is the story of Tandia, a half-Indian half Zulu girl who struggles to become an attorney in 1950s Apartheid South Africa. Like the original novel (to be reviewed later) the best parts of the book are the boxing: Courtenay describes matches that are every bit as exciting as the best of the Rocky movies. But at the same time he masterfully relates the history of the growth of Apartheid and the resistance to it that developed. Courtenay expertly describes the various "tribes" of South Africa, including the 3 white tribes (English, Afrikaners, Jews.) The characters become involved in the real life massacre at Sharpsville in 1960, a pivotal moment in South Africa's long and brutal history. 

Surprisingly Tandia was never published in the United States. Fans of The Power of One had to send away to Australia, or purchase it at speciality book stores (which is how I got it.) Now, however, it is available on Kindle (but The Power of One is not! Go figure.) Bryce Courtenay wrote a number of books over the years, many taking place in his home of Australia, but none matched the South African novels IMO: these two and Whitethorn. Courtenay passed away two years ago. 

Up next: Nelson DeMille with the best Cold War spy drama ever written...

 
I'm not stopping my novel ranking; just changing the title of the thread.

Let's slow things down a bit.

I would like to use this thread, in the spirit of its original intent when I started it, to have a slower, more rational discussion about the election. All topics are welcome. All thoughts are welcome. All supporters are welcome: Trump, Hillary, Kasich, Bernie, Rubio, Cruz, Sanders, or whomever. Make your case. Lengthy posts are just fine. Good argument is fine.

But short insults are NOT fine. Leave it for the other threads. I am not criticizing anybody in particular; I'm as guilty as anybody else. I couldn't help making fun of Eminence yesterday, for instance. But that's not what THIS thread is about. I'd also like to avoid discussion of conspiracy issues. There's plenty of room for that in other threads as well. 

I will begin with this question: what is the single most important reason you support your candidate?

My own answer has changed several times, but I don't believe it will change again through November: my answer is: the single most important reason I support my candidate is that I believe she will defeat Donald Trump. My number one priority is to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States. A little later, if anyone's interested, I will go into detail why I feel that way. 

 
Yankee23Fan said:
Because I want to be right about calling it a year before the election season started.
Click to expand...
If I recall, your pick was John Kasich, right? 

According to some guys I watched on TV, it is mathematically impossible for Kasich to win the Republican nomination even if he wins Ohio tomorrow. I don't know whether this is true or not. If it IS true, then I'm not sure what's supposed to happen for Kasich.

Let's take Kasich's best scenario: he wins tomorrow, and then people are sick of Trump so Kasich starts winning in the bigger, more moderate states: California, New York, etc. But he'll still go into the convention behind Trump in the delegate count. What happens then? 

 
I support Hillary because I actually admire her career. I feel she's the most qualified candidate up there. It's long overdue we have a female lead our country. She's as centrist as any of the other candidates. I feel she will continue Obama's plans and policies better than the others.

Good luck keeping a thread civil though. I read through some of that Trump thread and cringe at how disrespectful, childish and awful people are to each other due to differing opinions. I cringe at the hypocrisy you see. I thought FBGs was typically a step above that - but that thread might as well be over at 4chan or reddit with the uncivilized fringe internet politics warriors, because there is little difference other than a language filter here. That goes for both sides of the debate too - really shameful, odd, childish and flat out disrespectful/rude behavior in there all around. I like when tim stays to this thread for politics stuff because it always seems we get a more adult, calm discussion. The other threads here, frankly, scare me off because I don't have the wits to debate like most of them do.

 
timschochet said:
I know how you feel. But I can't criticize others too much because I've been pretty critical of the Trump fans. I've tried not to be mean, but some of them are rude to me so I've responded accordingly. 

It's probably only going to get worse as we get closer to November...
Click to expand...


timschochet said:
I'm not stopping my novel ranking; just changing the title of the thread.

Let's slow things down a bit.

I would like to use this thread, in the spirit of its original intent when I started it, to have a slower, more rational discussion about the election. All topics are welcome. All thoughts are welcome. All supporters are welcome: Trump, Hillary, Kasich, Bernie, Rubio, Cruz, Sanders, or whomever. Make your case. Lengthy posts are just fine. Good argument is fine.

But short insults are NOT fine. Leave it for the other threads. I am not criticizing anybody in particular; I'm as guilty as anybody else. I couldn't help making fun of Eminence yesterday, for instance. But that's not what THIS thread is about. I'd also like to avoid discussion of conspiracy issues. There's plenty of room for that in other threads as well. 

I will begin with this question: what is the single most important reason you support your candidate?

My own answer has changed several times, but I don't believe it will change again through November: my answer is: the single most important reason I support my candidate is that I believe she will defeat Donald Trump. My number one priority is to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States. A little later, if anyone's interested, I will go into detail why I feel that way. 
Click to expand...
Well spoiler alert I will be voting Bernie if I get the chance. I do get to vote for him in the primary and can't wait. 

Now to the question of why. I believe him. I don't agree with everything he says but I believe him when he says it. Of course if I didn't support the majority of those positions he takes I wouldn't support him. But he and I have been complaining about the same things for years. And I truly believe he means it. Like I do.

 
timschochet said:
I'm not stopping my novel ranking; just changing the title of the thread.

Let's slow things down a bit.

I would like to use this thread, in the spirit of its original intent when I started it, to have a slower, more rational discussion about the election. All topics are welcome. All thoughts are welcome. All supporters are welcome: Trump, Hillary, Kasich, Bernie, Rubio, Cruz, Sanders, or whomever. Make your case. Lengthy posts are just fine. Good argument is fine.

But short insults are NOT fine. Leave it for the other threads. I am not criticizing anybody in particular; I'm as guilty as anybody else. I couldn't help making fun of Eminence yesterday, for instance. But that's not what THIS thread is about. I'd also like to avoid discussion of conspiracy issues. There's plenty of room for that in other threads as well. 

I will begin with this question: what is the single most important reason you support your candidate?

My own answer has changed several times, but I don't believe it will change again through November: my answer is: the single most important reason I support my candidate is that I believe she will defeat Donald Trump. My number one priority is to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States. A little later, if anyone's interested, I will go into detail why I feel that way. 
Click to expand...
I'm not a voter, but I support Hillary Clinton. I support her because she's very intelligent and basically middle of the road. She won't rock the boat too much but will hopefully make some improvements. For example, its very encouraging to hear her talk about massive reform to the criminal justice system.

I'm basically looking for a third Clinton term - with some major improvements. Like drastically changing the drug war.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I will begin with this question: what is the single most important reason you support your candidate?
Click to expand...
The future.

I think Bernie's platform is the future of America. Right now it's looking like a distant future, but every Bernie supporter gained takes a little time off the clock.

And it begins with the reason I supported Bernie to begin with - campaign finance reform. I sincerely believe the only money generated for a campaign should be from the government, the candidate themselves, and the people. No Super PACs, no corporations. I don't care who you shill for, I care about a level playing ground and for candidates and their issues to be heard, not to be drowned out before they even get a chance.

And I get it, I'm idealistic and pie in the sky. Whatever. I think it's right, and what should be done. Feel the Bern.

 
I'll be supporting whomever the Democratic nominee is.  The current Republican candidates, except perhaps Kasich, strike me as extreme in their views.  In any other year without Trump, Cruz would be viewed as extremely far right.  The Trump factor is just nullifying that point.  I wouldn't trust any of them nominating a Supreme Court justice, nevermind running the country.  I don't particularly like Hillary, but between her and the Republican candidates, I'd have to choose her.

Edited to add - my views align with Bernie more than others, and in a perfect world - he would be my nominee.  I'm not sure America is ready to embrace his viewpoints, but agree with hagmania that we will eventually get there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given that I am not an American citizen I won't be voting, if I were I'd likely support Sanders.

This is not because he references my country though, since I believe there are a few things he has misunderstood about the Danish/Scandinavian society. And I vehemently disagrees on his stance on trade restrictions-

But he seems a man of integrity and perhaps looking out for those that have a hard time now at the expense of the richest is not the worst of policies for America now.

 
timschochet said:
If I recall, your pick was John Kasich, right? 

According to some guys I watched on TV, it is mathematically impossible for Kasich to win the Republican nomination even if he wins Ohio tomorrow. I don't know whether this is true or not. If it IS true, then I'm not sure what's supposed to happen for Kasich.

Let's take Kasich's best scenario: he wins tomorrow, and then people are sick of Trump so Kasich starts winning in the bigger, more moderate states: California, New York, etc. But he'll still go into the convention behind Trump in the delegate count. What happens then? 
Click to expand...
A brokered convention.  I really haven't gotten into it with anyone here about the convention possilbities because it's not a really something that can be talked about with quick one sentence hits on the topic and everyone gets sick of my long winded political posts.  But the convention rules are whatever the party wants them to be.  If no candidate gets to Cleveland with the majority then the vitriol of the Trump people saying that he still better win misunderstands the nature of the convention and the reason for it.  By definition if no person has the required number to guarantee the nomination then there is no nominee unless that person wins the ballots at the convention.  For as much as Trump is the one with the most votes he also is not supported by the party en masse or even by majority, he is simply the last man standing.  

But in reality Kasich has pretty much no shot at this point.  It's fun to argue though.

 
hagmania said:
The future.

I think Bernie's platform is the future of America. Right now it's looking like a distant future, but every Bernie supporter gained takes a little time off the clock.

And it begins with the reason I supported Bernie to begin with - campaign finance reform. I sincerely believe the only money generated for a campaign should be from the government, the candidate themselves, and the people. No Super PACs, no corporations. I don't care who you shill for, I care about a level playing ground and for candidates and their issues to be heard, not to be drowned out before they even get a chance.

And I get it, I'm idealistic and pie in the sky. Whatever. I think it's right, and what should be done. Feel the Bern.
Click to expand...
While I agree that money corrupts politics, I'm not sure campaign finance reform is a solution.  If we take money away from the candidates, then we increase the power of the media, and I don't like that idea either.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
A brokered convention.  I really haven't gotten into it with anyone here about the convention possilbities because it's not a really something that can be talked about with quick one sentence hits on the topic and everyone gets sick of my long winded political posts.  But the convention rules are whatever the party wants them to be.  If no candidate gets to Cleveland with the majority then the vitriol of the Trump people saying that he still better win misunderstands the nature of the convention and the reason for it.  By definition if no person has the required number to guarantee the nomination then there is no nominee unless that person wins the ballots at the convention.  For as much as Trump is the one with the most votes he also is not supported by the party en masse or even by majority, he is simply the last man standing.  

But in reality Kasich has pretty much no shot at this point.  It's fun to argue though.
Click to expand...
.What I don't understand about a brokered convention is simply this: let's say Trump doesn't have the necessary 1200 delegates to win. He's still going to have more delegates than anyone else right? So I simply can't see a situation in which he is denied the nomination in favor of somebody with less delegates (or in the case of somebody new, no delegates.) 

I mean I get that people keep talking about this but I don't know how this formula is going to work. 

 
hagmania said:
The future.

I think Bernie's platform is the future of America. Right now it's looking like a distant future, but every Bernie supporter gained takes a little time off the clock.

And it begins with the reason I supported Bernie to begin with - campaign finance reform. I sincerely believe the only money generated for a campaign should be from the government, the candidate themselves, and the people. No Super PACs, no corporations. I don't care who you shill for, I care about a level playing ground and for candidates and their issues to be heard, not to be drowned out before they even get a chance.

And I get it, I'm idealistic and pie in the sky. Whatever. I think it's right, and what should be done. Feel the Bern.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the example of Donald Trump argue against money controlling politics?

Here's what I mean: on Bill Maher the other night, the first guest had written a book about the Koch brothers, how incredibly powerful they are, even more so since Citizens United, how they're going to spend nearly a billion dollars on this election, how nobody should have such power, etc. etc.

Yet it's very clear that the Koch brothers don't want Donald Trump, yet they're as helpless to stop him as everybody else. My theory is that this is because populism beats out money every time. Trump is also spending very little of his own money, and he's going to be the nominee. Now you could argue that this is a one time deal, that in most elections before and after this one, money decides. But still, wouldn't you say that the Trump example is a contradiction of the theory? 

 
timschochet said:
.What I don't understand about a brokered convention is simply this: let's say Trump doesn't have the necessary 1200 delegates to win. He's still going to have more delegates than anyone else right? So I simply can't see a situation in which he is denied the nomination in favor of somebody with less delegates (or in the case of somebody new, no delegates.) 

I mean I get that people keep talking about this but I don't know how this formula is going to work. 
Click to expand...
HTH

 
whoknew said:
I'm not a voter, but I support Hillary Clinton. I support her because she's very intelligent and basically middle of the road. She won't rock the boat too much but will hopefully make some improvements. For example, its very encouraging to hear her talk about massive reform to the criminal justice system.

I'm basically looking for a third Clinton term - with some major improvements. Like drastically changing the drug war.
Click to expand...
I think you mean a 3rd Obama term, right? 

I agree with this. But it's also one of the main reason that Clinton doesn't have the excitement of a Trump or Sanders candidacy. It's hard to get excited about status quo, especially THIS status quo.  

 
Yankee23Fan said:
A brokered convention.  I really haven't gotten into it with anyone here about the convention possilbities because it's not a really something that can be talked about with quick one sentence hits on the topic and everyone gets sick of my long winded political posts.  But the convention rules are whatever the party wants them to be.  If no candidate gets to Cleveland with the majority then the vitriol of the Trump people saying that he still better win misunderstands the nature of the convention and the reason for it.  By definition if no person has the required number to guarantee the nomination then there is no nominee unless that person wins the ballots at the convention.  For as much as Trump is the one with the most votes he also is not supported by the party en masse or even by majority, he is simply the last man standing.  

But in reality Kasich has pretty much no shot at this point.  It's fun to argue though.
Click to expand...
If there is a brokered convention, who do you think will be the favorite? 

Will it most likely be Cruz at that point?

 
timschochet said:
.What I don't understand about a brokered convention is simply this: let's say Trump doesn't have the necessary 1200 delegates to win. He's still going to have more delegates than anyone else right? So I simply can't see a situation in which he is denied the nomination in favor of somebody with less delegates (or in the case of somebody new, no delegates.) 

I mean I get that people keep talking about this but I don't know how this formula is going to work. 
Click to expand...
The delegates are only pledged for the initial vote, right? After the first vote, with each successive vote, more and more are allowed to change.

 
timschochet said:
.What I don't understand about a brokered convention is simply this: let's say Trump doesn't have the necessary 1200 delegates to win. He's still going to have more delegates than anyone else right? So I simply can't see a situation in which he is denied the nomination in favor of somebody with less delegates (or in the case of somebody new, no delegates.) 

I mean I get that people keep talking about this but I don't know how this formula is going to work. 
Click to expand...
For one, delegates are actual human beings who aren't necessarily supporters of the candidate they're pledged to, and they're only required to vote for that candidate on the first couple ballots. Also, even if all Trump's delegates were die-hard, make-America-great-again kind of people, as long as they don't constitute an actual majority, it's still possible for the remaining delegates to decide on a compromise candidate that they all like better than Trump.

ETA: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/a_contested_republican_convention_explained.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I think you mean a 3rd Obama term, right? 

I agree with this. But it's also one of the main reason that Clinton doesn't have the excitement of a Trump or Sanders candidacy. It's hard to get excited about status quo, especially THIS status quo.  
Click to expand...
I meant that she would be continuing her husband's presidency, but yea - I like Obama too. So I would like something in the Bill Clinton/President Obama administration. With some tweaks - I've already mentioned a need for a big improvement in criminal justice/war on drugs/war on terror. 

But generally I think the country is doing pretty well. And while we definitely could use some improvements, I don't believe we need to completely overhaul the system. 

I am worried that Hillary will be way too hawkish for my tastes. But maybe she'll pleasantly surprise me there too.

 
whoknew said:
The delegates are only pledged for the initial vote, right? After the first vote, with each successive vote, more and more are allowed to change.
Click to expand...
This is true- on paper. But the reality of the situation is, at least IMO, that if Trump is the guy with the most votes, and yet he is denied the nomination, there's going to be a riot. A rebellion like nothing we've ever seen. It will destroy the Republican party if that happens. Am I being overly dramatic here? 

 
Bernie supporter here and I am probably voting Hillary if she gets the nom.  However, it really pisses me off when she says stupid #### like 'I don't know where Bernie was when I was trying to get healthcare reform....'.  It's a blatant lie and something a lying politician would say.  same thing with the auto bailout nonsense.  keep it up and I might just go 3rd party.  if she can manage to at least attempt to be honest, she might get my vote.  doing politician-y things really turns me off.

 
I love everything that Bernie says, and agree with him completely on so many issues, but I can't see him getting anything done with this Congress.  Hillary's got my vote, but I'm not happy about it and know she's going to let me down by pandering to the middle.

 
hagmania said:
@timschochet Donald Trump's own money is allowing him to run. He wouldn't have a platform if he didn't have his cash.
Click to expand...
But that's not the point, though is it? What you (and Bernie) are railing about is the system in which a few elites decide who is going to be the nominee by throwing tons of cash at them. And that's a fair enough criticism of how politics have worked in this country forever. But those elites DON'T WANT DONALD TRUMP- I think that's pretty clear. And when someone like Trump comes along (admittedly it's rare) all of their money and power can't stop it. 

 
timschochet said:
This is true- on paper. But the reality of the situation is, at least IMO, that if Trump is the guy with the most votes, and yet he is denied the nomination, there's going to be a riot. A rebellion like nothing we've ever seen. It will destroy the Republican party if that happens. Am I being overly dramatic here? 
Click to expand...
I think so. There have been brokered conventions previously in history and the leader coming into the convention didn't win the nomination. Do you think that these times are different? Because of the rhetoric already?

 
jomar said:
Bernie supporter here and I am probably voting Hillary if she gets the nom.  However, it really pisses me off when she says stupid #### like 'I don't know where Bernie was when I was trying to get healthcare reform....'.  It's a blatant lie and something a lying politician would say.  same thing with the auto bailout nonsense.  keep it up and I might just go 3rd party.  if she can manage to at least attempt to be honest, she might get my vote.  doing politician-y things really turns me off.
Click to expand...
I think these are legitimate complaints. However, I would point out that almost all candidates do this to some degree. IMO, the main reason it irritates you when Hillary does it is not because she is especially unethical, but because she doesn't do it well. She's a lousy politician, a lousy salesperson, and her attacks come off badly. 

Both her husband and Obama did the exact same thing as Hillary, but most people didn't notice because they were charming and smooth. 

 
whoknew said:
I think so. There have been brokered conventions previously in history and the leader coming into the convention didn't win the nomination. Do you think that these times are different? Because of the rhetoric already?
Click to expand...
Not to barge in, but the money men and/or party bosses don't want #2 either - so you could get e.g. Kasich with 50 delegates as the one that beats Trump to the nomination.

Will that matter? Maybe, maybe not. The parties have been split before but there are still only two to choose from....

 
whoknew said:
I think so. There have been brokered conventions previously in history and the leader coming into the convention didn't win the nomination. Do you think that these times are different? Because of the rhetoric already?
Click to expand...
I do think these times are different. But not because of the rhetoric. Because 99% of us can't remember a brokered convention, ever. The closest any of us have gotten to it is fantasy: the West Wing, season 6. 

There's another aspect as well, IMO. No matter how many times the media tells people that most of the delegates are awarded proportionally, I doubt that most people really get this. They figure it's winner take all: you win a state, you win the delegates. They're not going to like that Trump won all these states yet somehow he doesn't have all the delegates he needs. Even non-Trump fans will be incensed by the apparent unfairness of this, I believe. 

 
timschochet said:
Doesn't the example of Donald Trump argue against money controlling politics?

Here's what I mean: on Bill Maher the other night, the first guest had written a book about the Koch brothers, how incredibly powerful they are, even more so since Citizens United, how they're going to spend nearly a billion dollars on this election, how nobody should have such power, etc. etc.

Yet it's very clear that the Koch brothers don't want Donald Trump, yet they're as helpless to stop him as everybody else. My theory is that this is because populism beats out money every time. Trump is also spending very little of his own money, and he's going to be the nominee. Now you could argue that this is a one time deal, that in most elections before and after this one, money decides. But still, wouldn't you say that the Trump example is a contradiction of the theory? 
Click to expand...
I think people who support campaign finance reform are mostly impervious to counter-evidence.  As you noted, Donald Trump has managed to steamroll the entire Republican field while barely spending a dime.  If campaign donations translated to votes, Jeb Bush should have had the nomination locked up by now.  

Also, when people like Bill Maher talk about how nobody should have the ability to influence public opinion, it would be a lot more honest if they added the clause "besides me" to that.  

 
timschochet said:
I think these are legitimate complaints. However, I would point out that almost all candidates do this to some degree. IMO, the main reason it irritates you when Hillary does it is not because she is especially unethical, but because she doesn't do it well. She's a lousy politician, a lousy salesperson, and her attacks come off badly. 

Both her husband and Obama did the exact same thing as Hillary, but most people didn't notice because they were charming and smooth. 
Click to expand...
Ironic that you have to be a great politician to be considered a great candidate - but apparently nobody likes politicians.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think people who support campaign finance reform are mostly impervious to counter-evidence.  As you noted, Donald Trump has managed to steamroll the entire Republican field while barely spending a dime.  If campaign donations translated to votes, Jeb Bush should have had the nomination locked up by now.  

Also, when people like Bill Maher talk about how nobody should have the ability to influence public opinion, it would be a lot more honest if they added the clause "besides me" to that.  
Click to expand...
He has spent over 20 million dollars. It does help when the media breathlessly reports your every fart but he has spent a lot of money.

 
On the topic of brokered convention who is a realistic candidate to be Trump's vice?  It's not going to be Cruz or Rubio.  What about Kasich?  Or is there another front runner and I haven't paid enough attention?

 
I've been thinking about this because I couldn't put my finger on where we disconnect.

In my opinion, money doesn't necessarily translate to votes, it translates to exposure. Given how things are and how much information a typical voter uses in an election, the more exposure a voter has with a candidate makes it more likely the voter is to choose said candidate on the ballot. This is actually being seen straightaway with Bernie and how he gains in polls in states where he spends money for exposure/name recognition.

Trump had all the exposure in the world heading into his candidacy. He spent millions before this election cycle so the nation would know his name. He's already there.

 
timschochet said:
I think these are legitimate complaints. However, I would point out that almost all candidates do this to some degree. IMO, the main reason it irritates you when Hillary does it is not because she is especially unethical, but because she doesn't do it well. She's a lousy politician, a lousy salesperson, and her attacks come off badly. 

Both her husband and Obama did the exact same thing as Hillary, but most people didn't notice because they were charming and smooth. 
Click to expand...
'everybody does it' is not going to get my vote.  I expect a little more, I guess

 
hagmania said:
I've been thinking about this because I couldn't put my finger on where we disconnect.

In my opinion, money doesn't necessarily translate to votes, it translates to exposure. Given how things are and how much information a typical voter uses in an election, the more exposure a voter has with a candidate makes it more likely the voter is to choose said candidate on the ballot. This is actually being seen straightaway with Bernie and how he gains in polls in states where he spends money for exposure/name recognition.

Trump had all the exposure in the world heading into his candidacy. He spent millions before this election cycle so the nation would know his name. He's already there.
Click to expand...
My counter to this is that money can also be used against you, and give negative exposure - much of which may be based loosely on facts (see 99% of political ads).  I think money translates into influence of the electorate - and in turn, that means votes.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pip's Invitation
The THIRD 100 from 1971. #1: Echoes
5 6 7
Replies
310
Views
18K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
Pip's Invitation
The Next 100 Songs from 1975, aka Sanbornpalooza. #1: Black Friday
9 10 11
Replies
527
Views
32K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
254K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top