Ballot initiatives, and actually voting for the candidates who have anti-corruption as part of their platform, are a good start.

Who is the “anti-gun lobby”? How much money do they stand to gain by adding restrictions on the sale of guns? Is their money capital—that is, money used to make more money by influencing public policy?

Obviously a ban would include Bloomberg and Soros, as well as the Kochs and the NRA.

Well, yes and no. Some of these figures amount to 10 to 20% of the annual salary for a Congressman. The handout is more than the average American makes in a year, in many cases, and it’s only influential because the people receiving the money have so much unwarranted power over policy.

When are we going to pass a federal anti-corruption act and get lobbyists’ money out of politics?

I don’t think it’s a sign of the apocalypse.

Of course, hatred and religious literalism can turn a person into a murderer. But the NRA turns them into a mass murderer. This is the nuance that most of the voting public—both sides of the aisle—have often agreed with. A large majority of the public agrees that bans on high capacity magazines make sense. Expanded…

All boys are men and all women are girls, so sayeth the Cruz.

I mean, I mostly agree. The “polling gap” is probably also probably a gap that continues widening, making polls lean further and further right compared to actual electoral results. I’m just saying we shouldn’t hope for the electoral college to give us victories.

Sure. But if Clinton loses the popular vote and wins on electoral votes, I might consider that to be an even larger threat to the Democratic party and how Americans view it. People will be suspicious and upset.

Clinton and Sanders are good people who have both indelibly impacted the process in a good way; centrist loyalists are the ones reaching for a broad brush to paint entire highly-diverse groups of people that they oppose. And I don’t dislike Lange even slightly. She has a shitty job, and she’s working for a shitty…

An important point is that they destroyed her reputation, for having sex. They called her a liar, until it was no longer able to save them any face.

Combined, Bush and Cruz and Rubio had a quarter billion dollars to put towards the election. That money didn’t go away. It’ll serve a purpose, and that purpose will be a political purpose, and it will not serve the Democrats.

No, I simply don’t assign them to a liberal ideology. I don’t think liberalism is about death threats, even when several people issue death threats and call themselves liberals.

I hope we’re all actually genuinely worried about the election at this point. Here’s Huffington Post’s trend, in the Clinton vs Trump polling.

The suffering of tens of thousands of Middle Easterners is something the Democrats can tolerate. Twitter danger is the real enemy of progress.

Ahh, the old “the protesters are so violent!” argument, to ensure the liberals straighten up. Genuine question: How many Clinton supporters made an about-face on the notion of civil disobedience, when it turned out that liberals were willing to protest someone they liked?

Twitter is the enemy of discourse. If anti-intellectualism weren’t already rampant in our society, maybe Twitter would never have caught on. But its continued use certainly doesn’t help elevate any conversation we’re already having. And everyone thinks that they alone are the ones using the medium to do good things,…

Trump’s been investing in green technology for years! The Scotty Cameron Newport M2 Mallet putter is perfect on the green.

What results when you truly believe that you can assign liberalism and conservativism to people—based on their race or sex or sexuality or religion—is that you create an environment where people of different races, sexes, and religions refuse to cooperate and get along. Indeed, what happens is a world where xenophobia…