• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
>>win NC/LA
>>lose IA/CO

Democrats.

Story came out in Iowa about Ernst suing a painter for not completing his work on time, and when he couldn't pay the amount the Ernsts seized his property (including his truck). Given the bullshit about Braley's neighbors' chickens I'd hope this would get played up a bit but I'm skeptical. Also in this first paragraph:

Republicans in Iowa have cried foul over Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley’s dispute over his neighbors chickens crossing onto his yard, which he implied he would take legal action to resolve it.
Click to expand...
That should read "cried fowl"
 
Metaphoreus said:
I think it's a poorly written article and she was describing her usual course of business, not how she acted in the case of the lesbian couple. But I haven't watched the video; I'm basing my conclusion on thinking through the context logica--



Oh, wait. RELIGION LOL
Click to expand...

Yes, religion. She is invoking religion to deny serving a paying customer.
 
Plaintiff is No-Show in Kansas Senate Lawsuit

The registered Democratic voter who sued to force his party to pick a new Senate nominee in Kansas did not appear at a Monday hearing for the case, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported, and the judges hearing it are now considering whether the lawsuit can continue without him.

David Orel, a registered Democrat in Kansas City, Kan., whose son is a campaign staffer for Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, filed the lawsuit shortly after the Kansas Supreme Court overturned Secretary of State's Kris Kobach's decision and took Democratic nominee Chad Taylor off the ballot.

Kobach had requested to be made a party in the case, siding with Orel in arguing that the state Democratic Party should be forced to name a new nominee who would square off against independent candidate Greg Orman and incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts (R). The lawsuit is effectively Kobach's last chance to get a Democratic candidate on the ballot in November.
Click to expand...
lol
 
Why don't they compromise and make Orman the D candidate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oes1ASJcFj8

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...1d5c5c-4587-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html
But not having a party also liberates Orman from taking positions — especially on controversial issues that might alienate partisans.

Greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline? Orman said he doesn’t have enough information to say yes or no.

What about gun control? He said gun restrictions should be “strengthened” but would not specify whether he backs an assault-weapons ban.

And on the biggest question of all — Would he caucus with Democrats or Republicans? — Orman insists he’s not sure.

“It’s not in the best interests for us to say that,” Orman said in an interview here last week.

...

Talking to the retirees in Wichita, Orman said he was running because he was tired of partisan combat.

“We’re still sending the worst of both parties to Washington,” he said. “They draw childish lines in the sand, they refuse to cooperate and, as a result, inaction has replaced leadership in solving our country’s most pressing problems.”

Voters said they found Orman’s message appealing, if unconvincing.

“I think he’s somewhat living in a world of dreams when he says that he can bring the two parties together,” said Diane Wahto, a retired teacher and poet. “But if anybody can, he can.”
Click to expand...
 
That reminds me of something I saw today that I hadn't thought of regarding the "PANIC CRISIS" over a Holder replacement. Other than her, after Nov 5th the Democrats will still have 55 seats in the Senate and no one faces re-election until 2016.

Even Holder got through 75 to 21 so depending on who the nominee is it might not be much of a problem.
 
RustyNails said:
But LA will almost assuredly go into runoff, and the GOP has distinct advantage there because of turnout. Winning against Cassidy in November will mean nothing if the crowd doesn't show up in December.
Click to expand...
meh that's what people said in 2002 and Landrieu won handily thanks to black turnout being higher in the runoff. Times have changed but I don't think it's insurmountable.

Of course it'd be better if she just won outright in Nov.
 
Ugh, Kos isn't feeling too good about Iowa. Apparently for some reason Braley has refused to call out Ernst for the lunatic she really is.

PhoenixDark said:
Meh. The country was on a rightward trajectory for quite awhile before Reagan. Nixon's law and order politics (and southern strategy) still dominate republican politics. Reagan was simply a better face for it.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about the country shifting rightwards. As I said, Reagan helped move things dramatically, but at least he was still able to cut deals with Democrats. Higher spending, (some) tax hikes, amnesty, etc. As opposed to what happened with Newt's congress, which I honestly can't think of a single thing he did that helped Democrats whatsoever.
 
benjipwns said:
I quite like how our punditocracy has defined our silly spectrum as:
"hard right" = expand military more than rest of government, broad tax cuts
Click to expand...

How are these things not "hard right"?

"hard left" = expand rest of government more than military, broad tax increases
Click to expand...


Most of the tax hikes were directed towards lower incomes and they weren't enough to offset the take cuts.

"sane rational moderate centerist pragmatists" = ask again later for specifics, but more laws are always good if they're bipartisan, expand all government so that it "works" again like when I was ignorant of how government worked, revenue-neutral tax cuts because revenue-neutral makes it sound like magic wonkism
Click to expand...

Who said laws that were bi-partisan were good? I've complained endlessly about all the bi-partisan laws passed under Clinton and Newt, same with Bush and democrats in many cases.
 
Byvylg4IEAEKNxw.jpg:large


Also, WTF bill

@billmaher 20m
Wow, i just saw J-Law's face full of splooge on the internet...people, i told you this would happen if we took prayer out of school!!
Click to expand...
 
Metaphoreus said:
Her invocation of religion--for whatever purpose--does not absolve you of the need to read critically and not judge others based on your own prejudices.
Click to expand...

The irony of this statement in regards to the person in the article...

Anyway, I am not going down this rabbit he with you.
 
Oblivion said:
Who said laws that were bi-partisan were good? I've complained endlessly about all the bi-partisan laws passed under Clinton and Newt, same with Bush and democrats in many cases.
Click to expand...
I think he's talking about the media's perception of things. Who cares what's in the bill, it's bipartisan! That's why Obama was courting Olympia Snowe so hard on PPACA.
 
Wilsongt said:
The irony of this statement in regards to the person in the article...

Anyway, I am not going down this rabbit he with you.
Click to expand...

There's no rabbit hole here. It's simply this: you charged the woman with being illogical because she is religious. In so doing, you demonstrated that you, yourself, were willing to forego logical thought to reinforce your own prejudices. That's ironic.
 
Metaphoreus said:
There's no rabbit hole here. It's simply this: you charged the woman with being illogical because she is religious. In so doing, you demonstrated that you, yourself, were willing to forego logical thought to reinforce your own prejudices. That's ironic.
Click to expand...

it's not actually ironic, but people don't understand irony very well.

You could have used hypocritical, but not ironic.

/high horse
 
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...urg-interview-retirement-feminists-jazzercise

R: What’s the worst ruling the current Court has produced?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: If there was one decision I would overrule, it would be Citizens United. I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be. So that’s number one on my list.

Number two would be the part of the health care decision that concerns the commerce clause. Since 1937, the Court has allowed Congress a very free hand in enacting social and economic legislation.8 I thought that the attempt of the Court to intrude on Congress’s domain in that area had stopped by the end of the 1930s. Of course health care involves commerce.

Perhaps number three would be Shelby County, involving essentially the destruction of the Voting Rights Act. That act had a voluminous legislative history. The bill extending the Voting Rights Act was passed overwhelmingly by both houses, Republicans and Democrats, everyone was on board. The Court’s interference with that decision of the political branches seemed to me out of order. The Court should have respected the legislative judgment. Legislators know much more about elections than the Court does. And the same was true of Citizens United. I think members of the legislature, people who have to run for office, know the connection between money and influence on what laws get passed.
Click to expand...

Pretty good list, and a good reminder how bad this supreme court has been.
 
*shudders*

I can only imagine what a republican packed court after a 2016 win would look like, and i'm not sure i would want to live in this country anymore if that ever came to fruition.
 
thepotatoman said:
Wait, is this the same guy that really hates the NSA for spying on us? The NSA can't look at his private stuff but he has no problem looking at other people's private stuff?
Click to expand...

Isn't this Reddit in a nutshell? "I'll bitch about the NSA looking at my email on Reddit while being pissed Reddit shut down the Fappening?"
 
Wilsongt said:
Yeah, been a pretty shitty SC overall when it comes to the rights of someone who isn't a rich egomaniac or a Republican.

I just hope they get it right when it comes to gay marriage before, somehow, the Republicans take back the Presidency in 2016 and fill it with real batshit insane judges.
Click to expand...

Its been good for gays, people who like free speech (Westboro, crushing video case, California game law), done some good on criminal rights like preventing cops from searching phones, requiring everyone to consent to a search (also bad with their limiting of the protection from self-incrimination), assisted suicide.

There are some horrible things but the court has also done good.

My major faults are race, campaign finance, employer/employee relation, and religious rights.
 
JesseEwiak said:
Isn't this Reddit in a nutshell? "I'll bitch about the NSA looking at my email on Reddit while being pissed Reddit shut down the Fappening?"
Click to expand...

Now that I think of it, Bill Maher is kind of Reddit in a nutshell in general.
 
APKmetsfan said:
Its been good for gays, people who like free speech (Westboro, crushing video case, California game law), done some good on criminal rights like preventing cops from searching phones, requiring everyone to consent to a search (also bad with their limiting of the protection from self-incrimination), assisted suicide.

There are some horrible things but the court has also done good.

My major faults are race, campaign finance, employer/employee relation, and religious rights.
Click to expand...

The supreme court isn't Tea Party conservative, it's plutocrat conservative. This means you can win in some areas that don't impact crony capitalism.
 
CNN/ORC has Democrats +2 on the generic ballot. To put things in perspective, 3 weeks ago Republicans were +4.

6 point swing. I need our resident gaf wizards to unskew this poll and tell us whats going on.
 
Joe Dorman's internal polling (lol) has him only 2 points behind Mary Fallin in the OK Governor's race.

I wish I had a real reason to believe in that number.
 
thepotatoman said:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...urg-interview-retirement-feminists-jazzercise

Pretty good list, and a good reminder how bad this supreme court has been.
Click to expand...

I won't repeat my own thoughts on Citizens United or Shelby County, but Ginsburg's implication that NFIB turned on the theory that healthcare isn't commerce is simply wrong, and she really should know better. Here's the portion of Roberts' opinion addressing this:

C.J. Roberts said:
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.
Click to expand...

Here's Scalia, from his dissent:

J. Scalia said:
One might argue that it regulates that failure by requiring it to be accompanied by payment of a penalty. But that failure—that abstention from commerce—is not “Commerce.” To be sure, purchasing insurance is ”Commerce”; but one does not regulate commerce that does not exist by compelling its existence.
Click to expand...

Finally, Thomas' dissent, in its entirety:

J. Thomas said:
I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and The Chief Justice correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate “economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995) . I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (Thomas, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1–69 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting). As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that anyone has to agree with this perspective, but someone in Ginsburg's position should at the very least not misrepresent it, especially in the popular press.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
12K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
1K
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
20K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
Good New Music?
2
2K
bitbydeath replied
InFAMOUS [Mafia] [OT] No Good Karma...
69 70 71 72 73
4K
197K
OceanicAir replied
Top Bottom