PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
gKfrEeE.png
 
Yeah, no way any of the liberal justices wanted to hear King v Burwell, unless they knew for a fact it would lose 7-2 (or 9-0) and just wanted an opportunity to shame the plaintiffs and all their supporters. It's a shit enough case for that to be possible, but I still don't see them taking the risk, no matter how small.
 
Yellowtail said:
Well his son tortured and hanged a dog, so he probably needs to tell himself this.
Click to expand...

Source? Never heard that one. Not that I don't believe it, but I'm just curious.

Also Mike Lee calling out Christie hard on NSA comments. I can't believe I'm cheering Mike Lee.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/politics/mike-lee-chris-christie-comments-patriot-act/index.html

"I would ask Mr. Christie how many lives has it saved? I would ask Mr. Christie how many acts of terrorism have been thwarted simply because the NSA is collecting telephone data on what your grandmother calls, - on calls that she makes or calls that she receives?" Lee said.
Click to expand...
 
Rick Santorum is not happy about Fox News' GOP debate rules

"I'm probably the best person to comment on this," the former Pennsylvania senator, who ran for president in 2012 and is on the verge of formalizing a 2016 bid, told reporters on Thursday after his speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma, according to National Journal. "In January of 2012 I was at four percent in the national polls, and I won the Iowa caucuses. I don't know if I was last in the polls, but I was pretty close to last."

Santorum, who carried 10 more states in 2012 after his surprise win in Iowa, name-dropped some other former candidates whose early national polling strength turned out to be meaningless.

"The idea that a national poll has any relationship to the viability of a candidate--ask Rudy Giuliani that. Ask Phil Gramm that," he said. "You can go on down the list of folks who were doing real well in national polls and didn't win a single state and were not a viable candidate."

"If you're a United States senator, if you're a governor, if you're a woman who ran a Fortune 500 company, and you're running a legitimate campaign for president, then you should have a right to be on stage with everybody else," he added. "So the idea that we're going to arbitrarily--and it's arbitrary, someone at 1.15 is in, someone at 1.14 is out--that to me is not a rational way."
Click to expand...

He has a point there.
 
The debates will be fun. Too bad the media will find a way to make it all about Hillary.

Moderator: Which one of you believe you are the best equipped to beat the presumptive Democratic Front-runner/Nominee Hillary Clinton?"
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
"Carly has to be in it so we can insult Hillary without being called sexist!"

No, but I actually do agree with him. I think it should apply to the general election, though. It really isn't fair that the like 6 or so 3rd party candidates can't get air time because of poll numbers.
Click to expand...

absolutely not. Why should the general election debates features 3rd party candidates who have no chance of winning?
 
What's his non-arbitrary solution? If you say Fortune 500 is enough, then why not any company? It's either draw the line somewhere or put 30 people on the stage at once.
 
Teggy said:
What's his non-arbitrary solution? If you say Fortune 500 is enough, then why not any company? It's either draw the line somewhere or put 30 people on the stage at once.
Click to expand...

Split it up into 2 different groups somehow. You could either use 2 groups straight up or have some sort of game show type thing where the winners advance to a final debate round, or have a GOP jobbers' candidate debate before the main debate with the winners advancing, etc etc.

Winners could be determined by live crowd, the panel, poll testing, donations on behalf of a candidate to GOP, etc (maybe 25% each).
 
NeoXChaos said:
absolutely not. Why should the general election debates features 3rd party candidates who have no chance of winning?
Click to expand...

They stand no chance of winning because the media and money is entrenched in the duopoly, allowing them into the debates would give them exposure that they were denied by the two major parties. I'm not even saying that it should engender support for the 3rd partiers or even that they might be more likely to win. All I'm saying is that if we're going to pretend to be a democracy we could at least pretend hard. Denying them equal standing is antidemocratic.
 
Huckabee is betting the farm on fundamentalist Christians propelling him to the WH. He clearly is not concerned about anything else, because lord knows his defense of a molester who escaped the justice system is weird to most regular people.


I wouldn't be surprised at all if this story takes more turns in the coming months. As I said in the thread, I really don't think it's a coincidence that the father took his son to see a state trooper who just so happened to be a pedophile.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Huckabee is betting the farm on fundamentalist Christians propelling him to the WH. He clearly is not concerned about anything else, because lord knows his defense of a molester who escaped the justice system is weird to most regular people.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this story takes more turns in the coming months. As I said in the thread, I really don't think it's a coincidence that the father took his son to see a state trooper who just so happened to be a pedophile.
Click to expand...

Wonder who gets more evangelicals: Huckabee or Cruz?
 
thepotatoman said:
Unlikely. There's far too much at risk if it backfires with so little to gain. Even with a win, a Roberts style decision could easily open up president Jeb to read it however he wants, and a Kennedy decision could ingrain this new state coercion thing further into law.

Most likely, the 4 conservatives thought they could convince Roberts to change his mind.

Even in the opinion of the 4th circuit, written by a Clinton nominee, it was conceded that the literal reading of the bill favored the plaintiffs, and the government "only slightly" had the stronger position. And if Roberts blocked the mandate before, the only alternative left for health reform would be a medicare for all plan. A block now on a technicality still allows for the replacement to have a preexisting condition/insurance mandate solution tied to much more conservative surroundings.
Click to expand...
Even if you're right, which you very well could be, you agree Roberts didn't choose to take the case.

IIf it's 6-3 or 5-4 (Kennedy being the 5th) in favor of gov't, then I'll be convinced the liberals decided to take the case. f it's 5-4 (with the 5th being Roberts), then it could go either way.

personally, I don't think Scalia would want to take the case because it could be a blow to textualism, his sacred cow.

I know it's a risk, but the Justices probably already knew the outcome of the case BEFORE taking the case. This is not uncommon for something so in the news. And if the liberals already knew they had it in the bag, I could see it. There's also potential back door dealing. Maybe Ginsberg agreed to hear a different case they normally wouldn't in order to hear this one and screw Scalia?

here's the thing. Literally no one other than the 9 SCOTUS Justices knows what happens in that conference room. We don't have any real concrete idea. So anything is possible!


And yes Oblivion, it takes only 4 Justices to hear a case. This gives the minority some power.
 
Teggy said:
What's his non-arbitrary solution? If you say Fortune 500 is enough, then why not any company? It's either draw the line somewhere or put 30 people on the stage at once.
Click to expand...

Go by polling in the next primary state. So for the first debate take everyone polling well in Iowa and throw them on a stage, then NH, then SC and so on and so forth.
 
thefro said:
Split it up into 2 different groups somehow. You could either use 2 groups straight up or have some sort of game show type thing where the winners advance to a final debate round, or have a GOP jobbers' candidate debate before the main debate with the winners advancing, etc etc.

Winners could be determined by live crowd, the panel, poll testing, donations on behalf of a candidate to GOP, etc (maybe 25% each).
Click to expand...

Basically, your plan is that the GOP primary should be a reality TV show.

I am 100% in support of this plan, but I am not sure the GOP would be.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
They stand no chance of winning because the media and money is entrenched in the duopoly, allowing them into the debates would give them exposure that they were denied by the two major parties. I'm not even saying that it should engender support for the 3rd partiers or even that they might be more likely to win. All I'm saying is that if we're going to pretend to be a democracy we could at least pretend hard. Denying them equal standing is antidemocratic.
Click to expand...

It's not as if the only purpose of limiting debates to small numbers of candidates is to keep the excluded candidates from getting any exposure. Debates with huge numbers of candidates aren't really debates. You don't get people arguing with each other; you get people shouting out a slogan and then it's on to the next person's answer, competing on attitude and presentation rather than on anything actually relevant. Best-case everyone is criticizing the front-runner from different directions, but usually they're doing so as part of a strategy to feature in five-second highlight clips of the debate.

It'd be a good thing for the media to spend more time on relatively minor candidates, taking them seriously and giving people a chance to decide if they like them or not. But I don't really see why you'd want to hijack debates to do that. The value of debates is in forcing major candidates to answer questions that they otherwise might be able to avoid. You do that best by keeping the events focused on those major candidates.
 
Gotchaye said:
It's not as if the only purpose of limiting debates to small numbers of candidates is to keep the excluded candidates from getting any exposure. Debates with huge numbers of candidates aren't really debates. You don't get people arguing with each other; you get people shouting out a slogan and then it's on to the next person's answer, competing on attitude and presentation rather than on anything actually relevant. Best-case everyone is criticizing the front-runner from different directions, but usually they're doing so as part of a strategy to feature in five-second highlight clips of the debate.

It'd be a good thing for the media to spend more time on relatively minor candidates, taking them seriously and giving people a chance to decide if they like them or not. But I don't really see why you'd want to hijack debates to do that. The value of debates is in forcing major candidates to answer questions that they otherwise might be able to avoid. You do that best by keeping the events focused on those major candidates.
Click to expand...

The Idaho Gubernatorial Primary is a clear example of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPwW8nBVc0g
 
Gotchaye said:
It's not as if the only purpose of limiting debates to small numbers of candidates is to keep the excluded candidates from getting any exposure. Debates with huge numbers of candidates aren't really debates. You don't get people arguing with each other; you get people shouting out a slogan and then it's on to the next person's answer, competing on attitude and presentation rather than on anything actually relevant. Best-case everyone is criticizing the front-runner from different directions, but usually they're doing so as part of a strategy to feature in five-second highlight clips of the debate.

It'd be a good thing for the media to spend more time on relatively minor candidates, taking them seriously and giving people a chance to decide if they like them or not. But I don't really see why you'd want to hijack debates to do that. The value of debates is in forcing major candidates to answer questions that they otherwise might be able to avoid. You do that best by keeping the events focused on those major candidates.
Click to expand...

See, the thing is... what you're describing? People shouting out slogans and moving on? That's what already happens, generally. I mean, you get your exceptions, but a lot of debates are just rehashing the stump speeches at each other. "Please proceed, governor" is the exception, no the rule (because, of course, everyone's afraid of ending up on the receiving end of a "please proceed" moment.)
 
Gotchaye said:
It's not as if the only purpose of limiting debates to small numbers of candidates is to keep the excluded candidates from getting any exposure. Debates with huge numbers of candidates aren't really debates. You don't get people arguing with each other; you get people shouting out a slogan and then it's on to the next person's answer, competing on attitude and presentation rather than on anything actually relevant. Best-case everyone is criticizing the front-runner from different directions, but usually they're doing so as part of a strategy to feature in five-second highlight clips of the debate.

It'd be a good thing for the media to spend more time on relatively minor candidates, taking them seriously and giving people a chance to decide if they like them or not. But I don't really see why you'd want to hijack debates to do that. The value of debates is in forcing major candidates to answer questions that they otherwise might be able to avoid. You do that best by keeping the events focused on those major candidates.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I don't think the debates actually contribute anything. It's usually what, 1-2 minutes per candidate to answer a question? All you get is pre-written soundbites anyway. The only value is when candidates like Rick Perry or Bachmann either forget their scripted lines ("uh, I forgot the third agency I was going to eliminate," "HPV vaccines cause mental retardation," etc.) so they're basically only to generate gaffes. I've never seen a debate question that a reporter couldn't pose. I just think they're worthless now and at least they'd be more in line with democratic ideals if other candidates were allowed to participate in the usual format. I'd prefer changing the formula so they actually have to give complex answers over the inclusion of 3rd party candidates, though.
 
Poodlestrike said:
See, the thing is... what you're describing? People shouting out slogans and moving on? That's what already happens, generally. I mean, you get your exceptions, but a lot of debates are just rehashing the stump speeches at each other. "Please proceed, governor" is the exception, no the rule (because, of course, everyone's afraid of ending up on the receiving end of a "please proceed" moment.)
Click to expand...

Sure, mostly debates aren't very useful. But that's true for basically everything. Debates remain one of the most useful ways for many voters to see how the major candidates stack up to each other because they have this potential for direct confrontation.

CrimzonSamurai said:
I see your point, but I don't think the debates actually contribute anything. It's usually what, 1-2 minutes per candidate to answer a question? All you get is pre-written soundbites anyway. The only value is when candidates like Rick Perry or Bachmann either forget their scripted lines ("uh, I forgot the third agency I was going to eliminate," "HPV vaccines cause mental retardation," etc.) so they're basically only to generate gaffes. I've never seen a debate question that a reporter couldn't pose. I just think they're worthless now and at least they'd be more in line with democratic ideals if other candidates were allowed to participate in the usual format. I'd prefer changing the formula so they actually have to give complex answers over the inclusion of 3rd party candidates, though.
Click to expand...

A reporter could pose any debate question, but they don't, and they basically never go after candidates for an inadequate answer. I'm not 100% on what happens behind the scenes when it comes to interviewing candidates, but clearly it involves candidates seeking out cooperative journalists, journalists being concerned about getting future interviews, journalists being concerned about appearing biased, etc. Candidates have a harder time refusing to debate than refusing to give an interview and their opponents are highly motivated to criticize bad answers or evasions.

Last round's Republican primary debates are a great example of debates which suffer for including way too many nuts, even if they made for great television. Some of the smaller debates attended by only minor candidates were much better, though the participants were on-average nuttier.
 
Gotchaye said:
Sure, mostly debates aren't very useful. But that's true for basically everything. Debates remain one of the most useful ways for many voters to see how the major candidates stack up to each other because they have this potential for direct confrontation.



A reporter could pose any debate question, but they don't, and they basically never go after candidates for an inadequate answer. I'm not 100% on what happens behind the scenes when it comes to interviewing candidates, but clearly it involves candidates seeking out cooperative journalists, journalists being concerned about getting future interviews, journalists being concerned about appearing biased, etc. Candidates have a harder time refusing to debate than refusing to give an interview and their opponents are highly motivated to criticize bad answers or evasions.

Last round's Republican primary debates are a great example of debates which suffer for including way too many nuts, even if they made for great television. Some of the smaller debates attended by only minor candidates were much better, though the participants were on-average nuttier.
Click to expand...

I suppose you're right in regards to the press not going after bad answers. They obviously don't want to lose future interviews or they could be sympathetic. When it's a Republican primary debate hosted and moderated by Fox News, though, I think we're in "sympathetic journalist" territory.
 
B-Dubs said:
Go by polling in the next primary state. So for the first debate take everyone polling well in Iowa and throw them on a stage, then NH, then SC and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

That's just a different variation on what they are doing now. He wouldn't be happy with that either.
 
Black Mamba said:
personally, I don't think Scalia would want to take the case because it could be a blow to textualism, his sacred cow.
Click to expand...
Scalia is a hater and a troll; this is not anything new. I don't think he cares. He hates this law and wouldn't think twice about turning his back on his principals in order to have a chance at blowing a huge hole in it.
 
Diablos said:
Scalia is a hater and a troll; this is not anything new. I don't think he cares. He hates this law and wouldn't think twice about turning his back on his principals in order to have a chance at blowing a huge hole in it.
Click to expand...

That's why we need to win next year and in 2020 so we can replace him. Lol who am I kidding, the man will never retire under a Democrat.
 
Wilsongt said:
I have vision loss in my left eye due to a herpes infection.

I had health insurance and went to the doctor constantly for months.

Shit was expensive.


Also, there are a ton of overweight, diabetic smokers in the sourh.
Click to expand...

I'm so glad for my current job. I pay nothing for health care. Nothing. No co-pays, no premiums, no nothing except for drugs
 
Lucky Forward said:
Rick Santorum is not happy about Fox News' GOP debate rules



He has a point there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ole froth face is right on this one.

My dream would be to not only have as many Republicans in a single primary, but as many Republicans battling Hillary, a la this wonderful sketch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLnH5n3XcOk

Now imagine that, but with the likes of Jeb, Walker, Huckabee, Rand, Christie, Carson, Fiorina, Santorum, etc. all sharing one podium.

"For the first time in U.S. history, a Democratic nominee will face off against not one, not two, but nineteen Republican candidates! That's nineteen times the freedom, and nineteen times then entertainment!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
983
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
256K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom