A Human Becoming
More than a Member
cooljeanius said:
Good point. That was just something I heard from a Texas reporter. Maybe he runs a strong election campaign and sways independents? Or Texas just has many Republican only voters?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Good point. That was just something I heard from a Texas reporter. Maybe he runs a strong election campaign and sways independents? Or Texas just has many Republican only voters?
Contrast this with another "numbers guy" Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight. There was clearly a market for smart numbers based analysis, so much so that the NYTimes absorbed 538, which makes Todd's transition even sadder.scorcho said:
Talk about not exploiting competitive advantage.
cooljeanius said:
He's terrible at governance and great at campaigning. That poll that everyone keeps flogging is an indication of what people in Texas think of Perry while he's governing. There will be another one along in awhile, after the money hits the media, and it isn't going to make people quite as happy.
Incognito said:
If you act like your opponents aren't worth dealing with, people believe you. It does help when your opponents are a crazy, atheist, dope-smoking Jewish musician and a crazy grandmother, though.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
cooljeanius said:
Oops, i meant to post your link.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Incognito said:
It was fucking surreal. Like all he did was spend a grand or two on a couple of attack ads lazily comparing White to Obama, danced around then flat out refused a public debate and won anyway.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Who would want him? I don't see him being a useful addition to any of the front-runners' tickets.worldrunover said:
scorcho said:
He was never great, but as soon as he as assigned as White House correspondent, he began marinating in the beltway conventional wisdom (aka bullshit) more than usual, and he was toast.
I think Perry entering the race had as much to do with Pawlenty dropping out as much as anything. Another governor in the mix, this time an even harder line conservative and a powerhouse fund raiser. He was toast the moment Perry walked in the door. (And before then, but even more so after.)
speculawyer
Member
ICalledIt.gifspeculawyer said:
(Sort of)
Alcibiades
Member
money, not-so-great opponents, Texas has become very Republican (before Democrats were more moderate or conservative, now they are either liberal or switched parties)...cooljeanius said:
I predict Perry is going to fall flat in the next few months (or sooner)...
Invisible_Insane
Member
speculawyer said:
teruterubozu
Member
So much for the GOP looking for a candidate who's not white & male. Bachmann may have a slight edge in this regard.
Meus Renaissance
Member
Bachmann interview with Meet the Press about gay rights. Uncomfortable viewing
http://gawker.com/5830699/bachmann-dodges-questions-about-gay-rights
http://gawker.com/5830699/bachmann-dodges-questions-about-gay-rights
Mortrialus
Banned
speculawyer said:
Could this man hate science anymore than he already does?
Black Republican
Member
bahahaha, oh wow i wish i paid more attention to that race nowDOO13ER said:
maximum360
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Chuck Todd is becoming like Mark Halperin in his (useless) predictions.
maximum360
Member
Meus Renaissance said:
Wow at the eyes. She looks soulless in the (video) picture.
Synth_floyd
Banned
Someone should ask her "Why are you so against gay people when you're clearly married to one?"
speculawyer
Member
Meus Renaissance said:
" . . . and share my views"
Translation: Fuck you, gays.
Pawlenty must be watching that and thinking . . . they fucking voted for her nearly 2 to 1 over me?!? WTF?!?!
Well she is trying to be as soulless as she can right there because what her "soul" is thinking is "Yes! Those gays are gonna burn in hell! I don't judge them but god will and I'm just trying to help them!" but she knows that doesn't fly.maximum360 said:
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Synth_floyd
Banned
"PRESERVE THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE! Marriage should be between one bigoted woman and one closeted self-hating gay man!"
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/08/white-house-debates-doing-little-or.html
Yea, we're fucked. President Perry here we come
maximum360
Member
PhoenixDark said:
The administration would be better off letting the politicos handle the politics and stay hands off with economic policy.
I'm not sure what Obama's end game is. There was a race to the middle in the run up to the election and ever since he's been dancing in the center isle and very much leaning right. My hope if that if he gets re-elected we'll see some departure from his leading from the center approach they've been using. He'd have nothing to lose so why not go full liberal and be done with it for the next 4. At the very least he'd always have the support from one group. Right now, no one's content.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Err... wait...
empty vessel
Member
elrechazao said:
I think so. I think any lawyer who thinks the Constitution requires popular sovereignty to be negated is not qualified to be licensed. It's like being a historian who writes books insisting that the British beat back the American revolution. You are free, of course, as a lawyer or layman to disagree about the value of the democratic accomplishments of the American revolution, but what you cannot do is factually rewrite them.
SecretMoblin said:
It isn't. The Roberts court is empirically counterrevolutionary in that it has issued decisions that reject popular sovereignty. They have furthered a doctrine (constitutional rights for corporations) that justifies governmental power not derived from or controllable by the people. To state that a corporation has a constitutional right to do X is to state that the people may not prevent a corporation from doing X. But since a corporations is a legal entity created by and endowed with power from the government, that is saying that the people cannot prevent the government from doing X. It creates a sphere of government activity and power independent from and without regard to the consent of the governed. That is incompatible with the fundamental ideal of the American revolution (it's right in there at the top of the Declaration of Independence). Again, disagree with the substance of that ideal all you want on a personal level (i.e., you are free to be a monarchist or believe in other forms of autocracy), but that the Roberts Court is counterrevolutionary and anti-democratic is an elementary and observable fact about the world.
Black Republican
Member
Obama's foreign policy > economic policyPhoenixDark said:
never though id say that for a dem president heh
elrechazado
Banned
Well, if nothing else I can always enjoy your posts for the rhetorical excess and ideological extremism taken to irrational conclusions. Fortunately for me, I won't be self-disbarring based on your analysis.empty vessel said:
quadriplegicjon said:
Yeah, it would be nice to be able to do that.
I've seen this site before, and while I haven't read the entire thing, from what I can tell, when people mention this site as proof that Obama is keeping his promises, they fail to recognize that not all promises are created equal. Some of his promises are really simple house cleaning promises, and other promises simply in my opinion are more important. Quantifying the number of promises, and determining if that number is over half is a pretty lousy way of doing it.
It's cool that he "Changed Standards on Determining Broadband Access" but did that really improve our Internet access? And did keeping that promise exempt him from having to keep another promise? Such as "Allow Imported Prescription Drugs"? Which promise was the more important one to keep? Which was the harder one to do? Sure, he may keep more promises than he breaks, and he still has about another year to keep a few of the pending ones (however his constant 'compromising' will probably mean that he doesn't complete too many more, most of the easy ones are already done), but I would much rather he keep his promise of "Close GitMo" than "Expand Access to Places to Fish and Hunt".
It's probably my fault for actually buying into his words, when I should have known he's just another politician. I'm sure he's a swell guy, great father, compassionate husband. But as a POTUS, his constant desire to 'compromise' with the republicans whose ideas are so contrary to my own means that I don't much care for him. (Still better than the other I guess)
SecretMoblin
Member
empty vessel said:
With respect, I think your definition of "counterrevolutionary" is overbroad. If "creat[ing] a sphere of government activity and power independent from and without regard to the consent of the governed" is all it takes to justify being called "counterrevolutionary", then literally every single member of the Supreme Court - and most landmark cases in the Court's history - are counterrevolutionary. Hell, Marbury v. Madison gave a massive amount of power to a group of unelected, unaccountable judges who don't care (and don't have to care) about the consent of the governed. And the decision was authored by revolutionaries.
Or what about Griswold v. Connecticut, which created a sphere of power "independent from and without regard to consent of the governed." Or Baker v. Carr, which allowed the court system to wrest control of reapportionment away from the democratic branches of government. Or Furman v. Georgia, which effectively outlawed the death penalty over the objections of several states and overwhelming popular opinion. The Court sees fit to take, reassign, or create power all the time. It's hardly exclusive to John Roberts (or Scalia, or Thomas, or Rehnquist, or Kennedy, or O'Connor, or...)
Look. I didn't support CU v. FEC. I thought it was wrong! But to posit a world in which this Supreme Court has bent back hundreds of years of rights and replaced it with some form of corporatist authoritarian oligarchy is just not accurate. And please: "that the Roberts Court is counterrevolutionary and anti-democratic is an elementary and observable fact about the world." I certainly don't know everything there is to know, and won't ever claim that I do. But saying that the current Supreme Court is "counterrevolutionary" and "anti-democratic" both ignores the history of the Court and the reality (and impact) of its modern-day decisions.
Gary Whitta
Member
Anyone think Giuliani is going to come in? Right now he's the only one who beats Obama in a poll matchup.
SecretMoblin
Member
Gary Whitta said:
He won't unless he's looking for money and television hits. And by the end of last campaign season, he seemed pretty comfortable ducking out of the spotlight.
Gary Whitta
Member
Ten year anniversary coming up, he gets a free pass!threenote said:
Vestal
Junior Member
How can anyone right now take Bachman seriously?
Guys seriously the only two Republicans with any shot at the nomination are Romney and Perry... A CATACLYSM of massive proportions would have to occur for Bachman to win the nomination.. I believe there are still enough sane republican voters that would not allow Bachman to get the Nomination.
However... If Perry and Romney do not go towards center apart from Bachman I really have no clue who could win this nomination. but it will not be bachman.
Guys seriously the only two Republicans with any shot at the nomination are Romney and Perry... A CATACLYSM of massive proportions would have to occur for Bachman to win the nomination.. I believe there are still enough sane republican voters that would not allow Bachman to get the Nomination.
However... If Perry and Romney do not go towards center apart from Bachman I really have no clue who could win this nomination. but it will not be bachman.
Escape Goat
Member
empty vessel
Member
SecretMoblin said:
Marbury v. Madison does no such thing. The judiciary applies the Constitution, i.e., it applies the foundational document creating the government. When it strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it is not disregarding the will of the people but applying it at a deeper foundational level. There is nothing about judicial review that is doctrinally inconsistent with popular sovereignty, and indeed it was advocated for in the Federalist papers. The Supreme Court's appointed nature was consented to by the people.
SecretMoblin said:
Griswold v. Connecticut does not implicate popular sovereignty at all. It recognized that an individual citizen--which is not a specie of government--has a constitutional right to use contraceptives. In other words, it said that an individual citizen has a constitutional right to do X, which means the people cannot prevent the individual citizen from doing X. That does indeed create a sphere of power independent from and without regard to consent of the governed, but it creates it for the individual to act, not for the government to act. Thus, no "sphere of government power independent from and without regard to the consent of the governed" has been created. In your formulation, you omitted the only important word vis-a-vis popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty describes the (one-way) direction in which power flows: from people to the government. It does not make the power of an individual depend upon the consent of the people. It makes the power of a government depend on that consent. Once empowered, that government may control individual power, but it is never the source of it.
SecretMoblin said:
What government power as it relates to a specie of government's own power is being carved out from popular control? Your points all seem to reduce to a contention that the judicial branch itself is a violation of popular sovereignty, but that cannot be the case. See Article III. It's right in there. None of these decisions are analogous to endorsing a proposition that there is a specie of government that has rights against the people. Merely saying the government lacks power to do X is not a violation of popular sovereignty. Saying the government lacks the power to regulate its own creations, however, does. It would be like ruling that the EPA has certain powers that cannot be controlled by Congress.
SecretMoblin said:
Yes, it is, actually. And to be fair to the court, this process had already been started. The Roberts Court is just hammering in the nails at this point. But they are all too willing to do it.
SecretMoblin said:
Not at all. It is matter-of-factly true whatever your emotional reaction to it might be. The world should be described accurately without regard to how it makes us feel. The Citizens United decision was both antithetical to the principles of the American revolution (i.e., counterrevolutionary) and anti-democratic (in opposition to popular sovereignty).
Again, you are free to believe in forms of autocracy or dictatorship or whatever you want, for all I care. I'm not trying to persuade you to support popular sovereignty just because it was a fundamental principle of the American revolution. But what you can't do is have your own facts.
No. Irrespective of the unlikelihood of everything progressing smoothly, Libya will encounter onerous, intractable problems. The slow, protracted civil war has decimated their country. Moreover, our involvement has only begun. While we may avoid contributing forces to a peacekeeping mission, we will fund such an endeavor. I hope the situation improves rapidly, but I do not foresee it.speculawyer said:
TacticalFox88
Banned
Damn, I can't help but read your posts in a Dumbledore/Gandalf like voice.Jackson50 said:
speculawyer
Member
Dude. This only started in February. And the actual fighting has largely been limited to skirmishes a road that stretches from Benghazzi and Tripoli.Jackson50 said:
Gary Whitta
Member
I liked this tweet:
And here's some footage of her squirming as she dodges questions about gay rights on Meet the Press today:
http://gawker.com/5830699/bachmann-dodges-questions-about-gay-rights
And here's some footage of her squirming as she dodges questions about gay rights on Meet the Press today:
http://gawker.com/5830699/bachmann-dodges-questions-about-gay-rights
Black Republican
Member
didnt lawrence o'donnell swear up and down tim pawlenty would win the gop nomination too?
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
When we find out about a gay affair from her husband, how glorious will it be?
She definitly has the eyes of a crazy person. I wonder how much medication she's on.
She definitly has the eyes of a crazy person. I wonder how much medication she's on.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Bishman said:
UH needs to focus on rebalancing its cost/benefit ratio for its degrees. Even before the recession mess hit they steadily hiked tuition every semester since I started there in Spring 05.
- Status