Support NeoGAF

[bananas]

I swear to god everytime you post I want to avatar quote you. But yea that shit is bananas.

Also just found out Rick Scott has a speaking at the RNC.

WHY?!

This man has a 39% approval/51% disapproval rating. Why would Romney and the Republicans want this man ANYWHERE NEAR THEM?

 

[Mike M]

Speaking of which what would you guys say your top 3 priorities for a 2nd Obama administration would be being realistic (so no sudden jump to a single payer system).

Hm, good question.

My top three goals regardless of pragmatism:

1.) Massive electoral reform. End the electoral college, publicly financed elections, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, the works.

2.) Single payer healthcare system.

3.). Equal rights amendment.

Limiting it to what *might* be reasonably accomplished...

1.) Marriage equality nationwide
2.) Tax code reform including but not limited to either eliminating the payroll tax or applying it to all income, taxing all income at the same rate.
3.) Infrastructure development.

 

[thezerofire]

Continuing on my own post from earlier, I'm often surprised by how little discussion there is about the Republican Brain Drain. It is a real phenomenon that few here seemed to have been interested exploring outside broad, sweeping comments about how stupid Republicans are, and so forth.

Here is an article from David Frum's website in the 2010 election cycle that does some pretty deep analysis.

The article notes that Republicans still do above average with college educated people in general, but that the trends become alarming when you begin to segregate "college" in any great degree; the better the schools get, the increasingly likely they are to be liberal. Further, it provides evidence that this was not always the case; as recently as Eisenhowever, Ivy League colleges were majoratively Republican. A relevant quotation:

I wonder how much of this is because of Republicans decrying "ivy league elites"

 

[ErasureAcer]

Mitt Romney was in St. Augustine, FL earlier this morning. Outside of Flagler College (fun fact: this is where I went to college), he held a rally, and none other than Rick Scott introduced him.

Now, he didn't bring Paul Ryan down here, because of how unpopular he and his budget are here. So, they get the most unpopular governor in the country to introduce him. The same governor who committed Medicare fraud.

I just- I just don't get it.

NBC said Ryan will be in Florida by himself later this week. Once again hoping everyone isn't paying attention to news on the weekend.

 

[Mike M]

Also just found out Rick Scott has a speaking at the RNC.

WHY?!

This man has a 39% approval/51% disapproval rating. Why would Romney and the Republicans want this man ANYWHERE NEAR THEM?

Convention's in Tampa, it'd be a massive slight it he weren't.

 

[Measley]

You fully expect it? Eh, don't get your hopes up. I expect him to plant a seed and start shifting the conversation. De-criminalization in the next few years seems like a pipe dream though.

Hey, I didn't expect the gay marriage support either in 2008, but he's been pretty impressive on that front. So you never know.

BTW, I just looked over Ryan's stances on social issues. Dude is as bad as Rick Santorum.

 

[pigeon]

As the Obameconomy continues to put college educated people out of work and on to welfare, expect Dems to grow that lead!

Obamaeconomy. He's a Harvard grad, he would use the ligature for sure.

Quite honestly - and I hate to be so reductive about a well thought out and reasoned argument - there isn't much to discuss. The brain drain is real and traceable. If anything, the Republican debates was evidence of this - where were the great articulators of ideology?

Where were the great intellectuals? Ron Paul is the only one with a plausibly coherent vision, sad as it is to say. One of the reasons he is applauded is for his credibility and consistency (rightly or wrongly). I have long said this - usually in reference to the UK, though it seems applicable to the US also - voters crave authenticity. The disillusionment with government on all levels is palpable and traceable - people want to like it and want to believe in it. However the instruments of government; elected officials most of all, consistently develop and enhance this cynicism. As it goes, I cannot countenance that I just almost endorsed Ron Paul, so sorry for that.

This is one of those good old sow-reap phenomenons. The Southern strategy, fundamentally, is a reactionary movement, and it's a reactionary movement that emerged right in the middle of the golden age of American higher education and the heavy investment in public, government-owned universities. It's not surprising that it would become associated with anti-intellectualism. Extend that out for two or three entire generations and you get a movement that's running a couple of decades behind -- kind of like the problems the South faced with infrastructure after the Civil War.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Hm, good question.

My top three goals regardless of pragmatism:

1.) Massive electoral reform. End the electoral college, publicly financed elections, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, the works.

2.) Single payer healthcare system.

3.). Equal rights amendment.

Limiting it to what *might* be reasonably accomplished...

1.) Marriage equality nationwide
2.) Tax code reform including but not limited to either eliminating the payroll tax or applying it to all income, taxing all income at the same rate.
3.) Infrastructure development.

WTF at your 1 and 2.

1)How in the FUCK do you expect the electoral college to be reformed. One that's been in place since the founding of the country. So many people would cry foul it's ridiculous, even if Obama has a legitimate reason for it. He'd have to come up with an amazing argument for the public to even THINK about changing something that's fundamentally part of the constitution due to many people's utter blind support of it.

2)Single Payer? Um...what? Public Option? Sure...given the right circumstances. But full blown single payer? We barely passed HCR and that was half-assed at bess with Democrats being full blown pussies and not backing the more superior Public Option.

I fully expect number three though. Not a doubt in my mind, bar some political bullshit.

 

[RDreamer]

Speaking of which what would you guys say your top 3 priorities for a 2nd Obama administration would be being realistic (so no sudden jump to a single payer system).

I'd say: Student Loan and higher education system is my number 1. Growing inequality is also one of my biggest issues, too. I personally want him to go all out on it, and fix our tax system to be much much more progressive, but I know that probably won't pass as much as I'd like. He'll probably put a small bandaid on it... possibly... Last, I'd say marriage equality should be tackled.

 

[HylianTom]

Speaking of which what would you guys say your top 3 priorities for a 2nd Obama administration would be being realistic (so no sudden jump to a single payer system).

Realistic?
1) liberal, young, healthy Supreme Court nominees
2) restore taxes to Clintonian levels
3) continue/extend the renewable energy tax credits for homeowners

Fantasy?
1) huge alternative energy tax breaks/credits and programs for individuals, counties/cities, and businesses
2) a tax on gasoline that would put us near what many Europeans pay per liter
3) a nationwide rail system that we don't have to be ashamed of. It doesn't even have to be "high-speed."

 

[metalslimer]

I would say top 3 realistic goals are

1) Reform the college loan and grant system (definitely putting for profit schools through more scruinty)
2) repeal of DOMA
3) Expiration of the bush tax cuts along with ending the payroll cap to keep social security solvent.

In terms of Supreme Court Nominees no one is going anywhere in the next 4 years right?

 

[Mike M]

WTF at your 1 and 2.

1)How in the FUCK do you expect the electoral college to be reformed. One that's been in place since the founding of the country. So many people would cry foul it's ridiculous, even if Obama has a legitimate reason for it. He'd have to come up with an amazing argument for the public to even THINK about changing something that's fundamentally part of the constitution due to many people's utter blind support of it.

2)Single Payer? Um...what? Public Option? Sure...given the right circumstances. But full blown single payer? We barely passed HCR and that was half-assed at bess with Democrats being full blown pussies and not backing the more superior Public Option.

I fully expect number three though. Not a doubt in my mind, bar some political bullshit.

You'll note I prefaced with those two being my top three options regardless of pragmatism. I don't expect any president ever to approach much of it.

The things I have some actual measure of hope on (small though it may be) are the second list.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I know you feel very strongly about this and admittedly it is a bit of a weaksauce for Obama, but in the grand scheme of things marijuana should, and rightly so, be on the bottom of the list of priorities for the country.

I actually agree - which is why Obama should stop fucking with the states on medical marijuana. It's a waste of resources and helps nothing.

 

[TacticalFox88]

You'll note I prefaced with those two being my top three options regardless of pragmatism. I don't expect any president ever to approach much of it.

The things I have some actual measure of hope on (small though it may be) are the second list.

My apologies. I thought you meant pragmatism as in you fully expected those to happen.

 

[Big Baybee]

3) a nationwide rail system that we don't have to be ashamed of. It doesn't even have to be "high-speed."

I wish. This was be goddamn incredible. Fucking airlines.

 

[pigeon]

I know you feel very strongly about this and admittedly it is a bit of a weaksauce for Obama, but in the grand scheme of things marijuana should, and rightly so, be on the bottom of the list of priorities for the country.

The War on Drugs is a key piece of the effort to disenfranchise people of color in America, both by limiting their economic opportunities and directly (by depriving them of the vote). The sooner we start dismantling it the better, in all sorts of ways.

Speaking of which what would you guys say your top 3 priorities for a 2nd Obama administration would be being realistic (so no sudden jump to a single payer system).

* Economic stimulus. By now the handwriting is on the wall and Obama will get credit for the recovery no matter what, so hopefully we can get something jumpstarted and actually move things along. I have to hope that there aren't too many Reps who genuinely want to impoverish their constituencies.
* Student loan reform. Private loans need looking at. Educational reform in general would be nice -- we clearly need some downward pressure on tuition -- but maybe not accomplishable.
* Taxes, taxes, taxes.

 

[ErasureAcer]

1. Higher taxes on the 1%.
2. Min wage raised to living wage and tied to inflation.
3. DOMA repeal. Don't know how Clinton is in favor of Gay Marriage when he signed this into law.

bonus pipe dream. Call back the hounds on people with pipe dreams.

 

[RDreamer]

I wish. This was be goddamn incredible. Fucking airlines.

Same here. Still one of the things I'm most pissed about with Scott Walker...

Any sort of nationwide rail system is going to be met with mega-resistance from the Republican side. Most of them get a lot of money from oil companies that strongly oppose these sorts of things. Walker based a lot of his run for governor on stopping the rail line here, and it worked.

 

[Amir0x]

In terms of Supreme Court Nominees no one is going anywhere in the next 4 years right?

Oh yeah some are.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 80 years old next year. It is critical she be replaced by someone on the left (or, Obama at least...).

And there are multiple justices in their mid 70s, so pure retirement desires or death could meet any of them:

Antonin Scalia is 77 next year
Anthony Kennedy is 77 next year
Stephen Breyer is 74 in a few days

This is an aging court. Whoever wins the next election, will replace SOMEONE. And if it is Romney and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced, the court will be it tatters for a generation.

 

[Stinkles]

If you were actually interested in fostering a debate that would make someone change their mind on a topic, or 'learn from facts' you would adopt a different tone. Many of your posts are incredibly combative, which lead to the bunker down mentality. A poster may realize they are wrong on a point, but they'll double down on it simply because they think you are an asshole. It's the Amirox syndrome.

Ah, so my rudeness has caused Republicans on gaf to stick ridgidly to their guns despite facts to the contrary. I must be powerful rude!

 

[DasRaven]

Hey, look, my next senator. On the upside: he's not as dumb as Jon Kyl.

How do you think I feel. He was one of the last reasonable Republicans around I thought and earned my vote in 2010.
He's my Congressman currently, but hopefully Carmona pulls out a narrow victory this Fall.

 

[platypotamus]

I'd like to see Bams do an etch-a-sketch on NASA funding. Don't see it as hugely likely, though.

Yeah, though Curiosity's successful landing may help.

 

[el retorno]

I'd like to see Bams do an etch-a-sketch on NASA funding. Don't see it as hugely likely, though.

That's not gonna be a priority until other nations start challenging us. Until then there's not much of a push for that. And with the desire for budget reform its chances are very low.

My big desire is to see then refocus on exploration and at least begin drawing the blueprint for a return to the moon and mars. They're not getting more money though.

 

[eznark]

Yeah, though Curiosity's successful landing may help.

We landed Curiosity on Mars with the current budget and you want more? We went to mars!

I don't think it will help.

 

[Amir0x]

Ah, so my rudeness has caused Republicans on gaf to stick ridgidly to their guns despite facts to the contrary. I must be powerful rude!

And I don't know about your motives, but my motives aren't to change people's minds. It's to force people to articulate the best version of their arguments, to hear them get riled up and passionate so that they foster the desire to fight back and defend their positions. It is then that the truth of their positions come out, and I can learn something about the perspectives of people who think differently then me. I don't care if they ever change their mind. I just want to gain insight into what makes people who think differently than I tick.

Plus it's always entertaining to separate those who can actually defend their empty positions and those who can't.

 

[metalslimer]

Oh yeah some are.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 80 years old next year. It is critical she be replaced by someone on the left (or, Obama at least...).

And there are multiple justices in their mid 70s, so pure retirement desires or death could meet any of them:

Antonin Scalia is 77 next year
Anthony Kennedy is 77 next year
Stephen Breyer is 74 in a few days

This is an aging court. Whoever wins the next election, will replace SOMEONE. And if it is Romney and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced, the court will be it tatters for a generation.

Sounds like whoever wins 2016 will be more important.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah that's mostly what I was finding. I thought going in that Thompson would be the hardest one to beat of them all. Looks like Hovde is winning the Republican support though. I'm kind of wondering if I should go vote in the primary for Hovde to give him some extra oomph, since I feel more comfortable with that matchup than Thompson.

Neumann would probably be the easiest, but either him or Hovde would be a preferable candidate to Thompson.

Then there's Jeff Fitzgerald lol

SCOTUS I expect Kennedy and Ginsberg will retire in the next presidential term, assuming Obama wins (if Romney wins the conservative justices may feel more comfortable in retiring, knowing that their successors will be like-minded). Appointing their replacements would tip the balance to the left side, slightly - one of the liberal justices would probably take Kennedy's role as the swing vote. It's imperative that Democrats win it in 2012 and 2016. 2020 just to be safe.

 

[Jooney]

So now that there has been a third shooting in under a month, the topic of gun violence has to come up in one of the debates, most likely the one staged in Colorado.

I would like for Obama to make a stand at state that sensible measures can be put in place to curb gun violence, but I hesitate to think what kind of political fall out will occur given the nation's appetite for guns.

Thoughts?

 

[RDreamer]

Neumann would probably be the easiest, but either him or Hovde would be a preferable candidate to Thompson.

Then there's Jeff Fitzgerald lol

Yeah, Neumann would be by far the easiest to beat from what I saw, but I don't think he's going to get close to winning. It seems to be a race between Thompson and Hovde. I'm not going to go help the 3rd place guy since that's not really going to do much of anything

 

[Amir0x]

Sounds like whoever wins 2016 will be more important.

EVEN more important, yes, but whoever wins this election will be critical as well

it is critical the Democrats win the next two elections to keep the supreme court level

it is basically the whole reason I vote for Democrats these days outside of health care reform reasons

 

[BotoxAgent]

Mitt Romney was in St. Augustine, FL earlier this morning. Outside of Flagler College (fun fact: this is where I went to college), he held a rally, and none other than Rick Scott introduced him.

Now, he didn't bring Paul Ryan down here, because of how unpopular he and his budget are here. So, they get the most unpopular governor in the country to introduce him. The same governor who committed Medicare fraud.

I just- I just don't get it.

So he announces Ryan as his running mate this past weekend to create a nice diversion from the bad week he had. But the first thing he does this week is to go to Florida, and he expect people to magically not associate him with Ryan just by the virtue of not having Ryan show up? This campaign, man.

 

[TacticalFox88]

EVEN more important, yes, but whoever wins this election will be critical as well

it is critical the Democrats win the next two elections to keep the supreme court level

it is basically the whole reason I vote for Democrats these days outside of health care reform reasons

With the way things are shifting demographically, Republicans are NEVER going to win the White House again so long as they try the same old strategies.

 

[metalslimer]

So now that there has been a third shooting in under a month, the topic of gun violence has to come up in one of the debates, most likely the one staged in Colorado.

I would like for Obama to make a stand at state that sensible measures can be put in place to curb gun violence, but I hesitate to think what kind of political fall out will occur given the nation's appetite for guns.

Thoughts?

He already gave a sensible speech on gun violence. No matter what he says the NRA will paint is as Obama violating the constitution and gun sales will go up as people stockpile. It's going to take something much more heinous that a couple of shootings to get people to change the current ideas about gun laws. Honestly gun control is not a huge issue anymore as anyone who cares that much about it either way most likely have already decided on their candidate.

 

[Amir0x]

With the way things are shifting demographically, Republicans are NEVER going to win the White House again so long as they try the same old strategies.

oh how little you know about this fickle country

one super bad economy will kick either party out to be replaced by the other. if that party were to be successful, then they would revise the demographics for a generation

 

[Farmboy]

Honestly, campaign finance reform - real reform that goes a lot further than McCain-Feingold - should be a top priority. The way campaigns are financed right now is a systemic problem that just about poisons everything.

 

[The Chosen One]

No it isn't. My wife and I pay $2600 a month in rent for 400 square feet. If we have a kid we'll have to move.

I think some of you don't realize how much 250k a year is. It's almost 21k a month. Even if your rent doubled, it would still only account for a 1/4 of your monthly income. Unless you're living in some ultra exclusive area, 250K is hardly "modest" income Unless your definition is different from everyone else's...

 

[el retorno]

Honestly, campaign finance reform - real reform that goes a lot further than McCain-Feingold - should be a top priority. The way campaigns are financed right now is a systemic problem that just about poisons everything.

I don't know how you do that with Citizens United

 

[Arrowgigantic]

oh how little you know about this fickle country

one super bad economy will kick either party out to be replaced by the other. if that party were to be successful, then they would revise the demographics for a generation

It's true, look how many in PoliGAF were batting their eyes and blushing with the idea of Huntsman as the GOP candidate. Have a moderate plank or two in your shitbag platform, win votes from idiots.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/13/romney-brilliant-foreign-policy-choice/

Ryan is a BRILLIANT foreign policy choice.

Sometimes reading a fox news editorial is like reading the onion.

 

[Cheebo]

Haha this is the picture they use of the author?

 

[Plinko]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/13/romney-brilliant-foreign-policy-choice/

Ryan is a BRILLIANT foreign policy choice.

Sometimes reading a fox news editorial is like reading the onion.

Just reading through that article makes my head hurt. The line of "logic" used is laughable at best.

 

[RDreamer]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/13/romney-brilliant-foreign-policy-choice/

Ryan is a BRILLIANT foreign policy choice.

Sometimes reading a fox news editorial is like reading the onion.

I'm not even going to comment on most of that. I am going to comment on the running thread I've seen through Republican websites and in comments by Republicans. They seem to think that we need the plans of people like Romney in order to escape future "forced austerity." This whole argument seems strange to me. Essentially they're saying "We need forced austerity in order to escape future forced austerity." It doesn't make any sense to me.

The other odd thing is that half of them bring up Europe when saying it, like they don't realize Europe was forced downward again by the same sort of austerity they're pushing.

The whole thing seems akin to saying "We need to burn our house down to escape a possible future house burning. I mean look at the neighbor. He burned his house down! We don't want that!"

 

[BotoxAgent]

Haha this is the picture they use of the author?

so watchya thinkin?

 

[RDreamer]

Ok, this obvious typo got a giggle out of me:

On its website and in an email Monday, House Speaker John Boehner’s office said President Obama needs to take personal responsibility for the drought ravaging the Midwest.

Obama, “continues to blame anyone and everyone for the drought but himself,” reads a release from Boehner’s office posted online and distributed to reporters Monday.

 

[Marvie_3]

DAMN THAT OBAMA FOR HOLDING BACK RAINSTORMS

 

[Amir0x]

DAMN THAT OBAMA FOR HOLDING BACK RAINSTORMS

seems our politicians need more theocratic law makin', like that audacious and foreward thinkin' governor of Texas! He is always talkin' about praying for more rain, now that's a man I can get behind

 

[empty vessel]

I'm not even going to comment on most of that. I am going to comment on the running thread I've seen through Republican websites and in comments by Republicans. They seem to think that we need the plans of people like Romney in order to escape future "forced austerity." This whole argument seems strange to me. Essentially they're saying "We need forced austerity in order to escape future forced austerity." It doesn't make any sense to me.

Exactly. ToxicAdam makes this argument all the damn time. I don't understand it. Let's cut our benefits today so we don't have to cut them tomorrow! Austerity today! Not tomorrow!

 

[FLEABttn]

Thoughts?

It's a non-starter. The scale of a tragedy that would even make a majority of Americans think that a lack of guns is a good idea would have to be unprecedented and more sickening than anything we've ever gone through.


Obama doing anything on the gun front would only re-affirm the support of some of the people who were already voting for him. It wouldn't earn him additional votes and would likely scare off "independents".

 

[RDreamer]

Exactly. ToxicAdam makes this argument all the damn time. I don't understand it. Let's cut our benefits today so we don't have to cut them tomorrow! Austerity today! Not tomorrow!

Even if you don't buy into the MMT thing I don't understand why debt is this huge ticking time bomb right now. We've gone the entirety of our existence as a country with one exception during the Andrew Jackson presidency with a debt. Why is it after over 200 years of this it'll suddenly blow up in our faces if we don't do anything right now? And to make matters worse that right now is during a freaking recession! Now's the worst time to be worrying about that!

 

[thekad]

Speaking of which what would you guys say your top 3 priorities for a 2nd Obama administration would be being realistic (so no sudden jump to a single payer system).

Realistically, I doubt anything of significance will get done unless Democrats hold the Senate (and take the House) and reform the filibuster. Maybe Obama will be able to add another justice on the Supreme Court. Maybe.