Support NeoGAF

[Clevinger]

It's true, although I am unsure to what degree he was joking or honestly didn't know how to explain gravity. I am not even saying he isn't a really, really, strong-right conservative in many ideals. But to lump him in with Hannity, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and the rest of the psychos on Fox News is somewhat disingenuous. I believe he is for gay marriage, legalizing weed and many other things.

Do you have proof of that? I remember him a couple years ago saying if we let gay people marry then we'll have to let people marry dogs or some bullshit like that and comparing it to polygamy. And legalizing weed seems hard to believe as well.

I do agree though that he's outclassed by people like Hannity, Beck, Boling etc. but it's to no credit of his own. The party/network has just been embracing more and more insane and rabid media figures.

 

[Oblivion]

I have heard him support things like gay marriage, legalizing weed, and stricter gun regulation. The problem is any of those opinions can change on any given day. Not too many weeks ago, he was whining about how gay people didn't need the whole "marriage" thing cause civil unions gave them everything they need.

 

[Oblivion]

Also, this is quite tragicomedic:

According to the Boston Globe's analysis, if Romney wins, he'll be the "first presidential candidate elected without carrying his home state since before the Civil War. James K. Polk lost Tennessee en route to the White House -- 168 years ago."

Think that's pretty humiliating? Here comes the twisting of the daggers:

In case you're thinking it's unfair to characterize Massachusetts as Romney's home state -- he also owns mansions in New Hampshire and California -- the Republican is expected to lose all three of his home states.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/17/11745798-over-before-it-starts-in-massachusetts

Oh, Mittens.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Also, this is quite tragicomedic:



Think that's pretty humiliating? Here comes the twisting of the daggers:



http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/17/11745798-over-before-it-starts-in-massachusetts

Oh, Mittens.

Don't forget Michigan.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Don't forget Michigan.

Or Poland.

 

[eznark]

No wonder Barrett has yet to mention collective bargaining....remember, the ostensible reason for the recall?

Collective Bargaining
Collective bargaining continues to divide the electorate by single digits. Voters prefer to keep the current collective bargaining law rather than return to what it was prior to last year, by a 50-43 percentage point margin. Restoring collective bargaining is supported by 78 percent of Democrats and opposed by 81 percent of Republicans. Among independents, 53 percent want to keep the current law while 38 percent want to return to the previous law. In the April poll, 49 percent said they favored limiting collective bargaining for most public employees, while 45 percent opposed such limits. In the January poll, using different wording, the public was more evenly split, with 48 percent favoring limiting public employee bargaining over benefits and non-wage issues, while 47 percent were opposed.

Landslide incoming

 

[Oblivion]

Don't forget Michigan.

lol

In fairness to Mittens, if he winds up winning the overall election, all this other stuff won't be nearly as amusing.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Yea, I find that kind of discussion pointless.

 

[eznark]

Romney-esque!:

I caught up with Mayor Barrett to ask him why he didn't attend the ceremonies. He said he would need to check his schedule and get back to me. I asked him how he could not know what he was doing Wednesday and Tuesday. He claimed he didn't know his schedule. "I was working. I was… I'll have to get back to you about the specifics," the mayor told me.

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/151951295.html

Tom Barrett doesn't know what he was doing yesterday? Is he a drug addict? Does he murder hookers with Sean Hannity?

MILWAUKEE- Law enforcement officials are angered and looking for answers after Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett did not attend two separate law enforcement recognition ceremonies this week, including one that recognizes Milwaukee police officers killed in the line of duty.

On Tuesday evening, the Milwaukee police department held their annual Merit Awards Ceremony. Mayor Barrett was scheduled to be at that event. Organizers tell me he canceled so late that there wasn't even time to take his name off the program. It was on the printed program that evening.

On Wednesday, the annual ceremony to honor the courage and sacrifice of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty was held. Organizers say Mayor Barrett said he would be there. He wasn't. Governor Scott Walker was there; Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn was there; Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke was in attendance; Attorney General JB Van Hollen showed up; Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm and Milwaukee Police Association President Mike Crivello were there. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was not there.

 

[PhoenixDark]

What a disaster. Wisconsin just might go red in November too at this rate. The voter ID law will certainly help

 

[Dominican Power]

Can somebody explain to what this "Right to work" and "Citizens United" thing is all about?

 

[empty vessel]

Can somebody explain to what this "Right to work" and "Citizens United" thing is all about?

"Right to work" is a euphemism in the class war for reducing the bargaining power of employees vis-a-vis employers (i.e., lowering wages and salaries). Citizens United is the name of a Supreme Court decision that grants political rights to state institutions to influence American elections (i.e., authoritarianism).

In a nutshell.

 

[eznark]

Can somebody explain to what this "Right to work" and "Citizens United" thing is all about?

right to work = freedom from forced organization
citizens united = freedom of speech

in a nutshell

 

[Jonm1010]

What a disaster. Wisconsin just might go red in November too at this rate. The voter ID law will certainly help

Honest question, why aren't these voter ID laws considered a poll tax?

 

[empty vessel]

right to work = freedom from forced organization
citizens united = freedom of speech

in a nutshell

I think you mean right to work = freedom to freeload off the work of others. (A truly Libertarian ideal)

And Citizens United = Power of government to influence own elections. (Also strongly supported by Libertarians)

 

[empty vessel]

"Citizens United" is a Supreme Court decision that shot down parts of previous campaign finance laws on First Amendment grounds. Essentially, people can do an end-around on campaign contribution limits by forming SuperPACs to funnel the money straight into ads without giving it directly to the candidate they support. Supporters say this is good for freedom of speech, etc, opponents say it basically means elections are even more about money than they already were.

This doesn't really get to what Citizens United did. People--i.e., American citizens--could always do an end-around on individual campaign contribution limits by donating to PACs. There has never been any prohibition against an individual citizen donating to PACs. Citizens United empowers corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money any time they want to influence elections. It says Congress lacks the power to enact any prohibitions on indirect corporate spending to influence elections. Corporations are entities that are created and empowered by state governments (and occasionally by the federal government, e.g., Freddie Mac). In other words, they are government agencies.

So Citizens United empowers government agencies to influence elections. It does no less than reverse the American revolution of 1776, which rejected the idea of governments of inherent authority in favor of popular sovereignty--rule by the people. We no longer have that.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Am I the only one who thinks that even a single citizen being able to give millions to a politician is ridiculous? Call me fucking insane but I wouldn't be that much against doing things such as "maximum ad limit" or stuff like that.

 

[Suikoguy]

Am I the only one who thinks that even a single citizen being able to give millions to a politician is ridiculous? Call me fucking insane but I wouldn't be that much against doing things such as "maximum ad limit" or stuff like that.

What's more insane is that you can do it ANONYMOUSLY via a superpac loophole.

HOW THE FUCK IS THIS ALLOWED

 

[el jacko]

Corporations are entities that are created and empowered by state governments (and occasionally by the federal government, e.g., Freddie Mac). In other words, they are government agencies.

So Citizens United empowers government agencies to influence elections. It does no less than reverse the American revolution of 1776, which rejected the idea of governments of inherent authority in favor of popular sovereignty--rule by the people. We no longer have that.

I hate to derail from politics, but how are corporations government agencies? An LLC is privately established and owned, no? This does not allow actually government corporations, such as the MTA or the Port Authority (to use NYC examples) from contributing?

 

[Dominican Power]

Here, let me have a go at an actual explanation.

"Right to work" refers to laws that ban unions from making agreements with employers regarding required membership. Supporters say this gives employees more freedom, since they can choose to join unions or not. Opponents say this encourages free-riders (people who choose not to join the union still get all the benefits the union has fought for, but without paying dues), and is an attempt to undercut the power of unions.

Effectively, "right to work" does more or less what ev said--undermine employee bargaining power.

"Citizens United" is a Supreme Court decision that shot down parts of previous campaign finance laws on First Amendment grounds. Essentially, people can do an end-around on campaign contribution limits by forming SuperPACs to funnel the money straight into ads without giving it directly to the candidate they support. Supporters say this is good for freedom of speech, etc, opponents say it basically means elections are even more about money than they already were.

Effectively, Citizens United has resulted in an outpouring of cash monies from the very rich into advertising.

This doesn't really get to what Citizens United did. People--i.e., American citizens--could always do an end-around on individual campaign contribution limits by donating to PACs. There has never been any prohibition against an individual citizen donating to PACs. Citizens United empowers corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money any time they want to influence elections. It says Congress lacks the power to enact any prohibitions on indirect corporate spending to influence elections. Corporations are entities that are created and empowered by state governments (and occasionally by the federal government, e.g., Freddie Mac). In other words, they are government agencies.

So Citizens United empowers government agencies to influence elections. It does no less than reverse the American revolution of 1776, which rejected the idea of governments of inherent authority in favor of popular sovereignty--rule by the people. We no longer have that.

So, essentially The GOP is for helping the elite in whatever manner they can.

 

[empty vessel]

I hate to derail from politics, but how are corporations government agencies? An LLC is privately established and owned, no?

No, it is not privately established. It is applied for by a private individual, but established by a state government. The state government creates the entity--which is separate from the individual--and bestows it through state power with limited liability. The newly created state entity has a director and members. But it is an entirely separate thing from the individual citizen who applied for its creation.

I applied for an LLC and was granted directorship of an LLC. I exercise state power through it. But I am not it.

 

[Jonm1010]

lols


Because while they are obviously voter suppression, they aren't actually poll taxes.

But if the only way to acquire an ID is through monetary payment isn't that an indirect tax and a barrier to entry for what is a constitutional right?

 

[eznark]

But if the only way to acquire an ID is through monetary payment isn't that an indirect tax and a barrier to entry for what is a constitutional right?

A free ID is offered in all cases I believe. I generally agree with you on this though. Making it more onerous to vote is idiotic.

 

[Frank the Great]

the supreme court said that the government does not need to produce ANY evidence of actual voter fraud in order to justify voter ID laws, because even if the laws do nothing else, they preserve people's confidence in the voting system. crawford v. marion county.

the supreme court also said that the government DOES need to produce actual evidence that political contributions to PACs lead to corruption in order to justify campaign finance laws, and they specifically said that restricting political contributions does NOT increase public confidence in the electoral system. citizens united.

 

[Frank the Great]

As far as I know, actual government corporations still can't meddle. Private corporations aren't government agencies; this is one of those ev language things.

corporations are granted many privileges by the state. they are governed by the corporate code, they are given cool benefits like perpetual life and all kinds of tax advantages, and the shareholders get immunity from liability. certificates of incorporation are issued by the state upon application by an individual; they would literally not exist if they were not created by the government. corporations are completely creatures of statute, none of them are really "private" in any sense.

they aren't government agencies though, either. that is just nonsense. just because the state creates something, does not mean that what it creates is a state agency. the state also grants licenses to individuals to practice medicine, but that does not make doctors government employees.

 

[empty vessel]

As far as I know, actual government corporations still can't meddle. Private corporations aren't government agencies; this is one of those ev language things.

Ha. I like you, Cyan (just wanted to say in case I haven't before), but it's not just an ev language thing. Corporations of any kind are agents of the government. As a legal matter. They are new legal entities (i.e., not citizens) created by government power.

You can call them hybrid entities, if you want, but because they nevertheless have state power, they would be considered state entities by proponents of popularity sovereignty, e.g. American revolutionaries. Corporations pre-existed the American revolution. Indeed, the Boston Tea Party was an action against a corporation. Why? Because corporations were understood to be government entities, due to their having been granted existence by the king.

So, essentially The GOP is for helping the elite in whatever manner they can.

I would say yes. And the Democrats aren't far behind.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Check out Drudge's front page, bros

If this is the new strategy, Romney is fucked

oh my

 

[Dominican Power]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...gay-marriage/2012/03/29/gIQAzatzjS_story.html

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76340.html

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...gay-marriage/2012/03/29/gIQAzatzjS_story.html

“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative,” Cameron said in a recent landmark speech on the issue. “I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

He is also making a pitch to uneasy religious conservatives, suggesting that the institution of marriage will reinforce traditional values of commitment and monogamy within the gay community. Married same-sex couples, for instance, could file for divorce on the grounds of adultery — a legal option not currently considered in civil partnership laws.

I'm so fucking confused right now.

 

[makingmusic476]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76340.html

Last comment is perfect:

You are delusional. The GOP has repeatedly failed to support the Equal Rights Amendment, voted against Equal Pay legislation, and voted to defund the most extensive healthcare network for poor women in the nation.

Your GOP has granted women's doctors the right to lie to them, mandated invasive, unnecessary and costly healthcare procedures for women seeking LEGAL healthcare procedures, and now want to pass personhood bills which would effectively outlaw any kind of contraceptives.

The GOP has voted to inject religious dogma into school curriculum, and used religious dogma to deny equal rights to lesbian and gay couples despite the US constitution which upholds the principle of equal treatment under the law?

Oh, you are concerned about my financial welfare? I don't think so - you seem determined to throttle earned Social Security benefits which 60% of women over the age of 65 depend on for at least 90% of their TOTAL monthly income. You want to defund family care services that help me stay gainfully employed. You want to cut my earned unemployment benefits and make me pee into a cup to humiliate me for losing my job. You want to throw out the food stamps that help me feed my family if I only earn minimum wages and struggle as the working poor.

My health? You seem determined to overturn the ACA, which helps me provide affordable coverage for the 40 MILLION Americans without healthcare. You want to obliterate Medicare and turn it into some kind of voucher (coupon) program that would force me to shop for a healthcare provider to cover my aging and chronically ill body - which would drive up my costs by $6,000 a year I don't have.

The GOP as the party for women? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Dominican Power]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmG7Rasb-JQ&feature=youtu.be

 

[jaxword]

Check out Drudge's front page, bros

If this is the new strategy, Romney is fucked

Romney's already lost, so they may as well go out with a screaming explosion of racism and hatred.

 

[SteveWinwood]

I'm so fucking confused right now.

I don't agree with it for a lot of reasons, but I can see where he would get his logical conclusions from following his thought patterns.

 

[makingmusic476]

Romney's already lost, so they may as well go out with a screaming explosion of racism and hatred.

The Wisconsin polls have me wondering just how "in the bag" this thing is.

I thought Wisconsin wasn't really a swing state for Presidential elections anymore, but it's looking neck and neck.

 

[eBay Huckster]

The Wisconsin polls have me wondering just how "in the bag" this thing is.

I thought Wisconsin wasn't really a swing state for Presidential elections anymore, but it's looking neck and neck.

Wisconsin also seems to have an electorate right now that doesn't quite mesh with its usual presidential-election electorate.

 

[jaxword]

The Wisconsin polls have me wondering just how "in the bag" this thing is.

I thought Wisconsin wasn't really a swing state for Presidential elections anymore, but it's looking neck and neck.

Wisconsin is...strange this year.

I'm pretty sure Obama's got this won simply due to the gay marriage endorsement. That alone really shifted the media and public's attention away from the economy and into murky "morals" territory. Now instead of arguing whose numbers look better they get to argue over who gets to oppress the homosexuals more, which isn't a winning fight, period.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I'm so fucking confused right now.

Here's something mindblowing for you, the leader of the Scottish wing of the Conservative Party is a lesbian.

 

[eznark]

The Wisconsin polls have me wondering just how "in the bag" this thing is.

I thought Wisconsin wasn't really a swing state for Presidential elections anymore, but it's looking neck and neck.

That's foolish. Wisconsin has been a double digit state twice in the last 70 years or something crazy like that. Yes it has generally broken blue but it's almost always close.

The good think for you though is that, as Barrett is showing and Kerry showed previously, voting against someone is rarely enough. To win people probably have to be voting for you, and I think that will never happen for Romney. Yeah half the country or so wants Obama out, but no one gives a shit if Romney is in. That will ultimately kill him in states like Wisconsin.

 

[teruterubozu]

Depends on who Romney picks for VP.

The GOP votes based on the VP spot, as we learned in 2008.

I'm betting he will pick another female candidate to deflate the "war on women" rhetoric.

 

[jaxword]

Depends on who Romney picks for VP.

The GOP votes based on the VP spot, as we learned in 2008.

I'm betting he will pick another female candidate to deflate the "war on women" rhetoric.

I just realized we'd have the most awkward election debate topics ever if he took a black VP.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeveryone wants to say it, but no one will.


Edit--What if it were a black WOMEN vp? Whoa.

 

[Black Republican]

I just realized we'd have the most awkward election debate topics ever if he took a black VP.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeveryone wants to say it, but no one will.


Edit--What if it were a black WOMEN vp? Whoa.

mia love from utah? mormon x2 ticket would be awesome

 

[Drek]

The Wisconsin polls have me wondering just how "in the bag" this thing is.

I thought Wisconsin wasn't really a swing state for Presidential elections anymore, but it's looking neck and neck.

Wisconsin is slanting red right now just because of the recall election. It likely starts swinging back after the election to it's more normal course.

The interesting thing to see in Wisconsin is how much the democratic ground game can close the gap between polling data and real results. They already have similar ground games in Ohio and Iowa. It will give us some idea how much we can expect it to push the numbers. Is it two or three points, or will it be 5 points?

 

[War Peaceman]

I'm so fucking confused right now.

Why? The Conservative leadership see success in outflanking Labour on social issues. They have made a significant effort to rebrand themselves away from being the 'nasty party'. Also, they are in coalition with the most socially liberal party, the Liberal Democrats so it is convenient in that regard.

Also, it is freebie legislation - we already have civil partnerships and nobody cares about that, so it just makes them look good for no substantive cost (besides whiney Tory backbenchers, who are notoriously unsatisfiable). Win-win for everyone really.

EDIT: The article is rather misleading. The Coalition is pushing for gay marriage (or was planning to), this following a Labour government that was indisputably excellent for gay rights. The Liberal Democrats would also be excellent for gay rights, were they able to form a government. The Conservative leadership is doing a good thing here, but there is a general consensus on the issue.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Romney's already lost, so they may as well go out with a screaming explosion of racism and hatred.

Anybody who thinks Romney has already lost is crazy. His favorables are up big, polls are tightening and Obama doesn't have a spending advantage.

 

[ToxicAdam]

^^ Don't fall for the media bullshit. This race is over.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Anybody who thinks Romney has already lost is crazy. His favorables are up big, polls are tightening and Obama doesn't have a spending advantage.

A lot of donors aren't going to give anything to Obama until they feel Romney actually has a chance.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

^^ Don't fall for the media bullshit. This race is over.

Polls aren't media BS?

 

[RoninChaos]

Last comment is perfect:

Agreed.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Polls aren't media BS?

Of course, polls are bullshit too. Especially this far out from the election.

Look, if I were a media company/polling arm ... and I took three polls in the same weekend about the election. Two came back with pretty much the same information I had last time I polled, but the third one came back with the underdog candidate making up some ground ... which one do you think I am going to run with? Which becomes the sexier story?

Money and eyeballs drive their decision making. You're going to see many different 'swings' back and forth over the next 3 months with these numbers. But the fundamentals of why Romney cannot win will always be there.