cartoon_soldier
Member
Conservatives have always used foreign press, in most of cases tabloids in the UK to push news that US publicans or media would never give attention too.
-
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 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Conservatives have always used foreign press, in most of cases tabloids in the UK to push news that US publicans or media would never give attention too.
But eznark told me they were all liberal hackshttp://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...t-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
The most liberal justice is smack dab in the center. Ginsberg is progressive in a relative sense.
He was too honest. Corporate-run Media strikes again.
I don't see what's sleazy.
People publish op-eds in foreign papers all the time.
That being said, Glenn Hubbard should really just shut the fuck up.
I can't imagine why would anyone even listen to him when he was wrong about everything.
Black Republican
Member
so bashir is taking the 4pm slot, 3pm needs to be filled
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/who-will-take-msnbcs-pm-slot-125776.html#.T9VQ11hhadg
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/who-will-take-msnbcs-pm-slot-125776.html#.T9VQ11hhadg
Orbis Tabula
Member
I think these ones are the winners. Especially if bringing new people into discussion is something we desire. Every time there is a political thread outside PoliGAF, too many people complain "I love Politics, but PoliGAF is a liberal echo chamber." It's hard to entice new people in, especially, those whose views disagree with the majority here, but I think it's something that needs to be pushed for. This discussion comes up every time there is a new thread, so I realize this isn't something new, but I really hope something can be done about this. That's one of the reasons I favor the last suggestion.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I liek
From a neutral perspective.
From a neutral perspective.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I love MHP and Chris Hayes. After seeing them both in action, MHP seems much more niche than I expected. Don't get me wrong, Saturday mornings on MSNBC have some of the smartest conversations on television. But no way does MHP need a daily.
Chris Hayes could do it, though there's no way he could keep his professorial presentation (which I freaking love). Crystal Ball could as well, but she wouldn't last long.
I'm personally rooting for Ezra Klein, but he's still pretty meh with the teleprompter. I question whether he can officiate a conversation rather than be in one of the corners, but he's probably the most marketable and smartest product that could fit in a daily.
Personally, I think MSBNC should go like this:
They need to axe Ed and Al as soon as possible, but apparently they both play extremely well. If you haven't noticed, Rachel has somewhat taken over the network (in terms of "coaching trees") and I can't imagine a better person to do so.
Chris Hayes could do it, though there's no way he could keep his professorial presentation (which I freaking love). Crystal Ball could as well, but she wouldn't last long.
I'm personally rooting for Ezra Klein, but he's still pretty meh with the teleprompter. I question whether he can officiate a conversation rather than be in one of the corners, but he's probably the most marketable and smartest product that could fit in a daily.
Personally, I think MSBNC should go like this:
- Morning Joe's Morning Cocktail Hours
- Chuck Todd's Amazing Political Circus
- Andrea Mitchell's False Equivalence, Never Lets on How Fucking Smart She Is
- Alex Wagner's Tennis Audience Cosplay, First Left, then Right
- Ezra Klein's Lispy Economic Sweetness
- Martin Bashir's Forced Outrage, Uncomfortable Repertoire With Basically Everyone
- Chris Matthews' No Longer Quite Hardball
- Chris Hayes' and the Technicolor Dream Brain
- Lawrence O'Donnell's Righteous Angry True-Liberalism
- Rachel Maddow's Best First-15 Minutes on Nightly Television
They need to axe Ed and Al as soon as possible, but apparently they both play extremely well. If you haven't noticed, Rachel has somewhat taken over the network (in terms of "coaching trees") and I can't imagine a better person to do so.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I know this is crazy, and we just met, but why not have a serious title?
Invisible_Insane
Member
This is NeoGAF, dude. Besides, complaints are perpetually being made about PoliGAF's lack of levity.
Eh, maybe at first, but I can't see this being a health care election. It'll be about the economy when the convention nears.
Oddly enough, if the SCOTUS upheld even the mandate, then I think it would be a bigger deal. Congressional Republicans would go apeshit.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I'm pretty sure that no matter they decide, a whole lot of people are going to go apeshit. There's a realistic scenario in which any decision motivates the other side to come out in droves for 2012.
Striking down the mandate and leaving the rest intact seems to me like something that would have a neutralizing effect in terms of Democrats and Republicans feeling compelled to vote.
If the whole law were to be upheld, you'd have all the same Tea Party idiots making "Obamacare" front and center.
If the entire law were to be struck down you'd have Democrats screaming bloody murder and would be willing to express that at the polls.
If the mandate is struck down but the law survives, Republicans will be happy but also will feel like it needs to be "fixed" or most likely repealed. "A step forward" if you will.
Democrats will be glad it wasn't totally thrown out but will want to do everything they can to ensure it's "fixed" properly and not the way Mitt Romney and the GOP would have their way with it.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
edit: misread your comment, diablos.
That would be such a disaster, everyone would be pissed.
That would be such a disaster, everyone would be pissed.
That's a discussion forum in a nutshell.
Well, outside Nolan movie threads, those are circle jerks.
Insurance companies will go apeshit in that case and rightfully so.
You can't force them to accept patients with pre-existing conditions if there is no mandate; people will just never get insurance until they get sick.
I think striking down the entire law can be thrown out the window. I really don't think that will happen. Its either entire law is fine or mandate gets struck down.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Fuck man, no idea.
If I was held at gunpoint and had to guess at this moment, I'd say the whole thing probably goes down, 5-4. I don't think they'll split it up, and I don't think Kennedy swings.
I think Alito/Scalia/Roberts/Thomas, in combination with Bush/Cheney and the Iraq War, will go down as the third most difficult/shameful part of American History:
In order:
1. Slavery/Civil War
2. The Great Depression/ WWII
3. Bush/Cheney / Iraq / Katrina / The Great Recession
4. Late Guilded Age, The 1890s Depression
5. Nixon / Vietnam / Civil Rights Era
I guess that covers pretty much everything, except for some of the questionable actions of the founding fathers.
If I was held at gunpoint and had to guess at this moment, I'd say the whole thing probably goes down, 5-4. I don't think they'll split it up, and I don't think Kennedy swings.
I think Alito/Scalia/Roberts/Thomas, in combination with Bush/Cheney and the Iraq War, will go down as the third most difficult/shameful part of American History:
In order:
1. Slavery/Civil War
2. The Great Depression/ WWII
3. Bush/Cheney / Iraq / Katrina / The Great Recession
4. Late Guilded Age, The 1890s Depression
5. Nixon / Vietnam / Civil Rights Era
I guess that covers pretty much everything, except for some of the questionable actions of the founding fathers.
The Librarian
Banned
Not necessarily. Beyond the mandate, ACA offers a lot of subsidies to low and middle income Americans who wouldn't purchase insurance otherwise because it's so expensive. Cohn had a good blog about this earlier in the week.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I've been of the opinion since this case went to arguments that the court may rule this way because they'll confuse maximizing the number of unhappy parties with s fair decision.
You can't pin Vietnam on Nixon.
Also, you're forgetting the Indian, well, the Indian everything, the Spanish American war, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Iran and and I'm sure I'm forgetting many other things.
I don't see Roberts court getting close to any of these.
Just saying.
Edit: And for what it's worth, from a theoretical perspective, I can live with striking down of the mandate.
I'm a practical person and as I see it as an improvement over the current situation I would like to see it stand, but if you came to me and say - "I want to start a country from scratch, and we're going to put in our constitutions that the government can't force the citizens to buy a product from private for profit companies", I would be pretty okay with that.
So while I think that Roberts is a partisan shill, from a legal point of a view, I don't think such decision would be so radical.
But you know, I'm not a huge fan of the whole judicial review thing to begin with (and yeah, I apply it to Roe v. Wade as well).
Also, you're forgetting the Indian, well, the Indian everything, the Spanish American war, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Iran and and I'm sure I'm forgetting many other things.
I don't see Roberts court getting close to any of these.
Just saying.
Edit: And for what it's worth, from a theoretical perspective, I can live with striking down of the mandate.
I'm a practical person and as I see it as an improvement over the current situation I would like to see it stand, but if you came to me and say - "I want to start a country from scratch, and we're going to put in our constitutions that the government can't force the citizens to buy a product from private for profit companies", I would be pretty okay with that.
So while I think that Roberts is a partisan shill, from a legal point of a view, I don't think such decision would be so radical.
But you know, I'm not a huge fan of the whole judicial review thing to begin with (and yeah, I apply it to Roe v. Wade as well).
TacticalFox88
Banned
No. Screw that. If the mandate is struck down, it will make improving the law an extreme uphill battle, dealing with not only morons in Congress, but a useless SC that will likely overanalyze every new piece of legislation that intends to head down the path of Single Payer.
Oh boy.
I don't think we have any idea what's really gonna happen. :|
Listen, we're going to end with medicare for all.
You know it, I know it, the GOP knows it, even the insurance industry knows it.
If I ever hear a squeak from the supreme court or the GOP about striking medicare down then I'll start to worry.
For 30 seconds, before I remember what it will do to them politically.
I don't think farm subsidies are crippling our nation nor do I think they should be eliminated, but it's just some information I found interesting.
I think its pretty obvious they need to be massively reworked. Farm welfare has outgrown its usefulness and shouldn't given out to people already making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I don't think farm subsidies are crippling our nation nor do I think they should be eliminated, but it's just some information I found interesting.
Not as high as I suspected. But still something that makes me feel uncomfortable.
adamsappel
Member
Why the hell not? How about just Cambodia and Laos, then?
Sirpopopop
Member
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...t-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
The most liberal justice is smack dab in the center. Ginsberg is progressive in a relative sense.
The Martin-Quinn standard is only based on whether a justice affirmed or dissented on an opinion. The standard doesn't look at the court case to determine the liberal and conservative viewpoints in each case. Rather the ideology of justices is taken as notice, e.g. if a justice agrees with Scalia, that's one for the conservative tally, and that results in a rightward drift. Since, we have four extremely reliable conservative justices, and only two reliable liberal justices, (too early in the game to tell with Kagan) the drift is going to move rightward.
Therefore, the best way to discern Ginsburg's stripes is to look at her work and her views.
She worked on quite a few S.Ct cases for the ACLU's Women Rights section. (Not where a centrist would work.) She supports the citation of foreign laws in U.S. jurisprudence.(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1) She pretty much shit upon the U.S. Constitution as a model for other countries to use when drafting their own constitutions. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/ginsburg-likes-s-africa-as-model-for-egypt/
She's pro-gun control. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg.htm
These aren't centrist views. Not even close. On the world-wide stage they would be centrist. However, in the United States they aren't.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Cambodia is probably the biggest blow back in American history.
Nixon didn't want Vietnam, Nixon tried to leave Vietnam, and while I don't agree with his methods, unlike LBJ (who shared the same goal, thank you very much for that awesome legacy JFK) he actually succeeded in ending that war.
And generally, Nixon was a great president on foreign policy.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Just a quick question because you seem brushed on in Vietnam policy and stuff. Was Communist Vietnam a highly brutal and oppressive regime? What I mean is that would the nation be significantly better if the anti-Communists won (given what you know about them, its impossible to be sure of anything)?
PhoenixDark
Banned
They could strike down the entire law. But getting rid of the mandate would basically kill it as well. Insurance companies would go crazy if they were stuck with the law without the mandate, and republicans wouldn't do anything to help solve the issue.
I think one or the other will happen, and regardless the law will be shitcanned before it truly goes into effect. A shame, but at the same time it's rather laughable that the administration didn't change around some language/severablity clause/etc at the time. There were folks out there who wondered about what the SC might do, back in 09/10
But why? All the subsidies, and provisions about having kids on their parents plans until their 26, etc. aren't constitutional issues.
It would've been two nations had South Vietnam won.
Anyway, it's hard to tell, there were lots of bad brutal people in that part of the world, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the US involvement there did not help the situation.
Rocket Scientist
Member
While I'm still hoping that they uphold everything, the mandate being stricken down but everything else left standing would probably be most entertaining. Insurance companies would freak out, Republicans and Democrats would freak out because their big donors are freaking out, tea party and Romney would still want to kill obamacare dead, and obama, I don't know, but it'd be crazy good entertainment. If the SC believes that the mandate is an overreach of government then surely they must feel that striking down everything would be an overreach by them.
Also, Ross Doudadth thinks if you're pro-choice, you're pro-eugenics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/o...nics-past-and-future.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
That's not an exaggeration, btw.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/o...nics-past-and-future.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
That's not an exaggeration, btw.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Pretty much. Because of U.S. involvement, Pol Pot rose to power killing more people than Vietnam killed, and in the end Vietnam wasn't that bad, they were only Communist for around a decade and are now essentially a smaller China.
eBay Huckster
Member
Oh God I love that article's 'reader's picks' comments so, so much.
Had South Vietnam remained, it would have likely evolved similarly to South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, in that it would have had a massive economic boom under a brutal dictatorship equally oppressive as any of those countries, or North Vietnam and mainland China. Maybe it would have had a democratic revolution like Korea and Taiwan? "What if" history questions are hard.
EDIT: but yes, you're right about Cambodia. It was a small, struggling country but with a decent economic future that was immediately snuffed out by Pol Pot (and, indirectly, the US govt for putting him into power). I've heard some people say that Cambodia still hasn't recovered from the Khmer Rouge (as he killed anyone with an education)
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I thought Communist China was ruthless?
True which is why I try to avoid them, but I don't know I find them interesting.
Killing a fourth of the population and enslaving almost everyone 1865 style didn't help either.
The dictatorships in Korea and Taiwan weren't exactly pleasant, either. The prison in Seoul used during the Japanese colonial period for political prisoners/torture/interrogation/etc, for example, was used until the late 1980s by the post-Korean War government (at which point, it was then turned into a Japanese colonial period museum, leaving out the next forty years of its use).
They certainly are fun to think about! I try to avoid them in serious discussion as well, but they can be quite interesting.
cartoon_soldier
Member
SIEU/Priorities Spanish Ads on Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWGpVPQEONI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFPhgXjlkc8
Buy is supposed to be around 4 million in CO, Florida and Nevada.
And Obama camp ties Romney's gaffe response to Obama's gaffe to MA. record
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9ZmHiznewM8#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWGpVPQEONI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFPhgXjlkc8
Buy is supposed to be around 4 million in CO, Florida and Nevada.
And Obama camp ties Romney's gaffe response to Obama's gaffe to MA. record
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9ZmHiznewM8#!
Now that we in the the back alley, the title doesn't matter. Forget liberal echo chamber, this is just 8-10 people talking to themselves in the same room.
Pelosi's Grand Mistake
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
FWIW, I only included Nixon and Vietnam on the same line as a generality, in the same way that I included Katrina under Bush (note that I included the "civil rights era" under Nixon as well). It's not just who was president or how they reacted, it's the general sense that the Government is causing more harm than good.
And yes, excluding the genocide of Native Americans is shameful oversight on my part. I could be wrong, but it can probably be encapsulated with the trail of tears and Andrew Jackson. I'd probably put it just above Nixon/Vietnam for what it did to our national legacy.
And yes, excluding the genocide of Native Americans is shameful oversight on my part. I could be wrong, but it can probably be encapsulated with the trail of tears and Andrew Jackson. I'd probably put it just above Nixon/Vietnam for what it did to our national legacy.
Why did the Gilded Age make your list? I don't know enough about it to have an educated discussion one way or the other, just wondering why it makes your list of worst times ever? Even the 1893 Panic was really only a huge deal for like a year, right? And the economy was mostly fully recovered within a few.
Also, you missed FDR.
Also, you missed FDR.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked