• 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 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.

pigeon

Banned
It wouls make sense and is probably how the more moderate ones feel, but I doubt it will happen. The modern GOP is going balls to walls and will have a spectacular implosion first

It doesn't take that many. If the House makeup doesn't change at all, you'd need only thirty of 240 -- and it's extremely likely to at least approach an even division. The RNC's only power to whip lies in its control of money -- and we've already seen, with Akin, that they're willing to close the spigot on Congresspeople they deem too reactionary. How is Eric Cantor going to keep everybody in line if the people with the purse strings don't agree with him?

To all the people saying "I don't believe it" -- what's the deal with this story, then? Do you think the reporter's just making stuff up? Or are GOP Congresspeople saying they'll have to compromise on the back page of a WaPo blog as some sort of devious trick? At the absolute minimum, this story represents an effort by pragmatic GOP members to pressure the remaining not-yet-totally-insane Republicans into considering compromise. That's basically what anonymous leaks are for.
 

Gotchaye

Member
It doesn't take that many. If the House makeup doesn't change at all, you'd need only thirty of 240 -- and it's extremely likely to at least approach an even division. The RNC's only power to whip lies in its control of money -- and we've already seen, with Akin, that they're willing to close the spigot on Congresspeople they deem too reactionary. How is Eric Cantor going to keep everybody in line if the people with the purse strings don't agree with him?

To all the people saying "I don't believe it" -- what's the deal with this story, then? Do you think the reporter's just making stuff up? Or are GOP Congresspeople saying they'll have to compromise on the back page of a WaPo blog as some sort of devious trick? At the absolute minimum, this story represents an effort by pragmatic GOP members to pressure the remaining not-yet-totally-insane Republicans into considering compromise. That's basically what anonymous leaks are for.

Right, and the fiscal cliff is only a thing in the first place so that the House Republicans could save face while giving Obama everything he wanted, because nobody who can donate millions to a political campaign wants a debt crisis.

The cliff itself is very strong evidence that even the pre-election GOP is willing to compromise on this.
 
N94IW.jpg


Finally found you, Aaron Strife
 
Its hard to say youre doing the will of the people, after the people vote in Obama.

Even if the dems dont retake the house (they will) a gain will also indicate the gop position is not popular.

The only " mandate" is more dems plz.
 

Gotchaye

Member
According to the pledge they signed they have to sign any tax lowering bill that comes across their desk. After the bush tax cuts expire the repubs will have to sign the dems tax bill.

What bill? If the Democrats have the House they won't need the Republicans, and if the Republicans control a chamber they're not obliged to consider a bill that doesn't include tax cuts for the rich. Norquist's not going to be on Obama's side here. Also I think the pledge is to oppose all tax increases, not to go along with every tax cut.
 
That reminds me; I see Romney stickers relatively often, but driving home today, I saw my first "Democrats for Romney" sticker.

No pictures, though; trying to fumble with a cellphone camera while moving at 30+ MPH isn't really my thing.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
From the Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...948828-0330-11e2-9b24-ff730c7f6312_story.html

This is the backchannel leak that I earlier suggested we'd see if the Democratic leak about Republican plans for compromise were accurate. The sane half of the GOP is already planning a split in order to return to actual governance and avoid the fiscal cliff, and this is them signalling to a very specific audience -- not including the Tea Party -- that they're going to do just that.

Hope and change this, fuckers.

Well, that's certainly going to happen.
 

RDreamer

Member
That sticker reminds me of this:

gpqCr.jpg


Unfortunately I couldn't get close enough to get a decent pic :(

The people at the side of the road were laughing at it and at watching me trying to take a picture while driving. I know my wife read one that said something about not being able to be a christian for abortion or something. It was crazy.
 
That sticker reminds me of this:

gpqCr.jpg


Unfortunately I couldn't get close enough to get a decent pic :(

The people at the side of the road were laughing at it and at watching me trying to take a picture while driving. I know my wife read one that said something about not being able to be a christian for abortion or something. It was crazy.
I swear I stand by my assertion that I see more Anti Obama bumper stickers than I have ever seen Romeny, perhaps 5:1 ratio. On the plus side I've never seen any racist or offensive ones. Most could have been for Bush besides name and date.

N94IW.jpg


Finally found you, Aaron Strife
Oh man cars like that piss me off so much. It's just so fucking distracting, regardless of the message. Most I had was a an MST3K bumper stuck or a small Phillies one at one point. Heck I don't even have an NRA one on the car.

Man, fuck this. This is why I want the Dems to get the House and the Senate. Shouldn't need to compromise on something so sensible and tiny. Save the compromising for things that are remotely controversial...
You say that, but when you can get a full auto SCAR I think you'll reconsider! Lol Nah I know Hughes will never get repealed unless it's part of something like the credit card bill/carry in national parks setup.
 

HyperionX

Member
Yeah, I don't see Scalia or Kennedy voluntarily retiring with a Dem in the White House.

Do you think they can last that long? I think they'll be in their 80s by 2020. 12 years should be long enough.

Though truth be told, 20 years of continuous Democratic rule (last repeated by Roosevelt+Truman) basically drove the the Republicans to being a genuinely moderate party. Democrats controlling the WH till 2028, even if means some shitty compromises, would probably completely change the political climate of the US.
 
if dems win the house i hope they vote to make election day a national holiday. anything to increase turnout in future elections to combat the recent trend of voter suppression. i really can't believe this hasn't been done yet.

it sucks that the election laws are so controlled by the states, it's hard to see what else congress could do bar taking over the process completely which would cause an uproar. maybe do something to promote mail-in ballots? (no ID needed)
 

Cloudy

Banned
I wonder if the WH expected the general media and not just the GOP to attack Obama for not having any bi-lats at the UNGA and "going to the View instead" (even though it's pre-taped the day before!)

I get why they're doing it though. They don't want Netanyahu using a photo-op with Obama to grandstand and "lecture" (like he did before) and they don't want to be meeting with muslim leaders after rumors of them telling Bibi to fuck off lol
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
if dems win the house i hope they vote to make election day a national holiday. anything to increase turnout in future elections to combat the recent trend of voter suppression. i really can't believe this hasn't been done yet.

it sucks that the election laws are so controlled by the states, it's hard to see what else congress could do bar taking over the process completely which would cause an uproar. maybe do something to promote mail-in ballots? (no ID needed)

I like the national holiday idea, it just makes sense you know. Why it hasn't been done already I don't know.
 
I like the national holiday idea, it just makes sense you know. Why it hasn't been done already I don't know.

Can't have too much of the proletariat voting. If they did, you figure they'd vote for their interest and maybe public education wouldn't be as bad off, maybe healthcare reform would have arrived sooner and in better form and maybe the growing income/wealth inequality would be staved off and reversed to some degree. Given that all of those things require getting more taxes from the high income class, suppressing the vote of the poor/working people is vitally important for the types that subscribe to a "screw you, I've got mine" philosophy.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
So I made an electoral map of what I feel the red/blue/swing states will look like in the 2016 general election. I feel like it's an accurate projection. Feel free to suggest something different, but if you feel this is accurate it begs the question: how will the GOP even pretend there's a real chance at winning with the upcoming changes in the electorate?

They need to appeal to the latino or african-american vote. The latter won't happen and the former doesn't look likely. Talk shit about W (and he deserves it), but he knew this and tried to set it up.
 

Forever

Banned
So I made an electoral map of what I feel the red/blue/swing states will look like in the 2016 general election. I feel like it's an accurate projection. Feel free to suggest something different, but if you feel this is accurate it begs the question: how will the GOP even pretend there's a real chance at winning with the upcoming changes in the electorate?


http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=BuV

Hillary could put West Virginia in play.

If the economy is booming in 2016 under Obama, then she can probably put a lot more than that in play.
 
So I made an electoral map of what I feel the red/blue/swing states will look like in the 2016 general election. I feel like it's an accurate projection. Feel free to suggest something different, but if you feel this is accurate it begs the question: how will the GOP even pretend there's a real chance at winning with the upcoming changes in the electorate?


http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=BuV

That's not how elections work

The GOP has big problems but ultimately elections are decided by the business cycle and who has the better candidate. If a GOP candidate doesn't face Hillary in 2016 and comes up with a moderate take on conservatism, he can win; this is still a largely center-right nation, although clearly we're moving to the left.

Jeb Bush is a good politician. So is Chris Christie, and he'll have a shot if he can turn around NJ (or ride the coattails of the alleged recovery the CBO projects)and lose some weight. Then there's Marco Rubio. Republicans have a solid bench
 
Hillary could put West Virginia in play.

If the economy is booming in 2016 under Obama, then she can probably put a lot more than that in play.

Very true. WV is my home state. They used to be one of the most reliably democratic states in the country. Unfortunately, electing a black guy was a little too much for them to handle. Either way, all the math looks to me like the democratic candidate, assuming it's someone decent, will start out with more guaranteed EVs than they need to win, or damn close to it. However, I know the media would never frame an election that way to protect their ratings, so it begs the question of exactly how this will be handled. I'd almost guarantee a black/hispanic GOP candidate in 2016 that is ideologically very similar to the others as a superficial way to try to secure any sort of non-white vote.

PhoenixDark said:
The GOP has big problems but ultimately elections are decided by the business cycle and who has the better candidate. If a GOP candidate doesn't face Hillary in 2016 and comes up with a moderate take on conservatism, he can win; this is still a largely center-right nation, although clearly we're moving to the left.

I made that map with the assumption that the Dem candidate was someone decent, the GOP candidate was decent (by GOP standards) and that the GOP won't have the prescience to see that "we weren't conservative enough!" isn't the problem, yet again avoiding a moderate candidate. The country is becoming more urban, less white, and less giving-a-damn what gay people do. There's very little in the future that the current GOP has working for them.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
That's not how elections work

The GOP has big problems but ultimately elections are decided by the business cycle and who has the better candidate. If a GOP candidate doesn't face Hillary in 2016 and comes up with a moderate take on conservatism, he can win; this is still a largely center-right nation, although clearly we're moving to the left.

Jeb Bush is a good politician. So is Chris Christie, and he'll have a shot if he can turn around NJ (or ride the coattails of the alleged recovery the CBO projects)and lose some weight. Then there's Marco Rubio. Republicans have a solid bench

Christie is a joke, his temper disqualifies him. He'd never hold up to the scrutiny of a national campaign. Jeb is out due to his family name, which leaves Rubio. He's it, the GOP bench is much shallower when you take a good look at it.
 
Speaking of Hillary, why is she meeting with world leaders at the UN while Obama yuks it up on The View? Such a stupid unforced error considering the press is already looking for something to run with, and Romney continues to beat the Libya drum. Obama doesn't expect this to come up during the foreign policy debate when he's asked about that three day warning the Libyan embassy received?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Speaking of Hillary, why is she meeting with world leaders at the UN while Obama yuks it up on The View? Such a stupid unforced error considering the press is already looking for something to run with, and Romney continues to beat the Libya drum. Obama doesn't expect this to come up during the foreign policy debate when he's asked about that three day warning the Libyan embassy received?

Are you even trying anymore? The View tapes a day in advance, try again your Kosmo impersonation needs work.
 

watershed

Banned
Speaking of Hillary, why is she meeting with world leaders at the UN while Obama yuks it up on The View? Such a stupid unforced error considering the press is already looking for something to run with, and Romney continues to beat the Libya drum. Obama doesn't expect this to come up during the foreign policy debate when he's asked about that three day warning the Libyan embassy received?

Are you being serious? The President is going to the UN and he's going to make a speech to the general assembly. Its customary for the Secretary of State to go in advance of the President much like how the Secretary of State will go overseas first to build a foundation on an agreement before the President goes for higher level meetings.
 

pigeon

Banned
I was kind of bored and annoyed all day and finally realized it was because Mitt Romney didn't say anything unbelievably stupid in the last day or so for everybody to blog about. It's amazing how quickly you get used to that kind of thing.
 
Mitt Romney’s trust invested in Cnooc at a time when the US was growing concerned about the Chinese oil company’s multibillion-dollar dealings with Tehran, according to the 2011 tax return released by the Republican nominee for president. The Chinese investment by Mr Romney’s blind trust prompted accusations of hypocrisy from the Obama campaign on Monday, given Mr Romney’s criticism of Barack Obama for not being tough enough on Chinese “cheaters”.

“As he rolls his bus through many Ohio towns that are benefiting from [Obama’s] actions to . . . protect American workers from unfair Chinese trade practices, Mitt Romney will, as they say, have some explaining to do,” said an Obama campaign spokesman. But Mr Romney’s investment in Cnooc also raises questions about his tough stance against Iran and is further evidence of how the former Bain Capital chief executive’s vast global share holdings have posed a challenge to his bid for the White House. Last month, Cnooc Limited’s chairman, Wang Yilin, said in a speech that the company’s large-scale deep water rights were a “mobile national territory and a strategic weapon”, a description that highlights the political sensitivity surrounding the company.

Mr Romney has repeatedly said he had no control over the decisions by the blind trust that held the investments, which are controlled by a trustee named R. Bradford Malt.

“The trustee of the blind trust has said publicly that he will endeavour to make the investments in the blind trust conform to Governor Romney’s positions, and whenever it comes to his attention that there is something inconsistent, he ends the investment,” said Michele Davis, an aide to the Romney campaign and former Treasury official in George W. Bush’s administration.

Mr Romney has in the past – specifically in his Senate run against Edward Kennedy – called blind trusts “an age-old ruse” because “you can always tell a blind trust what it can and cannot do”.

The first investment by Mr Romney’s trust in Cnooc Limited, in October of 2009, was made about seven months after the group’s state-owned parent company was widely reported to have signed a deal with Iran to develop the huge North Pars gasfield for an LNG export project.

In the US, the deal was viewed as part of a worrying effort by China to secure energy interests. According to a report by the International Gas Report in February of 2009, Beijing gave Cnooc the green light to sign a deal with Tehran immediately after the US agreed to sell arms to Taiwan. The agreement, which was on and off for years before the deal was signed, even prompted interest from the US State Department in 2007, which examined whether it violated the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Washington’s unease with Cnooc was also apparent in the political uproar in 2009 over the Obama administration’s decision to appoint Chas Freeman as the head of the National Intelligence Council. The choice of Mr Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and envoy to China, was eventually nixed. But one of several issues raised by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill was Mr Freeman’s links to Cnooc, after he joined the board of international advisers in 2004.

Tax records released last week showed that Mr Romney’s blind trust made two subsequent investments in Cnooc and then sold all the shares – for a profit of about $11,000, in August of 2011.

That was about the same period when Mr Romney began ratcheting up his campaign rhetoric against China. Since then, Cnooc’s involvement in the North Pars project has also reportedly been put on hold. Citing analysts, a July report by Platts found that the Chinese projects have not moved forward in Tehran because the “overall investment climate” in Iran was “unfavourable”.

Cnooc is awaiting approval by the US for its $15bn takeover of Nexen, an oil group based in Calgary with interests in the Gulf of Mexico. The deal requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, which vets cross-border deals on national security grounds. An earlier attempt by Cnooc to take over California-based Unocal in 2005 was scrapped after the transaction was attacked on Capitol Hill. So far, the takeover of Nexen has not garnered similar opposition, although Mr Romney’s tax records has put a new spotlight on Cnooc.

Erica Downs, a fellow at the Brookings Institute, said that if the Nexen deal were approved, it would represent the first time a Chinese company was given an operating role at an energy company in the US.

Two Cfius experts who are not involved in the review of the deal but asked not to be identified given the sensitivity surrounding the issue said that they suspected the US departments that vet the deal would likely seek more information and assurances from Cnooc about its status in Tehran as part of their review of the deal. The transaction will ultimately fall to Mr Obama’s political appointees in the departments of Defence, the Treasury and other agencies who will review the deal.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ee7de4d2-065b-11e2-bd29-00144feabdc0.html

Oh man, Mittens can't keep his hands clean. I'd wish this story would gain some traction, but I doubt it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom