• 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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cheebo

Banned
Aaron said:
You're comparing the blowhard of NJ to Slick Willie? Bill Clinton has charm. Christie just has volume. He will be destroyed in the general election.
Click to expand...
I am talking in terms of ability to win not now actually good he is at his job like Bill, his approval ratings amongst democrats shows he knows how to get crossover support which is a dangerous combination. But I am not concerned. GOP base will never nominate someone who likes Obama. They rather just stick to the same policies as always but with a brown face with Rubio.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Synth_floyd said:
For all the racist, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-everything else that the GOP said in the last election they still got 47% of the vote. That's almost half. All they need to do is find a candidate with some charisma (which McCain and Romney did not have) and stay away from controversial statements and they could easily win an election. Lots of people are spinning the election as a giant loss but they did get pretty close to winning. That kind of thinking and those ideas are not in any danger of going away. They just need to put some lipstick on that pig.
Click to expand...

47% is peak with all forces for them. Remove the black man from their opposition and that 47% drops
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aaron said:
You're comparing the blowhard of NJ to Slick Willie? Bill Clinton has charm. Christie just has volume. He will be destroyed in the general election.
Click to expand...
Christie is very charming and very quick on his feet in terms of wit. He's also rather likable despite being an asshole. Cheebs is right that its hard to see republicans nominate him.

He's a lot less liberal than Gulianni, although I do agree with the general comparison; Gulianni was once pro choice which killed his chances, lived with a gay roommate, was a cross dresser, etc. By comparison Christie's sins are quite tame: working with Obama on storm relief, nominating a Muslim conservative to the court, and working with democrats. He hasn't raised taxes or approved a lot of spending.

Perhaps his biggest problem is that NJ's economy isn't good. Sandy buys him some time, but ideally he needs to be able to campaign for republicans in 2014 while touting a NJ comeback; or at least by early 2015.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Cheebo said:
his problem is like Rudy's in he'll never win a primary. He isn't seen a true believer in the conservative cause.
Click to expand...

It's also that his style doesn't play well with most of America. He's a bully, plain and simple. That sort of thing will only ever play among true believers and in Jersey. The only reason his numbers don't suck is Sandy and the reaming he gave Congress over the aid bill.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
gcubed said:
F'ing Obamacare
Click to expand...
A jest but businesses are already reacting negatively to the increase in taxes and regulation.

I want immigration reform too but when are we going to directly address job growth? Hopefully guns fade not the background again so they can focus on more important issues. Not saying guns aren't important but a fight over a useless assault weapons ban is.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
The rise of 2nd amendment popularity came from marketing by a gun manufacturer at the end of the 19th century.

A marketing ploy just to sell more produ and it change the interpretation of the 2nd amendment
 
L

LegendofJoe

Member
Does anyone here think Obama will try to push for broad based measures to combat climate change sometime this year?

Or will gun control and immigration reform push it back to later in his term?
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Re: Economy contraction: How many times must history repeat itself before Republicans learn that you're supposed to spend in a recession? The UK implemented austerity measures; their economy contracted Government cut back spending in the last quarter, GDP fell, and our economy contracted. And to go back all the way to the Great Depression, government spending ended that, too.

Edit Imma write a quick blogpost about this.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Dax01 said:
Re: Economy contraction: How many times must history repeat itself before Republicans learn that you're supposed to spend in a recession? The UK implemented austerity measures; their economy contracted Government cut back spending in the last quarter, GDP fell, and our economy contracted. And to go back all the way to the Great Depression, government spending ended that, too.

Edit Imma write a quick blogpost about this.
Click to expand...

Obama agreed to and with the cuts, it's not just the GOP. They just want to go further. But Obama should not have agreed to any.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
Obama agreed to and with the cuts, it's not just the GOP. They just want to go further. But Obama should not have agreed to any.
Click to expand...
This is a mixed bag. The main reason for the cutback in government spending is defense cuts (by order of which legislation? This isn't the sequester). We're drawing down wars, so we should be cutting defense. But, as we know see, there is a slow down in the economy as a result. Obama shouldn't be going along with the deficit argument, and instead should be pushing job creation. Hopefully with this report it'll change his tone, and he'll talk about jobs in his SotU.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Simply spending money is meaningless in itself. It's where that money goes that matters. A large amount of resources in war(eg. metals in weapons) is purely wasted from a domestic standpoint, although hopefully it ends up achieving a security or strategic goal.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Don't over think the GDP contraction -- military spending fell 22% in the last quarter. Yes, 22%. Given that, a 0.1% contraction is great news for the rest of the economy. This should clarify why the sequester is a real bad idea, though.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Dax01 said:
This is a mixed bag. The main reason for the cutback in government spending is defense cuts (by order of which legislation? This isn't the sequester). We're drawing down wars, so we should be cutting defense. But, as we know see, there is a slow down in the economy as a result. Obama shouldn't be going along with the deficit argument, and instead should be pushing job creation. Hopefully with this report it'll change his tone, and he'll talk about jobs in his SotU.
Click to expand...

Cutbacks in one area anywhere have to be matched with spending increases somewhere else (which can include tax cuts) to avoid economic contraction. This is basically a rule.

I hope you're right that this makes Obama pay heed.

Hitokage said:
Simply spending money is meaningless in itself. It's where that money goes that matters. A large amount of resources in war(eg. metals in weapons) is purely wasted from a domestic standpoint, although hopefully it ends up achieving a security or strategic goal.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Spent money is rarely meaningless economically speaking. Most of it will get respent in the economy thereby increasing economic output of the society. You are right, though, that the money can be wasted in terms of what the public gets from the initial spending. It can get a bomb that will eventually be blown up in a foreign country (and hence of no utility to the domestic public) or it could get a hospital or school. Small point, but I think it is at least important to understand that economic production can be increased even if the public gets nothing useful from the spending, e.g., the infamous and (wrongly) maligned helicopter drop. Of course, if we have a choice, the public might as well get something useful from its spending rather than nothing at all.
 
A

Acheron

Banned
Hitokage said:
Simply spending money is meaningless in itself. It's where that money goes that matters. A large amount of resources in war(eg. metals in weapons) is purely wasted from a domestic standpoint, although hopefully it ends up achieving a security or strategic goal.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. Military spending in wars is a waste. Development and procurement has been the reason why American aerospace and technology firms have been advantaged over the years.

Heck, Crytek wouldn't be able to expand without US military contracts.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
empty vessel said:
Yes and no. Spent money is rarely meaningless economically speaking. Most of it will get respent in the economy thereby increasing economic output of the society. You are right, though, that the money can be wasted in terms of what the public gets from the initial spending. It can get a bomb that will eventually be blown up in a foreign country (and hence of no utility to the domestic public) or it could get a hospital or school. Small point, but I think it is at least important to understand that economic production can be increased even if the public gets nothing useful from the spending, e.g., the infamous and (wrongly) maligned helicopter drop. Of course, if we have a choice, the public might as well get something useful from its spending rather than nothing at all.
Click to expand...
That begs the question of whether economic output is a useful metric to begin with, as hospitals and schools will help increase production beyond their initial outlay.

Acheron said:
Well, not really. Military spending in wars is a waste. Development and procurement has been the reason why American aerospace and technology firms have been advantaged over the years.
Click to expand...
This doesn't contradict what I was saying. I didn't say all of it because resources do get spent in ways that aren't just lobbed to somebody else. However, more soldiers in other countries can mean less labor and expertise at home, even before death comes in.
 
A

Aylinato

Member
In my last 6 years I never thought we would be close at all to getting any sort of gun control legislation and thought that it would never come.


All it took was the death of white children.


smh.
 
C

codhand

Member
empty vessel said:
It can get a bomb that will eventually be blown up in a foreign country (and hence of no utility to the domestic public) or it could get a hospital or school.
Click to expand...

Been saying this, build some roads and bridges, fuck these wars. Capital investment > stupid wars, and gimme my damn payroll tax cut back. Have two friends who received a raise and now make less money with the tax hike included.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Roads and bridges can be wasteful too, which is a problem Japan ran into when they got into the mindset of building for building's sake.
 
C

codhand

Member
Hitokage said:
Roads and bridges can be wasteful too, which is a problem Japan ran into when they got into the mindset of building for building's sake.
Click to expand...

True it's an oversimplification to be sure, but anything, anything would be better than these last two wars. It cannot be overstated how dumb they were.

Also though, Japan has awesome trains. I want them here. Especially to replace the NE clusterfuck of train system we have now
 
O

Owzers

Member
Aylinato said:
In my last 6 years I never thought we would be close at all to getting any sort of gun control legislation and thought that it would never come.


All it took was the death of white children.


smh.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, we're trying our best not to do anything now too.


Oh come on, "women are speaking out as to how ar-15's are their weapons of choice" I have yet to hear this.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aylinato said:
In my last 6 years I never thought we would be close at all to getting any sort of gun control legislation and thought that it would never come.


All it took was the death of white children.


smh.
Click to expand...
I sense your fellow Detroit roots.

I'm still doubtful anything will pass given the House. It's weird, I think immigration is more likely to pass the House than even the tame gun laws. There are political consequences to inaction and antagonism on immigration, whereas I'm not convinced there are any for voting against gun regulations. Maybe more suburban schools need to be shot up before we see a true movement. I just don't sense the ground shifting right now, especially as we move rather and farther away from that December day. So far only a couple republicans have said they're open to universal background checks, and I imagine that will change for the worse once the sausage making starts.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Dear lord, Gayle, you're talking nonsense. Stop spewing nonsense about guns and women. Talking about how a mom needs an assault weapon to protect her home from three intruders. SETTING ASIDE the fact that background checks is the #1 priority (not a un-noteworthy goal, but sad there'll be no AWB).

Also, girl who was at President's inaugural was shot dead in Chicago.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Dax01 said:
Dear lord, Gayle, you're talking nonsense. Stop spewing nonsense about guns and women. Talking about how a mom needs an assault weapon to protect her home from three intruders. SETTING ASIDE the fact that background checks are the #1 priority (not a un-noteworthy goal, but sad there'll be no AWB).

Also, girl who was at President's inaugural was shot dead in Chicago.
Click to expand...

What the what? OK if this doesn't mean something gets done nothing will. That's just fucked up.
 
A

Aylinato

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I sense your fellow Detroit roots.

I'm still doubtful anything will pass given the House. It's weird, I think immigration is more likely to pass the House than even the tame gun laws. There are political consequences to inaction and antagonism on immigration, whereas I'm not convinced there are any for voting against gun regulations. Maybe more suburban schools need to be shot up before we see a true movement. I just don't sense the ground shifting right now, especially as we move rather and farther away from that December day. So far only a couple republicans have said they're open to universal background checks, and is imagine that will change for the worse once the sausage making starts.
Click to expand...


Indeed.


Dax01 said:
Dear lord, Gayle, you're talking nonsense. Stop spewing nonsense about guns and women. Talking about how a mom needs an assault weapon to protect her home from three intruders. SETTING ASIDE the fact that background checks is the #1 priority (not a un-noteworthy goal, but sad there'll be no AWB).

Also, girl who was at President's inaugural was shot dead in Chicago.
Click to expand...


=(
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
An assault weapon ban would have little impact on anything. The problem revolves around illegal guns and straw purchases. Anti-trafficking laws and background checks address that - an AWB does not. It's counter productive and won't pass. Saint Reagan himself endorsed the previous one and it barely passed by two votes: if he could barely get it passed, a black president has no shot in hell of getting it passed.
 
O

Owzers

Member
"THERE IS CRIME IN AMERICA, WE DON"T NEED NEW GUN LAWS UNTIL THIS CRIME THING IS GONE. THERE IS COCAINE IN THE STREETS FOR GOD'S SAKE "- NRA guy Lapierre answering a cowardly republican softball question.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
PhoenixDark said:
An assault weapon ban would have little impact on anything. The problem revolves around illegal guns and straw purchases. Anti-trafficking laws and background checks address that - an AWB does not. It's counter productive and won't pass. Saint Reagan himself endorsed the previous one and it barely passed by two votes: if he could barely get it passed, a black president has no shot in hell of getting it passed.
Click to expand...
Oh look, another case of liberals conceding the narrative because conservatives shouted too loudly.

We already have an "assault weapon" ban in this country; there are more guns that are banned than those which are legal to buy. The only problem is that the current rules are arbitrary, stupid, and don't really work as intended. We need to update them, and that's not the last time we'll have to do that, weapon technology is not going to stop any time soon.

There is also major public support for this, it's just politicians being pussies.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Chichikov said:
Oh look, another case of liberals conceding the narrative because conservatives shouted too loudly.

We already have an "assault weapon" ban in this country; there are more guns that are banned than those which are legal to buy. The only problem is that the current rules are arbitrary, stupid, and don't really work as intended. We need to update them, and that's not the last time we'll have to do that, weapon technology is not going to stop any time soon.

There is also major public support for this, it's just politicians being pussies.
Click to expand...
I'm not conceding anything, I don't believe an AWB is good policy, even though personally support it. The vast majority of murders are from handguns, yet people want to ban the AR-15 because a few white people get shot up a year by it. That's what this boils down to. The Sandy Hook killer had two glocks on him, and could have killed as many kids with them as he did with the AR-15. Yet if he did not a single person would be yelling to ban glocks.

If you want to protect schools, lock suburban ones down like city schools. If you want to lower gun violence, let police do their job on gun trafficking and enforce background checks and penalties.
 
O

Owzers

Member
I now want an AR-15 to prepare for the zombie apocalypse. Graham sold me on it, he has one, women need one, why should i not have one?
 
C

Chichikov

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I'm not conceding anything, I don't believe an AWB is good policy, even though personally support it. The vast majority of murders are from handguns, yet people want to ban the AR-15 because a few white people get shot up a year by it. That's what this boils down to. The Sandy Hook killer had two glocks on him, and could have killed as many kids with them as he did with the AR-15. Yet if he did not a single person would be yelling to ban glocks.

If you want to protect schools, lock suburban ones down like city schools. If you want to lower gun violence, let police do their job on gun trafficking and enforce background checks and penalties.
Click to expand...
The framework of our guns laws is stupid, the way we decide what is legal or not makes very little sense and we need a complete overhaul there. We got to be able to talk about these things like adults, we got to stop being afraid to exercise our right to decide what type of weapons you can privately carry, and for the love of god, we got to stop treating the random crap we happen to have currently on the books as scripture.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Chichikov said:
Oh look, another case of liberals conceding the narrative because conservatives shouted too loudly.

We already have an "assault weapon" ban in this country; there are more guns that are banned than those which are legal to buy. The only problem is that the current rules are arbitrary, stupid, and don't really work as intended. We need to update them, and that's not the last time we'll have to do that, weapon technology is not going to stop any time soon.

There is also major public support for this, it's just politicians being pussies.
Click to expand...

You sure about the bolded? You have a link to this list?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
5K
Agent_Nobody replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
956
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
523
11K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
851
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Top Bottom