• 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.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
Holy carp. So Jon Chait's been having a little fun the past week or so giving Joe Scarborough somewhat of a rough time on account of his not knowing anything, and Joe decided he didn't like being made fun of:

https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/301116632191885312

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/joe-scarborough-hates-moms-powerpoint.html

There's so many amazing things encapsulated in that one tweet alone.
Click to expand...

Chait may be reading one of my essays for Carville's class about the "debt crisis". Debating putting a inside reference to this in there.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
I'm actually starting to feel sympathy for Christie over this whole weight thing. Now, Inside Edition just ran a piece on him eating a piece of pizza today, then going into how high calorie pizza is.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Tamanon said:
I'm actually starting to feel sympathy for Christie over this whole weight thing. Now, Inside Edition just ran a piece on him eating a piece of pizza today, then going into how high calorie pizza is.
Click to expand...

Yea, everyone is kind of going nuts on it. I mean even he said he doesn't mind the jokes so long as they're funny, but that sounds just insane. That said he really does need to lose some weight.
 
K

kehs

Banned
Democrats weak on foreign affairs, they want to GUT the military!

011_national_defense_1988.png


Tea Party 2014

---

Jooney said:
Will there be an official SOTU thread?
Click to expand...

If there isn't one, kiss poligaf goodbye.
 
K

kehs

Banned
Cyan said:
Yeah, there definitely needs to be one. Anyone want to volunteer?
Click to expand...

Make sure it has Fox's sotu banner with Rubio pointing to the word president.


---

More Democratic Voter Fraud Coming:

President Barack Obama will announce a bipartisan presidential voting commission to focus on improving the Election Day experience, The Huffington Post has learned from two sources outside the White House with knowledge of the plans.

The commission is one of a number of efforts the Obama administration is making to address the problems that plagued voting on Election Day 2012. The commission, which will focus specifically on Election Day issues and not broader voting reform, will likely be co-chaired by one Republican and one Democratic lawyer, according to one of the sources.

Perez said voting reforms were a top priority for the Obama administration in its second term. He said he had spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder in the early morning the day after the election.

"He was actively engaged, and I've had many meetings and conversations with him about this," Perez said. "So if you're asking, looking ahead, what are the things we want to do within the department, making sure we don't repeat the shock and somnolence cycle in voting is certainly a top priority."
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/obama-voting-commission_n_2672538.html
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Synth_floyd said:
Will McConnell actually allow the sequester to happen or is this just a negociation tool?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/mitch-mcconnell-sequester_n_2672239.html
Click to expand...

Things could fall through, but the Republican establishment would like to avoid the sequester. They don't really want to cut spending all that much, and especially not military spending. They'd be fine with just negating the whole thing; the dealbreaker for them is tax increases on the rich. McConnell and Boehner's problem going into this is that deficit reduction (in general) is popular, so they don't want to be the ones proposing negating the sequester. Plus some of the House caucus is crazy. If Obama owned negating the sequester, the Republican establishment would want to allow the necessary votes.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
G

Gotchaye

Member
APKmetsfan said:
He flat out said the house isn't going to do anything with Obama's plan and they're gonna see if he's "more receptive" after the sequester on FOX tonight.

They're planing on playing the whole "obama's sequester" card and thats it. If that fails theyre gonna get screwed
Click to expand...

Which is why I think the high percentage move for Obama is to offer weaker and weaker deals up until the end of the month, when he offers no deficit reduction and only can-kicking as a last ditch effort to avoid the sequester that the Republicans have thus far refused to compromise on. If the sequester happens, everyone's going to want to be against it, and it's hard to have a simpler policy than delaying or cancelling it. Republicans would be stuck arguing that they hate the sequester but wanted just as much in spending cuts anyway, just distributed differently.

This all assumes that the Democrats don't want the sequester.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Gotchaye said:
Mention a chart you made on your mom's powerpoint.
Click to expand...

If I can work it in. But I was assigned to argue the deficit wasn't a problem (we couldn't argue our own point of view though mine matched up) so that might not really fit in well.

I probably just use his name as someone why hypes up the debt. "unlike some debt fear-mongers like Scarborough who in the face of factual information sticks with DC "conventional wisdom" and "common sense"" or something
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Remember when Hillary lost the 2016 Presidential election because the 2013 State of the Union didn't end with Obama saying "Oh, and one more thing..." before showing the debut trailer of his gay marrige legislation?
 
J

Jackson50

Member
kingkitty said:
I'll need to stock up in Girls Generation before the Korean War Pt.2

It will be interesting to see how China reacts. No matter how North Korea tries to modernize like asking help from the Germans with their economy, they'll never really change.
Click to expand...
Aside from the perfunctory disapprobation, China might accede to additional sanctions. However, any additional sanctions will be intentionally toothless, and they would only be marginally effective given the current level of sanctions. China could unilaterally chasten NK as they did in 2006. But that seems unlikely given Chinese efforts to facilitate Kim Jong-un's consolidation of power. And given NK's already precarious economy, they fear that even a hiccup in aid and trade could imperil the regime. So, status quo.
zero shift said:
North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world yet one of the exceptional few that can actually build long range nuclear missiles.

Could you imagine that if say Burkina Faso was doing something similar? Insane.
Click to expand...
North Korea has not actually developed a long-range nuclear missile. Yet, at least. They successfully launched a satellite launch vehicle and detonated a nuclear device. But they've yet to miniaturize the device or launch a missile to carry the warhead.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Tim-E said:
Remember when Hillary lost the 2016 Presidential election because the 2013 State of the Union didn't end with Obama saying "Oh, and one more thing..." before showing the debut trailer of his gay marrige legislation?
Click to expand...

It's because Rocket Scientist's Diablosing proved true and Obama let Rubio overshadow him :(
 
K

kingkitty

Member
lets just accept it now, Marco Rubio is our next president, next four years is just filler.

Who would he pick as secretary of state? Obama maybe? Rubio will probably give Biden secretary of transportation.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Listening to NPR today, they were discussing China's reaction to NK and had a IR professor from Fudan University on. He stated that one of the reasons why they fear a collapse of NK (besides a massive wave of fleeing migrants) is that NK provides an American buffer and that having American troops on the border would be unacceptable.

But, why the hell would we put troops on the Chinese-Korean border? It just seems pointless and needlessly provocative. If anything, Id think our military presence in Korea would shrink because there wouldnt be a plausible military threat. Sure, I'd imagine we would have a base or two, maybe one in NK, but thats about it.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Piecake said:
Listening to NPR today, they were discussing China's reaction to NK and had a IR professor from Fudan University on. He stated that one of the reasons why they fear a collapse of NK (besides a massive wave of fleeing migrants) is that NK provides an American buffer and that having American troops on the border would be unacceptable.

But, why the hell would we put troops on the Chinese-Korean border? It just seems pointless and needlessly provocative. If anything, Id think our military presence in Korea would shrink because there wouldnt be a plausible military threat. Sure, I'd imagine we would have a base or two, maybe one in NK, but thats about it.
Click to expand...

Not that I don't agree with you, but what was Iraq?
 
K

kingkitty

Member
Piecake said:
Listening to NPR today, they were discussing China's reaction to NK and had a IR professor from Fudan University on. He stated that one of the reasons why they fear a collapse of NK (besides a massive wave of fleeing migrants) is that NK provides an American buffer and that having American troops on the border would be unacceptable.

But, why the hell would we put troops on the Chinese-Korean border? It just seems pointless and needlessly provocative. If anything, Id think our military presence in Korea would shrink because there wouldnt be a plausible military threat. Sure, I'd imagine we would have a base or two, maybe one in NK, but thats about it.
Click to expand...

Nah America would at the very least keep the same amount of military presence in the South (gotta keep an eye on the Chinese somehow!). The North side who knows, definitely wouldn't be near the border tho.
 
T

thefro

Member
kingkitty said:
Nah America would at the very least keep the same amount of military presence in the South (gotta keep an eye on the Chinese somehow!). The North side who knows, definitely wouldn't be near the border tho.
Click to expand...

We'd have some kind of presence but probably most of our stuff would go home.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
According to CBS, Obama is going to propose that all children receive pre-K education tonight. This is a great idea, as it seems as if access to pre-K services is a strong indicator of future academic performance.
 
C

Chumly

Member
Tim-E said:
According to CBS, Obama is going to propose that all children receive pre-K education tonight. This is a great idea, as it seems as if access to pre-K services is a strong indicator of future academic performance.
Click to expand...

That would be amazing. I really hope he does.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Tim-E said:
According to CBS, Obama is going to propose that all children receive pre-K education tonight. This is a great idea, as it seems as if access to pre-K services is a strong indicator of future academic performance.
Click to expand...

Fantastic policy. I hope something gets done, and should have tremendous popular support, just because parents wont have to worry about daycare during those years
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Tim-E said:
According to twitter he will also call to raise the minimum wage to $9/hour.
Click to expand...

Oh my god, this would be amazing. I have a brother who works a minimum wage job while he goes to school and to be frank he gets paid nowhere near enough for what he's asked to do. This would be a whole $2 more for him. When I told him Canada's is $10 on average he flipped out.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Piecake said:
Listening to NPR today, they were discussing China's reaction to NK and had a IR professor from Fudan University on. He stated that one of the reasons why they fear a collapse of NK (besides a massive wave of fleeing migrants) is that NK provides an American buffer and that having American troops on the border would be unacceptable.

But, why the hell would we put troops on the Chinese-Korean border? It just seems pointless and needlessly provocative. If anything, Id think our military presence in Korea would shrink because there wouldnt be a plausible military threat. Sure, I'd imagine we would have a base or two, maybe one in NK, but thats about it.
Click to expand...
It's not that the U.S. would place troops directly on the border. Rather, NK occludes direct access to Chinese territory. If the NK regime were to collapse, then the U.S. might gain unimpeded access. And it's not that they fear an invasion. They want to obviate even the remote possibility of the U.S. meddling in their state.
 
T

thefro

Member
Piecake said:
Fantastic policy. I hope something gets done, and should have tremendous popular support, just because parents wont have to worry about daycare during those years
Click to expand...

Yep... there's short-term economic benefits beyond the long-term benefits (which are well, well worth it).
 
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
955
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