• 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.
J

Jimothy

Member
ivedoneyourmom said:
Does anyone have any ideas on where we go from here? Corporate power is getting a bit out of control.
Click to expand...

FZteO2L.jpg
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Sen. Warren said:
If as many people were dying of a mysterious disease as innocent bystanders are dying from firearms, a cure would be our top priority. But we don't have good data on gun violence. Why? Because the NRA and the gun industry lobby made it their goal to prevent any serious effort to document the violence.
Click to expand...

Having more balls than all male Dems combined. This woman is GODSEND.
 
K

KtSlime

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
It's been out of control. If nothing changed after the recession I don't have much hope going forward that is unless we can get more people like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders into office.
Click to expand...

I feel as though none of us, and the government itself doesn't have the attention span to be able to look at multiple fronts - and corporations know this and use it to their advantage, either by setting up their own 'oversight', or forgoing it all together and fast tracking anything they can get the US to put a stamp on.

Banks are out of control
Pharmaceuticals are out of control
Healthcare is out of control
Copyright is out of control
The Media is out of control
Factory farming is out of control
Agri-tech companies are out of control
Unemployment is barely in control
University prices are out of control

The list could go on and on, but I just think it is too many fronts for the citizenry to know what's going on, and what is important in keeping, and what is best for the people to control, or private business to control.

Jimothy: I'm generally against the death penalty, but in some cases it makes perfect sense.

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot that we have to deal with all of those while we experience global climate change and the depletion of our natural resources...
 
J

Jooney

Member
ivedoneyourmom said:
Does anyone have any ideas on where we go from here? Corporate power is getting a bit out of control.
Click to expand...

There is no perfect solution, but the one action that would take the biggest bite out of the apple is to reduce the amount of money in politics. Reforming campaign finance so that politicians don’t need to spend 5 hours a day on the phone to donors is the best place to start. So many problems can be traced back to the fact that politicians are beholden to monied interests. Take that element away and we should see politicians pivot back to constituents and policy.
 
K

KtSlime

Member
Jooney said:
There is no perfect solution, but the one action that would take the biggest bite out of the apple is to reduce the amount of money in politics. Reforming campaign finance so that politicians don’t need to spend 5 hours a day on the phone to donors is the best place to start. So many problems can be traced back to the fact that politicians are beholden to monied interests. Take that element away and we should see politicians pivot back to constituents and policy.
Click to expand...

Chichikov said:
You have to start with campaign reform.
It will not solve everything, but nothing will get solved until we fix that crap.
Click to expand...

Is there a good place to volunteer my time for campaign reform? Or is the idea still too in the abstract to even move towards it?
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
ivedoneyourmom said:
Is there a good place to volunteer my time for campaign reform? Or is the idea still too in the abstract to even move towards it?
Click to expand...

I donate regularly to Move to Amend. It's narrowly focused on corporate personhood in the constitutional sense, but I think it would make a good start. It seeks enactment of the following constitutional amendment:

Section 1 [Corporations are not people and can be regulated]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.​
 
C

Chichikov

Member
empty vessel said:
I donate regularly to Move to Amend. It's narrowly focused on corporate personhood in the constitutional sense, but I think it would make a good start. It seeks enactment of the following constitutional amendment:

Section 1 [Corporations are not people and can be regulated]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.​
Click to expand...
Isn't it great that we need to explain it to the Supreme Court like they're little children?
I say we just put pictures there, I'm getting tired of losing "I'll bet you even Scalia can't misinterpret that" wagers.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
Jooney said:
So PoliGAF, let’s talk about the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

What decision do you think the Supremes will hand down? Will it be a 5-4 along partisan lines?

I understand the importance of Federal oversight of the 9 states that have an abhorrent record on disenfranchising black from the vote. For that alone I think the Section 5 should remain upheld. However, do you envision a time where Section 5 can be lifted say in 25, 50, 100 years?
Click to expand...

Of course. And if we ever reach that point, it should be Congress that decides to invalidate or amend Section 5, not a handful of unelected old farts.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!


Did you guys know that there was another Obama vs. the world (House Republicans) breakfast debate thingy? I'm of course referring to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5BE9_x7xTo

One of the greatest things in the entire Presidency, imo.


UNFORTUNATELY


This time it the event was held private, with no cameras allowed on the floor. GODDAMN IT! :mad:
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Man . . . that dust-up between Feinstein and Ted Cruz.

What a fucking asshole that guy is. He goes full bore on the stupid absolutist argument . . . OK Ted, so should we all be allowed to have RPGs, chemical weapons, and nukes too then? They are 'arms'.

And he does it with Feinstein? . . . the woman that found Mayor Moscone shot & killed by a right-wing nut-job? Really? You gonna tell her how great guns are? Brilliant.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Michael Steele said that he doesn't think Donald Trump will talk about birtherism anymore.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Oblivion said:
Michael Steele said that he doesn't think Donald Trump will talk about birtherism anymore.
Click to expand...

I hope he does

Also found this really good piece about Hayes move to primetime

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conserva...n-of-chris-hayes-to-msnbcs-prime-time-lineup/

Of course, some of MSNBC’s most progressive hosts are often guilty of indulging in confirmation bias. Those programs, primarily but not exclusively relegated to the network’s dayside, choose not to make a case and instead berate and mock those who disagree with their unsupported assertions. Contempt and scorn in lieu of an argument is rarely a feature, though, of Maddow or Hayes’ programs. They know how to make valid case for a policy prescription that is buttressed by data. Night after night, they will be arming their audience with indisputable facts designed to advance liberalism.

As always, where there is challenge there is also opportunity. As every conservative knows, the only force that drives positive change is competition – and the right-leaning hosts of cable news will have that in spades come April. Here’s to hoping MSNBC’s programming decision is the beginning of a rebirth of cable news across the board.
Click to expand...
 
J

Jooney

Member
So I just learnt that Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but considers himself eligible to run for President because his mother is a native born American.

I would love Love LOVE to see tea party types tie themselves in knots trying to justify why Ted Cruz is eligible to run for President but not Barack Obama.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Jooney said:
So I just learnt that Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but considers himself eligible to run for President because his mother is a native born American.

I would love Love LOVE to see tea party types tie themselves in knots trying to justify why Ted Cruz is eligible to run for President but not Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

I still can't believe he decided to lecture Feinstein. I want to know if he was ignorant of the Harvey Milk And Mayor Moscone murders that she dealt with or if he knew all about them an intentionally decided to pick a fight with someone that had to deal with a crazed right-wing gunman? Did he intentionally want to bring that shooting up into the public discussion? Seems kinda . . . stupid. Or off-the-scale partisan hackery.
 
J

Jooney

Member
speculawyer said:
I still can't believe he decided to lecture Feinstein. I want to know if he was ignorant of the Harvey Milk And Mayor Moscone murders that she dealt with or if he knew all about them an intentionally decided to pick a fight with someone that had to deal with a crazed right-wing gunman? Did he intentionally want to bring that shooting up into the public discussion? Seems kinda . . . stupid. Or off-the-scale partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

I know little about Feinstein’s history so after reading your previous post I did a quick wiki of Feinstein … those murders were messed up. Feinstein’s name is almost synonymous with gun control and now I know why.

I’m not sure about this lecture from Cruz to Feinstein. Got a link?

Cruz’s brand is ‘aggressive conservative’ which is what his tea party base wants him to be. But he’s a chickenhawk. Here’s a guy that has never served, yet says that John Kerry and Chuck Hagel are not suitable for cabinet positions because they are “Less than ardent fans of the U.S. military”. Clown shoes.

EDIT: got the quote wrong. fixed it up. It was Lindsay Graham who said that Hagel was "haunted by Vietnam".
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
It really disgusts me when someone changes their stance like that because it's now personally affecting them. Every gay person is someone's son or daughter. I guess that doesn't matter, though.

EDIT - Stealin' my thunder, spec.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
speculawyer said:
That tends to the be the story with many conservatives . . . "I used to think X but then Y happened TO ME!"

No empathy . . . they only "get it" when it impacts them directly.
Click to expand...
I generally don't like sweeping generalizations about populations, but man, "lack of empathy" really seems to sum up the American conservative movement on like, almost every issue
 
E

el retorno

Member
Link said:
It really disgusts me when someone changes their stance like that because it's now personally affecting them. Every gay person is someone's son or daughter. I guess that doesn't matter, though.
Click to expand...

I don't really think thats something to fault them for. And I think a lot of liberals like myself have changed our views in similar ways

I didn't understand gay rights until I had friends who told me they were gay and I realized "who cares?" When you're faced with it you sit back and realize how silly your point of view was before. I don't think its true that omg I know want my son to have benefits its that the issue never really meant anything to you and generational and cultural momentum had kept you in your viewpoint

He's not like the bigots who call people faggots or what not. I don't think he's ever said something really inflamatory
 
J

Jooney

Member
While I am sad that it took someone close to Portman to have his position change on the issue, I am glad that there is at least one serving Republican senator that is now on record for supporting marriage equality.

Hopefully this creates some space for other serving members in the GOP to “come out” (as it were) to throw their support behind marriage equality, especially before the upcoming Supreme Court case.

One fifth of all US states have marriage equality. More will be joining soon. It’s time.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Sen. Rob Portman comes out in favor of gay marriage after son comes out as gay

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman on Thursday announced he has reversed his longtime opposition to same-sex marriage after reconsidering the issue because his 21-year-old son, Will, is gay.

Portman said his son, a junior at Yale University, told him and his wife, Jane, that he's gay and "it was not a choice, it was who he is and that he had been that way since he could remember."

"It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," Portman told reporters in an interview at his office.

The conversation the Portmans had with their son two years ago led to him to evolve on the issue after he consulted clergy members, friends including former Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Bible.

"The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue," Portman said, adding that he feels that "in a way, this strengthens the institution of marriage."
Click to expand...
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/03/sen_rob_portman_comes_out_in_f.html

Good for Portman. This is going to keep happening. He explains it pretty well:
"I believe in some respects that this is more generational than it is partisan," said Portman
Click to expand...

The religious right will completely lose this in less than 5 years. They've basically lost already but it's not 100% official. Waiting on the Supreme Court.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Link said:
It really disgusts me when someone changes their stance like that because it's now personally affecting them. Every gay person is someone's son or daughter. I guess that doesn't matter, though.

EDIT - Stealin' my thunder, spec.
Click to expand...
If you want people to change their minds, you need to accept them when they see the light.
I'm not telling you how to calibrate your moral compass, but at least practically and publicly, friends of the cause should applaud such conversions.

Edit: personally, I care what you think right now, not what you once thought. We all we're idiots at some point, and I would hate to be judged on the fact that I once thought Rage Against The Machine lyrics were brilliant.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Jooney said:
While I am sad that it took someone close to Portman to have his position change on the issue, I am glad that there is at least one serving Republican senator that is now on record for supporting marriage equality.

Hopefully this creates some space for other serving members in the GOP to “come out” (as it were) to throw their support behind marriage equality, especially before the upcoming Supreme Court case.

One fifth of all US states have marriage equality. More will be joining soon. It’s time.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it. Wouldnt be surprised if this gets him primaried
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Link said:
It really disgusts me when someone changes their stance like that because it's now personally affecting them. Every gay person is someone's son or daughter. I guess that doesn't matter, though.

EDIT - Stealin' my thunder, spec.
Click to expand...

Not to dog-pile, but at least when regular people talk about changing their minds like this, they're not intending to justify their earlier position. They would agree with you that they should never have held their original position. It's a conversion experience and should be thought of as such.

It's not about selfishly compromising on one's principles to secure better treatment for one's loved ones. That is, it's not like being pro- higher capital gains taxes only until your son makes it big on Wall Street. It's about realizing that you were being an ass. It's like insisting that waterboarding isn't torture and then changing your mind after trying it out. There's every reason to think that these people are sincere in repenting of their earlier position, and I think that warrants forgiveness.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
Piecake said:
I highly doubt it. Wouldnt be surprised if this gets him primaried
Click to expand...

In Ohio? Not likely, especially with the state GOP in general moderating slightly as of late (and particularly given that he's up for re-election in 2016 - he's a lot more likely to get beat in the general than he is to get primaried)
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Chichikov said:
If you want people to change their minds, you need to accept them when they see the light.
I'm not telling you how to calibrate your moral compass, but at least practically and publicly, friends of the cause should applaud such conversions.

Edit: personally, I care what you think right now, not what you once thought. We all we're idiots at some point, and I would hate to be judged on the fact that I once thought Rage Against The Machine lyrics were brilliant.
Click to expand...
I think it's great that he's now for gay rights, I just hate when it takes a family member coming out to do it. Almost like their hand is forced. Perhaps it's a very cynical view of things, but it just seems disingenuous.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Piecake said:
I highly doubt it. Wouldnt be surprised if this gets him primaried
Click to expand...

He's not up for reelection till 2016, this issue will be done by that. The gop will not have a marriage amendment in its party platform in 2016.


Link said:
I think it's great that he's now for gay rights, I just hate when it takes a family member coming out to do it. Almost like their hand is forced. Perhaps it's a very cynical view of things, but it just seems disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Are the people who didn't support civil rights before they saw the pictures of Birmingham and Selma bad people for having it take them that long to support basic human rights? Some people are blind, not bigoted, and it takes someone close to open their eyes.
 
J

Jooney

Member
Piecake said:
I highly doubt it. Wouldnt be surprised if this gets him primaried
Click to expand...

Probably. But someone needs to get the ball rolling. There’s plenty of evidence of conservatives supporting marriage equality … once they are out of office. It’s time for that viewpoint to be incorporated into the Republican mainstream so we can move past this issue.

It’s similar to climate change. I am almost sure that there are serving Republicans who would like to see some plan to tackle climate change, but they are too afraid of their base to speak up. I bet if one GOP member puts out a plan it will start to be taken seriously as an issue – nothing will ever happen if the only people willing to commit to action are liberals.

Chichikov said:
If you want people to change their minds, you need to accept them when they see the light.
I'm not telling you how to calibrate your moral compass, but at least practically and publicly, friends of the cause should applaud such conversions.
Click to expand...

Beautifully put, but …

Edit: personally, I care what you think right now, not what you once thought. We all we're idiots at some point, and I would hate to be judged on the fact that I once thought Rage Against The Machine lyrics were brilliant.
Click to expand...

… I thought you were cool, man.

vote for Gore or the son of a drug lord. None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord!
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Link said:
I think it's great that he's now for gay rights, I just hate when it takes a family member coming out to do it. Almost like their hand is forced. Perhaps it's a very cynical view of things, but it just seems disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Listen, his parents almost certainly raised him up to oppose gay marriage (probably in the form of a general opposition to homosexuality) so he had to make a conversion at some point.
Luckily, my parents were plenty liberal so I did not have to make that conversion myself, but there a few beliefs I held since childhood that were just dead wrong, and it took me well over 30 years to get rid of some of them (and I'm sure I still have some left in me).
I don't think he deserve such ire for taking too long to get there.

And forget he's a Republican, 10 years ago that would have also meant he was out of a job.

Jooney said:
… I thought you were cool, man.

vote for Gore or the son of a drug lord. None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord!
Click to expand...
I'm talking about almost a decade earlier...
They were the right band at the right point in my life, but in retrospect, oh well, I have worse skeletons in my musical closet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
945
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
520
11K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
847
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Next Generation is going to be really strange because of A.I
2
58
2K
midnightAI replied
Top Bottom