• 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.
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
RustyNails said:
Actually game on for Teaparty in conservative districts. The poll just proves that they can never be a national platform.
Click to expand...
Wait until they get snubbed again in 2016 by the GOP establishment and back Rand Paul as a Libertarian. Hillary skates to the presidency on the back of a third party conservative stealing votes away from the Republican, except she probably won't need it anyway.

APKmetsfan said:
Edit: FLASHBACK (found on twitter)
The Day Obama Lost the Presidency
Click to expand...
Dumbass pundits: "Obama has betrayed his black constituency by coming out for gay marriage, will he lose the black vote on election day?"
Headline: "new polls show record support of gay marriage since President Obama's endorsement, particularly from African-Americans"
Dumbass pundits: "NO, NOT OUR NARRATIVE"
rage-face.png
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
An outside group aligned with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has commissioned a report that warns conservatives against adopting an all-spending cuts, all-the-time message, and suggests that leaders on the right put a heavier emphasis on less abstract issues such as education and gas prices.

The poll, commissioned by the nonprofit YG Network and obtained by POLITICO, shows that even Americans concerned about deficits and debt are far more concerned with their own personal economic well-being.

The YG Network polling, conducted by the GOP firm McLaughlin & Associates, found that 38 percent of Americans name the “economy and jobs” as the issue of greatest importance to them. Twenty percent named “deficit and debt” as their top concern, and 16 percent pointed to health care.

“It is important to note that ‘economy and jobs’ is almost twice that of ‘deficit and debt,’” pollster John McLaughlin notes in the report.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-of-focus-on-deficit-88954.html#ixzz2NvexxIxg
Click to expand...

RUH ROH
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I've been waiting for the Fredrick Douglas Republican guy to be confronted by someone
Smith’s lectures focus almost entirely on how, during the Civil War and through the Jim Crow era, Democrats were the Southern party of white supremacy while Republicans, especially Abraham Lincoln, fought for progress instead. On Friday, Smith derided modern Democrats as the historical descendants of the KKK. Remarks like those prompted shocked pushback from a progressive black radio host in attendance, Kim Brown (much to Smith’s annoyance), who after several brief interjections was shouted down by the audience while trying to ask them whether it’s important to condemn racism within their party.

Needless to say, the obvious question this raises is the one Brown was getting at: If Republicans are the party of Lincoln, then why did black voters overwhelmingly abandon them over the last 50 years? And does it have anything to do with the reasons white southerners fled the Democratic Party in droves during the same period? In other words, if the Confederacy’s spiritual descendants are Democrats, then why are their biological descendants voting Republican?

There’s not really a lot of mystery here for historians: Democrats, led by Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, championed civil rights legislation and integration, leaving an opening for the GOP, led by President Richard Nixon, to adopt a race-baiting strategy that drew in disaffected segregationists. This is an uncontroversial enough take on events that the chairman of the RNC himself apologized on behalf of his party for Nixon’s “Southern strategy” at a 2005 speech to the NAACP.

Smith backs off a little bit when asked how he handles this common complaint. The real lesson is — to quote Some Like It Hot — nobody’s perfect.

“When you break the history down of Nixon’s ‘Southern strategy,’ the point is there is no political party that’s perfect,” he said. “Back in 1870 when they ended Reconstruction, the Republicans joined forces with the Democrats and that was wrong. And, of course, Democrats have a longer history of being anti-black than the GOP. So there’s no perfect political party even today.”

By contrast, “what [Democrats are] saying is all the racism that exists in politics is now in the Republican Party. That doesn’t even make sense.”

He added: “There’s racism on my 6-year-old grandson’s soccer team.”
Click to expand...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ehind-cpacs-race-panel-gone-wrong.php?ref=fpa

lmao. "No one's perfect" isn't the most glowing defense. One of the most annoying things about the last 5 years is the historical revisionism coming from the right with respect to black history. To the right, the last major moment in black history was Lincoln freeing the slaves; they have completely ignored the civil rights era (outside of arguing MLK was a republican) because it contradicts their bullshit.

And it's worth noting the movement to the democrat party didn't start in 1960/1964, the seeds were sown in 1927 with the Great Mississippi Flood, and grew in 1932 with FDR.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
i still am flabbergasted these often lifetime politicians (or pundits/commentators) still can't understand they need to shut the fuck up about rape

i mean it's such a simple thing, there should be no confusion on the matter, yet here we are... time and time again...

remarkable
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Amir0x said:
i still am flabbergasted these often lifetime politicians (or pundits/commentators) still can't understand they need to shut the fuck up about rape

i mean it's such a simple thing, there should be no confusion on the matter, yet here we are... time and time again...

remarkable
Click to expand...
They're never going to be able to completely avoid it so long as the party still holds the "no abortions ever" stance.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
That and many of them are so mysogynistic as fuck that they don't even see it.

It's like racists who are so racist that they say stuff they don't realize is offensive.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Ignatz Mouse said:
That and many of them are so mysogynistic as fuck that they don't even see it.

It's like racists who are so racist that they say stuff they don't realize is offensive.
Click to expand...
That goes without saying. I mean even when they learn not to say anything, it's going to be brought up.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Amir0x said:
i still am flabbergasted these often lifetime politicians (or pundits/commentators) still can't understand they need to shut the fuck up about rape

i mean it's such a simple thing, there should be no confusion on the matter, yet here we are... time and time again...

remarkable
Click to expand...
Ha, you fools think rape is real? It's but a feminist invention used be libruls to attack and falsely persecute Mans.
 
B

besada

Banned
el retorno said:
It became and official motto then but it had been on money before quite a few times, first during the civil war as propaganda against the south.
Click to expand...
But wasn't on bills immediately prior to 1957, although it was on coins. It was added back to bills in 1957 as part of setting it as our official motto.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
I think that Palin with a Big Gulp is actually a message that sells.

There's a large contingent of voters out there that view the soda ban as overreach (whether a good idea or not, justifiable or not) and it becomes a symbol of overwhelming government in general.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if the best example of "government overreach" from the left that they can produce is not being able to buy a Big Gulp (a ban that has been stayed) then it kinda indicates there really isn't a problem.

If they want to talk about government overreach then they can talk about the Patriot Act and other such privacy violations or they could talk about the drone program as Rand Paul did . . . but they really don't care about those things.


I mean really . . . if the worst thing you can come up with is the lack of a Big Gulp (when you can just buy 2 normal drinks!) then you really got nothing!
 
E

el retorno

Member
What a principled man
In an unusual move, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) objected last week to a routine Senate resolution commemorating Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week.

Congress passes hundreds of resolutions, meant to commemorate everything from a special awareness week or Little League champions. The resolutions lack any real power of law and are predominantly ceremonial. For example, earlier this month the Senate passed resolutions to mark “World Plumbing Day” and commemorating the three-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake.

In order to keep business moving and not clog the Senate floor, they are normally passed in bulk through a “unanimous consent agreement," meaning a vote isn’t tallied since both sides agree to it.

But last week, Cruz objected to including the MS Awareness resolution. He was unhappy with a clause in the resolution describing the purpose of the Multiple Sclerosis Coalition, according to a Democratic staffer.

Cruz’s staff said the problem was timing.

“The Senator, like many of his colleagues, will not grant consent to call up and pass a resolution or bill at the last minute without time for review,” spokesman Sean Rushton said in a statement. “The Texans who sent him to Washington expect nothing less."

After the story was posted about Cruz's opposition to the resolution, his office pushed back harder.

“Senator Cruz does not oppose the substance of the MS resolution, and he never did," his spokesman said. "Unfortunately, the sponsors of this resolution circulated their request for unanimous consent less than 48 hours before they wanted it passed. A member of Sen. Cruz's staff--who herself suffers from MS--asked for time to review the language, and to perhaps suggest revisions to the language, as is typical. It appears that Senate Democratic staff, instead of working to ensure unanimous consent, instead decided to leak this story to try to malign Senator Cruz.”
Click to expand...
 
C

ClassyPenguin

Banned
Oblivion said:
http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Palin-Liberty-Pose-1.jpeg[img]

[img]http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Palin-Liberty-Pose2.jpeg[img][/QUOTE]

There is just something really "off" and cheesy about this. Like something out of a dystopian B movie.
Click to expand...
 
C

Chichikov

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Isn't Judd a former rape victim?

False equivalencies seem like the right's bread and butter. Judd's rape analogy for Apple, whether you agree with it or not, isn't "the same" as Akin's comments.
Click to expand...
It's like they wanted to attack someone on 'rape' and just got bored of waiting for a screw up.

Either that or that *really* don't understand why people were pissed at Akin and his ilk.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Back in 2010 Judd said that because many Apple product factory workers are known to suffer from violent conditions and even be raped, buying Apple products=supporting rape to a degree. Basic bleeding heart hippy shit.

Which is now apparently being used to attack her and equate with Todd Akin's comments on rape. Which as others said, proves they just don't fucking "get" it.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Here's a fun article on Boehner's strategy and why I expect more compromise:

prospect said:
After months of Republican resistance, the House of Representative finally renewed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) late last month. What many casual political observers may not know is that there were always enough votes in the House for the bill to pass, but it couldn’t get a vote because of something called the “Hastert Rule”—an informal practice in the House by which only legislation supported by a majority of the majority party (in this case, Republicans) is allowed to come to a vote. How Speaker John Boehner got VAWA passed tells us a lot about what the next two years is going to be like in Washington....

The current speaker, however, has abandoned the Hastert Rule in three key votes over the last few months—the fiscal-cliff vote at the end of the 112th Congress, the Hurricane Sandy relief bill, and, eventually, the Violence Against Women Act. In each case, a majority of Republicans opposed the bills. But Boehner allowed a vote nonetheless. A floor coalition of a small group of Republican moderates and most of the Democrats were able to pass the bill. Why did the speaker allow this to happen?

What each of these measures has in common is that most Republican members probably wanted them to pass—but without their votes. They believed that failure to pass the bills would be damaging either for the Republican Party as a whole or for them in their districts. But voting for them would be dangerous, too, and would risk alienating the conservative base....

However, sometimes the Republican leadership in the House really does want something to pass. For these bills, as George Washington University’s Sarah Binder has said, the speaker has instituted a “new Boehner Rule”: Make the Senate go first. After all, given the 60 vote Senate (thanks to filibusters on everything) and a 55 Senator Democratic majority, nothing can get through that chamber without support from both parties. That is, it will generally require some sort of deal between most or all of the Democrats and at least some of the more moderate Republicans. After a bill passes in the Senate, Speaker Boehner calls up that product for a vote and, at least so far, has been able to get a similar result in the House—that is, lots of Democrats and enough Republicans to put it over the top. Hastert Rule violated, replaced by the Boehner Rule.

The advantage in making the Senate go first is twofold. First, House Democrats are willing to settle for whatever their counterparts in the Senate agreed to; if they negotiated a deal with House Republicans, they might be more aggressive. That makes the math for passage work. But it also removes the risk of a really ugly vote in which some House Republicans wind up casting that tough “RINO” vote without actually getting a bill to pass as a result.....

What Republicans sacrifice in all of this is, basically, influence over policy. When Paul Ryan submits a pie-in-the-sky budget and Republicans pass it, the Senate will react by ignoring the House version of the budget entirely. Similarly, when House Republicans simply accept whatever the Senate has worked out on the fiscal cliff bill, they don’t get to fight for their own preferences.

Which suggests a second condition, along with antagonism towards compromise, which makes the Boehner Rule work: indifference to policy outcomes. If most members of the House conference really cared a lot about policy details—either out of personal preferences or because of constituency demands—they would be reluctant to delegate negotiations over details to the Senate. That they are willing to do so, and in fact that they pressure Boehner not to get involved in negotiations, suggests that once they get beyond the headline issues they just don’t really care what happens. As long as they can avoid that RINO tag.

What makes John Boehner a first-rate Speaker of the House is that he’s apparently able to deduce these member goals, and accommodate them, even if it requires unconventional and even innovative strategies. So my guess is that we’ll see more “Make the Senate Go First” over the next two years.
Click to expand...

http://prospect.org/article/boehner-rule

Basically, the best way for Boehner to get along with his members is to give them lots of opportunities to vote against vital legislation that passes anyway, and the best way for him to do that is to ask the Senate for it. This is why, if the immigration and gun control bills now exiting committee can get to the Senate floor, they have a really solid chance of becoming law, even through the GOP house. It's also why I expect to win the budget battle after a suitable period of conflict and possibly a shutdown.
 
C

cooljeanius

Member
Fuchsdh said:
So on St. Patrick's I took my girlfriend into DC. We ended up grabbing a coffee at a McDonalds, where we just spent about fifteen minutes listening to this old guy yelling into his hands-free. Among the gems:

"I love it when Democrats get shot."

"All criminals are Democrats, all Democrats are criminals."

"Hitler was an okay guy, he was the biggest socialist ever! He guaranteed everyone a job for life, except for the Jews!"

Sad, but also so over the top it was enjoyable.
Click to expand...
I wonder how he made it out of DC alive
 
C

Chichikov

Member
pigeon said:
Here's a fun article on Boehner's strategy and why I expect more compromise:



http://prospect.org/article/boehner-rule

Basically, the best way for Boehner to get along with his members is to give them lots of opportunities to vote against vital legislation that passes anyway, and the best way for him to do that is to ask the Senate for it. This is why, if the immigration and gun control bills now exiting committee can get to the Senate floor, they have a really solid chance of becoming law, even through the GOP house. It's also why I expect to win the budget battle after a suitable period of conflict and possibly a shutdown.
Click to expand...
The Hastert rule is an abortion of democracy.
The GOP (or anyone that employ that tactic) should get shit from the public and the media.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
If anyone wants to keep an eye on some of the special elections in 2013, I highly recommend looking at the special election for Missouri's district. The Democrat running there - Steve Hodges - is extremely strong and is a State Rep in a pretty red district (even won in reelection in 2010!). PoliGAF probably won't adore him - he's pro-life and pro-gun, but that's politics in Missouri outside of Kansas City and St. Louis (in some cases, even in those cities).

Jo Ann Emerson (the former U.S. Rep for the 8th district) won reelection pretty handily in 2012 with 70% of the vote, but she was pretty moderate and a lot of Democrats had voted for her in the past. There also hasn't been a strong Democratic candidate in the district like Hodges before, either.

While all of the counties in the eighth district went for Romney in 2012, many of them went for McCaskill and Nixon (our Democratic incumbent governor).

Turnout will be really low because I doubt many people know there's actually a special election, so if Hodges and the MO Democratic Party can get solid turnout this election could turn out to be a big surprise. It helps that the Republican is a relatively unknown, tea party kind of guy (though not as much as say, Akin, obviously).
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Chichikov said:
The Hastert rule is an abortion of democracy.
The GOP (or anyone that employ that tactic) should get shit from the public and the media.
Click to expand...

Hastert rule feels like a glitch or exploit in the system. It definitely doesn't feel like it's supposed to work that way. I also wonder why we haven't heard more from the public in that regard.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
RDreamer said:
Hastert rule feels like a glitch or exploit in the system. It definitely doesn't feel like it's supposed to work that way. I also wonder why we haven't heard more from the public in that regard.
Click to expand...

People have no idea how the House puts things up for a vote. Asking them how that works is like asking them how the water cycle works. They know it DOES work, from high school, but that's all the detail they have. I mean, when the topic came up before, several clued-in PoliGAF posters were shocked to learn that the Speaker controls the schedule!
 
R

RDreamer

Member
pigeon said:
People have no idea how the House puts things up for a vote. Asking them how that works is like asking them how the water cycle works. They know it DOES work, from high school, but that's all the detail they have. I mean, when the topic came up before, several clued-in PoliGAF posters were shocked to learn that the Speaker controls the schedule!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that just means that the democrats are doing a shitty job of pushing back on it. I mean if that sort of thing would surprise and outrage people, then use it! Get out there and say "Hey, there's enough votes for this thing. This isn't being stalled because most people don't want it. Boehner just isn't bringing it up to vote. Send both him and your congressman a letter or email urging them to vote on this."
 
M

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Chichikov said:
The Hastert rule is an abortion of democracy.
Click to expand...

I just looked it up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority

Wow. So, it's not actually even law but basically at the discretion of the Speaker on whether to allow something to the floor for a vote?

That just sounds broken.

I note it says in the Wikipedia entry "To date, no Democratic Speaker of the House has used the majority of the majority rule." (though see it has no citation)
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
You think the Speaker is powerful now? Back in the day, if you were in his party and you crossed him on a big vote, you'd end up with your office in a broom closet.

For the most part, the only 3 people in the House that matter is the Speaker, Chairman of the Rules Comittee, and Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Mario said:
I just looked it up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority

Wow. So, it's not actually even law but basically at the discretion of the Speaker on whether to allow something to the floor for a vote?

That just sounds broken.

I note it says in the Wikipedia entry "To date, no Democratic Speaker of the House has used the majority of the majority rule." (though see it has no citation)
Click to expand...
It's textbook party over country, and I can't fucking believe we let congress get away with that bullshit.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
pigeon said:
Here's a fun article on Boehner's strategy and why I expect more compromise:



http://prospect.org/article/boehner-rule

Basically, the best way for Boehner to get along with his members is to give them lots of opportunities to vote against vital legislation that passes anyway, and the best way for him to do that is to ask the Senate for it. This is why, if the immigration and gun control bills now exiting committee can get to the Senate floor, they have a really solid chance of becoming law, even through the GOP house. It's also why I expect to win the budget battle after a suitable period of conflict and possibly a shutdown.
Click to expand...

It's hard to see House republicans NOT wanting to tamper with any immigration bill before passage. The VAWA is largely irrelevant compared to a comprehensive bill like that, and I'd expect the House to treat it differently.
 
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
517
11K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
846
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