Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Ha Rand Paul for immigration reform/path to citizenship. Good news.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Rand running in 2016. Dat Latino outreach

He announced?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

He announced?

Might as well

 

[The Librarian]

Yglesias wrote about Brooks' column too. Oh, Brooks.

 

[pigeon]

He announced?

I mean, Rand was always going to run in 2016. The difference is that, unlike his dad, he's actually getting buzz and adopting iconoclastic policy positions that the GOP establishment might actually like. So he might actually GET somewhere.

 

[KtSlime]

I can see that (a large portion of) the country is resistant to change. Significantly so. And the indifference (or ignorance) of others doesn't help. So, I can agree change for the better will be an ongoing struggle. Especially change that requires questioning of the Constitution or "Founding Principles".

But is it actually hard to move somewhere else?




Well, I was making references to fundamental issues with the leadership, governance, and the political system. What you mention above I see as symptoms of a broken system (you could throw bloated military in there too).

It seems crazy that it is that way though. The US has the know how and resources to be able to deal with these issues, arguably moreso than any country on the planet. But the mis-allocation of resources or indeed the inability to allocate resources in some instances sees these social, health, and economic issues not only remain remain unresolved but worsen*.

I'm watching from the outside, but even I find it frustrating that the pettiness and selfishness of American politics is holding the country back and an ignorant and indifferent chunk of the population allows the situation to perpetuate.

*

Spoiler

well, some things are getting better in these areas but painfully slowly and not without people actively demonizing positive efforts or even fighting progress

I'd say that with the way Republicans think, there has to have been something wrong with our education system for a long long time, but yeah I'm not exactly sure if it is a cause or a simply a symptom.

As to moving, I haven't tried moving to Canada, the UK, or Australia, so I guess it's not fair to say that that is hard (I don't know), I've read that it is expensive, so for me personally, who has jack all for money (living off a stipend, working on a farm in a rural town), and who has a bunch of school debt, it might not be possible.

 

[empty vessel]

A few random recent CRS reports:

Secret Sessions of the House and Senate: Authority, Confidentiality, and Frequency

The Amending Process in the Senate

Commonly Used Motions and Requests in the House of Representatives

All pdf's.

 

[pigeon]

Chait makes an interesting point about the immigration bill and Rand Paul's move:

Rand Paul has always supported immigration reform in general, but he is delivering a speech today forcefully advocating reform in a manner that would seem to block off any potential avenue for retreat. What makes this more interesting is that Paul has been openly floating a presidential campaign. And immigration reform is probably going to shape the 2016 Republican presidential campaign, and the presidential campaign will in turn help determine the fate of immigration reform.
Here is the lay of the land. The Republican Party’s leadership has collectively decided that its political future requires the party to support immigration reform....
Almost certainly there will be some kind of conservative revolt. Stirring of it could be heard at CPAC, where figures like Jim DeMint, Donald Trump, and Ann Coulter issued fiery denunciations. What’s interesting is that, as of now, anti-reform conservatives have no standard bearer. All of the major 2016 figures — Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker — support comprehensive reform. Somebody will surely emerge to represent the conservative base in an open field, but so far the political marketplace has not supplied a candidate to fill that anticipated demand.
Instead, the field looks a lot like a kind of cartel. All of the major candidates support reform, so none of them can undercut each other by appealing to anti-reform sentiment...
And that potential dynamic, in turn, will shape the prospects for the passage of a bill. The key factor in passing a law is for leading Republicans in Congress, especially Rubio, to stay solid in their support. They’ll continue to support a bill as long as they feel secure that fellow Republicans won’t attack them as an Obama-loving sellout willing to let hordes on Mexicans pour forth over the border....
As of now, though, all the 2016 contenders can support a bill in the anticipation that their major rivals will be locked in to the same stance. The most plausible vehicle for a grassroots insurgent candidacy was Paul, who had harnessed his father’s grassroots appeal with shrewd cultivation of the party elite. With Paul signed up with the pro-reform cartel, nobody is going to make Rubio, Bush, or Ryan nervous, which means there’s little right now to stop a bill from passing the House this summer.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/gop-candidates-form-pro-immigration-cartel.html

It's happening. Dot gif.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Good news for Rick Santorum!

 

[el retorno]

Chait makes an interesting point about the immigration bill and Rand Paul's move:



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/gop-candidates-form-pro-immigration-cartel.html

It's happening. Dot gif.

Lol already backtracking

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...say-he-didnt-back-faster-path-to-citizenship/

Advisers to Sen. Rand Paul say the Kentucky Republican did not, in fact, endorse a faster path to citizenship, despite many reports Tuesday morning that he had.
Many outlets, including the Washington Post, had reported Paul would back a path to citizenship in his speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, dating back to Monday evening, when the Associated Press obtained an advance copy of Paul’s remarks.

“The AP story was wrong, which spurred a lot of erroneous reports,” Paul’s office said in a statement. “He does not mention ‘path to citizenship’ in his speech at all.”

One Paul adviser told Post Politics that the path to citizenship Paul is pushing doesn’t make it any easier to attain citizenship than current law allows.

“They would get into the back of the line and get no special privileges to do so,” said the adviser, who wasn’t authorized to comment publicly. “What his plan is extending to them is a quicker path to normalization, not citizenship, and being able to stay, work and pay taxes legally.”

At the root of the confusion appears to be the difference between legal status and citizenship.

The comprehensive immigration reform plan proposed by a bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who like Paul is a potential 2016 presidential candidate, does include a path to citizenship.

And it also requires the "border be secure" before doing anything, which is code for "we'll pass this meaningless bill we can stonewall on, btw plz vote for us!"

 

[Chichikov]

Chait makes an interesting point about the immigration bill and Rand Paul's move:



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/gop-candidates-form-pro-immigration-cartel.html

It's happening. Dot gif.

The multidimensional chess move here is for the dems to push a pass to citizenship before 2016, so the GOP will have to oppose it and the dems will further solidify their Hispanic support.
Personally though, I'd rather see this issue fixed, this crap inflicts too much suffering, but that Machiavellian game theory stuff can be fun, at least when done in theory.

 

[el retorno]

What I don't understand is how the GOP thinks they're gonna win on Immigration reform. Whatever passes is gonna have more than half the GOP house vote against it. Having 40-50 representatives support a bill with the vast majority of dems supporting it shows they're still on the wrong side. They can't just have their national starts support it its disingenious

 

[Byakuya769]

Why is conservative humor so... insulting?

How can this be seen as anything other than blatant racism?



edit- bonus pics!

Is there even a joke in this one?

While I see merit behind the sentiment in this one, it's still not funny.

I don't think the first one isn't racist at all, just ignorant of reality. The middle one is okay. The bottom one is dumb, the commentary is that militants being killed is worse than being water boarded? Ok, time for a complete withdrawal of combat forces, right?

 

[Chichikov]

What I don't understand is how the GOP thinks they're gonna win on Immigration reform. Whatever passes is gonna have more than half the GOP house vote against it. Having 40-50 representatives support a bill with the vast majority of dems supporting it shows they're still on the wrong side. They can't just have their national starts support it its disingenious

More than that, Obama has to sign it, and he'll make a show of it.

But long term, they just have to get that issue all the table (although once again, one have to wonder how are they going to attract poor white voters without those wedge issues).

Ok, time for a complete withdrawal of combat forces, right?

No, but a cancelation of the CIA drone program would be a fucking good start.

 

[Tamanon]

More than that, Obama has to sign it, and he'll make a show of it.

But long term, they just have to get that issue all the table (although once again, one have to wonder how are they going to attract poor white voters without those wedge issues).

Still plenty of room by going against black people more.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Republicans can still ensure the bill doesn't do much of anything on citizenship. Rubio constantly says if the border security requirements are changed he will walk; on the other hand Durbin and democrats claim the border requirement won't stop people from starting the path after paying taxes, a fine, etc.

I just hope a good bill is passed, not some weak bandaid Obama can loudly declare victory about. Do it right, address STEM and all the other things that can truly make it comprehensive.

 

[speculawyer]

I wonder if Republicans will still suffer the Rubio delusion in four years, putting him as their candidate certain he'll snag the latino vote, only to be shocked by the actual votes the way they seemed dumbfounded by the last election. From CPAC, they seem to have a collective mental disorder that makes them incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Yeah, their thinking is a little strange.
-Did Palin capture the women vote?
-Did Michael Steele, Herman Cain, and Allen West capture the black vote?

So yeah . . . Rubio is suddenly going to capture the Latino vote because he is Latino.

Maybe they are just telling us that they vote for white people because they are white and expect others to do the same?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Maybe they are just telling us that they vote for white people because they are white and expect others to do the same?

I think it's more like they assume black people vote for people because they are black. As opposed to voting for somebody whose policies don't systematically screw you.

 

[RustyNails]

Republicans can still ensure the bill doesn't do much of anything on citizenship. Rubio constantly says if the border security requirements are changed he will walk; on the other hand Durbin and democrats claim the border requirement won't stop people from starting the path after paying taxes, a fine, etc.

I just hope a good bill is passed, not some weak bandaid Obama can loudly declare victory about. Do it right, address STEM and all the other things that can truly make it comprehensive.

In any case, it is going to happen.

But Obama needs to be more proactive on the issue and advertise it on news. Keep it front and center in people's minds so when the legislation does come to vote, hold the teaparty nuts accountable for voting no and therefore undermining the GOP's message of big tent party (lol). In order to keep their seats secure for 2014, they will screw over GOP's image for 2016.

 

[pigeon]

Maybe they are just telling us that they vote for white people because they are white and expect others to do the same?

It's basically just classic privileged misunderstanding of the entire concept of social justice. If you honestly don't believe that racism and sexism (and homophobia, etc. etc.) are big problems, then how do you explain the people who are organizing and winning public opinion battles? Obviously they're cynical manipulators, who are deliberately using fake problems, fake social sciences, etc. to drum up Democratic support! This is what "white guilt" means, or "the race card." This is where "I'm offended that you're offended by that, so stop being offended" comes from. And obviously if you really don't get it your response will end up being really obviously cynical manipulation -- such as assuming that by running a Latino candidate, you'll win a bunch of Latino votes. It makes sense, if you assume that racism doesn't actually exist!

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Between stuff like this, gerrymandering, SuperPACs, executive privilege, policy pork, politicians obviously voting for re-election rather than to govern, elections happening constantly, drone strikes on US citizens, wiretapping laws, rampant revisionist history, "news" channels not being required to report actual facts, a largely misinformed electorate etc, I don't see how anybody can seriously claim the US is "the greatest democracy on Earth".

Politicians and the media have done such a great job diverting attention to the "tyranny" of government trying to legislate the likes of large sodas that the populace seem ignorant as to the very real and important freedoms they lack.

Well, as long as they are up to speed with what the Kardashians are doing at any given moment, it's a small price to pay I guess.

Spoiler

Seriously, I don't know how some of you guys can live like this.

I see where you're coming from, but we really don't have it that bad. In fact I still think we're top tier. Which is sad.

The rest of the world isn't much better (ignoring military stuff).

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Is there even a joke in this one?

The joke is Obama's famous giant purple lips.

 

[cooljeanius]

Thought PoliGAF might like to chime in on this thread I just made: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=50713083

 

[mightynine]

Shocking Development:

The Associated Press ‏@AP
BREAKING: Senate Democrats dropping assault weapons ban from gun bill, making ban's approval unlikely.

 

[Byakuya769]

No, but a cancelation of the CIA drone program would be a fucking good start.

Nothing to do with my criticism, but ok.

 

[rocketknight]

Shocking Development:

Universal background checks have more support and should be more effective, at least. The assault weapons ban was never going to be reinstated anyway. If we're lucky this will be seen as a reasonable compromise out of the Democrats or some other stupid nonsense, which might allow the rest of the bill to progress.

 

[Aaron Strife]

What I don't understand is how the GOP thinks they're gonna win on Immigration reform. Whatever passes is gonna have more than half the GOP house vote against it. Having 40-50 representatives support a bill with the vast majority of dems supporting it shows they're still on the wrong side. They can't just have their national starts support it its disingenious

Exactly. They can't run on immigration reform if it only gets enough votes from their caucus to pass.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Ok now that it the AWB is officially dead can we pass a bill that will actually address gun violence and might pass the House?

 

[el retorno]

Ok now that it the AWB is officially dead can we pass a bill that will actually address gun violence and might pass the House?

Why have dems given up on this aspect of the issue (Its not just PD)? While yes it was never gonna pass they should let it be know there position is to ban those type of guns. Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill as many people had he not had an Assault Rifle same for the Movie Shooting. The might not reduce the number of shootings but I don't know how they wouldn't reduce the number of deaths.

 

[Chichikov]

Nothing to do with my criticism, but ok.

The CIA drone program is not combat force in the traditional way, or at least, they're as much a combat force as the CIA black prisons.
I think the cartoon is making a valid point.

 

[pigeon]

Why have dems given up on this aspect of the issue (Its not just PD)? While yes it was never gonna pass they should let it be know there position is to ban those type of guns. Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill as many people had he not had an Assault Rifle same for the Movie Shooting. The might not reduce the number of shootings but I don't know how they wouldn't reduce the number of deaths.

Dropping the ban is a deliberate part of the negotiations for getting the bill through that will hopefully contain actually productive restrictions. The assault weapons ban wouldn't have applied to Lanza's gun.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Just saw that Mittens won the CPAC 4 times.

Why have dems given up on this aspect of the issue (Its not just PD)? While yes it was never gonna pass they should let it be know there position is to ban those type of guns. Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill as many people had he not had an Assault Rifle same for the Movie Shooting. The might not reduce the number of shootings but I don't know how they wouldn't reduce the number of deaths.

I agree that they should move to ban it, but I am also very much disappointed by how all of these issues seem to drop off the public's radar just like that. People really don't care enough, no matter how many times they say ''this time really is enough''. It's disgusting how quick the assault weapon defense force popped up. Just pass a bill now with background checks and mental health funding. It's sad to say but it will take a lot more shootings before people are going to push for an assault weapons ban.

Dropping the ban is a deliberate part of the negotiations for getting the bill through that will hopefully contain actually productive restrictions. The assault weapons ban wouldn't have applied to Lanza's gun.

What about the gun in the movie shooting?

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Rick Scott's approval rating is in the shitter.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/03/scott-trails-crist-by-12-points.html

 

[el retorno]

Just saw that Mittens won the CPAC 4 times.

I agree that they should move to ban it, but I am also very much disappointed by how all of these issues seem to drop off the public's radar just like that. People really don't care enough, no matter how many times they say ''this time really is enough''. It's disgusting how quick the assault weapon defense force popped up. Just pass a bill now with background checks and mental health funding. It's sad to say but it will take a lot more shootings before people are going to push for an assault weapons ban.

I disagree, its gonna take demographic changes. When we become a minority majority country we're going to finally address issues like this more rationally. I think this also extends to economic issues as well.


http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...ricter-laws-for-varying-reason/#ixzz2O0ipFzgp

According to a 2012 study by the Pew Research Center, only 29 percent of Latinos view protecting gun ownership rights as very important, compared to 57 percent of whites.

Here's the only thing I could find on African Americans

A lot of the "I need a gun to protect myself" is part of a lot of whites fear of minorities. Who do they imagine when the thing about protecting themselves? It's not johnny up the street, its "Kareem" who pops up in their head (there are some people who imagine the mass murders but I'd imagine its fewer). Its the same thing as the crime rhetoric you hear.

I mean I heard people mention the LA riots why the need guns, it doesn't get much more obvious than that.

 

[pigeon]

What about the gun in the movie shooting?

He couldn't have bought that specific gun. However, he could have bought a nearly identical gun with the same specifications but different cosmetic features and the removal of, say, a completely unnecessary bayonet mount.

Basically, the assault weapons ban is completely ineffective at its purpose, because it includes a lot of things in the definition that don't contribute to the lethality of a weapon. You could write one that was effective, and banned, say, all semiautomatic rifles, but it would never pass.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why have dems given up on this aspect of the issue (Its not just PD)? While yes it was never gonna pass they should let it be know there position is to ban those type of guns. Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill as many people had he not had an Assault Rifle same for the Movie Shooting. The might not reduce the number of shootings but I don't know how they wouldn't reduce the number of deaths.

Lanza had two glocks on him when he was arrested, he could have easily killed as many people with them. I find the focus on AWB to be disingenuous considering the vast majority of gun violence in this country is due to handguns yet no one in Washington has anything to say about that, especially when the victims are inner city minorities instead of suburban whites. You know what would have prevented Sandy Hook? Metal detectors and auto lock doors, which you can find in many inner city schools.

I support an AWB but it's not going to pass with Obama (or another Clinton) as president. Therefore I would rather focus on things that would actually dent overall gun violence. Banning straw purchases, enforcing anti-traffiking laws, and having background checks would lower crime. Especially in places like Illinois which already has strict gun laws but is surrounded by states with little to no laws or regulations. The guns are coming from outside the state and from gun shows where people buy 10-20 guns with the intention of re-selling them.

 

[el retorno]

Lanza had two glocks on him when he was arrested, he could have easily killed as many people with them. I find the focus on AWB to be disingenuous considering the vast majority of gun violence in this country is due to handguns yet no one in Washington has anything to say about that, especially when the victims are inner city minorities instead of suburban whites. You know what would have prevented Sandy Hook? Metal detectors and auto lock doors, which you can find in many inner city schools.

I support an AWB but it's not going to pass with Obama (or another Clinton) as president. Therefore I would rather focus on things that would actually dent overall gun violence. Banning straw purchases, enforcing anti-traffiking laws, and having background checks would lower crime. Especially in places like Illinois which already has strict gun laws but is surrounded by states with little to no laws or regulations. The guns are coming from outside the state and from gun shows where people buy 10-20 guns with the intention of re-selling them.

Oh I don't think I disagree with your overall stance but I just don't like people saying a AWB is ineffective, the cosmetic ban would be but a real one would reduce violence. I guess I'm just frustrated that people are saying this would be ineffective without saying why (it doesn't ban the guns). It makes it seem like dems don't think banning certain guns is a good idea.

And I agree that there needs to be more focus on handgun violence.

 

[GaimeGuy]

But is it actually hard to move somewhere else?

Yes?

It involves leaving your friends, family, and community. Even if you're an introvert with social anxiety issues, that's a big issue, because you're leaving everything you're familiar with.

It requires a significant financial investment, and usually also demands that you find a new way to sustain your livelihood, since we live in a society that demands you work (And will likely continue to fight to maintain this even if we achieve the technological capabilities to move to a post-scarcity society).

It's not easy.

Unless you live somewhere between North Carolina and Massachusetts, it's a very, very large undertaking that most people would rather not pursue unless absolutely necessary. When a separate division of my company decided to close down its operations here in Minnesota last year and move them to the coasts, they prepared 800 relocation packages for the 1200-1500 workers empoyed under that division.

After 180 days, they had 8 people committed to relocate.

You can't just expect people to abandon their homes.

 

[speculawyer]

He couldn't have bought that specific gun. However, he could have bought a nearly identical gun with the same specifications but different cosmetic features and the removal of, say, a completely unnecessary bayonet mount.

Basically, the assault weapons ban is completely ineffective at its purpose, because it includes a lot of things in the definition that don't contribute to the lethality of a weapon. You could write one that was effective, and banned, say, all semiautomatic rifles, but it would never pass.

However, the real purpose of the assault weapons ban may be to die while allowing background checks for every gun to become passed.

Rick Scott's approval rating is in the shitter.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/03/scott-trails-crist-by-12-points.html

I'm surprised he is only behind by 12 points.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Lanza had two glocks on him when he was arrested, he could have easily killed as many people with them.

Could have, but most likely wouldn't have. Pistols are very inaccurate compared to rifles even at very short ranges.

 

[el retorno]

Could have, but most likely wouldn't have. Pistols are very inaccurate compared to rifles even at very short ranges.

Didn't maddow do something on this too? There is no way he could have gotten off the rounds as fast. He'd also have to reload.

 

[Link]

Shocking Development:

Probably the right move. Focus on stronger registration requirements, psych evals, required recerts, closing the gun show loophole, etc. It's not worth making the whole thing impossible to pass to ban weapons that aren't much different but are given a certain name.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I disagree, its gonna take demographic changes. When we become a minority majority country we're going to finally address issues like this more rationally. I think this also extends to economic issues as well.

While I would have guessed that white people were the main group opposing gun control, I hadn't realized that that means that demographic changes will also affect gun laws. Demographic shifts are the US' largest blessing.

He couldn't have bought that specific gun. However, he could have bought a nearly identical gun with the same specifications but different cosmetic features...

Depressing.

 

[zargle]

Didn't maddow do something on this too? There is no way he could have gotten off the rounds as fast. He'd also have to reload.

She was mostly talking about magazine sizes. Like he had to reload 4 times to get off 151 rounds, but with 10 round capacity, he would have to reload 15 times, making everything take longer and giving more people a chance to do something/get away. The pistols were not used at all save for the very last bullet.

Found the segment: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp/51188139#51188139

 

[KtSlime]

I see where you're coming from, but we really don't have it that bad. In fact I still think we're top tier. Which is sad.

The rest of the world isn't much better (ignoring military stuff).

Top tier in what? Obesity? Corporate handouts?

I suspect if companies like Monsanto have their way (and if past rulings are any indication of the future, they will), we won't even be able to grow our own food in 20 years. Woo freedom, USA #1!

 

[Black Republican]

Shocking Development:

Called it.

 

[Byakuya769]

The CIA drone program is not combat force in the traditional way, or at least, they're as much a combat force as the CIA black prisons.
I think the cartoon is making a valid point.

True, but the black prisons have been a problem of both administrations, so I think the criticism is directly about Obama's attack on the inhumanity of waterboarding (versus legality of it and the targeted killings of combatants). I think your construction is too nuanced for that caliber of artist.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

I'm surprised he is only behind by 12 points.

It's Florida.

 

[gcubed]

i dont understand why we are even talking about an assault weapons ban, all it does is ruin the argument. You can sell much more effective reforms easier without the hyperbole behind taking guns away if you just leave that shit out. I'd much rather have more ATF enforcement, actual monitoring of gun stock in the country, a centralized database for all gun sales and transfers, etc.

 

[speculawyer]

I wonder how many of those people that voted for Rand Paul in the CPAC straw poll are now regretting their votes after he came out for a path to citizenship?

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-pitches-pathway-undocumented-immigrants-172005285.html