Maybe if politicians actually did what they said those numbers would mean something.
-
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 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
The Librarian
Banned
Here we go. Obama proposes new climate change rules.
It's sorta like an alternate Dark Knight where Batman (Obama) listens to the phone calls then instead of destroying the thing he's like hey this tool is pretty nice and then Lucius (Snowden) resigns and then Wayne's underlings get caught spying on Harvey Dent and then Bane (Greenwald) releases the papers after him and a group of revolutionaries liberate the city.
I'm not the best analogy guy.
I think a more likely explanation is that people are more willing accept those things what it's "their guy" doing it.
Public opinion can change politician behavior.
See: gay marriage.
Batman is the 1%.
A billionaire that punch poor people in the face to maintain the status quo, he doesn't even have the balls to do it without a mask, god forbid his nighttime hobby interrupts with his busy schedule of yachting and fucking supermodels.
Hey, we had plenty of Democratic rank and file joining in on the "Occupy are just spoiled hipsters" chorus, so this isn't the least bit surprising.
Yes, I will never stop belaboring this.
Occupy really needed a platform of action. Guillotine optional.
cartoon_soldier
Member
And VRA is gutted?
Frank the Great
Banned
Love dat judicial legislation.
At least conservatives aren't judicial activists, right.
At least conservatives aren't judicial activists, right.
The Librarian
Banned
Fuck SCOTUS.
cartoon_soldier
Member
No, DOMA or Prop 8 today
The Librarian
Banned
https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/349531138550808576
https://twitter.com/ed_kilgore/status/349531710330904577
Why can't I embed tweets
((((((((https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/349531138550808576
https://twitter.com/ed_kilgore/status/349531710330904577
Why can't I embed tweets
embedding tweets is bad. stop worrying about it, what you did above is much better
The Librarian
Banned
It's just annoying having to copy/paste. If there were a way to get the text of the tweet more easily with a link, I'd be satisfied.
TacticalFox88
Banned
SCOTUS has been fucking us for the past decade.
I don't expect positive news on Gay marriage.
I don't expect positive news on Gay marriage.
empty vessel
Member
Five people just threw out a law on the ground that the entire Senate acted irrationally. That might be unprecedented in American history. And all to make it easier for white people to suppress black votes, too. Welcome to the 1950's y'all!
I, for one, am glad these people are able to serve for life.
Fucking embarrassing.
said it in the other thread... between this and immigration, there is no better chance to get out the vote of minority voters in a mid term election then there is for next year. If any of the current polling is accurate and holds up (especially in relation to senior voters), redistricting won't prevent a house flip if the democrats can effectively be on message
The Librarian
Banned
That's some stellar reasoning, guys.
Frank the Great
Banned
The VRA case has serious separation of powers implications. It goes way beyond the actual act that was struck down.
The Supreme Court has already asserted its power to appoint the President. Now, it has declared itself the ultimate decider of legislative issues, able to overturn Congress on its most traditional function--finding facts to support legislation. Congress overwhelmingly thought the Section 4 coverage formula was still needed, even despite the changes of the last 40 years. SCOTUS has now reserved a veto power over legislation it does not like, and has given itself the power to find its own facts and support for laws. Instead of merely resolving conflicts relating to constitutional and statutory interpretation, SCOTUS has essentially made itself the ruling council of the nation.
This has serious implications for the future. I believe this decision will be regarded as one of the worst S.C. decisions.
The Supreme Court has already asserted its power to appoint the President. Now, it has declared itself the ultimate decider of legislative issues, able to overturn Congress on its most traditional function--finding facts to support legislation. Congress overwhelmingly thought the Section 4 coverage formula was still needed, even despite the changes of the last 40 years. SCOTUS has now reserved a veto power over legislation it does not like, and has given itself the power to find its own facts and support for laws. Instead of merely resolving conflicts relating to constitutional and statutory interpretation, SCOTUS has essentially made itself the ruling council of the nation.
This has serious implications for the future. I believe this decision will be regarded as one of the worst S.C. decisions.
i love the "And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels". unprecedented from near zero! Its a combination of that plus "some of my friends are black". Look, we have a latino congressman, SUCCESS!
empty vessel
Member
But you left off the grand conclusion. "Therefore, we must reverse this success!"
Yep. Few people who are not lawyers will understand just how radical and extreme this decision is legally. In fact, probably most lawyers who do not specialize in constitutional law will not understand how radical the decision is.
The Librarian
Banned
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Holy shit. I am completely speechless. This is so disgusting. :/
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's worth noting Section 2 of the VRA covers much of the same ground. And most of the voter ID laws that were struck down last year had nothing to do with Section 5, they were in violation of state laws.
I'm far more concerned about voting hours (and early voting hours/days) being restricted, which seems harder to be addressed legally. Claiming this ruling "takes us back to 1965" trivializes the past.
I'm far more concerned about voting hours (and early voting hours/days) being restricted, which seems harder to be addressed legally. Claiming this ruling "takes us back to 1965" trivializes the past.
McConnell: Bwahahahaha.
empty vessel
Member
It doesn't, though. It's part of an effort to do just that. Don't underestimate the South's racial animosity. It's not gone away.
Pretty much. I expect absolutely nothing.
I said it before and I would say it again -
If you want unbiased and objective interpretation of a text, there are better frameworks than the legal one.
If you want to make judgment calls, there better people than lawyers.
Fuck judicial review.
The Librarian
Banned
Yeah.
Eric Holder will make a statement at 12:30pm: https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/349550342058414080
jamesinclair
Banned
The terrorists have won, again.
For the Boston fireworks, people getting anywhere near the concert have to adhere to TSA rules - all items clear plastic bags, only sealed bottles, blankets, folding chairs, and nothing else.
Oh, and the main bridge across the river? Closed to all vehicles and pedestrians. Never mind it was the most popular viewing spot, and theres no bridge nearby to cross.
Land of the free.
For the Boston fireworks, people getting anywhere near the concert have to adhere to TSA rules - all items clear plastic bags, only sealed bottles, blankets, folding chairs, and nothing else.
Oh, and the main bridge across the river? Closed to all vehicles and pedestrians. Never mind it was the most popular viewing spot, and theres no bridge nearby to cross.
Land of the free.
I hate to do that grim math, but it's 3 people dead.
If it was a white person with a gun we would've done nothing.
If it was a drunk person with a car we wouldn't even report it.
To play devils advocate, 3 dead but over 100 injured, many of whom lost limbs.
jamesinclair
Banned
So an average day on Massachusetts roads?
There is no hope for tomorrow.
There are a lot of people who don't seem to know the difference.
An important difference from a pov of self-interest is that fear only works if you are the most powerful guy in the room. Once people get the sense that they can fight back, all of the stuff you did to cultivate fear becomes a liability.
The Librarian
Banned
Cross-posting again:
Welp. Here we go.
Texas GOP calls for Voter ID to be put in place. But, hey, the old formula was too out of date to be effective!
Welp. Here we go.
Texas GOP calls for Voter ID to be put in place. But, hey, the old formula was too out of date to be effective!
PhoenixDark
Banned
It'll be challenged and likely thrown out, like the Arizona law (which admittedly is different).
I have no problem with voter ID requirements as long as IDs are readily available. Moving Sec of State offices out of cities and requiring large fees to "purchase" an idea is the bigger problem to me.
The Librarian
Banned
That's not always successful. At least, not as successful as the VRA.
Half and half
Member
Also, didn't they shut down that street for a week as well while collecting evidence?
So it also disrupts businesses and other people as well.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You can't just say terrorism kills less thus isn't not as important (I'll ignore your gun example because I do think that can be argued as more important, not sure I agree fully as I feel they're different monsters, but its a valid opinion)
Cars are dangerous yes, drunk people behind them doubly so but cars have a legitimate purpose, we know the risk they have an judge that we like the convenience they provide and judge the fact that people can die is a trade-off. This also misses the fact we are ever vigilant to these common dangers people so often cite to justify decreased vigilance towards terrorism. We pass new safety laws, fine negligent companies, punish those that abuse their privileges (drunk drivers for example). We fight these dangers.
Why wouldn't we do the same with terrorism?
And these common dangers aren't trying to kill us they're not sentient things. Terrorists are. And yes they are real threat. 9/11, the boston bombing, Nidal Hassan all prove that these people have no problem targeting and killing innocent people for their political goals? The only thing that is stopping them are those in Anti-Terrorism. And you're its just "3 people dead" does nothing to capture the societal disintegration terrorism promotes when it succeeds, the kind of policies it brings about in response.
You're Israeli no? You've seen how sustained terrorism has given people an out for avoiding peace and can push them in to a bellicose and siege mentality. Even if you feel their wrong in their reasons you can't deny it happens, and will happen (in the US its lead to things like Iraq which wouldn't have happened without the 9/11 anxiety).
There does need to be a discussion about how best to fight terrorism, maybe the Boston regulations are overkill. I have my theories I'm sure you have yours but you reduce it to "just three dead" misses why terrorism is different that normal accidents, murders and deaths.
empty vessel
Member
There's not a whole lot to discuss. Make our government stop provoking it.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Justice Scalia said:
Let's play a game.
Name all of the ways that statement is ironic and false.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Terrorism isn't also only middle eastern. Oklahoma, the KKK, anti-abortion activists have also committed terrorism and the FBI fight against them. Would you support appeasing them to stop terrorism?
Stop abortion because that would stop the tiller-killers of the world?
Suppress minority rights because that will stop the KKK?
Extremely limit the govenment's role because that will stop the McVeighs?
And I disagree with your assertion we are to blame for terrorism. We don't force things like 9/11, people can oppose political policy without killing others. There's a tradition of it.
CharlieDigital
Banned
My fucking mind is boggled.
Did a Justice of the Supreme Court just say that racism is no longer a problem?
empty vessel
Member
Of course not. Each type of terrorism has to be judged on its own. What I would oppose is doing anything to try to stop domestic terrorism. It's currently negligible and not worth the effort. Prosecute it as a criminal act whenever it occurs, as we always have done.
And we can stop projecting our power in distant lands in ways that motivates people to violently attack us. For example, we can stop aiding Israel's oppression of Palestinians. That would alone significantly reduce motivations to violently attack us in retaliation for our abuse.
- Status