Totally checks out, friend on my Facebook:
that... is awesome
-
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 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
that... is awesome
Totally checks out, friend on my Facebook:
Yep... It's amazing how few people check their math. Then again, there is a reason why we are 32nd in the world in math.
There are three types of people in the world: those who can count, and Democrats.
Joe Molotov
Member
We could totally overtake those 33 countries above us if we really wanted to, though.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm really surprised! He just won in 2012 by a comfortable margin against another incumbent (their districts were meshed together).
Democrats can win both of the now-open Republican seats, as well as New Jersey's 3rd (also open). Add to that:
CA-31, CO-6 (districts Democrats should have no business losing)
FL-2 (strong candidate for Democrats, the incumbent's taken a beating here)
FL-13 (upcoming special election, Alex Sink is running)
IL-13, MI-1 (extremely close districts in 2012)
They're at 209, giving the GOP Matheson's seat, which was inevitable. The trick is finding nine more seats (as well as holding onto other Dem-held red seats), but if Dems catch a break in a few more GOP-held districts (like NJ-2), they could pull it off. CA-10, CA-21, MI-7, MI-11, MN-2, NE-2, NV-3, and NY-19 will all be competitive on their own too.
RustyNails
Member
How's Alex Sink faring against her opponent? Who's running in IL-13?
theprodigy
Member
isn't that a Rick Scott internal though, so it's probably closer than reality
None of Michigan's districts are toss ups. They are gerrymandered to be 60% to 40%
Actually the MI1 is competitive, and MI 11 has the reindeer farmer. So democrats could pick up those, but not really any others in Michigan
Aaron Strife
Banned
The last poll of FL-13 (done by a local pollster, Dec 3 2013) has her winning by huge margins over GOPers. IIRC her fundraising has been through the roof whereas the GOPers aren't very well known or funded.
In IL-13, Ann Callis is running for the Democrats. Popular, moderate, former judge, the DCCC jumped on her campaign very early.
MI-1 was won by less than 2,000 votes in 2012.Aylinato said:
MI-11 is only competitive because of Bentivolio. If he loses in the primary, it's off the table, but as long as he's in it's a possible pickup.
theprodigy
Member
edit: damn your editing speed Aaron Strife
Bentivolio, you caught before my edit. He's a reindeer farmer and will lose next election.
RustyNails
Member
I figured she would do well. She came pretty close to beating Rick Scott.
I need to look more into IL-13 and support the candidate.
Are you sure that wasn't just a disingenuous talking point? The last holiday was on the -ee side of payroll taxes, which had no effect on operating expenses of businesses. (Instead of cutting a check for X dollars to the IRS, a business would cut one for X-Y and Y would be added back into the individual paychecks.) I leave out the uncertainty faced by workers in this period because the Republican Party has clearly been disinterested in them for decades.
Maybe there was a concerted effort to pay new hires wages that appeared similar to those with the higher -ee rate under the holiday one? I could (unfortunately) believe that.
The payroll tax is reliable, easy(-ier) to enforce, and regressive--I have a hard time thinking Leviathan would be willing to casually jettison it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Probably not but when PPP did those 60+whatever House polls, they showed the incumbents' approval ratings in MI-3 and 7 plummeting, worse than most of the other Republicans they polled. They may have rebounded a little but I'm betting Snyder's unpopularity is trickling down to the House members as well (or they're just reinforcing one another in a revolving carousel of bullshit).
I think she'll win, she's actually won the district twice already - once in 2006 when she ran for CFO, and in 2010 when she ran against Scott.RustyNails said:
Actually i think when Gary peters rolls out for senate it'll help dems pick up some seats in the house.
MI11 held by Reindeer farmer. How is no one laughing at this aside from me lol
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
How's this?
Didn't he also get arrested for something? I only seem to remember it involving him dressed up as Santa Claus and alcohol.
Avon Barksdale
Member
He's become the Matthew Stafford of PoliGAF.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The gerrymandering map is just insane. What an election 2010 was...
It's hard to see our stagnant state economy hurting these clowns either, due to just how rigged things are.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/paul-ryan-ways-and-means-committee-2014-101256.html?hp=f2
Ryan's not running in 2016. Gonna look to ad a bit to his resume. Going for Ways and Means.
MORE TAX CUTS!!!!
This is about institutionalizing and codifying the last 30 years of loopholes and increasing regressiveness of the tax code to make any future rewriting of them more difficult. He's not power hungry he's a true believer which is all the more scarier. He's only 43 too.... ugh...
Ryan's not running in 2016. Gonna look to ad a bit to his resume. Going for Ways and Means.
MORE TAX CUTS!!!!
This is about institutionalizing and codifying the last 30 years of loopholes and increasing regressiveness of the tax code to make any future rewriting of them more difficult. He's not power hungry he's a true believer which is all the more scarier. He's only 43 too.... ugh...
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I would have given him the benefit of the doubt if he were closer than $299,000,000,000,000.00 off.
Huh? I thought the boy genius was already chairman of Ways and Means?
speculawyer
Member
I think he also has a bit part in a 9/11 conspiracy theory movie.
yep
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/kerry-bentivolio-win-michigan-mccotter
Looks like Ginsberg isn't stepping down until she is unable to work.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court_n_4460255.html
We need Hillary 2016 etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court_n_4460255.html
We need Hillary 2016 etc.
+
How's this?
Didn't he also get arrested for something? I only seem to remember it involving him dressed up as Santa Claus and alcohol.
Perfect combo
Yea it's crazy I don't even want to think of how fucked the state house reps districts are.
theprodigy
Member
lawl the comments
So Ron Fournier of the National Journal has been really stepping up his attempts at winning the "most useless centrist pundit of 2013" award and wrote this impressive screed chalk full of false equivalency today. It's filled with all the classics you know and love: Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War, the IRS scandal, website-gate, and of course, BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI! Instead of linking to the article itself, I'll instead link to Charlie Pierce's sweet take down:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-fournier-end-of-obama-presidency-121713
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-fournier-end-of-obama-presidency-121713
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Budget.
So he helps with the top line number there's still ways and means for taxes and appropriations to determine exact allocations. The budgeting process is a mess.
Iirc this deal is only the top line number still have to appropriate (actually I think a lack of new appropriations would revert the laws back to 40 era formulations) which is what the farm bill, ndaa etc are I believe, could be wrong.
Taking a page out of John Paul Stevens book I see. I just hope it doesn't bite us in the ass is all.
Yeah, appointments for life sucks any way you cut it.
Oh, and she need to retire, I'm not a fan of judicial review, I'm not a fan of the current system, but if she get replaced by a young uber conservative, this will set this country back years, and that shit is more important that her nebulous ideas of honor or whatever.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Disagree. Best way to isolate judgeships from politics. Life appointments take away the risk of losing them to the revolving door like politician and presidents.
Sure it sucks when you get crappy judges but that's a political problem not a problem with the institution
People could consider a National Journal writer as something resembling centrist?
Black Mamba
Member
Wish you posted the entire article because there are some important figures in there.
For instance only 14% have gotten bronze plans and 2% catastrophic. Most have silver and the rest gold. That is a good thing.
Also they are hoping to get 100k when enrollement ends so 50k by the end of this year is huge. Also 17k in Medicaid.
I think the government should be held accountable, and lifetime appointments take it away.
First of all, it's still political, you just make those political fights less frequent and with higher stakes, and that's not a good thing.
But more importantly, "isolate from politics" is just a nice way of saying you're isolating them from the public and their opinion, which might be a good idea if you believe that all they do is interpret the text in an unbiased way, but I don't.
And while the revolving door is definitely an issue, there are better ways of handing it than lifetime appointments.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
there's impeachment
empty vessel
Member
The life appointment insulates them from politics, but not from the revolving door, if by that you mean the ability to use their public service to cater to private interests for a delayed reward after leaving public service. That's because, while SCOTUS judges may stay on the bench for life, they aren't required to. They can leave any time.
So life appointments serve the same interests (insulation from political whims) as any reasonably long term of years. We could, for example, put a simple age limit on the court, after which a Justice is forced to retire. Or say that a term may last no more than 20 years. We'd be rid of both Scalia and Thomas by now with a rule like that.
National Journal's generally not too bad. Occasionally they come out with some pretty good stuff, even. I think you might be confusing them with National Review?
Which happened once, for super-partisan reasons, and he was acquitted in the senate anyway (the guy died on the bench).
For all intents and purposes, Supreme Court justices are appointment until they die or decide they had enough.
I mean sheeeeeit, James fuck the Jews, drinkers, blacks, women, smokers, and married people McReynolds got to keep his job, you think there is any chance you'll see a justice impeached in our lifetime?
Political whims is for the most part a codeword to "shit the unwashed masses might want", and in a democracy, that's not something you need to be insulated from. I know the American democracy was built in large part around limiting the influence that the common people can have on the system, I just don't think it's a good thing.
Also, since supreme court justices are political appointments, they're not isolated from the political whims, they're just beholden to whatever whims happen to be whimming about when they got confirmed, and fuck that.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think being insulated from political whims is exceedingly important in cases like civil rights. Even today we have people calling MLK a terrorist and trying to call it the War of Northern Aggression.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The court has also lead on many issues, including civil rights, privacy rights, gay rights, reproductive rights, free speech rights because they don't face reactionary politics. Look at places where they have elected judges, people freak out when the make a decision they disagree with (Iowa). Constitutional rights are not things to be put to popular vote. I want them to make unpopular decisions when they are right. Many supreme court decisions are unpopular when made but are the correct decisions.
Courts are not the branch for true majority rule. There are other outlets like constitutional amendments presidential picks that will better represent their views, etc.
I don't look at the court now and demand changes because of who makes it up. I look at a longer picture. Courts generally have advanced american liberty and democracy. Obviously with a lot of black marks.
And I profoundly respect the doctrine of separation of powers. It slows things down but when progress is made it makes it very difficult to go backwards.
And I think your wrong on them being dependent on who appointed them, chief example: Warren or Souter
I know they could quit but I think the job is good enough they won't. I worry that judges will look towards their retirement as a way to cash out on their decisions. Especially when you have a mandatory retirement age or term limit. I think you'd see younger nominees as a result which would further hurt the court.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'd personally go high premium, low deductible. I like security over risk. I'm generally conservative in that sense.
Armoured Priest
Member
I'll agree with APK here as well. I've always been willing to pay a bit more to have better coverage and not have to pay as much when an emergency comes up...or even when it comes time to deal with a non-emergency that I'd been putting off.
I don't think you can justify the current system by the fact that the supreme court made some good decisions. For every good decision, I can give you 2 terrible ones.
I don't think that's true, the Supreme Court for most of its life was a conservative institute (in the deep meaning of the word, not in the partisan sense of it), the Warren court was an exception, not the rule.
So you think it's a good idea to have someone who would've cashed in on their position in the supreme court serve for life?
Man, if we were foolish enough to get someone like that on the bench, I say the sooner we get rid of them the better.
empty vessel
Member
I don't know, criminal justice systems with elected judges are nasty, nasty things. Civil law countries with a professional judiciary seem to do better. When it comes to due process, I am fine with shitting on the unwashed masses clamoring for a lynching.
That's not to say that I entirely disagree with you, either. All things equal, I am pretty radically in favor of democratizing public institutions (and even economies), but there seems to be something toxic about mixing democracy with courts. It's an issue I can't pretend to have figured out.
The question is whether that is better or worse than having judges pressured to rule certain ways in every case before them because of the political pressure being brought to bear over them. In other words, absent sufficient insulation, corporations involved in specific cases can apply political pressure to specific judges to obtain outcomes favorable to them in those cases.
Black Mamba
Member
Just raise the age when one may be appointed to the court. Say 55.
I guess it's all come down to the question whether or not a judge is a political position, I mean I don't think we should hold elections for the head of JPL.
Personally, I think the supreme court is a more political position than a professional one.
The rich and powerful have ways to influence supreme court justices as it is.
And just so we're clear, I'm not even advocating election for judges, elections are so corrupted in this country that I'm not sure if this is going to help, I just reject the notion that being beholden to public opinions as a concept is a bad thing in a democracy.
JesseEwiak
Member
Clarence Thomas would've ruled the way he did anyway. In a way, Thomas and his wife are grifting money from right-wing groups to make opinions they agreed with in the first place.
- Status