• 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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Microsoft didn't change their mind until the initial pre-order numbers came in.

I'd say the campaign against DRM had an effect on those numbers, wouldn't you?

n-ATANUS-large570.jpg


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/susanne-atanus-congress-_n_4993555.html

I know . . . she's just some fringe candidate that won't win. But she got 54% of the GOP vote to win nomination!

That is some crazy shit right there.
 

FyreWulff

Member
I'd say the campaign against DRM had an effect on those numbers, wouldn't you?

I'd say it was more along the lines of most of MS's userbase on the 360 not having a stable enough connection, and all the young and poor kids have no home internet at all. I STILL hear people walking into stores talking about how they don't want a One because it requires a 24 hour check in. They heard the initial news and made up their mind, and didn't come back to see if it had changed.

And MS execs are STILL humping the "we didn't have the messaging right" line.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/us/politics/rand-paul-speaks-at-berkeley.html?hp

Like I've said before, stuff like this is really going to help him with independents in 2016, Rand is seeming to make a play for minorities, which could very well work.

It's still baffling that many liberals are either defending or indifferent to this. My twitter feed is now full of Media Matters types making snarky comments about Paul's views on the CRA.

The potential for abuse, as well as existing abuses, should be enough to shut this down. This is also a president who claimed he'd end the surveillance state.

It's a shame Paul is extreme on so many other important issues or else I'd support him.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/us/politics/rand-paul-speaks-at-berkeley.html?hp

Like I've said before, stuff like this is really going to help him with independents in 2016, Rand is seeming to make a play for minorities, which could very well work.

Oh I agree . . . the anti-spying stuff will help Rand.

But his play for minorities is just NOT going to work. His dad linked to the racist Ron Paul report, Rand Paul was against the Civil Rights Act (but is now for it after getting hammered), His book was co-written by "The Southern Avenger", etc. He's got some serious baggage in that area.

But no matter . . . I don't think he would ever get the nomination anyway. The military-Industrial complex establishment of the GOP just won't allow it. All those Carlyle Group types and oil industry types that need the military to protect their overseas oil investments won't allow some quasi-isolationist like Rand Paul into the presidency.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
LOL:

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus applied some dizzying spin on Wednesday to the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.
Forget the final results. Priebus told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that voters thought Mitt Romney had the better presidential chops.

"I mean, the fact of the matter is Mitt Romney won on the message," Priebus said. "He won on jobs, he won on the economy, he won on the question of, 'Who do you actually think would make a better president?' But where he lost was on the question of, 'Who cares about you?'"

Dude really needs to go back to Hogwarts.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/us/politics/rand-paul-speaks-at-berkeley.html?hp

Like I've said before, stuff like this is really going to help him with independents in 2016, Rand is seeming to make a play for minorities, which could very well work.
No its not. And his minority stuff is laughable. Especially when he lectures Obama on what black people should care about.

“The first African-American president ought to be a little more conscious of the fact of what has happened with the abuses of domestic spying,” Mr. Paul said, previewing remarks he planned to deliver to a group of students and faculty members Wednesday afternoon at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Martin Luther King was spied upon, civil rights leaders were spied upon, Muhammad Ali was spied upon, antiwar protesters were spied upon,” he said. “The possibility for abuse in this is incredible. So I don’t care if there’s never been any evidence of abuse with the N.S.A., they should not be collecting the data.”

Nice to see someone admitting the bold. Also this sounds a lot like Obama circa 2007


The potential for abuse, as well as existing abuses, should be enough to shut this down. This is also a president who claimed he'd end the surveillance state.

This is such and ambiguous statement. In your statement's broadest meaning, it will never happen. Never. There will always be surveillance, there always has been.

The best your going to get is limits and reform to prevent abuses. And are you shocked some liberals don't have a problem with all surveillance? They aren't all the same and don't all see the NSA as the Stasi or trampling on free speech.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Not surprising, since Paul pretending to care about minorities is kind of laughable.

On the other hand, he's still correct on this issue, and on the history of it. So... hmm. Hard to decide how to react.

I know how you feel. I'm still trying to suss out whether he's saying that drones and surveillance needs structural changes or if he's just saying to keep all the powers intact but give those power to him instead, because he swears he wont abuse them like Obama is.

I guess, either way, he's the first Republican front runner in years to challenge Democrats on an issue in a way that's rational, so that's somewhat exciting. Usually when Republicans happen to say something rational it's in challenge to others in their own party.

As far as how much it'll help him, it'll keep strengthening his position with young republicans, which will help him in the primaries, particularly in grass roots campaigning which requires energetic unjaded youth. Obviously on its own that isn't enough or else Ron Paul would have done better, but if Rand keeps that edge and remains average in everything else it might be enough to make the difference.

As for republican leaning minorities, I think they're more concerned with immigration than privacy.

The funny thing is, Rand Paul could win his primary with amazingly good youth numbers, and Hillary Clinton could win her primary with extremely poor youth numbers, but in the main election the youth will still mostly go for Clinton just like they go for the democrat every year.
 
Can someone explain why average republicans or places like the national review care so much about keystone? What does it do for American? Its a single damn pipeline. I just don't understand why those not standing to be if it have made such a stink. Especially your average voter.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Can someone explain why average republicans or places like the national review care so much about keystone? What does it do for American? Its a single damn pipeline. I just don't understand why those not standing to be if it have made such a stink. Especially your average voter.

JERBS.

Also, you should know better than Republicans are so good at framing an issue in a positive light when talking to their constituents. Hide the fact that all the pipeline is doing is making oil barons richer and you have your base eating from your head.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Can someone explain why average republicans or places like the national review care so much about keystone? What does it do for American? Its a single damn pipeline. I just don't understand why those not standing to be if it have made such a stink. Especially your average voter.

Probably for the sole reason Obama is trying to push back on it, now.

Nebraska doesn't want it. And it's Republistan.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
Can someone explain why average republicans or places like the national review care so much about keystone? What does it do for American? Its a single damn pipeline. I just don't understand why those not standing to be if it have made such a stink. Especially your average voter.

Less oil spills and train fires in transport.

Blocking it is a huge benefit to Warren Buffett.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
It's not about the pipeline. It's supposed to be indicative of all the useless regulations imposed which only hurt our economy. If Obama didn't even pass this, how many other job creating opportunities is Obama passing up?

It's just like how the Obamacare horror stories are supposed to be indicative of more than just the people telling the stories.
 
Can someone explain why average republicans or places like the national review care so much about keystone? What does it do for American? Its a single damn pipeline. I just don't understand why those not standing to be if it have made such a stink. Especially your average voter.
Because drill, baby, drill. Monster trucks. And it annoys liberals.

The real reasons:
1) For the high-end Republicans: Oil companies and oil refiners want it as a cheap way to get their tar sands down to all the massive refinery complexes down in Louisiana and Texas. They'll get more money for their oil (it can be exported from there easily) and they'll be able to expand their tar sands operations easier.
2) For the low-level Republicans: They've been told it will create jobs and they think it will lower their gas prices. But it will just create some temporary construction jobs and like 30 full-time jobs. And it won't lower gas prices . . . in fact it will raise them in the mid-west and mountain states where they currently enjoy artificially cheap oil due to the stranded oil excess up there.
 
Because drill, baby, drill. Monster trucks. And it annoys liberals.

The real reasons:
1) For the high-end Republicans: Oil companies and oil refiners want it as a cheap way to get their tar sands down to all the massive refinery complexes down in Louisiana and Texas. They'll get more money for their oil (it can be exported from there easily) and they'll be able to expand their tar sands operations easier.
2) For the low-level Republicans: They've been told it will create jobs and they think it will lower their gas prices. But it will just create some temporary construction jobs and like 30 full-time jobs. And it won't lower gas prices . . . in fact it will raise them in the mid-west and mountain states where they currently enjoy artificially cheap oil due to the stranded oil excess up there.

This is why I almost want Obama to just say fuck it and pass the thing, just to spite them.
 
Can someone explain why average republicans or places like the national review care so much about keystone? What does it do for American? Its a single damn pipeline. I just don't understand why those not standing to be if it have made such a stink. Especially your average voter.

Need to get oil from the US, instead of having to get it from the evil Muslims.
 
Need to get oil from the US, instead of having to get it from the evil Muslims.

Except the oil doesn't come from the USA, it comes from Canada. The only reason the administration has a say on this issue is because it crosses the border with Canada thus putting it under the jurisdiction of the State Department. Heck, much of the pipeline is already built or is already being built.
 
Can someone explain why average republicans or places like the national review care so much about keystone? What does it do for American? Its a single damn pipeline. I just don't understand why those not standing to be if it have made such a stink. Especially your average voter.

Anything to anger environmentalist liberals.

Republicans are entirely a reactionary party.
 
Can someone explain why average republicans or places like the national review care so much about keystone? What does it do for American? Its a single damn pipeline. I just don't understand why those not standing to be if it have made such a stink. Especially your average voter.

On the flip side, why have some liberals and environmentalists made it their Waterloo? It's a single damn pipeline.
 
On the flip side, why have some liberals and environmentalists made it their Waterloo? It's a single damn pipeline.

PD the Contrarian.

Because there's more to lose on the left (or rather cares about the earth) side. The pipeline makes it easier for oil to be extracted from a place where oil is hard to get out of and causes a lot of damage in the process, promotes the idea that oils is cheaper and easier, enriches a few at the expense of many, has potential disastrous effects if it leaks or spills. Making it easier to get oil to market makes oil more attractive and shifts money away from renewable. I also believe the studies are making the assumption that if the pipeline doesn't go through an alternate to the pacific would be build which is a horrible assumption (would require time and an additional expense) and is still a victory because its more time that oil is in the ground. It has no real upsides that can't be solved other ways (don't give me the stupid job argument, we can have stimulus or a WPA type program to fix that) and a lot of downsides. Why wouldn't they make this a big issue? My question is there are no upsides besides the enrichment of the richest companies on the planet? Why do republican base voters care so much about them?

But chiefly it is one place where environmentalists can take a stand. Since it crosses international borders the president has final say. Something that can't be said for cap and trade or a carbon tax which has to have 50 senators and 219 representatives in agreement. They only need to convince one. Its also a symbolic victory. Its an electoral victory for the environmentalists. They didn't win in court they one by organizing and scaring the president he would lose their vote if he supported it. It shows the democratic base can promote and succeed in extracting environmental victories from politicians. It shows people politics works.

That and I just want to stick one to the Canadians.
 
Martin Luther King was spied upon
Turns out, though, his biggest problem was getting bulleted upon. Maybe if there was better gun control-- but no. Spying. That's the injustice you think about when you think about MLK.
 
Turns out, though, his biggest problem was getting bulleted upon. Maybe if there was better gun control-- but no. Spying. That's the injustice you think about when you think about MLK.
To be fair, the spying played a role in his death, and especially Malcolm X's. Giving detailed security information to people you know want to kill someone...yeah. Gun control would not have saved them, and surveillance ultimately made them easier targets.
 

Aaron

Member
To be fair, the spying played a role in his death, and especially Malcolm X's. Giving detailed security information to people you know want to kill someone...yeah. Gun control would not have saved them, and surveillance ultimately made them easier targets.
They were public figures who gave announced speeches. They could have not been easier targets if they wore bulls eye jackets.
 

Chichikov

Member
For real, you guys really don't see the very serious problem in spying on someone like MLK?
That type of crap was abused to hell and back in the history of the US (not to mention elsewhere).
 
For real, you guys really don't see the very serious problem in spying on someone like MLK?
That type of crap was abused to hell and back in the history of the US (not to mention elsewhere).

I do, I just think there are much more pressing issues that hypothetical spying. Its why the Congressional and Love spying are the two most worrying things in the NSA leaks its real abuse.

Ending bulk collection and Rand Paul's lame attempts to attach himself to the civil rights movement (which was absolutely not libertarian) don't have anything to do with the fear mongering rand is bring up. I don't trust his motives.
 

pigeon

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/us/politics/rand-paul-speaks-at-berkeley.html?hp

Like I've said before, stuff like this is really going to help him with independents in 2016, Rand is seeming to make a play for minorities, which could very well work.

It could work, if Rand Paul was right and people of color were all fucking idiots, but it turns out they aren't. Seriously, this kind of thing is almost insulting. You think people of color are going to suddenly go "Oh, they spied on MLK! Who cares about civil rights anyway? Vote against drones!" Believe me, most of us don't have the luxury of voting on things that happened 40 years ago.
 

Chichikov

Member
I do, I just think there are much more pressing issues that hypothetical spying. Its why the Congressional and Love spying are the two most worrying things in the NSA leaks its real abuse.

Ending bulk collection and Rand Paul's lame attempts to attach himself to the civil rights movement (which was absolutely not libertarian) don't have anything to do with the fear mongering rand is bring up. I don't trust his motives.
I don't trust or particularly care about his motive, if he ends up being a useful idiot on the front (on on drones), that's a good thing, and I have zero issues with it.
It would also make him infinitely more useful and accomplished politician than his father.

I do agree that his attempt to attach himself to civil rights is hilarious, but whatever, he's more than welcome to continue to embarrass himself in his minority outreach.
 
It could work, if Rand Paul was right and people of color were all fucking idiots, but it turns out they aren't. Seriously, this kind of thing is almost insulting. You think people of color are going to suddenly go "Oh, they spied on MLK! Who cares about civil rights anyway? Vote against drones!" Believe me, most of us don't have the luxury of voting on things that happened 40 years ago.

It is insulting! They do believe black people (and other minorities) are stupid and can be easily swayed by a single issue.

Idiots like Rand actually believe that if he can convince minorities on spying, they'd vote for him.

What these people fail to understand is that black people, as well as all the other minorities, are far more nuanced in their voting behavior than a single issue or talking friendlier to their people. It's all their core ideas that are the problem, from tax policy to education to minimum wage to drug war, etc etc etc.

This is why they always argue that with black people their problem is messaging. Or that with Latinos it's immigration because they're more religious and should vote Republican (despite all polling showing it's far more than that).

Ask Republicans why Asians don't vote for them and they're completely stumped. They have no response because there's no box for them to be put in regarding a single issue. The GOP still doesn't get the problem with the party is solely about all their ideas and nothing else.


edit: On a side note, more evidence of this is that the GOP actually believes Dems want immigration reform simply because it hurts the GOP. To them, it makes no sense Dems could ever see Latinos as anything but votes because that's how the GOP views them so thus everyone must as well. It's a sad an d disgusting world-view.
 

pigeon

Banned
Since we're on the subject, what do you guys think about Jon Chait disagreeing with Ta-Nehisi (sp) Coates on Obama's criticism to Black folks:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/obama-ta-nehisi-coates-poverty-and-culture.html

It's a very complicated issue.

I think that Chait is missing Coates's deepest point here, which is made more clear in his earlier articles on this topic -- when Obama talks about black people needing to improve their culture, he's doing so in order to play into a long-running American trope which was promulgated specifically to control black people and excuse their disenfranchisement. "Inner-city culture is the problem" is the "we have to cut the deficit" of race. Note that these are both things Obama has happily argued for political reasons! This is the core of Coates's anger -- Obama is playing politics with a narrative that's actively destructive to people of color.

I think Chait's argument about culture is rather facile.

nymag said:
It would be pretty shallow to attribute the cultural pathologies of Wall Street at their root to bad people working there. The trouble, instead, is that the structural conditions of the financial industry have fostered certain cultural norms. If you’re designing policies to fix Wall Street, you need to take into account how they will shape that culture.

Certainly! But Obama's not talking about policies to fix the inner city when he talks about inner city culture. His actual policy proposals are a pretty strong statement that the problem is not culture but societal support and that providing it will improve the culture (which, after all, is how subcultures work). Coates's point is that Obama recommends policies that recognize the real issues, but does so while talking about the FAKE issues. Again, all the evidence suggests that Obama is perfectly aware of the nonsensical nature of the "inner-city culture" argument. That's why it's so aggravating that he goes ahead with it anyway -- because the only justification is that he's doing so for political advantage.
 
They were public figures who gave announced speeches. They could have not been easier targets if they wore bulls eye jackets.
Seriously? The FBI gave the NOI information on Malcolm X's security, which they acquired through spying. Presidents give public speeches all the time too. What happens if someone gives an enemy the secret service's position chart, protocols, etc?
 
For real, you guys really don't see the very serious problem in spying on someone like MLK?
Do you not see the very serious problems that minorities have that actually affect them presently and materially?

"Sir, ma'am, are you aware that your liberty is in danger because of email?"
"Email? Are they going to make it so you can't email lunch?"
"You, uh, can't email lunch."
"Well then what good is it? We already don't have lunch!"
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
It is insulting! They do believe black people (and other minorities) are stupid and can be easily swayed by a single issue.

Idiots like Rand actually believe that if he can convince minorities on spying, they'd vote for him.

What these people fail to understand is that black people, as well as all the other minorities, are far more nuanced in their voting behavior than a single issue or talking friendlier to their people. It's all their core ideas that are the problem, from tax policy to education to minimum wage to drug war, etc etc etc.

This is why they always argue that with black people their problem is messaging. Or that with Latinos it's immigration because they're more religious and should vote Republican (despite all polling showing it's far more than that).

Ask Republicans why Asians don't vote for them and they're completely stumped. They have no response because there's no box for them to be put in regarding a single issue. The GOP still doesn't get the problem with the party is solely about all their ideas and nothing else.


edit: On a side note, more evidence of this is that the GOP actually believes Dems want immigration reform simply because it hurts the GOP. To them, it makes no sense Dems could ever see Latinos as anything but votes because that's how the GOP views them so thus everyone must as well. It's a sad an d disgusting world-view.
Its because they're used to saying "abortion is bad mmkay" and sweeping the entire Bible belt
 

Chichikov

Member
Do you not see the very serious problems that minorities have that actually affect them presently and materially?

"Sir, ma'am, are you aware that your liberty is in danger because of email?"
"Email? Are they going to make it so you can't email lunch?"
"You, uh, can't email lunch."
"Well then what good is it? We already don't have lunch!"
I can't tell if you're being serious (about the big point , I get the joke you making, I think).
I'd happily debate the point with you, but I'd rather not go all fire brimstone on sarcasm that went over my head.
 
It seems Scott Brown, the once (and future?) U.S. senator, didn't have an answer when confronted with one of his fellow Republicans who has benefitted from Obamacare.

The Huffington Post flagged the Wednesday story from the Coos County Democrat. Brown had met with Herb Richardson, a New Hampshire Republican state legislator, as Brown is exploring a run for the state's U.S. Senate seat.

During the meeting at Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity." But Richardson and his wife quickly interjected, according to the Democrat, saying that the law had been "a financial lifesaver."

After being injured on the job, Richardson had been forced to live on workers compensation for a while -- a situation so costly that the couple eventually had to move out of their house. They also had to pay $1,100 a month to keep their health insurance. But now that the Richardsons have signed up for health insurance through Obamacare and qualified for a tax subsidy, they're paying $136 a month for a plan that covers both of them.

"Thank God for Obamacare!" Richardson's wife Rita said, according to the Democrat.

The Huffington Post contacted the reporter, Edith Tucker, who wrote the story. She said Brown didn't interrupt the Richardsons' praise for Obamacare and didn't react when they finished with their story.

"[Brown] did not [respond]," Tucker said. "You could be sure, if he had, I would have written about it."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-brown-republican-obamacare-benefits

whoops

Thank god this happened before his campaign's official start. There's still hope for a perfect campaign.
 
Its because they're used to saying "abortion is bad mmkay" and sweeping the entire Bible belt

Yeah, I still think that abortion is linchpin of the GOP. If the issue were to magically disappear (it won't), the GOP would fall apart. As is they are struggling since the gay issue is going away. But they still have abortion & guns.
 
Yeah, I still think that abortion is linchpin of the GOP. If the issue were to magically disappear (it won't), the GOP would fall apart. As is they are struggling since the gay issue is going away. But they still have abortion & guns.

The GOP will move on guns before they move on abortion.
 
The GOP will move on guns before they move on abortion.

Yeah, there is a LOT of room to move on guns without becoming the UK/Japan/etc. Just closing the gun show loophole and requiring private sales to have background checks would be big. And that wouldn't take a single gun away or prevent any legal sale.

But abortion has been fought for 40 years and is pretty much at stalemate with little room to maneuver. And many of the moves they have been taking are now backfiring on them. (Transvaginal ultrasounds, shutting down clinics with TRAP laws, etc.)
 
Kick him when he's down.

chris-christie-budget.jpg


New Jersey Lawmaker Vows To 'Clean Up' Chris Christie's Tesla 'Mess'

AP
New Jersey Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald issued a statement Wednesday night responding to comments Gov. Chris Christie made at a town hall meeting Monday about the state's ban that would stop Tesla Motors from selling its cars directly to customers.
Greenwald rejected Christie's claim the matter should be settled between Tesla and the Legislature and promised to "work with my colleagues in the Legislature to clean up the governor’s mess."

"When it comes to Tesla, Governor Christie needs to get his facts straight. Rather than take responsibility for his own administration's decision to shut down Tesla, he chose to point fingers and evade accountability. These town hall antics reek of hypocrisy," Greenwald said. "The governor's comments are a classic example of passing the buck in the face of an unpopular decision instead of accepting responsibility."

On March 11, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission approved a measure preventing auto manufacturers from selling cars without using franchise dealers. The new regulations would force Tesla, which uses a direct-sales model, to shut its two stores in the state by April 1. In a series of blog posts and tweets published last week, Tesla labeled the Commission's decision a "backroom deal" between Christie and the car dealers' lobby that took place "outside the legislative process." At the town hall meeting Monday, Christie fired back and argued Tesla was always told New Jersey law prohibited its direct-sales model. He said he would have "no problem" allowing Tesla to sell cars in New Jersey if the company works with the Legislature to change the law.

"We tried to work with them when they first started to operate, to tell them that they were not operating within the law, didn't shut them down immediately," said Christie. "There came a point when I had to enforce the law. That point came. If the law changes, I'm happy to enforce the new law."

In his statement, Greenwald countered by accusing Christie and the Commission of "changing their rules" on Tesla.

"Here are the facts: the Motor Vehicle Commission previously issued Tesla a license to sell cars in New Jersey. Now, MVC is changing their rules so that Tesla will no longer be allowed to operate in New Jersey. This was not an act of the legislature, but rather Governor Christie's administration changing its mind about Tesla," Greenwald said. "Instead of taking responsibility for his administration, Governor Christie instead chose to manufacture a crisis and blame the legislature. Nevertheless, given the importance of this issue, I will work with my colleagues in the legislature to clean up the governor’s mess. The policy priorities of encouraging innovation, promoting environmental protection, and accommodating consumer concerns are of paramount importance. I have met with both sides of this issue, and I look forward to working collaboratively to find a solution, rather than finger-pointing in an effort to score political points."

Greenwald is one of several Democrats in the state Legislature who have indicated they would be willing to put forth a bill that would change the law.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nj-lawmaker-clean-up-christie-tesla-mess-2014-3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom