Support NeoGAF

[shadowsdarknes]

He might have a hard time getting them now. They just get slaughtered.

I thought the female on the show last Friday said, "I'm a Republican".

But it's true. They do just get slaughtered.
When Bill Kristol was on a few weeks ago he just came off as an angry blowhard who loved the Tea Party. And it was embarrassing.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Not really surprised if the GOP re-take he Senate. I never really understood why so many Dems sit out on mid-term elections and only seem to care to vote on presidential election years.

Blame the media. Obama won 2012 and immediately all "serious" discussion is about 2016.

It's easier to craft a narrative around an election in which every state participates, whereas Senate and House races are more localized, even when there's a trend among them.

 

[speculawyer]

I thought the female on the show last Friday said, "I'm a Republican".

But it's true. They do just get slaughtered.
When Bill Kristol was on a few weeks ago he just came off as an angry blowhard who loved the Tea Party. And it was embarrassing.

Oh man . . . I think Bill Maher got pissed and he was loaded for bear so he pulled out the long list of Bill Kristol quotes about things he was totally wrong about. I suspect he was not going to use that material unless he got annoyed . . . which he did so he unloaded on him.

 

[zero shift]

Remember how I said that my brother was getting into conspiracy theories a while ago.

Found this on his desk:

 

[speculawyer]

Remember how I said that my brother was getting into conspiracy theories a while ago.

Found this on his desk:

Ugh. Who would buy a bad TV show that you can watch for free?

And man . . . It seems like when we got more channels, they had such high ambitions . . . The Learning Channel and the History channel. Now The Learning Channel shows Sarah Palin and the History channel gives us 'ancient aliens'. Ugh.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ugh. Who would buy a bad TV show that you can watch for free?

And man . . . It seems like when we got more channels, they had such high ambitions . . . The Learning Channel and the History channel. Now The Learning Channel shows Sarah Palin and the History channel gives us 'ancient aliens'. Ugh.

Power of the free market! They found the avenue to maximize their profit

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Ugh. Who would buy a bad TV show that you can watch for free?

And man . . . It seems like when we got more channels, they had such high ambitions . . . The Learning Channel and the History channel. Now The Learning Channel shows Sarah Palin and the History channel gives us 'ancient aliens'. Ugh.

The Science Channel still (mostly) shows science stuff thankfully. I hope they don't follow in their footsteps

 

[smokeandmirrors]

For the next thread that pops up with the "I worked my way through college without paying a dime and you can too!" crowd

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/03/22/its-impossible-to-work-your-way-through-college-nowadays/

 

[Oblivion]

Apparently today's Obamacare's 4th birthday.

What are y'all gonna get it?

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/romney-slams-obama-clinton-for-naivete-on-russia-this-is-not-fantasyland/

So Mittens was on Face the Nation to say "I told you so!" about his comments back during the election about Russia being our number 1 geopolitical foe. International relations is not my area of expertise, admittedly, but from what I'm getting from the interview, Romney pretty much says the situation in Ukraine wouldn't have happened if we did things like impose sanctions earlier. Two questions on that:

1. Was there any reason to do so beforehand?
2. Even if we did, would that have done anything? Russia invading Ukraine seemed like an act of desperation, and I would think imposing sanctions earlier would've had the same result.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/romney-slams-obama-clinton-for-naivete-on-russia-this-is-not-fantasyland/

So Mittens was on Face the Nation to say "I told you so!" about his comments back during the election about Russia being our number 1 geopolitical foe. International relations is not my area of expertise, admittedly, but from what I'm getting from the interview, Romney pretty much says the situation in Ukraine wouldn't have happened if we did things like impose sanctions earlier. Two questions on that:

1. Was there any reason to do so beforehand?
2. Even if we did, would that have done anything? Russia invading Ukraine seemed like an act of desperation, and I would think imposing sanctions earlier would've had the same result.

He's full of crap, why are people listening to a former Governor? What foreign policy experience does he have? What would romney do at 3 in the morning?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Nate Silver says 50% chance of bad news for Kay Hagan?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

For the next thread that pops up with the "I worked my way through college without paying a dime and you can too!" crowd

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/03/22/its-impossible-to-work-your-way-through-college-nowadays/

I was working 25 or so hours per week throughout large portions of my time at MSU (during undergrad at least, was at least full-time over spring and summer) for more than minimum wage and had to take out quite a lot in loans. Even with going to a community college for my first two years (that I was able to pay for) didn't help a whole lot. College prices are absolutely insane and unsustainable.

I guess I have some nice looking pieces of paper on the wall next to me, though.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sanctions...earlier? Why? That literally makes no sense. The point of sanctions is to get multiple countries on your side, to maximize the effectiveness of them; see: Iran. One country arbitrarily sanctioning Russia in 2013 would have been a fool's errand.

But let's say President Romney did this in 2013. How the fuck would that convince Putin not to invade? Our military would still be tied up in the middle east, and the Ukraine would still be in Russia's backyard.

 

[thepotatoman]

The theory is Putin didn't expect sanctions when he invaded, but now that he's already bought in he can't change course even with sanctions.

Though I really doubt both Obama and Romney would have the will or the power to do any sanctions that would actually hurt Russia, particularly those that requires negotiation with the EU. So it doesn't really matter what the timing is.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

lol

 

[speculawyer]

For the next thread that pops up with the "I worked my way through college without paying a dime and you can too!" crowd

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/03/22/its-impossible-to-work-your-way-through-college-nowadays/

This is a GREAT chart that must be brought up every time some old person says "I worked my way through college." . . . didn't that Stepford wife that gave the GOP response to the state of the union give that old chestnut?

Ah . . . she just said 'helped"

A nation where we are not defined by our limits, but by our potential.

And a nation where a girl who worked at the McDonald's Drive-Thru to help pay for college can be with you from the United States Capitol.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014...tate-of-the-Union-address/UPI-17511390967356/

 

[KingK]

I'm just barely able to afford rent and college expenses working 25 hours every week (40 during summer) and taking out maximum grants and federal loans. I go to a public, in state school.

 

[zero shift]

Question. I don't mean to sound like a conservative asshole but, to stop people from gaming the system by staying unemployed and collecting welfare or what have you, why not just make it mandatory to sign up for a staffing agency after eight months of unemployment?

 

[B-Dubs]

Question. I don't mean to sound like a conservative asshole but, to stop people from gaming the system by staying unemployed and collecting welfare or what have you, why not just make it mandatory to sign up for a staffing agency after eight months of unemployment?

Because not everyone is qualified for such a job, some may be overqualified, and there may not be any openings at the time.

Also welfare sucks enough as it is, very few people are actually willing to game the system considering the standard of living. Only fools see it as living the high life.

 

[Konka]

Question. I don't mean to sound like a conservative asshole but, to stop people from gaming the system by staying unemployed and collecting welfare or what have you, why not just make it mandatory to sign up for a staffing agency after eight months of unemployment?

Because living on welfare is miserable.

 

[zero shift]

Because not everyone is qualified for such a job, some may be overqualified, and there may not be any openings at the time.

Not qualified for a job at Mcdonald's? As for over-qualification, maybe add the ability to set the agency to look for a specific job? It doesn't mean that they WILL find you a job, just that you have to be enrolled.

 

[zero shift]

Also welfare sucks enough as it is, very few people are actually willing to game the system considering the standard of living. Only fools see it as living the high life.

Of course it sucks but at the end of the day there are people out there who would rather live off of $14,000 a year than look for a job. Obvious due to many reasons, but at least such a thing will stop the rights bitching about the permanent unemployed as well.

 

[B-Dubs]

Not qualified for a job at Mcdonald's? As for over-qualification, maybe add the ability to set the agency to look for a specific job? It doesn't mean that they WILL find you a job, just that you have to be enrolled.

A job at McDonald's doesn't pay enough to get you off of welfare. Also you don't need to go through a temp or staffing agency for that.

There are a lot of businesses that have little disclaimers in their jobs ads telling job agencies not to contact them about said job.

A better idea would be giving them a special vastly discounted price on college or trade school tuition or even free job training. The idea should be to get them off welfare, not in a job where they still need welfare.

Of course it sucks but at the end of the day there are people out there who would rather live off of $14,000 a year than look for a job. Obvious due to many reasons, but at least such a thing will stop the rights bitching about the permanent unemployed as well.

They'll bitch about it no matter what. We should be looking for real solutions and not trying to stop someone bitching about a small problem.

 

[zero shift]

They'll bitch about it no matter what. We should be looking for real solutions and not trying to stop someone bitching about a small problem.

The real solution is to just tell the businesses to pay more, and if they can't have the government pick up the slack. But then people will complain that they are making too much.

EDIT - Does anybody have data of the poverty rate after taxes?

 

[benjipwns]

EDIT - Does anybody have data of the poverty rate after taxes?

Blue is poverty rate after taxes and transfers.

 

[B-Dubs]

The real solution is to just tell the businesses to pay more, and if they can't have the government pick up the slack. But then people will complain that they are making too much.

The bolded already happens though. Welfare already subsidizes substandard wages.

You are right that businesses do need to pay more, but people also need better conditions in those jobs. Mayor deBlasio just signed a bill giving something like 500,000 more people in NYC paid sick leave, this is something that should be standard and yet people went without it.

What we really need is a large push from the labor force, things have tilted too far towards management and big corporations for the last few decades. It needs to be big, it needs to be targeted and it needs to be sustained. An increase in minimum wage is only the start of what needs to be happening.

 

[Diablos]

Silver's prognosis

Come back to this thread... see this.
Last thing I wanted to see before ending the weekend.

Baw.

Is it safe to diablos now?

 

[pigeon]

Question. I don't mean to sound like a conservative asshole but, to stop people from gaming the system by staying unemployed and collecting welfare or what have you, why not just make it mandatory to sign up for a staffing agency after eight months of unemployment?

Because then you have to pass another law making it illegal for staffing agencies to charge a fee or refuse to enroll people. This means you need a whole investigative force dedicated to checking out staffing agencies, which conservatives will support because they want to shut down all the fake staffing agencies that people use to get around this stupid law. Congratulations, you've destroyed temporary employment and spent millions of dollars to do it.

 

[zero shift]

Blue is poverty rate after taxes and transfers.

Thank you. What's Anchored SPM? I'm trying to look up how it measures but can't find anything. I was wondering if it includes welfare, unemployment, and disability. I know the census one includes those but it doesn't include after taxes. I was wondering if this includes both.

Because then you have to pass another law making it illegal for staffing agencies to charge a fee or refuse to enroll people. This means you need a whole investigative force dedicated to checking out staffing agencies, which conservatives will support because they want to shut down all the fake staffing agencies that people use to get around this stupid law. Congratulations, you've destroyed temporary employment and spent millions of dollars to do it.

I was thinking maybe a staffing agency ran or approved by the government. Then again I guess then people will complain "private staffing agencies are dying!"

EDIT - Then again doesn't Singapore do something similar to this?

 

[benjipwns]

Thank you. What's Anchored SPM? I'm trying to look up how it measures but can't find anything. I was wondering if it includes welfare, unemployment, and disability. I know the census one includes those but it doesn't include after taxes. I was wondering if this includes both.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...net-has-and-hasnt-reduced-poverty-in-the-u-s/

 

[Diablos]

So what about Grimes? Has that ship sailed? Is turtleface here to stay?

 

[Chichikov]

You can't just look at your own view. You need to look at the politics of it. Build a fancy hot tub, a sauna, a weight room, etc. . . . and then get thrown out of office as the opposition films a commercial in those fancy facilities that the welfare queens get for free while your taxes go up.

I don't think building your policy based on the attack ads they'll run on it is all that smart (not that I think "projects=living the good life" is a winning strategy, but that's besides the point).
But more importantly, we're debating policy here, not building housing projects, and it just saddens me to see liberals accepts that conservative narrative that we mush punish the poor so they'll get motivated.

Silver's prognosis

Ruth Bader Ginsburg need to step down.
Not freaking out, not diabolosing, but this is too fucking important.
I know she has no plans to do it though...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Come back to this thread... see this.
Last thing I wanted to see before ending the weekend.

Baw.

Is it safe to diablos now?

How is that Lean Republican if its literally 50-50?

Its also showing that Republicans aren't likely to get the gains to keep their potential majority in 2016. They need a net 10 or so to really feel confident about that.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg need to step down.
Not freaking out, not diabolosing, but this is too fucking important.
I know she has no plans to do it though...

There was a stupid slate article saying its bad to call for that because she's a good judge. Which is completely missing the point. She should resign because the supreme court is not only about writing good desenting opinions its about getting the best majority judgement and that's not gonna happen if we have a conservative replace her.

 

[Aaron Strife]

How is that Lean Republican if its literally 50-50?

Its also showing that Republicans aren't likely to get the gains to keep their potential majority in 2016. They need a net 10 or so to really feel confident about that.

Yeah at most they can gain 7. I don't see any of the states Obama won slipping away.

Except maybe Michigan

Spoiler

lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Except maybe Michigan

Spoiler

lol

Thanks PD

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Good chart, though intuitively it feels like it ought to be hours/wk required to pay for a standard course-load rather than total hours worked per credit hour.

Luckily the guy supplies his data at the link, so I could change it up a little bit:

This is using the following assumptions:
-in-state student
-tuition only--no room and board, books, etc
-standard course load of 15 units per semester
-50 work weeks in a year; this is not just during school

Thanks for this. I much prefer this presentation of the data.

Every time I get in to a discussion with anyone about college, I thank god for the GI Bill. I was able to get my degree on the government dime thanks to my dad being in the military and him never using those benefits. It's given me a huge leg up on a lot of my peers who came out of the gate with enormous debt to repay.

 

[Diablos]

lol @ Santorum beating Obama in 2012. Me and every other PA Democrat were begging for Santorum to be the nominee. I considered donating to his campaign at one point.

If Santorum is the nominee in 2016, Hillary won't even have to try.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Thanks PD

I wonder if he'll vote for Terri Lynn Land or write in Scott Brown

 

[theprodigy]

honestly, I suspect Landrieu is safer than Hagan
however I think both will get reelected, so lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

honestly, I suspect Landrieu is safer than Hagan
however I think both will get reelected, so lol

This is my feeling. I think landrieu will have a stronger turn out machine than Hagan.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hagan's in an easier state and none of her potential opponents are very strong.

Landrieu is a more tested politician though.

I think they'll both win along with Mark Begich.

 

[speculawyer]

Hillary could paste pretty much any Republican, and at least I'd rather go down fighting with a candidate I can get excited about

It is a weird situation. The Dems are going to struggle this year but 2016 is pretty much already decided.


The whole mid-term v. presidential election thing is creating a crazy government.

 

[Averon]

It is a weird situation. The Dems are going to struggle this year but 2016 is pretty much already decided.


The whole mid-term v. presidential election thing is creating a crazy government.

It would not be as bad if Dems actually, you know, decide to go out and vote in non-presidential election years. If not, them you're going to have this see-saw effect where the GOP dominate the mid-terms and the Dems dominate the presidential.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It would not be as bad if Dems actually, you know, decide to go out and vote in non-presidential election years. If not, them you're going to have this see-saw effect where the GOP dominate the mid-terms and the Dems dominate the presidential.

This is a horrible meme that is spreading. They do vote in midterms, when they're motivated (1998, 2006). Its just they're not motivated because the economy has been crap.

2010, 2014 isn't about obamacare its about a horrible economy the dems did nothing to fix.

 

[benjipwns]

When we're discussing the Senate you also need to look at the cycles because of what seats are being defended:
Class 1: 1994-2000-2006-2012-2018
Class 2: 1996-2002-2008-2014-2020
Class 3: 1992-1998-2004-2010-2016

Class 1: The Republicans got battered in 2000 and 2006 in part because they were defending the seats from the Republican Revolution.
Class 2: The Democrats had/have more to lose in 2002 and 2014 in Senate races because they won 1996 and 2008.
Class 3 seems to have leaned Republican since Reagan and the Democrats played it to ties in 92 and 98 after winning back in 86 from those lost in the Reagan Revolution.

You can't defend or lose a seat you don't hold.

 

[RustyNails]

Hagan's in an easier state and none of her potential opponents are very strong.

Landrieu is a more tested politician though.

I think they'll both win along with Mark Begich.

Pryor is toast isnt he?

 

[Diablos]

honestly, I suspect Landrieu is safer than Hagan
however I think both will get reelected, so lol

I think the odds of both staying Democratic are highly unlikely.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

For the next thread that pops up with the "I worked my way through college without paying a dime and you can too!" crowd

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/03/22/its-impossible-to-work-your-way-through-college-nowadays/

Minimum wage today is still a bit higher in terms of real dollars than most of the last 30 years.

However, what people don't realize is that tuition costs have greatly outpaced the minimum wage and inflation.
It's really not practical to expect you to pay your tuition with your minimum wage job during college. At best you might be able to battle some of the interest costs of your loans and have some spending money.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Hagan's in an easier state and none of her potential opponents are very strong.

Landrieu is a more tested politician though.

I think they'll both win along with Mark Begich.

NC is a horrible state for democrats. The economy is terrible (which reflects on the republican state government, but at the same time the state was in poor shape with democrat leadership too) and they haven't expanded Medicaid. The NC ACA exchange has also been poorly run due to obstruction from the governor.

Bottom line: NC is a state where the lack of the Medicaid expansion hurts democrats, and will ultimately lead to Hagan losing. Withholding the expansion was a cynical ploy to maximize pain for poor and working poor voters, and I'd expect man to simply not vote in November.

Perhaps a Medicaid expansion ballot measure would increase turnout; I know Louisiana is trying to do it. Of course even that won't force the republican legislature to actually install the expansion, but it could drive democrat turnout. I think Landrieu has a solid chance of winning regardless though.