• 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.

Sibylus

Banned
Starting to think you'd get sager legislative pushes if you put the question to a committee of literal children. The figurative ones in the Senate still apparently believe in the America that jumps into Vietnam and never stops.
 
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bi...vtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email#overview

Holy shit if the Iran sanctions bill goes to the floor it's gonna get above 66 votes.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd wonder if Menendez's obsession with torpedoing his president has something to do with that prostitute story that came out last year; obviously it was false but there were rumors about him before then. Perhaps pursuing the destruction of the sanctions would compel certain people not to expose his escapades, so he can keep his powerful position.
 

KingK

Member
This dude sounds awesome.

Given an option, I'd say you should take another class. But seeing as how you might not have the option, I say go ahead and take it and make every moment in class miserable for him. Then report back here. Hell, you should make a daily status update since this dude sounds like he's pretty entertaining.

I won't make it miserable, but I will challenge his libertarian assertions when I can. I've had vocal conservative profs before (though none this loony since high school) and I'm pretty good about arguing with them without making them angry. They usually end up loving me actually.

It's a Mon/Wed class, so I'll try update poligaf whenever he says something crazy. He does seem a little out there and has a tendency to ramble into tangents for minutes on end, so I imagine some interesting things could happen.
 

Piecake

Member
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bi...vtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email#overview

Holy shit if the Iran sanctions bill goes to the floor it's gonna get above 66 votes.

I honestly have no idea what those idiots are thinking. A chance for peace? Well, fuck that! I want more war and more suffering!

If either of my senators do not vote for the iran peace deal I will not vote for them. I never been a one issue voter, but this is just so ridiculous that anyone who isnt in favor of it doesnt deserve to be in office
 

Diablos

Member
If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd wonder if Menendez's obsession with torpedoing his president has something to do with that prostitute story that came out last year; obviously it was false but there were rumors about him before then. Perhaps pursuing the destruction of the sanctions would compel certain people not to expose his escapades, so he can keep his powerful position.
Or maybe he's just a fucking tool when it comes to foreign policy and sanctions.
 
So when they say that the US has the lowest median cost in healthcare that means the average person in America spends less money on healthcare a month than the average European?
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I work with my extremely conservative family, and today we signed up on Healthcare.gov. My parents have lost money every year for the last 7 years, and to date, have taken no money out of the business. My mom was still opposed to getting a subsidized plan when we started. My brother is a total 'shoot first and let the free market decide' libertarian, and he had the same attitude. By the end, my mom signed herself and my dad up with great coverage for a total of like $350 a month. My brother has a platinum plan for $165, and I've got a platinum plan for $101. It was pretty fun to see their reactions. They are torn between wanting to stick to their guns and being super excited that they got awesome coverage for cheap.

It turns out that the only good part about working 50 hour weeks and only making $1,400 a month is that I get a crazy good insurance plan that brings my prescription costs way down.

I wouldn't say that my family has changed their minds about the Affordable Care Act, but that is only because I don't think they'd ever admit that they've changed their minds. They were dreading it and cursing Obama this morning, and now they are pretty happy, if begrudgingly so. I wonder what public opinion will be like for Obamacare as the year goes on.

They're idiots for being "begrudgingly" happy.

It's not about their "team" winning, or ideology, but making people happier, and improving their lives.

Hope they realize that.
 
A South Carolina state senator who is looking to unseat current U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham this coming November claims that welfare programs are all about coveting what others have, and therefore, is “all sin” and “legalized plunder.”

Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) was speaking to an audience called the Summersville 912 Group, who according to their mission statement, is made up of “freedom loving, God fearing Americans” and wish to “bring us all back to the place where we were on September 12, 2001,” when he made his remarks.

He stated his support for a flat tax system and claims that our current tax system is all about controlling us.

“The tax code is where they control us,” Bright said. “I mean, you can point it all back to the income tax for much of our problems. It plays on coveting, you know what I mean? It is all sin. I want what my brother has, so why don’t I and my other brother get together and we’ll vote away what my brother has. I mean, it is legalized plunder, it is theft. That’s what it is.”


“And this entitlement to other people’s property because you want their stuff is just wrong,” he continued. “And I think most of our problems in our country are spiritual problems, but there again it is about liberty. And liberty is just the right to keep what is yours. And when you raise taxes and put that burden on people you take away their freedom. And what they do is that is how they control us, with that tax code. I mean, it is obscene. And I’m getting beat up on this and I actually made [Chris Matthews' show]. I made his show last Friday.”
So his solution to this “problem?” Churches!

Bright has the not-so-bright idea that instead of government-implemented welfare programs, we should turn to churches and anyone who has a lot of money and wants to donate it to the poor to help those who live in poverty as well as those who are disabled and cannot work.

“I would modify [my comment] and say churches and nonprofits,” Bright said. “You know, I don’t think it has to be a church. It can be anybody that wants to donate to the poor. But it should be out of the kindness of our hearts, because the difference between charity and tyranny is charity is when you help the poor, tyranny is when the government comes by force and takes from you and gives to your brother.”

Bright, who makes the very conservative Graham look like a flaming liberal by comparison, also believes that anyone who supports health care reform should go to jail, that immigrants should “self-deport” themselves back to where they came from (does that include him, since he isn’t a Native American?), and that people who are able-bodied and able to work, but who are not, “should not eat.”
He believes that most of the people standing in the food stamp lines are folks with nice nails and nice cars who do not desire to work, because of their cushy lifestyles, courtesy of our tyrannical system of welfare, otherwise known as “legalized plundering,” according to him.

Good fucking god.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Good fucking god.

VMWw58z.gif
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
You know what I've been surprised about? No one's been talking about that chemical spill in West Virginia that's made it nearly impossible for 300,000 people to drink tap water.

Well, you could technically drink the water, but it might taste a little weird. But hey, that's the sweet taste of freedom!

This does my black heart proud.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
You know what I've been surprised about? No one's been talking about that chemical spill in West Virginia that's made it nearly impossible for 300,000 people to drink tap water.

Well, you could technically drink the water, but it might taste a little weird. But hey, that's the sweet taste of freedom!

This does my black heart proud.

Why is the government trying to poison the water supply?!
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
You know what I've been surprised about? No one's been talking about that chemical spill in West Virginia that's made it nearly impossible for 300,000 people to drink tap water.

Well, you could technically drink the water, but it might taste a little weird. But hey, that's the sweet taste of freedom!

This does my black heart proud.

NpR had a good little piece on it. And the patchwork of regulation on storage tanks, depending on what's in there. I find it incredible that this place was not inspected since the early 90's.
 
You know what I've been surprised about? No one's been talking about that chemical spill in West Virginia that's made it nearly impossible for 300,000 people to drink tap water.

Well, you could technically drink the water, but it might taste a little weird. But hey, that's the sweet taste of freedom!

This does my black heart proud.
Someone said something:
@SabrinaSiddiqui: Boehner on WV chem spill: "We have enough regulations on the books." Asks why plant wasn't inspected since 1991.
 

Mike M

Nick N
It is still a fair question though. There may be regulation already but if it is not enforced, for whatever reason, more regulation is not necessarily the solution.
The frequency of inspection is part and parcel of that regulation, though. If the existing regulation is deficient in specifying a time frame in which inspections must occur, then yes, more regulation is precisely what a required.
 

AntoneM

Member
You get the government you pay for. If you only have a budget that can afford for inspections over 20 years apart, that's what you get. The regulations are probably fine, enforcement is the problem because enforcement is expensive.
 
Is nobody talking about the Supreme Court pretty much saying their going to rule against the government in the NLRB case?

Seems pretty big.

Interested in seeing how the write their opinion. I understand the absurdity of the president being able to say when congress isn't in session but pro-forma sessions are BS. If there is no substantive business being done in congress or at the very least if there isn't a quorum able to give "advice and consent", it seems the founder would want the president to be able to fill vacancies otherwise you have congress able to block any nominee if they want except for the few minutes between congresses. I don't see why the court couldn't write an opinion saying the president can't determine this but here's how you determine it.

It seems once again the constitution is way to vague as the didn't foresee this rampant obstructionism and figured congress would have regular recesses.

And Scalia is a politician mascarading as a justice evidence number #659:

"It's been assumed to be ambiguous by self-interested presidents," Scalia said, to "oohs" and laughs in the court room.

Scalia soon chimed in: "You don't really think we're going to go back and rip out every decision made."

"Everybody is good except obama's nominees" Said scalia laughing.

And this NBC quote is absurd:

But the high court’s ruling would impact future presidents’ attempts to get controversial nominees approved when their party does not control the upper chamber.
No, and accurate writing of that would be that it would imperil any Democratic president from getting any nominees through no matter their politics. Historically democrats have allowed republican nominees through because they understand how democracy works. Once again conservatives don't even have to be in power to get the government they want. Obama really needs to start appointing people ASAP while the dems still control the senate cause if they lose? His presidency is over. He won't even be able to appoint anybody.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
The frequency of inspection is part and parcel of that regulation, though. If the existing regulation is deficient in specifying a time frame in which inspections must occur, then yes, more regulation is precisely what a required.

You get the government you pay for. If you only have a budget that can afford for inspections over 20 years apart, that's what you get. The regulations are probably fine, enforcement is the problem because enforcement is expensive.

Right. If there is no funding provided for enforcement (inspections) it does not matter what the regulation says and requires. But I agree that good regulations should set an inspection timetable.
 

pigeon

Banned
Is nobody talking about the Supreme Court pretty much saying their going to rule against the government in the NLRB case?

Seems pretty big.

Interested in seeing how the write their opinion. I understand the absurdity of the president being able to say when congress isn't in session but pro-forma sessions are BS. If there is no substantive business being done in congress or at the very least if there isn't a quorum able to give "advice and consent", it seems the founder would want the president to be able to fill vacancies otherwise you have congress able to block any nominee if they want except for the few minutes between congresses. I don't see why the court couldn't write an opinion saying the president can't determine this but here's how you determine it.

I was actually just reading the argument and about to post about this!

The frustrating thing is that Verrilli looks bad primarily because Scalia is almost right -- intrasession recess appointments are indeed rather questionable, and when he asks what to do when the practice of government has been at odds with the text of the Constitution for many years, it's not a crazy question to ask. Verrilli's argument that pro forma sessions only count for requirements in one part of the Constitution (meeting on January 3rd) but not in another part is relatively indefensible, so it's not too surprising that the justices don't buy it.

edit: Similarly, multiple justices point out that one of the remedies Verrilli suggests is to make the Senate have to say or avoid saying specific magic words to legitimize their pro forma sessions, which obviously doesn't actually solve any problems since the Senate can just do those things next time and so is a problematic tack to take in argument.

The problem is that recess appointments aren't the meaningful question. The real issue here is the ongoing constitutional crisis deriving from abuse of the Senate's advice and consent authority to hobble the effectiveness of the executive branch. Filibuster reform is not necessarily a sufficient fix for this -- the next time the Senate and White House are held by different parties, we may well be right back in this mess. It's a polarization issue.
 
I was actually just reading the argument and about to post about this!

The frustrating thing is that Verrilli looks bad primarily because Scalia is almost right -- intrasession recess appointments are indeed rather questionable, and when he asks what to do when the practice of government has been at odds with the text of the Constitution for many years, it's not a crazy question to ask. Verrilli's argument that pro forma sessions only count for requirements in one part of the Constitution (meeting on January 3rd) but not in another part is relatively indefensible, so it's not too surprising that the justices don't buy it.

The problem is that recess appointments aren't the meaningful question. The real issue here is the ongoing constitutional crisis deriving from abuse of the Senate's advice and consent authority to hobble the effectiveness of the executive branch. Filibuster reform is not necessarily a sufficient fix for this -- the next time the Senate and White House are held by different parties, we may well be right back in this mess. It's a polarization issue.

That about sums up my feelings. Verrilli's statement about tradition and precedent trumping the words of the constitution is appealing in a common-sensical way. Of course the senate is in recess for all intents and purposes (there are a lot of extra-constitutional traditions we have, including judicial review itself) but is an anathema to the court who's job is to apply the constitution not ratify prior extra constitutional practices. Though I still think the court could itself deem when congress is in session for appointment purposes. But that goes out the window if they rule intrasession appointments are on their face unconstitutional as that would mean there is only one time every two years for this and the text does seem to point that way as it says 'THE' recess.

But I think this is a political problem not polarization as you stated. There are enough to confirm justices but its politics which prevents it (as seen by the number of republicans who eventually vote for confirmation while against cloture). Its just frustrating one party is preventing a solution and the Constitution provides no solution as it never foresaw these games.

The conservative movement realized its was/is losing electorally and decided to adopt an strategy of using obscure procedural moves and obstruction to forestall their eventual electoral demise.

The thing I fear is a constitutional crisis after 2014 of a supreme court vacancy opens up and republicans control the senate by a seat or two.

Edit: Has verrelli ever really 'won' a big case? Meaning his argument's have done the job and swayed justices.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/01/tillis-gains-in-primary-nc-senate-race-still-a-toss-up.html

For the first time in our polling of the North Carolina Senate race, presumptive frontrunner Thom Tillis has opened a little bit of space between himself and the rest of his opponents in the Republican primary. Tillis now leads the field with 19% to 11% for Greg Brannon and Heather Grant, 8% for Mark Harris, and 7% for Bill Flynn. Tillis has gained 6 points from his 13% standing a month ago, while Harris has declined by 4 points from the 12% he had previously. Everyone else has more or less stayed in place.

The name recognition Tillis gained by being the first candidate to run tv ads probably helped drive his increased support this month. 46% of Republican primary voters are familiar with Tillis, compared to less than 30% for everyone else in the field. Tillis is now leading in every region of the state except the Triad, where Flynn is well known from a long radio career. Perhaps more importantly for Tillis he has the lead with both conservative and moderate voters at this point.

Despite Tillis' increased support this primary would still be headed to a runoff if the election was today. If the undecided voters broke proportionately to their current candidate preferences it would only be enough to get Tillis to 34%, well short of the 40% needed in North Carolina to win the primary outright.

The general election picture has entered into a holding pattern over the last three months, with Kay Hagan trailing her potential Republican opponents by small margins as she continues to suffer from poor approval ratings.

39% of voters in the state say they approve of the job Hagan is doing to 49% who disapprove. She has 1 or 2 point deficits against each of her potential GOP foes. She's down by 1 to Heather Grant (42/41) and Thom Tillis (43/42), and trails by 2 against the rest of the field (43/41 against Greg Brannon and Mark Harris, 44/42 against Bill Flynn.)
Hagan's main issue is that with independents she has a 30/56 approval rating and trails all of her opponents by double digits. Unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act seems to be driving much of her trouble. Only 38% of voters in the state overall support it to 48% who are opposed, and independents are more against it than the overall electorate at 31/57. 61% of voters think its implementation has been unsuccessful to 32% who deem it a success. Those numbers have actually been slowly moving in a positive direction for Democrats though. The percentage of voters rating it unsuccessful has declined from 69% in November to 65% in December to the new 61% mark.
 

pigeon

Banned
But I think this is a political problem not polarization as you stated. There are enough to confirm justices but its politics which prevents it (as seen by the number of republicans who eventually vote for confirmation while against cloture). Its just frustrating one party is preventing a solution and the Constitution provides no solution as it never foresaw these games.

The conservative movement realized its was/is and decided to adopt an strategy of using obscure procedural moves and obstruction to forestall their eventual electoral demise.

Yeah, I think this is pretty reasonable, but I felt constrained by precedent since Reid started holding pro forma sessions to prevent recess appointments in 2007.

The Atlantic is very enamored of Estrada's argument, but I see it as potentially even more problematic, really. Estrada makes the point that Article II, Section 3 says that in the event of disagreement about adjournment between the houses of Congress, the President may adjourn Congress "until such time as he may think proper." He thus argues that if the Senate had really wanted to adjourn they could've gone to the White House and Obama could have adjourned them. But this amounts to allowing the Senate and the White House to adjourn the House without its consent! Historically, this power has led to such unfortunate consequences as the elevation of Oliver Cromwell, so I'm not convinced that it represents an improvement in terms of constitutional crises.
 

They Kay Hagan quotes were funny and all but this race isn't trending well. We need something to spark dems in the state they need to vote. Are the voter ID laws going into effect by November?

Money should be flooded not to produce ads but to register and get people to the polls. This is a huge race for the dems as I think Landrieu has got a good shot. But if they win NC they don't need LA.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
They Kay Hagan quotes were funny and all but this race isn't trending well. We need something to spark dems in the state they need to vote. Are the voter ID laws going into effect by November?

Money should be flooded not to produce ads but to register and get people to the polls. This is a huge race for the dems as I think Landrieu has got a good shot. But if they win NC they don't need LA.

I think, at this point, Obamacare needs to not be a thing. Which won't happen. The focus needs to be less on Washington and more on North Carolina politics.
 
I think, at this point, Obamacare needs to not be a thing. Which won't happen. The focus needs to be less on Washington and more on North Carolina politics.

I was gonna edit that in. Tillis is the speaker. Get those moral monday people to work, now. Say if this guy gets elected all this stuff is going to come to Washington. Democrats have the numbers but they need to get them to vote.
 
Hope Bams vetoes the SHIT out of that.

58 cosponsors already, all it would take is for AIPAC to put the pressure on eight more Senators and BAM, back to square one with Iran, and it's pretty much accepted that it's gonna get 2/3rds in the House.

This is so fucking cynical it's unbelievable, the only reason you have Gilibrand and Booker supporting the bill is because they want to shore up some AIPAC money for their respective Presidential runs next fucking decade.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Fuckin' hell.

We finally make progress with Iran and it's going to be scuttled because a bunch of people are hell bent on carrying a dead man's battle flag.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom