Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

So I have a theory. Obama's low approval polls of doom are not reflecting the national mood properly. I think he is closer to 50% favorable. I say this because just by my own anecdotal evidence on the internet, he enjoys tremendous support from the core demograph of young people and democrats in general. Then, from seeing all these reports from the media that hes the worst president evarr, and then seeing Obama engaging in Bear Is Loose campaign is very contradictory. You would think from all the reports that people are going to yell at him when Bear is loose. But...people want to run up to him shake his hand and are filled with glee. Then yesyerday in Colorado he was treated like a friggin rockstar in that bar. People were literally giddy. And now we just got a news report saying over a thousand people camped overnight outside Austin Paramount Theater to just see him (not even meet and greet). Can you imagine a thousand people camping overnight to see Bush after Katrina disaster. I think the pollsters are still using Party IDs from 2012 election. Or 2008. I dunno, but something is definitely not jiving.

If I were to go by gaf stAndards he is the worst person to ever exist.

 

[Metaphoreus]

SCOTUSblog takes a closer look at the unanimity of Supreme Court opinions during the last term:

Measure #1: The first and broadest measure of unanimity is precisely the one that we use in the SCOTUSblog Stat Pack: any case in which all the Justices voted for the same judgment, i.e., to affirm, reverse, or vacate the decision below. By this measure, the Court was unanimous in forty-eight cases during OT13, sixty-six percent of all cases during the Term. . . .

Measure #2: The second measure counts only those cases in which every Justice joined some part of the majority opinion. This approach takes a more forgiving view of unanimity and allows individual Justices to write concurring opinions that expand on their view of a case. However, this measure still does not count cases in which five Justices join together for a majority opinion but the other four Justices agree with the result but not the reasoning. For example, this measure does not count McCullen as a unanimous decision because only four Justices joined the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts; Justice Scalia concurred in the result only, with a separate opinion that was joined by Justices Thomas and Kennedy, while Justice Alito filed a separate opinion in which he also concurred in the result only.

By this measure, the Court was unanimous in thirty-eight cases during OT13, fifty-two percent of all cases during the Term. . . .

Measure #3: The third and narrowest measure of unanimity looks at only those cases in which every Justice agreed with every other Justice. In these cases, every Justice joined the majority opinion in full and without reservation. There are no concurring opinions in these cases, and no Justices withheld their vote from any part of the majority opinion. By this measure, the Court was unanimous in twenty-eight cases during OT13, thirty-eight percent of all cases during the Term. . . .

Conclusion: Taken as a whole, we saw a remarkable level of unanimity during OT13. However, those unanimous decisions took several different forms, and not all were created equally. Ten cases had unanimous judgments but non-unanimous majority opinions, while another ten cases had majority opinions that were either entirely unanimous or unanimous in part but also featured separate concurring opinions. Twenty-eight cases, a recent high, were completely unanimous.

 

[speculawyer]

Well my Tea Partner Dad is taking me to see America this weekend. Pray for me.

Be sure to tell your dad that Dinesh is an admitted criminal. He trotted around his new 'fiance' at some Christian event despite already being married.

The guy is a blind-faith deluded hypocrite.

 

[B-Dubs]

So I have a theory. Obama's low approval polls of doom are not reflecting the national mood properly. I think he is closer to 50% favorable. I say this because just by my own anecdotal evidence on the internet, he enjoys tremendous support from the core demograph of young people and democrats in general. Then, from seeing all these reports from the media that hes the worst president evarr, and then seeing Obama engaging in Bear Is Loose campaign is very contradictory. You would think from all the reports that people are going to yell at him when Bear is loose. But...people want to run up to him shake his hand and are filled with glee. Then yesyerday in Colorado he was treated like a friggin rockstar in that bar. People were literally giddy. And now we just got a news report saying over a thousand people camped overnight outside Austin Paramount Theater to just see him (not even meet and greet). Can you imagine a thousand people camping overnight to see Bush after Katrina disaster. I think the pollsters are still using Party IDs from 2012 election. Or 2008. I dunno, but something is definitely not jiving.

Part of it is down to methodology, a poll that only surveys land lines is naturally going to skew older and therefore more conservative than one that also surveys cell phones. There's also the sort of questions being asked and how they are worded, improper wording can alter how a respondent answers not only that question but subsequent ones. Plus there is the fact you pointed out concerning party identification.

We all know this already, but a single poll should never be taken as gospel. Its all about the consensus.

 

[speculawyer]

Hmm? Yes he does!

Yeah, that is what I get for assuming that he was not completely stupid. I should have known better.

 

[speculawyer]

So I have a theory. Obama's low approval polls of doom are not reflecting the national mood properly. I think he is closer to 50% favorable. I say this because just by my own anecdotal evidence on the internet, he enjoys tremendous support from the core demograph of young people and democrats in general.

Meh . . . I assume he is down. It is just a bit unfair of people expecting miracles though and blaming everything on him since he's the president.

Iraq is melting down. Well, get over it . . . that is Iraq's fault. We decided to pull the troops out and no one wants them back in. So just deal with it.

Kids at the border. Well, the Coyotes are exaggerating the President's reduced deportation of kids order and taking advantage of the situation. But he's been deporting like crazy and asking for money to deport more. Is the GOP going to help out or are they just going to sit back, do nothing, and blame the president for everything.

Economy is doing fine . . . but no one seems to notice.


I'm not surprised that his ratings are down . . . that comes with the job. I just think people are overdoing it. We don't have (many) soldiers dying in foreign wars, the economy is doing fine, no major problems, etc. Just a bunch of whiners.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Be sure to tell your dad that Dinesh is an admitted criminal. He trotted around his new 'fiance' at some Christian event despite already being married.

The guy is a blind-faith deluded hypocrite.

According to a review, he was also making illegal campaign contributions, which he admits in the movie.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Anyone else surprised the Republicans shut up completely on Obamacare for the past few months?

They'll be back in a month or so when 2015's rates are announced, and premiums increase. I don't expect insane rate increases nation wide but some places will get hit, especially those that have set up weak exchanges.

 

[thepotatoman]

Damn how is the Colorado AG a Republican?

Attorney General didn't really seem like a super political position, and the denver post and others have consistently praised him for being a hard worker and upstanding public servant, which I would still guess is probably true. And up until this same sex marriage debacle he never really seemed partisan in any way.

His only real bad point was his tough on drugs stance, but honestly you can't expect a generic democrat to do much better on that front. And he still seems to be following through on his promise to respect the voters decision on amendment 64.

I admit i've voted for him in every election thus far, maybe partly because I don't want to seem super partisan or maybe I wasn't well enough informed, but I'm still not sure I made the wrong decision.

I guess in a way you can't really blame him too much. You might say the non-partisan stance should be for him to respect the voter decision to ban gay marriage, just like he respects the voter decision to legalize marijuana.

 

[speculawyer]

According to a review, he was also making illegal campaign contributions, which he admits in the movie.

Yeah, that is the crime I'm referring to.

He also wrote an amazingly stupid book that blamed 9/11 on liberals. Even conservatives turned against him on that . . . but you know how they are . . . they'll always forgive & forget such nuttiness.
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/t...cultural-left-and-its-responsibility-for-911/

 

[TacticalFox88]

Really?

The Enemy at Home?

Jesus CHRIST.

 

[kehs]

So I have a theory. Obama's low approval polls of doom are not reflecting the national mood properly. I think he is closer to 50% favorable. I say this because just by my own anecdotal evidence on the internet, he enjoys tremendous support from the core demograph of young people and democrats in general. Then, from seeing all these reports from the media that hes the worst president evarr, and then seeing Obama engaging in Bear Is Loose campaign is very contradictory. You would think from all the reports that people are going to yell at him when Bear is loose. But...people want to run up to him shake his hand and are filled with glee. Then yesyerday in Colorado he was treated like a friggin rockstar in that bar. People were literally giddy. And now we just got a news report saying over a thousand people camped overnight outside Austin Paramount Theater to just see him (not even meet and greet). Can you imagine a thousand people camping overnight to see Bush after Katrina disaster. I think the pollsters are still using Party IDs from 2012 election. Or 2008. I dunno, but something is definitely not jiving.

-_-

 

[RustyNails]

-_-

Lol. sorry, poor choice of words.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

SCOTUSblog takes a closer look at the unanimity of Supreme Court opinions during the last term:

I have a feeling this is more about the cases coming to the court.

 

[thepotatoman]

https://twitter.com/deirdrewalshcnn/status/487348429023354880

Boehner announces House Republicans suing the President based on his action to waive employer mandate of Obamacare

So we're back to Obamacare now. This will be fun.

 

[Wilsongt]

https://twitter.com/deirdrewalshcnn/status/487348429023354880



So we're back to Obamacare now. This will be fun.

Are they really going to do this?

I hope they get wrecked in 2016.

 

[FyreWulff]

Akin knows he's done so he's going to play / spout his actual stupidity to the hard right to get them speaking appearance fees.

 

[Crisco]

Really? That's the linchpin issue they are going base this sham on? Probably just want to force the WH to explain why employers got an exemption but not individuals.

 

[Plinko]

https://twitter.com/deirdrewalshcnn/status/487348429023354880



So we're back to Obamacare now. This will be fun.

Wow. Of all the things, they choose the popular one?

 

[Tamanon]

https://twitter.com/deirdrewalshcnn/status/487348429023354880



So we're back to Obamacare now. This will be fun.

So the GOP supports the employer mandate? Weird thing to come out for.

 

[thepotatoman]

Boehner's announcement:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement announcing that the House would initiate legal action over President Obama’s unilateral actions on the health care law’s employer mandate in 2013:

“Today we’re releasing a draft resolution that will authorize the House to file suit over the way President Obama unilaterally changed the employer mandate. In 2013, the president changed the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it. That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. No president should have the power to make laws on his or her own.

“As I’ve said, this isn't about Republicans versus Democrats; it’s about the Legislative Branch versus the Executive Branch, and above all protecting the Constitution. The Constitution states that the president must faithfully execute the laws, and spells out that only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate. The current president believes he has the power to make his own laws – at times even boasting about it. He has said that if Congress won’t make the laws he wants, he’ll go ahead and make them himself, and in the case of the employer mandate in his health care law, that’s exactly what he did. If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Legislative Branch, and the Constitution, and that is exactly what we will do.”

NOTE: The president’s unilateral actions on the health care law’s employer mandate will be the focus of the litigation brought by the House (the text of the resolution can be found here.)

 

[kehs]

The whole waiver thing is so ridiculous.

They're mad that they're waving something they don't want in the first place.

Because "the law is the law" except the law shouldn't be the law.

 

[B-Dubs]

Boehner's announcement:

Seriously? They're going after him for doing the one thing they told him he should do? What a bunch of fucking jokers.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I have a feeling this is more about the cases coming to the court.

I really don't know what happened this term. It'll be interesting to see if it continues in the future.

In other news:

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a resolution to amend the US Constitution to allow greater regulation of political spending, on a 10-8 party line vote. This clears the way for a vote by the full Senate later this year.

The proposal, sponsored by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), is intended to reverse recent Supreme Court rulings that have deregulated the campaign finance system, such as Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC. It states that both Congress and the states would "have power to regulate the raising and spending of money" on elections. Specifically, it would allow limits on outside spending in support of candidates, which the Court has struck down. You can read the amendment's full text here.

And here's the text of the proposed amendment:

SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on—

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.​

SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on—

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.​

SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here's what the ACLU thinks of the amendment:

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes S.J. Res. 19, a proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), that would severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance—namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support.

As we have said in the past, this and similar constitutional amendments would “fundamentally ‘break’ the Constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.”

Were it to pass, the amendment would be the first time, save for the failed policies of Prohibition, that the Constitution has ever been amended to limit rights and freedoms. Congress has had the wisdom to reject other rights limiting amendments in the past, including the Federal Marriage Amendment, the School Prayer Amendment, the Victims’ Rights Amendment and, of course, the Flag Desecration Amendment, which many of the sponsors of this resolution opposed. It should likewise reject the Udall amendment.

 

[FyreWulff]

Boehner's announcement:

So basically he doesn't have the balls to actually file the suit on his own, they're gonna do it via a resolution that won't ever see the light of day but they can play to their base saying they voted to try it.

The law perfectly allowed Obama to change certain things, as the executive was given that authority. They aren't going to kill executive order capability because they'll want that for whatever Republican gets into the WH next.

As expected, it's just for show and voting records.

 

[Crisco]

The whole reason for the delay was to give employers more time to have their information reporting in place. Without that reporting, it would have been effectively impossible to determine whether an employer was complying with the mandate or not. The law clearly states the timing of when the reports are due is up to HHS, so that effectively made it up to the administration when mandate actually went into effect. It's all in the law.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Changing laws huh? Kinda like that time the house shut down the government in an attempt to completely destroy the same law?

 

[thepotatoman]

So basically he doesn't have the balls to actually file the suit on his own, they're gonna do it via a resolution that won't ever see the light of day but they can play to their base saying they voted to try it.

The law perfectly allowed Obama to change certain things, as the executive was given that authority. They aren't going to kill executive order capability because they'll want that for whatever Republican gets into the WH next.

As expected, it's just for show and voting records.

What do you mean it'll never see the light of day? Are you saying he's not going to bring it up for a vote, or are you saying enough of the republicans in the house are going to abandon him on this? It seems like both scenarios are unlikely to me.

I believe this is a house resolution, and doesn't require action anywhere outside of the house.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What do you mean it'll never see the light of day? Are you saying he's not going to bring it up for a vote, or are you saying enough of the republicans in the house are going to abandon him on this? It seems like both scenarios are unlikely to me.

I believe this is a house resolution, and doesn't require action anywhere outside of the house.

They don't have standing.

 

[thepotatoman]

They don't have standing.

True, but they'll still take it to court in order to be told that fact.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

True, but they'll still take it to court in order to be told that fact.

yeah, and they'll promptly be shown the door

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Remind me not to make OT political threads again.

 

[RustyNails]

"There's a great movie called 'The Departed' - a little violent for kids. But there's a scene in the movie where Mark Wahlberg - they're on a stakeout and somehow the guy loses the guy that they're tracking. And Wahlberg is all upset and yelling at the guy. And the guy looks up and he says, 'Well, who are you?' And Wahlberg says, 'I'm the guy doing my job. You must be the other guy.' Sometimes, I feel like saying to these guys, I'm the guy doing my job, you must be the other guy," Obama said to applause.

.

 

[BLACKLAC]

Remind me not to make OT political threads again.

The few complaining going straight to semantics shows they're embarrassed imo. Scrambling to shift through the shit to latch onto something credible.

 

[Tamanon]

.

Obama once again getting the story wrong. What a liar.

Spoiler

It was in the warehouse where they didn't have a camera in the right place to catch some activity on

 

[thepotatoman]

.

That's great. I just had to look up the video for it. The reference is at about 6 minutes in, but the whole video seems like exactly what HylianTom was asking for. He seems pretty clear about where the problem is.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4503268/president-obama-gop-lawsuit

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wow. Of all the things, they choose the popular one?

The very mandate they said would destroy the economy. So how do they demonstrate harm considering Obama...delayed/cancelled the harm?

 

[Wilsongt]

So what did people do during the government shut down?

They fucked.

Mini baby boom happening, yo.

Thanks, Obama. Why can't I hold all of these non-aborted babies?!

The very mandate they said would destroy the economy. So how do they demonstrate harm considering Obama...delayed/cancelled the harm?

At this point it is literally being against anything Obama is in favor or, or being in favor of anything Obama is against.

 

[RustyNails]

The very mandate they said would destroy the economy. So how do they demonstrate harm considering Obama...delayed/cancelled the harm?

They're betting their audience will not put more than 3 seconds of thought into it, and instead see it as RIGHTEOUS REPUBLICANS suing that godless kenyan socialist. And they will be proven right.

 

[B-Dubs]

They're betting their audience will not put more than 3 seconds of thought into it, and instead see it as RIGHTEOUS REPUBLICANS suing that godless kenyan socialist. And they will be proven right.

He's not godless, he's muslim! His birth certificate says so!

See?

 

[FyreWulff]

What do you mean it'll never see the light of day? Are you saying he's not going to bring it up for a vote, or are you saying enough of the republicans in the house are going to abandon him on this? It seems like both scenarios are unlikely to me.

I believe this is a house resolution, and doesn't require action anywhere outside of the house.

I don't think he's going to have the votes. If he had the votes he would have already brought it to the floor.

It's going to be chest puffing right up until they all go home for the entirety of August and the news cycle will have moved on by then. He knows what he's doing

 

[Trouble]

At this point it is literally being against anything Obama is in favor or, or being in favor of anything Obama is against.

He showed the ability to adjust policy based on facts on the ground in an ever changing world. This confuses and frightens them.

 

[HylianTom]

That's great. I just had to look up the video for it. The reference is at about 6 minutes in, but the whole video seems like exactly what HylianTom was asking for. He seems pretty clear about where the problem is.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4503268/president-obama-gop-lawsuit

Good speech. He looks really relaxed, like he's having fun - almost to the point where he's taunting their base, knowing that his mere presence/existence makes them foam at the mouth.

It's a shame that most news coverage will end-up butchering it into something that's only a fraction as potent as the speech itself.

 

[Owzers]

It's hard not to watch Fox News and lose your patience with their grievance industry bullshit. Today's Megyn Kelly whinefest: Obama was the sixth leader to call Israel after the rocket attacks. Sixth! sixxxxxxxxxxth. Our closest ally...that monster in chief.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's hard not to watch Fox News and lose your patience with their grievance industry bullshit. Today's Megyn Kelly whinefest: Obama was the sixth leader to call Israel after the rocket attacks. Sixth! sixxxxxxxxxxth. Our closest ally...that monster in chief.

1st is the worst, 2nd is the best....

What is 6th?

 

[HylianTom]

It's hard not to watch Fox News and lose your patience with their grievance industry bullshit. Today's Megyn Kelly whinefest: Obama was the sixth leader to call Israel after the rocket attacks. Sixth! sixxxxxxxxxxth. Our closest ally...that monster in chief.

I've learned to laugh at that kind of thing. They're trying sooo sooo hard to steer their shrinking, shrill share of electorate, day in, day out..

 

[Averon]

Seeing that that lawsuit will be moot by the time a court even hears it, it's clear Boehner is doing this to appease the Tea Party idiots shouting for impeachment. Boehner knows impeachment is insane, so he's throw them a bone knowing it won't amount to anything.

 

[Fenderputty]

1st is the worst, 2nd is the best....

What is 6th?

3rd the turd, but I never got past 4th ...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

3rd the turd, but I never got past 4th ...

3rd is hairy chest.

 

[Fenderputty]

3rd is hairy chest.

I see you didn't make it to 4 either though!?