You're kidding, right? I don't even know where to begin talking about a joke that compares domestic violence to Palestinian massacres with the intention of excusing them both.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
You're kidding, right? I don't even know where to begin talking about a joke that compares domestic violence to Palestinian massacres with the intention of excusing them both.
I tend to find outrage and hand wringing over comedian's comments to be weak, so I really don't care about Maher's woman slapping nonsense. What I do care about is his Zionist bullshit, which he isn't joking about. I like Maher most of the time but he's a dumbass.
There are very few jokes that you don't make, when it comes to comedy very little is unacceptable, but jokes like that are. Sure you can joke about domestic violence, just not in that context.
RustyNails
Member
I think there's a wide latitude for comedians as well, especially when they are using satire. But...Maher's comments fall outside of that, and he cannot hide behind his artistic/comedic license for making such remarks.I tend to find outrage and hand wringing over comedian's comments to be weak, so I really don't care about Maher's woman slapping nonsense. What I do care about is his Zionist bullshit, which he isn't joking about. I like Maher most of the time but he's a dumbass.
speculawyer
Member
Well, I think I am justified in doing so, and I'm not the only one.
Washington Post: Bill Maher gets slap-happy with tweet comparing Hamas to a crazy woman
Slate: Bill Maher is Gross
Salon: Someone keep this man off Twitter: Bill Mahers latest gross jab at women
Jezebel: Bill Maher Tweets Hamas is Like Dealing With a 'Crazy Woman'
Examiner: Left-leaning Twitter apparently just discovered that Bill Maher says really stupid things
Again . . . was there ANY woman actually slapped? Nope.
This was just an analogy. And if lots of people want to nuts over it fine. But I think they completely missed the point.
Maher spent a fair amount of time bashing Israel. But at the same time . . . Hamas really is a bunch of theocratic loonies.
Both sides suck. And as I said in another thread, non religious people should get the fuck out of there.
I'd imagine not much of that will be going into Karl Rove's pockets this time.
I don't understand why they don't just flood state elections. The return is much better, and you don't have to worry about state-wide electorates. They're dumping money into Michigan right now yet Peters is still ahead, and he'll almost certainly overperform polls due to Wayne County (Detroit). Money isn't drowning Pryor in Arkansas either, surprisingly. Ultimately it should work in NC and I think Iowa will go red as well, but overall Sheldon's indiscriminate spending seems very inefficient.
NC isn't a slam dunk. There's a decent amount of pushback now.
My fantasy solution for the Israel conflict is for people there stop giving a fuck about religious/language/culture differences and just intermarry. There will be no us versus them mentality if the line can't even be drawn in the first place. Where I'm from (the north-west), people of all faiths and backgrounds hook up and no one cares. Two big problems though. First, Israeli Jews tend to stick to their own kind and generally frown upon Jewish intermarriage. Secondly, it's very difficult for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man (in that part of the world) since their religion forbids it.But at the same time . . . Hamas really is a bunch of theocratic loonies.
Both sides suck. And as I said in another thread, non religious people should get the fuck out of there.
I always wonder does the amount of money these rich people spend on campaign finance come close to the amount they would "lose" under democratic
rule? I mean if it's just a wash then what's really the point?? They really care that much about people getting abortions?
socialist
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I tend to find outrage and hand wringing over comedian's comments to be weak, so I really don't care about Maher's woman slapping nonsense. What I do care about is his Zionist bullshit, which he isn't joking about. I like Maher most of the time but he's a dumbass.
The slapping nonsense is just so...casually sexist that it really bothers me. Its like "women, sometimes you need to slap them, amirite fellas?" joke, and thats just disgusting
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
The slapping nonsense is just so...casually sexist that it really bothers me. Its like "women, sometimes you need to slap them, amirite fellas?" joke, and thats just disgusting
I think you're reading too much into it. Bill Maher made a really dumb analogy but in terms of sexism it's pretty tame. If a woman has ever been furious with you (assuming you're a man) and started attacking you the societal standard is that you can't fight back, only resist. Eventually though, you're forced to do something to stop the fighting.
Fun story, I once said something really, really stupid to a woman in the heat of the moment, which I regret completely. She started slapping the shit out of my face and punching me all over. I protected myself but eventually shoved her away, at which point she threatened to call the cops on me for hitting her.
Maybe because of that I relate to the part of the comment you find sexist such that I don't find it so offensive.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I think you're reading too much into it. Bill Maher made a really dumb analogy but in terms of sexism it's pretty tame. If a woman has ever been furious with you (assuming you're a man) and started attacking you the societal standard is that you can't fight back, only resist. Eventually though, you're forced to do something to stop the fighting.
Fun story, I once said something really, really stupid to a woman in the heat of the moment, which I regret completely. She started slapping the shit out of my face and punching me all over. I protected myself but eventually shoved her away, at which point she threatened to call the cops on me for hitting her.
Maybe because of that I relate to the part of the comment you find sexist such that I don't find it so offensive.
I think its the use of the word "slap" that I take particular objection to. Its just such a throwback. This says it better than I could:
But hes also trading on the tired stereotype of women as irrational children who need to be brought in line by more stable men.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Why not? Again, I don't agree with Maher's worldview. I'm just defending the right to turn anything into a joke in comedy.There are very few jokes that you don't make, when it comes to comedy very little is unacceptable, but jokes like that are. Sure you can joke about domestic violence, just not in that context.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Why not? Again, I don't agree with Maher's worldview. I'm just defending the right to turn anything into a joke in comedy.
But the point of the joke isn't to highlight the absurdity of slapping women, but to highlight the (perceived) absurdity of Hamas by drawing a comparison to "crazy women who need to be slapped".
I'm not as worked up about this as these posts make it appear, its just that I lost a decent chunk of respect for Maher after seeing that tweet
Is it just me or is the latest Obama criticism from the "centrist" media one of the dumbest yet? On one hand, they say he's always "reacting to events" as if he's supposed to be able to see the future. In the same breath, they also complain about him not totally cancelling all scheduled plans to personally "focus" on things he can't even control.
All this while we they treat every ginned-up GOP talking point of the week as a "crisis" and his "Katrina" moment.
All this while we they treat every ginned-up GOP talking point of the week as a "crisis" and his "Katrina" moment.
hydrophilic attack
Member
New republic has a great piece on the Kerry talks.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-died
That was really interesting. Thanks for sharing!
RustyNails
Member
Its not comedy. He is perpetuating stereotypes about women. He could have very well made the same point using a guy and his bro friend. Its like people using images of Obama as a witch doctor, and when told that its racism they go all "wait i thought this was america" on you.Why not? Again, I don't agree with Maher's worldview. I'm just defending the right to turn anything into a joke in comedy.
Really? We're talking about kids getting bombed and a comment about a slapping a crazy woman is what get's peoples attention? That is so America.
Seriously
Really? We're talking about kids getting bombed and a comment about a slapping a crazy woman is what get's peoples attention? That is so America.
Again, it's a comment about slapping a crazy woman that uses it as a comparison for BOMBING CHILDREN AND WHY IT IS APPROPRIATE. Don't stop at the door, there are several different levels of terrible in that comment.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Yeah, the problem with the joke is that, normally, you would read a joke like that as "CRAZY THING happened? Well, it was actually reasonable because it's similar to a reaction to NORMAL THING." the problem is, he chose slapping a woman as the normal thing, which is problematic because he shouldn't think of slapping a woman when she's unreasonable as a normal thing. It's despicable that he's trying to justify the murder of children, but the problem with the joke itself is that he's using abuse to explain away the killings.
Yeah, the problem with the joke is that, normally, you would read a joke like that as "CRAZY THING happened? Well, it was actually reasonable because it's similar to a reaction to NORMAL THING." the problem is, he chose slapping a woman as the normal thing, which is problematic because he shouldn't think of slapping a woman when she's unreasonable as a normal thing. It's despicable that he's trying to justify the murder of children, but the problem with the joke itself is that he's using abuse to explain away the killings.
Maybe i missed things, but he said a woman who is trying to kill you, not being "unreasonable", which is probably what he equates to firing rockets into Israel which brought on the ground invasion. I don't think Maher thought things through past that.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Montana Senate race between Steve Daines and John Walsh tightening according to PPP (46-39 Daines) and a Walsh internal from Harstad Strategic Research Inc (43-38 Daines).
I don't think he'll win but it's nice to see the race closing up. Food for thought, a Republican hasn't won a race in Montana for governor or Senate since 2000.
I don't think he'll win but it's nice to see the race closing up. Food for thought, a Republican hasn't won a race in Montana for governor or Senate since 2000.
Maybe i missed things, but he said a woman who is trying to kill you, not being "unreasonable", which is probably what he equates to firing rockets into Israel which brought on the ground invasion. I don't think Maher thought things through past that.
He could have said man and missed out on the negative connotations, but he didn't.
Maher's tweet may not have been too smart, but I don't see the point in quoting some asshat from a right-wing rag that would normally agree with the tweet if a Republican had said it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
He could have said man and missed out on the negative connotations, but he didn't.
He could have said "punching someone" and it would just be tasteless. But "slapping a woman" has a whole negative history of sexism
He could have said "punching someone" and it would just be tasteless. But "slapping a woman" has a whole negative history of sexism
Oh yes it would have been tasteless but it wouldn't have been as bad either.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh yes it would have been tasteless but it wouldn't have been as bad either.
Yeah that's what I'm saying. It would just be a bad joke that I'm sure I and many other people would have just rolled our eyes at
While HBO's Award winning "True Blood" a popular vampire drama has had a long-running narrative with the bad guys cast as southern conservative politicians, last night's episode took it a step farther, calling Ted Cruz supporters a**holes and offensively referring to conservative woman in eveningware as "republic**ts"
When two of the main characters, vampires Eric Northman and Pam De Beaufort, are planning to crash a fictional fundraiser for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) held at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas they are warned They only let in a**holes.
While dressing for the event in cowboy hats and Western evening attire Pam De Beaufort says "Oh my God I'm a republic**t"
And finally De Beaufort enters the gala proclaiming "Of all the horrible things I've seen in the last hundred years this could be the most disturbing."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...od-Offensively-Attacks-Ted-Cruz-And-GOP-Woman
To those of you who were offended at Maher's tweet, are you now going to boycott the AWARD WINNING HBO series as well? :smug
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...od-Offensively-Attacks-Ted-Cruz-And-GOP-Woman
To those of you who were offended at Maher's tweet, are you now going to boycott the AWARD WINNING HBO series as well? :smug
At least they are updating the source material to be timely. The books mostly take place pre-Tea Party America and only barely touch on post-Katrina America. At least within the last book I read.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/if-left-wants-scapegoats-just-look-mirror
Thomas Frank is convinced that Barack Obama single-handedly prevented America from becoming the lefty paradise it was on course for after the financial meltdown of 2008:
The Obama team, as the president once announced to a delegation of investment bankers, was the only thing between you and the pitchforks, and in retrospect these words seem not only to have been a correct assessment of the situation at the moment but a credo for his entire term in office. For my money, they should be carved in stone over the entrance to his monument: Barack Obama as the one-man rescue squad for an economic order that had aroused the fury of the world. Better: Obama as the awesomely talented doctor who kept the corpse of a dead philosophy lumbering along despite it all.
....In point of fact, there were plenty of things Obamas Democrats could have done that might have put the right out of business once and for allfor example, by responding more aggressively to the Great Recession or by pounding relentlessly on the theme of middle-class economic distress. Acknowledging this possibility, however, has always been difficult for consensus-minded Democrats, and I suspect that in the official recounting of the Obama era, this troublesome possibility will disappear entirely. Instead, the terrifying Right-Wing Other will be cast in bronze at twice life-size, and made the excuse for the Administrations every last failure of nerve, imagination and foresight. Demonizing the right will also allow the Obama legacy team to present his two electoral victories as ends in themselves, since they kept the White House out of the monsters graspheroic triumphs that were truly worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. (Which will be dusted off and prominently displayed.)
I see this kind of thing all the time on the right. If only we had a candidate who refused to sell out conservative values! A candidate who could truly make the American public understand! Then we'd win in a landslide!
It's easy to recognize this as delusional. Tea party types are always convinced that America is thirsting for true conservatism, and all that's needed is a latter-day Ronald Reagan to be its salesman. Needless to say, this misses the point that Americans aren't all reactionaries. In fact, as the embarrassing clown shows of the past two GOP primaries have shown, even most Republicans aren't reactionaries. There's been no shortage of honest-go-God right wingers to choose from, but they can't even win the nomination, let alone a general election.
(But you never know. Maybe 2016 is the year!)
But if it's so easy to see this conservative delusion for what it is, why isn't it equally easy to see liberal delusion just as easily? Back in 2009, was Obama really the only thing that stood between bankers and the howling mob? Don't be silly. Americans were barely even upset, let alone ready for revolution. Those pathetic demonstrations outside the headquarters of AIG were about a hundredth the size that even a half-ass political organization can muster for a routine anti-abortion rally. After a few days the AIG protestors got bored and went home without so much as throwing a few bottles at cops. Even the Greeks managed that much.
Why were Americans so obviously not enraged? Becauseduhthe hated neoliberal system worked. We didn't have a second Great Depression. The Fed intervened, the banking system was saved, and a stimulus bill was passed. Did bankers get treated too well? Oh yes indeed. Was the stimulus too small? You bet. Nevertheless, was America saved from an epic collapse? It sure was. Instead of a massive meltdown, we got a really bad recession and a weak recovery, and even that was cushioned by a safety net that, although inadequate, was more than enough to keep the pitchforks off the streets.
As for Obama, could he have done more? I suppose he probably could have, but it's a close call. Even with his earnest efforts at bipartisanship at the beginning of his presidency, he only barely passed any stimulus at all. If instead he'd issued thundering populist manifestos, even Susan Collins would have turned against him and the stimulus bill would have been not too small, but completely dead. Ditto for virtually everything else Obama managed to pass by one or two votes during his first 18 months. If that had happened, the economy would have done even worse, and if you somehow think this means the public would have become more sympathetic to the party in the White House, then your knowledge of American politics is at about the kindergarten level. Democrats would have lost even more seats in 2010 than they did.
Look: Obama made some mistakes. He should have done more about housing. He shouldn't have pivoted to deficit-mongering so quickly. Maybe he could have kept a public option in Obamacare if he'd fought harder for it. Maybe, maybe, maybe. But probably not. Like it or not, America was not poised for a huge liberal wave in 2008. It just wasn't. It was poised for a fairly routine cycle of throwing out the old bums and electing new bums, who would, as usual, be given a very short and very limited honeymoon. Democrats actually accomplished a fair amount during that honeymoon, but no, they didn't turn American into a lefty paradise. That was never in the cards.
All of us who do what Thomas Frank doeswhat I dohave failed. Our goal was to persuade the public to move in a liberal direction, and that didn't happen. In the end, we didn't persuade much of anyone. It's natural to want to avoid facing that humiliating truth, and equally natural to look for someone else to blame instead. That's human nature. So fine. Blame Obama if it makes you feel better. That's what we elect presidents for: to take the blame.
But he only deserves his share. The rest of us, who were unable to take advantage of an epic financial collapse to get the public firmly in favor of pitchforks and universal health care, deserve most of it. The mirror doesn't lie.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...od-Offensively-Attacks-Ted-Cruz-And-GOP-Woman
To those of you who were offended at Maher's tweet, are you now going to boycott the AWARD WINNING HBO series as well? :smug
I already am since they killed Tara and Alcide. Why not just murder Jason?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...od-Offensively-Attacks-Ted-Cruz-And-GOP-Woman
To those of you who were offended at Maher's tweet, are you now going to boycott the AWARD WINNING HBO series as well? :smug
I am perfectly OK with this.
I already am since they killed Tara and Alcide. Why not just murder Jason?
Well, Tara wasn't suppose to be such a major character, but yeah. Alcide becomes more minor as the series goes on. Jason... Hm. He's a midrange character, but still pretty interesting for the most part. He has a whole book centered around his struggles.
PhoenixDark
Banned
True Blood is trash television.
True Blood is trash television.
ಠ_ಠ
I see your terrible opinions extend beyond politics.
RustyNails
Member
I am with PD on this. True Blood is lamesies.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Because it's pretty clear that when it comes to economic policy, democrats are at least somewhere in the center when compared to all other wealthy countries, or even compared to our own history. There is clearly plenty of room to go further left, and things like the banking crisis and health care reform were perfect opportunity for it, and were left squandered because of centrist democrats. That's a huge difference from asking the conservatives to go even further right, when they are already historically pretty damn far right.http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/if-left-wants-scapegoats-just-look-mirror
But if it's so easy to see this conservative delusion for what it is, why isn't it equally easy to see liberal delusion just as easily?
And even if the public didn't like it at first, it still would have been the right thing to do as most economists seem to agree that more stimulus would have made the recession shorter, and a public option would have made things cheaper and more accessible, and those results might have changed some minds. It's not like political shifts have never happened before.
If you want us to shift more blame away from Obama to centrist democrats in congress, than sure, I can maybe agree with that. I guess if you know it's impossible from the start, maybe it's best you don't start public fights with people in your own party which you won't win. But I'm not going to stop complaining about how the Democrats as a whole aren't far enough left, and I do believe that the public will be accepting towards a shift left if actually given one.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This completly misses the point. Politicians don't just do things. They respond to pressures and calls for action. They got a call to prevent a depression. There was no desire to go further. They did what they were asked. To prevent the worst. The system worked.Because it's pretty clear that when it comes to economic policy, democrats are at least somewhere in the center when compared to all other wealthy countries, or even compared to our own history. There is clearly plenty of room to go further left, and things like the banking crisis and health care reform were perfect opportunity for it, and were left squandered because of centrist democrats. That's a huge difference from asking the conservatives to go even further right, when they are already historically pretty damn far right.
And even if the public didn't like it at first, it still would have been the right thing to do as most economists seem to agree that more stimulus would have made the recession shorter, and a public option would have made things cheaper and more accessible, and those results might have changed some minds. It's not like political shifts have never happened before.
If you want us to shift more blame away from Obama to centrist democrats in congress, than sure, I can maybe agree with that. I guess if you know it's impossible from the start, maybe it's best you don't start public fights with people in your own party which you won't win. But I'm not going to stop complaining about how the Democrats as a whole aren't far enough left, and I do believe that the public will be accepting towards a shift left if actually given one.
Your characterization of politics is backwards. Somehow politicians are just supposed to act contrary to what voters are calling for?
'If they were given a choice' ? the point is you demand one. Nobody did that in any scale that mattered enough to push politicians. That's who drum is calling out nobody in the left really cared all that much to push for fundamental transformation and now those people are blaming everyone but themselves.
Giant Panda
Member
He could have said "punching someone" and it would just be tasteless. But "slapping a woman" has a whole negative history of sexism
His "joke" wouldn't have really worked if it wasn't specifically a woman. He was making a comparison between not wanting to hit a woman as that's against societal norms and how he thinks Israel doesn't want to attack Gaza and end up killing civilians. I very much disagree with his view of the current Gaza conflict but I don't see how the 2nd half is supposed to be sexist.
This completly misses the point. Politicians don't just do things. They respond to pressures and calls for action. They got a call to prevent a depression. There was no desire to go further. They did what they were asked. To prevent the worst. The system worked.
This is simply not a true characterization of the political environment now or in 2008-2010. At the very least, it cannot stand without considerable qualification.
In 2009 there was considerable bi-partisan support for actions to reign in the power of the financial services industry, which was seen as both causing the crisis and having too much power over our political system. On the left, this support manifested itself in progressive opposition to Obama's policies, OWS, and support for politicians such as Elizabeth Warren. On the right, this support fueled the emergence of the Tea Party.
Yes, the Tea Party was was an "astroturf" operation financed by Republican billionaires. However, the popular anger behind the Tea Party among rank and file Republicans was real. For evidence, just look at (1) the split between the Wall Street backed Republican establishment and the "Tea Party" during the negations over the debt ceiling ,(2) the willingness of high profile Republicans such as John McCain to join liberals such as Elizabeth Warren on bills meant to radically reign in the power of the financial services industry, and (3) the Tea Partyiers themselves who are as likely to campaign against the bailouts as any Democrat, if not more so.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...mccain-make-the-case-for-a-new-glass-steagall
There is more "bi-partisanship evident in the crafting of that bill than in any of Obama's attempts to achieve a "Grand Bargain". It is clear that there was considerable popular support for more radical action against the financial services industry in 2008-2009, and that support continues to exist. In fact, there was probably more support for such measures than the measures the Obama team actually took. Nobody wanted to provide financial assistance to the banks. As Drum points out, the public remains skeptical of "left-wing" solutions such as counter-cyclical spending to combat recessions, which is what the stimulus was. Other than that, he completely misrepresents the political environment and popular sentiment both in 2008 and now.
People remain angry. Approval of congress is at record lows. Approval of the Presidency is at record lows. Unemployment, six years later, still has not returned to pre-recesion levels. We are living through an entire lost generation that cannot start families and careers because of student loans, housing shortages, and lack of opportunity. All across the country, public services such as schools and roads continue to experience cuts that will cause damage that will reverberate across the generations.
The system did not work. It failed morally and practically on its own terms. What the Obama administration rescued was zombified corpse whose prosperity no longer "trickles down" to the average American. People notice this fact, and they are angry.
If Drum and other liberals want to qualify their arguments by saying that the popular movements to combat the entrenched interests behind the current state of affairs don't exist, or at least didn't exist in 2008-2009, that would at least be accurate. People weren't mobilized on issues of income inequality and corruption in the financial system at the time. Trying to engage in revisionist history to imagine a national political environment that never existed is just lazy and reactionary.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
But, isn't that what my post and Thomas Frank's comments is doing? In the end they're mostly about changing the minds of voters, by trying to make the case for pushing things in the direction we want things to go. The only thing out of the ordinary is we're more making the case to democrats for their eventual vote in the primary, instead of the more common case to vote democrat over a republican.This completly misses the point. Politicians don't just do things. They respond to pressures and calls for action. They got a call to prevent a depression. There was no desire to go further. They did what they were asked. To prevent the worst. The system worked.
Your characterization of politics is backwards. Somehow politicians are just supposed to act contrary to what voters are calling for?
'If they were given a choice' ? the point is you demand one. Nobody did that in any scale that mattered enough to push politicians. That's who drum is calling out nobody in the left really cared all that much to push for fundamental transformation and now those people are blaming everyone but themselves.
I guess we could only ever focus on voters to be blamed for everything, but I think it's a lot easier to get the point across if you just focus on the politician doing the action instead. I mean that's why have elections, right? To challenge politicians on whether or not their positions are still in line with the voters.
Surely you agree that the results of primary elections have results on policy, even if it's more because of the message it sends than the people being elected themselves. For instance just look at the final death of immigration reform after Cantor lost his primary.
So basically, I understand and agree with the premise that in the end it all comes down to the voters, but I don't get your application of it, or why you think it's so important of a distinction to make.
zero shift
Banned
Not to mention "acting according to the voters" is a weak argument of sorts. A (likely controversial) fact about politics is that a politician doesn't have to follow what the public wants. The truth is people don't know what they want because they haven't been exposed to it. Most Americans were satisfied with their garbage healthcare because they hadn't experienced an alternative. The same can be said about the nations welfare, school, and tax system. I don't want to be mistaken, there exists a line between acting in the general interest of the public and tyranny. However that line is thinner than most of us like to admit. If it weren't than things such as the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, and a shit ton of FDRs policies wouldn't have came into futation
speculawyer
Member
On Point with guest host Josh Harwood:
Senator Bernie Sanders: A Real 2016 Contender?
interview with Bernie.
Senator Bernie Sanders: A Real 2016 Contender?
interview with Bernie.
RustyNails
Member
So, I don't know how legit this is (national journal), but
President Obama is moving toward a historic—and explosive—executive order that will provide legal status to a significant number of the estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. One senior White House official says that while "what's happening at the border will provide atmospherics for the [president's] decision," it won't stop him from acting on the undocumented—probably before the midterm elections.
The president can't provide them citizenship without action by Congress. But using the same theory of "deferred action" that he employed in 2012 for children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents, he could apply prosecutorial discretion to allow some groups of the undocumented (such as adults here illegally with children who are U.S. citizens) to obtain work permits and function openly. Though the administration is still debating the reach of Obama's authority, some top immigration advocates hope he could legalize up to half of the undocumented population.
How...valid is this? Can the administration give work permits to undocumented immigrants?Such a move would infuriate Republicans, both because the border crisis has deepened their conviction that any move toward legalization inspires more illegal migration and because the president would be bypassing Congress. They would likely challenge an Obama order through both legislation and litigation. Every 2016 GOP presidential contender could feel compelled to promise to repeal the order.
So, I don't know how legit this is (national journal), but
How...valid is this? Can the administration give work permits to undocumented immigrants?
Such a move would infuriate Republicans, both because the border crisis has deepened their conviction that any move toward legalization inspires more illegal migration and because the president would be bypassing Congress. They would likely challenge an Obama order through both legislation and litigation. Every 2016 GOP presidential contender could feel compelled to promise to repeal the order.
This shit is genius.
He's a lame duck and does this, and people benefit (both immigrants, and the economy).
Anyone who opposes this is seen as anti immigration and can be labeled as anti growth (if poised right). That's a really bad spot to be in.
I anti immigrant sentiment is on the cusp of "fuck you and well ok lets work together".
Reagan gave amnesty, I think a few work permits will hold up to scrutiny.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't know, gang.So, I don't know how legit this is (national journal), but
How...valid is this? Can the administration give work permits to undocumented immigrants?
This would be great for policy, buuuut...
Doing it before the midterms? I think such a move would rile up conservatives considerably.
Though I suppose most of the hardass conservatives who would be fired up by this would already be voting anyway.
It might also boost Obama's approval numbers with Hispanics and get them to turn out in races like Colorado.
But that would make life that much harder for Grimes, Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan, Nunn...
I'm just not sure about this one.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Since when does Obama give a shit about democrats in tough races. He'll do it in the coming months and blow it for southern democrats.
I wonder what the Supreme Court will say about it. It sounds within executive power and will benefit corporations who can begin hiring immigrants, but I'm still wary.
I wonder what the Supreme Court will say about it. It sounds within executive power and will benefit corporations who can begin hiring immigrants, but I'm still wary.
I'm sure that woman did. But only to say they aren't occupied cause there are no boots on the ground.Jon Stewart is the only honest man in American media. Not ONCE did Maher's panel utter the word "occupation" in the segment.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.