• 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.
About US politicians towards Israel.

What do people expect?

We have people that base their vote around Israel, but nobody will vote against someone because they are pro-Israel. They are responding to constituents who have made their views clear.

Nobody on the pro-Palestinian side really cares what they're politicians do about Israel. If you want to make that a litmus test then do it. Until then the complaints about AIPAC ring hollow, as an excuse to not do anything themselves.

Its the same dynamic as gun control. If you care that much force politicians to respond to your demands.
Weren't you decrying any complaints of AIPAC as antisemitic in the Israel thread. I don't remember, but there were a volley of antisemitic accusations coming from you whenever someone brought up anything critical of organized Israeli effort. So I'm not entirely sure I will take your experience with AIPAC meeting as anything truthful when there is plethora of evidence suggesting the power of AIPAC done by respected journalists, academics and activists.
Among the best-known critical works about AIPAC is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt. In the working paper and resulting book they accuse AIPAC of being "the most powerful and best known" component of a larger pro-Israel lobby that distorts American foreign policy. They write:[54]

AIPAC's success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. ... AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel PACs. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. ... The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.
The stifling of the "open debate" which Mersheimer and Walt talk about, is exactly what happened to Obama as described in PD's post about 1967 lines.
 
The United States economy rebounded heartily in the spring after a dismal winter, the Commerce Department reported on Wednesday, growing at an annual rate of 4 percent from April through June and surpassing economists’ expecations.

In its initial estimate for the second quarter, the government cited a major advance in inventories for private businesses, higher government spending at the state and local level and personal consumption spending as chief contributors to growth. Economists, who had been hoping for a full reversal of the first quarter’s decline, were cheered by the second quarter’s numbers. The consensus forecast for G.D.P. was 3 percent.

“Fantastic,” Douglas Handler, chief United States economist for IHS Global Insight Analysis, said of the second-quarter G.D.P. increase. The bigger-than-expected gain further cemented views that the decrease in America’s overall output during the first quarter was most likely a fluke tied in large part to unusually stormy winter weather and other anomalies. Any dip in gross domestic product outside an official recession is considered rare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/business/economy/us-economy-grew-4-in-second-quarter.html
 

Wilsongt

Member

I await the GOP spin.

Holy shit the hypocrisy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...llionaires-club-funding-environmental-causes/

An “elite” group of liberal “millionaires and billionaires” is pumping money into an elaborate network of environmental groups to influence EPA policies, even using “shady” donations from a foreign company to fund their efforts, according to a lengthy report by Senate Republicans.

The 92-page report was released Wednesday by Republicans on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The study endeavors to expose an alleged “far-left environmental machine” that Republicans say exerts “tremendous sway” over policies that hurt the economy.

"There is an unbelievable amount of money behind the environmental movement and far too much collusion between far-left environmental groups and the Obama EPA. This report really gets to the core of tracking the money and exposing the collusion," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., top Republican on the committee, said in a statement.

The report on the so-called “billionaire’s club” highlights a host of individuals and foundations and nonprofit groups -- some of which benefit from favorable tax treatment -- that work together on environmental causes. According to the report, well-known advocacy groups like the Sierra Club are the face of the movement, but provide “cover” for “secretive foundations” that provide the money, sometimes through intermediaries.

The report highlights about a dozen of these private foundations, backed by members of the “billionaire’s club,” that the authors say hold sway over the movement.

They include the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (run by members of the famed Rockefeller family); the Schmidt Family Foundation (launched by Google executive Eric Schmidt and his wife); and the Heinz Family Foundation (led in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Secretary of State John Kerry).

Several of these foundations have been around for a long time, and fund a variety of causes, not limited to the environment. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, for instance, was founded in 1940 and, aside from environmental causes, focuses on democracy promotion and conflict prevention abroad.

The environmental left also does not have a monopoly on well-heeled donors and foundations. Pro-oil and gas interests likewise have a robust funding network.

The report, though, makes particular note of the Sea Change Foundation, which is led by hedge fund power couple Nathaniel Simons and Laura Baxter-Simons -- and receives millions from foreign company Klein Ltd., based in Bermuda. Sea Change then donates that money to a variety of other environmental groups.

The report says the San Francisco-based group was the sixth largest donor to environmental issues in 2011 – giving over $43 million in grants -- but little public information about the group is available. Its website includes only a logo and a brief mission statement. And the donations from Klein Ltd. are anonymous, which the report calls problematic.

Further, the report alleges that the environmental groups have forged deep ties with the Obama EPA, and notes that top officials in the agency come from groups like the National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council and divisions of the Sierra Club.

Nathaniel Simons and the foundations cited above have not returned requests for comment from FoxNews.com.

Dan Epstein, director of the conservative Cause of Action, said in a statement that the report also speaks to a problem of “fiscal sponsorship” – where charities effectively sell nonprofit status to others, in turn receiving charitable donations for another group.

“Cause of Action has asked the IRS to take simple steps to define the rules for fiscal sponsorship, but they refused to do so, protecting their political friends, while targeting their political enemies,” Epstein said.

This is a classic case of pot calling the kettle black, except in the case, the kettle is actually trying to do some good, while the pot is fucking people over.
 
Dinesh D'Souza was on OnPoint:
https://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/07/30/dinesh-dsouza-america-campaign-finance

David Corn was on to oppose/debunk. I feel ashamed for having listened to that.

Dinesh is really at Ann Coulter levels of troll at this point. Anyone who takes his views seriously should be tested for paranoid schizophrenia. Give him the maximum sentence considering he shows little to no remorse for his crime.
"At this point"? He has been horrible ever since his days at the Dartmouth Review.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Weren't you decrying any complaints of AIPAC as antisemitic in the Israel thread. I don't remember, but there were a volley of antisemitic accusations coming from you whenever someone brought up anything critical of organized Israeli effort. So I'm not entirely sure I will take your experience with AIPAC meeting as anything truthful when there is plethora of evidence suggesting the power of AIPAC done by respected journalists, academics and activists.

The stifling of the "open debate" which Mersheimer and Walt talk about, is exactly what happened to Obama as described in PD's post about 1967 lines.
You mean the book endorsed by OSAMA BIN LADEN?!?

It is a shoddy book though, the Capital in the 21st Century of its day.
 
Weren't you decrying any complaints of AIPAC as antisemitic in the Israel thread. I don't remember, but there were a volley of antisemitic accusations coming from you whenever someone brought up anything critical of organized Israeli effort. So I'm not entirely sure I will take your experience with AIPAC meeting as anything truthful when there is plethora of evidence suggesting the power of AIPAC done by respected journalists, academics and activists.

The stifling of the "open debate" which Mersheimer and Walt talk about, is exactly what happened to Obama as described in PD's post about 1967 lines.

I was saying the AIPAC critiques are more often than not based or modeled on Antisemitic ideas about Jews 'controlling' the government (I don't think the posters are antisemitic but they're using the same tropes). I stand by that, and I don't think Walt and his paper are something you want to be standing on. Its a shit book.

I'm fully critical of Israel. One of my last post in one of those topics was this http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121479037&postcount=2962

Invasion is stupid and will only lead to more death and suffering on all sides (with more on the palestinian).

No reason for it. Disproportionate. Wrong.

I give my example because walt and the AIPAC criticizems aren't what happen and how policy gets decided. I've heard member of the foreign affairs committee shit on Lieberman probably worse than anti-zionists. I've heard staff insult AIPAC as idiots. They do not decide policy. They do not 'run DC,' its voters and fear of voters responses do (this does included money). Its not even love of Jews its fear of electoral responses. Like I said its a mirror of gun issues. One side cares the otherside cares but not enough to make a difference.

I'm commonly characterized as 'pro-Israel', I am. I'm a Zionist. At the same time I care deeply about Palestinians, but I tend to post things highlighting the fact that Israel isn't a nazi state because I don't have much to add on my anguish for the palestinian people and their suffering the the horrible rightward turn in Israeli politics. I've been in constant contact with my friend in Gaza who was supposed to come to the states next month. I have a friend who is working in Ramallah for a palestinian human rights organization. This issue is horrible because any sympathy for the 'other side' any defense of actions is an full culpability for any and all atrocities carried out by anyone in the conflict. This isn't to shield me from criticisms but to say what one choses to say and not say don't completely define a person.

My personal stance is. I support a Israel on the basis of the 67 borders with swaps keeping the major settlements. A joint or divided sovereignty for Jerusalem with a international old city and it being the Palestinian capital as well as Israels. I support a demilitarized state but not Israeli control of Palestinian territory. I don't support a full right or return but large financial compensation and an apology. I oppose all new settlements (ambivalent about construction in established blocs, though I support and demand a freeze for peace negotiations). I oppose the majority of the current blockade on Gaza (I think it should only be for weapons), I'm hopeful of the reconciliation government but I believe there should be pressure for Hamas to accept Israel beyond a proposed 'truce'. I favor changes in Israels domestic law like the adoption of civil law and the ability for municipalities to choose how the observe the sabbath. I dont think bibi is negotiating in good faith, etc etc.

but that doesn't mean I'm not fearful of the threats Israel faces, the need for a jewish state, and the realistic outcome the establishment of a Palestinian state will resolve problems and end the conflict.
 

HylianTom

Banned
What precedent is there a President with 40ish or lower approval ratings to have a successor of the same party? 2014 doesn't look good but 2016 could be just as bad.

Normally, it would look pretty daunting. But Hillary's numbers, down a bit from their post-SoS highs, are still holding-up impressively. I blame some of that on nostalgia for the Clinton Era - the last time period when wide swaths of the voting public, all across the political spectrum, felt genuinely good about the country's future. And for whatever reason, she bailed out in such a way that somehow the American public hasn't tied her to the Obama presidency.

(I'm wondering if her primary fight against Obama back in 2008 might be benefitting her a bit. In voters' minds, they might be thinking, "..maybe she would've been the better choice after all?")

Regardless, the electoral map remains amazingly favorable towards the Democrat, no matter whom the party nominates. The Republican candidate would have to run the table to eeeeek across the 269-electoral vote line.
 
Regardless, the electoral map remains amazingly favorable towards the Democrat, no matter whom the party nominates. The Republican candidate would have to run the table to eeeeek across the 269-electoral vote line.
Yeah. Not that it couldn't happen, but if Clinton's general election campaign is half as good as Obama's, she shouldn't have much problem keeping IA, CO, VA, NV etc. in the blue column, even if the traditional tossup states (like OH or FL) go red.
 

Diablos

Member
I don't know if 2016 will be as rosy as people make it out to be for Hillary. She's a Democrat, first and foremost. If the Democratic party is not faring too well in 2016 that's a problem. Furthermore -- and most importantly -- if Obama's approval sinks even lower and stays there in 2016, that's going to have serious implications for the party and Hillary's campaign.

She should be able to win but if the nominee is Christie, Walker, Haley, someone like that... she's going to have serious competition.

And I really do think the GOP/donors are going to make up for Sarah Palin in spades by seriously thinking about going all out for a less seemingly insane female and at the top of the ticket. That takes a lot away from Hillary's appeal, since you could no longer say "well, the other guy isn't exactly going to make history."
 

Crisco

Banned
I don't understand man, how does this lawsuit make any fucking sense for the Republicans going into the midterm elections? According to all the polling right now, they are WINNING. Not just on the election polling, but on the individual issues. Healthcare, economy, foreign policy, etc .... they are winning on all of them. Why do this? Why further embarrass your moderate base while simultaneously rousing your opponent's voters? It literally makes zero fucking sense, from all angles. They've seriously out done themselves.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I don't understand man, how does this lawsuit make any fucking sense for the Republicans going into the midterm elections? According to all the polling right now, they are WINNING. Not just on the election polling, but on the individual issues. Healthcare, economy, foreign policy, etc .... they are winning on all of them. Why do this? Why further embarrass your moderate base while simultaneously rousing your opponent's voters? It literally makes zero fucking sense, from all angles. They've seriously out done themselves.
What else are they going to do?

Nobody's going to care about it anyway and they get to use it back in their districts.
 
I'm starting to get the impression that Hillary is going to run a centrist "bipartisan" campaign and turn off the base. She can win regardless, but it's not something I want to see, and it would further expose her to being outflanked in the primaries by someone from the left. Her asinine comments about Obama's foreign policy were probably the tip of the iceberg, this shit will continue. Good luck firing up the base while shitting on Obama.

Or maybe things will change. If we ever get a moment to breath (ie a break from the scandals and foreign policy flare ups), the media might have time to discuss the economy. And if it continues to grow as it has all year (but especially in the last 4 months) we could be looking at a completely different political situation next year.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Have any of you read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ADIMJZ8/?tag=neogaf0e-20

If so, is it any good? I liked the sample chapter.
http://economixcomix.com/EconomixPreview.pdf
I don't like the way it accepts the market as an entity view of Smith's argument, but it's alright enough since I was expecting it to flip the extortion process. (It's not very funny, but these never are for some reason, I have one about the history of computers that is unintentionally funny because of how unfunny it is while trying so hard to be.)

Some of the Amazon comments talk about using it as an intro book, I'd personally pair it with Economics in One Lesson in that case.

I have gotten maybe more than a dozen emails from DNC since morning. Time to spam this shit.
My favorite was the one a week or so ago about how IMPEACHMENT OF AN ELECTED PRESIDENT HAS NEVER BEEN CLOSER THAN IT IS NOW!
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I don't understand man, how does this lawsuit make any fucking sense for the Republicans going into the midterm elections? According to all the polling right now, they are WINNING. Not just on the election polling, but on the individual issues. Healthcare, economy, foreign policy, etc .... they are winning on all of them. Why do this? Why further embarrass your moderate base while simultaneously rousing your opponent's voters? It literally makes zero fucking sense, from all angles. They've seriously out done themselves.

You are vastly overestimating the republican's position in the polls right now. You act like the republicans have a 99% chance of winning everything, when there's pretty much no polster that have them at more than a 60% chance of winning back the senate. That's not a slam dunk. Republicans aren't behind on the possibility of them taking the senate like we sometimes make it sound here, but it's definitely not a definite thing for them.

And beyond that, there hasn't been a poll since early june giving the republicans a lead in generic ballot polling, and the democratic party has consistently had higher approval ratings than republicans. The nationwide constituency is very clearly pro democrat right now, even if the 2014 electoral map doesn't favor them right now, making a republican house and senate likely.

I especially want to know where you're getting that the democrats are losing on every issue. I could cite some polls from May to the contrary, but I admit those are getting rather old now.

Long story short, it's close enough that they do have a need to make attempts to get their own base excited to vote. Personally I'd bet a lawsuit is just boring to most people, while absolutely amazing proof and vindication for the republican base. As for moderates, they're banking on them not paying close enough attention to question the legitimacy of the lawsuit and just accept the fact that it means Obama broke the law, if they even care about it at all, which is probably not a bad bet to make.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Heh, just by coincidence from:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-impeachment-msnbc-fox-news/

screen-shot-2014-07-29-at-9-57-40-pm.png
 

benjipwns

Banned
There's been some responses made to this and it's only fair to also post them. From Taranto:
The legal question in Halbig and similar cases is not one of constitutional law but of statutory interpretation, and that's where Sargent's reporting bolsters rather than undermines the plaintiffs' case. To the extent that legislative history is relevant in adducing legislative intent, the Senate's having abandoned the language providing for subsidies on the federal exchange is evidence of intent not to enact that language.

"Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the limitation was not intended," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in Russello v. U.S. (1983). In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987), Justice John Paul Stevens observed (quoting an earlier opinion from Justice Potter Stewart): "Few principles of statutory construction are more compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded in favor of other language."

True, not all jurists place much stock in legislative history. Concurring in the judgment in Cardoza-Fonseca, Justice Antonin Scalia accused the majority of "an ill-advised deviation from the venerable principle that if the language of a statute is clear, that language must be given effect--at least in the absence of a patent absurdity." That doesn't help the administration's case either, since it leads back to the plain language of the statute. And "patent absurdity" implies logical inconsistency, not just poor design.

http://patterico.com/2014/07/29/lib...ly-strengthens-argument-from-halbig-majority/
The government and its amici are thus left to urge the court to infer meaning from silence, arguing that "during the debates over the ACA, no one suggested, let alone explicitly stated, that a State's citizens would lose access to the tax credits if the State failed to establish its own Exchange."

The historical record, however, belies this claim. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) proposed a bill that specifically contemplated penalizing states that refused to participate in establishing "American Health Benefit Gateways," the equivalent of Exchanges, by denying credits to such states' residents for four years.

This is not to say that section 36B [the section of PPACA that provides for subsidies] necessarily incorporated this thinking; we agree that inferences from unenacted legislation are too uncertain to be a helpful guide to the intent behind a specific provision.

But the HELP Committee's bill certainly demonstrates that members of Congress at least considered the notion of using subsidies as an incentive to gain states' cooperation.

And then Taranto gets weird:
The ObamaCare argument has interesting metaphysical implications as well as legal ones. One of the oldest debates in philosophy is about the argument from design, also known as the teleological argument--in brief, the claim that the orderliness of the natural world, and especially the living world, must be the product of a higher intelligence.

Here is how the British theologian William Paley put the argument in "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity," first published in 1802:
Suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. . . . For any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? . . . For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.
Like a watch, the argument goes, a biological organism is a complex and functional system. Thus, just as a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker, creatures prove the existence of a Creator.The watchmaker analogy has come up before in the context of ObamaCare litigation. Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services was one of the cases that made it to the Supreme Court in 2012, where it was consolidated with National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius. Among the questions posed were (1) whether the individual mandate was constitutional, and (2) if not, whether it was "severable" from the rest of the law.

Roger Vinson, the trial judge in the Florida case, answered both questions in the negative--meaning that the individual mandate's legal infirmity was fatal to the entire law. He wrote:
This Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions--which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort--for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. . . . The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.
Vinson's ruling was reversed; Chief Justice John Roberts (to continue the analogy) agreed that the part was defective but effected a repair by jury-rigging the part so that it worked in a different way.

In the individual-mandate cases there were those, including four justices of the Supreme Court, who did not think the part defective, which is to say they believed that a law requiring individuals to buy medical insurance was a legitimate exercise of congressional power.

By contrast, even Greg Sargent now agrees that the Halbig plaintiffs have identified a genuinely serious defect, perhaps a fatal one. The dispute is over whether it is acceptable to repair the watch with counterfeit parts.

All this raises an interesting question about the nature of creation. The argument from design isn't necessarily an argument for the literal truth of the biblical creation story. But to our mind the watchmaker analogy actually argues against it.

A watchmaker, after all, does not create a watch sui generis, the way God created the world according to the Book of Genesis. Instead he draws on a body of knowledge developed incrementally over many generations. Innovation is a gradual process of trial and adaptation analogous to the biological process of natural selection.

The continuing disaster of ObamaCare demonstrates the folly of trying to create a complicated system all at once. All now agree that ObamaCare's creators were careless in their design--the defense, to the extent there is one, being that they didn't have time to be careful. Their adaptive energies were almost entirely devoted to overcoming political obstacles that stood in the way of the threshold of 60 Senate and 218 House votes. They wanted to create something substantial, and they did--a monster.

Okay, so I just wanted to post this because of that insane watchmaker metaphysical direction things took.
 
Seems Nate's trying to do whatever he can to win back the people that he alienated by accurately predicting Romney would lose.
By accurately calling a spade a spade? Let's be real: Steve Israel made it clear that democrats increased their fundraising goals after the lawsuit talk began, and since then have been exploiting it to raise money. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that, but I find it asinine that some people are denying that democrats are doing it. Be honest. The only people discussing impeachment are minor, backwater officials and some extremists in the house. The lawsuit is little more than Boehner giving his caucus something to brag about during August recess. In short, politics.

Things will change if Obama issues that immigration executive order. It'll likely spur actual impeachment talk, but more importantly it'll destroy red state democrats in November. Obama doesn't seem to give a shit about either party in congress so I wouldn't be surprised if he went through with this.
 

benjipwns

Banned
silver-datalab-impeach-11.png


I did notice earlier this week that the first "story" on like three straight shows for two separate days was THE RISING CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers for both networks go up again, they create this kind of circlejerk between the two networks talking about how crazy the other is. And create issues out of themselves. And asking every guest and politician and commentator about the "story" they created.

Rather than, I dunno, covering Gaza or the VA or something.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
By accurately calling a spade a spade? Let's be real: Steve Israel made it clear that democrats increased their fundraising goals after the lawsuit talk began, and since then have been exploiting it to raise money. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that, but I find it asinine that some people are denying that democrats are doing it. Be honest. The only people discussing impeachment are minor, backwater officials and some extremists in the house. The lawsuit is little more than Boehner giving his caucus something to brag about during August recess. In short, politics.

Things will change if Obama issues that immigration executive order. It'll likely spur actual impeachment talk, but more importantly it'll destroy red state democrats in November. Obama doesn't seem to give a shit about either party in congress so I wouldn't be surprised if he went through with this.

I don't think anyone's denying that Dems are fundraising off of this, but 1) it's not relevant and 2) context matters.
 

AntoneM

Member
silver-datalab-impeach-11.png


I did notice earlier this week that the first "story" on like three straight shows for two separate days was THE RISING CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers for both networks go up again, they create this kind of circlejerk between the two networks talking about how crazy the other is. And create issues out of themselves. And asking every guest and politician and commentator about the "story" they created.

Rather than, I dunno, covering Gaza or the VA or something.

Just because some members of the US House, some prominent Republican talking heads, and the majority of self identified Republicans* have called for impeachment or insinuated that the president should be impeached is no reason for Democrats to accuse Republicans of being in favor of impeachment over and over again; especially not when the Republican lead US House has filed a lawsuit alleging that the president has violated the US constitution. That might make Republicans look bad.

*http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/24/rel7e.pdf
 

benjipwns

Banned
Impeachment is a non-story, it's like trade rumors that are sourced back to the Bleacher Report or RealGM. It's fuel for the political equivalent of sports talk radio/programming.

Prominent and/or self-identified Republicans and Democrats "call" for an endless amount of stupid things everyday and nobody cares because it can't fuel the perpetual outrage/donation machine that the political commentariat thrives on.

It's the same as the Democrats crying for Bush's impeachment and Fox News playing that up time and time again. It allows the punditocracy to take a stand against something their viewers oppose and allows for the opposing punditocracy to do the same by taking a stand against that stand. So you bring on a bunch of fellow travelers to talk about how extreme or outrageous or insane it all is, and occasionally some dope with soft ball objections so you can bat him down with ease.

There are an endless number of political stories for MSNBC and Fox News to cover. Yet, if you watch their commentary it's all centered around five to six easy to take sides stories of effectively no importance. The BORDER CRISIS allows Fox to trumpet it pet issues and rile its fan base, while allowing MSNBC to tut tut at all the racists and obstructionist racists. Rushing from each incident to the next, leaving the past ones behind except when it's time to list all the atrocities the other side refuses to address.

It's sport, it's non-serious, it's inconsequential. But it's emotionally driven and that's what's important. We can rally the right-thinkers against the other.

I don't claim to be immune from the influence. But political stunts. Gaffes. Outlandish statements from nobody candidates. They have their value for amusement. But if you're hopping from each to each carrying the banner of your team what are you accomplishing? What are you engaged in?

Maybe more importantly. What aren't you engaged in? What aren't the commentators discussing? What injustices are they perpetuating by focusing on opportunistic "disrespect" being shown the most powerful man in the world?

Oh yeah, but genocide in Gaza. No, that's not the criticism, the criticism is that you have a choice. And if you're mentioning something of irrelevance every 22 minutes and leading all your programming with it, and you might mention the other at the half hour, that's a revealed preference.

Politik as sport where every inch of land must be fought to the death over comes close to removing the pretense that it's not re-appropriated tribal violence.

I think there's an importance to that. And a link to the discontent, the disinterest, the disengagement that is so bemoaned by the very entities and institutions that perpetuate it.
 

benjipwns

Banned
For example, Obama's weakness is going to cause World War III:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/08/yes-it-could-happen-again/373465/

In this context, nothing is more dangerous than American weakness. It is understandable that the United States is looking inward after more than a decade of post-9/11 war. But it is also worrying, because the credibility of American power remains the anchor of global security. The nation’s mood is not merely a reflection of economic hardship or the costs of war; it is also determined by the president’s decisions and rhetoric. There was no American majority for involvement in World War I or World War II—until the president set out to forge one (helped decisively in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s case by Pearl Harbor). As Jonathan Eyal of Britain’s Royal United Services Institute says, “If a president stands up and says something, he can shift the debate.”

President Obama has made clear he does not believe in military force. His words spell that out; so does his body language.
If these treaty obligations do not constitute a red line triggering a U.S. military response—the only way to prove the seriousness of “these norms”—all bets are off in a world already filled with uncertainties. A century ago, in the absence of clear lines or rules, it was just this kind of feel-good hope and baseless trust in the judgment of rival powers that precipitated catastrophe. But that, it may be said, was then. The world has supposedly been transformed.

But has it? Consider this article in my father’s 1938 high-school yearbook:
The machine has brought men face to face as never before in history. Paris and Berlin are closer today than neighboring villages were in the Middle Ages. In one sense distance has been annihilated. We speed on the wings of the wind and carry in our hands weapons more dreadful than the lightning … The challenge of the machine is the greatest opportunity mankind has yet enjoyed. Out of the rush and swirl of the confusions of our times may yet arise a majestic order of world peace and prosperity.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Dinesh D'Souza was on OnPoint:
https://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/07/30/dinesh-dsouza-america-campaign-finance

David Corn was on to oppose/debunk. I feel ashamed for having listened to that.

Dinesh is really at Ann Coulter levels of troll at this point. Anyone who takes his views seriously should be tested for paranoid schizophrenia. Give him the maximum sentence considering he shows little to no remorse for his crime.

Man, Tom Ashbrook and David Corn did some pretty good tag team work there. Loved the part about Iraq and how it undermined Dinesh's stupid ass point.
 
I was saying the AIPAC critiques are more often than not based or modeled on Antisemitic ideas about Jews 'controlling' the government (I don't think the posters are antisemitic but they're using the same tropes). I stand by that, and I don't think Walt and his paper are something you want to be standing on. Its a shit book.

I'm fully critical of Israel. One of my last post in one of those topics was this http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121479037&postcount=2962



I give my example because walt and the AIPAC criticizems aren't what happen and how policy gets decided. I've heard member of the foreign affairs committee shit on Lieberman probably worse than anti-zionists. I've heard staff insult AIPAC as idiots. They do not decide policy. They do not 'run DC,' its voters and fear of voters responses do (this does included money). Its not even love of Jews its fear of electoral responses. Like I said its a mirror of gun issues. One side cares the otherside cares but not enough to make a difference.

I'm commonly characterized as 'pro-Israel', I am. I'm a Zionist. At the same time I care deeply about Palestinians, but I tend to post things highlighting the fact that Israel isn't a nazi state because I don't have much to add on my anguish for the palestinian people and their suffering the the horrible rightward turn in Israeli politics. I've been in constant contact with my friend in Gaza who was supposed to come to the states next month. I have a friend who is working in Ramallah for a palestinian human rights organization. This issue is horrible because any sympathy for the 'other side' any defense of actions is an full culpability for any and all atrocities carried out by anyone in the conflict. This isn't to shield me from criticisms but to say what one choses to say and not say don't completely define a person.

My personal stance is. I support a Israel on the basis of the 67 borders with swaps keeping the major settlements. A joint or divided sovereignty for Jerusalem with a international old city and it being the Palestinian capital as well as Israels. I support a demilitarized state but not Israeli control of Palestinian territory. I don't support a full right or return but large financial compensation and an apology. I oppose all new settlements (ambivalent about construction in established blocs, though I support and demand a freeze for peace negotiations). I oppose the majority of the current blockade on Gaza (I think it should only be for weapons), I'm hopeful of the reconciliation government but I believe there should be pressure for Hamas to accept Israel beyond a proposed 'truce'. I favor changes in Israels domestic law like the adoption of civil law and the ability for municipalities to choose how the observe the sabbath. I dont think bibi is negotiating in good faith, etc etc.

but that doesn't mean I'm not fearful of the threats Israel faces, the need for a jewish state, and the realistic outcome the establishment of a Palestinian state will resolve problems and end the conflict.

.
 
Impeachment is a non-story, it's like trade rumors that are sourced back to the Bleacher Report or RealGM. It's fuel for the political equivalent of sports talk radio/programming.

Prominent and/or self-identified Republicans and Democrats "call" for an endless amount of stupid things everyday and nobody cares because it can't fuel the perpetual outrage/donation machine that the political commentariat thrives on.

It's the same as the Democrats crying for Bush's impeachment and Fox News playing that up time and time again. It allows the punditocracy to take a stand against something their viewers oppose and allows for the opposing punditocracy to do the same by taking a stand against that stand. So you bring on a bunch of fellow travelers to talk about how extreme or outrageous or insane it all is, and occasionally some dope with soft ball objections so you can bat him down with ease.

There are an endless number of political stories for MSNBC and Fox News to cover. Yet, if you watch their commentary it's all centered around five to six easy to take sides stories of effectively no importance. The BORDER CRISIS allows Fox to trumpet it pet issues and rile its fan base, while allowing MSNBC to tut tut at all the racists and obstructionist racists. Rushing from each incident to the next, leaving the past ones behind except when it's time to list all the atrocities the other side refuses to address.

It's sport, it's non-serious, it's inconsequential. But it's emotionally driven and that's what's important. We can rally the right-thinkers against the other.

I don't claim to be immune from the influence. But political stunts. Gaffes. Outlandish statements from nobody candidates. They have their value for amusement. But if you're hopping from each to each carrying the banner of your team what are you accomplishing? What are you engaged in?

Maybe more importantly. What aren't you engaged in? What aren't the commentators discussing? What injustices are they perpetuating by focusing on opportunistic "disrespect" being shown the most powerful man in the world?

Oh yeah, but genocide in Gaza. No, that's not the criticism, the criticism is that you have a choice. And if you're mentioning something of irrelevance every 22 minutes and leading all your programming with it, and you might mention the other at the half hour, that's a revealed preference.

Politik as sport where every inch of land must be fought to the death over comes close to removing the pretense that it's not re-appropriated tribal violence.

I think there's an importance to that. And a link to the discontent, the disinterest, the disengagement that is so bemoaned by the very entities and institutions that perpetuate it.
Impeachment is totally a story. Is it likely to happen? No. But at this point there have been 5+ different pundits, politicians, candidates, groups, etc. On the right that have called for impeachment. Thus, it is a story whether you like it or not. If they don't want it to be a story then they can shut the fuck up. But they keep talking about it. So it is a story if for no other reason than to shine a light on the substantial number of wingnuts on the right. So get over it.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Impeachment is totally a story. Is it likely to happen? No. But at this point there have been 5+ different pundits, politicians, candidates, groups, etc. On the right that have called for impeachment. Thus, it is a story whether you like it or not. If they don't want it to be a story then they can shut the fuck up. But they keep talking about it. So it is a story if for no other reason than to shine a light on the substantial number of wingnuts on the right. So get over it.
Get over what?

I don't expect politics to be serious. It's just fascinating when "serious thinkers" show how frivolous it is by spending all their time talking about, speculating about, and hectoring about a "story" they created out of their own low self worth and projection. And then they try to justify their own derelict obsession by just repeating how serious it is without ever actually explaining why.

At least somebody's making money off it. I'm just glad that corporations have free speech and press rights so MSNBC can continue to provide in-kind donations to the Democratic Party via joint messaging campaigns.
 
Get over what?

I don't expect politics to be serious. It's just fascinating when "serious thinkers" show how frivolous it is by spending all their time talking about, speculating about, and hectoring about a "story" they created out of their own low self worth and projection. And then they try to justify their own derelict obsession by just repeating how serious it is without ever actually explaining why.

At least somebody's making money off it. I'm just glad that corporations have free speech and press rights so MSNBC can continue to provide in-kind donations to the Democratic Party via joint messaging campaigns.

Good points. Worse yet, impeachment talk has been going on since 2010. The only difference today is a lawsuit Boehner was forced to issue in order to give his caucus an artificial "victory" they can brag about during August recess after losing big on the last two fights they had (govt shutdown, Obamacare). Msnbc is trumping this up because it benefits democrats. Whereas at one point it benefitted republicans.

To continue the sports analogy it really reminds me of the recent revival of Mike Hart's "little brother" comment about Michigan State, which has returned to the news lately. The comment used to entertain and motivate Michigan fans to no end, now they've moved away from it; however Michigan State fans still obsess over it, and it drives passion amongst the fan base even as they dominate Michigan in football now.
 

HylianTom

Banned
It's August, and we all know what that means: footage of Republican representatives being shouted at by the hordes of crazies at their town hall meetings!

I wonder how much flack they'll get for not going all the way and pushing impeachment..
 
It's August, and we all know what that means: footage of Republican representatives being shouted at by the hordes of crazies at their town hall meetings!

I wonder how much flack they'll get for not going all the way and pushing impeachment..

probably a lot. Rush was saying yesterday that Republicans have given up the purse (funding) and legal (impeachment) mechanisms to thwart obama because they're scared of the media, democrats, and the false lessons of the clinton impeachment. :lol
 

Wilsongt

Member
An interesting write up about a viewing of Santorum's movie "We hate gays and religion is being attacked on a daily basis" also known as "One Generation Away: The Erosion of Religious Liberty"

Sitting through this 90-minute film was going to be frustrating enough, but no food was allowed in Heritage’s auditorium, so I was going to have to do it without popcorn (or eggrolls). I was hoping they’d just get going, but Santorum had to take a little bit more time to explain that religious liberty really is under attack and that we have to restore the church’s influence in culture. He highlighted a quote from Chicago Cardinal Francis George, who said in 2010, “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

One Generation Away references a 1961 quote from President Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” The film tries to make this point about religious freedom by highlighting a variety of stories that show Christians — specifically conservative evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics — complaining that they cannot fully realize their religious beliefs.

The film’s subjects are familiar: Hobby Lobby, the Oregon bakers and Washington florist who refused to serve same-sex weddings (“The government shouldn’t force you to bake the cake!” audience members later argued), the Mt. Soledad Veteran’s Memorial with its tall cross on government property, the counseling student who refused to affirm a client’s same-sex relationships, military chaplains who want to evangelize, and the Texas cheerleaders who insist upon using Bible verses on the football team’s banners. The film plods through them one after another, peppering in anecdotes about what the Founding Fathers intended and how there really is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

The entire film is told through interviews — a lot of them. Even recognizing most of them, it was sometimes easy to forget who was whom. Some prominent figures from the conservative movement didn’t even appear until halfway through the film. I kept saying to myself, “Oh, they got him too!” (It was almost always a “him.”) Folks like Robert George, Mike Huckabee, Russell Moore, Tony Perkins, and representatives from groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom all make appearances to explain just how much religious liberty is under attack. The filmmakers said that they interviewed 75 different people for the documentary and that they had a lot of content that they didn’t use, but which they might release as supplementary material. To their credit, they did interview a few opposing perspectives like Rev. Barry Lynn and Dan Barker as well.

Still, there I was, a gay atheist surrounded by people eagerly nodding in approval — if not lightly cheering in their seats — when Christians refused to serve gay people or even acknowledge the lives we lead. As one gentleman said to me during the reception, “sexual orientation — whatever that is.”


Because watching people just talk at the camera is a bit dull, the film’s visuals are supplemented with newspaper and blog headlines and more stock footage than I’ve ever seen in my life. The footage was mostly cityscapes and people looking American — there’s a city skyline, there’s every single recognizable Washington monument and memorial, there’s some woman buying corn at a farmer’s market, here are some people boating, there’s the NYC subway, etc. At least half the film’s visual content consists of this irrelevant stock footage shown under the interviews, and each clip only shows for a quick second, advancing to the next at a seizure-inducing pace. They used so much random stock footage that I noticed some of it repeating before the film was over.

After hashing through each of the examples of religious liberty infringement, the movie edges briefly into a Nazi comparison. Huckabee recalls how moved he was when he first read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship, a call to follow Christ’s teachings published as the Nazis were rising to power. The film proceeds to draw a not-so-subtle parallel, suggesting that the church’s waning influence in the U.S. is identical to Germany in the 1930s. As Cardinal George’s quote seemed to suggest, if the U.S. doesn’t re-embrace Christian values by following Bonhoeffer’s example, there could be a new anti-Christian Holocaust in our near future.

Following an exhaustingly long “call to action” epilogue where just about every interviewee implores pastors to step up and defend religious freedom, the lights came up and the audience applauded.

In the discussion that followed, audience members were particularly interested in discussing LGBT issues. One woman was so thankful — a little choked up about it, actually — for the film’s perspective on these matters because she really struggles with how many same-sex couples live in her Washington, DC neighborhood, such that she sometimes doesn’t even go outside on Saturdays. She apparently engages with them often, and someone once asked her why she couldn’t appreciate — as a woman with a physical disability — the same kind of stigma they experience for their identities. “I didn’t choose to have a disability,” she told them. “You have chosen the lifestyle.” Many nodded and hummed in agreement.

Another audience member was quite taken with an argument Heritage’s Ryan T. Anderson made in the film about businesses discriminating against gay people: “Should a gay-run printing company have to make ‘God Hates Fags’ signs for the Westboro Baptist Church?” “This argument just made so much sense to me,” she said. “I don’t know why we aren’t out there using it more.” Of course, the Phelps clan has its own in-house graphic design studio; they print their own signs.

Santorum did acknowledge during the discussion that he would welcome attacks or pickets from liberal churches, who are invisible in the film. “I’m a dog whistle to the left,” he admitted, taking a no-such-thing-as-bad-press approach to the film’s church-only release later this summer. He even said at one point that he’d wished conservatives had lost the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case if only because it would have forced them to redouble their efforts more passionately. According to Santorum, anything that might fire up local pastors and ministers to speak out more would help advance their “religious liberty” effort and bring the church back to the center of culture where he believes it belongs. “The sooner the fight,” Santorum concluded, “the better.”

As the crowd meandered back to the elevators, I perceived the other audience members as feeling somehow validated. It was as if the film had captured all of their fears and frustrations, and not only were they rejuvenated, but they had a sense of relief that others would soon understand their persecution. As I quietly slipped out, I too felt a sense of relief — to be able to loosen my tie and uncloset my identity.

I always find it funny how the Christian right goes on and on and on about religious liberty and freedom being attacked, when they themselves are attacking any religion that isn't Christianity. Some even attack Catholicism, not noticing that their religion might not exist as it does today had the Catholic Church not done as much expanding as it did.
 

AntoneM

Member
Get over what?

I don't expect politics to be serious. It's just fascinating when "serious thinkers" show how frivolous it is by spending all their time talking about, speculating about, and hectoring about a "story" they created out of their own low self worth and projection. And then they try to justify their own derelict obsession by just repeating how serious it is without ever actually explaining why.

At least somebody's making money off it. I'm just glad that corporations have free speech and press rights so MSNBC can continue to provide in-kind donations to the Democratic Party via joint messaging campaigns.

It's a story, Republicans made sure of that. You can't fault Democrats and liberal leaning opinion shows for trumpeting it up; that's politics. I don't know why it bothers you so much since you don't expect politics to be serious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom