Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

btw she's the candidate who republicans threw the kitchen sink at, on abortion
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ennifer-Wexton-because-what-else-do-they-have

So the GOP has already lost multiple elections fought over Obamacare and abortion...in Virginia. Even a pessimist of my caliber has to admit this is good news.

I think it's fair to call Virginia a reliably Dem-leaning state by now. In 2012 Obama won the state by a slightly larger margin than his national win, even when pollsters while Suffolk refused to poll it because they said their numbers had Romney winning comfortably (they also said that about Florida (slight Obama win) and North Carolina (slight Romney win)).

By the time Hillary runs I think it'll be locked down.

 

[Captain Pants]

NPR is going to be covering the battle between Representative Mike Simpson and Bryan Smith here in Idaho. Idaho District Reflects Battle Over GOP's Soul. It should be interesting. As a liberal Idahoan, I find myself in the odd position of rooting for an incumbent Republican, because I don't want us to swing even further to the right.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Liberals are so mad that none of the attacks are sticking to Christie! Except wait what's this

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. – Following a second week of revelations about “Bridgegate,” Gov. Chris Christie’s job approval and favorability ratings have dropped dramatically among New Jerseyans, with Democrats driving the decline, according to a new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Following more than a year of strong bipartisan support, Christie’s favorability rating is now 46 percent favorable to 43 percent unfavorable, down from 65percent favorable just be fore his landslide re-election. This drop in support is led by a 26-point decline among Democrats. Voters are slightly more positive about Christie’s performance as governor, with 53 percent approving how he handles the job. But this is down 15 points since November; well below the 66 to 73 percent support Christie had enjoyed throughout the year since Superstorm Sandy.

 

[mightynine]

So, anyone checking out Costa's excerpts from Scott Walker's SoTS address tonight?

Reading excerpts from Walker, interesting to contrast w/ Christie. Some overlapping themes, but harder Right edge for Badger Gov.

Walker: "We ask those receiving unemployment checks to seek work four or more times a week instead of two."

Walker: "We ask adults without children seeking food stamps to enroll in employment training."

He adds: "We're not making it harder to get government assistance; we're making it easier to get a job."

Yeah, because those looking for a job are obviously not looking every day for one, and those on food stamps without children must mean they don't have one at all.

The GOP's going to wonder yet again in four years why they can't seem to win a national election.

 

[Wilsongt]

Target is going to be cutting health insurance to part-time workers. A way for them to save money after their security breach?

*nods, nods* Mmhmm. Mmhmm. I see.

Republican Party to vote for repeal of U.S. anti-tax dodging law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican Party is expected to approve a resolution this week, calling for repeal of an Obama administration law that is designed to crack down on offshore tax dodging.

In what would be the party's first appeal to scrap the law - the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) - a panel was slated to vote at the Republican National Committee's (RNC) winter meetings in Washington, likely approving the resolution on Friday, according to party members driving the repeal effort.

If adopted, the anti-FATCA resolution would reflect the party's political priorities for the time being but would not change its presidential campaign platform, according to the RNC.

Approved in 2010 after a tax-avoidance scandal involving a Swiss bank, FATCA requires most foreign banks and investment funds to report to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service information about U.S. customers' accounts worth $50,000 or more.

Criticized by banks, libertarians and some Americans living abroad as a costly and unneeded government overreach, FATCA is on the books, but its effective date has been delayed repeatedly, with enforcement now set to start on July 1.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So, anyone checking out Costa's excerpts from Scott Walker's SoTS address tonight?

Yeah, because those looking for a job are obviously not looking every day for one, and those on food stamps without children must mean they don't have one at all.

The GOP's going to wonder yet again in four years why they can't seem to win a national election.

You wanna hear an easier way for Wisconsinites to get a job

Move to Minnesota

 

[speculawyer]

You wanna hear an easier way for Wisconsinites to get a job

Move to Minnesota

BOOM!

Take that Cheeseheads!

 

[Oblivion]

Lol. Remember when Hannity said he's gonna move out of New York cause Cuomo said mean things about him? Hannity clarified his position:

Sean Hannity To Leave New York As Soon As Son Graduates High School, He Says

On Friday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo noted a schism between moderate and conservative New York Republicans....

On his radio program Monday Sean Hannity first threatened to leave New York over [Cuomo's] comments -- taking issue with the line that pro-life, pro-gun conservatives "have no place" in New York....

On Fox News Tuesday Hannity said he would leave New York after his son graduates high school: "As soon as I am able, some time probably when my son graduates from high school, I'm getting out of here as quick as I can."

Hannity's son is currently either a freshmen or sophmore.

 

[kehs]

Lol. Remember when Hannity said he's gonna move out of New York cause Cuomo said mean things about him? Hannity clarified his position:



Hannity's son is currently either a freshmen or sophmore.

Public or private?

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Public or private?

You really he's gonna put his kid in a public school?

Public school is for the poors.

 

[Black Mamba]

Target is going to be cutting health insurance to part-time workers. A way for them to save money after their security breach?

*nods, nods* Mmhmm. Mmhmm. I see.

Republican Party to vote for repeal of U.S. anti-tax dodging law

It makes sense for Target. only 10% of their part-time workforce accepts the coverage. The 90% that don't might not have access to the exchange subsidies as a result so 90% benefit. Among the 10% that took insurance, most, if not all, still probably benefit because it will probably be cheaper on the exchange after subsidies.

This is something they decided to do a while ago, I imagine.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Lol. Remember when Hannity said he's gonna move out of New York cause Cuomo said mean things about him? Hannity clarified his position:



Hannity's son is currently either a freshmen or sophmore.

oh noes what will NY do without Sean Hannity

 

[Karakand]

Republican Party to vote for repeal of U.S. anti-tax dodging law

This story kind of leaves out the already in effect obligation for citizens to report foreign account holdings of a far lower threshold (FBAR and $ 10,000, respectively). FATCA is the teeth to enforcing FBAR (I believe FBAR comes from the Bank Secrecy Act, which is like almost 50 years old now despite the widespread filing evasion), but it's not like people will be hiding money without fear of being busted if FATCA is delayed/repealed--at least not after the UBS scandal or the sale of Swiss bank records to European governments in the recent past.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hillary Clinton is doing 10 pts better against Chris Christie in Florida now than she was in September

I can't seem to find their Hillary vs. Christie matchup from September, or any Hillary matchup for that matter.

If 2016 does end up being Hillary vs. Christie it'll be a blowout. Obama 2012 + NC, AZ, GA. Biggest Dem win since Clinton in 96. Anyone else would do even worse.

 

[lednerg]

It's called FATCA?

 

[AndyD]

What with all the NSA talk here's something from Tennessee:

"NSA Encryption-Breaking Facility under attack in new Tennessee Bill"
http://offnow.org/2014/01/22/tennes...e-nsa-encryption-breaking-facility-oak-ridge/

The state-level effort to turn off water and electricity to the National Security Agency (NSA) got a major boost today as legislators in Tennessee introduced a bill to ban the state from providing material support to the federal agency.

A long-standing secretive NSA computing facility calls Oak Ridge home. According to NSA researcher James Bamford, the NSA runs most data it gathers “from code breaking to word captures,” through computers at Oak Ridge and NSA headquarters in Ft. Meade, Md.

The Tennessee Fourth Amendment Protection Act was introduced by State Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) late Tuesday evening. Rep. Andy Holt (R-Dresden) will file the companion bill in the House.

Based on model legislation drafted by theOffNow coalition, SB1849 would prohibit the state of Tennessee from “providing material support to…any federal agency claiming the power to authorize the collection of electronic data or metadata of any person pursuant to any action not based on a warrant” as required by the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Oblivion]

Public or private?

Does it matter? Either way they're still in a state that's a high tax hell hole.

Since we're on the subject, has that new millionaire's tax been enacted yet?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

 

[Oblivion]

Speaking of Georgia, holy carp:

Atlanta, GA – A newly released poll found that over half of Georgia voters support a marijuana legalization policy similar to that of Colorado and Washington (54%), however that same report found that even larger majority supports decriminalization (62%).

http://blog.norml.org/2014/01/22/62-of-georgia-voters-support-marijuana-decriminalization/

And this is in the state went for the Newtster in the primaries.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Speaking of Georgia, holy carp:



http://blog.norml.org/2014/01/22/62-of-georgia-voters-support-marijuana-decriminalization/

And this is in the state went for the Newtster in the primaries.

Christie promised to end the drug war yesterday.
The issue is past the tipping point, it just needs the time (I'm shocked how fast its gone but I think Medical Weed really showed people its not bad and I think people have become frustrated with drug war stories and see the fact that the people they know that smoke aren't really doing much harm except to their grocery bill). You won't see the giant backlash because a lot of conservatives probably smoke.

 

[B-Dubs]

This can't be real, no one can be this bad at their job.

 

[Oblivion]

Christie promised to end the drug war yesterday.

Did Christie actually say that?

 

[Chichikov]

Did Christie actually say that?

Yes he did.

“We will end the failed war on drugs that believes that incarceration is the cure of every ill caused by drug abuse. We will make drug treatment available to as many of our non-violent offenders as we can and we will partner with our citizens to create a society that understands this simple truth: every life has value and no life is disposable.”

Remember when being tough on drugs was a way to distract people from your scandals?
It's happening, yo.

 

[speculawyer]

This can't be real, no one can be this bad at their job.

That is their job (spreading disinformation).

 

[RustyNails]

This can't be real, no one can be this bad at their job.

It's Fox News mojo that everyone should be aware of now. They do misleading headlines on purpose like "Mark Sanford (D-SC) caught with a mistress". They don't even bother to correct it and if they do, it's snuck in a corner somewhere around 12am when no one's tuned in. But the damage is already done and mission accomplished.

 

[Oblivion]

Yes he did.


Remember when being tough on drugs was a way to distract people from your scandals?
It's happening, yo.

Nice. Good on Christie for using straight forward language.

 

[thepotatoman]

Yes he did.


Remember when being tough on drugs was a way to distract people from your scandals?
It's happening, yo.

This coming right after Obama saying it's no more dangerous than alcohol and that we have policy makers putting kids in jail for something those policy makers did in the past.

This issue really is turning the corner at the speed of light when you have two of the three republican front runners saying jail isn't the answer. Now I wonder how long until some big name politician makes the jump from just lip service talking bad about the drug war and actually being for decriminalization on the federal level or at least a rescheduling.

And I am very happy to hear Christie say that, regardless of possible motivations.

 

[Chichikov]

This coming right after Obama saying it's no more dangerous than alcohol and that we have policy makers putting kids in jail for something those policy makers did in the past.

This issue really is turning the corner at the speed of light when you have two of the three republican front runners saying jail isn't the answer. Now I wonder how long until some big name politician makes the jump from just lip service talking bad about the drug war and actually being for decriminalization on the federal level or at least a rescheduling.

And I am very happy to hear Christie say that, regardless of possible motivations.

I think you'd see pot decriminalized on the federal level within the next 5 years, probably by executive order (you don't need congress for that).
Worst case scenario is if it moved to schedule 3 or 4, I can see it limping around for a few more years if that is done (good thing the idiots in the DEA outplayed their hand there and insisted on keeping it schedule 1).

I hope Obama does at the end of his term, outgoing presidents think of their legacy, and that's going to be a nice legacy.

 

[Piecake]

I think you'd see pot decriminalized on the federal level within the next 5 years, probably by executive order (you don't need congress for that).
Worst case scenario is if it moved to schedule 3 or 4, I can see it limping around for a few more years if that is done (good thing the idiots in the DEA outplayed their hand there and insisted on keeping it schedule 1).

I hope Obama does at the end of his term, outgoing presidents think of their legacy, and that's going to be a nice legacy.

Would be pretty funny if he decriminalized all drugs. God, I can just imagine the shit storm that would cause

 

[RustyNails]

I hope Obama does at the end of his term, outgoing presidents think of their legacy, and that's going to be a nice legacy.

First black President and his lasting legacy is pot legalization.

 

[ISOM]

First black President and his lasting legacy is pot legalization.

Yeah I don't see obama doing it because it would be so stereotypical. Next dem would do it if anything.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I remember not a year or so ago I was anti-legalization pro-decriminalization but I've even shifted towards thinking legalization is the way to go as decriminalization still keeps the dangerous underground market going. there aren't any moonshine gangs anymore.

The question I still have is things like cocaine, lcd, ecstasy.

 

[Oblivion]

I remember not a year or so ago I was anti-legalization pro-decriminalization but I've even shifted towards thinking legalization is the way to go as decriminalization still keeps the dangerous underground market going. there aren't any moonshine gangs anymore.

The question I still have is things like cocaine, lcd, ecstasy.

Personally, I'd like all drugs to be legalized. There is no logical sense to send someone to jail for putting things in their own body.

 

[Chichikov]

The war on drugs will be remembered like prohibition (even though it's actually much worse), the president who ended will be remembered fondly, I'm sure Obama is smart enough to understand that.

The question I still have is things like cocaine, lcd, ecstasy.

Nice, awesome, very nice.
Any other questions?

 

[thepotatoman]

I think you'd see pot decriminalized on the federal level within the next 5 years, probably by executive order (you don't need congress for that).
Worst case scenario is if it moved to schedule 3 or 4, I can see it limping around for a few more years if that is done (good thing the idiots in the DEA outplayed their hand there and insisted on keeping it schedule 1).

I hope Obama does at the end of his term, outgoing presidents think of their legacy, and that's going to be a nice legacy.

That would be nice, and certainly possible given how Obama has spoken about the issue throughout his career.

Hillary seems to have a harder time with it since she's talked more about how decriminalization would just giving more money to drug cartels, which is hard to turn away from since it is just logically true, making me think she might just go straight to legalization if she's going to flip.

 

[B-Dubs]

That is their job (spreading disinformation).

Yea I know, I forget sometimes that they can be so blatant about it. At this point I am just waiting for the fall.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Personally, I'd like all drugs to be legalized. There is no logical sense to send someone to jail for putting things in their own body.

I don't disagree with not jailing users but how can you regulate safe consumption of those things? they can kill and aren't safe for people to just take. They also have large societal costs (weed and booze do to but they seem more manageable or predictable i guess?)

Weed is different because its pretty much safe.

I just don't know where to go. I don't want to make them criminals but I don't think the state should promote those drugs as I feel them far worse than weed and booze.

Full disclosure: I'm enjoying some not-too-horrible vodka while typing this post

 

[bonercop]

Personally, I'd like all drugs to be legalized. There is no logical sense to send someone to jail for putting things in their own body.

Agreed, but legalization means taking that a step further and allowing this stuff to be sold legally. I can see APKmetsfan's point there, I dunno if legalizing something like cocaine and tightly regulating it would actually decrease the use of hard drugs in the same way legalizing soft-drugs does.

 

[empty vessel]

Christie promised to end the drug war yesterday.
The issue is past the tipping point, it just needs the time (I'm shocked how fast its gone but I think Medical Weed really showed people its not bad and I think people have become frustrated with drug war stories and see the fact that the people they know that smoke aren't really doing much harm except to their grocery bill). You won't see the giant backlash because a lot of conservatives probably smoke.

Yeah, marijuana use has spread really wide over the last 20 years. Most people now have either smoked it themselves or know somebody who they consider respectable enough who has smoked it. That goes a long way to changing opinions. (It's like what having a gay child does to one's views on gay rights.) But I agree the swiftness with which this has translated politically is pretty staggering.

Nice, awesome, very nice.
Any other questions?

This cracked me up.

 

[The Technomancer]

Agreed, but legalization means taking that a step further and allowing this stuff to be sold legally. I can see APKmetsfan's point there, I dunno if legalizing something like cocaine and tightly regulating it would actually decrease the use of hard drugs in the same way legalizing soft-drugs does.

My position continues to be that while usage of all drugs should be decriminalized the distribution of certain drugs like meth, crack, heroin, etc can still be a criminal offense.

 

[Chichikov]

I have a hard time arguing for legalization of drugs that are really addictive. (Addicting? I know some people make a big deal about the supposed difference between those two words, but I could never tell what it was supposed to be .)

I don't think we can say "it's your decision" about whether to use hard drugs. They take away your freedom and your ability to make a decision. People become physically dependent on them; you CAN'T choose freely whether to use them or not once you've gotten hooked.

We wouldn't let corporations offer people a contract that required them to sign their health away; we shouldn't allow drugs to offer it either.

(I realize this reasoning doesn't apply very much to marijuana.)

The vast majority of the population can handle "hard drugs" just fine.
The numbers varies a bit from substance to substance (though not as much as you would think) and it can be a bit rough to get real numbers (thanks drug war!) but generally there is about 10% of the population who runs a serious risk of falling into substance abuse/addiction problems.
It's a health issue and should be treated just like obesity (which similarly is something that is caused by a combination of genetics and personal choices) keeping them illegal doesn't make sense on any level, it's unfair to the addicts, it's unfair to the majority of the people who can do those things responsibly and it doesn't work on any level - addiction rate in the US has been pretty damn constant, regardless of the ballooning anti-drug efforts.

Edit: but I'm a practical man, there is a whole lot of drugs out there that are banned just because OMG KIDS ARE HAVING FUN, we can start with that.
I mean sheeeeeit, in many states it's illegal to do whippits, you can buy them of course and make whipped cream with them, but you better not do anything else with you dirty hippie!

 

[empty vessel]

The vast majority of the population can handle "hard drugs" just fine.
The numbers varies a bit from substance to substance (though not as much as you would think) and it can be a bit rough to get real numbers (thanks drug war!) but generally there is about 10% of the population who runs a serious risk of falling into substance abuse/addiction problems.
It's a health issue and should be treated just like obesity (which similarly is something that is caused by a combination of genetics and personal choices) keeping them illegal doesn't make sense on any level, it's unfair to the addicts, it's unfair to the majority of the people who can do those things responsibly and it doesn't work on any level - addiction rate in the US has been pretty damn constant, regardless of the ballooning anti-drug efforts.

Couldn't agree with this more. Ultimately, we're just primates, and some fraction of us will become addicted to substances. The question is how we best manage that, and prohibition doesn't seem to be the answer to that question.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah, marijuana use has spread really wide over the last 20 years. Most people now have either smoked it themselves or know somebody who they consider respectable enough who has smoked it. That goes a long way to changing opinions. (It's like what having a gay child does to one's views on gay rights.) But I agree the swiftness with which this has translated politically is pretty staggering.

I feel like US politics really is based around the amount of empathy that can be drummed up.

Things seem to change and support policies when they are exposed to people that face the problems addressed in the policy proposals.

Democrats just seem to find this process much easier and don't require a familiar connection to arouse the empathy.

Couldn't agree with this more. Ultimately, we're just primates, and some fraction of us will become addicted to substances. The question is how we best manage that, and prohibition doesn't seem to be the answer to that question.

Whole sale prohibition doesn't seem to be the best solution (it clearly hasn't worked) but I don't know if legalization is either. I don't see what purpose besides very confined settings certain drugs can become more than a net harm. But people will get the drugs no matter what, so it present a really tough issue IMO

Edit: but I'm a practical man, there is a whole lot of drugs out there that are banned just because OMG KIDS ARE HAVING FUN, we can start with that.
I mean sheeeeeit, in many states it's illegal to do whippits, you can buy them of course and make whipped cream with them, but you better not do anything else with you dirty hippie!

They were really big in the frat scene at my college. They seemed really stupid (never tried).

 

[bonercop]

My position continues to be that while usage of all drugs should be decriminalized the distribution of certain drugs like meth, crack, heroin, etc can still be a criminal offense.

That sounds reasonable to me, but I'm just not entirely convinced that making distribution of these drugs illegal actually helps keep them out of the hands of potential addicts. I mean, sure, maybe that actually is the case, but I feel like it's just as likely that not legalizing it simply means the government can't control the supply and it gets pushed into the hands of criminals instead.

It's a tough call, and I don't find myself qualified or informed enough about this particular subject to make it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That sounds reasonable to me, but I'm just not entirely convinced that making distribution of these drugs illegal actually helps keep them out of the hands of potential addicts. I mean, sure, maybe that actually is the case, but I feel like it's just as likely that not legalizing it simply means the government can't control the supply and it gets pushed into the hands of criminals instead..

This is the dilemma. Decriminalization makes the person not a criminal but does nothing to address the problem of societal and personal harm but legalization I think makes the problem worse by expanding the potential pool of people damaged by it being larger (as I think their relative inaccessibility has prevented many from trying). I think economic security and and promoting alternatives are the best solution to keeping the use of more dangerous drugs down (it will never be eliminated because its human nature for a certain number of people to want to try something new.)

Edit: as you said I don't feel fully qualified to judge.

 

[lednerg]

The real true believers of the Drug War, the ones who really are fucking it up for everyone, have been the senior citizens. For whatever reason, they've been sticking to their guns on this bullshit. Maybe it's been out of pride, I dunno. Anyway, they're dropping like flies now, so good. Hopefully we can have a drug policy that doesn't begin and end with drug addicts being treated like criminals. Hopefully empathy can win out.

 

[Chichikov]

Perhaps, but why should the rest of the population suffer on their behalf?

Taking recreational drugs is hardly a necessity of life. Allowing some people to have fun with drugs at the cost of others getting addicted and having their life destroyed doesn't seem fair at all.

It's like saying that we shouldn't worry about because "the vast majority of the population" is happy with their health care, or that unemployment isn't an issue because "the vast majority of the workforce" has a job, or that voter ID laws aren't injust/racist because "the vast majority of the population" can still vote.

I think a just society is one that considers how a policy will affect the least of us--the weakest, poorest, most forgotten members of our society--not just those are already well-off and can cope with whatever happens.

Philosophically, I believe I have the right to kill myself (or risk my life) any way I want, from eating a gun through snowboarding to consuming unhealthy substances.
But I'm not dogmatic, and had prohibition actually worked I would've been open to consider it, I still would much rather look for other options, but the greater good and all of that. Only problem is that it doesn't work -

And of course I agree that we should consider how a policy affect the least of us, which is exactly why I think it's a terrible idea to lock them up and effectively kill their future employment opportunities.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Philosophically, I believe I have the right to kill myself (or risk my life) any way I want, from eating a gun through snowboarding to consuming unhealthy substances.
But I'm not dogmatic, and had prohibition actually worked I would've been open to consider it, I still would much rather look for other options, but the greater good and all of that. Only problem is that it doesn't work -

And of course I agree that we should consider how a policy affect the least of us, which is exactly why I think it's a terrible idea to lock them up and effectively kill their future employment opportunities.

Do you think that legalization could increase that rate? Especially with drugs like highly addictive drugs? That's my fear.

 

[thepotatoman]

My position continues to be that while usage of all drugs should be decriminalized the distribution of certain drugs like meth, crack, heroin, etc can still be a criminal offense.

I might be ok with that, depending on if the underground market is containable without the huge revenue source of marijuana to fall back on. I still have my doubts given how hard the underground market has been to squash so far. We'll probably have a better idea about that after marijuana is fully legal for a while.

I could also maybe see legalizing something like cocaine if the underground market is still rampant with it and with legalization we can regulate it to keep people from doing it enough to become dependent.

But no matter what, with any drug, the focus needs to be on actual rehabilitation of users, not jailing and punishment.

 

[Chichikov]

Do you think that legalization could increase that rate? Especially with drugs like highly addictive drugs? That's my fear.

I don't think it will increase it substantially, it's not like it's hard to get drugs in the US these days and again, most people just don't get addicted to drugs (I don't know if it's genetics or just being smart enough, I think it's a combination of both).
But more importantly, I think we need to make policy based on facts, not hypothetical fears, and again, if new evidence emerges that suggest that prohibition actually benefits society, we should reconsider our approach.