speculawyer
Member
Oh yeah. Running as a socialist will really go over well in the USA.
-
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
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Aaron Strife
Banned
Who fits this mold, in your opinion?
benjipwns
Banned
Didn't we have major consolidation of banks after Reagan de-regulated the industry? Funny how we were doing fine all those decades before without any crashes and whatnot.
WayneMorse
Banned
Obama needs to go big with his immigration exec orders if he wants to bait the House into impeaching him before the midterms.
Yep. There used to be tons of local banks in my hometown, now it's almost all nationally owned ones.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
How much does it hurt republicans with their base if they don't ever impeach?
speculawyer
Member
We may be at the start of a big change in current political climate and no one has been cynical enough to talk about . . . Commander in Chief Obama.
Things are floundering along and Obama is catching flak for everything. The economy is actually doing pretty good but for whatever reason, Obama gets no credit. So Obama is not looking so good . . . well, time to steal a page out of the GOP playbook: war. ISIS are pretty much universally viewed as huge evil douchebags. And they've caused a humanitarian crisis. Obama got pushed passed his breaking point and launched air strikes. And although he's said that there will be no boots on the ground, he has also said that this is a long term project.
So Obama gets to be Commander in Chief approaching an election. The GOP won't be able to help themselves and criticize everything he does. And this could come across as being petulant, divisive, not supporting the troops, etc. And a big difference with this operation is that we have a huge ally on the ground with the Kurds. I'm sure we are striking a deal of providing them with airstrikes, military equipment, and military training in exchange for their operations on the ground against ISIS.
If this goes well, this may change the political climate. People like watching child-murderers and rapists being hit by guided weapons.
Edit: And oh, yeah . . . go ahead and try to impeach the Commander in Chief during wartime for not implementing part of law you don't like when you didn't want it implemented. Good luck with that.
Things are floundering along and Obama is catching flak for everything. The economy is actually doing pretty good but for whatever reason, Obama gets no credit. So Obama is not looking so good . . . well, time to steal a page out of the GOP playbook: war. ISIS are pretty much universally viewed as huge evil douchebags. And they've caused a humanitarian crisis. Obama got pushed passed his breaking point and launched air strikes. And although he's said that there will be no boots on the ground, he has also said that this is a long term project.
So Obama gets to be Commander in Chief approaching an election. The GOP won't be able to help themselves and criticize everything he does. And this could come across as being petulant, divisive, not supporting the troops, etc. And a big difference with this operation is that we have a huge ally on the ground with the Kurds. I'm sure we are striking a deal of providing them with airstrikes, military equipment, and military training in exchange for their operations on the ground against ISIS.
If this goes well, this may change the political climate. People like watching child-murderers and rapists being hit by guided weapons.
Edit: And oh, yeah . . . go ahead and try to impeach the Commander in Chief during wartime for not implementing part of law you don't like when you didn't want it implemented. Good luck with that.
Doubt it would hurt much. The base despises the Kenyan despot with the heat of a thousand suns. They'll show up at the polls no matter what.
jamesinclair
Banned
benjipwns
Banned
How exactly was the banking industry deregulated by the Reagan Administration? What regulations specifically were removed? And how did they lead to major consolidation of banks? I ask because people say things like "California deregulated electricity" when it actually shuffled and increased regulation in a disastrous manner. Including setting the equivalent of price and production controls. (And with the curiously offered help of Enron who just happened to specialize in selling non-existent products.)
How many banks failed during the 1980s recession before Reagan signed any legislation related to banks? So the recessions of the 50s (especially 1958) and 60s along with the stagflation and default of 1973-1982 didn't happen? At which point in this time were banks "properly regulated" and when were they deregulated and reregulated in order to stabilize or destabilize the economy?
This is just since 1997 and stop before Dodd-Frank so you can easily see why these industries have been consolidating over the last 15 years:
http://qz.com/138036/how-the-rise-of-modern-regulation/
How are local banks supposed to meet regulations written by and designed for major wall street, national and international banks? Especially when it's only the latter banks that don't have to take the lumps when they fuck up.
The rise of the credit union didn't happen in a vacuum. (Now there was something the Reagan admin did try to change the regulations on, and the banks sued over it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCUA_v._First_National_Bank_&_Trust)
benjipwns
Banned
Just look at President Anderson and Perot!
PhoenixDark
Banned
No fp experience and no domestic accomplishments? Obama, and I doubt voters will want another person like that.
On paper, Brian Schweitzer is a great candidate, has experience, would be liked in Iowa...but has been pretty off kilter lately. I can imagine him being forced out of the race after saying something stupid/sexist.
eBay Huckster
Member
well, no, we basically can't for the first two election cycles of a given set of gerrymandering
even as deep as 2010 was in that sense, 2016 still has a distinct possibility of being 2006 redux
in defense of the concept of independents winning a national election, Perot was up there in 1992 (up until that bizarrely-timed dropout halfway through the campaign)
No matter whom the Dems nominate, we won't see much change because of the degree to which the opposition in Congress is deranged.
So the GOP has to be forced into a situation where they're either electorally non-viable, or where they suddenly become.. sane. Either that, or we need to see the party's ashes scattered into the wind, with a new, saner entity arising to fill the vacuum.
Losing yet another White House bid will further that plotline. In the meantime, nothing much is going to change or get accomplished, aside from maybe some decent court appointees being placed.
So the GOP has to be forced into a situation where they're either electorally non-viable, or where they suddenly become.. sane. Either that, or we need to see the party's ashes scattered into the wind, with a new, saner entity arising to fill the vacuum.
Losing yet another White House bid will further that plotline. In the meantime, nothing much is going to change or get accomplished, aside from maybe some decent court appointees being placed.
jamesinclair
Banned
2012 California
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/More-young-voters-register-unaffiliated-4147453.php
Bring on the (I).
speculawyer
Member
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s-vacations-and-golf-outings--by-the-numbers-211532262.html
But you know . . . reality has a well-known left-wing bias.
Aaron Strife
Banned
No, I mean who would be an "experienced" candidate in your eyes. This can include Republicans too.
Schweitzer is a tool.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, this is the real punchline of your isolationist views . . . your gal Hillary would have dropped far more bombs than Obama. She would have had airstrikes against Syria.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s-vacations-and-golf-outings--by-the-numbers-211532262.html
But you know . . . reality has a well-known left-wing bias.
I feel like I need to post this, if only because it's hilariously tone deaf. Not that I'd ever complain about a president taking time off or going on a trip, I get antsy if I don't take a trip every now and again.
Joe Molotov
Member
What people say and what people vote are two different things.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s-vacations-and-golf-outings--by-the-numbers-211532262.html
But you know . . . reality has a well-known left-wing bias.
Ever notice how Obummer's trips coincide with unrest somewhere in the world? Or a major crisis occurring?
It's almost as if he plans to be away and not leading during these times. He's avoiding his duties as President.
Time to Impeach!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The national review continues hiring racists
This is all in the first paragraph!
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/383587/where-sidewalk-ends
The national review is a racist institution, it has a long and storied history of this crap.
Williamson is always paraded around as such a good 'narrative journalist' with 'probing stories', in reality he's a racist in love with his verbosity and ability to insert meaningless references and unnecessary adjectives (well, necessary to reveal his dislike of black people).
This is all in the first paragraph!
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/383587/where-sidewalk-ends
The national review is a racist institution, it has a long and storied history of this crap.
Williamson is always paraded around as such a good 'narrative journalist' with 'probing stories', in reality he's a racist in love with his verbosity and ability to insert meaningless references and unnecessary adjectives (well, necessary to reveal his dislike of black people).
He's like the Daily Show, world goes to shit when he takes time off.
Arrowgigantic
Member
That's nothing. By the end, W. had gone up to 879 days of vacation. If Obama wants to catch up, he has to go on vacation before New Year's. If he waits until New Year's, he will have to stay gone until the end of his term.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s-vacations-and-golf-outings--by-the-numbers-211532262.html
But you know . . . reality has a well-known left-wing bias.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s-vacations-and-golf-outings--by-the-numbers-211532262.html
But you know . . . reality has a well-known left-wing bias.
Vacation criticisms are so stupid the left should stop, President's are never on vacation.
jamesinclair
Banned
You're arguing that no one will vote for an independent.
You do realize we're talking about a CURRENT Senator, that ran as an independent right?
Meaning people said they would vote for him, and then did vote for him? Multiple times? For both the house and senate?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Not sure I buy that. A lot of her hawk talk strikes me as posturing, as I said yesterday: the allure of talking tough when you have no responsibilities. She's certainly more hawkish than Obama, but if she received the same intelligence briefings Obama received I could see her not attacking. The biggest difference is that Hillary wouldn't make herself look like a fool by drawing a "red line" and then not doing anything. That being said, I think Obama deserves some credit for not being bullied into doing something stupid.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Conservatives are defending the racist piece I posted because describing a black kid as a primate, questioning his parentage, comparisons to heart of darkness, etc isn't racist, some white people posted funny pictures of bush looking like a monkey!
PhoenixDark
Banned
I guarantee the piece was specifically written with those defenses in mind. Primate comparison=bububu Bush; illegitimate children=bububu Palin rumors. etc. I can't get outraged over a piece of shit like that, and just take solace knowing his ilk is politically fucked due to simple math.
WayneMorse
Banned
Hillary is so uninspiring it might cause me to stay home in 2016.
Don't do that. Vote for someone who isn't a crazy Republican, even if it's not Hillary.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I just hate the national reviews continued racism from their perch as the 'respectable conservatives'
Everbody knows drudges and breitbart's racism. But the National Review as a long and storied racist history but its constantly seen as a 'shock'
You say this now, and I've felt that same sentiment now and then, but her opponent will be enough to get you out the door. Our options generally suck but the alternatives ain't pretty.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Come on dude. There are other races besides the presidential election, even if the media doesn't talk about them.
Even if you don't want to vote for president, please remember that all your local elections will have a MUCH more noticable impact. Vote in everything else, at least.
Hillary will be gone in four or eight years. Her replacement for Scalia or Kennedy (or Ginsburg) will likely be there for decades. Take John Paul Stevens for example.. appointed in 1975, resigned in 2010. We aren't just talking about a little 4-year term here.
Plus, the electorate won't move leftward until the GOP is absolutely broken. If they win the Presidency, their motivation to moderate is invalidated; if anything, they'd be emboldened to move rightward.
Plus, the electorate won't move leftward until the GOP is absolutely broken. If they win the Presidency, their motivation to moderate is invalidated; if anything, they'd be emboldened to move rightward.
You shouldn't discount the historical significance factor, people will want to say they voted for the first female president. She doesn't need to be inspiring, she just needs to be competent. The GOP's candidate and people's perceptions will do the rest.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Hillary=two Supreme Court Justices, (presumably) no stupid wars, further Obamacare implementation, more judges. If you can't see the benefit of that then I dunno why you're here.
Same reason I agree with Ann Coulter: if you're a republican this year, you should vote for any republican in November. Winning the senate should be the goal (if you're a republican). If you stay home you're not serious.
Same reason I agree with Ann Coulter: if you're a republican this year, you should vote for any republican in November. Winning the senate should be the goal (if you're a republican). If you stay home you're not serious.
speculawyer
Member
The left doesn't bring it up. It is just a response to the endless golf and vacation criticism of the right.
speculawyer
Member
Ah. Love is blind.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They bring it up to criticize Bush and protect obama. It gives credence to the whole idea. The left did it a lot with Bush. And who cares if they right is doing it? They don't and won't care about rationalizations or comparisons. That's not how politics works.
It's to bring reality to their criticism so that those that aren't insane don't fall prey to the right's lies.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I really want to believe that that was an unfortunately coincidental choice of proportion.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Seems there is still some meat to chew on.
Yes that my was intended point. Not to say that private property can't also be obtained through nefarious means within its own system as you mention.
Well now you have to be careful with conflating self-ownership and property. One is not the other, and denying self-ownership does not imply belief in ownership of others. And wouldn't the more reasonable assumption be that one who denies self-ownership is more likely to deny private property then endorse it? Not that you couldn't have both. And you seem to have a thing for leaping to slavery, which is ironic considering that slavery should be legal under a system of true self-ownership. Why should you be able to infringe on my right to trade a life of labor for a substantial up-front sum after all?
But here's the rub. You suggest that these competing justice systems, let's call them Justice Corp and Law Inc, use arbitration or something like it to resolve the conflict. But there is a very big difference between can and must. The crux of the issue is whether Justice Corp has to come to some kind of conflict of laws agreement with Law Inc to resolve this dispute or whether Justice Corp can enforce the contract regardless of whether other competing justice systems exist. Unless they must do that, Justice Corp can just enforce the contract against the other son who was not a party to it, no voluntary submission to force required. Surely we wouldn't mandate that Justice Corp create agreements with all the other competing private justice systems, for that would be a positive duty.
As for the second point, I'm surprised you find it so confounding. There are plenty of non-Western conceptions of property that would not fit into a capitalistic system. Perhaps you are assuming that a denial of self-ownership entails a denial of autonomy? If you'd like to go deeper, I'd just ask you to provide your definition of "self", "ownership", "self-ownership (if different when compounded)", and any other necessary terms that might be wrapped up in that, otherwise I can't be sure I'm discussing what you are actually talking about.
Yes that my was intended point. Not to say that private property can't also be obtained through nefarious means within its own system as you mention.
Well now you have to be careful with conflating self-ownership and property. One is not the other, and denying self-ownership does not imply belief in ownership of others. And wouldn't the more reasonable assumption be that one who denies self-ownership is more likely to deny private property then endorse it? Not that you couldn't have both. And you seem to have a thing for leaping to slavery, which is ironic considering that slavery should be legal under a system of true self-ownership. Why should you be able to infringe on my right to trade a life of labor for a substantial up-front sum after all?
But here's the rub. You suggest that these competing justice systems, let's call them Justice Corp and Law Inc, use arbitration or something like it to resolve the conflict. But there is a very big difference between can and must. The crux of the issue is whether Justice Corp has to come to some kind of conflict of laws agreement with Law Inc to resolve this dispute or whether Justice Corp can enforce the contract regardless of whether other competing justice systems exist. Unless they must do that, Justice Corp can just enforce the contract against the other son who was not a party to it, no voluntary submission to force required. Surely we wouldn't mandate that Justice Corp create agreements with all the other competing private justice systems, for that would be a positive duty.
As for the second point, I'm surprised you find it so confounding. There are plenty of non-Western conceptions of property that would not fit into a capitalistic system. Perhaps you are assuming that a denial of self-ownership entails a denial of autonomy? If you'd like to go deeper, I'd just ask you to provide your definition of "self", "ownership", "self-ownership (if different when compounded)", and any other necessary terms that might be wrapped up in that, otherwise I can't be sure I'm discussing what you are actually talking about.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked