• 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 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ivysaur12

Banned
According to Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi is a trained assassin who might as well be stroking a cat with her chair turned to the door.

Nancy Pelosi is a grandmother who loves chocolate ice cream and long power walks around Washington. But standing in front of news cameras outside the Capitol with pursed lips and eyes hidden behind a pair of big, round, dark sunglasses, she looked every bit the political assassin she must have felt like.
Click to expand...

After several years in this role, Pelosi has developed a strategy to strengthen her party's negotiating power when the opportunity arises, this time for their lead budget negotiator, Representative Nita Lowey of New York. Pelosi spent some time earlier this week reminding her colleagues of the approach, which sounds simple in theory but is quite difficult in the reality of a Washington culture that rewards self-promotion. "It's a classic Pelosi strategy: Everybody shut the f**k up and maximize Nita Lowey’s leverage," a senior House Democratic aide said.
Click to expand...

Fun article, though. I do think Pelosi is better at some things than other (politics vs. national messaging).
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Pelosi is great behind the scenes as a strategist/arm twister. On camera it becomes clear that she is very inarticulate and little more than a shill. That Daily Show appearance was painful.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/head-fake-obama-never-signed-amnesty-order/
NEW YORK – It’s common knowledge President Obama signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to forgive millions of illegal aliens for their past violations of immigration law, right?

Wrong.

Today the National Archives and Records Administration, responsible for maintaining such filings, said no such executive order was ever signed or filed, confirming WND’s report Wednesday.

A National Archives librarian, Jeffrey Hartley, made the confirmation in an email Thursday to WND.

“As I indicated, it would appear that there is not an Executive Order stemming from the President’s remarks on November 20 on immigration,” Hartley wrote.

Hartley said that neither of the executive orders Obama signed in Las Vegas the day after his announcement fulfill his plan to defer deportations and grant work permits to up to 5 million illegal aliens.

“The only two documents that I have located are two Presidential Memoranda, which are available from the White House site,” Hartley’s email continued. “They can also be found in the November 26, 2014 issue of the Federal Register.”
Click to expand...

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/
NEW YORK – Did President Obama just set up Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to be a candidate for impeachment instead of himself if conservatives convince the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate that his “executive actions” on immigration are unconstitutional?

The inquiry begins with the question: Where are the executive orders Obama supposedly signed to permit up to 5 million parents of young illegal aliens to remain in the United States for three years?

The White House appears to have engaged in administrative sleight of hand, changing U.S. immigration law not by executive order but by a memorandum “exercising prosecutorial discretion” Johnson signed the day of Obama’s Nov. 20 nationwide address that so far has not been filed in the Federal Register.
Click to expand...
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
benjipwns said:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/head-fake-obama-never-signed-amnesty-order/


http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/
Click to expand...

Huh, that's interesting. I guess I missed the fact that Obama only ever said "executive action" and not "executive order" when doing all this. I know for sure the media was saying "executive order" so shame on them for missing that detail.

Still, the result is mostly the same. Just like there was no executive order to allow recreational marijuana in states that legalized it and yet people aren't being arrested for recreational marijuana in those states.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226139-22-people-had-to-approve-romney-tweets
Aides to Mitt Romney’s presidential team in 2012 are airing their frustrations with the campaign, alleging that tweets had to be approved by nearly two dozen people by the end of the race.

“So whether it was a tweet, Facebook post, blog post, photo — anything you could imagine — it had to be sent around to everyone for approval,” former Romney campaign aide Caitlin Checkett told Daniel Kreiss, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication in a new academic paper.

“Towards the end of the campaign that was 22 individuals who had to approve it,” Checkett said.

Zac Moffatt, the Romney campaign’s digital director, cracked that they had “the best tweets ever written by 17 people.”

The paper lays bare some of the difficulties Romney’s campaign had in keeping up with the demands of the 21st-century campaign, which requires candidates to push their message on an ever-growing list of online platforms.
Former Romney staffers told Kreiss they were stymied by bureaucracy, even when they had the resources to produce original digital content.

Press releases became the basis for online content simply because they had already been approved by campaign leadership, they said.

“So I felt like that was a huge problem because of course people don’t want to go to your website and read press releases and we knew that,” Checkett said.
Click to expand...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
So tonight, it's pretty difficult to navigate many cities in this country.

A month ago, you could waltz into a polling place and have little-to-no wait.

I support the protesters' sentiments/goals 1000% (hell.. I was out chanting and yelling two nights ago), but am I wrong to be a bit annoyed at this contrast?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
HylianTom said:
So tonight, it's pretty difficult to navigate many cities in this country.

A month ago, you could waltz into a polling place and have little-to-no wait.

I support the protesters' sentiments/goals 1000% (hell.. I was out chanting and yelling two nights ago), but am I wrong to be a bit annoyed at this contrast?
Click to expand...
Who cares, both parties are the same
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
HylianTom said:
So tonight, it's pretty difficult to navigate many cities in this country.

A month ago, you could waltz into a polling place and have little-to-no wait.

I support the protesters' sentiments/goals 1000% (hell.. I was out chanting and yelling two nights ago), but am I wrong to be a bit annoyed at this contrast?
Click to expand...
Voting Libertarian and/or Green is throwing your vote away.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
HylianTom said:
Perfection!
Click to expand...
In the case of the protests the five Presidential parties aren't the same.

Two parties support and supply the unaccountable militarization of police force due to the wars on drugs and terror (Republicans and Democrats) and three parties oppose it (Libertarians, Greens, and Constitution*).

So if the voting lines were swamped with people voting with the intent of opposing these policies they are now protesting it would not be to the benefit of either of the two trillion dollar corporations and their larger networks of power that include these police forces. Which is why they spend so much money to pretend there are only two choices, a good one and a bad one.

*Although they might support and supply an unaccountable militarization of police force to prevent foreign goods and people from entering the country.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
HylianTom said:
So tonight, it's pretty difficult to navigate many cities in this country.

A month ago, you could waltz into a polling place and have little-to-no wait.

I support the protesters' sentiments/goals 1000% (hell.. I was out chanting and yelling two nights ago), but am I wrong to be a bit annoyed at this contrast?
Click to expand...
  • Even with the pathetically low turnout, there were significantly more people voting in the midterms than protesting.
  • Neither party do anything meaningful when it comes to the issues currently being protested.
  • Assembling to petition the government for a redress of grievances is a hugely important part of the democratic process, which often had led to more results than voting.
So yeah, you're pretty wrong I'd say.
 
D

Diablos

Member
eBay Huckster said:
long story short:

got stalked by a homeless dude for ~30 minutes while i was trying to get food after a night out

i got attacked trying to get back to my house - like literally less than 300 feet away, it was on my block - after getting that food (two lacerations of my nose, bruised and lacerated thumb)

dude tried to steal my phone but Columbus police were able to recover it intact within 15 minutes, and i'm pressing charges for assault and attempted theft
(and unfortunately contributing to this country's problem w/ recidivism)
Click to expand...
I'm really sorry. Glad you are okay. Hope you recover fast.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
benjipwns said:
In the case of the protests the five Presidential parties aren't the same.

Two parties support and supply the unaccountable militarization of police force due to the wars on drugs and terror (Republicans and Democrats) and three parties oppose it (Libertarians, Greens, and Constitution*).

So if the voting lines were swamped with people voting with the intent of opposing these policies they are now protesting it would not be to the benefit of either of the two trillion dollar corporations and their larger networks of power that include these police forces. Which is why they spend so much money to pretend there are only two choices, a good one and a bad one.

*Although they might support and supply an unaccountable militarization of police force to prevent foreign goods and people from entering the country.
Click to expand...
While I totally agree that both major parties are dreadful on this issue, at least for the sake of history, it's important to note that the war on drugs and most of this bullshit "law and order" politics started by Republicans, and it started for the same reason that they tried to had a flag burning amendment - because their core policies are amazingly unpopular with the general public.
Of course the Democrats being the spineless cynical pussies that they are, immediately tried to one-up the GOP, and again, this is not meant to excuse the Democrats in any shape of form, just provide some historical context.
benjipwns said:
shhhhh ixnay on the petitionay for redressay
Click to expand...
People should read the bill of rights, damn it, it says it right there - "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As long as they get a police permit, do it in a special designated zone and don't screw my commute time".
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Okay.

I look forward to seeing what measurable changes we get from these protests. Suuurely they won't, say, fade after a few weeks as passions die down and attentions move elsewhere..
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/mary-landrieu-democrats-113358.html#ixzz3L5WdkVns


Here’s a look at what some top Democratic minds from the South say the party needs to do to win again in Dixie:
Move past the Obama era.
Capitalize on demographic shifts.
Talk more about economic issues — and less about social issues.
Stay out of the way while Republicans mess it up.
Democrats need to build deeper benches in Southern state legislatures.
Click to expand...

“The No. 1 thing to be competitive in the South is to have Barack Obama not be president anymore,” said North Carolina pollster Tom Jensen, who runs the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling. “It’s just a simple reality that Southern whites really, really despise him in a way they have not despised any other president.”
Click to expand...

Why am I not shocked at this statement

Dick Harpootlian, the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said minorities would have a lot more sway if courts stopped allowing Republican state legislators to overly concentrate them in safe majority-minority districts. He noted that one-third of the Palmetto State population is black, but only one of its seven House districts is represented by a Democrat.
“The gerrymandered artificial districts are created for white people, not black people,” he said.
Click to expand...

interesting.
 
H

HyperionX

Member
It's pure racism, plain and simple. When Obama term ends, I hope liberals bash them over their heads for decades over how racist they really were. Really make them live down their hatred.
 
K

kehs

Banned
HyperionX said:
It's pure racism, plain and simple. When Obama term ends, I hope liberals bash them over their heads for decades over how racist they really were. Really make them live down their hatred.
Click to expand...

Liberals are too pussyfooted to call out all the blatant racism that has muddled obama's presidency.

It's gonna go down as another failure of liberalism.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
HyperionX said:
It's pure racism, plain and simple. When Obama term ends, I hope liberals bash them over their heads for decades over how racist they really were. Really make them live down their hatred.
Click to expand...

Yeah but SC elected tim scott so its not all about race but it sure plays a part. I think its a combination of obama race and his policies. Tim scott is black in a southern state but got 61% of the vote. Yeah, there are some who probably would never vote for him over color but thats anywhere. Although he is an R and if he was D tim scott, he would be blown away.

Only way really know is if in places like AL, MS, etc nominated a black R against a white D who would win.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Chichikov said:
While I totally agree that both major parties are dreadful on this issue, at least for the sake of history, it's important to note that the war on drugs and most of this bullshit "law and order" politics started by Republicans
Click to expand...
Nixon may have stuck the branding on it, but the War on Drugs was as much a part of the Progressive agenda as the rest of Prohibition and corporatism. With Democratic Congresses passing four of the five major drug control acts, and Democratic Presidents signing three of them. (Though I do always love these silly tu quoqe contests when you get them with actual partisans, especially when a GOPer takes it back to the Civil War.)

Considering how they both jumped feet first into the "tough on crime", "100,000 New Cops on the Streets", Patriot Act and DHS, I can't really exempt either party for past decent things like pardoning Eugene Debs when there's two and a half "major" parties without blood on their hands also on the ballot. (Especially if our complaint is just that they didn't vote.)

HylianTom said:
Okay.

I look forward to seeing what measurable changes we get from these protests. Suuurely they won't, say, fade after a few weeks as passions die down and attentions move elsewhere..
Click to expand...
Don't worry I'm sure this time they'll put their boots on and smash this ceiling for the candidate who argue that we shouldn't end the war on drugs because there's too much money in it.

Chichikov said:
Those things take time, a lot of effort and plenty of failures.
Click to expand...
Politics is endless failure with circumstantial and short-lived success. The French Revolution was almost intelligently designed to be the textbook example for this.

EDIT: Apparently I'm morphing into an anarchist Edmund Burke based on that last sentiment.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Realistically, I'd love to see some effort put into the two places where those in power actually somewhat fear the people: the bottom line and the ballot box.

Boycotts and attempts to infuence the one sane party that's viable {*cough*} seem to be the most realistic routes to detectable change. Imagine this enthusiasm during a primary election process, pulling the party away from chickenshit me-tooism. I'd love to see these crowds show-up in caucus states, for example; they couldn't be ignored.
 
H

HyperionX

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Yeah but SC elected tim scott so its not all about race but it sure plays a part. I think its a combination of obama race and his policies. Tim scott is black in a southern state but got 61% of the vote. Yeah, there are some who probably would never vote for him over color but thats anywhere. Although he is an R and if he was D tim scott, he would be blown away.

Only way really know is if in places like AL, MS, etc nominated a black R against a white D who would win.
Click to expand...

Tim Scott and other black conservatives advocate a type of politics that would screw their own race. They get away with it by coddling white interest so their race is less "scary" to white people. It's basically a tactic about going for the self conscience racists, who are able to vote for a black guy if he says exactly the same thing a white man would say.

Reminds me of that recent saying, about how racism was somehow dead until Barack Obama became President. It's really about pretending the problems of racisms are gone, rather than actually dealing with the problems of racism.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
The Democratic base isn't nuts enough to take on the establishment. The party has also been discouraging primaries. That's part of the Pelosi-Reid mindset that's been discussed in here recently.

It includes GOPers but how many House and state legislative seats weren't even contested this year? What did John Oliver find on his show for the latter, something like 3000 uncontested candidates?

Michigan's Governors race was a perfect example of why this is dumb even in high profile races, none of Schauer's weaknesses were considered or tested, the party didn't come up with a significant list of grievances OR ideas, as a result they basically sat on their hands for ten months expecting things to just swing their way when despite all the negatives of a primary they create one thing:

Free advertising. Look at how much airtime the GOP candidates all got from debates/interviews/etc. in 2012 from their primaries. And I'd argue none of it did as much damage to Romney in the general as Todd Akin and the 47% comment.

I heard from a lot of Occupiers that they couldn't challenge the Dems because that helps the Rethugs. Meanwhile, Tea Partiers comparatively wanted the blood of everyone they could get their hands on, no matter what the consequences were. They took a lot of beatings, but they also now have people like Ted Cruz around.

HylianTom said:
I'd love to see these crowds show-up in caucus states, for example; they couldn't be ignored.
Click to expand...
Hillary's not making that mistake again.

And the GOP's been furiously changing their rules to stop what the Paulites did in 2012 from happening again.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
benjipwns said:
Nixon may have stuck the branding on it, but the War on Drugs was as much a part of the Progressive agenda as the rest of Prohibition and corporatism. With Democratic Congresses passing four of the five major drug control acts, and Democratic Presidents signing three of them. (Though I do always love these silly tu quoqe contests when you get them with actual partisans, especially when a GOPer takes it back to the Civil War.)

Considering how they both jumped feet first into the "tough on crime", "100,000 New Cops on the Streets", Patriot Act and DHS, I can't really exempt either party for past decent things like pardoning Eugene Debs when there's two and a half "major" parties without blood on their hands also on the ballot. (Especially if our complaint is just that they didn't vote.)
Click to expand...
It goes a bit deeper than that.
Law and order politics in the US mostly came from the GOP, mainly as a reaction to their monumental loss in '64 and the party quest to find a platform to run on. It also led nicely to their racist pandering strategy with the 60s race riots.
Again, I'm not absolving the Democrats for being pretty much just as awful in regards to legislation, and while it's tempting to tie such politics to conservatism in general, mainly since in the west such politics more often align with conservative movements/parties, one can easily imagine a reality where progressivism leading into such policies with the notion of the nanny state extending into that territory.
It was realpolitik, it was about finding a way get elected.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Modern "law and order" politics comes out of Nixon's years of studying the craft of saying nothing while saying everything to everyone. Ironically, RICO was his only major legislative action on that front. The Safe Streets Act and Gun Control Act's both came in the wake of the same flames Nixon was flagging but were already in place before he was even elected.

Reagan was more successful thanks in part to Len Bias, but I have a feeling something like the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act would come along eventually, just like Joe Biden couldn't get the Patriot Act passed in the 1990s, but did after 9/11. The authorization for military surplus to be donated to police departments was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.

George H.W. Bush was probably the harshest drug warrior President. Rhetorically he really got himself out in front of this part of his "kindler, gentler" nation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy#Anti-legalization_Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office...ng_for_anti-drug_messages_in_television_shows

But that's democracy for you:
b7bf7c8cf.png
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
The Technomancer said:
I'm fine with this. A lot of social issues already have a lot of momentum behind them, and a more explicit platform of "our economic policies will be different from the opposition" will hopefully be a good thing
Click to expand...

Pretty much -- it needs to be about populism and economic policies. We'll see social progress in other areas of the political sphere (courts, ballot initiatives).

I don't think Dems can ever win the South in our lifetimes. They can be more competitive, though.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
Pretty much -- it needs to be about populism and economic policies. We'll see social progress in other areas of the political sphere (courts, ballot initiatives).

I don't think Dems can ever win the South in our lifetimes. They can be more competitive, though.
Click to expand...

How old do you plan on living lol? I'll see it.

Maybe not alabama or ms but georgia, sc, tn in 40 to 50 years? That's almost inevitable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom