-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
It will be their first order of business, right after they dissolve the nation-state.
It would not. She's not a VP candidate, and that's not a ticket that could win Florida. Haley is better, but still probably not ready for primetime. Walker will probably be a VP camdidate because he makes sense.
Also, I just had an image of Paul Ryan running against Tammy Baldwin in 2018.
Sirpopopop
Member
I want Obama to hold off on releasing the torture report until the Republican nominee is known.
Then I would like it to be released to put them on extremely bad footing. Get the maximum effect, rather than releasing it now, where it's going to be old news by the time the election comes around.
Then I would like it to be released to put them on extremely bad footing. Get the maximum effect, rather than releasing it now, where it's going to be old news by the time the election comes around.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I doubt people will care whether it's released now or later. We outsource our torture more now, it's not like either side has some moral high ground here. Not to mention he whole assassinating US citizens thing.
speculawyer
Member
speculawyer
Member
Attacking Gruber doesn't not seem particularly smart considering he advised Mitt Romney, their most recent presidential candidate. They look like a bunch of flip-flopping fools.
I just don't see college drop-out President Derp happening.
Harland Williams' missing brother?
zero shift
Banned
The point is that it is more democratic to have a system where the make up of congress looks more like the country. States like Wyoming, Montana, and Vermont are very over represented. Reforming this part of the Amerian system will lead to a more representive democracy and one with less gridlock.
jamesinclair
Banned
I remember when egm and gamepro were legit.and game informer was that other thing nobody read.
Makes me want to join the tea party. 1/4 of my life is spent funding the shitheads in the military.
I'm mad as heck and I'm not going to take it anymore
benjipwns
Banned
How is that more democratic? A House that has 218 women in it isn't automatically more representative just because that's closer to the gender proportion of the population. Especially if those 218 women are all Michelle Bachmann.
Unrelated but semi-related, I'd much rather add 100 nationally elected every two years PR seats with a 1% threshold to both houses than eliminate the Senate. (Maybe 100 for the House, 50 for the Senate and 2% threshold for Senate.) The alternative would be adding a third body chosen by PR.
Ideally, we'd add a nationally elected PR third body of some amount to work with the House and Senate, and then a fourth 100 seat body (we could call it the Censor) which can repeal any law or regulation with a mere 34 votes that operates independently of the others. The latter body would be chosen by lots though a person could choose to pass.
You could have the third body elected on three year terms and the fourth on seven year terms. That way there's an national election nearly every single year! And in the years when there's not, we'll automatically hold a constitutional convention!
DEMOCRACY!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Early? Definitely Minnesota. After that you're right, not many states stick out outside of Michigan. However we're not taking into account the inevitable shock of candidates bombing out, the flavor-of-the-month effect of extremist candidates, etc. I'd bet money that Rand Paul will win Iowa, with Ted Cruz coming in the top 3.
A lot of people are running, including at least 3 guys trying to appealing to the exact same establishment block. Christie could do well in NH sure, but will big "embarrassing" losses in Iowa and SC overshadow it? I don't see him lasting long. Then there's Jeb Bush pimping immigration and Common Core. Anyone think he'll do well in early states? I think Romney could do better than both of them, running an "I told you so" campaign.
Basically I expect Christie and Bush to drop out after a string of bad losses, leaving the establishment with a choice between Romney and Walker. Is the party going to rally around a loser who doesn't inspire the base? Meanwhile enough tea party flunkies should be gone for Walker to become a nice compromise candidate for the far right, with the alternative being Romney.
To be fair, Game Informer subscriptions are probably 90% the free ones with Gamestop.
Counterpoint to the doom and gloom I've been posting about the end of the southern Dem:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/democrats-shouldnt-give-up-on-the-south/
But we've seen this before: an inability to win even key early states can sink a candidacy. If Walker can only win Minnesota, the narrative will already be that his campaign is dead.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/democrats-shouldnt-give-up-on-the-south/
But we've seen this before: an inability to win even key early states can sink a candidacy. If Walker can only win Minnesota, the narrative will already be that his campaign is dead.
I suspect that Bush and his $$$ backers are going to sink a TON into winning New Hampshire, given the state's past affinity for "electables" and moderates. If opponents point at Common Core and immigration, he'll spin these as part of his electability argument. If he can win there, he knocks-out Christie (and Romney) and becomes the one big-name, big-money candidate to beat.
zero shift
Banned
I dont get why it is so hard to understand. Abolishing the senate and/or retooling it so it better represnts the general population equally leads it to being more democratic because it more closely mirrors the countrybat large. Your comparisons are just nonsense.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Why do people think Walker could win Minnesota? Don't they pride themselves on *not* being Wisconsin?
Black Mamba
Member
Is there any way we can mostly not talk about 2016 until it's almost 2016?
Aaron Strife
Banned
No they have 54. Democrats have 46 seats.
Co-signed.
Sadly, I doubt it. Presidential elections, are god awful long and relentless in speculation and media coverage.
Poodlestrike
Banned
The whole point of the senate is that it's not representative. The idea is that by having it be two senators from every state regardless of size, you avoid having the more populous states beat up on the little ones.
Granted, that might be an outdated way of thinking; it made more sense in the considerably less focused federal government of the time, but now that it's generally assumed that congresspeople are federal legislators first, state representatives second, getting rid of the senate may have merit. But still, it's a check on the potential tyranny of the majority scenario, so getting rid of it because it's inconvenient may be premature.
Granted, that might be an outdated way of thinking; it made more sense in the considerably less focused federal government of the time, but now that it's generally assumed that congresspeople are federal legislators first, state representatives second, getting rid of the senate may have merit. But still, it's a check on the potential tyranny of the majority scenario, so getting rid of it because it's inconvenient may be premature.
jamesinclair
Banned
Re: Torture
Re: Supreme court retail
Re: Military budget
I'm getting real sick of this country.
I can only hope secession, soon.
Re: Supreme court retail
Re: Military budget
I'm getting real sick of this country.
I can only hope secession, soon.
Black Mamba
Member
The country is no longer how it was in the past, so the minority can control both the House and Senate as we see now.
For the most part, the country is urban vs rural and urban is getting fucked over in Congress.
Our Constitution mostly sucks in application to today's world, unfortunately.
Can we (NOLA) be an island outpost to the south? Excellent for river control..
Black Mamba
Member
I actually think the SCOTUS was correct today re: Amazon.
It's a fault with the law, not with them. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion here.
It's a fault with the law, not with them. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion here.
The false equivalency on Fox News is stunning as always. Neil Cavuto basically went on a rant about transparency and liberals, essentially saying "Liberals were okay with the torture report being released, but they are not okay with the things Gruber is saying about the ACA."
As well as saying that liberals are okay with costing American lives with the torture report released, but are ho hum about costing Americans money due to whatever the hell Gruber is saying.
Because years of systemic crimes against humanity by an administration is on the same level as someone mentioning something negative about the ACA.
As well as saying that liberals are okay with costing American lives with the torture report released, but are ho hum about costing Americans money due to whatever the hell Gruber is saying.
Because years of systemic crimes against humanity by an administration is on the same level as someone mentioning something negative about the ACA.
Presidential "exploratory" campaign announcements are coming next month...
speculawyer
Member
That point doesn't even make sense. The ACA was completely transparent . . . it was a publicly available bill for anyone to read and debated for many months. Gruber just said that people were too stupid to understand it. Not a nice thing to say but transparency was not an issue with the ACA.
speculawyer
Member
When I saw that it was 9 - 0, I figured it was something like that. And it provides a good opportunity for someone to propose a change to the law. And then GOP can block that and look like dicks.
You're probably right, but it's still infuriating. Congress won't do shit to fix it so the court was our only hope.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
And yet the democrats will just say it would never pass, so why bother.
They'd push hard for it if it perfectly fit in as a marketable women's only issue, because their political scientists tell them that's the only swing demographic they have to worry about. But this issue isn't going to fit that, because everyone knows women only care about things that solely affect women.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I just like how the Court's opinion is like 10 pages.
Though Sotomayor then took 3 pages to say, "I agree." Can't say I liked that. =/
The whole point of the senate (like pretty much all upper houses) is to make sure the dirty common people don't get too much power, those sneaky poors, always outnumbering the rich, which is why you want some democracy, but not too much of it.
Yeah, the Connecticut compromise was done to persuade smaller states to join the union, but it's not the reason why a bicameral system was suggested, which had it roots in the UK parliamentary system.
Fuck it, kill it with fire.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Without sounding like too much of an apologist, the wealthy deserve the protections of government too
Mob rule benefits nobody. Does the senate actually prevent that? Fuck if I know, but until I know one way or the other, taking off a (potential) safety valve strikes me as a bad idea.They deserve protection sure, but not protection proportional to their wealth.Without sounding like too much of an apologist, the wealthy deserve the protections of government too
But really, if you're making the case that the people cannot be trusted, you're denying the very basic idea of democracy.
If we're going that route might as well go for a (tweaked) Chinese model, at least they're able to get competent people into positions of power.
Poodlestrike
Banned
It's not that I don't trust people, it's just that I don't trust them all of the time. I think that people are fundamentally good, but often make impressively poor choices as the result of what seems to be reasonable assumptions and logic, and the more people there are acting at once, the more likely it is that their overall course of action isn't going to be good. Placing a buffer between the masses and policy isn't anti-democratic, it's a safeguard.
I'll take it over Thomas and his "I'm with stupid" poor excuses for 'opinions'.
Thomas is the most worthless member of the court. Frankly he should go before anyone else. At least Scalia is smart (an asshole, but smart).
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm more and more convinced with every verdict that Scalia is just trolling the hell out of everbody.
Representative democracy is that buffer.
We can tweak it as we see fit, but an upper house is designed to give the elites (who are by definition a minority) more power that they would have otherwise.
It doesn't function these days exactly as intended (in no small part because we know elect senators instead of appointing them) but it was still born in sin.
And for real, rich people can't make poor choices?
Poodlestrike
Banned
Definitely not arguing that, lol. Rich people are just as fallible as the rest of us, and their mistakes tend to leave bigger craters.
The upper house may have started as a purely class-based instrument, but now that we elect them directly I'd argue that that's ceased to be the case. By being equal in number and elected by the entire state (rather than a particular district), the Senate serves a unique role I'm not sure should be folded into the House.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Because they managed to keep her seat since the 1800s, lol. Never overestimate the power of political inertia!
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Basically, in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. the Supreme Court said exactly what you and I wanted them to say, by saying employers cannot subtract time from the time it takes to walk from checking in on one side of a parking lot, to the time the employee actually gets to where they start working. Basically agreeing with you that those types of things qualify as needing pay.
Unfortunately Congress didn't like that ruling and specifically said that preliminary/postliminary activities before the "principal activity" is not required to be paid.
This case asks if security checks are a postliminary activity or a principal activity, and it's simply too hard to come up with a way to say it's a principal activity without being so overbroad that even the Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. decision would be upheld, which is obviously not what congress intended, as dumb as those intentions may be.
If the security check was considered a principal activity, why wouldn't walking across a parking lot to the check out station be considered a principal activity? It was clear during the arguments that the liberal judges were searching for a test that could satisfy both conditions, but they simply couldn't find one.
You'll have to blame congress, not SCOTUS.
speculawyer
Member
So after February, aliens can pour across the border. Great idea GOP.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked