• 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.
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Wait a minute. Keynesians don't generally make the argument that deficit spending is "free", do they? I mean, that's what "deficit spending" means, after all!

It's completely different from supply siders who say that tax cuts bring in more revenues and so we don't have to cut spending.

...which is funny because the excuse for Bush's economy not taking off was cause we didn't cut spending.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Oh and since we're on the subject, benji, why do you think Kansas' economy hasn't taken off considering Brownback enacted nearly every right-wing wet dream policy:

- tax cuts for the rich
- further deregulation
- far reaching spending cuts
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
Bit late to the punch, but...

Black Mamba said:
Should be noted, Fox News polls are actually quite good (at least during Presidential Elections). They're not intentionally geared to make the GOP look better.
Click to expand...

...unless I'm (and DKE's) reading their LV screen wrong, they may have intentionally geared all of those polls to exclude a substantial portion of the 18-25 demographic (if not all of it, considering the subgroup's MoE and the fact that it's straight-up 18-45).

e: MoE <45 in their Alaska poll is 8% while >45 is 4%. That's a bunkum sample.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Wilsongt said:
Goddamnit.



Fucking SCOTUS. Bad news for something something something donut.
Click to expand...
NC could end up being so close that this decision will essentially decide the election by scaling back just enough turnout that would have gone in Hagan's favor.

The tactics employed by NC aren't much different than what we're seeing in other places (TX, WI) whose voter ID laws were struck down by the SCOTUS. I really don't understand why there's a double standard. Unless it really is all politics.
 
A

AntoneM

Member
Oblivion said:
Wait a minute. Keynesians don't generally make the argument that deficit spending is "free", do they? I mean, that's what "deficit spending" means, after all!

It's completely different from supply siders who say that tax cuts bring in more revenues and so we don't have to cut spending.

...which is funny because the excuse for Bush's economy not taking off was cause we didn't cut spending.
Click to expand...
No they don't and they advocate cuts to government spending when the economy is doing fine.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
Diablos said:
NC could end up being so close that this decision will essentially decide the election by scaling back just enough turnout that would have gone in Hagan's favor.

The tactics employed by NC aren't much different than what we're seeing in other places (TX, WI) whose voter ID laws were struck down by the SCOTUS. I really don't understand why there's a double standard. Unless it really is all politics.
Click to expand...

Not really concerned about it in NC, considering how many people participate in early voting.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
If it looks like Mary is going to lose, I'd love to see her make one final pitch based on the ideas that:
(a) Obama is yesterday's news & on his way out.. and throwing a temper tantrum isn't good long-term thinking; and
(B) the GOP will hold the Senate for a do-nothing two years, and then Louisiana would be left with a nobody/minority party/back-bencher who will be incredibly weak once Dems retake the Senate in '16.

I've seen politicians hint at things like is, but the rections to such a nakedly blunt pitch would be interesting.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008?page=2

Yes, Obama has a low approval rating compared with earlier presidents. But there are a number of reasons to believe that presidential approval doesn't mean the same thing that it used to: There is much more party-sorting (in which Republicans never, ever have a good word for a Democratic president, and vice versa), the public is negative on politicians in general, and so on. Obviously the midterm election hasn't happened yet, but in a year when Republicans have a huge structural advantage – Democrats are defending a disproportionate number of Senate seats in deep-red states – most analyses suggest that control of the Senate is in doubt, with Democrats doing considerably better than they were supposed to. This isn't what you'd expect to see if a failing president were dragging his party down.
Click to expand...

Feel good Obama piece to counter all the recent negativity.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Diablos said:
The tactics employed by NC aren't much different than what we're seeing in other places (TX, WI) whose voter ID laws were struck down by the SCOTUS. I really don't understand why there's a double standard. Unless it really is all politics.
Click to expand...

=/

WI's voter ID law wasn't struck down by SCOTUS; its enforcement was temporarily delayed. Texas' law was struck down, but by a District Court, not the Supreme Court.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Denver Post's endorsement of Cory Gardner:

http://www.denverpost.com/portal/endorsements/ci_26701817/cory-gardner-u-s-senate?_loopback=1

Udall is a fine man with good intentions, and on some issues our views are closer to his than to Gardner's. But he is not perceived as a leader in Washington and, with rare exceptions such as wind energy and intelligence gathering, he is not at the center of the issues that count — as his Democratic colleague, Sen. Michael Bennet, always seems to be.



Rather than run on his record, Udall's campaign has devoted a shocking amount of energy and money trying to convince voters that Gardner seeks to outlaw birth control despite the congressman's call for over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince.

One-two punch in Senate

If Gardner's past is any guide, he would very likely match Bennet's influence in the upper chamber, providing Colorado with a powerful one-two punch and pairing two young, energetic senators with clout on both sides of the aisle.

If Gardner wins, of course, it could mean the Senate has flipped to Republicans. However, that doesn't mean it will simply butt heads with President Obama as the Republican House has done. As The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib recently pointed out, "A look back shows that eras of evenly divided power — Congress fully controlled by one party, the presidency by the other — have turned out to be among the most productive" because both sides temper their policies.

By contrast, we can be sure of what will happen in the next two years on issues such as immigration, tax reform, entitlement reform and military spending if the status quo persists: little to nothing. And yet these issues are critical to the nation's economic health and a long-awaited boost for middle-class incomes.
Click to expand...
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
ivysaur12 said:
Denver Post's endorsement of Cory Gardner:

http://www.denverpost.com/portal/endorsements/ci_26701817/cory-gardner-u-s-senate?_loopback=1
Click to expand...

"Stop calling me out on my policies and history, it's unfair" covers most of Gardner's campaign.

It's completely fair to call Gardner out on voting for a personhood at conception amendment, which would basically ban many forms of birth control. Even with his flip flopping, it's still certain he's going to continue being on the wrong side of most women's health issues.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Fox News asks: Why aren't we focusing as much on Entrovirus as much as ebola?

My answer: Can't blame Entrovirus on Obama.
 
C

Cat

Member
B-Dubs said:
Because fuck that, gonna go with my gut.
Click to expand...

My local paper did a similar thing, imo, with our senate race in Texas. It basically said that Cornyn could be a leader to stop gridlock, with absolutely no support for why the editorial board actually believed this, unless you think NOT being Ted Cruz is some kind of compelling argument. The argument against the Democratic opponent was reduced down to expecting he'd be a partisan warrior.

This race is not even competitive, but it still came off as very dumb from what I was reading.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Just noticed the denver post didn't even bring up the fact that Gardner is still a cosponser of a federal personhood amendment. That's extra crazy since as a person running for federal office, you'd think his federal views are more important than his state views.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-10-08/the-battle-for-colorado

What&#8217;s the difference between Colorado&#8217;s personhood amendment and the federal one you still co-sponsor?

&#8220;Well, one&#8217;s an amendment to the Colorado constitution, another one is a bill. They are two different pieces of legislation, they have two different ­consequences, their language is
different&#8212;&#8221;

I don&#8217;t ­understand the difference in consequences, besides the geographic one.

&#8220;I&#8217;d encourage you to look at it. They&#8217;re two procedurally different postures. They&#8217;re legislatively in different postures.&#8221;

But they have the same effect, so what&#8217;s the difference?

&#8220;Well, what they&#8217;re trying to say that the federal bill would do is all about politics. And that&#8217;s simply what Senator Udall has tried to do this entire campaign, is to say something that&#8217;s simply not true. Look, he is focused solely on social issues&#8212;&#8221;

I don&#8217;t disagree, but the point they make is that the personhood amendment would outlaw certain kinds of [birth control], so&#8212;

&#8220;And that&#8217;s why I oppose it.&#8221;

Right, but at the federal level it would ­presumably do the same thing.

&#8220;If you look at the law, it would not.&#8221;
Click to expand...

The bill would add the following to the constitution:
To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the exact same thing as every other dumb personhood amendment.
 
C

Cat

Member
thepotatoman said:
Just noticed the denver post didn't even bring up the fact that Gardner is still a cosponser of a federal personhood amendment. That's extra crazy since as a person running for federal office, you'd think his federal views are more important than his state views.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-10-08/the-battle-for-colorado



The bill would add the following to the constitution:


Yeah, that's the exact same thing as every other dumb personhood amendment.
Click to expand...

Sounds very irresponsible of the paper to mis-represent him then.

Avon Barksdale said:
The media is too scared to say anything bad about a Republican in 2014.
Click to expand...

But, why?
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Cat said:
Sounds very irresponsible of the paper to mis-represent him then.



But, why?
Click to expand...

Because the Republicans know how to line up and produce one large blast against the person that says anything bad against them. They know how to get everyone into lock step.

The Democrats don't do that because everyone has a wide range of beliefs and don't have as large of a persecution complex.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Crazy Palin family fight . . . I know, it is completely irrelevant and it doesn't matter at all. It really doesn't.

But could you IMAGINE what the right would be saying if this had happened with the Obama family? Imagine message board postings you'd read on Red State.

The drunken brawl involving Sarah Palin and her family last month was a wild one, according to police reports released today, and at the center of the report is a Palin daughter repeatedly punching a man in the face, being pounced on by a group of women and then dragged by her legs across the lawn.

Prosecutors won't proceed with charges in the fight, Anchorage police said, but they released a report with several witness accounts of the brawl.

The police were called to a birthday party for twin brothers Matthew and Marc McKenna at the home of Korey Klingenmeyer in South Anchorage on Sept. 6. Klingenmeyer gave a witness account in the report and said Bristol Palin, eldest daughter of Sarah and Todd Palin, punched him five to six times in the face and that she was "hitting pretty hard."

An officer wrote that both Sarah and Todd Palin "appeared upset and and in a verbal argument with other individuals at the scene." There is no interview with the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee included in the report.

Klingenmeyer told police he was considering filing charges and was "angry that the Palins had showed up and were causing problems," according to the report. He told police he had asked Bristol to leave and she responded, "Who the f*** are you?" Klingemeyer told her he owned the home and Bristol said she didn't believe him and "she will kick his a**," the police report states.

Klingenmeyer said that's when Bristol first punched him and he then said he told her to hit "him again if it makes her feel better and she does," according to the document.

After five to six punches, Klingenmeyer "grabbed her fist as she punched again and he pushed back and she falls down. He says she gets up and tries to punch him again and he grabs her fist again and pushes her away and she falls down again," Klingenmeyer told police, who described him as "moderately intoxicated" in the report.

An officer described Bristol Palin in the report as "heavily intoxicated and upset" and told police that Klingenmeyer had "drug her across the lawn by her legs" calling her names. She also said both her sandals and sunglasses had been taken.

Matthew McKenna told police that night that he tried to break up the fight and saw people "piling" on Todd Palin. He also said after he saw Bristol punch Klingenmeyer six times a "bunch of wives tackled her a**."

The report includes a fight Track Palin, Sarah and Todd's eldest son, got into at the same party.
Click to expand...
https://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blo...ice-reports-000616628--abc-news-politics.html
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Aaron Strife said:
Oh my god I hate the media so much.
Click to expand...

It's so damn frustraiting. Like how damn hard is it to look at a basically one page piece of legislation which he continues to co-sponsor and see written right there in the bill "Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being". Followed by "The terms &#8216;&#8216;human person&#8217;&#8217; and &#8216;&#8216;human being&#8217;&#8217; include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization".

You don't have to be a god damned lawyer to call him out on his bullshit, and yet no one ever does.

Not that I think endorsements matter, they typically don't, which is why I wasn't exactly coming here with praise when Hickenlooper got his endorsement from the denver post. It's just frustrating to see journalists pretend politicians are something they're not.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
It's a slow-motion October surprise, this gay marriage thing.

(and I'm loving the arguing I'm seeing in various comment sections about Huckabee's threat. This is really helping to tear their party apart, just as I suspected.)
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNSK6SuyCR4

http://www.courier-journal.com/videos/opinion/2014/10/09/17004149/

The video of the exchange is comically awkward. An off-camera female editorialist asks a straightforward question: “Did you vote for President Obama, 2008, 2012?”

“You know,” Grimes replies, “this election, uh, isn’t about the president. It’s about—”

“I know,” the editorialist assures the candidate. “But did you vote for him?”

Grimes remains on message: “—making sure we put Kentuckians back to work, and—” By this point, the editorialist has repeated the question a third time: “Did you vote for him?”

The candidate changes tack, responding with not one but two non sequiturs: “I was actually in ’08 a delegate for Hillary Clinton, and I think that Kentuckians know I’m a Clinton Democrat through and through. I respect the sanctity of the ballot box, and I know that the members of this editorial board do as well.”

“So you’re not going to answer,” says the editorialist. Whereupon Grimes displays her own keen command of the obvious: “Again, I don’t think that the president is on the ballot.” Then another non sequitur: “As much as Mitch McConnell might want him to be, it’s my name, and it’s going to be me who’s holding him accountable for the failed decision and votes that he has made against the people of Kentucky.” The conversation then drifts to other subjects.
Click to expand...
 
J

Jooney

Member
Ads Paid for by Secret Money Flood the Midterm Elections
nytimes said:
More than half of the general election advertising aired by outside groups in the battle for control of Congress has come from organizations that disclose little or nothing about their donors, a flood of secret money that is now at the center of a debate over the line between free speech and corruption.

The advertising, which has overwhelmingly benefited Republican candidates, is largely paid for by nonprofit groups and trade associations, some of which are set up with the purpose of shielding from public scrutiny the wealthy individuals and corporations that contribute. Over all, significantly more political advertising comes from nondisclosing groups than from “super PACs,” the explicitly political committees whose fortunes have dominated attention with the rise of big money in politics.

Fifty-five percent of broadcast advertising in the midterm elections has been paid for by groups that do not fully disclose their donors, according to an analysis by The New York Times of advertising data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, compared with 45 percent from super PACs, which are required to file regular financial disclosures with the Federal Election Commission.

The dominance of secretly funded advertising defies one of the underlying assumptions of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which paved the way for outside groups to raise and spend more money, so long as they did not coordinate with candidates and parties. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy envisioned campaigns in which unlimited independent spending by unions and corporations would be paired with robust real-time disclosure.

The reality is far different. In race after race, voters are confronted by advertising from an array of groups with generic names and unclear agendas. The groups’ finances are disclosed only on a federal tax return, typically filed more than a year after Election Day, on a form on which the names of donors are allowed to be redacted. Critics call it “dark money.”
Click to expand...



The advertising data also suggests that while Democrats and Republicans have built formidable outside spending networks since the Citizens United decision, Democrats have aired far more advertising through super PACs, while Republicans have relied significantly more on advertising paid for with secret money. (Both parties also rely on alliances of grass-roots nonprofit groups or unions to help turn out voters, spending that is even more difficult to track.) The greater transparency of liberal groups has helped drive a perception that liberal billionaires, not conservative ones, have been the biggest political donors this cycle.

But close to 80 percent of general election advertising by outside groups aiding Republicans has been paid for with secret money, donated to groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Freedom Partners — a trade association of donors with ties to Charles G. and David H. Koch — and Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove.
Click to expand...


But Democrats have secret money, too. Much like Mr. Rove’s groups, which pair a super PAC (for donors who do not mind disclosure) with a political nonprofit (for those who do), the Senate Majority PAC works in tandem with Patriot Majority, a 501(c)(4) organization that is run by a former aide to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.

Much of the secret money benefiting Democrats in ads has poured through a network of regional and national environmental groups like the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, which are a growing force in the world of outside spending. These groups have grass-roots memberships, but have also spent millions of dollars on election activity in recent years. And their budgets include sizable checks from a few large anonymous donors, including a $6 million contribution on the most recent tax return by the League of Conservation Voters.
Click to expand...

Look at all this speech it's slipping through my fingers
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Avon Barksdale said:
The media is too scared to say anything bad about a Republican in 2014.
Click to expand...
2014? Unless a candidate is a complete disaster (like Akin) it's like this every year. The media plays false equivalency games to dismiss GOP crazy. Joni Ernst wants to dismantle the Department of Education and Social Security and thinks we should impeach Obama? Well Bruce Braley had an argument with his neighbor once. Both sides do it!

Speaking of Braley, an update on the early voting:

Democrats report that 34% of their voters did not vote in 2010 (as compared to 14% of Republicans). 46% of Independents did not vote in 2010. Democratic modeling has Braley winning 67-32 among all early Independents.
Click to expand...
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Dax01 said:
TAKE THAT NC REPUBLICANS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

Good. Fuck Thom Tillis and his NOM lawyers.

Also, Fuck Alan Wilson and Nikki Haley. Kicking and fucking screaming. I hope SC falls on Monday.

Edit:

Also, someone in the general assembly wants the judges who issues licenses in South Carolina removed from office for doing so.

These fucking... AUGH!!;KLJAKJFJKS;KJAFKL;J;LJAFL;JKKLAFKLJAKLJAFKLJDKLJ KL fUCK.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
So Malala from Pakistan got the Nobel Peace Prize today. Surprisingly, Fox News Facebook posts are happy for her, while also saying in the same sentence that Obama should give his back. Almost every single post I read said this, too.

Always a jab at Obummer.
 
L

Lucky Forward

Member
speculawyer said:
Crazy Palin family fight . . . I know, it is completely irrelevant and it doesn't matter at all. It really doesn't.

But could you IMAGINE what the right would be saying if this had happened with the Obama family? Imagine message board postings you'd read on Red State.


https://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blo...ice-reports-000616628--abc-news-politics.html
Click to expand...

Remember the Bush daughters' underage drinking? Obama would never hear the end of it if something similar happened with his girls.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
3CKA4QU.jpg


She's okay I guess.
 
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