NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its not bad marketing. Its an unreceptive audience
-
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
They better get out their and take credit. The Republicans are already shamelessly doing so
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...ndulum-swing-between-security-privacy-n282136
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...ndulum-swing-between-security-privacy-n282136
Thus, the necessity for repetition.
I make a distinction between the enthusiast political audience and the casual political audience. We here in PoliGAF, the Freepers.. we pay attention every day. We laugh at vote counts in Congress, tinker with the electoral map, and later we look at polling data. I advocate bragging more for the casual audience, those who tune-in to campaigns at the last minute and couldn't tell you the blow-by-blow accounts of primary fights, those who read about debates after they happen, etc etc.
I want the Dems to brag repeatedly and loudly so that some of the casuals at least vaguely pick-up on the idea that, yes, the Dems are doing pretty well in this department. If it moves the needle just a few points in 2016, then it's well worth it.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I really hate the right using attacks on Jews for their own political ends. Jews are much more often than not liberal and left leaning.
I just don't want to be associated with their toxic xenophobia when I talk about certain things
I just don't want to be associated with their toxic xenophobia when I talk about certain things
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
It's bad marketing. The democrats' main problem right now is just what you said: people aren't receptive to what they're saying.
In that case, you change up how you say it.
He'll take credit at the STOTU.
Still…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/upshot/job-growth-looks-great-wage-growth-less-so.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
Still…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/upshot/job-growth-looks-great-wage-growth-less-so.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
I assume Buzzfeed will have the story soon after MS and TX arguments are done (and if you're interested, you should follow Chris Geidner. He's fantastic -- he does Buzzfeed legal). I can't believe of all of the Circuits, the 5th will strike down these bans.
And if they don't stay their decision, or stay it temporarily, it's possible that marriage equality could come to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana before the rest, leaving 9-10 (depending how you classify Missouri) states without gay marriage in the country before the SCOTUS issues a decision.
I don't even think he looked "disengaged" unless your definition of that is not interrupting Romney and focusing more on the audience and moderator. His content was great but he wasn't super confrontational and let Romney get away with lies.
The media and public are just so dumb at times..
Imagine if Romney had won, this would be the "Romney Recovery" right now *shudder*
This is a great opportunity. If the Democrats had any messaging ability, they'd be pointing at the difference between Obama/Clinton records and Bush/Bush records while shouting from the rooftops over the next two years, "see? See what happens? Do you reeeaally wanna elect more Republicans?"
PhoenixDark
Banned
Man can you imagine if Romney was president? His first term jobs promise was such a blatant farce because 2013-2016 was always viewed as a period where job growth would increase regardless. I can just imagine the cheerleading we'd see. Liberalism would have taken quite a blow...
Lol. The dumb media is not going to allow the bush and clinton comparison. The public is too ignorant to notice soooo.....
Shutdown, one term president by mcconell, plot against obama DAY ONE etc
Jack Remington
Banned
The gloating would be insufferable.
I shudder trying to picture the smug superiority of the WSJ editorial we'd be seeing today.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Having done now a bit of research, it appears you may be right. In fact, one of the earliest Spending Clause cases concerned a credit to employers against their federal unemployment contributions so long as they contributed to a state unemployment insurance program that satisfied certain Congressionally determined conditions. Still, that opinion was authored some 80 years ago, so it's possible that intervening doctrinal developments would lead to using a different analysis today. Be that as it may, I'll assume for the sake of our argument that the conditional grant of credits stated in the ACA must be unambiguous to be constitutional.
Given that, the solution here is obvious: the King challengers will continue to argue that the ACA's text is unambiguous, as they have done from the outset, and conclude that the statute provided adequate notice to states of the consequences of their choice. The challengers only win if the statute is unambiguous, which means that the Spending Clause question is only an issue if the statute is unambiguous, which means that a prerequisite to raising that question also resolves it.
As for Walker, statutes do not become ambiguous because the administration misrepresents the terms of the statute. If you're going to try to establish ambiguity by pointing to some evidence other than the text of the statute itself, then you need to establish (at a minimum) that that evidence relates solely to the text of the statute itself, which you can't do here. Walker admitted that he consulted with HHS, and he was no doubt aware of the IRS rule purporting to authorize credits on federal exchanges. You simply can't posit that his comment is directed to the terms of the statute itself, which is the only thing that matters here.
I find this an unacceptable position to take in a debate. If you are incapable of taking seriously the idea that other people believe differently from you, then you are incapable of arguing at an adult level. Either give me the courtesy of accepting that I believe what I say when I defend it as vigorously and thoroughly as I have this question, or go away. I will not waste my time on someone so inconsiderate as to doubt my sincerity while not even bothering to read the relevant literature before discussing it.
No, I'm saying that the Republican Party is not a party to any of the pending litigation on this question. What is it that you're trying to say? Do you believe that King or Halbig are Republican Party officials? Do you think the Republican Party is bankrolling the litigation?
The bill won't pass. Dude's not even a lawyer =|
Jack Remington
Banned
It's quite possible you want to believe what you say, and this has led to actual belief through various cognitive failures over the last few months. It's quite a natural defense mechanism to protect your side from moral culpability in the event that they are successful.
But no one could have seriously followed the passage of the ACA and read up on the explanations of how its policy mechanisms would work and then believe that the federal exchange wasn't intended to distribute subsidies. Black Mamba is being courteous here, if anything. It's probably better to be a troll than to be that delusional.
Obama talking now in Knoxville about the economy, college:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-college-success
Hitting it hard.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-college-success
Hitting it hard.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I have been arguing about this case on this forum for something like seven months now, and you still don't understand my argument? Let's assume for present purposes that every single legislator who cast a vote for or against the ACA intended that federal exchanges be able to offer tax credits. That doesn't change the fact that the bill they voted on--the only document to become an Act of Congress with respect to the subject--didn't authorize tax credits for purchasers from an exchange established by the federal government. Subjective intent is irrelevant--all that matters is what was passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president.
If you have an argument to make, make it. I find your insults unpersuasive.
Jack Remington
Banned
...
It's like there are two different arguments and you can't even keep track of which one you're making, Metapod.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I understand polling is lagging indicator but you'd think this positive momentum would be doing more for approval ratings.
People do understand your argument. But I would guess most here find your arguments unpersuasive, that -- at worst -- the legislation is ambiguous in its language and that it's clear that the intent of the legislation is not what you say it is.
I also think most people here believe you're playing a game of political teams, not the law. We all do this from time to time, but in in this particular instance, you're "side" believes that this is the best way to bleed out the ACA, which is where most of us assume is the genesis of your opinion. If this wasn't about the ACA, would you be fighting the same position? My guess is not, and you might find this offensive. That's fine. But that's the assumption that -- I'm guessing -- most have about your POV and are suspect if you actually believe in what you're saying, or if it's just a pretext to achieve an agenda.
I don't think Obama will ever achieve Clinton-esque approval ratings. I can't see him ever breaking 51/52, if just because how poisonous his brand is to Republicans.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I don't understand your criticism.
I don't realistically expect to persuade anyone that I'm right. I suspect the same flaw of "most people" that you propose they think of me. But I see no need to discuss that suspicion. What matter are the arguments, not the motives of those making the arguments.
Jack Remington
Banned
Jesus, good luck actually practicing in the legal profession then.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
As I said, I find your insults unpersuasive. Can you clarify your criticism?
Black Mamba
Member
You're making a big mistake here. You're arguing that the if the SCOTUS finds the text of the statute unambiguous, the King advocates win. You're wrong. They only win if the SCOTUS finds the statute unambiguous in that it calls for different rules for federal and state exchanges.
To the contrary, the SCOTUS can totally determine the statute unambiguously gives tax credits to both state and federally run exchanges which is something I and almost everyone else believes. The federal gov't can argue that the text is ambiguous and deference is given to their department officials but even if it's not considered ambiguous that it unambiguously favors their decision that both exchanges are equal.
And this is why Walker's statement is important. Because he, as a State Official, demonstrates how it's unambiguous that the exchanges are equal. I am not arguing Walker's statement proves ambiguity. I am arguing the exact opposite.
Remember: "States cannot knowingly accept conditions of which they are "unaware" or which they are "unable to ascertain.""
So even if the language of the statute might be argued to say the tax credits were a carrot for the states, the fact that no single state interpreted it this way forces the proper interpretation to be unambiguously that there was no such carrot mechanism.
FTR, I believe that the statute is unambiguous and supports no incentives. I believe you can now prove it with not only the text as well as the context surrounding the law (that no one ever believed it) but also based on how state officials interpreted the law.
The only reason the admin is putting forward the ambiguity argument is because it's the easiest and shortest, but all the arguments matter and King fails all of them.
No, I won't extend that courtesy. It would require me to believe you're a moron, which you're unambiguously not. There is no fucking way you actually believe the authors of the PPACA intentionally wrote the law to not give federally run exchanges tax credits.
If the authors of the law didn't intend to do it, then they didn't do it. A mistaken comma or word doesn't change the interpretation of a law. It's not English class. That's not how it works and you know it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Jack Remington
Banned
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
This is my last response to you on this topic, BM. Like I said, I won't waste my time on someone incapable of respecting differences of opinion. I will continue to respond to others concerning this topic.
You're right. If the Court holds that the statute unambiguously authorizes credits on federal exchanges, then the challengers lose. Likewise, if the Court holds that the statute is ambiguous on the question of whether credits are authorized, then the challengers (probably) lose. But in neither of those situations would the requirement that a condition on federal funds be unambiguously stated become relevant. That requirement only becomes relevant if the statute unambiguously provides that credits are available only on state-established exchanges--and it would be satisfied on the basis of that prerequisite being met.
As I have already said, Walker's statement isn't obviously directed at the text of the ACA, which is what the Court will be interpreting. If Walker were discussing the text of the statute, on its own, and said that credits would be available to purchasers from an exchange established by the federal government, then we would at least have reason to take his comment into consideration. But we've no reason to believe that that is the case. What's more, even assuming that Walker's comment was made with specific reference to the text of the ACA, why would the Court look to Walker's interpretation of the statute when the justices are perfectly capable of interpreting the text for themselves?
This isn't how statutory interpretation works. There is no reason to resort to the subjective intentions of individual legislators in interpreting the text of a legislative enactment. You read the words of the enactment, not the minds of the enactors.
You're right. If the Court holds that the statute unambiguously authorizes credits on federal exchanges, then the challengers lose. Likewise, if the Court holds that the statute is ambiguous on the question of whether credits are authorized, then the challengers (probably) lose. But in neither of those situations would the requirement that a condition on federal funds be unambiguously stated become relevant. That requirement only becomes relevant if the statute unambiguously provides that credits are available only on state-established exchanges--and it would be satisfied on the basis of that prerequisite being met.
As I have already said, Walker's statement isn't obviously directed at the text of the ACA, which is what the Court will be interpreting. If Walker were discussing the text of the statute, on its own, and said that credits would be available to purchasers from an exchange established by the federal government, then we would at least have reason to take his comment into consideration. But we've no reason to believe that that is the case. What's more, even assuming that Walker's comment was made with specific reference to the text of the ACA, why would the Court look to Walker's interpretation of the statute when the justices are perfectly capable of interpreting the text for themselves?
This isn't how statutory interpretation works. There is no reason to resort to the subjective intentions of individual legislators in interpreting the text of a legislative enactment. You read the words of the enactment, not the minds of the enactors.
Black Mamba
Member
It doesn't have to be directed at the text. He admitted there are no substantive differences between a federally run exchange and state exchange. Tax credits are substantive!
The reason they'd look to his interpretation was already given! Here it is, more thorough.
In other words, the SCOTUS has stated that if a statute has obligations or incentives built in, but the states do not notice them and are unaware of them when making a decision, then deference will be given to the states' initial interpretations over the statutes!
Further:
I know this is mostly a taxing clause case though there is federal spending in it as well, but I highly doubt, as we already discussed and you mostly agreed, there'd be a difference.
Congress' intent is disregarded!
You see, the SCOTUS could even rule that the statute literally denies tax credits to federally run exchanges but still rule in the administration's favor because states were never given that choice and never believed such a choice existed!
Actually, it is. Thankfully, Scalia's ideology isn't prevailing (which is funny because in the above case he sides against his ideology, lolz).
RustyNails
Member
In fact Obama from now on should be wearing that Emperor Obama armor he was wearing in China while delivering the speech.
https://soundcloud.com/freedom-to-marry/5th-circuit-oral-argument-robicheaux-v-caldwell
5th Circuit gay marriage oral arguments -- this is the Louisiana case. Judge Higginbotham starts to get very testy with the LA attorney around 45 minutes when the attorney tries to link marriage to procreation.
5th Circuit gay marriage oral arguments -- this is the Louisiana case. Judge Higginbotham starts to get very testy with the LA attorney around 45 minutes when the attorney tries to link marriage to procreation.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I am not sure what the benefit is of acting out the King oral arguments. Obviously there is a legal argument to be made on either side (I use the phrase "legal argument" advisedly). I think that should be clear. It is probably not surprising that some of us find what we consider to be holes in Metaphoreus's argument, but that he does not consider them holes; that is the nature of a legal argument. In the end it will come down to the question of what the judges find most persuasive or politically appealing, as legal arguments generally do.
I can't myself find Metaphoreus's argument to be obviously wrong on the merits. I don't think that it should win, and don't find it persuasive (or politically appealing), but it is not straightforwardly dumb.
I think that, for political reasons, it is unlikely to prevail with SCOTUS. Having already upheld Obamacare once, and given that it is currently functioning, it would be painful to now radically damage or destroy it. It would be additionally unpleasant because Metaphoreus's argument suffers from the public relations problem of sounding more unreasonable than it actually is. In the end I think that Kennedy and/or Roberts will give way.
But I think the agitation on this topic is because we really don't know, do we?
I can't myself find Metaphoreus's argument to be obviously wrong on the merits. I don't think that it should win, and don't find it persuasive (or politically appealing), but it is not straightforwardly dumb.
I think that, for political reasons, it is unlikely to prevail with SCOTUS. Having already upheld Obamacare once, and given that it is currently functioning, it would be painful to now radically damage or destroy it. It would be additionally unpleasant because Metaphoreus's argument suffers from the public relations problem of sounding more unreasonable than it actually is. In the end I think that Kennedy and/or Roberts will give way.
But I think the agitation on this topic is because we really don't know, do we?
eBay Huckster
Member
I'm saying I would find the argument for the plaintiffs' side in King and Halbig substantially more compelling without the amici curae from the aforementioned GOP senators (or the Cato Institute, for that matter - both inject a level of politicization that I'm not very comfortable with). I'm not sure if there are any recent high-profile cases where a group of Democratic senators have acted similarly, but I would similarly find that side less compelling - though to a lesser degree due to my preexisting political bias, I must admit.
I realize this is largely irrelevant to the legal arguments themselves, and I apologize if you were expecting something more substantiated.
(I also realize this is a bit of a backtrack from my initial post, but then I came on too strong there anyway.)
Yep. Especially to combat emerging GOP-friendly narratives like this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/does-obama-deserve-credit-for-economy-114107.html?hp=t3_r
PhoenixDark
Banned
I briefly glanced over the article, it seems to argue he deserves a lot of credit for saving the economy from implosion (stimulus especially).
Regardless it's very hard to take people seriously who just 3-4 years ago were arguing Obama's policies were destroying the economy. Obamacare went into effect last year and the economy actually improved over 2013. I'm not saying Obamacare improved the economy, just that it clearly did not destroy anything.
I didn't see many people outside of Dem circles with articles about how it's not ALL Obama's fault when things weren't going well. He took all the blame back then and should get ALL the credit now (kind of like Clinton does for the 90s boom).
I don't want to see any qualifiers because these same writers didn't give any in the recent past...
We almost cracked the 3 million mark, but just barely missed it. Ah well.
So...when are the job creators gonna start fleeing to Somalia again?
Black Mamba
Member
When the revision come late in the year (due to taxes), I bet it will cross 3 million.
PhoenixDark
Banned
We'll see. Typically presidents get the credit for economic growth/collapse, regardless of whether they deserve it or not. Obama's numbers aren't rising because people suddenly support his policies - they're rising because the economy is getting better, and there hasn't been a recent international disaster for the WH to fuck up a response to. Gas is cheap, businesses are hiring.
Also an improving economy makes it even harder for republicans to shut down the government.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Brokered convention, here we go!
TacticalFox88
Banned
Why is it that GOP like's to blame Obama for everything bad, but when the exact opposite happens of a situation he directly has no control over, he gets no credit whatsoever?
Like the Revisionist nonsense with Bin Laden. Trying to say "Oh, the SEALS got Osama, not Obama!"
"Really? So the SEALS deserve ALL the credit and not Obama?"
"Yeah!"
"So...by that logic...had the mission be a complete failure, you would blame the Navy Seals, right, since Obama had nothing to do with it?"
*silence*
Like the Revisionist nonsense with Bin Laden. Trying to say "Oh, the SEALS got Osama, not Obama!"
"Really? So the SEALS deserve ALL the credit and not Obama?"
"Yeah!"
"So...by that logic...had the mission be a complete failure, you would blame the Navy Seals, right, since Obama had nothing to do with it?"
*silence*
Jack Remington
Banned
Is this like how Wagner's music is better than it sounds? I don't understand what you mean by this.
Black Mamba
Member
Tweet him this on Texas so called businesses boom. Texas is about to get a very rude awakening with the drop in oil prices. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma..._the_texas_miracle_that_is049289.php?page=all
Wouldn't be shocking if Texas has a recession while most of the rest of the nation enters a decent expansion.
eBay Huckster
Member
If I'm reading that right: it sounds worse than it actually is (statutes should be enforced according to what they actually say), in large part because of the IRS using the rule for federal exchanges to begin with.
Cutting that loose is bad PR (and bad policy without plans for a legislative 'fix'), but possibly good legal practice.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked