• 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
After the speech, Carson said it's "ridiculous" to suggest he was likening American patriots to the Islamic State.
Click to expand...

Carson seems to have this annoying habit of making stupid comparisons and then getting mad at the media for pointing out he's making stupid comparisons.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Oblivion said:
Carson seems to have this annoying habit of making stupid comparisons and then getting mad at the media for pointing out he's making stupid comparisons.
Click to expand...

The GOP primary is going to be a magical time. We would be so lucky if he somehow made it to the general.
 
Rhomega Beta

Rhomega Beta

Member
thepotatoman said:
What is it with Ben Carson and political correctness? Why does it matter to him so much? Maybe he's just confused, and thinks he'd be immune from criticism if political correctness didn't exist.
Click to expand...

It's what conservatives have against political correctness. They feel it takes away their 1st Amendment rights just because 1 person got offended. You can't criticize Islam because it might incite violence. You can't criticize Obama, Michael Brown, or Trayvon Martin because that makes you a racist. See also: the War on Christmas.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wilsongt said:
*snort* Pfft hahahaha



You heard it here, folks. Americans are like Islamic extremists.
Click to expand...

I've read his statement three times and I honestly have no idea what he's trying to say.
 
A

adamsappel

Member
thepotatoman said:
Let me get this straight. He's asking americans to be inspired by ISIS's will to stand up for what they believe in, and to use that inspiration to fight against political correctness?

What is it with Ben Carson and political correctness? Why does it matter to him so much? Maybe he's just confused, and thinks he'd be immune from criticism if political correctness didn't exist.
Click to expand...
Speaking of being Politically Correct, Bill Mahar was run off the air for a similar statement. I doubt conservatives will hold Carson to the same standard.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Immigration has always exposed a huge rift in the republican party.

On one side, the we hate brown people team
On the other side, the we love large (farming) corporations and cheap labor

Whats more powerful, a hate for the poor, the brown, the foreign, or a love for free market, cheap labor, and donation money?

San Joaquin Valley Republican congressmen Jeff Denham and David Valadao are now at the forefront of challenging party orthodoxy on immigration, a dissident position that brings both promise and peril.

On Thursday, doubling down at a party retreat, Denham kept the spotlight on sharp disagreements over immigration control. The move came one day after Denham joined Valadao and some others in the GOP in opposing strict immigration measures pushed by party leaders.

“I think it’s going to be a renewed debate,” Denham said Thursday. “It will give us an opportunity to come together on some good reforms.”

Denham’s enhanced prominence was on display at the congressional Republican retreat in Hershey, Pa., where reporters surrounded the third-term lawmaker as he revealed plans for a closed-door, “open mic” discussion of immigration later in the day and MSNBC snagged him for a morning show.

Representing largely agricultural districts with significant Hispanic populations, Denham and Valadao have previously carved out distinctive immigration positions. Last Congress, Denham drew national media attention when he became the first Republican in the House of Representatives to co-sponsor a comprehensive immigration-overhaul bill.

Valadao followed suit. The Californians noted they were being attentive to their districts, where immigration crackdowns hit home. About 41% of the residents in Denham's Modesto-based district are Hispanic, while in Valadao's Hanford-based district that includes most of the Valley's west side, 72% of the residents are.

Democratic challengers sought last year to cast the Valley Republicans’ support for immigration restructuring as either weak or politically expedient.

With Republicans now controlling both House and Senate, the comprehensive immigration package, which offered a pathway to citizenship or legal residency, seems a long shot. Instead, this year’s immigration debate will emphasize border control, enforcement and fighting the Obama administration’s executive actions.

“There has (first) got to be a tremendous amount of trust restored among the American people,” said Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “There is not trust among the American people in the enforcement of our immigration laws.”

The Republican majority’s priorities and the roles to be played by party dissidents were apparent Wednesday when the House took up a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security. As part of the $39.7 billion bill, lawmakers added an amendment to eliminate funding for Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The program defers the deportation of young immigrants who were brought to this country as children.

As of last March, 183,000 California residents had applied for the program and hundreds of thousands more might be eligible, according to a Migration Policy Institute study.

Twenty-six Republicans, including Denham and Valadao, voted against the amendment to stop the deferred action program. On Thursday, Denham said Obama’s executive actions had created a difficult atmosphere on Capitol Hill, but said his own party had erred on both politics and policy.

“I think that sends the wrong message to the American public on what our overall reform ideas are,” Denham said.

Hard-line immigration views, some polls suggest, do continue to undermine Republican efforts to attract Hispanic votes. A Pew Research Center poll last October found that Hispanic registered voters were twice as likely to support a Democratic congressional candidate than a Republican candidate.

On the other hand, Republicans must also remain wary of antagonizing a conservative base that’s capable of putting up a primary challenger.

Denham and Valadao also voted Wednesday against several other related immigration amendments. On one measure to undo some of Obama’s executive actions providing temporary relief from deportation for about 5 million immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, the Californians were among only seven GOP lawmakers in opposition. They were among 10 House Republicans to vote against the final bill, which passed by 236-191.

“There were a number of members who understood that it was a political drill and because it was politics they were going to support it,” Denham said Thursday.

Valadao said he was “extremely disappointed” in the “political games” being played by both parties.

“I agree that the president should work with Congress instead of governing through executive orders,” Valadao said in a statement Thursday, “but Congress has also failed to present legislation which secures our borders, identifies who is here, provides the labor force our economy depends on and keeps families together.”

Denham added that “the American public has given us a very small window to show some leadership, and this is one of those key issues that we’ve got to show leadership on.”
Click to expand...

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/01/15...rnia-gop.html?sp=/99/217/&ihp=1#storylink=cpy
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
@Nate_Cohn
New CBS poll has better numbers for Obama's immigration plan than the Gallup/Pew polling in early Dec
Click to expand...

B7fFrnfIAAA7pTu.png


He postulates it could be wording.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Oblivion said:
Carson seems to have this annoying habit of making stupid comparisons and then getting mad at the media for pointing out he's making stupid comparisons.
Click to expand...

Carson blamed the "liberal media" for making him sound stupid. I don't think he needs the liberal media to do that for him. He does it just fine without it.
 
B

Baron_Calamity

Member
Wilsongt said:
Carson blamed the "liberal media" for making him sound stupid. I don't think he needs the liberal media to do that for him. He does it just fine without it.
Click to expand...

I hope he makes it to the Republican Primary debates. He is so going to self destruct on stage. Its going to be magical.
 
O

Owzers

Member
I'm sure the states that don't get a debate will be happy....

Nine doesn't seem like enough, but if they go through with their three extra unscheduled ones, twelve will be fine for my entertainment needs
 
O

OmniOne

Member
Prepare yourselves for the ACA Federal subsidies to go down and gay marriage for all.

The whiplash is going to make me nauseous.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
OmniOne said:
Prepare yourselves for the ACA Federal subsidies to go down and gay marriage for all.

The whiplash is going to make me nauseous.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. This does not bode well for ACA.

Plenty of fodder for the GOP primary.. You just know that their primary voters are going to be howling about this, which means we should be getting some juicy quotes from their candidates.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
OmniOne said:
Prepare yourselves for the ACA Federal subsidies to go down and gay marriage for all.

The whiplash is going to make me nauseous.
Click to expand...

I saw that joke, and while completely probable, I would also say that the SCOTUS was forced to take the gay marriage issue. It feels something that has to happen because of the circuit split versus, say, King.
 
O

OmniOne

Member
ivysaur12 said:
I saw that joke, and while completely probable, I would also say that the SCOTUS was forced to take the gay marriage issue. It feels something that has to happen because of the circuit split versus, say, King.
Click to expand...

This makes sense as well. I think the only way the subsidies survive is if Chief Justice John Roberts wants to get to the right decision like he went out of his way to uphold he law the first time it was before the court, using a better argument than our own Solicitor General.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
ivysaur12 said:
I saw that joke, and while completely probable, I would also say that the SCOTUS was forced to take the gay marriage issue. It feels something that has to happen because of the circuit split versus, say, King.
Click to expand...

I don't think the justices engage in that kind of horse-trading, though it'd be interesting if someone analyzed whether their opinions come out consistent with such a theory.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
I don't think the justices engage in that kind of horse-trading, though it'd be interesting if someone analyzed whether their opinions come out consistent with such a theory.
Click to expand...

I don't think so either. I think it's a very cynical (and sort of humorous) way of thinking, but probably doesn't reflect reality.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Metaphoreus said:
I don't think the justices engage in that kind of horse-trading, though it'd be interesting if someone analyzed whether their opinions come out consistent with such a theory.
Click to expand...

Hey, we finally agree.

Same Sex marriage bans will be struck down and the admin will win King v Burrell imo (and in fact, that one won't be 5-4).

Only interest to me in the same-sex case is if Roberts will join the majority. At this point, my guess is not so a 5-4 decision is very likely. Though, if they had any kind of ability to put intelligence over principle, it would be 9-0 so to avoid controversy. But lol @ that notion.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Oblivion said:
Carson seems to have this annoying habit of making stupid comparisons and then getting mad at the media for pointing out he's making stupid comparisons.
Click to expand...

I just hope Ben Carson doesn't flame out before even joining the race. He has got to be in some debates. He's gonna bring the crazy.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/16/give-brats-a-chance/

The coming race for Barbara Boxer’s California Senate seat could be a fabulous free for all — maybe not the 150 candidate gubernatorial recall extravaganza eventually won by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003, but still exciting: Dozens of ambitious citizens slugging it out in a “jungle primary,” with the top two vote-getters then facing off in November, 2016. Villaraigosa, Becerra, Tauscher, Speier, Sanchez, Schiff, Bass, Swearengin, K. Johnson. And those are just some of the insiders who might run, not the outsiders (Rob Lowe! Go!).

Fun, fun fun. Unless, of course, reporters decide — as they already seem to be deciding — that state Attorney General Kamala Harris and billionaire Tom Steyer are the only candidates with a chance, and therefore the only candidates worth covering. (Steyer is ‘viable,’ in part, because he managed to waste millions failing to elect green candidates in 2014.) Thus L.A. Times veteran political writer Mark Z. Barabak tweets
For all the predictions of crowded US Senate field in California, most likely 2, 3 viable contenders, max. Rest oddities/sideshow.
Click to expand...

Journalists love to publicly complain about the influence of money in politics — it’s one of those safe causes that doesn’t compromise your objectivity. But when it comes time to campaign, journalists do the donors dirty work for them by refusing to cover candidates’ who aren’t backed by lots of money. Those candidates are deemed “non-viable” oddities and not worth telling voters about.

There’s no excuse for this: 1) It’s a self-fulfilling prediction. Of course fringe or underfunded candidates won’t be ‘viable’ if they can’t get press (“free media”) to catch the voters’ attention;. 2) Even if long-shot candidates stay on the fringe, covering them would have entertainment value. Newspapers cover obscure TV stars these days. Political candidates are often — I’d say, usually — more colorful than actors. The premature winnowing by self-satisfied journalistic pros drains democracy of much of its exuberance, presenting voters with a sharply limited array of options. No wonder they feel alienated. Then the pros scold them for low turnout.

I was a non-viable candidate once — in 2010, I got my 65 signatures and ran against Boxer. What the hell. But there was a third candidate in the race, a man named Brian Quintana. A year earlier, when he was just a private citizen, the LAT had actually deemed him newsworthy enough to publish a full length take down. But when he actually ran for office — well, then suddenly he apparently wasn’t interesting enough to cover at all. The Times wouldn’t want to waste readers’ time by writing about him. (He still beat me, finishing 2d.)

It’s tempting to think journalists’, or at least their egos, actively relish their role as the gatekeepers between ambitious would-be pols and the uninformed voters. After all, what smart, plugged-in reporter would want to spend his time covering a longshot “oddity” candidate the reporter knows doesn’t have a prayer? If journalists have some sort of duty to cover everyone — well, that would put the candidates in charge, not the reporters. Can’t have that. We’re not their PR men!

But why don’t reporters exercise their egos by promoting the obscure candidates they like, giving their events and speeches extra play, trying to “break” them the way ambitious DJs try to “break” struggling singers (or the way Time magazine promoted Wendell Willkie)? Reporters could be self-appointed kingmakers.. It might not be fair — if the LAT reporter didn’t take a liking to you, you’d be sunk. But a blatantly ‘kingmaking’ press culture would still be better than the current brutal, clinical triage. At least there’d be a decent chance for an underfunded lightning strike with the electorate.

In effect, the ‘viable’ candidates would be a) whoever is deemed ‘viable’ under current criteria and b) whomever the major reporters decide to push. (A) + (B) beats just (A).

Dave Brat was once a longshot “oddity,” remember. Now he’s in Congress and Eric Cantor, whom he beat, is fighting to get linked on RealClearPolitics. There may be other Dave Brats out there, on the left and the right — if only journalists would give them a chance.**

__________

** David Drucker, Washington Examiner‘s excellent political reporter, says “I’m all for sideshows if they actually have a base of support (ie. voters) and the money & resources to back it up.” And how do they get that base of support without coverage? Drucker tweets that longshot candidates “who catch fire do so regardless of press – especially cuz of Internet.” Hmm. Mighty convenient to have the internet out there to do the tedious work (publicizing the unpublicized) that journalist won’t do! But of course the argument is too neat: there will be plenty of candidates who won’t ‘catch fire’ on the internet but who might catch fire if the print and broadcast press covered their campaign stunts.
Click to expand...
Based Kaus.
 
T

teiresias

Member
Black Mamba said:
Hey, we finally agree.

Same Sex marriage bans will be struck down and the admin will win King v Burrell imo (and in fact, that one won't be 5-4).

Only interest to me in the same-sex case is if Roberts will join the majority. At this point, my guess is not so a 5-4 decision is very likely. Though, if they had any kind of ability to put intelligence over principle, it would be 9-0 so to avoid controversy. But lol @ that notion.
Click to expand...

I just relish how damn moronic and idiotic the dissenters in the SSM case are going to look to history (and by history I mean maybe even within a decade - at least for those not living in the backward states).
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
Surprised Mitt is doing so much better than Jeb but that's most likely due to name recognition.

That six point lead probably won't change.
 
L

Lucky Forward

Member
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