• 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.
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Reince Prebius and his Republican soldiers are hypocrites. So much "diversity" in candidates and yet you will possibly nominate another BUSH again. How is Hillary old news when Jeb and his family is old news too. SO much for fresh face.

The only time they have won in recent years was when either a bush or nixon was on the ticket going back to 1928.

52, 56, 68, 72, 80, 84, 88, 00, 04
Nixon, Nixon, Nixon, Nixon, Bush , Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush,

Nixon & Bush Respectively as VPs to Eisenhower & Reagan.

Exception 60, 92 etc
Nixon, Bush loss

The Clinton name has only been on the National Ballot TWICE.

Nixon and Bush: 11
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Reince Prebius and his Republican soldiers are hypocrites. So much "diversity" in candidates and yet you will possibly nominate another BUSH again. How is Hillary old news when Jeb and his family is old news too. SO much for fresh face.
Click to expand...
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
benjipwns said:
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Click to expand...
I also support a high estate tax.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Here's your daily dose of stupid for the day:

Grace Brewer says she never thought she would be without health insurance at this stage of her life. "I'm a casualty of Obamacare," says Brewer, 60, a self-employed chiropractor in the Kansas City, Kansas, area.

She wanted to keep the catastrophic health insurance plan she once had, which she says fit her needs. But under the Affordable Care Act, the government's health care reform law, the plan was discontinued because it did not comply with the law's requirements, and her bills doubled to more than $400 a month. "I wanted a minimal plan and I’m not allowed to have it," she says. "That seems like an encroachment on my freedom."
Click to expand...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/am...efusing-health-insurance-subsidies/ar-AA84U2U

Plenty more idiocy at the link.

Fine, asshats. More money for people who actually deserve subsidies.
 
Joe Molotov

Joe Molotov

Member
“It’s almost a philosophical or political statement,” says Gerry Wedig, a professor at the University of Rochester's Simon Business School.

Oh, for real?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Romney at the RNC reception tonight:

Romney said:
We haven’t seen rising incomes in over decades

It’s a tragedy, a human tragedy, that the middle class doesn’t believe the future will be brighter than the past.

We’re an abundant nation. We have the resources and the capacity…to lift people out of poverty

Under president Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality is getting worse
Click to expand...

Who is this guy, and what has he done with all those other Romneys?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Jeb Bush's camp has to be laughing. I don't buy the idea that they're shook over this dude, especially after tonight. It's not just about money. Romney is a horrible candidate when faced with legitimate competition.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Jeb Bush's camp has to be laughing. I don't buy the idea that they're shook over this dude, especially after tonight. It's not just about money. Romney is a horrible candidate when faced with legitimate competition.
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm still betting that the big money and organizing will line-up behind Jeb in an attempt to just overwhelm his way to the nomination. Romney (like Christie's) presence in the race isn't going to change this much, although if this pisses off 1 or 2% of their base, it really really hurts in the general.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
One more point and we get the House back

YEAH
Click to expand...
Could you imagine the meltdowns?

Hillary - the embodiment of all that they hate about the Democrats - the evil/feminist/power-hungry/murderous/secretly-lesbian Wicked Witch - sitting atop a totally Democratic federal government.

Kennedy & Scalia, both just having turned 80 years old that year..

Losing yet another presidential election (that'd be two popular vote victories in the three decades since Reagan)?

That's some conservative nightmare fuel there.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
Best case scenario for the Senate is a reversal of 2014's results which when you look on the bright side now that all the red state Democrats are purged means that the Democratic caucus in the Senate will be more left wing. Expect more calls for filibuster reform if the Dems have the House and a 55-56 Senate majority.

But the most important thing will be SCOTUS, 2016 presents a pivotal moment for the left. Even if a moderate like Hillary gets elected it still means we can finally go on the offensive after all these years with a favorible court system.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
thepotatoman said:
Romney at the RNC reception tonight:

Romney

We haven’t seen rising incomes in over decades

It’s a tragedy, a human tragedy, that the middle class doesn’t believe the future will be brighter than the past.

We’re an abundant nation. We have the resources and the capacity…to lift people out of poverty

Under president Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality is getting worse
Click to expand...

Who is this guy, and what has he done with all those other Romneys?
Click to expand...

Fucking amazing. There is no self-awareness. This is literally from a man that bought companies, fired everyone, and then offered to hire people back at lower wages or without benefits.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Metaphoreus said:
wut
Click to expand...

When it comes to the issue of civil rights of this magnitude, I wish guys like Scalia would join the majority even if they disagree. "I lost this case but if we have to allow it, I think it makes sense to stand in unanimity in favor of it."

A unanimous ruling in favor of same-sex marriage would be culturally significant in positive way whereas a 5-4 ruling is divisive and creates more problems.

Imagine how much harder Brown v BoE would have been in application if it was 5-4 rather than unanimous, for example?

Obviously this opens up questions but I feel like at rare times it should be done. Just saying I wish they'd take the intelligent step of solidarity rather than standing up for principle (and yes, I'm aware that's against the whole concept of the SCOTUS but exceptions can be made!)

In other words, put country over position in this type of circumstance.


Also, lol @ Romney. Maybe he should adopts increasing taxes on capital gains, next. This guy will say anything to get elected.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
HylianTom said:
Could you imagine the meltdowns?

Hillary - the embodiment of all that they hate about the Democrats - the evil/feminist/power-hungry/murderous/secretly-lesbian Wicked Witch - sitting atop a totally Democratic federal government.

Kennedy & Scalia, both just having turned 80 years old that year..

Losing yet another presidential election (that'd be two popular vote victories in the three decades since Reagan)?

That's some conservative nightmare fuel there.
Click to expand...

I don't see how a republican hawk in the white house would upset them
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
WayneMorse said:
Best case scenario for the Senate is a reversal of 2014's results which when you look on the bright side now that all the red state Democrats are purged means that the Democratic caucus in the Senate will be more left wing. Expect more calls for filibuster reform if the Dems have the House and a 55-56 Senate majority.

But the most important thing will be SCOTUS, 2016 presents a pivotal moment for the left. Even if a moderate like Hillary gets elected it still means we can finally go on the offensive after all these years with a favorible court system.
Click to expand...

Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester and McCaskill say hi. x)
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
eBay Huckster said:
I'd prefer that it look like 1964-65, personally
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, a major tax cut of 20+%, deregulating life insurance, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

But who can forget the real legacy of the 88th Congress:
Temporary Suspension of Duty on Certain Shoe Lathes
Free Importation of Instant Coffee
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
thepotatoman said:
Romney at the RNC reception tonight:



Who is this guy, and what has he done with all those other Romneys?
Click to expand...

I was wrong. While I don't think they are exclusively the cause they and other protest movements have done what other movements have done. Changed the narrative and environment politicans work in.

Nobody in the wider area was talking about this pre-2010 besides John Edwards

Edit: also Watch_dogs is pretty generic and mediocre. They could have done so much with that setting
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
benjipwns said:
Ah, yes, a major tax cut of 20+%, deregulating life insurance, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

But who can forget the real legacy of the 88th Congress:
Temporary Suspension of Duty on Certain Shoe Lathes
Free Importation of Instant Coffee
Click to expand...

I can see the Democrats' slogan now: "We need to step back 50 years."
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
benjipwns said:
Ah, yes, a major tax cut of 20+%, deregulating life insurance, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

But who can forget the real legacy of the 88th Congress:
Temporary Suspension of Duty on Certain Shoe Lathes
Free Importation of Instant Coffee
Click to expand...

And this is why you're my favorite poster.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
benjipwns said:
*gasp* new 68 page report finds political bias at MSNBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_CCqqpq3wA
Click to expand...

How did you find this unlisted video? lol

benjipwns said:
Ah, yes, a major tax cut of 20+%, deregulating life insurance, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

But who can forget the real legacy of the 88th Congress:
Temporary Suspension of Duty on Certain Shoe Lathes
Free Importation of Instant Coffee
Click to expand...

There needs to be a ban in this. Its not coffee and possibly a crime against humanity. How europeans use this crap I will never understand
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
How did you find this unlisted video? lol
Click to expand...
Went to Truth Revolt to see if they had SC gay marriage case comments, this was a top story: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/report-exposes-political-bias-comcast-owned-nbc-msnbc-news

Ben Shapiro is the modern uber conservative. He is simply the greatest. Wrote a book at age 21 touting his own virginity as a defense against the left's agenda. Truth Revolt has streams of amazing content and even better comments.

Shapiro on DOMA decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LULWok7CHM

51h29QSthrL.jpg

Awesome Interview promoting the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YezvbjwwWlA

22257312.jpg

http://www.truthrevolt.org/system/files/field/ebook_pdf/how_to_debate_leftists_and_destroy_them.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/03/this-pundits-10-rules-for-right-wing-fight-club/198315
Rule #1: "Walk Toward the Fire." According to Shapiro, conservatives must learn to "embrace the fight" and know that they will be attacked, because this is war. His advice is simple: "You have to take the punch, you have to brush it off. You have to be willing to take the punch."

Rule #2: "Hit First. Don't take the punch first." Rule number two is: ignore rule number one, if their punch is coming first. Hit first, then brush it off. Just like Gandhi always said.

Rule #3: "Frame Your Opponent." Your leftist opponent will, according to Shapiro, call you a racist and a sexist, so in response call them a "liar and a hater." This third rule is described as "the vital first step. It is the only first step." That's why it comes third.

Rule #3: "Frame the debate." This is the second Rule #3, but who's counting?
Click to expand...

41xL1m3tPQL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Shapiro: Well actually under RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] standing is significantly less of a problem. So you just have to find somebody who is damaged by the criminal conspiracy. So for example, let’s take a couple very practical examples. Can the family of Brian Terry sue the Obama administration for Brian Terry’s death in Fast and Furious? Right now, the answer is basically no, because suing the executive branch is considered unpalatable, and under RICO law it’s questionable as to how high up the chain you can sue. What I propose is changing the RICO law so that you could sue the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States and you wouldn’t have to have direct – what RICO requires is criminal enterprise – meaning everybody has to have the same goal, and everybody has to have participated in the creation of this enterprise towards that goal. That’s a very different standard from, “There has to be a direct piece of paper from President Obama to Eric Holder, and one from Eric Holder to the folks pushing Fast and Furious saying, “You will smuggle these weapons across the border in violation of American law.”

So RICO is significantly broader. It was designed to go after the Mafia, specifically in cases where the Mafia did have plausible deniability. So in that case, clearly Brian Terry’s family has standing, they would be able to sue in what I propose in a RICO case against the Obama administration, and they would be able to win damages against individual officers of the United States.

Same thing would happen with regard to the four folks who died in Benghazi. Their families could sue the Obama administration for negligent homicide for example if RICO was broadened to include negligent homicide which it should be…or violations of the Arms Export Control Act, which is what I have suggested also happened in Benghazi.

The finding of standing is actually not that difficult in most scandals because most scandals actually damage somebody. So my friend Jeremy Boreing from Friends of Abe should be able to sue the Obama administration under RICO for violations of IRS law. That’s what I’m proposing.
Click to expand...
Shapiro: The most obvious criminal case in terms of a RICO violation would probably be the IRS scandal. I mean the IRS scandal – it’s so obvious what happened there where President Obama went out and he did exactly what a Mafia boss would do. He went out and said, “Oh, wouldn’t it be great if somebody knocked over this bank?” And then one of his low level guys goes and knocks over a bank…I mean shocker. President Obama repeatedly kept saying over and over that Tea Party groups were the death of the American political system, that the exploitation of 501(c)(4) status had destroyed the American political system, and that we had to take action against these groups. And then a bunch of his friends in the Senate sent letters to the IRS saying “It’d be great if you’d take an extra look at these Tea Party groups.” The IRS begins coordinating with the FBI on all of these groups, and suddenly low-level staffers have gotten it in their heads that it would be a wonderful thing to start checking out 501(c)(4) groups. So is all of this a giant coincidence, or is it more of a criminal enterprise?

That’s a textbook example of where RICO would work beautifully, because what RICO does is basically establish that there’s a criminal enterprise with a common goal, and they take overt action toward that common goal, which is exactly what happened here. So that’s probably the best case that would be easiest to prosecute if you actually had a DOJ that wanted to, against the Obama administration. But I mean the book is replete with examples of Obama administration criminality.

Another obvious one: President Obama smuggling arms into Libya and Syria. This is in direct violation of the Arms Export Control Act. You don’t get to smuggle arms to terrorist groups in violation of law without notifying Congress. And the president basically admitted guilt on that. In September 2013, after he smuggled a bunch of American weapons through American sources in Qatar and in Libya to Syria, in September 2013 he waives the applicable provisions of the Arms Export control act. Now the President of the United States could have done that a long time ago. He could have just said, “Look, I’m putting arms in there, and I’m waiving provisions of the Arms Export Control Act.” The president has the power to do that under the Act. He didn’t bother to do that because he didn’t want anybody to know he was doing it. In fact, the administration repeatedly denied, or they were at the least very unclear about whether we were in effect smuggling weaponry into Syria, or smuggling weaponry into Libya. And so that’s another case where the president obviously violated the law.
Click to expand...
He also argues that Obama's Egypt speech early in his term or whatever directly led to Benghazi and the Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc. civil wars.
 
T

Third Strike

Member
Apparently, Rand Paul is nostalgic about the Lochner era of the Supreme Court, and wants it back.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/17/7628543/rand-paul-lochner

As Rand Paul moves closer to a presidential run, you might expect he'd be trying to downplay his more unconventional libertarian positions. Instead, he's making them clearer than ever.

In a speech this week, Paul voiced his support for an infamous and long-obsolete Supreme Court ruling asserting that "liberty to contract" was a fundamental Constitutional right — a case, Lochner v. New York, that lent its name to one of the most controversial periods of the Court's history.

...

But Paul believes the Lochner justices had it right. He's previously called it "a wonderful decision," and in his speech at a Heritage Action policy summit last Tuesday, he again praised the ruling as a key example of when judges should step in to strike down government laws or regulations. "I'm a judicial activist when it comes to Lochner," Paul said.

The full legal implications of Paul's position aren't clear, and his office didn't respond to requests for comment. But it's apparent that Paul's unafraid to embrace a provocative position — in a way that might make the libertarian faithful cheer him on, but could open him up to criticism. "It's a return to the playbook of the early 20th century, and an attack on the progressive movement," says Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar.
Click to expand...

I guess this isn't surprising, considering that era would have been a libertarian wet-dream.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
How can we stop David Vitter from becoming Governor of Louisiana?

The people of Louisiana can not suffer another eight years of Jindal policy.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Does he really think people will buy a populist message from him? Maybe it's just a cynical ploy to neutralize the issue in a race against Hillary; both are rich, both are "out of touch," etc so maybe he could at least take the issue off the table. But that assumes he'll even get the nomination - he won't.

Nor does his "I told you so" foreign policy carry much weight when you consider Russia is currently near complete economic collapse and ISIS news has disappeared from the media.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Why cant the south get governors like this?

They have to be the ultra conservative ones every time. x(

Its an endless conservative cycle. The South, you seem to never change or want to change.
Click to expand...
Aside from race, Southern governors were some of the biggest Populist/Progressives for a long time because of the patronage and machine politics.

I think Huey Long being assassinated might have had something to do with the change.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Why cant the south get governors like this?

They have to be the ultra conservative ones every time. x(

Its an endless conservative cycle. The South, you seem to never change or want to change.
Click to expand...
Because Republicans may be terrible but at least they're not deviant hellians like the Democrats!

Alright let's get David Vitter in there.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Three more days left for Corbett to gerrymander our EV's ;-)

I am SO glad that Corbett is on his way out. There is at least some icing on this otherwise shit-filled 2014 elections cake that is my state bucking the trend and electing a Democrat as Governor.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
benjipwns said:
Aside from race, Southern governors were some of the biggest Populist/Progressives for a long time because of the patronage and machine politics.

I think Huey Long being assassinated might have had something to do with the change.
Click to expand...

FDR was certainly populist progressive at the time, as the leader of a party of still confederate heavy democrats.

It's more that after the civil rights act and the southern strategy started, race and progressive policies became linked. Now you can't say "redistribution" without people implicitly putting "for black people" at the end.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
benjipwns said:
I highly doubt there were many Confederates left by the 1930s. Let alone enough to be powers in the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...


so is the south destined to stay conservative and elect conservative republicans just as they did democrats 100+ years ago?

viceversa with the northeast except replace NE liberal Republicans of 100+ years ago with Democrats of today.

Can a Virginia happen in LA, AR, AL, MS, GA, etc like whats happened in NC, FL and VA over the years?
 
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