• 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.

NeoXChaos

Member
Madigan is running for governor in 2018. Bustos will still run, but I'm assuming that something will happen between now and the primary where either Bustos or Duckworth steps out. And Duckworth has a bigger national profile and probably would be a better fundraiser.

I don't think Mark Kirk is an easy win compared to, say, Ron Johnson, who has done absolutely nothing to moderate himself since his election. And there hasn't been any polling done yet form a reputable 3rd party. I don't think Duckworth is necessarily worse than Bustos or anyone else running as far as a candidate.


Madigan keeps on passing on winnable races. She would be Governor Madigan if she challenged Quinn last year. Should have run last year when she had the chance. Heck, she would be senator Madigan if she ran in 2010 against kirk.

She better hope her father's going to retire by 2018 so their relationship wont be a problem when she runs. She doesn't even know if she can even beat Rauner in 2018.

"I feel strongly that the state would not be well served by having a Governor and Speaker of the House from the same family and have never planned to run for Governor if that would be the case. With Speaker Madigan planning to continue in office, I will not run for Governor."
 
I think Duckworth is probably the strongest candidate to face Kirk. She has a perfect biography for a politician, and she's progressive enough while not too far left for a statewide race.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
lol Republicans:

When asked whether they support raising the tax rate on personal income above $1 million annually, 36 percent of Republicans supported the plan and 47 percent of Republicans were opposed. The rest were undecided.

But when asked whether they supported raising the personal income tax on those earning $1 million a year to 50 percent, "the same rate taxed under President Reagan," Republicans shifted their support, with 53 percent supporting and 33 opposing.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/229918-poll-gop-split-over-taxing-the-wealthy
 

Trouble

Banned
It's all about that branding power.

Bams should totally trick the Republicans with this knowledge.

dvuv2ZE.jpg
 

benjipwns

Banned
Look, there are all sorts of interesting sociological aspects that can be analyzed and discussed.

But as far as politics go, the only thing that matters is the outcome of elections.
PoliGAF in a nutshell.

Literally, months after the 1964 Civil Rights Act the South did a 180.
...
And a century of support for the Democratic Party at the Presidential level was erased overnight.
Democrats won the popular vote in the Confederacy in 1964. (And number of states 6-5.) Literally, months after the 1964 Civil Rights Act voted for the guy who pushed it to passage and then signed it.

What you don't get is that the South supported FDR and JFK because they had no problems with government programs and social safety nets. For the same reason they don't have a problem with Medicare and Social Security Today.
Okay, so they supported five civil rights supporters from 1944-1960 because of government programs, but then when faced with one Civil Rights Act they voted for the guy who enacted it in the legacy of the last guy they voted for and then realized their mistake and decided to never vote for government programs again because the last guy pulled a fast one on 'em. Then in the next election gave a majority of their vote to two civil rights supporters over George Wallace.

Then they voted for government programs for the rest of history.

citizens united gimmicks.
First Amendment protections a gimmick, the new "liberal" position.

This^^. Even chuck todd on MTP yesterday said it was the reason.
OH! WELL, if Chuck Todd said it!
 

benjipwns

Banned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ViUWVFXflA
To mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal invited Carson to talk about the legacy of the Civil Rights movement.

One of the callers said that he had seen Carson on Fox News, and had decided that the former neurosurgeon “should have been the first black president.”

“You embody what MLK wanted for the black community,” the caller insisted. “If you run for president, I’ll spread the word for people to vote for you.”

After thanking the caller, Carson explained that Obama had not spoiled a chance at the presidency for future black candidates.

“People say there probably won’t be another black president in our lifetime because of all the things that have happened under the first one,” he noted. “But my answer to that is, isn’t he half white?”

“So, that means we’re not going to have another white president either. That’s kind of a stupid argument.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/229936-gop-finds-its-secret-weapon
Republicans believe they have identified a potent weapon in their fight against President Obama’s regulatory agenda.

GOP lawmakers plan to employ the seldom-used Congressional Review Act (CRA), which gives lawmakers the power to formally disapprove of major agency rules, as they seek to ratchet up their attacks on federal red tape.

"It hasn’t been possible to use this in a divided Congress,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told The Hill, "but now that it is, we certainly are interested in reviewing regulations to make sure they meet with congressional intent.”

...

While Obama can and likely will veto any efforts to undo regulations through the CRA, the threats carry more weight now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (Okla.) and other Republicans are zeroing in on the EPA, believing they can use the Review Act against rules for new and existing power plants, water, ozone and coal ash.

“There is widespread agreement among Republicans and the business community that the EPA under the Obama administration is out of control and it’s taking things to the extreme,” a senior aide to Inhofe said.

"The CRA has been used sparingly in the past and some folks may say it’s too aggressive, but frankly the aggressive nature of this administration's regulations demands an aggressive response."

Lawmakers have only struck down one rule under the Congressional Review Act in 43 attempts, according to the Government Accountability Office. In 2001, Republicans repealed the Clinton administration's controversial ergonomics rule aimed at curbing workplace injuries.

The window for action under the CRA is short; the law can only be used against a regulation in the first 60 days after it is enacted. But the disapproval resolutions cannot be filibustered, which means Republicans would only need a simple majority in both chambers to pass them.

It is unlikely, however, that Republicans would be able to muster enough Democratic votes to override an Obama veto of any measure striking down major regulations.

“It’s an exercise in futility for Republicans, because the way the CRA works is Congress has to pass it, but then it has to be signed into law by the president, and it’s very unlikely the president would sign off on this," said James Goodwin, senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center for Progressive Reform.

...

But Republicans believe that forcing Obama to stand behind his "job-killing" regulations will sour voters on his message and turn the political tides in their favor.

"This shows that Congress is really legislating, and it’s President Obama and some of his allies in Congress that are getting in the way,” an aide to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told The Hill.

"It’s going to demonstrate to the American people that it’s President Obama standing in the way of our good ideas, and not the other way around."

...

If nothing else, using the Congressional Review Act will put Democrats on record as to whether they stand with the president on certain policies.

“The desire of Democrats to distance themselves from the president is only beginning to grow,” the senior Inhofe aide said. “One of the best ways they can distance themselves is by voting to overturn bad regulations.”
 

FyreWulff

Member
It's still so fucking sad to see the Republicans against the EPA when they fucking created it.

I've seen people go so far as to say it doesn't count because "Nixon wasn't a real Republican"

sigh
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'd like to see a serious reform of the administrative state. Ideally, no rule could become effective until OK'd by Congress--or hell, at least a subcommittee! This makes the process more transparent and more accountable.

It'll never happen, but it's nice to dream.
The APA and administrative law is a mess. The process for it makes being black around cops look fun.
 
I'd like to see a serious reform of the administrative state. Ideally, no rule could become effective until OK'd by Congress--or hell, at least a subcommittee! This makes the process more transparent and more accountable.

It'll never happen, but it's nice to dream.

Congress created the "administrative state," as you call it, to write, approve, and implement rules precisely because they are incapable of doing so themselves.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Congress created the "administrative state," as you call it, to write, approve, and implement rules precisely because they are incapable of doing so themselves.
Congress should not be delegating the legislative process to the executive branch. It's undemocratic and makes complying with the law borderline impossible in some instances because you violate one rule if you comply with another.
 
You're going to have a bunch of legislators who mostly have law backgrounds coming up with the minute details of rules that require subject matter expertise?
 

benjipwns

Banned
That's the current system.

Regulatory law is a lot like journalism, if you actually do know anything about the subject matter you can't help but see the nonsense in the article/rule.
 
That's the current system.

Regulatory law is a lot like journalism, if you actually do know anything about the subject matter you can't help but see the nonsense in the article/rule.

I'm sorry but as someone who works as a state government lawyer and who deals with the administrative process on a daily basis, that is a ridiculous statement. I want legislators nowhere near writing rules. There should be less politics in rule making, not more.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
You're going to have a bunch of legislators who mostly have law backgrounds coming up with the minute details of rules that require subject matter expertise?

No, I actually like the idea of having subject-matter experts in administrative agencies developing the rules. But I'd like to see Congress enact those rules, putting their own necks on the line to impose the rules on the nation.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'm sorry but as someone who works as a state government lawyer and who deals with the administrative process on a daily basis
Sounds like you're who Jack Remington doesn't want making regulations.

that is a ridiculous statement.
So, the people you work with are, say...an expert on relative production load on a power grid based on the location of two plants and their design? Or when a patient should receive out patient surgery or long term monitoring with medicine instead? Or how eligibility of mortgages is best determined? Or what the proper height for door handles is?

Or are they GS-7's who have never worked in the industry they write rules for?

There should be less politics in rule making, not more.
There is nothing but politics in rule making.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Sounds like you're who Jack Remington doesn't want making regulations.


So, the people you work with are, say...an expert on relative production load on a power grid based on the location of two plants and their design? Or when a patient should receive out patient surgery or long term monitoring with medicine instead? Or how eligibility of mortgages is best determined? Or what the proper height for door handles is?

Or are they GS-7's who have never worked in the industry they write rules for?


There is nothing but politics in rule making.

And people say I'm fisky?
 

benjipwns

Banned
What are you adding on to?
What people? Where? When?
I think you mean "write" unless they're using talk to text.
And now you seem to think this subject needs to be about you rather than the horrors of administrative law like their kangaroo courts.
Sometimes it's necessary to split up aspects of a post so as to address what are separate topics and people who complain shouldn't because nobody is going to read it anyway.
 
So, the people you work with are, say...an expert on relative production load on a power grid based on the location of two plants and their design? Or when a patient should receive out patient surgery or long term monitoring with medicine instead? Or how eligibility of mortgages is best determined? Or what the proper height for door handles is?

Or are they GS-7's who have never worked in the industry they write rules for?

This line of thinking that is troted out is inherently anti-democratic. It says only experts can make decisions which is the antithesis of democratic governance that says everybodys voice in a polity can help decide where we go. Its a pseudo-authoritarian argument as well since it seems to say don't question those above you or that have a piece of paper that says you know more.

Its also ironically party of the kind of government benji's philosophy is supposed to hate, Its a kind of technocratic fascism .
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
This line of thinking that is troted out is inherently anti-democratic. It says only experts can make decisions which is the antithesis of democratic governance that says everybodys voice in a polity can help decide where we go. Its a pseudo-authoritarian argument as well since it seems to say don't question those above you or that have a piece of paper that says you know more.

Its also ironically party of the kind of government benji's philosophy is supposed to hate, Its a kind of technocratic fascism .

That's a weird reaction. benjipwns' point is to question to what extent agencies with rule-making power--mini-legislatures that are supposedly better suited to legislating than Congress by virtue of their expertise--are in fact experts in their respective fields. Administrative law is incredibly anti-democratic whether agencies are run by experts or not, but if they're not run by experts, then the whole reason for their existence is called into question.
 

benjipwns

Banned
This line of thinking that is troted out is inherently anti-democratic. It says only experts can make decisions which is the antithesis of democratic governance that says everybodys voice in a polity can help decide where we go. Its a pseudo-authoritarian argument as well since it seems to say don't question those above you or that have a piece of paper that says you know more.

Its also ironically party of the kind of government benji's philosophy is supposed to hate, Its a kind of technocratic fascism .
You should have read the whole exchange buster.

Someone argued for the administrative state staffed by subject matter experts rather than elected Congressman, while I agree Congress is staffed by morons, I questioned the reality of these supposed experts actually doing any rule making.

The bureaucratic administrative state is what's inherently anti-democratic and anti-liberal. Especially considering it has not only legislative making powers but a separate "court" system. The APA is pretty much designed this way on purpose. Congress passes the buck so they're blameless, everyone gets to rail against the faceless bureaucrat and then it's forgotten about unless it's so bad it has to be changed. And then nobody pays attention to what the change is. And it's effectively unaccountable because it outlasts any political appointees. And if you actually try to fight through the administrative "courts" god help you.

EDIT: Or what he said.
 
That's a weird reaction. benjipwns' point is to question to what extent agencies with rule-making power--mini-legislatures that are supposedly better suited to legislating than Congress by virtue of their expertise--are in fact experts in their respective fields. Administrative law is incredibly anti-democratic whether agencies are run by experts or not, but if they're not run by experts, then the whole reason for their existence is called into question.

Well, as long as the conservative and libertarian definition of expert is "person who worked in the industry who just coincidentally believes that any regulation of that industry in harmful," I'll stick with the government employee.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Well, as long as the conservative and libertarian definition of expert is "person who worked in the industry who just coincidentally believes that any regulation of that industry in harmful," I'll stick with the government employee.

No, I think "expert" here is used in the ordinary sense of the word. It so happens that experience in an industry will tend to make one an expert on it, but it really doesn't matter how a person became an expert, so long as the person is, in fact, an expert. Otherwise, as I said, the whole thing's a farce that serves only to wash Congress' hands of the consequences of government action.
 

benjipwns

Banned
If there was an agency tasked with regulating astrophysics (and for all I know there is) and Neil deGrasse Tyson worked there writing rules, I would consider that expert rule making.

If the person writing the rules though has a MPA as their terminal degree but they watched Jack Horkheimer's Star Hustler every week growing up, I would not consider that expert rule making even if they had spent the last 15 years working for the government.

I would expect such an agency to be staffed far more with the latter than the former.
 

benjipwns

Banned
She's told that story a number of times. She was upset the show was becoming all Kirk and Spock and was going to leave, but MLK convinced her of the power of just a regular black character and one vital to the ship being on such a popular show that he also personally enjoyed.

And then anytime she would get sorta upset about stuff with the show Gene would throw MLK telling her she had to do it back at her lol

If you didn't already know, Gene Roddenberry was kind of a dick
 

benjipwns

Banned
President Obama Job Approval
ABC News/Wash Post Approve 47, Disapprove 48
Disapprove +1
Reuters/Ipsos Approve 37, Disapprove 55
Disapprove +18
Rasmussen Reports Approve 49, Disapprove 50
Disapprove +1
Pew Research Approve 47, Disapprove 48
Disapprove +1
CBS News Approve 46, Disapprove 46
Tie
One of these things is not like the other.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Oh god, maybe this is worth a thread rather than a triple post:
MYRTLE BEACH — Businessman Donald Trump said he is giving “serious thought” to running for president in 2016 and that he thinks he would be the best person for the job.

Trump spent most of his 30-minute keynote speech at the S.C. Tea Party Coalition Convention held at Springmaid Beach Resort on Monday afternoon saying that he is the best person to lead the country.

He told a room of about 800 people that he stands apart from others who have been mentioned as potential candidates for president.

“I can get things done,” he said. “I know how to do it.”

...

Myrtle Beach resident Sandy Adams said she already was planning to attend the convention before learning that Trump would be there, but was most excited about seeing him.

“I was hoping that he’d make the announcement that he was running today, but oh, well,” she said. “I would vote for him if he runs.”

Adams, who also attended the event last year, said she was impressed with his speech.

“All of the issues that he talked about are the issues I care about,” she said. “And I think they’re the issues most people talk about.”

...

He also said he thought he contributed to the convention selling out.

“Whenever I’ve gone to a Tea Party event, they’ve had a record turnout,” he said. “And again, this year they have sold out for the first time. ... Maybe I’ll give credit to somebody else, but you know where it all comes from. I mean, this is the biggest turnout they’ve ever had.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom