• 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.
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Michael Bloomberg said:
Being a fiscal conservative is not about slashing programs that help the poor, or improve health care, or ensure a social safety net. It's about insisting services are provided efficiently, get to only the people that need them, and achieve the desired results. Fiscal conservatives have hearts too – but we also insist on using our brains, and that means demanding results and holding government accountable for producing them.
To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we've got one coming.
Click to expand...
Bloomberg also raised property taxes to the highest rate in NYC history.

TAXED BIG GULPS.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
I'm not sure if this is really the case. Americans like seeing lower deficits but they also support higher taxes on the wealthy and investing in education and infrastructure. The media has, in their never-ending quest to be useless and banal reduced the difference between the two parties to "Republicans = fiscally responsible Very Serious People, Democrats = tax & spend gubmint librulz" because it allows them to provide a counterbalance to Republicans' batshit views on social issues which most journalists are uncomfortable with.

In other words they get to pretend that both parties are just as bad (or more optimistically, just as viable) and that the perfect consensus candidate would be Michael Bloomberg who is on paper closer to the Republican on fiscal issues and closer to the Democrats on social issues. And probably a warhawk because the media loves them some wars. They want a candidate who would sign the Bowles-Simpson deficit plan and also gay marriage.

Huntsman 2016!
Click to expand...
21Wuheh.png


http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/22/the-simpletons
“Are we going to roll up our sleeves or limp on?” an exasperated Thomas L. Friedman asked the nation in a September 20 New York Times column. Friedman, the three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, influential Iraq war supporter, champion of “green jobs” industrial policy, and backer of President Barack Obama’s public education initiatives, is threatening to secede from a status quo he helped create.

“Given those stark choices,” he wrote, “one would hope that our politicians would rise to the challenge by putting forth fair and credible recovery proposals that match the scale of our debt problem and contain the three elements that any serious plan must have: spending cuts, increases in revenues and investments in the sources of our strength. But that, alas, is not what we’re getting, which is why there remains an opening for an independent Third Party candidate in the 2012 campaign.”
Click to expand...
“I’m a sap,” a morose-sounding New York Times columnist David Brooks confessed the day before Friedman’s outburst. “I believed Obama when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country. I always believe that Obama is on the verge of breaking out of the conventional categories and embracing one of the many bipartisan reform packages that are floating around.” But now that the president had unveiled a dead-on-arrival, soak-the-rich jobs package in a televised address designed more to please his progressive base than to actually solve problems, even David Brooks—who in March 2010 deemed Obama “the most realistic and reasonable major player in Washington”—was forced to admit the unbearable: “This wasn’t a speech to get something done.” But noble dreams die hard. “I still believe,” Brooks insisted, “that the president’s soul would like to do something about the country’s structural problems.”

Do something. Is there a two-word phrase in politics more loaded with disguised ideological content? Embedded within is both an urgent call for powerful government action and an up-front declaration that the policy details don’t matter. The bigger the crisis, the more the urgency, the sparser the detail. On September 30, 2008, in a classic of the do-something genre, Brooks argued that the Troubled Asset Relief Program should be rammed through Congress over public objections because the federal government needed “to give people a sense that somebody was in charge, that something was going to be done.” Did that “something” involve buying up toxic assets? Introducing or relaxing certain banking regulations? Taking over or winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Not important. “What we need in this situation,” Brooks declared, “is authority.”
Click to expand...
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
Preface: I'd like to note that I am in no way trained to speak in or around any legal arguments, so any logic that seems tortured as hell in this post is a result of that. (Also I'm in a bit of a hurry to get to a class, so I may substantially edit this later tonight.)

(Also, sorry for the fisking, y'all.)

Metaphoreus said:
  • This is just a more fleshed-out version of the argument BM raised a few pages back.
Click to expand...

This may be the case, but the argument is made more convincingly, I think, in that article.

The entirety of the elected GOP voted in favor of H.R. 4 in the 112th (itself a slight modification of H.R. 705), which was scored by the CBO on the premise that subsidies were universal in scope several months into a political landscape in which states had already declined to set up their own - an indication that at worst, they believed that subsidies *might not* be restricted to state exchanges in moving to capture more revenue from their repayment.

Metaphoreus said:
If you have a question or an opinion, you should feel free to interject it while a discussion is ongoing. This after-the-fact passive aggressiveness is silly.
Click to expand...

From my view, it's about as silly as the fact that the discussion is even happening - we're seriously debating the legal premise of striking down subsidies for a twentieth of the country's population on the basis that Congress' apparent omission of three words from one section of the ACA indicates unambiguous intent to restrict those subsidies (in the face of nearly all related actions taken in the aftermath of the Act's signing).

Metaphoreus said:
Do you want me to explain where I disagree with the Fourth Circuit? Or do you think they presented a knockdown argument that I haven't adequately addressed? It should be clear at this point that I'm willing to address these arguments, so you have no reason not to raise them.
Click to expand...

In particular, you can feel free to explain, in as plain a form of language as possible, how Chevron deference does not apply to this case, given that:

  • everyone except for the plaintiffs (and the relevant organizations filing amici curiae) - a group which includes a substantial number of governments and their officials otherwise overtly opposed to the existence of the law - seems to be in agreement that "subsidies go to all states" was at least a plausible interpretation of the sections in question, given that...
  • ...rather unlike NFIB v. Sebelius, there appears to have been no credible threat made by members of Congress or the Cabinet to deny subsidies to states that did not opt to create their own exchanges, as Sargent's post details.
It seems to me that taken together, both of these points imply that Congressional intent was not unambiguous (in which case the SCOTUS should grant "Chevron"), unless you are seriously arguing that Congress made a clear-cut threat that, simultaneously, no one seems to be able to find with any measure of clarity.

The second point in particular is the main reason I'm treating your argumentation with such disdain - because you have to torture your reading in order to reach a point where any such "credible threat" was made, beyond what even the case's own petitioners are saying. Again, as I did in my previous direct response to you, I apologize for being a bit of a passive-aggressive dick here.

Metaphoreus said:
Recent events?

I may have more to say about this argument later, but for now I'll note two points:
  1. The "primary argument" made by the challengers is not that Congress intended to use the subsidies as an inducement to states to set up their own exchanges. As I've explained before (last paragraph--see also point (6) here), the primary argument is that the text of the statute does not authorize subsidies on federal exchanges. The inducement argument is a counter to the argument that reading the statute to exclude subsidies on the federal exchanges would be absurd.
Click to expand...

The argument that the text of the statute does not authorize federal-exchange subsidies is, full stop, based on the premise that the text of the statute is unambiguous in that regard. There has been enough debate on the subject to indicate that no, there is some ambiguity, particularly with the first and second points you put forth in that first post - that the phrase involving section 1311 exchanges may also include section 1321 exchanges, and that because of this, the IRS has authority (albeit EXTREMELY AMBIGUOUS) to administer and interpret that subsidy provision for section 1321 exchanges. (And therefore also your fourth - that the IRS's rule not being a "reasonable construction" is itself unclear.)
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Salon’s Simon Maloy catches out Republican Senator John Barrasso—who recently claimed the Affordable Care Act “very clearl[ly]” limits subsidies to states that set up their own exchanges—openly acknowledging four years ago that Obamacare subsidies were to be available on all exchanges.

Maloy’s story mostly speaks for itself. In early 2011, Barrasso wanted to amend (and fatally undermine) the ACA by letting states opt out of the law’s core requirements, while preserving the value of the subsidies people in those states were entitled to under the law. Under his plan, states would have been able to resist Obamacare without sacrificing its financial benefits. This is entirely consistent with the behavior of every single Republican in Congress at the time.

But there’s one important detail to add. The ACA’s legal challengers can’t easily fall back on the excuse that Barrasso was simply clueless about what the law said and did. Because as he was pushing his amendment, he was going around saying his opposition stemmed from having read the bill.

In this one, contemporaneous C-SPAN appearance alone, Barrasso said, “I have read the whole thing” (39:00) and “having read this whole law, I think it doesn’t accomplish [its goals]” (44:15).

Either Barrasso wasn’t being honest about having read the law then, or he isn’t being honest about how clear it is now. Assuming Barrasso isn’t going to cop to lying about having read the bill text, he should at the very least now admit that it isn’t as clear as he claims today. But he can’t do that. Because if the law is ambiguous, then Obamacare will win before the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120882/john-barrasso-obamacare-subsidies-flip-flop

lol
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mike-huckabee-trashy-women-fox-news-114658.html
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said in a recent radio appearance that while in New York for his Fox News show, he experienced significant culture shock from all the “trashy” women swearing in a professional setting.

“In the South, or in the Midwest, there in Iowa, you would not have people who would just throw the F-bomb or use gratuitous profanity in a professional setting,” Huckabee told host Jan Mickelson in a Friday appearance on Des Moines’ “Mickelson in the Morning.”

“In New York, not only do the men do it, but the women,” he said.

“My gosh, this is worse than locker-room talk,” Huckabee continued. “As we would say in the South, that’s just trashy.”
Click to expand...
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
And how black people just mighted be stupid. (He was just asking questions!)

What south is he from?! I don't even know who this is appealing to
Click to expand...

It's designed to appeal to people who want to feel superior to the "big city folk." Doesn't matter that it bears no resemblance to reality, the important part is the us vs. them factor.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
That's been well known for a while I thought. It's why he didn't run for a fourth term, but Giuliani sucked up all the similar donars, so he demurred, then avoided a Senate run in 2010 because he was eyeing 2012 then backed out after seeing the horror show. (Especially for Huntsman and Pawlenty.)

I assumed with little NE representation outside Christie and....Santorum, he'd at least form a PAC this time around before people totally forget he existed.

His campaign slogan can be something like "My three terms vs. the three guys who came after me!"

bangwhistle 11 hours ago
This is the guy from Star Trek right? I'd love to see him become president. Strengthen our resolve to explore planets or galaxies, etc.
Click to expand...
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
The Slate article states that Pataki supports pro-choice and gun control. While they might have worked getting him elected in the northeast it's gonna make in DOA in a GOP primary.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Remember that time Joe Lieberman ran for the Democratic nomination based around his support for the Iraq War and being the VP nominee in 2000 because he condemned Clinton's actions.

I still think JOEMENTUM! should have caught on. And Biden should have appropriated it.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
benjipwns said:
Remember that time Joe Lieberman ran for the Democratic nomination based around his support for the Iraq War and being the VP nominee in 2000 because he condemned Clinton's actions.

I still think JOEMENTUM! should have caught on. And Biden should have appropriated it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I also recall him being the only Democratic candidate in the primary debates not to raise his hand when they asked the candidates who had smoked weed when they were younger.

What a dull man.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
WayneMorse said:
Yes, I also recall him being the only Democratic candidate in the primary debates not to raise his hand when they asked the candidates who had smoked weed when they were younger.

What a dull man.
Click to expand...
Was searching for that Joementum clip and came across this oldie but a goodie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiLA6me-u6s

EDIT: lol at this account, it still has all his ads from 2006

DOUBT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdHIzqQ1lGs
DINER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDyglJappfA - best one

NEGATIVE NED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE2_rB-_tTE
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
His reading the Pentagon Papers is often overshadowed by the later case, but it always amuses me when you hear Senators or whatever today demand the White House release something when they could read it on the floor themselves.

He actually ran, as in campaign style, to become the 1972 VP nominee.

As for why he didn't run in 1976, probably related to this:
In June 1976, Gravel was the focus of a federal investigation into allegations that he was involved in a sex-for-vote arrangement. Congressional staff clerk Elizabeth Ray (who was already the subject of a sex scandal that led to the downfall of Representative Wayne Hays) stated that in August 1972, she had sex with Gravel aboard a houseboat on the Potomac River, under the instruction of Representative Kenneth J. Gray, her boss at the time.[93] Gray allegedly wanted to secure Gravel's support for further funding for construction of the National Visitor Center in Washington, a troubled project that was under the jurisdiction of subcommittees that both members chaired.
Click to expand...

He said his 2008 bid was more about getting attention for this: http://www.ncid.us/

EDIT: How he read the Papers into the record lol
On the night of June 29, 1971, Gravel attempted to read the papers on the floor of the Senate as part of his filibuster against the draft, but was thwarted when no quorum could be formed.[70] Gravel instead convened a session of the Buildings and Grounds subcommittee that he chaired.[70] He got New York Congressman John Dow to testify that the war had soaked up funding for public buildings, thus making discussion of the war relevant to the committee
Click to expand...
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
"Daisy" was only officially aired once.

Some of my favorite ads from the last cycle were Ron Paul's and not out of ideological reasons but just because they blasted the other candidates and used hott music instead of being boring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUNIeOB0whI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RaYbToq7Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdqGKA782A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSVi45vfA6o

And did dumb movie trailer like ones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY

Although we have to mention Herman Cain's amazing and beautiful work*:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM
I AMMMMMMMM AMERICAAAAA

And the hilariously awkward Rick Perry one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKAsMdIiZA

Forgot this one that uses the same weird music and talks about the gays and the war on religion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

*Which I used to make this stupid video last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naQQeY5JiJk
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Pretend you're kings, sit on your throne.
Look down your nose at the peasants below.
I've got some news, we're taking names.
We're waiting now for the Judgement Day.

I AM AMERICAAAAA
ONE VOICE, UNITED WE STAND
I AM AMERICAAAA
ONE HOPE, TO HEAL OUR LAND
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
WayneMorse said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_i9Bq2tntY

I heard Goldwater pissed blood for weeks after seeing this ad.
Click to expand...

Why can't we go back to the gold old days when Politics wasn't nasty and so partisan!

benjipwns said:
Although we have to mention Herman Cain's amazing and beautiful work*:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM
I AMMMMMMMM AMERICAAAAA
Click to expand...

GOAT

Seriously though this and the pokemon song are like subtle shoutouts to the fact half of conservative media is a giant performance art.

I mean he literally ended his bid by quoting pokemon for 2 whole minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jV_11_q6Hc

Edit: top comment is LOL
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Chichikov said:
His chicken ad is still the GOAT.
Click to expand...

This is great, but I AMMMMM AMMMERICA is GOAT for Cain. Then strange camera angles, the dude talking, the random hit of the cig and the Cain smile. The Ad absolutely slayed me. It was like something from the Onion.

Everything about Cain seemed like a parody of the GOP. The ads, Pokemon, 9-9-9. To this day you cannot convince me he was being legit. It was the greatest stage performance of all fucking time.


That all said, no one mentioning the Zombie Pelosi ad!? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEdKqbqCGnc
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Black Mamba said:
This is great, but I AMMMMM AMMMERICA is GOAT for Cain. Then strange camera angles, the dude talking, the random hit of the cig and the Cain smile. The Ad absolutely slayed me. It was like something from the Onion.

Everything about Cain seemed like a parody of the GOP. The ads, Pokemon, 9-9-9. To this day you cannot convince me he was being legit. It was the greatest stage performance of all fucking time.


That all said, no one mentioning the Zombie Pelosi ad!? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEdKqbqCGnc
Click to expand...

Herman Cain ad was GOAT.

But holy shit at that Pelosi ad! Never saw it. What the FUCK was he thinking? That is some crazy shit. Then again, taking on Pelosi was crazy to begin with so why not?

Edit: LOL! Loved the disclaimer at the end.
 
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