• 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

Banned
The average "whatever" doesn't know what most things are. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Glenn Beck probably has a better grasp of socialism than the entire elected Republican Caucus and Fox News host lineup, it might be a conspiratorial, quirky and debatable take but he has bothered to read and study the ins and outs of socialism by both socialist and non-socialist writers at a comparatively advanced level to most people in popular political discourse.

For most people in politics things are just labels for bad/good.

American = bad, European = good or reverse it for pro-American stooges.
Capitalism = good, Socialism = bad or reverse it for Barack Obama.
War = good, Endless Swarms of Terrorists Eating Our Babies = bad, or reverse for Democrats
Etc.

The only instance in which this is actually true is that the state = bad, voluntary interactions = good. But that's commonly accepted by all but the fringe of the fringe nutjobs.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
The only instance in which this is actually true is that the state = bad, voluntary interactions = good. But that's commonly accepted by all but the fringe of the fringe nutjobs.

EUQTRm6.jpg
 
It'd related it more to Vietnam where there is an ideology we "must combat" and if we don't it will spread all over. Its a kind of, if I may, child like response to a complex problem.We're already seeing things like body county become touted and the resurgence of some domino.

Thata a pretty apt comparison, what with the genocidal goal and all.

Also who the fuck sez schnikes.
 

benjipwns

Banned
The amusing part about the Vietnam body counts is that they were being used as signs of success (and being inflated by counting "potential Viet Cong" like we're currently counting any 16+ males) while we'd then turn around and say we didn't want to obliterate the North and wouldn't bomb its cities.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Only below some parallel for most of the police action. I think Hanoi was only bombed a couple times. After 1968 bombing was basically limited to the South and border area. (And then expanded to the rest of Indochina but not North Vietnam.)

UQ9EL1n.jpg


U.S. decisions in Vietnam make absolutely zero sense. Come to think of it, I don't think other than some minor incursions that U.S. soldiers ever really set foot in North Vietnam, there certainly wasn't any invasion like Korea.
 
Only below some parallel for most of the police action. I think Hanoi was only bombed a couple times. After 1968 bombing was basically limited to the South and border area. (And then expanded to the rest of Indochina but not North Vietnam.)

UQ9EL1n.jpg


U.S. decisions in Vietnam make absolutely zero sense. Come to think of it, I don't think other than some minor incursions that U.S. soldiers ever really set foot in North Vietnam, there certainly wasn't any invasion like Korea.
shhhhh.....

Did the North invade the south though? The idea was containment not rolling back communism? And if I recall correctly North Vietnam has some good air defenses
 

benjipwns

Banned
Yeah, but the U.S. was stuck. They couldn't contain it because the Communists would have overrun the South either militarily or electorally, so the only way to "contain it" would have been to crush the North, which they weren't willing to do because of China (and the Soviets) so they just spent two decades making irrational decisions, killing millions and then dumping a bunch of military equipment in the ocean.

So I rate Vietnam as a win. Think of all that aggregate demand created.
 

Makai

Member
Most of us are expecting Hillary to win, but the real question on my mind is does she get reelected? If I had to bet this early, I'd say no. The electorate will move right while the Republicans move left to meet them near the middle.
 
Most of us are expecting Hillary to win, but the real question on my mind is does she get reelected? If I had to bet this early, I'd say no. The electorate will move right while the Republicans move left to meet them near the middle.
Nah she'll get reelected. And Julian Castro, her VP will run for president in 2024 and win two terms.

24 years of Democratic dominance baby! Holy hell!
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, known for brandishing his staunchly conservative views, coughed up to smoking marijuana as a teenager, NBC News has confirmed.

A spokesperson told the Daily Mail on Tuesday that the potential 2016 presidential candidate tried it in his teens, but did not elaborate on how many times.

“When he was a teenager, he foolishly experimented with marijuana. It was a mistake, and he’s never tried it since,” a spokesman told the paper.

And like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, if this asshat was caught, he wouldn't have been able to be where he's at today and mess up the government.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Oh, this is great:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/debbie-wasserman-schultz-medical-marijuana-115338.html
Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office offered to change her position on medical marijuana if a major Florida donor recanted his withering criticism of her, according to emails obtained by POLITICO.

The proposal to Orlando trial lawyer John Morgan was straightforward: retract critical statements he made to a reporter in return for Wasserman Schultz publicly backing his cannabis initiative that she had trashed just months earlier. Morgan declined the offer with a sharp email reply sent to a go-between, who described the congresswoman as being in a “tizzy.”

“No,” Morgan responded. “She is a bully. I beat bullies up for a living.”

...

Morgan said he forwarded the email chain to POLITICO on Thursday to show how “thin-skinned” and transactional Wasserman Schultz’s political team is, he said in a brief phone conversation.

The bad blood between Morgan and Wasserman Schultz — which stems from her critical comments over the medical-marijuana initiative he bankrolled last year, and which failed narrowly

...

Morgan and three medical-marijuana advocacy organizations blasted the South Florida representative for her criticisms of his 2014 initiative. It fell 2.4 percentage points shy of the needed 60 percent voter-approval threshold for a Florida constitutional amendment.

“Almost 58 percent of Florida voters supported medical marijuana and I’d be surprised if that many support her,” said Bill Piper, national affairs director with the Washington-based Drug Policy Alliance.

“That should be a lesson for Debbie Wasserman Schultz,” he said. “Florida voters like this policy more than her. And we’ll make sure people know her position.”
Morgan plans to get the proposed marijuana amendment on the ballot again in 2016, making it a top campaign issue in the presidential election in Florida, the nation’s most-populous swing state.

The clash with Morgan began in June when Wasserman Schultz issued a rare public statement criticizing the medical-marijuana initiative he helped draft, and to which he committed $4 million of his own money to pass.

Echoing Republican talking points, Wasserman Schultz suggested the proposal could lead to a variant of OxyContin-distributing “pill mills.” Wasserman Schultz has previously expressed concerns, as a parent, about marijuana decriminalization because she doesn’t want to make it easier for kids to get the drug.

At the time, Morgan blasted Wasserman Schultz, calling her “despised…an irritant…irrelevant.”

Wasserman Schultz responded by having her staff call around to drum up statements of support from other Democrats, including then-Democratic candidate for governor Charlie Crist, who works at Morgan’s law firm, knowledgeable sources say. The Wasserman Schultz effort culminated in a tense speaker-phone call with Crist’s campaign staffers, who were interrupted during a TV commercial shoot.
The congresswoman’s more recent dispute with Morgan unfolded Wednesday afternoon. POLITICO sent an email at 3:50 p.m. to Wasserman Schultz’s office seeking comment on criticisms from Morgan and other medical marijuana advocates. Three minutes later, an adviser replied that she had no comment.

In the meantime, Wasserman Schultz’s office sprung into action. Her team reached out to the campaign manager for the medical marijuana initiative — Ben Pollara, a top Democratic fundraiser and consultant in Miami — and offered him a deal.
Pollara, who refused to comment, detailed the offer in an email to Morgan a few hours later, the donor said, with the subject line: “DWS.”

“In a tizzy over this politico story. Saying she might be willing to support new amendment. Any chance you’ll retract your statement,” Pollara wrote.

Morgan responded about two hours later in his email calling her a “bully.”

“Actions have consequences,” Morgan told POLITICO on Thursday. “Her days of pushing people around are over.”
 

benjipwns

Banned
Meet The Democratic Senate Candidate Who Drives Democrats Crazy
With his impressive biography and political experience, Joe Sestak could be the party's Senate majority-maker. So why doesn't anyone want him to run?
Anxious about a candidate considered to be an unreliable maverick and a political liability, Democratic Party leaders have undertaken a quiet, intensive search in recent months to recruit a serious primary challenger to former Rep. Joe Sestak, the party's Senate nominee in 2010 who is again running for Pennsylvania's Senate seat.

The effort has involved former congressmen, state senators, county leaders and, recently, even a prominent district attorney. Their anxieties are being driven by party officials, who are concerned that Sestak could cost Democrats a must-win state in 2016. They've yet to turn up a successful alternative, but in their telling, it's only a matter of time before a new challenger—one with the backing of the party establishment—enters the race.

"[Sestak's] not scaring anyone," said Bob Brady, a congressman from Philadelphia and behind-the-scenes power player in Pennsylvania Democratic politics. "He's not clearing the field because he's running."

The concern over Sestak is multifaceted. Party insiders fear he's a loose cannon and doubt he will listen to the advice of political professionals. That's a necessity in what will be a hard-fought race against Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, an outspoken fiscal conservative who has effectively shifted to the political center since taking office in 2011.

But there's also a personal animus toward Sestak, known to party leaders as a political loner who defied the Democratic establishment in 2010 when he ran against Arlen Specter. That year, against the advice of party leaders, he challenged the party-switching senator in the primary—and prevailed, even though President Obama, Gov. Ed Rendell, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee were against him.

...

That's left the party in a vexing situation, with some worried that efforts to torpedo Sestak now will prove feckless and only damage him for next fall.

"What this highlights is there is always a bit of distance between what party leaders want and what voters want," said Dan Fee, a Philadelphia-based Democratic consultant. "This is a guy who, in a terrible year, barely lost. At the very least, he starts ahead."

Democrats have cast a wide net in their search for an alternative. Tester, the newly minted chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has called Allegheny County executive Rich Fitzgerald to gauge his interest in running, according to sources familiar with party recruitment. DSCC officials have met with Ed Pawlowski, the mayor of Allentown who briefly ran for governor in 2014, about a campaign. In Pennsylvania, Democrats have encouraged former Rep. Chris Carney and state Sen. Vincent Hughes to run.

All of these sales pitches came after most of the party establishment was set to rally behind Montgomery County Commissioner Josh Shapiro, who represents the wealthy Philadelphia suburbs. Shapiro had indicated he was interested in a campaign, but many insiders no longer believe Shapiro will run.

...

But in recent weeks, another intriguing name has surfaced as a potential candidate, someone who until recently was on few people's radars: Seth Williams, the district attorney of Philadelphia.

The 48-year-old, Philadelphia's first black district attorney, told National Journal he's focused on his current job. But he didn't discount the possibility that he might be interested in seeking higher office.

"Who wouldn't want to be a U.S. senator?" Williams said. "I really believe if we want to make the city safer, to prevent crime, we need to create more early-child education opportunities, and increase economic opportunities for individuals and businesses. And being a senator would allow me a great opportunity to let me do all of those things." He added: "I'm a member of the Pennsylvania National Guard, so I take orders well. If they give me a call, I'll listen."

Williams has a profile that could excite some Democrats: A former student leader at Penn State, he's served in the military and tangled with embattled state Attorney General Kathleen Kane over a public-corruption investigation into fellow Democrats. Just this week, he's blasted the state's newly elected Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf for issuing a moratorium on the death penalty in Pennsylvania.

...

Democrats also say openly that they don't think they need a top-tier candidate to beat Toomey next year. The party's presidential nominees have each won Pennsylvania since 1992—President Obama won there in 2012 by more than 5 points. In an era in which Senate candidates are increasingly tied to the performance of their party's presidential nominees, that might be enough to defeat Toomey.

"We're probably going to have Hillary Clinton on top of the ticket," said Fitzgerald, the Allegheny County executive. "I just think bodes well for any Democratic nominee to win that seat."

It's also unclear if the Democratic establishment could defeat Sestak even if they found a viable candidate. He defeated Specter in 2010 despite opposition from all corners of the party's apparatus, and it's unlikely any attempt to defeat him in 2016 would include such a comprehensive effort from party leaders.

But concerns run deep within Democratic circles about Sestak's political operation. He declined to work with the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's coordinated campaign in 2010, and many of the staff on his last Senate campaign were members of his family.

"On paper, the guy has a great profile. How often to do you get a retired admiral running for office?" said one Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly. "That's the frustrating part. He's got a great story to tell, a least on paper, but there are serious concerns that he's going to blow a very good opportunity here."

And to some Democrats, it's personal. It's not just that Sestak ran against Specter despite the party's wishes. In 2012, he endorsed a primary challenger to conservative Democratic Rep. Tim Holden, helping now-Rep. Matt Cartwright defeat the well-liked incumbent. He also helped out a write-in challenger to former Rep. Allyson Schwartz.

These have contributed to the impression among some Democrats that Sestak isn't a team player and is unwilling to listen to the advice of others.

"He still thinks he's an admiral. And he thinks everyone should stand up and salute him," said one Democratic officeholder.

If anything, it's this kind of stuff (DWS being another good example) that's going to beat up the Democrats 2016 Senate chances. The GOP had it with the Tea Party challenging the Establishment and it derailed a lot of winnable races when the "wrong person" won and the party backed out. Sestak has to be the favorite but if the party doesn't do much to support him, while the GOP throws resources at Toomey that changes the ground of the race.

And with Obama on the way out, that means you're going to be having fights to control the Party at both the federal and state levels. Something that's still a problem for the GOP after the Tea Party rebellion. That becomes an issue in down ballot races.

I wonder with the Democrats now out of power in Congress if we're going to see a lot more primary battles vs. everyone getting out of the way of a candidate. Especially with Boxer, etc. retiring.
 
Meet The Democratic Senate Candidate Who Drives Democrats Crazy
With his impressive biography and political experience, Joe Sestak could be the party's Senate majority-maker. So why doesn't anyone want him to run?


If anything, it's this kind of stuff (DWS being another good example) that's going to beat up the Democrats 2016 Senate chances. The GOP had it with the Tea Party challenging the Establishment and it derailed a lot of winnable races when the "wrong person" won and the party backed out. Sestak has to be the favorite but if the party doesn't do much to support him, while the GOP throws resources at Toomey that changes the ground of the race.

And with Obama on the way out, that means you're going to be having fights to control the Party at both the federal and state levels. Something that's still a problem for the GOP after the Tea Party rebellion. That becomes an issue in down ballot races.

I wonder with the Democrats now out of power in Congress if we're going to see a lot more primary battles vs. everyone getting out of the way of a candidate. Especially with Boxer, etc. retiring.

Hillary will take control obviously
 

benjipwns

Banned
The Clintons team are obviously power players, but the Party didn't exactly want them in those posts as long as they were. Howard Dean was partly a result of that.
 

AntoneM

Member
Maybe I'm an idiot, or the freezing cold is getting to me, but isn't that communism and not socialism?

It's not even really communism either. Communists would control the grades assigned (means of production). It's more like a dictatorship.
 

Crisco

Banned
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-big-obamacare-case-20150217-column.html#page=1

The fraying of the lawsuit's claims and the doubts about its plaintiffs' standing point to the fundamental problem with King v Burwell: it's an ideological attack on Obamacare, ginned up by the Cato Institute among others, masquerading as a rule-of-law case.

That pretty much says it all. Lawsuits based on sound arguments where a favorable ruling results in positive outcomes for ........ anyone, are not going to run into the sort of problems King has. As a judge who ruled in the government's favor said to the plaintiff's lawyers "No one wants what you're selling.".
 

Crisco

Banned
Good stuff here, I think this my favorite brief on King, and speaks to what I was saying yesterday. Their entire case hinges on a conclusion reached by reading 7 words in isolation, and then reverse engineering the rest of the title (as well as inventing a fictitious legislative history) to fit that conclusion. No accepted form of statutory construction works like that.

http://premiumtaxcredits.wikispaces.com/file/view/SC%20amicus%20Eskridge%2014-114%20bsac%20William%20Eskridge.pdf/538890688/SC%20amicus%20Eskridge%2014-114%20bsac%20William%20Eskridge.pdf

As the government explains, Petitioners’ responses to the other textual arguments outlined above likewise miss the mark. The broader problem, however, is not that Petitioners’ responses to those provisions are unpersuasive; it’s that they ignore the “cardinal rule that a statute is to be read as a whole,” King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U.S. 215, 221 (1991). Petitioners start—and end—by looking to Section 36B’s seven words, and conclude that those seven words, read in isolation, unambiguously forbid the IRS from providing tax credits to customers who purchase plans on the HHS-created exchanges.To the extent that they look to the other provisions of the ACA at all, they do so only to ask whether those provisions would be rendered “patently absurd” under their theory. Pet. Br. 44 (internal quotation marks omitted).

This isn't the government or any special interest group, this a brief filed by some of the most highly cited legal minds in the country (including Reagan's solicitor general), who are just as offended as I am by this case.
 
I really don't see it the same as Iraq. I think people really just wanted a war there and didn't really fear anything, it was more muscular posturing.

I think people are literally being goaded into a war because their scared and they don't know how to react to a threat without flatting the region.

It'd related it more to Vietnam where there is an ideology we "must combat" and if we don't it will spread all over. Its a kind of, if I may, child like response to a complex problem.We're already seeing things like body county become touted and the resurgence of some domino.
Vietnam is more relatable to Iraq. Both wars were launched due to fabricated evidence/intelligence (Gulf Of Tonkin, WMD). Of course we were involved in Vietnam long before LBJ became president but his escalation turned it into an outright war.
 
Vietnam is more relatable to Iraq. Both wars were launched due to fabricated evidence/intelligence (Gulf Of Tonkin, WMD). Of course we were involved in Vietnam long before LBJ became president but his escalation turned it into an outright war.

I think this is a very simplistic view of the two conflicts and what drove them. The original decision to go to war were very different though the continuation of the war even after they were unwinable was similar.

I wouldn't describe them as similar besides the fact they turned into long anti-insurgency battles.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
lol, I'm reading a pilot for ABC about the Brakken Oil Field boom. I can't believe this exists!

Shaking and praying my girl Heidi guest stars.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Preznit Obama said:
I always find it curious that when a Democrat's president, deficits go down. A Republican's president, and then the deficits are going up and yet, they try take on the mantle of fiscal probity. … None of this is an accident. It's not an accident that America is creating jobs faster than at any time since the last time a Democrat was president.

...

Now that their grand predictions of doom and gloom and death panels and armageddon haven't come true, the sky hasn't fallen, chicken little's quiet—the new plan of Republicans apparently, and this is progress, the new plan is to rebrand themselves as the party of the middle class. I'm not making this up.

...

Our Republican leader in the Senate, as he was coming in, after having tried to block every single thing that we have done to strengthen the economy, starts looking at the job numbers and says, "Ya know, it's getting better because we just got elected and people are feeling more optimistic." (Broad smile from Obama.) Which, okay, I didn't know that's how the economy worked but, maybe? We'll call some economists.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...iddle-class-for-real-or-just-spin?detail=hide

Spittin fiyah!
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Too bad Greg Orman didn't win and we didn't hold NC/CO/AK - we could have had Heitkamp as majority leader.

BE STILL MY BEATING HEART

(Basically, my friends and I thought it'd be funny to start talking about politicians like other gays talk about pop divas because we're weird. We ended up with a recurring joke about Heidi Heitkamp dropping her first album/single, #NativeYouth. It's… very specific)
 

Wilsongt

Member

President Outoffuckstogive

Edit:

Also, as if you needed more evidence that Republicans give no fucks about college

Following similar announcements by the Republican governors of Wisconsin and Louisiana, newly-sworn in Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner released what he called a “turnaround” budget, that would slash nearly $209 million from the University of Illinois.

“It’s time to make education our top priority again – and that’s what this budget does,” he told lawmakers Tuesday night, touting his plan to give about $25 million more to early childhood education. “With reform, we will be able to invest more in education and give our kids world class schools.”


But the “reform” in his plan would eliminate more than a third of the state’s contribution to the university system’s budget.

Art History Professor and United Faculty union member Therese Quinn at the University of Illinois at Chicago told ThinkProgress the cuts are kicking a school system that’s already down, as state funding has already declined by more than $37 million over the past 15 years.

“We’re already living in an uncomfortable and even unsafe environment,” she said. “Many of our buildings are in very bad shape. Scaffolding been around the administration building for years, basically holding it up. We have wonderful archives documenting the history of Chicago, but it’s so inadequately funded that the shelves are half empty and the place looks like it’s falling apart. Now we hear we’re facing new cuts, and the faculty and staff are wondering where is it going to come from.”

1. Slash money from liberal higher education
2. Invest it in teaching students revisionist history and that Reagen was a god in K-12
3. ?????
4. Profit!
 

Wall

Member
Meet The Democratic Senate Candidate Who Drives Democrats Crazy
With his impressive biography and political experience, Joe Sestak could be the party's Senate majority-maker. So why doesn't anyone want him to run?


If anything, it's this kind of stuff (DWS being another good example) that's going to beat up the Democrats 2016 Senate chances. The GOP had it with the Tea Party challenging the Establishment and it derailed a lot of winnable races when the "wrong person" won and the party backed out. Sestak has to be the favorite but if the party doesn't do much to support him, while the GOP throws resources at Toomey that changes the ground of the race.

And with Obama on the way out, that means you're going to be having fights to control the Party at both the federal and state levels. Something that's still a problem for the GOP after the Tea Party rebellion. That becomes an issue in down ballot races.

I wonder with the Democrats now out of power in Congress if we're going to see a lot more primary battles vs. everyone getting out of the way of a candidate. Especially with Boxer, etc. retiring.

My sense is that this is more about Pennsylvania's somewhat factious political culture than anything else. It is something that affects both parties. Basically, party power breaks down regionally in a lot of cases. The big division is between the western, central, and eastern parts of the state, but even within those regions you have divisions between politicians from Northeastern PA, the Lehigh Valley, and the Philly area, to give examples from the Eastern part of the state. The end result is relatively weak political organization on a statewide level, which leaves the door open to outsider candidates who basically do their own thing. For example, in the last gubernatorial election, Tom Wolf basically told Democratic party leaders "hey, I'm running", and proceeded to basically self finance a political campaign that blew everyone else out of the water. On the other side, one of the Corbett's biggest weaknesses, and a primary contributing factor to his defeat, was that he wasn't really able to expand outside of his central PA power base. Combine that with the fact that he pissed that base off with his actions in the Penn State scandal, and you had a governor that was basically a dead man walking electorally from the minute he was elected. The hyper regional nature of PA politics is mostly the result of PA being a very old state that is fairly diverse in terms of culture and geography.

One name I didn't see mentioned in the article was Michael Nutter, who will be finishing up his two terms as mayor of Philadelphia. He didn't exactly have a good time in office, but most of the problems he encountered were outside his control. He is a little corporate for my liking, but I think he did a good job considering the circumstances he was placed in.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Meet The Democratic Senate Candidate Who Drives Democrats Crazy
With his impressive biography and political experience, Joe Sestak could be the party's Senate majority-maker. So why doesn't anyone want him to run?


If anything, it's this kind of stuff (DWS being another good example) that's going to beat up the Democrats 2016 Senate chances. The GOP had it with the Tea Party challenging the Establishment and it derailed a lot of winnable races when the "wrong person" won and the party backed out. Sestak has to be the favorite but if the party doesn't do much to support him, while the GOP throws resources at Toomey that changes the ground of the race.

And with Obama on the way out, that means you're going to be having fights to control the Party at both the federal and state levels. Something that's still a problem for the GOP after the Tea Party rebellion. That becomes an issue in down ballot races.

I wonder with the Democrats now out of power in Congress if we're going to see a lot more primary battles vs. everyone getting out of the way of a candidate. Especially with Boxer, etc. retiring.

With Sestak, I think that the Democratic Party will do everything in their power to make sure someone else can run against him in the primary, but when it comes to the general, I don't foresee Sestak or the party making the same mistake they made in 2010.

At least, I hope not.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Sometimes I think Giuliani is just sent out there to make other GOP guys look more moderate with easily justified statements like "I don't think Obama's a traitor".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom