Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

I REALLY hate "support for net neutrality" defined as a "leftist" issue.

It isn't left or right, it's common sense, and Ted Cruz is fucking ruining that for no good reason.

Seriously. I think some people have just lost their minds and just reflexively are against ANYTHING that Obama is for. Even things that they originally proposed somehow become covered with Obama cooties as soon as Obama expresses support for it.


I think even Alex Jones came out against net neutrality . . . a fringe lunatic who could have his bandwidth squelched comes out against net neutrality? What a moron.

 

[speculawyer]

White House: U.S. to invest $3 billion to combat climate change

Love this.

And the GOP goes nuts (as expected).

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who will likely be the new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, blasted the pledge in a statement, saying it's part of more than $120 billion in spending on climate change since the president took office: "President Obama's pledge to give unelected bureaucrats at the U.N. $3 billion for climate change initiatives is an unfortunate decision to not listen to voters in this most recent election cycle."

In 2008, President George W. Bush pledged $2 billion to a similar fund. The Obama administration said it is building on that pledge.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-pledge-3b-help-poor-nations-warming-174513481--politics.html


One thing I really don't understand about the GOP position on this is that don't they think about how they are going to look if they are wrong? If temps shoot up in the next 5 years and there are heat waves & what-not such that it becomes clear that they are wrong, aren't they going to look really REALLY stupid? Then again, they've been wrong about so many other things (gay rights, stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, civil rights, etc.) yet their base never abandons them.

 

[RustyNails]

Rob Portman going to run for President in 2016 as "anti-Obama candidate"

Portman thinks any Democratic candidate -- including Hillary Clinton - can be beaten if the GOP shows it, too, can have a bigger tent and reach out to minorities and women.

 

[Necrovex]

I don't know, I still have this feeling that overall, Democrats embracing Obama would have just made them lose even harder.

I doubt it would have been any worse than what we got during this mid-term. Democrats nearly hit rock bottom during this period. I would have rather see them support Obama than act like he was the black sheep in the family.

"What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank is a great book on the subject and general Culture Wars in America.

Has anyone read this? I am kind of curious in reading through this bugger.

 

[adg1034]

One thing I really don't understand about the GOP position on this is that don't they think about how they are going to look if they are wrong? If temps shoot up in the next 5 years and there are heat waves & what-not such that it becomes clear that they are wrong, aren't they going to look really REALLY stupid? Then again, they've been wrong about so many other things (gay rights, stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, civil rights, etc.) yet their base never abandons them.

Oh, they'll be fine. Just imagine: the US-China deal actually starts decreasing emissions, which slows down the pace of climate change to a real degree. Republicans point to the climate stabilization and say "Look, it was just a fluke. Too bad we wasted all that money on a fake issue. Now let's get back to deregulating everything again." And then we're really doomed.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Rob Portman going to run for President in 2016 as "anti-Obama candidate"

Democrats could pick up an open seat. The real question is who they could get to run...

 

[speculawyer]

Oh, they'll be fine. Just imagine: the US-China deal actually starts decreasing emissions, which slows down the pace of climate change to a real degree. Republicans point to the climate stabilization and say "Look, it was just a fluke. Too bad we wasted all that money on a fake issue. Now let's get back to deregulating everything again." And then we're really doomed.

Well, this US & China deal is a nice start but it is not going stop climate change even if both sides fulfill their part. I'm more worried that climate change will continue and GOPers will say "See! We crippled our economy and it didn't even help!"

 

[Oblivion]

Every time someone takes pride in not voting I'm reminded of that episode of Simpsons where Homer stops going to church out of laziness and tries justifying it to Marge by saying he's achieved enlightenment without church.

(Not that I'm against not going to church)

Bad analogy, dawg. Not going to Church was one of the smartest decisions Homer ever made.

 

[speculawyer]

Has anyone read this? I am kind of curious in reading through this bugger.

I've read it. It is interesting. But it is a few years old now, so it is not quite up to date. But sadly, things really haven't change in Kansas so I guess it is all still accurate. It pushes a lot on the fact that people are really voting against their own economic self-interest. I guess it is combo of anti-gay, anti-abortion, and pro-gun views that get people to vote against their own economic self-interest.

 

[thepotatoman]

DO we really think 2018 will be another 2010 & 2014?

We are getting ahead of ourselves although the 5 romney state D's no doubt have a tough fight ahead of them barring a retirement.

You think Democrats are going to fix their obvious midterm turnout problems by then?

Democrats either have to fundimentally change themselves or lose 2016 so that they can become the anti-incumbent party if they're going to win 2018.

 

[Oblivion]

You think Democrats are going to fix their obvious midterm turnout problems by then?

Democrats either have to fundimentally change themselves or lose 2016 so that they can become the anti-incumbent party if they're going to win 2018.

This is something I've struggled with. Is it worth sending Hillary to die in 2016 if it means we can finally regain the House by the next time the next redistricting comes around?

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Democrats just have to stop running away from the party's accomplishments and run as Democrats instead being Republican-lite.

 

[NeoXChaos]

You think Democrats are going to fix their obvious midterm turnout problems by then?

Democrats either have to fundimentally change themselves or lose 2016 so that they can become the anti-incumbent party if they're going to win 2018.

at the current rate they are going, LOL no but we cant rule out a 2018 miracle.

 

[WayneMorse]

Democrats could pick up an open seat. The real question is who they could get to run...

Richard Cordray or Betty Sutton would be my picks.

 

[Third Strike]

Democrats just have to stop running away from the party's accomplishments and run as Democrats instead being Republican-lite.

I really think a Democrat would do really well if they strongly embraced progressive ideals. Running on marijuana legalization, college tuition reform, support for universal healthcare/public option, less war, and minimum wage could really flare up the base. I also think there would be a stronger turnout among younger voters, even during mid-terms.

 

[cooljeanius]

Has anyone read this? I am kind of curious in reading through this bugger.

I have; you should do it.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't know if Portman could make it through a primary. And if he does, he'd have to pick a loony for his running mate.

That being said, I would relish in watching the far right realize they'd have to vote for a candidate who's for marriage equality.

 

[Jack Remington]

I've been wondering something: why was Susan Collins not a pickup target? Maine is a blue state, and yet the Dems couldn't recruit anyone good? It's weird that they put more effort into ****ing Kentucky than Maine.

 

[CygnusXS]

I really think the Democrats could make a strong case that they're the only party capable of running the federal government in a functional and responsible manner right now. I mean, if the last 4 years have taught us anything, it's that the current Republicans are struggling with the basic mechanisms and norms of federal governance.

 

[ivysaur12]

I've been wondering something: why was Susan Collins not a pickup target? Maine is a blue state, and yet the Dems couldn't recruit anyone good? It's weird that they put more effort into ****ing Kentucky than Maine.

She's insanely popular in Maine. She's like Bebee -- defies the lean of the state.

 

[Coriolanus]

What if your vote is truly worthless?

I voted and there were eight people I the ballot.

Like five of them ran unopposed. Not even a wacky third party to give an opposition vote to.

Two positions I'd next heard of. Like county director of insurance or some crap.

Corey Booker was essentially unopposed.

There were two state propositions, that were fun...

And two county propositions I had no fucking clue were going to be there, and post vote, I never heard the results for them.

I sort of felt like I wasted my time.

Im quite baffled by this kind of behaviour up there. Down here, people with the proper qualifications register for public tests, and the notes are tallied and positions assigned accordingly. This goes for nearly every job in the executive aside from mayor, governor or president, and nearly every single job in the judiciary. Positions are maintained regardless of who's been recently elected because hey, these are public employees, higher positions are distributed according to merit and seniority, and thus meritocracy > popularity contest.

Why do you all hold elections for so many positions?

 

[benjipwns]

I've been wondering something: why was Susan Collins not a pickup target? Maine is a blue state, and yet the Dems couldn't recruit anyone good? It's weird that they put more effort into ****ing Kentucky than Maine.

The same reason Olympia Snowe never was. Don't throw away your money in a race you can't ever win.

Why do you all hold elections for so many positions?

Why do you hate Democracy?

 

[jamesinclair]

The same reason Olympia Snowe never was. Don't throw away your money in a race you can't ever win.


Why do you hate Democracy?

Is it democracy if people vote based on which name looks cooler?

 

[Necrovex]

I've read it. It is interesting. But it is a few years old now, so it is not quite up to date. But sadly, things really haven't change in Kansas so I guess it is all still accurate. It pushes a lot on the fact that people are really voting against their own economic self-interest. I guess it is combo of anti-gay, anti-abortion, and pro-gun views that get people to vote against their own economic self-interest.

I have; you should do it.

I'll place it on my shortlist. It's a pity reading about politics can be extremely depressing.

Is it democracy if people vote based on which name looks cooler?

Didn't Tom Butt win his election and became mayor of Richmond?

 

[Chichikov]

Seriously. I think some people have just lost their minds and just reflexively are against ANYTHING that Obama is for. Even things that they originally proposed somehow become covered with Obama cooties as soon as Obama expresses support for it.


I think even Alex Jones came out against net neutrality . . . a fringe lunatic who could have his bandwidth squelched comes out against net neutrality? What a moron.

It is regulation.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's useful regulation that helps foster healthy competition, the economy and society as a whole, but if you're the type of person who believes that any government intervention in the holy market (pbuh) is bad by definition, you'll be against net neutrality.
I don't doubt that a lot of the opposition is due to the anti-Obama reflex and telcom money sure play heavily into that, but as a whole, it makes sense for net-neutrality to have more support on the left.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

And the GOP goes nuts (as expected).


http://news.yahoo.com/us-pledge-3b-help-poor-nations-warming-174513481--politics.html


One thing I really don't understand about the GOP position on this is that don't they think about how they are going to look if they are wrong? If temps shoot up in the next 5 years and there are heat waves & what-not such that it becomes clear that they are wrong, aren't they going to look really REALLY stupid? Then again, they've been wrong about so many other things (gay rights, stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, civil rights, etc.) yet their base never abandons them.

I think a good % of Americans are still on the fence/don't believe in Climate change, so it's a risky topic to educate the public about and not give you party a bad name. Then there's some lobbyists who would probably be impacted financially if any major changes came about to prevent climate change.

 

[kehs]

I think a good % of Americans are still on the fence/don't believe in Climate change, so it's a risky topic to educate the public about and not give you party a bad name. Then there's some lobbyists who would probably be impacted financially if any major changes came about to prevent climate change.

Being on the fence about science, makes you an idiot.

If there's some new study that conclusively says " oops, out carbon emissions are good!" then I'll endorse pd for president. But currently, being on the fence is bullshit.

 

[CygnusXS]

It is regulation.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's useful regulation that helps foster healthy competition, the economy and society as a whole, but if you're the type of person who believes that any government intervention in the holy market (pbuh) is bad by definition, you'll be against net neutrality.
I don't doubt that a lot of the opposition is due to the anti-Obama reflex and telcom money sure play heavily into that, but as a whole, it makes sense for net-neutrality to have more support on the left.

To expand on this, a free market analysis of net neutrality would likely conclude that the lack of it is not inherently non-competitive, as people can choose not to support ISPs that engage in immoral (non-competitive) behaviours.

This of course ignores reality but so does all free market analysis.

 

[speculawyer]

I think a good % of Americans are still on the fence/don't believe in Climate change, so it's a risky topic to educate the public about and not give you party a bad name. Then there's some lobbyists who would probably be impacted financially if any major changes came about to prevent climate change.

But the truth will come out in the end.

If by some crazy reason, there is no climate change then the Dems can at least say "Well, we listened to the scientists."

If climate change starts happening big time, the GOP will have nothing to say but "We listened to crackpots and the fossil fuel lobby."

 

[Averon]

But the truth will come out in the end.

If by some crazy reason, there is no climate change then the Dems can at least say "Well, we listened to the scientists."

If climate change starts happening big time, the GOP will have nothing to say but "We listened to crackpots and the fossil fuel lobby."

The GOPers profiting off the climate change denial will be long dead, so no sweat off their back.

 

[thepotatoman]

But the truth will come out in the end.

If by some crazy reason, there is no climate change then the Dems can at least say "Well, we listened to the scientists."

If climate change starts happening big time, the GOP will have nothing to say but "We listened to crackpots and the fossil fuel lobby."

They already agree the planet is warming right now. But we could all be sitting in bunkers as it becomes 200 degrees outside, and they'd still just be blaming god or natural weather cycles or something.

 

[speculawyer]

They already agree the planet is warming right now. But we could all be sitting in bunkers as it becomes 200 degrees outside, and they'd still just be blaming god or natural weather cycles or something.

Some do. But many are sticking with the "It is not warming . . . it might actually be cooling!"
http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/

The right wing press is just scary crazy.

 

[neurosisxeno]

They already agree the planet is warming right now. But we could all be sitting in bunkers as it becomes 200 degrees outside, and they'd still just be blaming god or natural weather cycles or something.

Obviously since the Earth is heating up now it's because we accepted gay marriage and God is now punishing us.

 

[thepotatoman]

With the news about the republican's proposed change to Michigan's electoral college moving forward, I figured i do some looking to see how possible republican presidential gerrymandering would be.

5 states went for obama in 2012 which republicans completely control on a state level right now (FL, NV, WI, MI, OH). They combine to 79 electoral college votes. Romney needed 63 votes to switch sides in order for him to win. They'd have to change those state allocations to have 80% of the electoral votes go to romney in order to grant Romney the victory

Of course Obama did win by 5 percentage points, so they could still rig a closer election, but that pretty much assures it impossible for them to make the presidential seat as locked up as they have the house right now, unless they go extra risky by tying it to districts, which republicans in Michigan already had to back away from to a new system that would have given Romney only 1 extra electoral vote.

 

[Jack Remington]

She's insanely popular in Maine. She's like Bebee -- defies the lean of the state.

Yet she's joined almost every McConnell filibuster. She is one of the R senators who would occasionally join a cloture vote, but not frequently. Link her to gridlock. Do anything.

It baffles me that they didn't even put in any effort.

 

[ivysaur12]

Away from American politics for a moment:

Can anyone think of a worse presidential candidates in modern history than Le Pen/Hollande/Sarkozy? I'm drawing a blank. That's just three horrible choices for an executive.

With the news about the republican's proposed change to Michigan's electoral college moving forward, I figured i do some looking to see how possible republican presidential gerrymandering would be.

5 states went for obama in 2012 which republicans completely control on a state level right now (FL, NV, WI, MI, OH). They combine to 79 electoral college votes. Romney needed 63 votes to switch sides in order for him to win. They'd have to change those state allocations to have 80% of the electoral votes go to romney in order to grant Romney the victory

Of course Obama did win by 5 percentage points, so they could still rig a closer election, but that pretty much assures it impossible for them to make the presidential seat as locked up as they have the house right now, unless they go extra risky by tying it to districts, which republicans in Michigan already had to back away from to a new system that would have given Romney only 1 extra electoral vote.

And Snyder still says he's opposed. This won't pass and it'll stop any efforts to do the same in other states like FL, NV, WI, or OH.

 

[KingK]

What did Hollande do to become so unpopular in France anyway? iirc he was pretty promising/well liked when he came into office. What happened?

 

[Aaron Strife]

WI and MI are the only states where I could see the GOP going for it - they're both blue states that pretty reliably vote Democratic in presidential elections if not in the midterm elections. There's no reason why Republicans couldn't still win OH or FL in a good environment or with the right candidate, so they'd essentially be ceding a chunk of electoral votes to the Democrats who can instead focus on shoring up support in smaller states. And Nevada is so small that it wouldn't really matter. Obama would have won 5 out of 6 of their electoral votes in 2012 if such a scheme were in place.

 

[HylianTom]

At this point, I'm not worried about it.

If one of them were to do it, it still wouldn't change the math all that much.. the GOP candidate would then have to win only 2/3 of the swing states (including all of the large ones) instead of all of them.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Douthat called obama's immigration order part of 'creeping caudillismo'

 

[Wilsongt]

Defending his fellow Republican governors’ decision to block Medicaid expansion in their states, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Friday suggested that denying health coverage to additional low-income Americans helps more people “live the American Dream” because they won’t be “dependent on the American government.”

Walker/Ernst 2016.

 

[B-Dubs]

Walker/Ernst 2016.

How they didn't vote him out I will never understand. He's cartoonishly evil at this point, almost as bad as Rick Scott and he's Voldemort!

 

[Diablos]

Walker/Ernst 2016.

Right, because now all of those people who are unable to get on Medicaid will no doubt magically be able to realize their full potential and be rich someday. Every single one!

Why don't you tell that to someone who has a chronic health condition who can barely get to work let alone "live the American dream" who still doesn't' qualify for Medicaid?

Any American who subscribes to Walker's line of thinking is dangerous.

 

[thepotatoman]

WI and MI are the only states where I could see the GOP going for it - they're both blue states that pretty reliably vote Democratic in presidential elections if not in the midterm elections. There's no reason why Republicans couldn't still win OH or FL in a good environment or with the right candidate, so they'd essentially be ceding a chunk of electoral votes to the Democrats who can instead focus on shoring up support in smaller states. And Nevada is so small that it wouldn't really matter. Obama would have won 5 out of 6 of their electoral votes in 2012 if such a scheme were in place.

Well, the math could change a bit if they planned on getting Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Hampshire at some point relatively soon, but yeah, it's still a long shot.

 

[Diablos]

Well, the math could change a bit if they planned on getting Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Hampshire at some point relatively soon, but yeah, it's still a long shot.

Planned on getting as in the polls breaking for the GOP in those states?

Wolf won't let gerrymandering happen here in PA, nor will McAuliffe in VA or Hassan in NH.

Speaking of Wolf, you can rest assured there will be no more voter ID bullshit in the state and there sure as hell will never be any gerrymandering of the electoral vote. PA is safe Dem for Presidential elections.

 

[thepotatoman]

Planned on getting as in the polls breaking for the GOP in those states?

Wolf won't let gerrymandering happen here in PA, nor will McAuliffe in VA or Hassan in NH.

Speaking of Wolf, you can rest assured there will be no more voter ID bullshit in the state and there sure as hell will never be any gerrymandering of the electoral vote. PA is safe Dem for Presidential elections.

Yeah, as in banking on another midterm republican wave 2017 and 2018.

 

[Jack Remington]

I know I always thought of the American Dream as getting a five-figure medical bill, if I could even get the care in the first place.

 

[Jooney]

Walker/Ernst 2016.

Top-class troll.

Where do governors get their health insurance from?

 

[Raptor2155]

Walker/Ernst 2016.

Poverty! The American Dream.

 

[Jooney]

Douthat called obama's immigration order part of 'creeping caudillismo'

Douthat is like the thinking mans conservative bomb thrower. So classy.