• 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.
Didn't people say the exact same thing about Hillary driving Bill's office?

Sometimes it seems GAF's political knowledge seems to start around 2004.

Also why would you be a fool to think otherwise? Isn't there some inherent sexism there. That the 'man' is actually gonna run things. I don't think you meant that rusty but your gonna see that crop up and sexism talks are going to follow because it will be much more direct coming from a GOPers mouth.
 
Sometimes it seems GAF's political knowledge seems to start around 2004.

Also why would you be a fool to think otherwise? Isn't there some inherent sexism there. That the 'man' is actually gonna run things. I don't think you meant that rusty but your gonna see that crop up and sexism talks are going to follow because it will be much more direct coming from a GOPers mouth.
I didn't mean it as sexism as you mentioned, but Bill seems like the guy who craves authority and being at the political epicenter of the free world without the freedom to push buttons is something he will not take lightly.
 
I didn't mean it as sexism as you mentioned, but Bill seems like the guy who craves authority and being at the political epicenter of the free world without the freedom to push buttons is something he will not take lightly.

Agreed. There was tension over this issue in 2008. Initially Hillary's camp really harped on Bill not having much influence, however once Obama started winning they flip flopped and started the "two for one" nonsense.

It'll be very interesting to see how Bill behaves in 2015 and 2016. There were rumors that he was seeing another woman in 2007 and early 2008, which no doubt would have been revealed after Hillary secured the nomination. 6 years later the Clinton's aren't any better at message control or avoiding drama in an internet age. It'll be funny watching "unnamed Obama aides" shit talk the campaign as Hillary takes pot shots at Obama's poor presidency. Could get ugly.

Luckily republicans don't have anyone to beat her.
 

Vahagn

Member
Agreed. There was tension over this issue in 2008. Initially Hillary's camp really harped on Bill not having much influence, however once Obama started winning they flip flopped and started the "two for one" nonsense.

It'll be very interesting to see how Bill behaves in 2015 and 2016. There were rumors that he was seeing another woman in 2007 and early 2008, which no doubt would have been revealed after Hillary secured the nomination. 6 years later the Clinton's aren't any better at message control or avoiding drama in an internet age. It'll be funny watching "unnamed Obama aides" shit talk the campaign as Hillary takes pot shots at Obama's poor presidency. Could get ugly.

Luckily republicans don't have anyone to beat her.

You're not sold on Romney 2016? Because you were pretty damn sold on Romney 2012.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Mark Kirk is bullish on his re-election chances. He will share the same fate as all the other Marks aside from Warner.

Does anyone believe there will be Hillary-Kirk voters? Clinton wont blow out the R's in Illinois with Obama margins(home state effect) but the nominee if its Hillary at minimum is 55-45.

He like Toomey will be banking on ticket splitting. With such a polarizing electorate these days, I dont see how Kirk wins unless the senate nominee or Hillary implodes.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Mark Kirk is bullish on his re-election chances. He will share the same fate as all the other Marks aside from Warner.

Does anyone believe there will be Hillary-Kirk voters? Clinton wont blow out the R's in Illinois with Obama margins(home state effect) but the nominee if its Hillary at minimum is 55-45.

He like Toomey will be banking on ticket splitting. With such a polarizing electorate these days, I dont see how Kirk wins unless the senate nominee or Hillary implodes.

It looks like Tammy Duckworth is running -- I think she's a strong enough candidate to take Kirk. I don't think Kathleen Kane will run anymore because of PornGate, but there are some good candidates in 2016 to take on Toomey. He's also an easy target.
 
Mark Kirk is bullish on his re-election chances. He will share the same fate as all the other Marks aside from Warner.

Does anyone believe there will be Hillary-Kirk voters?
Clinton wont blow out the R's in Illinois with Obama margins(home state effect) but the nominee if its Hillary at minimum is 55-45.

He like Toomey will be banking on ticket splitting. With such a polarizing electorate these days, I dont see how Kirk wins unless the senate nominee or Hillary implodes.

Yes. Donelly won in IN, and Mcaskill in MO and Begich in 2008 in AK. If you run a good campaign you can minimize this. Duckworth is probably good.

It looks like Tammy Duckworth is running -- I think she's a strong enough candidate to take Kirk. I don't think Kathleen Kane will run anymore because of PornGate, but there are some good candidates in 2016 to take on Toomey. He's also an easy target.

what is this? I'd hate to see a women taken out of the running. We need more not less in the Senate.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Yes. Donelly won in IN, and Mcaskill in MO and Begich in 2008 in AK. If you run a good campaign you can minimize this. Duckworth is probably good.



what is this? I'd hate to see a women taken out of the running. We need more not less in the Senate.

What about Cheri bustos? I have seen her name floated around like Madigan(doubt she runs). At the very least, the D's need someone who is NOT GAFFE PRONE like the great Bruce Bailey*(Braley) who looked good on paper but ran an absolute TRASH campaign.

No more Braleys and Berkley from Nevada who blew it against Heller.
 
The NH state legislature has a contested Speaker of the House election tomorrow; I'm really hoping that Gene Chandler beats out that whacko Bill O'Brien... a repeat of the 2010-2011 session would be a real disaster.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Yes. Donelly won in IN, and Mcaskill in MO and Begich in 2008 in AK. If you run a good campaign you can minimize this. Duckworth is probably good.



what is this? I'd hate to see a women taken out of the running. We need more not less in the Senate.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=kathleen+kane&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=kathleen+kane&rls=en&tbm=nws

Whether or not it's justified, she just hired a crisis manager. I don't think there's anyway she can run in 2016.
 

Wilsongt

Member
We will find out Thursday if SC will have gay marriage. Wilson has appealed to the 4th for a stay, but I highly doubt they will grant it. He threatened to take it to the SCOTUS if they do that. Keep fucking that chicken, Wilson.
 
Eh? Has Feingold ever said anything about reentering politics? I thought he was done for good.
Feingold's been dropping hints about it for a while, but nothing solid like Sestak who's basically been running since he lost in 2010.

Has Tammy Duckworth said she is running for IL senate seat? She is a kickass Congresswoman and I couldn't be more proud of her repping my district.

Edit: Heck i'm going to send her an email to say how awesome she is.
Saw this a couple days ago

Other Senate candidacies I'm hoping for (besides the four mentioned): Pat Murphy in FL, Tom Vilsack in IA, Tim Ryan in OH
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Feingold's been dropping hints about it for a while, but nothing solid like Sestak who's basically been running since he lost in 2010.


Saw this a couple days ago

Other Senate candidacies I'm hoping for (besides the four mentioned): Pat Murphy in FL, Tom Vilsack in IA, Tim Ryan in OH

My dream candidates at this point:

WI: Russ Feingold
IL: Tammy Duckworth
NH: Maggie Hassan
FL: Pat Mirphy
NC: Kay Fuckin' Hagan
AZ: Kyrsten Sinema
IA: Tom Vilsack
GA: Michelle Nunn
AR: Mike Bebee

If open:

KY: Steve Beshear
SD: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

I need to inspect PA more. Taking Kathleen Kane out doesn't do the race any favors, but Toomey is extremely vulnerable.
 
My dream candidates at this point:

WI: Russ Feingold
IL: Tammy Duckworth
NH: Maggie Hassan
FL: Pat Mirphy
NC: Kay Fuckin' Hagan
AZ: Kyrsten Sinema
IA: Tom Vilsack
GA: Michelle Nunn
AR: Mike Bebee

If open:

KY: Steve Beshear
SD: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

I need to inspect PA more. Taking Kathleen Kane out doesn't do the race any favors, but Toomey is extremely vulnerable.
Will you complain when they're not progressive?
 
Tweens can't vote.

Inuyasha has been off the air since 2005*.

Anyone who was 14 then is 23 now.

*There was a second series in 2010, but the US fanbase was grown on Cartoon Network, whcih didnt air the last episodes

Holy shit that makes me feel old. I used to watch Inuyasha after school on Cartoon Network LA when it aired from 5-6pm every day.
 
Agreed. There was tension over this issue in 2008. Initially Hillary's camp really harped on Bill not having much influence, however once Obama started winning they flip flopped and started the "two for one" nonsense.

It'll be very interesting to see how Bill behaves in 2015 and 2016. There were rumors that he was seeing another woman in 2007 and early 2008, which no doubt would have been revealed after Hillary secured the nomination. 6 years later the Clinton's aren't any better at message control or avoiding drama in an internet age. It'll be funny watching "unnamed Obama aides" shit talk the campaign as Hillary takes pot shots at Obama's poor presidency. Could get ugly.

Luckily republicans don't have anyone to beat her.

Wait whats this about Bill seeing a woman in 2007? Smoke, fire etc. Your words from the Cosby thread PD not mine.
 

Necrovex

Member
Inuyasha has been off the air since 2005*.

Anyone who was 14 then is 23 now.

*There was a second series in 2010, but the US fanbase was grown on Cartoon Network, whcih didnt air the last episodes

Holy shit that makes me feel old. I used to watch Inuyasha after school on Cartoon Network LA when it aired from 5-6pm every day.

I like to think people who become adults (i.e. 18) realize Inuyasha is a bunch of rubbish. :p

I know I'm wrong on that account, I met too many fangirls in my Japanese class who loved it.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Apparently the one thing Democrats was consistent in was really hating tariffs in that era. It's very prominent in most of those platform statements.
The tariff was the consistent and often the single biggest issue in every election for over a hundred years.

The Whigs were split on slavery so it rarely became a major issue in election campaigns, but became one during Congressional sessions. It was only the emergence of the Free Soil/Republican Party that catapulted slavery into a serious electoral politics issue and that got...resolved...within just a few years. So the tariff returned to its prior position as the pre-eminent political question. Democrats were generally anti-tariff, or lower tariffs or "tariff for revenue only", while Whigs/Republicans wanted more tariffs than there were things to put tariffs on.

Two of the more infamous tariffs are the McKinley Tariff (which set rates above 50%!!!) and Smoot-Hawley Act because they both set off trade wars where countries raised tariffs on U.S. goods specifically in retaliation. Both passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents.
 
The tariff was the consistent and often the single biggest issue in every election for over a hundred years.

The Whigs were split on slavery so it rarely became a major issue in election campaigns, but became one during Congressional sessions. It was only the emergence of the Free Soil/Republican Party that catapulted slavery into a serious electoral politics issue and that got...resolved...within just a few years. So the tariff returned to its prior position as the pre-eminent political question. Democrats were generally anti-tariff, or lower tariffs or "tariff for revenue only", while Whigs/Republicans wanted more tariffs than there were things to put tariffs on.

Two of the more infamous tariffs are the McKinley Tariff (which set rates above 50%!!!) and Smoot-Hawley Act because they both set off trade wars where countries raised tariffs on U.S. goods specifically in retaliation. Both passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents.

Which is why I'm surprised that free trade is a "republican part" of clinton's legacy. They've always been pro-free trade or more accurately anti-tariff. It wasn't till Reagan and Bush 1 that the GOP really finally abandoned protectionism. The anti-nafta wing as always been more a response to the decline of labor's power in the US.

And smoot hawley was even used as a weapon against NAFTA critics


Tarriffs aren't much of a debate because by and large they're gone since FDR passed the Reciprocal Tariff Act which lets the president lower them without congress. They know average like 1%. And are used on certain products. I think sugar or something still has like a 50% rate because of the sugar lobby or something.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Sales Taxes include the tariff, this feds + state + local, share of total tax revenue:
Zs9ZpJR.png

That line stays near 100% all the way back to 1789.

Right, but Clinton hardly put up a fight, and actively supported it in many cases.
It was almost like the golden Carter years, *sniff*
ohvUeu5.png

P3C4J87.png
 

benjipwns

Banned
Which is why I'm surprised that free trade is a "republican part" of clinton's legacy. They've always been pro-free trade or more accurately anti-tariff. It wasn't till Reagan and Bush 1 that the GOP really finally abandoned protectionism. The anti-nafta wing as always been more a response to the decline of labor's power in the US.
The post-war Democrats' anti-free trade wing is mostly due to the unions influence (duh) though now there's the anti-globalization strand and the remnants of it in the Republican Party are the same type that hate immigration, AMERICA FIRST!!! FOREIGNERS ARE ICKY! types, ala Pat Buchanan.

I think sugar or something still has like a 50% rate because of the sugar lobby or something.
There's all sorts of protection for sugar, it's why HFCS usage went up and then why food prices went up when so much got plowed into Ethanol, because it's so (relatively) expensive to import what is for anyone else supercheap sugar from South America.

I suppose you could look at it half glass full in that at least we're just taxing it on our end instead of instigating wars and coups down there.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Well the income tax was illegal as were other direct taxes. There really wasn't much other way to raise revenue
Yeah, I just wanted to illustrate why the tariff was such a big deal, the income tax (and sometimes social taxes) have replaced that debate because its relative importance has fallen from like 90% to 1%.

The hell? Zero deregulatory laws under Saint Reagan?
The paper doesn't consider tax cuts to be "deregulation" just laws that affect...well...regulatory/administrative law.
 
The hell? Zero deregulatory laws under Saint Reagan?
"Important ones"

but yeah, first of all most of the deregulating already happened under carter, there was a democratic house and senate and he was more about cutting taxes than regulation.

Carters' deregulations also were immensely popular because they stopped lots of price control-type regulations and actually helped consumers and promoted competition. Airline deregulation specifically was awesome for consumers.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
The paper doesn't consider tax cuts to be "deregulation" just laws that affect...well...regulatory/administrative law.

But Reagan didn't just focus on taxes. He wanted to deregulate the shit out of everything. I know it started under Carter, but I thought went on steroids with Ronnie?
 

benjipwns

Banned
lol at this graph:
CXM946.gif


Article makes a point I should have, that Smooth-Hawley didn't cause the depression, it just, like a lot of policy decisions in that era made it worse and prolonged it.

But Reagan didn't just focus on taxes. He wanted to deregulate the shit out of everything.
And Obama wanted to have the most transparent administration of all time with five days of public comment before signing every bill.

Then received his transparency award in a secret off-schedule meeting closed to the press.
 
But Reagan didn't just focus on taxes. He wanted to deregulate the shit out of everything. I know it started under Carter, but I thought went on steroids with Ronnie?
There weren't any major laws passed, the most I can find are somethings on natural gas.

He probably did somethings with the power that was granted to him by prior laws but he was no big deregulator. Carter and Clinton get that.

You're thinking of thatcher who was reagan on steroids (and democrats hate divided government!)
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
And Obama wanted to have the most transparent administration of all time with five days of public comment before signing every bill.

Then received his transparency award in a secret off-schedule meeting closed to the press.

There weren't any major laws passed, the most I can find are somethings on natural gas.

He probably did somethings with the power that was granted to him by prior laws but he was no big deregulator. Carter and Clinton get that.

What about the banking industry? Wasn't that a major one? That's what led to the Savings and Loan crisis, after all.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Reagan's big deregulation was speeding up Carter's oil deregulation by having it come into effect earlier rather than phase in over years. I think he signed an executive order to have it happen immediately.

Lot a like of Presidents in the era, he got distracted by the Cold War and mostly left domestic politics to people who favored the post-New Deal consensus. Nixon had done the same thing. Eisenhower.

LBJ was different because he had super-majorities in Congress and events that were pressing on domestic legislative action. (Even as he personally focused increasingly on Vietnam.)

What about the banking industry? Wasn't that a major one? That's what led to the Savings and Loan crisis, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_Control_Act
signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 31.
 
There should be a thread on pre-clinton US history. GAF is pretty ignorant (i mean that in the least judgemental way) on it.

And considering US politics is reverting more to the turn of the late 19th early 20th century type politics we should also talk about that.
 

benjipwns

Banned
The irony was that the Great Liberal Lion Ted Kennedy played a key role in a lot of this deregulation, especially trucking, he and Carter were basically inventing "neo-liberalism" or Clinton's DLC or Tony Blair's "Third Way" before anyone cared enough to label it.

They and some of the Liberal Republicans of the era, notably Romney under Nixon*, felt that the problem of "liberalism" was that it had become too bureaucratic, was still based around 1930's designs and wasn't actually responding to modern needs. You saw some of this late in the century with the "paperless government" that came out of Al Gore's commission. Basically that, having five million file cabinets may have been how you had to do it in 1935 but does more harm than good in 1995 or 2035 for meeting the goals of the program.

Reagan road the wave with rhetoric but he was never actually doing much unlike Carter, let alone Thatcher. (Of course Thatcher had absolute power essentially to slash through the UK government.)

*Who Nixon appointed to HUD to get rid of him as a challenger, and then the guy was trying to do all sorts of stuff to make the department work and asking for Nixon's time and support, which was annoying, so Nixon eventually just stopped allowing him to meet with him lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom