• 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 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Daniel B·

Banned
j_k_redtail said:
New NBC poll has Clinton over Trump, 52-41:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591
Click to expand...

ROFL!!! So the new strategy is to simply omit Bernie's results? Yeah, that's the ticket.

Meanwhile, Bernie wins Time's Person of the Year Reader's poll, with almost double the votes (10.2%) of Malala Yousafzai (5.2%), Pakistani girls’ education activist. Pope Francis scored 3.7%, just ahead of President Obama, at 3.5%. Did Hillary Clinton even make the list? She did, but only managed a paltry 1.4%, which is remarkably similar to the ratio of American's, that turned out for the Montgomery County Thanksgiving Parade, that the establishment press blatantly [post=186634871]tried[/post] to cover up. If you are at all uncertain of the bias, you must have missed the handpicked caption of Hillary's handful of supporters: "HILLRAISERS OF MARYLAND" (admittedly, very catchy ;) )...
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Wilsongt said:
Of course. Obama didn't say anything about destroying ISIS with a nuke, so he is a no-nothing president.
Click to expand...

The fact that we have people (on this forum and running for president) that are actually calling for that is scary as hell. People seriously view nukes as some sort of magic wand since it worked out for us one time.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Iolo said:
*according to a particular interpretation of the constitution agreed to by 5 of 9 current Supreme Court Justices, one of whom is starting to regret it a bit
Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" is pretty clear. All it takes from there is recognizing that restrictions on spending on speech restrict speech, and you have Citizens United. For abortion, you squint at the Bill of Rights really hard and then throw bits and pieces of the blur in a pot and stir vigorously. Then you say "Jane Roe" in front of a mirror three times with the lights out and out comes the right to abortion.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Daniel B·;188273720 said:
Meanwhile, Bernie wins Time's Person of the Year Reader's poll, with almost double the votes (10.2%) of Malala Yousafzai (5.2%), Pakistani girls’ education activist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fucking take THAT, Malala.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
RustyNails said:
I missed the speech. Did Obama also mention Muslim rappers? Mos Def? Lupe? Nas? T-Pain? Akon?
Click to expand...

Nas isn't a Muslim. He's dabbled in Five Percenter shit/mathematics but that's about it.

Given Lupe's various statements on Obama I wouldn't expect him to mention him. Lupe got kicked out a DNC concert event for shitting on Obama lol.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Veritigo_X said:
The fact that we have people (on this forum and running for president) that are actually calling for that is scary as hell. People seriously view nukes as some sort of magic wand since it worked out for us one time.
Click to expand...

People want action and Obama didn't do it. Obama can't do shit right now except talk due to Congress.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
No, I don't. You'd have an argument if you could have honestly ended your question without those last three words. Those who oppose all contraception do so (as far as I know--YMMV) because they believe it is immoral to artificially interfere with the procreative function of sex, not because they oppose sex. You haven't a leg to stand on with respect to those who oppose only some, but not all, contraceptives, obviously.



Good question. I don't know the answer. I would want good reason to discount other rationales before latching onto the one that best enables me to demonize people who disagree with me, though. For example, perhaps people are just ignorant of what occurs at these clinics. Or, perhaps abortion is unique in our culture because of its historic political controversy or enshrinement as a poorly supported Constitutional right. Or perhaps it's too small a problem right now--you refer to "thousands," but how does the number compare to the hundreds of thousands of aborted children each year? As an initial matter, I find your explanation too implausible--and too convenient for your political views--to take seriously in light of these competing explanations.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if you view embryos as "babies" then fertility clinics kill more Americans each year than the Iraq War did total. Stop being a weasel who mutters around about the relative scale. if Republican politicians cared about embryos, then the 31 Republican governors in charge of their state could shut down all of their fertility clinics (which aren't protected by the constitution) and would save thousands of "lives" every year. They would "save" more Americans within a month than ISIS will kill ever, yet they have zero interest in it. For fucks sake, most "pro-life" groups also are opposed to assisted suicide which affects a tiny, tiny portion of people.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" is pretty clear. All it takes from there is recognizing that restrictions on spending on speech advertisements restrict speech, and you have Citizens United. For abortion, you squint at the Bill of Rights really hard and then throw bits and pieces of the blur in a pot and stir vigorously. Then you say "Jane Roe" in front of a mirror three times with the lights out and out comes the right to abortion.
Click to expand...

Thats a huge jump. And not very clearly spelled out in the text.
 
S

sangreal

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
Thats a huge jump. And not very clearly spelled out in the text.
Click to expand...

The idea that congress can pass a law preventing you from spending money to distribute your own political message (a movie in this case, but could just as easily be a book, pamphlet, etc) could not be a more clear violation of both the text and intention of the first amendment.

Ignatz Mouse said:
Unclear enough that 4 out of 9 disagreed.
Click to expand...

Justices are not infallible. Besides, they dissented because they don't like what it means for campaign finance and associated corruption as well as believing that corporations are not protected.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Metaphoreus said:
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" is pretty clear. All it takes from there is recognizing that restrictions on spending on speech restrict speech, and you have Citizens United. For abortion, you squint at the Bill of Rights really hard and then throw bits and pieces of the blur in a pot and stir vigorously. Then you say "Jane Roe" in front of a mirror three times with the lights out and out comes the right to abortion.
Click to expand...

Right, all it takes is that small matter of interpreting what freedom of speech is, which had four dissenting Justices.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The important part of freedom of speech was not just the idea that the government can't prevent speech, but the idea that everyone's speech should be heard. Even if it remains legal for me to speak out on a topic, if I have no practical way of doing so, then my speech is not really free; it's still constrained. The effect of corporate megabucks reduced freedom of speech because they crowd out the speech of all those who don't have the money to compete for access to the public domain. It's not framed like that in the constitution, but the constitution was written in 1789, before the radio, television, the internet, and a society of 320 million people where almost the entire nation is enfranchised. The drafters of the constitution never envisaged a situation where it was likely that anything would be able to challenge freedom of speech other than the government, given the highest non-governmental barrier in 1789 was whether you had the money to pay for pamphlet distribution or not, so of course it's couched in terms of the government. However, any reasonable modern interpretation must take into account the fact that freedom of speech can be meaningfully curtailed by institutions that aren't the government. Citizens United fails to do that, so the dissent is fully justified.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
sangreal said:
Justices are not infallible. Besides, they dissented because they don't like what it means for campaign finance and associated corruption as well as believing that corporations are not protected.
Click to expand...

I never said that they were, but if Citizens were as self-evident as Meta suggests, there wouldn't have been such a large dissent.

Anyway, it's that last nugget that's the crux of the dissent, and there are a lot of reasons to believe that corporations ought not be granted the same protections as individuals that goes far, far beyond campaign finance spending.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
I think it matters. People get upset when they feel like the Court is taking away their democratic power without warrant. It's why conservatives (wrongly) try to paint Obergefell as lacking a Constitutional basis (though Kennedy's poem-instead-of-an-opinion didn't help any).
Click to expand...

Again, I really don't think it does and you're giving the electorate way too much credit in terms of its ability to understand constitutional law.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
It's interesting how Cruz is eating up the old Carson support. It seems like the primary is split roughly 3 ways: Trump crazies, not-Trump crazies, and establishment.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Nas isn't a Muslim. He's dabbled in Five Percenter shit/mathematics but that's about it.

Given Lupe's various statements on Obama I wouldn't expect him to mention him. Lupe got kicked out a DNC concert event for shitting on Obama lol.
Click to expand...
Fine, exchange Lupe for Busta Rhymes.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
sangreal said:
The idea that congress can pass a law preventing you from spending money to distribute your own political message (a movie in this case, but could just as easily be a book, pamphlet, etc) could not be a more clear violation of both the text and intention of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

I mean, if CU was limited to this holding then it wouldn't be problematic. I think most people agree with this. The problems--and the areas that require extra-constitutional policy-making, contrary to Metamucil's position--are:

1. Extending First Amendment rights to corporations and unions. Admittedly, other courts did this previously, but CU expanded this. Corporate law, as it is understood today (ie. corporations created and regulated by statute), didn't even exist at the time the bill of rights was passed. After CU, directors of a corporation can use corporate treasury funds for their own political purposes. Clearly not in the text of the Constitution and an exercise of judicial activism.

2. The statement that political expenditures cannot give rise to corruption or even the appearance of corruption. Ideology, plain and simple.

3. The court's reliance on disclosure laws as a fail-safe, completely ignoring the possibility of shadow money which is now dominating politics.

4. The decision was way broader than it needed to be.

5. To the extent that you say the Court relied on stare decisis (ie. Past courts applied First Amendment to corporations) that's bullshit because the CU court went out of its way to overturn multiple prior decisions.

For what it's worth, I think Roe v. Wade was an even more egregious example of judicial activism. I have no problem with judicial activism, I simply prefer judges who agree with me on the outcome. I just hate when one side pretends that they don't do it (in addition to CU, Heller and Bush v. Gore come to mind as obvious examples).
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
Not to mention that the Justice's concerns over burdens of First Amendment rights expressed in CU and Mcutcheon are completely out of whack with their views of burdens of voting rights in the Voter ID case. Blatant political hackery and activism. Which is fine, buy don't pretend that those five douchenozzles are above it.
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
Has anyone besides Carson (flat tax of 10%) and Trump (0% up to 25%) provided their detailed tax plan or if they are happy with the status quo? That's kind of important before the primaries, methinks.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
Has anyone besides Carson (flat tax of 10%) and Trump (0% up to 25%) provided their detailed tax plan or if they are happy with the status quo? That's kind of important before the primaries, methinks.
Click to expand...

Cruz wants a flat tax of 10% and a VAT of 20% (basically, fucking over the non-working more than any other candidate has ever proposed) and Rubio just wants to cut everyone's taxes a huge amount (but cutting the rich's by more) and then we'll see if running massive deficits in non-recessions matters at all.
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Cruz wants a flat tax of 10% and a VAT of 20% (basically, fucking over the non-working more than any other candidate has ever proposed) and Rubio just wants to cut everyone's taxes a huge amount (but cutting the rich's by more) and then we'll see if running massive deficits in non-recessions matters at all.
Click to expand...

Can you link me to both of their plans?

None of the democratic candidates has outlined their plan yet, correct? Seems like they are waiting to the last two minutes of the fourth quarter. Cutting it kinda close there....
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Crab said:
Cruz is the one candidate I can legitimately see beating Trump.
Click to expand...

I feel like the party would rather have Trump than Cruz. Everyone hates Cruz. There was an article the other day that basically said the party wasn't going after Trump as hard as they could because they thought it might open the door to Cruz. If Cruz comes close, they're gonna red wedding him.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Again, I really don't think it does and you're giving the electorate way too much credit in terms of its ability to understand constitutional law.
Click to expand...

I think this is right. I'd like to point out that just now we saw almost every poster who responded re: Roe and Citizens United lining up behind "the constitution endorses my policy preferences".

It's true that people don't like it when they see the Court as overreaching, but what seems to explain a perception that the Court is overreaching is a person's own policy preferences rather than some philosophy of constitutional interpretation. Metaphoreus had just pointed to conservatives complaining about Obergefell in this way.

Actually this "pro-life means anti-sex" thing reminds me to write up something I've been kicking around about the problems with but necessity of psychologizing political opponents.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
B-Dubs said:
I feel like the party would rather have Trump than Cruz. Everyone hates Cruz. There was an article the other day that basically said the party wasn't going after Trump as hard as they could because they thought it might open the door to Cruz. If Cruz comes close, they're gonna red wedding him.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I think he could win (the primary).
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
I love how "pro-life" Christians in Iowa have switched to Cruz after he pledged to make the Middle East glow, good work, guys.

Here's links to Cruz and Rubio's tax plans and analysis of the plans:

https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan_summary/
https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...f040b8-7e88-11e5-afce-2afd1d3eb896_story.html
https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/rubio-tax-plan/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...-gives-a-huge-gift-to-the-top-0-0003-percent/
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Daniel B·;188273720 said:
ROFL!!! So the new strategy is to simply omit Bernie's results? Yeah, that's the ticket.

Meanwhile, Bernie wins Time's Person of the Year Reader's poll, with almost double the votes (10.2%) of Malala Yousafzai (5.2%), Pakistani girls’ education activist. Pope Francis scored 3.7%, just ahead of President Obama, at 3.5%. Did Hillary Clinton even make the list? She did, but only managed a paltry 1.4%, which is remarkably similar to the ratio of American's, that turned out for the Montgomery County Thanksgiving Parade, that the establishment press blatantly [post=186634871]tried[/post] to cover up. If you are at all uncertain of the bias, you must have missed the handpicked caption of Hillary's handful of supporters: "HILLRAISERS OF MARYLAND" (admittedly, very catchy ;) )...
Click to expand...

Ric Flair once was leading Time's Person of the Century online poll and only didn't win because Time changed how they accepted votes.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
Can you link me to both of their plans?

None of the democratic candidates has outlined their plan yet, correct? Seems like they are waiting to the last two minutes of the fourth quarter. Cutting it kinda close there....
Click to expand...

Sanders refusal to discuss taxes/plans really shows how unserious he is. If he wants 60-70% top rates, which I assume he does, he needs to say so.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Sanders refusal to discuss taxes/plans really shows how unserious he is. If he wants 60-70% top rates, which I assume he does, he needs to say so.
Click to expand...

hrm
Q: I heard Bernie wants to raise the top tax bracket to 90%. That seems too high.

A: Bernie has never said he wants to do that. He has recently said that he is "working right now on a comprehensive tax package, which I suspect will, for the top marginal rates, go over 50%."
Click to expand...
backed by bloomberg.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
PhoenixDark said:
Sanders refusal to discuss taxes/plans really shows how unserious he is. If he wants 60-70% top rates, which I assume he does, he needs to say so.
Click to expand...

Clinton's plan is not much more specific. In fact, it's not any more specific. We have "I won't raise taxes on the middle class" (ditto Sanders), "I would increase capital gains tax by some unspecified amount" (ditto Sanders), and "I would increase taxes above the level set by Bush" (ditto Sanders). And there's an obvious reason why both of them are non-committal - economies have an odd habit of changing. Setting a cast-iron guarantee about the precise level now when by November '16 we could be talking about a golden generation boom or a lost generation bust is asking for attack ads.

If anything, Sanders is more specific. We know his top marginal rate would be above 50% and below 90%. For Clinton, we know it would be above 39.6%. That's it.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I'm inserting more Burgess Meredith into this thread again. It's always a good time for his work!

Pop Culture Warned Us About Trump, Part 1: The Penguin!

A really fun look at the time when the Penguin ran for mayor of Gotham City, some of the moments are just too good.

tumblr_nxxin227a41rvzbdgo1_500.gif
 
B

Bel Marduk

Banned
B-Dubs said:
I feel like the party would rather have Trump than Cruz. Everyone hates Cruz. There was an article the other day that basically said the party wasn't going after Trump as hard as they could because they thought it might open the door to Cruz. If Cruz comes close, they're gonna red wedding him.
Click to expand...

Its going to be one of the two.
 
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