• 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.
R

RustyNails

Member
Poodlestrike said:
Really? Dude spouted a bunch of antisemitic stereotypes and topped it off with one nugget of good sense.

He's batting above average for once is all.
Click to expand...
Sure, he will deport all the jews, gays, muslims and mexicans and is a crazy bastard. Just never in my life time thought someone so high profile would say stuff like that about Israel not being a partner in peace, status of jerusalem, etc. Especially when it costs him nothing to tow the party line.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Veritigo_X said:
Everyone is surging. I could drive up to NH and probably start surging.
Click to expand...

J2vi4.jpg
Click to expand...

.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
RustyNails said:
Didn't think of that. Ha.

But Trump doesn't come off as a chessplayer to me. He's more of a spray and pray cannon.
Click to expand...

I have to think he's not gunning for the all out religious vote. He's "just religious enough" for the anti establishment nationalist faction. IOWA has gone to Huckabee and Santorum so I'm not really shocked Trump is loosing to someone who's on the record against abortions for rape in that state.
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
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/
Click to expand...

Thanks, I will read them later.

The fact that Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley are not giving out detailed tax plans at this point is bothersome. Is that normal?

Crab said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well then why are the republicans giving out detailed tax plans now? Unless I misunderstood you, I think not giving them out and waiting until November 2016 is a problem.

Yellowtail said:
FiveThirtyEight when Trump is ahead: early polls don't matter!
FiveThirtyEight when Trump is behind in a poll: Trump has a BIG PROBLEM.
Click to expand...

My boss, who is very political and has been voting for 40+ years, tells me not to pay attention to these polls at this point. He actually says I'm very naive for even bringing them up. He is betting me 100 bucks that Trump is not the nominee and someone else will be (his pick is either Cruz, Rubio, or Christie (lol)). I might be naive as I have never followed politics before, but seems like a good bet to me. He is giving me some weeks to make up my mind.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
The GOP is just strange:

86/8 support among GOP voters in NC for barring people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm
Click to expand...

My super Republican friends and family actually loved Obama's speech when it came to gun control too...?
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
My boss, who is very political and has been voting for 40+ years, tells me not to pay attention to these polls at this point. He actually says I'm very naive for even bringing them up. He is betting me 100 bucks that Trump is not the nominee and someone else will be (his pick is either Cruz, Rubio, or Christie (lol)). I might be naive as I have never followed politics before, but seems like a good bet to me. He is giving me some weeks to make up my mind.
Click to expand...

Historically I believe your boss is correct. People who think trump is winning are banking on anti establishment fervor being higher than previous cycles though.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
What the fuck, The Hill?

You tweet that he's surging, but then in the article, you say that he "could be positioned to surge."

WHICH IS IT??????
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And? Rather than jump straight to demonizing your political opposition (you know, like calling people "weasels" who have the audacity to challenge your beliefs), why not go out and try to find out why they don't act like you think they should? I raised several possible explanations for why pro-life groups aren't as vociferous in their opposition to fertility clinics. On what basis have you rejected each?

Also, is the bolded also supposed to be because pro-life groups hate sex?

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...

Perhaps I am being optimistic about the effect of Roe's poor reasoning on its opponents. However, there still remains that difference between abortion and fertility clinics--one has been enshrined by Constitutional law; the other has not--that could explain the different treatment by pro-life groups.

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

Iolo said:
Right, all it takes is that small matter of interpreting what freedom of speech is, which had four dissenting Justices.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the holding in Obergefell is also clearly rooted in the Constitution (Kennedy's vigorous attempts to sever that connection notwithstanding), and that also had four dissenting justices. Roe, on the other hand, "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be" (PDF).

Frank the Great said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. "Other courts did this previously" is an understatement. Here are the citations provided by the Court in Citizens United for the following assertions:

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U. S. 180 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996); Turner, 512 U. S. 622; Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S. 105; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989); Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970).

This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button, 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bellotti,435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id., at 780, n. 16. Cf. id., at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).​

And in Citizens United itself, all nine justices agreed that First Amendment protects corporate speech. From the dissent:

The majority grasps a quotational straw from [a prior case], that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation. Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary[.]​

The fact that modern corporate law is different from 18th century corporate law cuts against you. Modern corporate law developed under the constraints of the First Amendment. In your view, can a state really just create a new law of business associations and exempt it from the Constitution?

Also, this bit--"After CU, directors of a corporation can use corporate treasury funds for their own political purposes"--is false. Directors still have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, and are required by law to act in the corporation's best interests, not their own.

2. Your complaint is with Buckley v. Valeo, not Citizens United.

3. The disclosure provisions had nothing to do with the Court's analysis of the independent-expenditures question. They didn't "rely" on it in holding as they did on that subject. Additionally, if "dark money" is a problem, Citizens United isn't preventing the government from requiring disclosure of donors by such groups. Quite the opposite, in fact:

Last, Citizens United argues that disclosure requirements can chill donations to an organization by exposing donors to retaliation. Some amici point to recent events in which donors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or otherwise targeted for retaliation. In McConnell, the Court recognized that § 201 would be unconstitutional as applied to an organization if there were a reasonable probability that the group’s members would face threats, harassment, or reprisals if their names were disclosed. The examples cited by amici are cause for concern. Citizens United, however, has offered no evidence that its members may face similar threats or reprisals. To the contrary, Citizens United has been disclosing its donors for years and has identified no instance of harassment or retaliation.​

4. The Court explained its broader ruling:

As the foregoing analysis confirms, the Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment. It is not judicial restraint to accept an unsound, narrow argument just so the Court can avoid another argument with broader implications. Indeed, a court would be remiss in performing its duties were it to accept an unsound principle merely to avoid the necessity of making a broader ruling. Here, the lack of a valid basis for an alternative ruling requires full consideration of the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin.​

The government probably could have avoided the broader ruling if it hadn't argued at the original oral argument that it had the power to ban books.

5. Well, Austin. But that case was itself an aberration from the Court's prior cases.

Crab said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, actually the important part of free speech (as protected by the Constitution) is that the government can't prevent speech. Elevating the idea that "everyone's speech should be heard" to equal or greater stature than that suggests that the government can prevent speech to ensure equality. Nobody actually believes that--nobody thinks the New York Times should be shuttered so that my little blog or posts on NeoGAF.com can be heard. It's just a rhetorical tool to justify silencing people you don't want to hear from.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Makai said:
What's your interpretation?
Click to expand...

It reads to me that *if* the GOP establishment can take down trump, Iowa is the best place to do it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...y-need-religious-voters-to-stop-donald-trump/

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

That’s what I imagine Reince Priebus, head of the Republican National Committee, repeating to himself as he tries to fall asleep every night. Because here’s the problem for a Republican establishment hoping to avoid nominating Donald Trump: Trump continues to lead poll after poll, and he’s held a consistent edge among all ideological groups nationally and in most states, including New Hampshire. To beat Trump, the establishment may have to defeat him in Iowa, but recently, the Iowa caucuses have been unwelcoming to establishment-approved candidates.
Click to expand...

It does cite Trumps' weaker-than-elsewhere poll numbers later in the article, but it certainly doesn't suggest that Trump is in BIG TROUBLE. If anything, this article is suggesting he'll win *unless* something happens.

It's also loaded with caveats and we-don't-know-yets throughout.

I suppose the tweet itself looks like that, but I hardly pay any attention to tweets and my guess is it's just worded that way as clickbait. The tweeter *is* the author of the article and the article isn't pushing that narrative.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Meta, you really think you're something other than a weasel? You simultaneously think that anti-abortion people are too stupid to know the details of fertility clinics while having a terrific grasp of one school of thought regarding constitutional law? You believe that as much as you believe you believe the world is flat. You think that anti-abortions groups are purposefully taking the harder battle that is constitutionally protected because...?

I fucking hate people like you, Meta and you're definitely one of the reasons I think Christianity is a disease. I've known wonderful women who had to get abortions to get away from their abusive partners and they were immediately demonized by your cult to where they developed self-hatred and severe depression. That's nothing but anti-women hatred from losers like you and your cult. I will always despise people like you and I can't wait until Christianity in America is as irrelevant as Christianity in France.
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
BertramCooper said:
Yeah, fucking take THAT, Malala.
Click to expand...

This has to be a joke post, and one in very bad taste, at that?!

Malala Yousafzai does indeed deserve great praise, for standing up to the Taliban, and the right for girls to receive the same education as boys, as sometimes it takes a brave sole to put their life on the line, to effect real change, however, Bernie is trying to bring forth, nothing short of a complete overhaul of the political system of the United States, reclaiming it from the corporations and special interests, for every American citizen, where, if we are successful, will likely have positive repercussions for the whole World, including Malala's home country of Pakistan.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Cerium said:
Whoa, that escalated quickly.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but family members crying to me about how they were called murderers just to get away from their abusers makes me think that Christianity is nothing but a plague. People like Meta have harmed my friends and family more than any member of ISIS ever will.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Daniel B·;188312294 said:
This has to be a joke post, and one in very bad taste, at that?!

Malala Yousafzai does indeed deserve great praise, for standing up to the Taliban, and the right for girls to receive the same education as boys, as sometimes it takes a brave sole to put their life on the line, to effect real change, however, Bernie is trying to bring forth, nothing short of a complete overhaul of the political system of the United States, reclaiming it from the corporations and special interests, for every American citizen, where, if we are successful, will likely have positive repercussions for the whole World, including Malala's home country of Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Oof.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Well, I think the holding in Obergefell is also clearly rooted in the Constitution (Kennedy's vigorous attempts to sever that connection notwithstanding), and that also had four dissenting justices. Roe, on the other hand, "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be" (PDF).
Click to expand...

I'm just making the point that it can't be that self-evident if the court was that divided. Same with Obergefell, even if I agree with it.

I also agree with you on Roe, as I noted way up in response to somebody else. One of the post political people I know, hard left, *and* with a connection to the SCOTUS feels the same way, and describes it as if among his circle that's taken for granted. Bad ruling for the right thing.
 
C

Cerium

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I'm sorry, but family members crying to me about how they were called murderers just to get away from their abusers makes me think that Christianity is nothing but a plague. People like Meta have harmed my friends and family more than any member of ISIS ever will.
Click to expand...

I'll see you on the other side my friend.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Manmademan said:
That's word for word how the tweet reads.

The article however is a different take, but if Harry wants to present it differently for clicks then that's on him.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the post here is just mindlessly pushing the anti-538 angle, when the article is quite reasonable. I do expect people to click though and not just react to tweets when there's an article present.

There's a reason I don't Twitter actively, and it's this kind of simplification. It's dumb and counterproductive.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Nope, . . . and call the women I love murderers to my face[.]
Click to expand...

Dude, we're not talking about whether abortion is murder. We're talking about whether pro-life groups oppose abortion and contraceptives because they secretly oppose sex. There's no reason to throw away your account over this.

Edit your posts.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Dude, we're not talking about whether abortion is murder. We're talking about whether pro-life groups oppose abortion and contraceptives because they secretly oppose sex. There's no reason to throw away your account over this.

Edit your posts.
Click to expand...

Nope, there is a reason in that you're a super shitty person in that you're defending people that cause extreme harm to wonderful women. You called abortion murder days ago and now you're trying to use a defense when anti-abortion groups are simultaneously incredibly informed and incredibly uninformed that would lead to failing logic 101.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
I am pretty sure that ant-abortion groups oppose abortions because it gives them a measure of societal control, and that control is disproportionally over women. It's not a legal question, but a sociological one. The fertility clinics question is valid since it would make a target primarily out of married couples, which is not the unstated goal.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
You called abortion murder days ago and now you're trying to use a defense when anti-abortion groups are simultaneously incredibly informed and incredibly uninformed that would lead to failing logic 101.
Click to expand...

I don't remember calling abortion murder; could you refresh my memory? As for your complaint about pro-life groups being "simultaneously incredibly informed and incredibly uninformed," I was offering alternative explanations. A or B, not A and B. I've since walked back the part of one alternative that suggested it mattered that Roe was poorly supported.

Edit your posts.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Sure, but the post here is just mindlessly pushing the anti-538 angle, when the article is quite reasonable. I do expect people to click though and not just react to tweets when there's an article present.

There's a reason I don't Twitter actively, and it's this kind of simplification. It's dumb and counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Like I said...the article has nothing to do with the tweet, but if the articles author goes out of his way to present it as a TRUMP IS DOOMED article when it's no such thing, or backpedaling on "polls are meaningless this far out" the minute said polls are bad for Trump, then 538 and Harry Enten deserve every single bit of vitriol that comes their way because of it.

These people are professional journalists, not forum posters and should be held to a higher standard. If that's too much to expect then perhaps they should go back to doing burrito brackets instead of playing pundits.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Manmademan said:
Like I said...the article has nothing to do with the tweet, but if the articles author goes out of his way to present it as a TRUMP IS DOOMED article when it's no such thing, or backpedaling on "polls are meaningless this far out" the minute said polls are bad for Trump, then 538 and Harry Enten deserve every single bit of vitriol that comes their way because of it.

These people are professional journalists, not forum posters and should be held to a higher standard. If that's too much to expect then perhaps they should go back to doing burrito brackets instead of playing pundits.
Click to expand...

You take twitter a lot more seriously than I do, obviously. And Yellowtail was presenting is as 538's opinion overall, as opposed to an advertisement for and article with nuance.

I suppose what really triggered my reaction is that people keep pushing this 538/Trump narrative when reading the site doesn't support anything like the vitriol that gets posted here.
 
M

Makai

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
It reads to me that *if* the GOP establishment can take down trump, Iowa is the best place to do it.

I suppose the tweet itself looks like that, but I hardly pay any attention to tweets and my guess is it's just worded that way as clickbait. The tweeter *is* the author of the article and the article isn't pushing that narrative.
Click to expand...
I only read the tweet, but it's Harry's own fault if he gave us a faulty summary of his own article :p
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
You take twitter a lot more seriously than I do, obviously. And Yellowtail was presenting is as 538's opinion overall, as opposed to an advertisement for and article with nuance.

I suppose what really triggered my reaction is that people keep pushing this 538/Trump narrative when reading the site doesn't support anything like the vitriol that gets posted here.
Click to expand...

I don't like twitter and don't use it. Lends itself to too much nonsense.

But I would have to be pretty ignorant to ignore how its used in journalism and by journalists. The standards don't drop into the basement because "oh it's twitter no one takes it seriously lol". People can and do, and we're long past the point where an errant tweet can ruin careers. The wrong tweet at the wrong time routinely ends up as the lead story on the nightly news.

But that aside, it's shitty behavior. Tell you what, go make a thread right now with that tweet title, and link to that article that doesn't back it up. I'd be willing to bet that the mods would be less than amused at the clickbait...and this is NeoGAF, not a site that wants to be taken as seriously as the new York Times.
 
M

Makai

Member
The AI thread reminded me - I expect a pretty severe recession in the early 2020s. Moore's Law will pretty much conclude in 2020 and then we'll have a period of linear improvement until we come up with a suitable replacement for silicon. I don't think Intel will be ready. Would be severely damaging to companies like Apple and Sony.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
I don't think any American news media even tries to pretend their headlines are respectable though. Vox is the most trashy in that regard, but others are really bad too.
 
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