• 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 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

HylianTom

Banned
Knock me over with a feather: Louisiana's religious freedom bill didn't get past committee (sent to calendar on a 10-2 vote). Between this and Texas, I'm legitimately surprised at how things have developed. Ten years ago, half of the Democrats in the legislature would've been co-sponsors.

Jindal loses a bragging point. Maybe he should get back to working on the budget.
 
Knock me over with a feather: Louisiana's religious freedom bill didn't get past committee (sent to calendar on a 10-2 vote). Between this and Texas, I'm legitimately surprised at how things have developed. Ten years ago, half of the Democrats in the legislature would've been co-sponsors.

Jindal loses a bragging point. Maybe he should get back to working on the budget.
A good bunch of the GOP was unhappy with Pence's handling of RFRA. Indiana GOP has largely been moderate/silent on social issues and they saw the RFRA debacle as a mark of shame on the party and it proved that their worries of Pence being too conservative were correct. The Angie's List CEO resigned over it, a lifelong republican. Pence's approval numbers are also in the toilet.

Doesn't take a genius not to go ahead with that bill.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Democrats are depleted everywhere. Hopefully by 2018 we have a plan in place to build a new bench.

The Democrats have never really had a bench in Indiana. It's been solidly red for a very long time. That was less of a comment on the Democrats on a whole than the state of their party in Indiana.

The only states where Democrats have really fucked up and could win but have a terrible bench are in places like Florida and Ohio. There viable Democrats there are terrible. You have more of a bench in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and other swing states.
 

HylianTom

Banned
A good bunch of the GOP was unhappy with Pence's handling of RFRA. Indiana GOP has largely been moderate/silent on social issues and they saw the RFRA debacle as a mark of shame on the party and it proved that their worries of Pence being too conservative were correct. The Angie's List CEO resigned over it, a lifelong republican. Pence's approval numbers are also in the toilet.

Doesn't take a genius not to go ahead with that bill.
Jindal talked an incredibly tough game on this issue, as did a few of his buddies in the House, so I was honestly unsure of how this would go. Nothing from this legislature would shock me. But you're right.. this is a pretty big indicator of how gun-shy they're getting on some social issues - even in the South. Amazing.

(And maybe it's also an indicator of how big business pulls the strings around here.)
 

Wilsongt

Member
NRA gonna NRA

If a man in New Orleans drives over to his girlfriend’s home and beats her senseless, the National Rifle Association has his back.

Under existing Louisiana law, a person convicted of using “force or violence” against another member of their “household” loses their right to possess a firearm. If someone abuses a romantic partner that they do not live with, however, they are still allowed to carry a gun.

State Rep. Helena Moreno (D) hoped to close this loophole with legislation that expanded the state’s definition of domestic abuse battery to include violence against a “household member, family member or dating partner.” Thus, a man who beats his girlfriend would not be able to remain armed simply because the two of them live apart. The bill, however, was watered down considerably — among other things, it no longer includes violence against a “dating partner” in the definition of domestic abuse battery — thanks to objections from the NRA.

The watered down bill also includes several other changes that were made after the NRA objected to the original bill. It no longer expands the state’s definition of “serious bodily injury” to include strangulation. It no longer creates a felony-level crime of stalking. And it no longer provides that a person convicted of stalking cannot possess a firearm.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/19/3660370/nra-rides-rescue-men-beat-dates-louisiana/
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
surprising no one, Texas bans fracking bans

"small government and less government interference"...unless it gets in the way of our corporate overlords making a profit.

Did Orwell write this?

"individuals have a much better idea how to run their own lives than do a bunch of government officials."

You guys are really reaching here. State government prohibiting its local subdivisions from enacting rules prohibiting certain private (i.e., non-governmental) activity isn't exactly interfering with the free market or individual choices. There's no inconsistency here between what Texas has done and what conservatives generally believe about government.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
The Democrats have never really had a bench in Indiana. It's been solidly red for a very long time. That was less of a comment on the Democrats on a whole than the state of their party in Indiana.

The only states where Democrats have really fucked up and could win but have a terrible bench are in places like Florida and Ohio. There viable Democrats there are terrible. You have more of a bench in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and other swing states.

Well they have Gwen Graham and Tim Ryan so that's a start. As partisan as it may sound but the Democrats need to start taking over these Governorship and State Legislature in these swing states so they can change the laws to have their elections in Presidential years.
 
You guys are really reaching here. State government prohibiting its local subdivisions from enacting rules prohibiting certain private (i.e., non-governmental) activity isn't exactly interfering with the free market or individual choices. There's no inconsistency here between what Texas has done and what conservatives generally believe about government.

But conservatives claim to champion federalist ideals on the grounds that states have a better understanding of their needs than the federal government. Wouldn't this also extend to localities being regulated by states. If a town or county chooses to ban fracking and gives up the associated revenue what basis does the state have to infringe on that choice?
 
The media is letting the Republicans get out with a free pass with Iraq.

Rubio says "the world is a better place without saddam" and no one challenges it.

"Is that true, though? The toppling of Saddam left a huge civil war and the rise of ISIS along with the rise of Iran?"

"Is America safer after removing Saddam knowing what's happened since?"

"Was removing Saddam worth the American lives it cost?"

Instead they let these guys waffle about the whole hindsight intel stuff.

Question their answers directly because the Iraq was a huge mistake. It did not accomplish any of its goals outside of removing Saddam, it made the world less safe, and it was the wrong policy even if the intel was correct.
 
But conservatives claim to champion federalist ideals on the grounds that states have a better understanding of their needs than the federal government. Wouldn't this also extend to localities being regulated by states. If a town or county chooses to ban fracking and gives up the associated revenue what basis does the state have to infringe on that choice?

It extends to localities until their choices conflict with Big Business, at which point, republican stance goes towards BB.

Same thing that happened when municipalities were developing internet solutions, states cockblocked, and republicans didn't denounce big (local) government.

The media is letting the Republicans get out with a free pass with X.

Seems more apt. You got a party that wont denounce torture, ffs.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
But conservatives claim to champion federalist ideals on the grounds that states have a better understanding of their needs than the federal government. Wouldn't this also extend to localities being regulated by states. If a town or county chooses to ban fracking and gives up the associated revenue what basis does the state have to infringe on that choice?

If states were established as federal bodies themselves, then sure, the reasoning would apply at the state level, too. But they aren't. Municipalities exercise the power of state government, subject to control by the state government in all respects. They are arms of the state government, just like state agencies and public universities are arms of the state government. No one would question the state establishing rules describing what powers may be exercised by its agencies or public universities, and the situation here is no different.

This is unlike the relationship between states and the federal government, which exercise power derived from independent grants of authority, and where the grant to the federal government is limited in scope.
 
The media is letting the Republicans get out with a free pass with Iraq.

Rubio says "the world is a better place without saddam" and no one challenges it.

"Is that true, though? The toppling of Saddam left a huge civil war and the rise of ISIS along with the rise of Iran?"

"Is America safer after removing Saddam knowing what's happened since?"

"Was removing Saddam worth the American lives it cost?"

Instead they let these guys waffle about the whole hindsight intel stuff.

Question their answers directly because the Iraq was a huge mistake. It did not accomplish any of its goals outside of removing Saddam, it made the world less safe, and it was the wrong policy even if the intel was correct.
The media is afraid of getting blackballed by the RNC and getting left out of the debates. Also, pushing back against politicians = biased liberal media gotcha journalism etc
 
You guys are really reaching here. State government prohibiting its local subdivisions from enacting rules prohibiting certain private (i.e., non-governmental) activity isn't exactly interfering with the free market or individual choices. There's no inconsistency here between what Texas has done and what conservatives generally believe about government.

Huh?

The individuals banned fracking. Now theyre being told by big government that they have no say in how their community is run.

How is the government implementing a statewide blanket ban not interfering with individual choices?
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Huh?

The individuals banned fracking. Now theyre being told by big government that they have no say in how their community is run.

How is the government implementing a statewide blanket ban not interfering with individual choices?

You have an odd definition of "individuals." Generally, it isn't used to refer to a government body. It's used to refer to, you know, individuals.
 
If states were established as federal bodies themselves, then sure, the reasoning would apply at the state level, too. But they aren't. Municipalities exercise the power of state government, subject to control by the state government in all respects.

If you are going to argue state authority solely on the basis of the Constitution, then okay it wouldn't apply. But most people who advocate for the devolution of power to smaller, regional authorities say that this will allow the people, the ultimate holders of power, to express themselves more fully since a county will represent them more closely than the state and a state more than the federal government.
 

KingK

Member
Have no fear. KingK is going to run.

I'm officially announcing that I will announce the announcement of my candidacy some time in the future.


lol @ the show ruining Dorne. The only kingdom to fend off the Targaryens and their dragons, reduced to Xena Warrior Princess goons.


That's sad. Dorne is probably my favorite kingdom in the books. Pretty glad I decided to drop the show after last season.
 
The media is afraid of getting blackballed by the RNC and getting left out of the debates. Also, pushing back against politicians = biased liberal media gotcha journalism etc
The media also don't want to push the Republicans too hard on Iraq because they were complicit in beating the drums for war. It's not something they particularly want to revisit.

But it's ridiculous how the media constantly kowtow to the GOP. Every Republican runs again the mainstream media and it's treated with a shrug, yet when Hillary refuses to treat them with reverence they collectively throw a temper tantrum.

Her squatting aside this Fox news reporter at a campaign event today was glorious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=ufKR780DTQQ&app=desktop

I thought she'd try and improve the toxic relationship she has with the national press this time round, but she probably realizes the futility and has clearly decided to follow the Bams IDGAF playbook two years before Inauguration Day.
 

KingK

Member
The media is letting the Republicans get out with a free pass with Iraq.

Rubio says "the world is a better place without saddam" and no one challenges it.

"Is that true, though? The toppling of Saddam left a huge civil war and the rise of ISIS along with the rise of Iran?"

"Is America safer after removing Saddam knowing what's happened since?"

"Was removing Saddam worth the American lives it cost?"

Instead they let these guys waffle about the whole hindsight intel stuff.

Question their answers directly because the Iraq was a huge mistake. It did not accomplish any of its goals outside of removing Saddam, it made the world less safe, and it was the wrong policy even if the intel was correct.
I'm more pissed off at their framing of the question than anything. I think i saw PD speak to this earlier, but their questioning all presumes that there was no possible way to know Bush's intelligence was faulty at the time, which is bullshit.
 

HylianTom

Banned
So Jindal has decided to go all-in on this issue with an executive order, eh?

Let's see how this plays out. It'd be miiiighty interesting to see what his fellow candidates have to say about it.

Bobby Jindal plans to issue an executive order enforcing intent of religious freedom bill

"This Executive Order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman."
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/bobby_jindal_executive_order_r.html
 
You have an odd definition of "individuals." Generally, it isn't used to refer to a government body. It's used to refer to, you know, individuals.

Where are you drawing the line?

Ten individuals live in near proximity. A village will you. They decide unanimously they want to ban fracking. The State says no. And thats ok because individual only means one, and ten people are more than one?

So by your logic, the state should have absolute power in the bedroom because by definition, two people having sex are more than one, and their decisions are no longer those of an individual?

Someone call the sodomy banning brigade, this is their opening!
 
So Jindal has decided to go all-in on this issue with an executive order, eh?

Let's see how this plays out. It'd be miiiighty interesting to see what his fellow candidates have to say about it.


http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/bobby_jindal_executive_order_r.html

Bobby Jindal is the political equivalent of Miley Cyrus. No one is a bigger attention whore.

(Although the difference is Miley gets #1's, Jindal gets 1% in the polls despite all his grandstanding).
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Where are you drawing the line?

This is basic: private action versus government action. If ten landowners decide they don't want fracking or other drilling on their land, they have the right to exclude oil companies (so long as they own the mineral rights, and not just the surface, but that's another topic). The question here isn't about those ten landowners privately exercising their right to exclude oil companies; it's about the local government telling them they can't permit oil companies to drill on their land.

To borrow your funny analogy, this isn't a case where two people are privately having sex. This is a case where a local government bans people from having sex, and the state government steps in and says the local government can't do that.
 
I'm more pissed off at their framing of the question than anything. I think i saw PD speak to this earlier, but their questioning all presumes that there was no possible way to know Bush's intelligence was faulty at the time, which is bullshit.

My god yes, I thought it was well litigated that they knew doubts but ignored them. The war was decided and they built a case about that.

Lets stop pretending we were all mislead, no. People were rasing questions since day one, the fastball or whoever's intel was know to be BS by the germans. The intel community didn't fail or was mislead. It was manipulated.

Its like watching the rewriting of history.
 

AntoneM

Member
The media is letting the Republicans get out with a free pass with Iraq.

Rubio says "the world is a better place without saddam" and no one challenges it.

"Is that true, though? The toppling of Saddam left a huge civil war and the rise of ISIS along with the rise of Iran?"

"Is America safer after removing Saddam knowing what's happened since?"

"Was removing Saddam worth the American lives it cost?"

Instead they let these guys waffle about the whole hindsight intel stuff.

Question their answers directly because the Iraq was a huge mistake. It did not accomplish any of its goals outside of removing Saddam, it made the world less safe, and it was the wrong policy even if the intel was correct.

In large part I think the media is embarrassed. They pretty much never posed the question "What if Hans Blix is right?" or "Why do we have to invade Iraq right now? What threat is Iraq at this moment?" They cheered for Shock and Awe for crying out loud.

In other words, the media, in general, is as culpable in spreading the lies as the White House was and would rather not make themselves look like fools or worse, liars.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Update on KY Gubernatorial Primary: 38% of vote in, it's Bevin (35%), Heiner (33%), Comer (25%) and Scott (7%)

If Bevin pulls this out it will be excellent news for Conway.......if he does not screw this up. Hopefully he and Grimes aren't damaged goods after their thrashing by Paul and McConnell respectfully.

Update 2: Race called for Bevin. Say hello to Governor Conway. Hopefully the Democrats can hold all the statewide offices and pick up Ag Commissioner.

Update 3: Comer might come back to win. Vote is under 1800 between Bevin and Comer.

Update 4: Its Florida 2000 over there. Comer leads Bevin 0.001% with 99.0% in. Bevin team is ecstatic he might retake lead. 3656 out of 4000 precincts.

Update 5: BEVIN WINS BY 83 VOTES.
 
Christie: I've changed my position on Immigration.
The New Jersey governor said Monday that he does not support possible citizenship for the immigrants, calling it an "extreme way to go." In 2010, the newly-elected Republican encouraged leaders in Washington to secure the border but also to "put forward a common sense path to citizenship for people." Since then, he has often avoided discussing the issue entirely.

In an interview with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Christie changed his tune.

"I think I've learned over time about this issue and done a lot more work on it," he said. "Back in 2010, I was in my first couple months as governor. I've now learned some of the ramifications for all these things."

Christie explained that he still believed the country needed to deal with the current immigration problem, but that Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's proposed path to citizenship amounted to "pandering" and was "not based upon an educated study of the issue."

If elected president, Christie said, he would immediately roll back President Barack Obama's executive order shielding some immigrants from deportation.
 
Christie: I've changed my position on Immigration.[/URL]

I don't get Christie's plan here. He isn't going to get to the right of Walker or Rubio so why try? Bush is melting down over Iraq, if Christie's going to have any shot its by going after 'mainstream' Republicans who may be having second thoughts about Jeb.
 

watershed

Banned
I'm glad just about every republican candidate, even those who initially wanted to position themselves as common sense or moderate republicans, are shifting to the right to appeal to the base. Christie and Bush are idiots and people won't forget.
 
I'm glad just about every republican candidate, even those who initially wanted to position themselves as common sense or moderate republicans, are shifting to the right to appeal to the base. Christie and Bush are idiots and people won't forget.

It's especially funny with Christie, whose credentials as a moderate who could maybe carry the Northeast was basically all he had going for him. Now, he's thrown away the moderate, and between bridgegate and rooting for the cowboys he's thrown away the northeast.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Bevin:

In first year of my admin, I'm ending Kynect health care exchange and saving us hundreds of millions, Matt Bevin tells crowd.

If you oppose abortion, support gun rights & love military, "come on aboard, b/c we are Ky," Bevin tells crowd in call/response.

We must enact right-to-work legislation in Ky, companies pass us by b/c of labor union membership, Matt Bevin says.
x(
 
Nope.

UMW still pretty powerful. same in WV

Huh. Is it true in some local areas? I was working in Northern Kentucky last semester on coop, and during orientation the HR lady tried to spin "right to work" as "you can quit any time you want to without even giving notice."

Wonder why she bothered, then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom