Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

Is Rubio a government? Is his revenue directly procured through taxation rather than as payment for services rendered?

Had Rubio said, "People shouldn't buy $80,000 boats," and then bought an $80,000 boat, that would be hypocrisy. If he had said, "People shouldn't take on debt," and then took on debt, that would be hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not holding a belief about what government ought to do but then not doing that oneself. The government is not an individual. An individual is not the government.

http://townhall.com/columnists/marc...washington_to_live_within_its_means/page/full

 

[Black Mamba]

http://townhall.com/columnists/marc...washington_to_live_within_its_means/page/full

Ouch. Mechamorpheous needs to take the L on this one and move on.

 

[ivysaur12]

Jamie Dupree ‏@jamiedupree
GOP voted 209-34 for the rule on trade debate; Dems were 8-178; those 8 votes made the difference

.

 

[Wilsongt]

Oh... Well, this is unfortunate for Huck if it turns out to be true. Says a lot about hsi character.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mike-huckabee-co-author-accused-of-child-molestation/

The Christian writer who has co-authored books with presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore was allegedly excommunicated from his church after being accused of molesting a young girl.

John Perry co-wrote two books with Huckabee: Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That’s Bringing Common Sense Back to America (2008) and Character Is the Issue (2007). The latter title is especially interesting given that BuzzFeed News uncovered sworn statements from the writer’s ex-wife that he “admitted sexual abuse” of a female minor — a claim that was sustained by police but were found too old to prosecute.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

.

So Obama is passing republican legislation.

Hope some of those votes change by tomorrow. This is a stupid and destructive legacy for Obama.

 

[ivysaur12]

First miss for Tester on recruitment:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/244721-bayh-wont-seek-indiana-senate-seat

Former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) will not enter the race to replace retiring Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) in Indiana, a source familiar with Bayh’s thinking told The Hill on Thursday.

Bayh instead will focus on helping former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton win the White House, according to the source.

Bayh would have been a formidable candidate had he run. He has high name recognition and remains popular in Indiana. In addition, he still has nearly $10 million in his campaign war chest.

Many Democrats believed Bayh’s entrance in to the race would be a game-changer for their party, but political watchers in the state were doubtful he would take the plunge. In 2010, Bayh decided against seeking a third term in the Senate, citing frustration over gridlock in Congress.

With Bayh on the sidelines, the path to the Democratic nomination is currently clear for former Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), who previously served four terms representing Indiana’s 9th district in the House.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

They have the advantage of incumbency.

So what about 2010, 2012 and 2014 and all those D incumbents loses

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://townhall.com/columnists/marc...washington_to_live_within_its_means/page/full

LOL he even loses on his pedantry

 

[Wilsongt]

lol Kansas

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas faced the prospect of deep cuts to schools, prisons and other programs Thursday after the Republican-controlled House soundly rejected a proposal supported by Gov. Sam Brownback that would hike sales and cigarette taxes to close a budget deficit.

In past years, legislators backed the GOP governor by slashing personal income taxes in an effort to stimulate the economy, but those policies contributed to a deficit that ballooned this year.

With a constitutional mandate against operating in the red, Brownback's preferred solution got little support this time, even from his own party. The House voted 95-20 against a plan that would generate more than $400 million in revenue over the fiscal year beginning July 1, largely by increasing the state's sales tax from 6.15 percent to 6.55 percent and imposing a 50 cents-per-pack hike on cigarettes.

On taxes for business owners and farmers, Brownback has said he'll veto any plan with an increase for them of no more than $24 million during the next fiscal year. The bill rejected by the House contained that increase.

But some House Republicans had wanted to defy his veto threat and raise as much as $101 million.

Democrats oppose increasing the sales tax, arguing that it will hurt poor and middle-class families by forcing them to pay for past income tax cuts for the wealthy.

They also argued the policy exempting business owners' and farmers' profits from income taxes should be reversed. Some Republicans agreed that it's unfair to allow business owners to avoid income taxes when their employees' wages remain taxed.

http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-house-rejects-bill-raising-taxes-close-budget-154409021.html

 

[Black Mamba]

lol Kansas





http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-house-rejects-bill-raising-taxes-close-budget-154409021.html

Brownback's strategy is to get blood from a stone. He is so despicable.

 

[watershed]

First miss for Tester on recruitment:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/244721-bayh-wont-seek-indiana-senate-seat

Bayh is angling for a cabinet position if not more.

 

[ivysaur12]

Bayh is angling for a cabinet position if not more.

100%. It's too bad, that would've been a nice win for the Ds in Indiana and would've more than likely given them the Senate. Doesn't mean there isn't a path, just a bit annoying.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Baron Hill at least isn't a terrible candidate either. Granted I see it as Likely R without Bayh compared to Lean D with, but we can always hope for another Donnelly-Mourdock.

Incumbency isn't going to mean much for Johnson or Kirk - they are very much accidental senators like Scott Brown. Feingold probably would have won if he took his campaign more seriously and Kirk just barely beat an actual mobster. Both of their states will probably go for Clinton overwhelmingly.

 

[ivysaur12]

I guess this is all you've got when you don't get your top recruits in Florida, Nevada, and Colorado?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...s-dem-senate-recruits-as-retreads-and-rookies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJgY4yk9kZM

The Senate Republicans' campaign arm is brushing aside Democratic challengers as inexperienced or old news ahead of a tough 2016 battle to keep GOP control of the Senate.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is out with a new "movie trailer," released exclusively to The Hill on Thursday, that teases the likely Democratic Senate candidates for the upcoming cycle, while playing up the idea of a rift between progressives and the establishment after the party lost the Senate in the 2014 midterms.
“With a depleted bench, national Democrats are turning to a bunch of rookies and retreads for 2016,” NRSC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek told The Hill. “It’s clear Democrats are relying on a spaghetti strategy — throwing something at the wall to see what sticks.”

In the stylings of the hit movie series "The Hunger Games," the video breaks up the field into "rookies and retreads." Of those rookies, the NRSC slams Jason Kander (Mo.) as "inexperienced," Rep. Patrick Murphy (Fla.) as "ambitious" and Rep. Tammy Duckworth (Ill) as “reckless.” All three are the Democrats' top picks for Senate races in their respective states.

A news release paired with the video also chides Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), the Democratic front-runner handpicked by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to replace him, as untested in a tough campaign. It also mentions P.G. Sittenfeld (Ohio), a young city councilman from Cincinnati who has waded into the state's Senate primary.

It also needles a group of "retreads" that include former Gov. Ted Strickland (Ohio), former Rep. Joe Sestak (Pa.), and former Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.). All are expected to be the party's nominee in their states. The video's narrator calls the group "has-beens, losers of elections long passed, but handpicked to try once again."

Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, dismissed the video's characterizations to The Hill and highlighted three high-profile Republican politicians who decided against 2016 Senate bids.

"While Republicans suffer through abysmal recruitment failures in Nevada, Colorado, Florida & Indiana, numerous reports have touted the strength of star Democratic recruits like Tammy Duckworth, Russ Feingold, Catherine Cortez Masto, Patrick Murphy, and others," he said.

"Our recruitment has put so many states on the map it’s already a question of how many seats Republicans lose, and for the NRSC this video has the unintended consequence of embarrassingly highlighting how much better our recruitment is going than theirs. Maybe if they spent more time recruiting candidates and less time making bad videos, they wouldn’t have lost out on Brian Sandoval, Mike Coffman, and Marco Rubio."

Both parties' campaign arms have been gearing up for a series of toss-up battles that could determine the balance of the Senate. The Hill has ranked the Wisconsin and Illinois Senate races as the two most dangerous for GOP incumbents.

Senate Republicans have had their own recruiting struggles in Florida, where a handful of top recruits passed on the toss-up race to replace Sen. Marco Rubio, who announced he would seek the presidential nomination instead of reelection. That race is expected to be a toss-up no matter who runs. The GOP will also move on without their top recruits in Colorado and Nevada, where Rep. Mike Coffman and Gov. Brian Sandoval turned down bids in their respective states.

The party's chances are currently in better shape in Pennsylvania and Missouri, where two recruits are battling to topple incumbent senators. Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.) has a substantial lead over Sestak in most polling, while the climate of Republican-leaning Missouri makes the fight an uphill battle for Democrats.

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://townhall.com/columnists/marc...washington_to_live_within_its_means/page/full

Now we're getting somewhere. At the link, Rubio writes:

It is your responsibility to balance your budget, spend no more than what’s in your bank account, and have a plan to manage common expenses like student, home and car loans.

While "spend no more than what's in your bank account" may seem to prohibit taking out loans, it's clear that that's not so, since he also says to "have a plan to manage common expenses like student, home and car loans." Still, I'll concede that this is close enough to be hypocrisy.

But so what? At worst, this is a personal failure, not a political one. The claim is not that he alleges to support a balanced governmental budget, but doesn't in fact. The claim is that he has failed to live up to his own personal standards of financial prudence. But voters aren't considering him to be their financial manger, as I pointed out earlier. So shouldn't his pursuit of a balanced budget in Florida and in Congress be more important to voters than his failure to balance his own budget (a problem that seems to have been solved, according to the NYT)?

In the end, there's nothing here worth writing about, a fact acknowledged even by comedians whose sole job on television is to make jokes at Republicans' expense.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Seems rather silly, the only people who wouldn't fall under that category are incumbent senators.

The NRSC is rather terrible, the only really good year they've had was 2014. They underperformed in 2010 because they nominated teabaggers in Nevada, Colorado and Delaware.

Democrats just need to get Hassan and Hagan (there is no one else) and they're pretty much set. And stop being babies about Sestak.

 

[ivysaur12]

Now we're getting somewhere. At the link, Rubio writes:



While "spend no more than what's in your bank account" may seem to prohibit taking out loans, it's clear that that's not so, since he also says to "have a plan to manage common expenses like student, home and car loans." Still, I'll concede that this is close enough to be hypocrisy.

But so what? At worst, this is a personal failure, not a political one. The claim is not that he alleges to support a balanced governmental budget, but doesn't in fact. The claim is that he has failed to live up to his own personal standards of financial prudence. But voters aren't considering him to be their financial manger, as I pointed out earlier. So shouldn't his pursuit of a balanced budget in Florida and in Congress be more important to voters than his failure to balance his own budget (a problem that seems to have been solved, according to the NYT)?

In the end, there's nothing here worth writing about, a fact acknowledged even by comedians whose sole job on television is to make jokes at Republicans' expense.

You're sort of wading into the territory of "does it matter what they do in their personal lives and shouldn't we focus just on their policy aspirations", which, yes. Maybe there's a judgment issue here, but I don't think it's necessarily a huge deal because it's not directly related to a certain policy. I don't particularly care about a politician's personal life, and I think a comedian who happens to point out the insane and morally bankrupt policy positions of the modern Republican party is right.

Seems rather silly, the only people who wouldn't fall under that category are incumbent senators.

The NRSC is rather terrible, the only really good year they've had was 2014. They underperformed in 2010 because they nominated teabaggers in Nevada, Colorado and Delaware.

Democrats just need to get Hassan and Hagan (there is no one else) and they're pretty much set. And stop being babies about Sestak.

I think they'll get Hassan, not sure about Hagan (though her showing up at fundraisers is definitely raising some eyebrows).

The only other Democrat the DSCC is really looking at in PA is Katie McGinty. TBD on her, I suppose?

 

[NeoXChaos]

So what about 2010, 2012 and 2014 and all those D incumbents loses

Not my fault the Democrats suck at midterms. Kirk and Toomey can survive just like the rest from 2010-2014 until they dont. I personally believe they along with Johnson are going to be blown away but it aint over till its over.

 

[Jooney]

Hey guys, homosexuality is wrong, but these interns letting me blow them is just a personal failure

 

[Oblivion]

While "spend no more than what's in your bank account" may seem to prohibit taking out loans, it's clear that that's not so, since he also says to "have a plan to manage common expenses like student, home and car loans."

How's that supposed to work though? If one takes out a loan of any kind, that, by definition means you've exceeded what you currently have in savings.

But so what? At worst, this is a personal failure, not a political one. The claim is not that he alleges to support a balanced governmental budget, but doesn't in fact. The claim is that he has failed to live up to his own personal standards of financial prudence. But voters aren't considering him to be their financial manger, as I pointed out earlier. So shouldn't his pursuit of a balanced budget in Florida and in Congress be more important to voters than his failure to balance his own budget (a problem that seems to have been solved, according to the NYT)?

In the end, there's nothing here worth writing about, a fact acknowledged even by comedians whose sole job on television is to make jokes at Republicans' expense.

Except the problem is that this particular personal moral failing is directly relevant to Rubio as a presidential candidate. Rubio was making the argument to the public that his own supposed fiscal conservatism makes him an ideal person to criticize the government for its excessive spending. If we were making fun of him for being fat or something like that, then you could make the argument that such a thing is completely irrelevant to running for president.

Also, Stewart was mocking the NYT's reporting that he and his wife got 17 traffic tickets, though he himself only contributed 4 of those tickets.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Not my fault the Democrats suck at midterms. Kirk and Toomey can survive just like the rest from 2010-2014 until they dont. I personally believe they along with Johnson are going to be blown away but it aint over till its over.

"Just like the rest"? Most of the Republicans that were elected in 2010 weren't up again until 2014, another midterm. A lot of the House crazies were swept out in 2012, others were saved by redistricting.

Kirk and Johnson (Toomey seems better positioned) were elected in 2010, a midterm and face presidential turnout for their re-elections. They're screwed. Incumbency just means Kirk will lose by 10 instead of 20 and Johnson 5 instead of 10. Toomey, Ayotte and Florida will be close but right now I'm thinking they're Dem gains while Ohio will be close and a GOP hold. IN, MO and AZ are worth watching. NV and CO Dem holds.

 

[ivysaur12]

plz don't fuck this up, Alan Grayson.

 

[NeoXChaos]

"Just like the rest"? Most of the Republicans that were elected in 2010 weren't up again until 2014, another midterm. A lot of the House crazies were swept out in 2012, others were saved by redistricting. Kirk and Johnson (Toomey seems better positioned) were elected in 2010, a midterm and face presidential turnout for their re-elections. They're screwed. Incumbency just means Kirk will lose by 10 instead of 20 and Johnson 5 instead of 10. Toomey, Ayotte and Florida will be close but right now I'm thinking they're Dem gains while Ohio will be close and a GOP hold. IN, MO and AZ are worth watching. NV and CO Dem holds.

Well we should apply the same standard to Democrats.

Landriu and Pryor (Hagan seemed better positioned) were elected in 2008, a presidential and faced midterm turnout for their re-elections as well as the rightward leaning of their states since 2008. They were screwed. Incumbency just meant Pryor lost by 17 instead of 27 like Blanche Lincoln and Landrieu by 9 instead of 20. Capito, Downs, and Rounds were blowouts..........

You get the point. Claire certainly would be out and Donnelly in if not for Aiken and Murdoch. Those two are the examples I an referring to when Democrat chances at those two seat were misfortunes/underdogs right up until the last minute. Toomey and Kirk could get lucky so lets not rule it out until their primaries are over lol. Kirk is in Feb while Toomey is in May.

 

[Moon Patrol Pilot]

How's that supposed to work though? If one takes out a loan of any kind, that, by definition means you've exceeded what you currently have in savings.



Except the problem is that this particular personal moral failing is directly relevant to Rubio as a presidential candidate. Rubio was making the argument to the public that his own supposed fiscal conservatism makes him an ideal person to criticize the government for its excessive spending. If we were making fun of him for being fat or something like that, then you could make the argument that such a thing is completely irrelevant to running for president.

Also, Stewart was mocking the NYT's reporting that he and his wife got 17 traffic tickets, though he himself only contributed 4 of those tickets.

Actually he was criticizing the absurdity of the NYT articles - the traffic tickets, paying back student loans, and the oversized windows in his house. I agree with Stewart, it's really reaching for them to consider this front page news.

Edit: to clarify it was 2 articles

 

[NYCmetsfan]

plz don't fuck this up, Alan Grayson.

He's running? I still think Murphy as a much better shot in the general

 

[NeoXChaos]

He's running? I still think Murphy as a much better shot in the general

Coattails can bring Grayson over the finish line.

 

[Jack Remington]

It's kind of a relief that one way or another, KvB will be over this month.

Either I can stop feeling like I'm living in an insane asylum, or the SC confirms that I am living in an insane asylum, and I can start to make the best of it.

As it is, every idiotic column Michael Cannon publishes is increasing my odds of cardiovascular disease a few percentage points. One way or another, that's coming to an end.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Coattails can bring Grayson over the finish line.

Its Florida.

 

[Aaron Strife]

plz don't fuck this up, Alan Grayson.

Grayson would be awful. Murphy needs to win the primary.

Well we should apply the same standard to Democrats.



You get the point. Claire certainly would be out and Donnelly in if not for Aiken and Murdoch. Those two are the examples I an referring to when Democrat chances at those two seat were misfortunes/underdogs right up until the last minute. Toomey and Kirk could get lucky so lets not rule it out until their primaries are over lol. Kirk is in Feb while Toomey is in May.

Um... I don't get what you're trying to say here? Hagan, Landrieu, Pryor etc. all won in presidential years and lost in midterm years. That's the exact opposite of the GOP's problem in 2016 w/r/t the Senate. Also McCaskill and Donnelly were never worse than tossups, their opponents imploding just sealed the deal.

In fact your quote seems to prove my point. Landrieu and Pryor lost by smaller margins than they would have if they were running in open seats.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Grayson would be awful. Murphy needs to win the primary.


Um... I don't get what you're trying to say here? Hagan, Landrieu, Pryor etc. all won in presidential years and lost in midterm years. That's the exact opposite of the GOP's problem in 2016 w/r/t the Senate. Also McCaskill and Donnelly were never worse than tossups, their opponents imploding just sealed the deal.

In fact your quote seems to prove my point. Landrieu and Pryor lost by smaller margins than they would have if they were running in open seats.

We both agree but I think that we should give incumbency a couple points on their scale. Sure they may still end up losing but it is an advantage abeit narrow like Pryor etc. Grayson is an awful candidate but so was Tillis and he was brought in on the wave last year.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's a lot easier for a bad Republican to win North Carolina than it is for a bad Democrat to win Florida.

They're both tossup states but the bar for Democratic candidates is higher than it is for Republicans. The way Bruce Braley was crucified by the media while giving Joni Ernst a pass on everything is still fucking embarrassing and maddening.

 

[Diablos]

Man, TPP sucks so bad. What the fuck, Obama?

 

[NeoXChaos]

A bad deal is better than no deal at all Diablos. Bill Clinton taught us that. I wish Obama learned that lesson.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Man, TPP sucks so bad. What the fuck, Obama?

Can't teach at the University of Chicago without ending up with some bad opinions.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Man, TPP sucks so bad. What the fuck, Obama?

Corporatist. It's funny how this allows him to quietly reverse so many positions he gave lip service while also giving him plausible deniability. Sure people on the left won't forgive him, but that's it. He'll still be lauded by various segments of the party and will probably have his face on currency one day. Similar to how Clinton is so lauded now despite the triangulation, NAFTA, etc.

 

[Aaron Strife]

NBC: Obama overseeing Reagan-esque political transformation

President Barack Obama's time in the White House is beginning to wind down and the discussions about his legacy will soon start to outnumber those about his policies. The numbers suggest that the nation has undergone an ideological shift during his time in the Oval Office, a trend that might be remembered as "transformational" - perhaps even Reagan-like.

With the 2016 election already in full swing, recent polling data suggest the country's politics have moved sharply during the Obama Administration. In January, Gallup noted that the number of people who self-identify as "liberal" was at an all-time high. And the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has seen an uptick in the number of "liberal" Americans as well, as the Journal noted this week.

The number of liberals in both polls is still smaller than the number of conservatives and moderates, but the movement is the bigger issue. And in those polls, it's not just growth in the percentage identifying as liberals that's notable, it's the decline in the number of conservatives.

...

The numbers have a special relevance where President Obama is concerned because of his professed respect for the way former President Ronald Reagan changed national politics in a larger sense. "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," Mr. Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal in 2008.

The poll numbers suggest the country is going through another shift under Mr. Obama and it appears the changes are about more than just what people want to call themselves.

Specifically, Americans have moved significantly to the left on gay marriage, pot legalization and issues related to income inequality. Abortion is about the same as it was in 2008 while support for gun rights (specifically, seeing "protecting gun rights" as more important than "controlling gun ownership") has actually increased. Oh well, can't win 'em all.

Obama hasn't really taken any larger action that can be attributed to this, but I think he's definitely a sign of the leftward movement. Hopefully that will be enough to let Clinton win a comfortable victory.

 

[ivysaur12]

I also think demographics will play into the country's more populist movement.

Again, the future of the two parties is Progressivism vs. Libertarianism.

 

[dabig2]

I'd expect an even bigger shift once more of the baby boomers start dying off. 10 years from now he'll have the Clinton shine on him where we erase most of the dumb shit he did or tried to do. 20 years when millennials are creating the new textbooks and raising kids into adulthood he'll get that Reagan shine, where we craft an Obama who never existed.

 

[Jack Remington]

Completely random hypothesis that I haven't looked at the evidence for/against at all, so I'm just tossing it out to see if any of you guys have thought of it:

The U.S. became more polarized, and politics became more dysfunctional, after the fall of the Soviet Union, because there was no longer a common enemy everyone could agree on.

Thoughts?

I also think demographics will play into the country's more populist movement.

Again, the future of the two parties is Progressivism vs. Libertarianism.

Economic libertarianism is never going to be more than a fringe movement, IMO.

 

[B-Dubs]

Completely random hypothesis that I haven't looked at the evidence for/against at all, so I'm just tossing it out to see if any of you guys have thought of it:

The U.S. became more polarized, and politics became more dysfunctional, after the fall of the Soviet Union, because there was no longer a common enemy everyone could agree on.

Thoughts?

That's not really an out there theory. You can't fear monger if there's no outside force to fear, so you need to point to the guys next to you. It's why things like ISIS or ebola become huge despite being a regional problem that doesn't really affect us at home, the politics of fear demand an outside enemy to work properly. Without an outside enemy you're stuck demonizing the guy next to you, the guy you're supposed to work with, and if you do that any deal becomes unpalatable to your base.

Economic libertarianism is never going to be more than a fringe movement, IMO.

It wouldn't be the first time populism took hold for a time.

 

[thepotatoman]

Completely random hypothesis that I haven't looked at the evidence for/against at all, so I'm just tossing it out to see if any of you guys have thought of it:

The U.S. became more polarized, and politics became more dysfunctional, after the fall of the Soviet Union, because there was no longer a common enemy everyone could agree on.

Thoughts?

The country was fairly united after 9/11, and then the Bush administration took advantage by drumming up a war based on false pretenses. I do wonder if there were another 9/11 type event, if everyone would unite once more, or if it'd be another thing the two sides separate wildly on.

A common enemy could be the solution to the problem, but I don't think that the lack of one is the cause of the problem. Just look at the McKinley/Teddy Roosevelt era, when both sides were nearly identical in policy despite not really having much of an enemy.

There's plenty of other explanations to it including:

• Increased importance of demographics and the severe split of life experiences between those demographics
  
• The rise of Rush Limbaugh style punditry over real news, which spread to both cable news and internet blogs. Not to mention the outright ridiculous lies that can be spread through chain mails and social media. The internet has also further enabled people to find their own echo chambers they feel comfortable in, making the people outside that echochamber seem even more foreign.
  
• Newt Gingrich innovating the idea of stirring shit up and relying on the public to not to be able to tell/not care who's to blame in government dysfunction, forcing all the attention to be on trying to make sure the blame for the terrible state of the government falls to the other side.
  
• The great recession proving to everyone that we definitely can't just sit around and do nothing with our country's current course. People can sense it's time for a drastic change in course, but can't agree on how to chart that course.

 

[Metaphoreus]

How's that supposed to work though? If one takes out a loan of any kind, that, by definition means you've exceeded what you currently have in savings.

No it doesn't. It often makes sense to finance a purchase by taking out a loan rather than buying outright, because it enables the purchaser to stretch out his or her purchasing power. So, people who could afford to make a purchase using cash will often finance the purchase instead. That doesn't seem to have been what Rubio did here (the house he co-owned was in foreclosure at one point, meaning he wasn't able to keep up with the payments), but my point is he clearly isn't saying that one should never take out loans.

Except the problem is that this particular personal moral failing is directly relevant to Rubio as a presidential candidate. Rubio was making the argument to the public that his own supposed fiscal conservatism makes him an ideal person to criticize the government for its excessive spending. If we were making fun of him for being fat or something like that, then you could make the argument that such a thing is completely irrelevant to running for president.

No, it's not. We're not talking about how he's dealt with public finances in the past. We're talking about how he's dealt with his own finances. And you're misstating Rubio's argument. He argues that the government should balance it's budget, just like families do, but he isn't saying that he's a model of prudent money management.

Also, Stewart was mocking the NYT's reporting that he and his wife got 17 traffic tickets, though he himself only contributed 4 of those tickets.

Watch the rest of the clip.

 

[BertramCooper]

I also think demographics will play into the country's more populist movement.

Again, the future of the two parties is Progressivism vs. Libertarianism.

Real libertarianism, or fake bullshit Paul-style libertarianism?

 

[FiggyCal]

I had no idea he was at the "I have a dream speech". That's just amazing to me.

And apparently he's really in need of minority voter support. He has a disproportionally white support base, especially compared to Clinton.

 

[Cheebo]

I had no idea he was at the "I have a dream speech". That's just amazing to me.

And apparently he's really in need of minority voter support. He has a disproportionally white support base, especially compared to Clinton.

He is not going to gain any ground with the minority wing on the party. You don't really get more than the young and/or rich sort of white liberal base as the fringe sort of vanity candidate that has no chance of winning role he is filling.

He is what Bill Bradley was in 2000. Appeals to the hardcore liberal base who wants something to get excited about when they know there is no actual competitive primary going on but want to get excited anyway.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Thought this was interesting

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I also think demographics will play into the country's more populist movement.

Again, the future of the two parties is Progressivism vs. Libertarianism.

Community vs. Individuals

 

[PhoenixDark]

I had no idea he was at the "I have a dream speech". That's just amazing to me.

And apparently he's really in need of minority voter support. He has a disproportionally white support base, especially compared to Clinton.

What does it say about these movements when they've written Sanders off because he didn't name check them, despite his policy views and legislative history being more "black friendly" than Hillary's. Pathetic.

I understand Hillary beating Sanders is inevitable. But treating her like a champion of causes because she names them first is idiotic.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But if Wisconsin is a model for what Walker might achieve nationally, it is worth examining his results so far. Walker credits Act 10 in part for the decline in Wisconsin’s unemployment rate since he took office in 2011 and has said he considers right-to-work “one more arrow in that quiver” for the creation of jobs. But since 2011, the state has fallen to 40th out of the 50 states in job growth and 42nd in wage growth, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data conducted by The Capital Times of Wisconsin. Act 10, officially called the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill, was supposed to fix persistent budget shortfalls by lowering labor costs and eliminating union rules. But Wisconsin’s two-year projected budget deficit has actually increased; in May, the Legislature approved a $250 million cut to the state’s prized university system to help close the gap. Wisconsin is now among the top 10 states people move out of.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/1...and-the-fate-of-the-union.html?_r=1&referrer=

 

[Yellowtail]

Woah. Thanks Michelle Bachmann

The Iowa Straw Poll is dead.

The governing board for the Republican Party of Iowa voted unanimously Friday to cancel the straw poll, a milestone on the path to the White House that had passed the strategic tipping point. It was no longer a political risk for presidential campaigns to walk away from the straw poll, and too many of the 2016 contenders had opted to skip it for it to survive.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...l/caucus/2015/06/12/iowa-straw-poll/71116276/