PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
CHo2pbmWIAAHqtA.jpg
 
Not sure if you all saw this fun little story from yesterday:

SCOTUSblog said:
“The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join in this plurality opinion,” Scalia says. “Justice [Anthony M.] Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Alito joined. Justice [Stephen G.] Breyer filed an opinion dissenting, which Justices Goldberg, [Sonia] Sotomayor and Kagan joined.”

He leans back, thoroughly unaware that he has replaced his good friend Justice Ginsburg with the 1960s-era Justice Arthur J. Goldberg. In fact, the Chief Justice has to turn to him and alert him of the error.

“What did I say?” Scalia asks loudly, emphasizing the “I.” The Chief tells him, and without skipping a beat, Scalia says, “Goldberg’s gone.”

“Sorry about that, Ruth,” he quickly adds.

Justice Ginsburg, who is usually stone-faced on the bench despite a wry sense of humor off of it, cannot contain her laughter this time.
Click to expand...

Art Lien memorialized the moment in image format:

sSC150615_Scalia.jpg
 
TheHeretic said:
Obama is overwhelmingly popular with democratic voters, so of course she's going to praise him in the primary. The question is will her policy proposals be a continuation of Obama's, effectively running for a third Obama term, or will she distance herself from queasy topics such as Obamacare and run from his record. Congressional democrats decided in 2014 to run from his record, and I certainly expect HIllary will do the same.
Click to expand...
Hilary has already said that she supports the president on immigration and will go further than he has with executive actions, supports the ACA and will defend it because it gives millions access to healthcare, is the same with Obama in supporting universal pre-K in education, is for raising the federal minimum wage (same as Obama), and more. She is not running from Obama in her rhetoric or her (so far, vaguely stated) positions. This is not Al Gore running from Bill Clinton. Of course there will come a point when she will distance herself from Obama rhetorically, but her positions are very much in line with his, which is where most of the democratic party is.
 
perfectchaos007 said:
Would he have to reveal his true net worth? Assets - liability. You're right he does hold that info close to the chest. He could be in debt for all I know, which isn't a good model for the US
Click to expand...

His whole business model involves collecting vast amounts of contract money and then going hard into the red in building, to leap to the next contract and back in the black. I wouldn't be surprised if it fluctuates all the time.
 
TheHeretic said:
Its an ugly, petty time in American politics.
Click to expand...
When hasn't it been?
Jack Remington said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's possible a Cold War consensus existed that restrained polarization, but the evidence suggests it was a minor factor. Or at least I've not seen any evidence that it was a primary factor. Elite polarization ignited during the 1970s two decades before the end of the Cold War. And it increased exponentially with only a few interruptions until the present. An APSA task force has a good summary of the polarization literature. The realignment of the South is the foremost factor in polarization. Civil rights was the dimension that crossed party cleavages when polarization first decreased. After that issue had been resolved, the parties became more consistent with fewer conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Another factor is economic inequality. Inequality and polarization track closely suggesting a relationship between them. I'd like to see more research on causality, but what's suggested in the article makes sense. There are other factors to consider such as the media environment and institutional change. While other factors, such as gerrymandering, can be discounted.
 
So what are some good politics and current events podcasts? I'm aware of Common Sense - which, like everything else Dan Carlin, is a mixed bag - but I'm interested in something light and not too partisan in any one direction, that I can have in the background when driving to work, walking to the store or gym, etc.
 
Since we are having fun, what are the matchups? who will be mudslinging who?

Trump Vs Bush
Bush Vs Everyone
Rand Vs Lindsay Graham
Jindal Vs Rand
Walker Vs Christie
Christie Vs Cruz
Cruz Vs. Rand

The possibilities are endless. Hopefully by then a Hurricane hasnt hit Tom and I. xD
 
NeoXChaos said:
Since we are having fun, what are the matchups? who will be mudslinging who?

Trump Vs Bush
Bush Vs Everyone
Rand Vs Lindsay Graham
Jindal Vs Rand
Walker Vs Christie
Christie Vs Cruz
Cruz Vs. Rand

The possibilities are endless. Hopefully by then a Hurricane hasnt hit Tom and I. xD
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see Jeb attached to Iraq's failure, Walker attached to a bad local economy, and Rubio attached to poor personal finances without anyone being able to accuse Hillary making those petty or misleading attacks, because they'll be the ones attacking themselves.
 
I think once the debates start and everyone who is running is in we will see a shift from Hillary to themselves. Her polling is taking a beating because everyone is focused on her. I will be angry if when debates come the Republican field try and turn every answer into a Hillary swipe or the media treats her as the inevitable nominee.

Its like they forgot Hillary has opponents. All of them referenced Hillary in their announcement speeches.
 
thepotatoman said:
It'll be interesting to see Jeb attached to Iraq's failure, Walker attached to a bad local economy, and Rubio attached to poor personal finances without anyone being able to accuse Hillary making those petty or misleading attacks, because they'll be the ones attacking themselves.
Click to expand...

And this is why Walker probably won't win.
 
Plinko said:
And this is why Walker probably won't win.
Click to expand...

I am very interested to see how attacks against Walker go. We know he is going to claim a lot of success in Wisconsin - going to a surplus from a deficit, but then conveniently leaving out the fact that they are now back to a deficit. Will other candidates be brave enough to point out that his textbook Republican plans are now hurting his state? His plans are probably their plans.
 
WTF JEB

WASHINGTON -- Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday -- acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

Speaking in Derry, New Hampshire, Tuesday, Bush acknowledged that when his brother President George W. Bush attempted to privatize Social Security in 2005, he met great bipartisan resistance.

“My brother tried, got totally wiped out,” Bush said. “Republicans and Democrats wanted nothing to do with it. The next president is going to have to try again.”

Bush also said Social Security shouldn’t be called an “entitlement.” “I’ve learned that in town hall meetings,” he said, according to a video released by the pro-Democratic group American Bridge. “It’s a supplemental retirement system that’s not actuarially sound, how about that. Medicaid and Medicare are entitlements, and they are growing at a far faster rate than anything else in government.”
Click to expand...
http://www.ibtimes.com/jeb-bush-next-president-should-privatize-social-security-1969720
 
trump said:
On what makes a good president: "We need a leader that wrote The Art of the Deal."
Click to expand...

I mean, this is a pretty smart pitch. Because how many people can claim to have written The Art of the Deal? Just put it out there as a qualification, get people to agree to it, and then bam, you can be like "well, it just so happens that I wrote The Art of the Deal." Tactics!
 
perfectchaos007 said:
Would he have to reveal his true net worth? Assets - liability. You're right he does hold that info close to the chest. He could be in debt for all I know, which isn't a good model for the US
Click to expand...
He just stated this. He's worth like 8 billion (assets minus liabilities)

His business are llcs, he personally never takes those loses (do people not get this?, rich people never lose! Personal responsibility means nothing to them but an excuse for the poor's to get less)
 
Wilsongt said:
Mexico now has gay marriage. The US is now the middle of a homosexual sandwich.
Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated than that.

The court's ruling is considered a "jurisprudential thesis" and does not invalidate any state laws, meaning gay couples denied the right to wed would still have to seek individual injunctions. The ruling standardized the procedures for judges and courts throughout Mexico, to approve all applications for same-sex marriage,[22][23] and made the approval mandatory.[24] Some have suggested the ruling "effectively legalises" same-sex marriage in Mexico,[25][26] though without legislative change, civil registrars are still bound to follow the state constitutions.
Click to expand...

Mexican law is weird.
 
NYCmetsfan said:
He just stated this. He's worth like 8 billion (assets minus liabilities)

His business are llcs, he personally never takes those loses (do people not get this?, rich people never lose! Personal responsibility means nothing to them but an excuse for the poor's to get less)
Click to expand...

Good point. People are also always complaining about the high corporate tax rate, yet you can straight up avoid those corporate taxes all together if you just don't incorporate your business. And yet every business chooses to incorporate, because we have some of the most business friendly policies in the world regarding corporations and the separation between corporations and the people that run and own them.
 
Random thought I should dump here before I forget: King v. Burwell or The King v. Burwells sound so punk rock. Would make for a great album title or band name.
 
ICYMI, Kansas will be jacking up their sales tax in an effort to cut their deficit caused by income tax cuts. I'm sure it will work fabulously.
 
Teggy said:
ICYMI, Kansas will be jacking up their sales tax in an effort to cut their deficit caused by income tax cuts. I'm sure it will work fabulously.
Click to expand...

I was surprised to learn that Kansas' sales tax will exceed 10% in some places. Ridiculous.

NYCmetsfan said:
His business are llcs, he personally never takes those loses (do people not get this?, rich people never lose! Personal responsibility means nothing to them but an excuse for the poor's to get less)
Click to expand...

This really isn't a fair statement. Corporations, LLCs, and other similar entities don't shield someone from losses. They simply segregate liabilities. If one of Trump's LLCs goes under, he's really lost the money that went into it. Creditors of the defunct LLC may not be able to go after his other property, but that doesn't mean it's not a loss for him. (And the liability rules for such entities are the same regardless of the owners' wealth or income, so it's silly to pretend this only benefits the wealthy.)
 
Diablos said:
Random thought I should dump here before I forget: King v. Burwell or The King v. Burwells sound so punk rock. Would make for a great album title or band name.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make for a good anything, and it's going to be one of those "wtf, people were literally this stupid?" topics you read about in American History in a few decades.
 
Jack Remington said:
It doesn't make for a good anything, and it's going to be one of those "wtf, people were literally this stupid?" topics you read about in American History in a few decades.
Click to expand...
That's the point. Punk rock is often used as a response to people not being able to put two and two together, particularly when it comes to social issues.

I can't think of many things besides King v. Burwell that demonstrate what a joke this country has become when it comes to its priorities. The fact that the highest court in the land would even give this case the time of day is absolutely terrifying, even if Obamacare wins in the end.
 
Metaphoreus said:
This really isn't a fair statement. Corporations, LLCs, and other similar entities don't shield someone from losses. They simply segregate liabilities. If one of Trump's LLCs goes under, he's really lost the money that went into it. Creditors of the defunct LLC may not be able to go after his other property, but that doesn't mean it's not a loss for him. (And the liability rules for such entities are the same regardless of the owners' wealth or income, so it's silly to pretend this only benefits the wealthy.)
Click to expand...

Thats assuming Trump uses his money to form the LLC. There were plenty of examples in the economic crash where a vehicle went bankrupt and most or almost all of the real losses were charged to banks or investment groups that put up the money. That's why while everyone has the same potential to use an investment vehicle someone with existing wealth has exponentially more ability to utilize their rules.
 
pigeon said:
I mean, this is a pretty smart pitch. Because how many people can claim to have written The Art of the Deal? Just put it out there as a qualification, get people to agree to it, and then bam, you can be like "well, it just so happens that I wrote The Art of the Deal." Tactics!
Click to expand...

Wow, I just watched the speech in its entirety and was going to post nearly the exact same thing!

Priceless quote. Curious to see what Stewart, Oliver et al do with it.

EDIT: Speaking of which...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
941
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
254K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom