Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

**Raising the maximum limit of lead in paint before the government declares it unsafe.

Seriously. More lead in paint. The guy is like a Disney villain.

what the fuck

for the record, there is literally no safe level of lead. the only safe amount of lead is no lead. So they're basically saying you're allowed to poison people more than you could before.

Who in flippity fuck is lobbying for this? Is the paint industry really losing that much money because its so much cheaper to make lead-heavy paint?

It looks like they're just changing it to correspond to the relevant federal regulation, as to which standard lead test kits are calibrated. Currently,

Wisconsin defines lead-based paint at 0.06% lead by weight or 0.7 mg/cm2, while the federal definition is 0.5% lead by weight and 1.0 mg/cm2. [T]here is currently not a lead test kit that can test to the Wisconsin defined limits

The proposal [PDF] would:

Change the definition of "lead-bearing paint" . . . to any paint or other surface coating containing more than 0.06% by weight in liquid paint, more than 0.5% lead by weight in dried paint, or 1.0 milligram of lead per square centimeter in dried paint.

The proposal would also

Increase the forfeiture for a violation of statutes relating to [the use or sale of lead-bearing paint and the prevention and control of lead-bearing paint hazards], or rules promulgated, or orders issued, under those sections from not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, to not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 per violation. [And s]pecify that the criminal penalty for a person who knowingly violates any provision of [those statutes, rules, or orders] is not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 per violation (current law does not specify that the penalty is per violation)

which doesn't fit very well into the lobbyists'-pocket scenario some of you seem to be envisioning.

They hate us for our freedom.

They hate us 'cause they anus.

 

[Aaron Strife]

1. Subscribing.

2. I don't think Bernie is as unelectable as people here are saying.

3. That said, I think Bernie and Trump both eventually serve the same role -- giving Jeb and HRC more room to their left to play.

Bernie could beat Trump - I'm voting for him but I don't think he'd beat anyone else.

FTFY. Aaron you knew it was coming my friend.

Yeah that's kind of what I was going for.

 

[T'Zariah]

I can't wait till the Democratic primary is over so Bernie supporters can come to reality.

Fuck. Only so much delusion you can read without it being tiresome.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I can't wait until the writ drops up north so I can stop giving two shits about either primary for half the rest of the year

 

[Farmboy]

1. Subscribing.

2. I don't think Bernie is as unelectable as people here are saying.

3. That said, I think Bernie and Trump both eventually serve the same role -- giving Jeb and HRC more room to their left to play.

2. It's hard to say. We won't know the effect of Bernie self-describing as a socialist, as Hillary won't hit him hard on that (because the Dem primary electorate does not care). But obviously, the Republicans will and it could prove detrimental.

3. I guess that's true, since Hillary is positioning herself as being mostly in agreement with Sanders (on any point where Sanders is in line with the base, which is many), while Bush is actively contrasting himself with Trump. Of course, the GOP primary electorate actually kind of agrees with Trump, or at least thinks he's a breath of fresh air. So for Bush, the strategy isn't without risk.

Still, Bush probably knows that his best argument is electability, so contrasting with the least electable candidate fits into that strategy. From reading some right wing forums (call it oppo research) I've seen plenty of sympathy for Trump, but also a lot of worrying that he's burning bridges to Hispanics, which they realize are key to victory in the general.

 

[HylianTom]

It's amazing that the guy named "Bush" is going to lean on an electability appeal to voters. To me, this speaks volumes about this allegedly deep bench that the GOP has.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

I just saw this on facebook: "Nobel-winning physicist who backed Obama: Prez ‘dead wrong’ on global warming"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/nobel-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming/

Conservatives are eating this up. They won't listen to a consensus of 99% of climate scientists, but they will listen to a scientist in another field that agrees with them... makes sense. He seems to use the same argument as Ted Cruz which is really odd.

See also: John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel.

 

[NeoXChaos]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/upshot/why-bernie-sanderss-momentum-is-not-built-to-last.html?ref=us&abt=0002&abg=0

Why Bernie's Momentum Won't Last

Bernie Sanders is surging. He trailed Hillary Rodham Clinton by as much as 50 points in the polls a few months ago, but he has pulled within 10 points in New Hampshire, according to some surveys. He has doubled his support in Iowa over the last month. The signs of his support are palpable: Last week, about 10,000 people attended an event in Madison, Wis., and he announced that he raised $15 million in the first three months of his campaign. But the Sanders surge is about to hit a wall: the rank and file of the Democratic primary electorate. Mr. Sanders is now doing nearly as well as Barack Obama did among liberal voters in 2008. That makes him competitive in relatively liberal contests, like the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary. But Mrs. Clinton still holds a huge lead among moderate and conservative Democrats — white and nonwhite alike. Whether Mr. Sanders can close the gap among these voters will determine the seriousness of his candidacy and whether he can pick up more delegates in other primaries. There aren’t many reasons to expect he will break through, and he certainly isn’t doing it yet.

If he doesn’t, he will lose by a wide margin.

Mr. Sanders surged as he consolidated the liberal voters who represent the natural opposition to Mrs. Clinton. A socialist from Vermont, he was always well positioned to be the vehicle of their skepticism of Mrs. Clinton’s policies on Wall Street and foreign intervention.

But he is unlikely to beat her by a wide margin among liberal voters. Even in 2008, Mr. Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton among liberal voters by just one percentage point nationwide. He lost liberals by 1 point in New Hampshire, and won them by 13 points in Iowa.

Mr. Sanders is nearing those tallies. On average, polls in Iowa and New Hampshire over the last month show Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders tied among self-identified liberals. Last week, a Quinnipiac poll in Iowa showed him leading Mrs. Clinton among “very liberal” voters, 47 to 43 percent.

Mr. Sanders could hope to do even better than Mr. Obama among liberals, but realistically there are limits. Mrs. Clinton is a liberal Democrat by any measure. Her favorability ratings among “very liberal” voters remain very good; the Quinnipiac poll, for instance, put them at 88 percent favorable and 8 percent unfavorable. Her advantage among women also helps. And this is leaving aside any of the other plausible reasons — electability, experience — for preferring Mrs. Clinton.

 

[Macho Madness]

Trump: ‘I’ll win the Latino vote’

The man who declared some Mexican immigrants to be criminals and “rapists” three weeks ago now says he’ll win the Latino vote in 2016.

“I’ll win the Latino vote because I’ll create jobs. I’ll create jobs and the Latinos will have jobs they didn’t have, I’ll do better on that vote than anybody, I will win that vote,” the Republican candidate and real estate mogul told NBC News’ Katy Tur on Wednesday, as he defended his relationship with Mexicans in the wake of international outrage over his repeated and offensive remarks about undocumented immigrants.

“I have a great relationship with the Mexican people,” he said. “They love me, I love them.”

 

[ivysaur12]

Constitutional crisis in Maine!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/l...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The office of Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) and the clerk in the Maine House are in disagreement over the fate of 19 bills that the governor apparently did not veto in time to prevent them from becoming law. One of the bills grants welfare benefits to some immigrants, which LePage vehemently campaigned against in 2014.

As the Bangor Daily News reported Tuesday evening, LePage appeared to be attempting to use the parliamentary procedure known as the pocket veto. By not signing the bills and "pocketing" them, LePage could under some circumstances have effectively vetoed them. In theory, that would have allowed the proposals to die without legislators having a chance to override his veto. But the pocket veto only works if the legislature has adjourned after the end of the second regular session. And there is the rub.

The clerk of the Maine House told TPM Wednesday morning that the legislature, which is nearing the end of the first regular session, has not adjourned. By not vetoing the bills within the required 10-day period, LePage allowed the bills the opposed -- some ferociously -- to become law.

But LePage's office is now claiming the legislature did adjourn. "The Legislature passed a joint order on June 30, 2015 to adjourn—not to 'recess,'” LePage's office said in a Wednesday email to TPM.

Here's what Article IV, Section 2 of the Maine Constitution says on the subject:

If the bill or resolution shall not be returned by the Governor within 10 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to the Governor, it shall have the same force and effect as if the Governor had signed it unless the Legislature by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall have such force and effect, unless returned within 3 days after the next meeting of the same Legislature which enacted the bill or resolution; if there is no such next meeting of the Legislature which enacted the bill or resolution, the bill or resolution shall not be a law.

Both Hunt and Suzanne Gresser, the reviser of statutes, are acting as if the usual 10-day period for the governor to veto the bills has passed and are now on their way to becoming law.

Adding to the confusion, the governor's office is now pushing back on suggestions that LePage was attempting to pocket veto the bills, despite the fact that spokeswoman Adrienne Bennett suggested as such in the Bangor Daily News report Tuesday evening.

"This is not a pocket veto," LePage spokesman Peter Steele said in the Wednesday statement to TPM. "As allowed by the Maine Constitution, the Governor will submit the vetoes when the Legislature meets again for three days. It has been a contentious session, and many in the Legislature claimed they did not have time to deal with the vetoes."

According to Steele, the legislature can consider overriding the veto when they meet later this month or again in January. However, according to Hunt, since the legislature was not officially adjourned -- it was only "at ease" -- the 10 days for LePage to send the bills back to lawmakers has passed and in theory they are already law.

"This is new territory," Hunt said in the interview with TPM. "Because those 10 days have passed."

Adding another wrinkle to the saga is that, according to Hunt, four of the 19 bills are pieces of emergency legislation, which go in effect immediately, rather than after the 90 day-period attached to typical laws.

Among the bills in question is legislation that will grant immigrants seeking asylum in the United States welfare assistance. Another of the bills creates a fund to help pay for municipal broadband development.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Trump: ‘I’ll win the Latino vote’

Trump's newfound love affair with the Latino community strikes me as somewhat non-consensual.

 

[Mike M]

Trump: ‘I’ll win the Latino vote’

Trump is more than I ever dared dream.

 

[Metaphoreus]

News in [i}Texas v. U.S.[/i] (the DAPA/expanded DACA case):

Long story short, after Judge Hanen issued his injunction, DHS granted nearly 2,000 applications.

In an order issued today, Judge Hanen expressed his frustration that the government still has not taking action to rectify the situation. As a result, he scheduled a hearing for August 19, 2015. “Each individual Defendant must attend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court.” Who are the individual defendants? Secretary of DHS Jeh Johnson, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Protection, the Deputy Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Yeah, basically, the entire DHS brass.

Here is the relevant portion of the order:

The Court was first apprised by the Government of the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it violated this Court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions—violations which have not yet been fixed. This Court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done purposefully to violate this Court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken with regard to its “efforts” to rectify this situation. The Government promised this Court on May 7, 2015, that “immediate steps” were being taken to remedy the violations of the injunction. [See Doc. No. 247]. Yet, as of June 23, 2015—some six weeks after making that representation—the situation had not been rectified. With that in mind, the Court hereby sets a hearing for August 19, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Each individual Defendant must attend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court. In addition to the individual Defendants, the Government shall bring all relevant witnesses on this topic as the Court will not continue this matter to a later date. The Government has conceded that it has directly violated this Court’s Order in its May 7, 2015 Advisory, yet, as of today, two months have passed since the Advisory and it has not remediated its own violative behavior. That is unacceptable and, as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional. To be clear, this Court expects the Government to be in full compliance with this Court’s injunction. Compliance as to just those aliens living in the Plaintiff States is not full compliance.

If the government can remedy the situation, the hearing will be cancelled.

If the Government remedies this situation and comes into compliance with this Court’s injunction by July 31, 2015, it shall include a summary of that situation in the July 31, 2015 report to the Court. If the Court is satisfied with the Government’s representations, it will cancel the August 19, 2015 hearing. Otherwise, the Court intends to utilize all available powers to compel compliance.

Also, I found the following article thought-provoking:

But public opinion is one thing. Constitutional jurisprudence is another. Despite the plethora of state laws limiting abortion, they appear to be nibbling around the edges of the central issue—an issue which has been enshrined as an unchangeable Constitutional right by our Supreme Court. Right?

Well, not so fast.

In a piece she wrote for Slate in advance of the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, Katherine Franke explained why she was worried that the swing vote—Justice Kennedy—might justify his opinion legalizing such marriage by appealing to the human dignity of gays and lesbians. “It’s hard to come out as an opponent of dignity,” she said. “In this political and legal climate the cost of dignifying same-sex relationships risks shaming women exercising reproductive rights. I’m not willing to win marriage rights for same-sex couples in a way that might contract the noble promises of our Constitution.”

Franke’s worry was anticipated a few weeks previous by Jeffery Rosen writing in The Atlantic: “if the Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans on the grounds that they violate a right to dignity, liberals may have second thoughts about empowering judges to decide whose dignity trumps when the interests of citizens with very different conceptions of dignity clash.”

. . .

ome pro-life analysis of his opinion has been hopeful . . . . Do they have any legitimate hope for this? Although Kennedy was a key member of the court upholding abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the pro-choice legal pundit Jeffery Toobin is worried that, 15 years later in Gonzales v. Carhart, this all-important swing voter demonstrated a significant shift toward restricting abortion.

From Kennedy’s 2007 opinion: “The State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” In making this decision, Kennedy affirmed as constitutional the “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban’, a law which Kennedy described as expressing—you guessed it—“respect for the dignity of human life.”

This argument strikes me as wishful thinking, but we'll just have to wait and see which unenumerated right the justices like more.

Constitutional crisis in Maine!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/l...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Interesting. I think the governor has the better of the argument, though, based on that article. The provision quoted from the Maine Constitution requires that two questions be asked: (1) Has the Legislature prevented the return of the bills by its "adjournment"? If the answer to this is "no," then the bills became law upon the expiration of ten days (Sundays excluded). But if the answer is "yes," then one must determine (2) whether the same Legislature will meet again? If the answer to question (2) is "no," then the governor can veto the bills by doing nothing. But the answer to question (2) in this case is "yes." So the governor can't use the pocket veto. However, if the Legislature was adjourned--and, as the governor pointed out, they themselves said they were--then the governor has a three-day opportunity in which to veto the bills once the Legislature meets again.

 

[Plinko]

Trump's newfound love affair with the Latino community strikes me as somewhat non-consensual.

Ironic considering his initial statements about that community.

He's such a clown. He's damaging his business relationships. I guess I don't get why he's doing it.

 

[speculawyer]

I just saw this on facebook: "Nobel-winning physicist who backed Obama: Prez ‘dead wrong’ on global warming"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/nobel-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming/

Conservatives are eating this up. They won't listen to a consensus of 99% of climate scientists, but they will listen to a scientist in another field that agrees with them... makes sense. He seems to use the same argument as Ted Cruz which is really odd.

An 86 year-old guy who doesn't work in climate science but has some good credentials from the 60's and 70's yells at clouds.

 

[ivysaur12]

Interesting. I think the governor has the better of the argument, though, based on that article. The provision quoted from the Maine Constitution requires that two questions be asked: (1) Has the Legislature prevented the return of the bills by its "adjournment"? If the answer to this is "no," then the bills became law upon the expiration of ten days (Sundays excluded). But if the answer is "yes," then one must determine (2) whether the same Legislature will meet again? If the answer to question (2) is "no," then the governor can veto the bills by doing nothing. But the answer to question (2) in this case is "yes." So the governor can't use the pocket veto. However, if the Legislature was adjourned--and, as the governor pointed out, they themselves said they were--then the governor has a three-day opportunity in which to veto the bills once the Legislature meets again.

It seems to me -- from reading this that their wordage was deliberate, which makes me wonder if "ADJOURN UNTIL THE CALL OF THE SPKR AND PRES" is what they mean by "at ease" versus adjourned because it allows them to be called back for the same session?

 

[PantherLotus]

Does anybody truly think:

1. being socialist is that big of a noose anymore?

2. that the GOP who cried socialist wolf with every Dem candidate since we've been alive can make that supposed insult carry water anymore?

3. Think. Every Dem has been getting called socialist for decades. It's so old nobody is even afraid of it, and more, it's something of a badge of pride for most of the left at this point -- not to mention the northern European countries we'd like to emulate.

4. I really don't think we should be afraid of it anymore. Sanders is the type that can take it, own it, and justify it in such an obvious way to make it safe again.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Alan Grayson is running for senate in FL. His ego is too big to pass up a safe house seat for a losing senate race. Such a stupid choice. Sigh He probably wasn't worth having around anymore anyway.

http://atr.rollcall.com/alan-grayson-announce-senate-bid-thursday/?dcz=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

 

[Plinko]

Does anybody truly think:

1. being socialist is that big of a noose anymore?

2. that the GOP who cried socialist wolf with every Dem candidate since we've been alive can make that supposed insult carry water anymore?

3. Think. Every Dem has been getting called socialist for decades. It's so old nobody is even afraid of it, and more, it's something of a badge of pride for most of the left at this point -- not to mention the northern European countries we'd like to emulate.

4. I really don't think we should be afraid of it anymore. Sanders is the type that can take it, own it, and justify it in such an obvious way to make it safe again.

I mean, that poll pretty much tells that it absolutely is that big of a noose. When half of the voting public instantly says they won't vote for you if you're a socialist, you have almost zero chance.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It seems to me -- from reading this that their wordage was deliberate, which makes me wonder if "ADJOURN UNTIL THE CALL OF THE SPKR AND PRES" is what they mean by "at ease" versus adjourned because it allows them to be called back for the same session?

Yeah, the Democrats have to argue that their current adjournment isn't an "adjournment" in the constitutional sense. Maine law may even support that conclusion, but for me, I'd take the same approach SCOTUS took in Noel Canning: if the Legislature says it's adjourned, then it's adjourned.

Does anybody truly think:

1. being socialist is that big of a noose anymore?

2. that the GOP who cried socialist wolf with every Dem candidate since we've been alive can make that supposed insult carry water anymore?

3. Think. Every Dem has been getting called socialist for decades. It's so old nobody is even afraid of it, and more, it's something of a badge of pride for most of the left at this point -- not to mention the northern European countries we'd like to emulate.

4. I really don't think we should be afraid of it anymore. Sanders is the type that can take it, own it, and justify it in such an obvious way to make it safe again.

Well...

So, more of a "noose" than being a black Jewish gay atheist.

 

[ivysaur12]

Alan Grayson is running for senate in FL. His ego is too big to pass up a safe house seat for a losing senate race. Such a stupid choice. Sigh He probably wasn't worth having around anymore anyway.

http://atr.rollcall.com/alan-grayson-announce-senate-bid-thursday/?dcz=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

It's unlikely he'd win the primary, but this seems more fun:

The most likely Democrat to run for Grayson’s seat is state Sen. Darren Soto, an attorney who was a member of the state House before moving up to the Senate in 2012.

Grayson’s girlfriend, Dena Minning, is also reportedly contemplating a bid for his House seat.

 

[Thequietone]

Does anybody truly think:

1. being socialist is that big of a noose anymore?

2. that the GOP who cried socialist wolf with every Dem candidate since we've been alive can make that supposed insult carry water anymore?

3. Think. Every Dem has been getting called socialist for decades. It's so old nobody is even afraid of it, and more, it's something of a badge of pride for most of the left at this point -- not to mention the northern European countries we'd like to emulate.

4. I really don't think we should be afraid of it anymore. Sanders is the type that can take it, own it, and justify it in such an obvious way to make it safe again.

I think this is all that needs to be said.

I mean more people would vote for an atheist before a socialist. I don't think you know how vilified socialists are in this country. Sanders running will help people realize that socialism isn't a bad thing but America isn't ready for a socialist president. Maybe in two more election cycles but not 2016. It will be Bush vs. Clinton and only thing Sanders will do is get his ideas into the national spotlight. I think the difference between Sanders and other Democrats being called socialists is that they denied being socialists, Sanders embraced being called a socialist.

 

[Cheebo]

Does anybody truly think:

1. being socialist is that big of a noose anymore?

2. that the GOP who cried socialist wolf with every Dem candidate since we've been alive can make that supposed insult carry water anymore?

3. Think. Every Dem has been getting called socialist for decades. It's so old nobody is even afraid of it, and more, it's something of a badge of pride for most of the left at this point -- not to mention the northern European countries we'd like to emulate.

4. I really don't think we should be afraid of it anymore. Sanders is the type that can take it, own it, and justify it in such an obvious way to make it safe again.

Polling indicates otherwise. An open socialist has about 60% of the country saying they would never consider voting for them.

There is a huge difference between Republicans accusing a Democrst who isn't a socialist of having socialist policies and a candidate openly calling themselves a socialist.

Not like it matters though, there is no chance in hell Bernie is going to get anyway close to having a shot at the nomination. He is just filling the Ron Paul of the left slot. Sort of like Bill Bradley did in the 2000 primaries.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Does anybody truly think:

1. being socialist is that big of a noose anymore?

2. that the GOP who cried socialist wolf with every Dem candidate since we've been alive can make that supposed insult carry water anymore?

3. Think. Every Dem has been getting called socialist for decades. It's so old nobody is even afraid of it, and more, it's something of a badge of pride for most of the left at this point -- not to mention the northern European countries we'd like to emulate.

4. I really don't think we should be afraid of it anymore. Sanders is the type that can take it, own it, and justify it in such an obvious way to make it safe again.

Yes to the people who actually vote, not talk about it on reddit.

People are immune to the GOP calling everything socialist but not a guy who goes around going "yeah I am and its a good thing".

I don't know why people are so concerned with rehabilitating a word instead of just promoting policies

 

[Plinko]

https://www.yahoo.com/health/title-x-the-federal-family-planning-program-is-123492140982.html

Republicans are going to eliminate Title X, the only federal program for family planning and reproductive health.

Also, the Wisconsin GOP rolled back the prevailing wage, keeping Scott Walker undefeated in battles against the middle- and lower-class in Wisconsin.

 

[Metaphoreus]

https://www.yahoo.com/health/title-x-the-federal-family-planning-program-is-123492140982.html

Republicans are going to eliminate Title X, the only federal program for family planning and reproductive health.

Also, the Wisconsin GOP rolled back the prevailing wage, keeping Scott Walker undefeated in battles against the middle- and lower-class in Wisconsin.

What I'm getting from that article is that a roughly 10% reduction in funding was accompanied by a roughly 30% reduction in teen pregnancies. Imagine if we cut funding by 100%!

 

[Farmboy]

Does anybody truly think:

1. being socialist is that big of a noose anymore?

2. that the GOP who cried socialist wolf with every Dem candidate since we've been alive can make that supposed insult carry water anymore?

3. Think. Every Dem has been getting called socialist for decades. It's so old nobody is even afraid of it, and more, it's something of a badge of pride for most of the left at this point -- not to mention the northern European countries we'd like to emulate.

4. I really don't think we should be afraid of it anymore. Sanders is the type that can take it, own it, and justify it in such an obvious way to make it safe again.

Well, obviously it's less of a problem than it used to be. But outside of the left-wing bubble, plenty of people - including swing voters - still cringe at the term, as polls show. (And I think you may be in a bit of a left-wing bubble if you think 'We'd like to emulate Northern Europe' is something these swing voters think. )

There's a big difference between the Republicans trying to tar every Dem with the Socialist brush and having a candidate actually self-identifying as a Socialist. I mean, Obama et al have been compared to Hitler and Stalin so many times that it's lost any effect (if it ever had any). But a candidate outright stating he'd run the country like a modern-day Hitler/Stalin would, um, raise a few eyebrows. (Sorry to invoke Godwin, but you get the point).

I do agree with your larger point: that a credible candidate who self-identifies as a Socialist - which Sanders is - can and will help to further detoxify the term. But that's different from it being non-toxic.

 

[demon]

Well, obviously it's less of a problem than it used to be. But outside of the left-wing bubble, plenty of people - including swing voters - still cringe at the term, as polls show. (And I think you may be in a bit of a left-wing bubble if you think 'We'd like to emulate Northern Europe' is something these swing voters think. )

There's a big difference between the Republicans trying to tar every Dem with the Socialist brush and having a candidate actually self-identifying as a Socialist. I mean, Obama et al have been compared to Hitler and Stalin so many times that it's lost any effect (if it ever had any). But a candidate outright stating he'd run the country like a modern-day Hitler/Stalin would, um, raise a few eyebrows. (Sorry to invoke Godwin, but you get the point).

I do agree with your larger point: that a credible candidate who self-identifies as a Socialist - which Sanders is - can and will help to further detoxify the term. But that's different from it being non-toxic.

........eh?

 

[ivysaur12]

TRUMP. MEN. TUM.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-in-north-carolina.html

PPP's newest North Carolina poll finds that Donald Trump's momentum just keeps on building. He's the top choice of Republican primary voters in the state, getting 16% to 12% for Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, 11% for Mike Huckabee, 9% for Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, 7% for Rand Paul, 6% for Ted Cruz, 5% for Chris Christie, 4% for Carly Fiorina, 2% for Rick Perry, 1% each for Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum, and less than 1% each for John Kasich and George Pataki.

Trump's favorability rating in North Carolina is 55/32, much higher than we were finding in national polls prior to his entry into the race. Trump's really caught fire with voters on the far right- 66% of 'very conservative' voters see him favorably to only 24% with a negative view of him. Trump is polling particularly well with younger voters (29%) and men (20%).

Jeb Bush had been leading our previous few polls in North Carolina. But he continues to struggle with conservatives. Among 'very conservative' Republicans, only 37% see him favorably to 44% who have a negative opinion of him and only 7% of those voters support him for the nomination, putting him in 7th place in the GOP field. Bush's overall 43/35 favorability is the second worst of any of the 10 candidates we measured that for, besting only Chris Christie's 27/41 standing.

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton still has a dominant lead, but things are tightening up some in the way that they are in other places across the country. Clinton's at 55% to 20% for Bernie Sanders, 7% for Jim Webb, and 4% each for Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. Clinton's dropped from 62% to this 55% standing over the last month, while Sanders has made an almost corresponding lead from 14% to 20%. Webb's up 2 points from a month ago, and Chafee and O'Malley have stayed in place.

The strongest GOP hopefuls for the general election, leading Clinton by 4, are Mike Huckabee at 49/45 and Scott Walker at 47/43. Ben Carson leads her by 3 at 47/44, and Marco Rubio and Rand Paul each have 1 point leads at 47/46 and 46/45 respectively.

The weakest Republicans in the state are Donald Trump and Chris Christie who each trail Clinton by 3 points at 47/44 and 46/43 respectively. Also trailing Clinton are Jeb Bush at 45/43 and Ted Cruz at 47/46. Clinton's tie comes with Carly Fiorina at 45%.

Clinton continues to be far stronger as a general election candidate than any other potential Democratic hopeful. Bernie Sanders would trail Scott Walker by 8 points at 43/35, Jim Webb by 13 points at 44/31, Lincoln Chafee by 14 points at 43/29, and Martin O'Malley by 16 points at 45/29.

 

[Y2Kev]

I'd rather trump than jeb!. Trump/Christie 2016!!!!!

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bernie Sanders would trail Scott Walker by 8 points at 43/35, Jim Webb by 13 points at 44/31, Lincoln Chafee by 14 points at 43/29, and Martin O'Malley by 16 points at 45/29.

too early but wow.

Another Bernie article and this time he is Howard Dean.

Sanders is merely the latest version of Howard Dean, another Vermont elected official who surged in early polls by appealing to the liberal base of the Democratic Party and running against the establishment’s early favorite, who in 2003 was Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Progressive Democrats feel good when they listen to Sanders, who reflects their values and priorities. And since they aren’t picking a nominee, or a president, right now, but are simply looking for a vehicle to express their feelings, they don’t have any trouble cheering — and even embracing — the senator and his candidacy.

Some Democrats may wish she had Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s passion or President Bill Clinton’s ability to show empathy or establish a personal connection with voters. But Democratic primary voters surveyed by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal believed overwhelmingly they would be optimistic or satisfied with the job the former New York senator would do as president.

Of course, I understand why Sanders might deceive himself into believing he will be sworn in as the nation’s 45th president. Every politician has a scenario for victory, and it’s hard to get up each day to attend campaign events while telling yourself you can’t win. Believing you are headed for victory, and having a plan that tells you that victory is possible, makes the agonizing schedule almost bearable.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/bernie-sanders-latest-version-howard-dean/?dcz=

 

[demon]

Does Sanders actually, sincerely believe he has a chance of winning the presidency? Didn't he even say a while back that he would run against Hillary if she had no opposition on the Left just to give her some competition, or something along those lines?

 

[Oblivion]

I don't want you to think I forgot you friend,

Dawwww...

I couldn't find the data I crunched on this before, so I did just a back of the envelope (aka Excel) calculation off the IRS's tables. And remembered what the major driver of the numbers I originally found was, the income share, not the tax rates. (I did a correlation/regression before, probably should have saved that stuff.) You should what a graph looks like tracking the two shares (of any income segment) from 1916-2013.

In 1963, the last year of 91% tax rates (LBJ would enact JFK's proposed tax cuts starting in 1964), the top 1% paid 16% of taxes on 7% of income, the top 5% paid 31% of taxes on 18% of income, and the bottom 50% paid 25% of taxes on 34% of income.

Then in 2011, the last year of the 35% Bush tax rate (iirc), but whatever, the last good year of complete IRS data, the top 1% paid 35% of taxes on 19% of income, the top 5% paid 57% of taxes on 34% of income, and the bottom 50% paid 3% of taxes on 12% of income.

Despite this:
Average Income Tax Revenue as % of GDP 1948-1962: 11.78%
Average Income Tax Revenue as % of GDP 1963-1981: 11.77%
Average Income Tax Revenue as % of GDP 1982-1994: 11.40%
Average Income Tax Revenue as % of GDP 1995-2013: 11.78%

Business taxes actually account today as a larger share of total government income, to pick 1963 and 2011 again. In 1963 the taxes broke down like this:
45.4% income - 34.4% "sales" - 16.2% social - 3.9% business
vs
34.5% income - 31.7% income - 24.4% "sales" + tariff - 9.4% business

1943 was the first year in which "sales taxes" (excise + tariffs) didn't account for the majority of U.S. tax revenue. It was only around 1900ish that tariffs alone didn't account for 50+%.

1951 was the first non-war year income taxes surpassed "sales" taxes 47.5% to 40.6%. Social taxes did it in 1982: 26.4% to 26.1%. I believe if you plot out the projections on what's expected to be "needed" + removing caps, etc. social taxes are supposed to overtake income taxes in the next five years or so if the income tax rates don't increase correspondingly. (Or people don't get substantially richer I suppose.)

TL;DR: If we don't cut taxes on the rich and corporations extensively then Mexicans will create rape simulators for the Vita. The latter of which Bernie Sanders refuses to take a position on.

I just did some checking of my own, and it seems that you may be right on this. At least, from the data I've checked on this page. But I could have sworn I read somewhere that it wasn't the case. I'll see if I can find it, and then you'll be sorry.

 

[thepotatoman]

(double post)

 

[thepotatoman]

Bernie Sanders would trail Scott Walker by 8 points at 43/35, Jim Webb by 13 points at 44/31, Lincoln Chafee by 14 points at 43/29, and Martin O'Malley by 16 points at 45/29.

too early but wow.

Bernie is Howard Dean.





http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/bernie-sanders-latest-version-howard-dean/?dcz=

That quote is saying in North Carolina, Walker leads Hillary by 4, Bernie by 8, Webb by 13, Chafee by 14, and O'Malley by 16. The "in north carolina" part, and how well Hillary is doing is important there.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_70815.pdf

It's also worth noting that Hillary v Walker has 10% answer with "don't know", and everyone else had 20%+ "don't know". I'm still trying to figure out the best way to predict how those unknowns go. For instance, I'm not going to say Bernie is far more electable than O'Malley going by that poll.

 

[Teggy]

There are people who really actually believe Donald Trump would be a good president? Are we sure this isn't just some 4chan thing?

 

[Plinko]

TRUMP. MEN. TUM.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-in-north-carolina.html

Oh man, if he somehow pulled off the upset, it would be the most hilarious political story in years. The general election would end up like Reagan/Mondale.

The crazy thing? He's basically getting momentum by being openly racist. THAT is the type of candidate that is appealing to the far right. It's insane.

 

[B-Dubs]

TRUMP. MEN. TUM.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-in-north-carolina.html

Oh baby, my hype levels are getting too damn high!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Does Sanders actually, sincerely believe he has a chance of winning the presidency? Didn't he even say a while back that he would run against Hillary if she had no opposition on the Left just to give her some competition, or something along those lines?

I think he's legit surprised at the support he has received, but deep down he knows he's just a placeholder and can't beat Hillary.

To continue Khalessi comparisons, Bernie is her cloth dragon/fraud. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight."

 

[speculawyer]

https://www.yahoo.com/health/title-x-the-federal-family-planning-program-is-123492140982.html

Republicans are going to eliminate Title X, the only federal program for family planning and reproductive health.

Remember when Republicans were rational?

Title X was approved in 1970, championed on the Hill by former President and then-Congressman George H.W. Bush and signed into law by Richard Nixon.

“We need to make population and family planning household words.” Bush said in 1969 when the legislation was being debated. "We need to take sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be used by militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather are using it as a political steppingstone. If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter."
----------------------

On the good side . . . if you read the comments on that Yahoo! article, they mostly supportive of Title X. GOP reaching too far again.

 

[Plinko]

Remember when Republicans were rational?

Title X was approved in 1970, championed on the Hill by former President and then-Congressman George H.W. Bush and signed into law by Richard Nixon.

“We need to make population and family planning household words.” Bush said in 1969 when the legislation was being debated. "We need to take sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be used by militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather are using it as a political steppingstone. If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter."

What I don't get here is that republicans hate people who are poor or on welfare. No Title X means less family planning/contraception, more unplanned pregnancies, leading to more need for welfare in the future.

It makes no sense.

 

[eBay Huckster]

The misrepresentation of data never stops with you. That quote is saying in North Carolina, Walker leads Hillary by 4, Bernie by 8, Webb by 13, Chafee by 14, and O'Malley by 16. The "in north carolina" part, and how well Hillary is doing is important there.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_70815.pdf

It's also worth noting that Hillary v Walker has 10% answer with "don't know", and everyone else had 20%+ "don't know". I'm still trying to figure out the best way to predict how those unknowns go. For instance, I'm not going to say Bernie is far more electable than O'Malley going by that poll.

Start around page 33 and work down from there.

I'm tentatively going to say the undecideds would break in the Democratic candidate's favor for at least Clinton and Sanders, particularly since Sanders already wins moderates against Walker 38-26 and the undecideds there are a hefty part of the overall undecideds for both him and Clinton.

(Granted I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be paying more attention to polling over endorsements for the primaries, period.)

 

[NeoXChaos]

Which just brings me back around to how odd it is for you to argue so much about wanting people to be realistic about Sander's shot, while still thinking he has a chance in the primary, but not chance in the general, all at the same time, before there's enough data to prove any of that.

You were asking for head to head polls earlier, and we don't have head to heads for Sanders yet, but we have Warren at a -2 against Jeb, and -4 against Walker. If she theoretically ran, do you think she could overcome the 50+ point gap against Hillary while staying in the exact same spot or lower in the head to head polls? The only way that would happen is if Hillary fell on her face herself, which would probably bring her head to head numbers down to where Warren's numbers are.

And what unpopular positions do you think Sanders is going to force her to take? We don't even know yet what positions the general public finds too far with Bernie yet. Even if Sanders is somehow too far left while still finding himself actually threatening Hillary, she has such a huge lead she should easily be able to focus test Sander's statements to find where the line of too far left actually is and take a stance that doesn't hurt her in the general, and satisfies progressives. It's been so long since the line of "too far left" has even been tested, that it seems impossible to believe Sanders could come out of no where to force Hillary past that line.

There's just no reason to write him off this early for the reason of head to head polling when there's no chance for him to even win the primary.

If you're going to take a strict realistic and strategic stance based on today's polls, then you should know he'll probably never close to winning the primary, but he might have a chance at creating a discussion on full on progressive values that hasn't happened in the mainstream in a very long time. The more support he gets, the more likely he'll be put in positions to promote those values.

To strategically rally against him, you basically have to assume he's an actual threat against Hillary, which as delusional as the Sanders supporters thinking he has a decent chance to become president.

1. He will always be written off until he can show that he can build upon his current base of support. Most of the pundits in the articles I link are neutral with no party affiliation with years of political experience so I happen to take their opinions with some credibility. There is nothing that suggest history cant be wrong this time but here are the facts and here is a logical conclusion barring some unsurprising event. I guess I am arguing all 3 at the same time.

2. He is certainly a threat to her depending on what poll you believe and put weight behind. He has a chance even if it is a 0.5% chance.

3. I have no problem with the progressive experiment he is doing. I just dont think or really know if it can penetrate in this polarized environment. It wont end and die if he does not win. It will be passed to Hillary and the party as a whole in the general.

4. Sorry I just dont like this pushing left stuff. It assumes that the country is far left when it isnt. I see no purpose in why Hillary has to do it when the country is center right/left depending on the mood. She is in a good sweet spot. It's rather hypocritical of us when the other side is criticized for going too far right. A winning coalition requires more than liberal democrats/independents, moderates and even some conservatives need to be reached out to. That is why the parties return to the center to try and win. That hasnt changed no matter how far off the election has been away from. The parties have tried both extremes with terrible results.

5. If I am misrepresenting stats then I apologize.

 

[eBay Huckster]

In policy-related news, DEATH PANELS ARE BACK, Y'ALL

The Obama administration plans to pay doctors to hold end-of-life planning conversations with patients, a controversial decision that will almost certainly revive the "death panel" debate that has long dogged the Affordable Care Act.

Medicare rolled out new rules Wednesday (on page 246 of this document) that would reimburse physicians who talk to elderly patients about what options are available at the end of life — whether they would want life support, for example, or whether hospice care would be of interest. Doctors would get paid, under these new rules, for helping patients complete an advanced directive.

The reimbursements would begin in 2016.

 

[Ecotic]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/07/08/trump-teases-critic-for-being-paralyzed.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

Not content with insulting a female reporter’s intelligence and professionalism, Donald Trump apparently mocked a conservative critic for being paralyzed. Trump in an interview with NBC News was asked about columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is paralyzed from the waist down and has called Trump a “rodeo clown.” In response to criticism from Krauthammer and National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg, Trump said the following: “I went out, I made a fortune, a big fortune, a tremendous fortune… bigger than people even understand,” he said before discussing his plan to release financial statements. “Then I get called by a guy that can’t buy a pair of pants, I get called names?”

Huh, I didn't know that about Krauthammer.

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/07/08/trump-teases-critic-for-being-paralyzed.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page



Huh, I didn't know that about Krauthammer.

Trump said the following: “I went out, I made a fortune, a big fortune, a tremendous fortune… bigger than people even understand,” he said before discussing his plan to release financial statements. “Then I get called by a guy that can’t buy a pair of pants, I get called names?”

I think he is saying the guy is poor, not mocking him for being paralyzed.

 

[speculawyer]

Trump is more than I ever dared dream.

He is definitely delivering the LOLs. I just hope he doesn't flame out before he does some debates. Those are gonna be great. You know he's gonna say "FIRED!" at some point.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think he is saying the guy is poor, not mocking him for being paralyzed.

It's not even clear if he's referring to Krauthammer or Goldberg at that point, either.

 

[Trouble]

He is definitely delivering the LOLs. I just hope he doesn't flame out before he does some debates. Those are gonna be great. You know he's gonna say "FIRED!" at some point.

Honestly, I think he's gonna get torn to shreds in the first debate. Jeb is going to be gunning for him and prepared.

 

[RastaMentality]

Honestly, I think he's gonna get torn to shreds in the first debate. Jeb is going to be gunning for him and prepared.

Must-see TV.