Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

Walker: Oh, I mean I think -- that’s not even an issue for me to be involved in. The bottom line is, I’m going to stand up and work hard for every American regardless of who they are, no matter where they come from, no matter what their background. I’m going to fight for people whether they vote for me or not.

Unless they're women, teachers, gay, in unions, on welfare, working on minimum wage...

 

[NeoXChaos]

Melon.
This will be the republican response to even the most benign of Hillary proposed legislation

But please continue to support whomever(the proper grammar) you wish, symptom of a healthy democracy and all that

I hope you know that applies to Bernie as well. More the reason to go with the candidate that can win the general. Compromise is a good thing and Congress badly needs it. Bernie will not be able to will his agenda into existence.

 

[Retromelon]

Erasure does know that, because he reworded my original post to apply to hillary, lol.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I hope you know that applies to Bernie as well. More the reason to go with the candidate that can win the general. Compromise is a good thing and Congress badly needs it. Bernie will not be able to will his agenda into existence.

To be fair Bernie has been quite effective at compromising and passing legislation - it's not like he's some hardcore Ron Paul ideologue who votes No on everything that doesn't line up 100% with what he wants.

 

[KingK]

Minimum wage at $15/hour is important, but hardly the moral issue of our time. There are a lot of issues on the table. The Sanders supporters are overemphasizing the economic issues above all other issues, and dismiss any other issues brought up, which is precisely why you guys annoy minorities and women.

I mean, economic issues/campaign finance are directly related to every other issue on the table, so it absolutely makes sense for that to be the centerpiece of a platform. But where have Sanders or his supporters been dismissing other issues, as you claim?

To be fair Bernie has been quite effective at compromising and passing legislation - it's not like he's some hardcore Ron Paul ideologue who votes No on everything that doesn't line up 100% with what he wants.

Yeah, stating honestly what you're ideal solution would be instead of preemptively compromising doesn't automatically prevent compromise. Bernie has actually worked on quite a bit of bipartisan legislation, afaik (most recently a VA bill with McCain i think?), and has been pragmatic in his voting record despite his idealistic rhetoric (supporting the ACA for example while still preferring a single payer system).

 

[Wilsongt]

Omg the Trump dogpile is delicious!

A preaching to the choir story that we are all aware of: The GOP sucks at technology. And they wonder why they lack the youth vote.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-consultant-critiques-republican-digital-124448872556.html

SAN FRANCISCO – A top digital consultant to Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign had harsh words for Republican technologists on Saturday, saying that many of them are “impostors” and that the GOP has until recently been an “atrociously bad” place for tech-savvy people wanting to get involved in politics.

The Republican Party “was a terrible place for a smart technologist to come work,” Andy Barkett, a former Facebook engineer, said at a conference on technology and politics hosted by Lincoln Labs, a conservative nonprofit group.

Barkett, who was hired by the Republican National Committee as its chief technology officer two years ago, made reference to his time at the RNC, which did not go smoothly.

“I mean, it was a terrible place for me when I started. It was horrible. It was, like, the worst experience of my life,” Barkett said of his entry into Republican politics after spending more than a decade at Silicon Valley companies, where he moved into angel investing on the side. “It was just, like, atrociously bad.”

“There’s a whole bunch of people in politics who say a lot of words, all the buzzwords that we talked about, and they say, ‘I want more analytics.’ None of them have any idea what any of those things mean,” he said, seated on a stage during a panel discussion alongside digital operatives working for the presidential campaigns of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

“They have no idea what the difference is between building an infrastructure of servers that know how to send e-mails to having an e-mail list or the difference between the records in the voter file and the analytics that you do in addition to those,” he said.

Barkett urged people in politics doing tech-related work to “get over the impostor syndrome and learn what the ef you are talking about.

No shit. When most of your base lives in rural America without access to high speed internet or upgraded technology, then of course your politicians are going to be shit at it because they have no need to learn.

 

[NeoXChaos]

To be fair Bernie has been quite effective at compromising and passing legislation - it's not like he's some hardcore Ron Paul ideologue who votes No on everything that doesn't line up 100% with what he wants.

we bringing back that Clinton third way triangulation right into the White House.

 

[HylianTom]

Man, if I had taken a shot every time I heard the word "triangulating" on CNN in the 90s.. whee..

 

[Teggy]

.

Why would anybody listen to @MittRomney? He lost an election that should have easily been won against Obama. By the way,so did John McCain!

 

[Retromelon]

What an ass

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

.

They choked like the dog-losers they are, Trump 2016.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Minimum wage at $15/hour is important, but hardly the moral issue of our time. There are a lot of issues on the table. The Sanders supporters are overemphasizing the economic issues above all other issues, and dismiss any other issues brought up, which is precisely why you guys annoy minorities and women.

Because minorities and women arent affected by low wages? If you want an essay in every post hitting every issue...that's unrealistic. I support equality in all forms...don't twist my words to imply I'm alienating minority and women's rights. Thank you.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I just discovered this thread and the Bernie debate has infiltrated there too.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=172393466&highlight=#post172393466

also an article to what pigeon was alluding to in an earlier post.


http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8671135/bernie-sanders-race

A lot of people are very excited about Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. It's not hard to figure out why: there are a lot of those progressives out there who are very concerned about economic inequality, the rise of the super-rich, the financial industry, and the role of money in American politics.

But there's a reason I say "those progressives" instead of just "progressives": because not everyone in the Democratic base shares those particular passions, or those passions alone. For other progressives — many of them black or Latino — economic inequality is important, but so is racial inequality. They're extremely concerned about racial bias in policing, and about ending mass incarceration. They're concerned about the treatment of unauthorized immigrants, and about protecting voting rights (an issue like campaign finance where progressives are worried the integrity of the political system is at stake — and where the outcome doesn't look good for them).

Bernie Sanders doesn't speak to those concerns. He didn't mention those issues in his campaign launch in May. They're not on the issues page of his website. And his appearance at Netroots Nation in July left many attendees frustrated: Sanders answered questions about racial issues by pivoting back to economic ones.

This isn't an accidental oversight. These simply aren't issues Sanders is passionate about in the way he's passionate about economic injustice. When my colleague Andrew Prokop profiled Sanders last year, he pointed out astutely that Sanders's career has been "laser-focused on checking the power of the wealthy above all else." Sanders believes in racial equality, sure, but he believes it will only come as the result of economic equality. To him, focusing on racial issues first is merely treating the symptom, not the disease.

But Sanders has only been able to build a career on talking about his own political principles, and assuming voters will respond, because he's in an unusual position for a Democratic (or Democratic-affiliated) politician. Sanders's Vermont is pretty homogeneous: 94 percent white, 96 percent American-born, relatively well-educated. Sanders has never had to win an election by working to appeal to white, black, and Latino voters all at once — he's won election after election by successfully representing the concerns of a single constituency. Most Democratic politicians at the statewide level don't have that option.

And a presidential candidate whose priority is winning the nomination and the presidency doesn't have that option, either. That's why frontrunner Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate who's spoken out the most about the concerns that animate nonwhite progressives. With early events focused on criminal justice and on immigration, it's clear that Clinton's campaign is trying to reach out to these progressives and tell them Clinton shares their pain.

Of course, unlike Sanders's decades-long record of economic progressivism, Clinton is moving to the left on issues that she hasn't historically been a progressive leader on (to say the least). But she's doing so because she appears to recognize that the party has changed since she was a first lady or a senator, and because she wants to win the nomination and the presidency, she needs to move to meet it. Sanders is running to make the same points he's always made: that the rich are too powerful in America and the government needs to fix it. Clinton is running to win as many votes as possible. She doesn't embody any single progressive passion the way Sanders embodies economic populism — but it looks like she's responding to the progressive concerns Sanders has mostly ignored.

 

[PhoenixDark]

How has Sanders ignored female issues when he is stumping for equal pay, child care, female healthcare issues, and a host of other things? The attacks against him only seem to highlight how insular, petty, and ineffective identity politics have become. Same applies to the ridiculous attacks coming from black activists.

Do people want verbal acknowledgement/validation or concrete policy solutions? I can't tell when I listen to some of the shit being hurled at Sanders. I am not a supporter of his but I find it asinine that someone who has pretty much been right on most if not all civil rights and gender equality issues for decades is now suddenly a target for derision and criticism while Hillary Clinton skates by without a scratch. Jeez.

 

[Retromelon]

Can small businesses afford to pay workers 15$ an hour? There should be reflection upon the economic ramifications of such an act, rather than making people out to be slaves for earning low hourly wages. Seattle deserves our collective scrutiny.

 

[Plinko]

Scott Walker: 'I Don't Know' If People Are Born Gay Or If It's A Choice



At least he's consistent with his stance on evolution: For me, I am going to punt on that one as well

As I said months ago, this guy NEVER answers questions.

 

[ErasureAcer]

How has Sanders ignored female issues when he is stumping for equal pay, child care, female healthcare issues, and a host of other things? The attacks against him only seem to highlight how insular, petty, and ineffective identity politics have become. Same applies to the ridiculous attacks coming from black activists.

Do people want verbal acknowledgement/validation or concrete policy solutions? I can't tell when I listen to some of the shit being hurled at Sanders. I am not a supporter of his but I find it asinine that someone who has pretty much been right on most if not all civil rights and gender equality issues for decades is now suddenly a target for derision and criticism while Hillary Clinton skates by without a scratch. Jeez.

Bernie is the front-runner confirmed.

 

[B-Dubs]

Can small businesses afford to pay workers 15$ an hour? There should be reflection upon the economic ramifications of such an act, rather than making people out to be slaves for earning low hourly wages. Seattle deserves our collective scrutiny.

Let's be real first of all: any increase in the minimum wage will be implemented over the course of several years, not all at once. This is done so the market can slowly adjust to the rising wages and to avoid the issues you're talking about.

 

[NeoXChaos]

who writes these wiki pages. I wonder how Obama will fare if the democrats win for a third and hopefully 4th term.

Nixon's victory is often considered a realigning election in American politics. From 1932 to 1964, the Democratic Party was undoubtedly the majority party. During that time period, Democrats won seven out of nine presidential elections, and their agenda influenced policies undertaken by the Republican Eisenhower administration. The election of 1968 reversed the situation completely. From 1968 until 2004, Republicans won seven out of ten presidential elections, and its policies clearly affected those enacted by the Democratic Clinton administration via the Third Way.

some more wiki on realignments:

2008 presidential election — Barack Obama

In the 2008 elections, the Democrats expanded their majorities in the Congress, and won the Presidency decisively. This was due to the momentum carried over from the Democrats' 2006 successes, as well as the continued unpopularity of President George W. Bush, whose administration was now faced with a financial crisis and economic recession. Some people believe that 2008 is possibly a realigning election with a long-lasting impact, just as the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt was in 1932 and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 were.[23][24] President Obama was reelected in the 2012 election as well, becoming only the third Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote more than once[25] while losing only two states that he had won in 2008.[26]
On the other hand, the Republican Party experienced major gains two years later in 2010, retaking the house with a gain of 63 seats, the largest Republican gain in 80 years. Additionally, the Republican Party gained 6 seats in the Senate, slimming the Democratic majority. Despite Obama's reelection in 2012, the Republicans had another strong performance in the 2014 midterms; they not only increased their majority in the House and recaptured the Senate, but also made gains in the gubernatorial races and other statewide and local races, resulting in 31 Republican governorships and 68 state legislative houses under Republican control, thus increasing their influence to the largest Republican majority in the entire country in nearly a century.[27][28][29]

1992 presidential election — Bill Clinton
Clinton carried several states that had previously been Republican or swing states in both the Northeast and on the West Coast. Most notably, the largest state California switched from being a reliably Republican state to being consistently Democratic: it has been carried by Democratic candidates ever since. Other states that switched and have remained with the Democrats since include Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. In contrast, despite the fact Clinton came from the South, he only carried four of the former Confederate states: Arkansas (his home state), Louisiana, Tennessee (his vice president's home state) and Georgia, confirming it as a Republican base of support.
Since 1992, the Democratic candidate has won the national popular vote in every presidential election except 2004, suggesting some manner of national realignment away from the Republican domination of the 1970s and 1980s. This national tendency toward Democratic presidential candidates did not necessarily translate to Democratic victories in congressional elections. However Republicans remained competitive nationally, making historic gains in the 1994 and 2010 midterms, although the composition of the electorate in presidential versus midterm elections vary significantly.[19]
1994 House of Representatives and Senate elections[20]
This election is now generally seen as a realigning election by political scientists.[20] Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate, taking control of both chambers for the first time since 1954. In addition, control of the House continued until 2007. Newt Gingrich, who promoted a "Contract with America", successfully nationalized the campaign by coordinating races around the country. The overwhelming nature of the Republicans' victory points to a realignment; the party gained 54 seats (in a chamber of only 435), while neither party would gain more than a handful of seats in any election until 2006.
The GOP gained seats in 43 of 46 state houses. These gains continued into the next decade, so that by 2002 the GOP held the majority of state legislative seats for the first time in fifty years.[20]
Notably, the period of party decline and mass dealignment appears to have ended in the 1990s. Strength of partisanship, as measured by the National Election Study, increased in the 1990s, as does the percentage of the mass public who perceive important differences between each party.[20]
This election also indicates the rise of religious issues as one of the most important cleavage in American politics.[citation needed] While Reagan's election hinted at the importance of the religious right, it was the formation of the Christian Coalition (the successor to the Moral Majority) in the early 1990s that gave Republicans organizational and financial muscle, particularly at the state level.[21] By 2004 the media portrayed the political nation as divided into "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democratic) states, with reputed differences in cultural attitudes and politics between the two blocs.
The Republicans made historic inroads in the Solid South where they picked up total of 19 House seats. Going into the election, House Democrats outnumbered House Republicans. Afterwards, the Republicans outnumbered Democrats for the first time since Reconstruction.[22]

Some debate exists today as to what elections (if any) could be considered realigning elections after 1932.[11] Although several candidates have been proposed, there is no widespread agreement:

1964 and 1968 presidential elections — Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon
The 1968 election is often cited due to the innovative campaign strategy of Nixon.[12] In running against Hubert Humphrey, he used what became known as the Southern strategy. He appealed to white voters in the South with a call for "states' rights," which they interpreted as meaning that the federal government would no longer demand the forced busing of school children as ordered by federal courts. Democrats protested that Nixon exploited racial fears in winning the support of white southerners and northern white ethnics.[13] Roosevelt's New Deal coalition had lasted over 30 years but after the urban riots and Vietnam crisis of the mid 1960s one by one the coalition partners peeled away until only a hollow core remained, setting the stage for a GOP revival. Nixon's downfall postponed the realignment which came about under Reagan, as even the term "liberalism" fell into disrepute.
Including this as a realignment preserves the roughly 30-year cyclical pattern: 1896 to 1932, 1932 to 1964, and 1964 to 1994.
For political scientists, 1964 was primarily an issue-based realignment. The classic study of the 1964 election, by Carmines and Stimson (1989), shows how the polarization of activists and elites on race-related issues sent clear signals to the general public about the historic change in each party's position on Civil Rights.[citation needed] Notably, while only 50% of African-Americans self-identified as Democrats in the 1960 National Election Study, 82% did in 1964, and the numbers are higher in the 21st century. The clearest indicator of the importance of this election, was that Deep Southern states, such as Mississippi, voted Republican in 1964. In contrast, much of the traditional Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Upper Midwest voted Democratic. Vermont and Maine, which stood alone voting against FDR in 1936, voted for LBJ in 1964.
Many analysts do not consider 1968 a realigning election because control of Congress did not change; the Democrats would control the Senate until 1980 (and again from 1986 to 1994) and the House until 1994.[10] Also missing was a marked change in the partisan orientation of the electorate. Importantly, these two elections are consistent with the theory in that the old New Deal issues were replaced by Civil Rights issues as the major factor explaining why citizens identified with each party. Other scholars[14] contend that this is the beginning of a thirty-year dealignment, in which citizens generally moved towards political independence, which ended with the 1994 election.

1980 presidential election — Ronald Reagan
In this election, Ronald Reagan won a sweeping victory over Democrat Jimmy Carter, who won only six states (plus the District of Columbia), which accounted for just 10% of the electoral vote. Republicans also took control of the Senate for the first time in over 25 years. (See Reagan's coattails.) Many scholars viewed Reagan's policies as sufficiently new to consider this a realigning election.[15]
On the other hand, critics like Mayhew (2004) note that control of the House did not change, nor even come close to changing, at this time. Republicans actually held fewer House seats in 1983 than they held in 1973. In addition, the Republicans lost the Senate again only six years later, leading some to conclude that the Senators simply rode in on Reagan's coattails, and did not represent a true shift in the ideological preferences of their constituents. Also absent was a shift in partisan alignment from public opinion polls.[16] Both liberals, such as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, and conservatives, such as MSNBC political pundit, Nixon administration political advisor and Reagan administration Communications Director Pat Buchanan, would also argue that Nixon’s victory in 1968 set the stage for Reagan’s victory, and the fact that Reagan did so well in Southern states, traditionally a Democratic stronghold, as well as the fact that some of Reagan’s rhetoric involving law and order and states’ rights seemed to mirror Nixon’s Southern Strategy seem to bear this fact out.[17][18]

1932 presidential election — Franklin D. Roosevelt
Of all the realigning elections, this one musters the most agreement from political scientists and historians; it is the archetypal realigning election.[10] FDR's admirers such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. have argued that New Deal policies, developed in response to the crash of 1929 and the miseries of the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover, represented an entirely new phenomenon in American politics. More critical historians such as Carl Degler and David Kennedy see a great deal of continuity with Hoover's energetic but unsuccessful economic policies. There is no doubt Democrats vehemently attacked Hoover for 50 years. In many ways, Roosevelt's legacy still defines the Democratic Party; he forged an enduring New Deal Coalition of big city machines, the White South, intellectuals, labor unions, Catholics, Jews, and Westerners. In 1936, African-Americans were added to the coalition (African-Americans had previously been denied the vote or voted Republican). For instance, Pittsburgh, which was a Republican stronghold from the Civil War up to this point, suddenly became a Democratic stronghold, and has elected a Democratic mayor to office in every election since this time.
The Democrats went from 37.7% of House seats in 1928 to 49.6% in 1930 and 71.9% in 1932, for a total gain of 34.2% in two elections.
In the Senate, the Democrats went from 40.6% of seats in 1928 to 49% in 1930 and 61.5% in 1932, for a total gain of 20.9% in two elections.

 

[Retromelon]

Let's be real first of all: any increase in the minimum wage will be implemented over the course of several years, not all at once. This is done so the market can slowly adjust to the rising wages and to avoid the issues you're talking about.

I imagine you typing this out at me in the batcave on your 200 inch monitor and supercomputer while alfred fetches tea

 

[B-Dubs]

I imagine you typing this out at me in the batcave on your 200 inch monitor and supercomputer while alfred fetches tea

Who told?!

Also, I prefer hot chocolate.

 

[ivysaur12]

By the way, here is the website for Kelli Ward, the State Senator trying to primary McCain. If you want to see her intro video?

https://kelliward.com/

 

[B-Dubs]

By the way, here is the website for Kelli Ward, the State Senator trying to primary McCain. If you want to see her intro video?

https://kelliward.com/

Is that an announcement video or an attack ad?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Is that an announcement video or an attack ad?

she has no chance. Here is the real deal

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/tea-party-favorite-matt-salmon-considering-john-mccain-challenge-in-2016-20150528

I'd rather a Republican retain the seat as long as McCain gets the boot. He has overstayed his time.

 

[Third Strike]

who writes these wiki pages. I wonder how Obama will fare if the democrats win for a third and hopefully 4th term.

It would only be the second time in history that a Democratic candidate was elected after a previous Democratic president who served for only eight years. The first was Jackson/Buren. You can say third if you count the FDR dynasty, though Truman inherited FDR's fourth term after he died, and the FDR dynasty is the second longest time in history that a single party has held on to the White House in our history (first was the Dem-Rep Party, which had the White House for 28 years).

I also think that this is really important to highlight. Republicans and Democrats have been shuffling the White House since Bush Sr. This has basically allowed each incumbent president to replace a conservative/liberal judge, with another conservative/liberal judge (except when Thomas replaced Marshall). If when get another Democrat in after Obama, we could finally get someone from the conservative bench replaced with a liberal judge. I think that will be the mark of new shift in American politics, along with a new political dynasty on the White House, not seen since the Reagan/Bush days.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah, sixteen years of Democratic appointees would fundamental shift the court system in ways that we haven't seen in quite some time.

Also, it sounds like Bernie didn't have a great weekend while O'Malley sort of did? He took a potentially damaging moment and turned it around.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/...dential-strategy-try-try-try-again#.mvKVjPwwD

 

[HylianTom]

It would only be the second time in history that a Democratic candidate was elected after a previous Democratic president who served for only eight years. The first was Jackson/Buren. You can say third if you count the FDR dynasty, though Truman inherited FDR's fourth term after he died, and the FDR dynasty is the second longest time in history that a single party has held on to the White House in our history (first was the Dem-Rep Party, which had the White House for 28 years).

I also think that this is really important to highlight. Republicans and Democrats have been shuffling the White House since Bush Sr. This has basically allowed each incumbent president to replace a conservative/liberal judge, with another conservative/liberal judge (except when Thomas replaced Marshall). If when get another Democrat in after Obama, we could finally get someone from the conservative bench replaced with a liberal judge. I think that will be the mark of new shift in American politics, along with a new political dynasty on the White House, not seen since the Reagan/Bush days.

That's been the big underpinning of my "support-whom-you-want-in-primaries-but-you're-insane-if-you-throw-a-tantrum-in-the-General" stance. You can pout in 2016, get Ginsburg or Breyer replaced by a Scalia clone in 2018, and then proceed to elect a Bernie clone in 2020 - but the bills he'd sign into law (assuming they get through Congress) wouldn't be worth one whit if they can't survive the inevitable court challenges.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It would only be the second time in history that a Democratic candidate was elected after a previous Democratic president who served for only eight years. The first was Jackson/Buren. You can say third if you count the FDR dynasty, though Truman inherited FDR's fourth term after he died, and the FDR dynasty is the second longest time in history that a single party has held on to the White House in our history (first was the Dem-Rep Party, which had the White House for 28 years).

I also think that this is really important to highlight. Republicans and Democrats have been shuffling the White House since Bush Sr. This has basically allowed each incumbent president to replace a conservative/liberal judge, with another conservative/liberal judge (except when Thomas replaced Marshall). If when get another Democrat in after Obama, we could finally get someone from the conservative bench replaced with a liberal judge. I think that will be the mark of new shift in American politics, along with a new political dynasty on the White House, not seen since the Reagan/Bush days.

I doubt Scalia and Kennedy are stepping down. Hillary will be lucky to replace Ginsburg and Bryer. Presidents usually get 2 picks. FDR was the last one to get as many as 8 with Truman picking 4 for a total 12. Nixon to Bush 1 together picked 9. Carter got no picks. Eisenhower picked 5. Don't forget that the last Supreme Court Justice picked by a Dem was Truman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appointments

 

[Grexeno]

How often do Supreme Court justices die in office?

 

[Retromelon]

There was one in the 40s whose name i forgot.

 

[NeoXChaos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

Interesting article. FDR tried putting more justices on the court to prevent the court from overturning his New Deal initiatives

 

[B-Dubs]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

Interesting article. FDR tried putting more justices on the court to prevent the court from overturning his New Deal initiatives

For every great thing FDR did he did a couple of not-so-great things.

 

[ivysaur12]

For every great thing FDR did he did a couple of not-so-great things.

Yeah, Courtpacking was one of the more clever, douchey ideas that FDR had.

 

[Third Strike]

I doubt Scalia and Kennedy are stepping down. Hillary will be lucky to replace Ginsburg and Bryer. Presidents usually get 2 picks. FDR was the last one to get as many as 8 with Truman picking 4 for a total 12. Nixon to Bush 1 together picked 9. Carter got no picks. Eisenhower picked 5. Don't forget that the last Supreme Court Justice picked by a Dem was Truman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appointments

Yeah, they probably won't step down, but I like to think maybe Kennedy might consider in a few years. Scaila will be 88, close to 89, by 2024. If he is able to survive an eight year presidency of a Democrat, then at least a four year term follow-up will be enough to either force him to retire, or to die in office.

 

[B-Dubs]

Yeah, Courtpacking was one of the more clever, douchey ideas that FDR had.

Still, taken as a whole he was one of our better presidents. Easily a top 5 pick.

 

[Wilsongt]

Fox News runs headline "SS Beneficiaries targeted for gun ban."

Actually headline from their source: Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html#page=1

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

So, if you're fucking super old and on social security, you're gonna need to get checked out to see if you are capable of owning a gun... Like any normal mentally deficient individual...

Or, that should be the way it works except guns.

But, whateva.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah, they probably won't step down, but I like to think maybe Kennedy might consider in a few years. Scaila will be 88, close to 89, by 2024. If he is able to survive an eight year presidency of a Democrat, then at least a four year term follow-up will be enough to either force him to retire, or to die in office.

I could see Kennedy stepping down relatively early into the next president's term.

 

[benjipwns]

Nixon to Bush 1 together picked 9. Carter got no picks. Eisenhower picked 5. Don't forget that the last Supreme Court Justice picked by a Dem was Truman.

JFK, LBJ, Clinton and Obama each have/had appointed two.

Taft picked six of the Supreme Court justices in his single term.

Four of Taft's appointees were relatively young, aged 48, 51, 53, and 54.

Harding picked four justices in less than three years.

 

[ivysaur12]

A very long discussion with Alito by Bill Kristol (yeah, but still). The transcript is here:

http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/samuel-alito-transcript/#oberg

Josh Blackman (again, yes, I know) takes some key passages about how Conferences work:

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/0...nference-process-and-the-decision-to-dissent/

 

[benjipwns]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

Interesting article. FDR tried putting more justices on the court to prevent the court from overturning his New Deal initiatives

He wound up winning the court at the expense of losing his Congressional strength despite D supermajorities. Even New Deal supporting Senators revolted. That's why there wasn't a Third New Deal.

It also hurt the Democrats. They lost 72 seats in the House and 7 seats in the Senate in 1938. They then got battered again in 1942 losing 45 and 8.

Of course, FDR basically ignored Domestic Policy after 1939.

Interestingly and perhaps somewhat relevant to one of our recent cases, a lot of issues the Court took with New Deal legislation was its poor and unclear drafting and rulemaking and delegation of powers. This was of concern more than Constitutionality.

Josh Blackman (again, yes, I know) takes some key passages about how Conferences work:

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/0...nference-process-and-the-decision-to-dissent/

Alito's description of conferences is more or less a slightly more formal version of how it was back to Oliver Wendall Holmes' day. At least according to Holmes' descriptions.

Slight Holmes aside, he wrote all his opinions at a standing desk. Under the notion that as his legs got tired the opinion was getting too long. That's why so many of his opinions are shorter and more blunt than his colleagues.

 

[ErasureAcer]

National media really didn't cover Bernie's record-setting primary crowd(beating his own record) in Phoenix this weekend nor 2 impressive turnouts in Dallas and Houston. I guess he's getting too big that the media is trying to put him on blackout. Watched CBS and ABC nightly news tonight and no mention of Bernie's record crowd in Arizona the night before.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

What's PoliGAF's opinion of Andy Borowitz? Some people think he's too bland but I think he's hilarious.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

National media really didn't cover Bernie's record-setting primary crowd(beating his own record) in Phoenix this weekend nor 2 impressive turnouts in Dallas and Houston. I guess he's getting too big that the media is trying to put him on blackout. Watched CBS and ABC nightly news tonight and no mention of Bernie's record crowd in Arizona the night before.

 

[Macho Madness]

It's not news, that's why. It's really not.

 

[dramatis]

Because minorities and women arent affected by low wages? If you want an essay in every post hitting every issue...that's unrealistic. I support equality in all forms...don't twist my words to imply I'm alienating minority and women's rights. Thank you.

Sure, tell me how economics affect the philosophical aspects of abortion and a proper justice system, and how it will change attitudes towards immigrants.

In the "I saw Bernie Sanders in Madison" thread, disastermouse spoke about how the difference between Hillary and a Republican candidate is just the brand of lubricant, I pointed out that Hillary is likely to be very different on women's issues. disastermouse brushed off the issues as "progressive social issues" and implied that it's more important to get an "economically enfranchised working class". Nobody ever responds to posts outlining that Hillary speaks about race, immigration, and women's rights. That her policies are fairly detailed for a candidate. It's always a litany of "Hillary doesn't have a policy" or "Hillary sounds insincere" or "I can't trust Hillary". That's nice, but how about some hard facts about how she is supposedly the same as Republicans on all of these issues?

But you guys are too busy selling your narrative about how Hillary is a Republican. So those issues, they don't really count.

Look at you.

You think the Republicans are going to combat climate change? Hahahahahahaha. You think Hillary will bring about some progressive revolution to combat climate change? Hahahahahahahaha.

I highly disagree. The misogynistic Republicans would come out full-force if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. Hillary is far more polarizing than Bernie. Benghazi, emails, Clinton....that's all they have to know to head to the polls....being a woman on top of that...good luck trying to suppress the Republican base...cuz ya know Chelsea isn't an only child. Hillary has had 10 abortions. Sure, socialism would be thrown around every 5 words if Bernie were the nominee but that's less controversial than "traitor to our country Hillary." Anyhow, they already think Obama's a socialist for christ's sake...they'll paint that on Hillary too. So why not have the actual socialist with less baggage?

Hillary has about 50 landmines waiting to explode on her at any second, Benghazi, Emails, Clinton Foundation, list of a bunch of policy failures from the past and her "plan" for the future. If you want to hurt down-ticket races...please, go ahead and nominate Hillary. People do not like her, nor do they trust her. If she is the nominee it will be another vote for the lesser of two evils. I think a lot of people are sick of doing that and will probably just tune out of this election if that's the case.

If you want life to be the same with all the injustices we have now in the world, vote Hillary. If you want some progress on many issues, vote Bernie.

Look at you. Hillary has had 10 abortions? Hillary has 50 landmines waiting to explode on her? Benghazi? For all your disdain for politicians, are you not employing the same dirty smear tactics? Do you think just because you're for equality that you don't sound sexist at all? Vote for the white guy, because the Republicans will be sexist! What sort of argument is that? Oh right. One made by someone who doesn't really care about women's issues at all.

Ten abortions? Where do you get your statistics from? Fox News?

I worked as a volunteer for Obama's campaign back in 2012, and one of the first things impressed upon me is that we may be volunteers, but we represented Obama on the field, so we had to be gracious and level headed to everyone. Bernie supporters impart a sense of desperation to prove how legitimate their candidate is over Hillary, and the result is posts like yours that carry the stench of all your prejudices and poorly sourced beliefs. It's a bad image.

The problem (as I can see it) is that in the end, Bernie's and Hillary's positions don't differ that much at all, so instead of being able to promote Bernie's different ideas, one has to resort to attacking Hillary.

You're right in one respect. Obama became president, but the issues of race did not disappear; they rose into the light and made the rest of us realize how far we had to go. If Hillary becomes president, the injustices against women certainly won't disappear, but I don't doubt for a second hidden sexism will surface everywhere, and men will deny wrongdoing. Ironically, because Bernie Sanders is not a woman, he will never be able to make as much progress as Hillary does if she breaks the final glass ceiling.

 

[Diablos]

BREAKING NEWS: Secret Hillary Clinton account found in Ashley Madison hack... DEVELOPING...


Hi dramatis!

 

[HylianTom]

What's PoliGAF's opinion of Andy Borowitz? Some people think he's too bland but I think he's hilarious.

I run into his stuff from time to time. Sometimes he's just there, other times he's spot-on. Worth a look.. I like silliness of political flavor.

..

And 10 abortions, eh? Lemme guess: Webster Hubbell made her abort all of them but Chelsea, right?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

who writes these wiki pages. I wonder how Obama will fare if the democrats win for a third and hopefully 4th term.



some more wiki on realignments:

The streaks of one party or the other in Presidential elections are equivalent statistically to coin-tosses.

I hate analyses like these that don't look at the polling of the public on issues or other underlying factors.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

Interesting article. FDR tried putting more justices on the court to prevent the court from overturning his New Deal initiatives

 

[Daria]

Will any of the democratic candidates actually want to increase NASA funding and help build a private space funding program? It's difficult finding a solid stance on this topic from anyone besides Bernie who probably wouldn't actually do much anyway due to other issues getting more of his attention.

Hillary seems to only want to support it due to what her husband accomplished.

I haven't been able to find many statements from O'Malley (my close second after Sanders) about it but some of the bigger issues he supports I agree with.

Republicans will probably be the only ones who might actually do something for NASA if they take office. fingers crossed for any help because NASA should never be drained of funds, they never try to bite the hand that feeds.