• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ecotic

Member
I remember reading a Time Magazine article in 2004 about the strong correlation between Presidential election outcomes and who had the better hair. Distressingly for the candidates, almost all of them are balding or bald. My lazy Saturday writeup:

The very bald:
Donald Trump - Trump's combover is the subject of endless fascination.
Bernie Sanders - It's a shame, he has good hair texture for what's left. A full head of that wild hair would have been amazing.

On borrowed time:
Jim Webb - Recessed hairline and strong forehead makes him look like a pachycephalosaurus.
Chris Christie - His frontal tuft no longer hides his badly recessed hairline.
Scott Walker - Large crown bald spot and receding hairline. His boyish looking hair style will be lucky to last past a first term.
Mike Huckabee - Very thin hair won't hold much longer.
Bobby Jindal - Recent appearances show badly recessed temples
Rick Santorum - High hairline that's getting difficult to hide.
Ben Carson - High hairline.
Martin O'Malley - Recessed hairline.
Lincoln Chafee -Recessed hairline.
George Pataki - Recessed hairline.
Marco Rubio - Receding hairline.
Ted Cruz - Thinning hair.

Maybes:
Jeb Bush - Like his father and brother (W. is very bald now, take a look at him with Clinton earlier this month), Jeb Bush has a very, very delayed fuse. But his temples are receding if you look carefully. Like W., when it really happens it will be a quick loss.
Rand Paul - Possible temple recession, but his curly hair blocks the view.

Full head of hair:
John Kasich
Rick Perry
Lindsey Graham
 

Minion101

Banned
To be fair, he antagonized Zoey from the get go by misgendering her and then saying she was mentally ill. I don't... know what he was expecting? Maybe this?

"Gender identity disorder" Was the actual medical label up till very recently. Actual doctors were calling it a mental illness. Ben was arguing gender is defined by your biology and should not be defined someone's discontent. We can disagree and move on. It's fine.

I don't think outright insults, and hate speech, count as political discourse.
I agree. Her insults and threats were inappropriate and didn't belong to the discussion.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
"Gender identity disorder" Was the actual medical label up till very recently. Actual doctors were calling it a mental illness. Ben was arguing gender is defined by your biology and should not be defined someone's discontent. We can disagree and move on. It's fine.


I agree. Her insults and threats were inappropriate and didn't belong to the discussion.

It's not fine, actually.

Ben Shapiro is a troll. Zoey Tur probably took things too far, but of course she did. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder until the 70s. If I was on a panel with some conservative troll who looks like a prepubescent manbaby in a bowtie told me I had a mental illness because I'm attracted to men of the same sex, yeah, I don't think that would go over well!

Medical consensus changes with more research. Our thoughts on gender dysphoria have changed. Ben Shapiro is wrong and his thoughts aren't based on any current medical consensus. To argue that his argument has some merit is disingenuous. He's the same disgusting piece of shit he's always been who wasn't interested in any sort of discourse. He was there to antagonize and be a shit by starting out calling Zoey "sir". Go fuck yourself, Ben Shapiro.
 
Isnt this the greatest book cover you will ever see?
dcEwekK.jpg

I think i might need me one of these argument winners
 

benjipwns

Banned
Isnt this the greatest book cover you will ever see?
http://i.imgur.com/dcEwekK.jpg
I think i might need me one of these argument winners
I've posted this before. The list I mean. Give me a sec here.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147853550&postcount=7242 said:
Ben Shapiro is the modern uber conservative. He is simply the greatest. Wrote a book at age 21 touting his own virginity as a defense against the left's agenda. Truth Revolt has streams of amazing content and even better comments.

Shapiro on DOMA decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LULWok7CHM

51h29QSthrL.jpg

Awesome Interview promoting the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YezvbjwwWlA

Here's the whole HOW TO DEBATE LEFTISTS pamphlet:
http://www.truthrevolt.org/system/files/field/ebook_pdf/how_to_debate_leftists_and_destroy_them.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/03/this-pundits-10-rules-for-right-wing-fight-club/198315
Rule #1: "Walk Toward the Fire." According to Shapiro, conservatives must learn to "embrace the fight" and know that they will be attacked, because this is war. His advice is simple: "You have to take the punch, you have to brush it off. You have to be willing to take the punch."

Rule #2: "Hit First. Don't take the punch first." Rule number two is: ignore rule number one, if their punch is coming first. Hit first, then brush it off. Just like Gandhi always said.

Rule #3: "Frame Your Opponent." Your leftist opponent will, according to Shapiro, call you a racist and a sexist, so in response call them a "liar and a hater." This third rule is described as "the vital first step. It is the only first step." That's why it comes third.

Rule #3: "Frame the debate." This is the second Rule #3, but who's counting?

41xL1m3tPQL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Shapiro: Well actually under RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] standing is significantly less of a problem. So you just have to find somebody who is damaged by the criminal conspiracy. So for example, let’s take a couple very practical examples. Can the family of Brian Terry sue the Obama administration for Brian Terry’s death in Fast and Furious? Right now, the answer is basically no, because suing the executive branch is considered unpalatable, and under RICO law it’s questionable as to how high up the chain you can sue. What I propose is changing the RICO law so that you could sue the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States and you wouldn’t have to have direct – what RICO requires is criminal enterprise – meaning everybody has to have the same goal, and everybody has to have participated in the creation of this enterprise towards that goal. That’s a very different standard from, “There has to be a direct piece of paper from President Obama to Eric Holder, and one from Eric Holder to the folks pushing Fast and Furious saying, “You will smuggle these weapons across the border in violation of American law.”

So RICO is significantly broader. It was designed to go after the Mafia, specifically in cases where the Mafia did have plausible deniability. So in that case, clearly Brian Terry’s family has standing, they would be able to sue in what I propose in a RICO case against the Obama administration, and they would be able to win damages against individual officers of the United States.

Same thing would happen with regard to the four folks who died in Benghazi. Their families could sue the Obama administration for negligent homicide for example if RICO was broadened to include negligent homicide which it should be…or violations of the Arms Export Control Act, which is what I have suggested also happened in Benghazi.

The finding of standing is actually not that difficult in most scandals because most scandals actually damage somebody. So my friend Jeremy Boreing from Friends of Abe should be able to sue the Obama administration under RICO for violations of IRS law. That’s what I’m proposing.
Shapiro: The most obvious criminal case in terms of a RICO violation would probably be the IRS scandal. I mean the IRS scandal – it’s so obvious what happened there where President Obama went out and he did exactly what a Mafia boss would do. He went out and said, “Oh, wouldn’t it be great if somebody knocked over this bank?” And then one of his low level guys goes and knocks over a bank…I mean shocker. President Obama repeatedly kept saying over and over that Tea Party groups were the death of the American political system, that the exploitation of 501(c)(4) status had destroyed the American political system, and that we had to take action against these groups. And then a bunch of his friends in the Senate sent letters to the IRS saying “It’d be great if you’d take an extra look at these Tea Party groups.” The IRS begins coordinating with the FBI on all of these groups, and suddenly low-level staffers have gotten it in their heads that it would be a wonderful thing to start checking out 501(c)(4) groups. So is all of this a giant coincidence, or is it more of a criminal enterprise?

That’s a textbook example of where RICO would work beautifully, because what RICO does is basically establish that there’s a criminal enterprise with a common goal, and they take overt action toward that common goal, which is exactly what happened here. So that’s probably the best case that would be easiest to prosecute if you actually had a DOJ that wanted to, against the Obama administration. But I mean the book is replete with examples of Obama administration criminality.

Another obvious one: President Obama smuggling arms into Libya and Syria. This is in direct violation of the Arms Export Control Act. You don’t get to smuggle arms to terrorist groups in violation of law without notifying Congress. And the president basically admitted guilt on that. In September 2013, after he smuggled a bunch of American weapons through American sources in Qatar and in Libya to Syria, in September 2013 he waives the applicable provisions of the Arms Export control act. Now the President of the United States could have done that a long time ago. He could have just said, “Look, I’m putting arms in there, and I’m waiving provisions of the Arms Export Control Act.” The president has the power to do that under the Act. He didn’t bother to do that because he didn’t want anybody to know he was doing it. In fact, the administration repeatedly denied, or they were at the least very unclear about whether we were in effect smuggling weaponry into Syria, or smuggling weaponry into Libya. And so that’s another case where the president obviously violated the law.
He also argues that Obama's Egypt speech early in his term or whatever directly led to Benghazi and the Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc. civil wars.
 

benjipwns

Banned
It's okay, nobody else reads them either. Plus I made that post before you were a regular around here. I just meant that I had it somewhere to dig up.
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421600/obama-deserves-impeachment-iran
The president “must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate.”

One can imagine hearing such counsel from a contemporary United States senator on the receiving end of President Obama’s “full disclosure” of the nuclear deal with Iran. But the admonition actually came from James Iredell, a champion of the Constitution’s ratification, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Washington.

Iredell was addressing the obligations the new Constitution imposed on the president in the arena of international affairs. Notwithstanding the chief executive’s broad powers to “regulate all intercourse with foreign powers,” it would be the president’s “duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives.” Indeed, among the most egregious offenses a president could commit would be fraudulently inducing senators “to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them.”

A little over a year ago, I recounted Iredell’s cautionary words in Faithless Execution. They echo an instructive illustration offered by James Madison, the Constitution’s principal author: If the president were “to commit any thing so atrocious” as to fraudulently rig Senate approval of an international agreement, he would “be impeached and convicted.”

RELATED: Is the Iran Deal the Worst Political Blunder of All Time?

Interestingly, the perfidy in Madison’s hypothetical involved summoning into session only senators favorably disposed toward a formal treaty that the president wanted approved. That was more plausible in the late 18th century: Under the Constitution, a treaty may be approved by “two thirds of the senators present” for the vote; and back then, senators coming from far and wide could not fly to the nation’s capital at the drop of a hat.

The hypothetical is telling as we consider Obama’s Iran deal. The Constitution makes treason a ground for impeachment, but it seems to have been outside Madison’s contemplation that a president would actually be so insidious as to use his foreign-affairs power to give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. On that score, note that as soon as Obama’s deal was announced, not only was Iran’s foreign minister vowing to continue funding jihadist terror; the regime’s “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also extolling the continued Iranian call for “Death to America.”

Madison could not fathom a president who undermines the Constitution’s treaty requirements by the ruse of labeling a treaty an “agreement” or a “joint plan of action.” Still less could he imagine a president who resorts to chicanery in communicating the terms of an international agreement to the Congress. Such duplicity must have seemed inconceivable.

Yet now, it is not just conceivable. It is happening

...

The Constitution forbids providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies. And the Framers’ notion that a president would be punishable for deceiving Congress regarding the conduct of foreign affairs meant that lawmakers would be obliged to use their constitutional powers to protect the United States — not merely shriek on cable television as if they were powerless spectators.

Well?
 

benjipwns

Banned
What he did recall was Ford's strange query as to whether there was any evidence indicating that the Nixon White House had been involved in the May, 1972, shooting of Alabama Governor George Wallace during the presidential primary campaign. "'Is there anything to it? Is there a problem? Was the White House behind the Wallace shooting.' I said no." (A year after the shooting, The Washington Post reported that Nixon had been worried at the time that the attempt on Wallace's life was linked to members of his re-election campaign. Nixon was said to have expressed the fear that if such a tie existed, "it could cost him the election.")
Oh, you boys.
 

benjipwns

Banned
On December 22, 1973, a few weeks after Gerald Ford’s swearing-in as Vice President, Richard Nixon held his annual ceremonial meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One member of the Joint Chiefs, a four-star officer, recalled in a recent interview that the President's performance was bizarre and alarming. "He kept on referring to the fact that he may be the last hope, the eastern elite was out to get him. He kept saying, 'This is our last and best hope. The last chance to resist the fascists [of the left].' His words brought me straight up out of my chair. I felt the President, without the words having been said, was trying to sound us out to see if we would support him in some extra-constitutional action. He was trying to find out whether in a crunch there was support to keep him in power . . . ." The senior officer decided after the meeting, he recalled, that the other members of the Joint Chiefs did not seem to share his fears. He made it a point to discuss the meeting with James Schlesinger, the Rand Corporation economist and defense analyst, who had been named secretary of defense by Nixon in May of 1973, in the first Watergate-inspired Cabinet shake-up. Schlesinger had also been upset by Nixon's language, but he was noncommittal.

...

Laitin broached some of his fears: Was it possible for the President of the United States to authorize the use of nuclear weapons without his secretary of defense knowing it? What if Nixon, ordered by the Supreme Court to leave office, refused to leave and called for the military to surround the Washington area? Who was in charge then? Whose orders would be obeyed in a crisis? "If I were in your job," Laitin recalls telling Schlesinger, "I would want to know the location of the combat troops nearest to downtown Washington and the chain of command." Schlesinger said only, "Nice talking to you," and hung up.

...

Sometime in late July of 1974, Schlesinger called in Air Force General George S. Brown, the newly appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Brown was known as an officer who was far more comfortable behind the stick of an airplane than in an office; he never seemed to master high-level politics, with its subtle language and indirection. Bearing that in mind, and aware that Brown had taken an oath of office that made him responsible to Nixon as Commander-in-Chief, Schlesinger trod delicately during their talk. His goal was to express his concerns about the White House and somehow to get Brown to reach the same conclusion that he himself had already reached. In essence, Schlesinger asked Brown for a commitment that neither he nor any of the other chiefs would respond to an order from the White House calling for the use of military force without immediately informing Schlesinger. Brown dutifully relayed Schlesinger's message to the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a meeting a few hours later. He began the session, one of the joint chiefs recalls, by announcing, "I've just had the strangest conversation with the Secretary of Defense." Schlesinger had urged him not to "do anything to disturb the equilibrium of the Republic, and to make sure we're in accord." He had said, "Don't take any emergency-type action without consulting me." Brown was troubled by Schlesinger's remarks, and so was everyone else at the meeting. "We were confused, and George had to be confused," the chief says. 'We sat around looking at our fingernails; we didn't want to look at each other. It was a complete shock to us. I don't think any of us ever considered taking any action. We didn't know whether to be affronted or flattered at the thought." The chief recalls that one of his colleagues commented that Schlesinger must have been "thinking of something out of Seven Days in May." If there was any consensus, the chief says, it was that "Schlesinger was coming unglued."

...

The notion that Nixon could at any time resort to extraordinary steps to preserve his presidency was far more widespread in the government than the public perceived in the early days of Watergate or perceives today. One of the original Watergate prosecutors recalled in a recent interview the immediate fear, once the full implication of John Dean's allegations in the spring of 1973 became known, that "the government could topple." When the case against Richard Nixon was initially outlined that April to Henry E. Petersen, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, the prosecutor says, Petersen responded by exclaiming, "The government's going to fall. And then what's going to happen?" The concern was that Nixon would not comply with the judicial process: instead of accepting subpoenas for his internal records, he would defy the courts and any contempt summons. "Who ever heard of a President subjecting himself to a court?" the prosecutor recalls asking himself. "What if Nixon goes on TV—and openly defies the court? Who is the public going to support? Thousands of telegrams come in his support, and Nixon calls in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Then what is Congress going to do?"

"I'll tell you what," the prosecutor says. "They'll run for cover. One third of the country still supports him, and we're on the verge of civil insurrection. If he told the Joint Chiefs, 'I want the troops out and I want to dissolve Congress,' they would have done it."

It was to Nixon's credit, the prosecutor insists, that Nixon chose to accept service of a judicial subpoena and not to jail the marshal delivering it. "You've got to say this for him—he had respect for the government, because he stepped out. If he were a Hitler or a Stalin, he'd have gone all the way, brought the house down. And that's what Jaworski was afraid of and that's what we were afraid of."
During the next months, Jaworski was in a constant struggle with the Watergate grand jury, composed of twenty-three Washington residents, over the question of indicting Nixon. Jaworski, not content merely to discourage the grand jurors from indicting the President, warned them that as long as Nixon was in office he, as Special Prosecutor, would not sign an indictment. His was the ultimate authority, because no indictments could be issued without his personal approval. Jaworski held back none of his fears in his attempts to maintain control over the grand jurors. In a June, 1982, segment of the ABC television show 20/20, Harold Evans, deputy foreman of the grand jury, described some of Jaworski's arguments against indictment: "He gave us some very strange arguments .... He gave us the trauma of the country, and he's the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and what happens if he surrounded the White House with his armed forces? Would the courts be able to act?"
Alexander Haig is a dick, I don't care what Homer Simpson thinks.

With all of the frantic telephoning that day, Ehrlichman did learn new information. Haldeman told him during their morning conversation, "I'm calling to tell you something specific and I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to or not." Ehrlichman's notes to himself continue, "The specific thing has to do with the rest of the tapes... while some are embarrassing to Nixon, they create no major problems. Except in one conversation, the President tells Haldeman that there is a big fund of cash held by Bebe and Abplanalp"- Charles G. (Bebe) Rebozo and Robert H. Abplanalp, Nixon's closest friends, who were under investigation, along with Haig, for their role in the handling of a $100,000 presidential campaign contribution. Investigators for the Senate Watergate Committee suspected that the contribution, which they believed came from Howard Hughes, was part of a larger fund and was put to Nixon's personal use. Haldeman told Ehrlichman that the President had said, "That's Higby's $400, 000." Lawrence M. Higby was Haldeman's closest aide and considered by many on the White House staff to be his alter ego.

Higby testified about the cash fund before the Watergate Committee, but its existence has never been confirmed. Haig's aides were convinced, as of the fall of 1974, after Nixon's resignation, that the cash was still inside the White House. "I knew the money was floating around," one aide recalls. He and others believed that the money was stashed in what was considered to be a secret safe in Haig's office (the same office that had been occupied by Haldeman). The aide says that the existence of the safe in the office was known only to a few, and even fewer knew its location. Haig refused to touch the safe. the aide says. Nobody wanted to know what was in it. When Donald Rumsfeld returned from serving as ambassador to NATO and became Ford's chief of staff, in late 1974, he ordered the safe drilled open by the Secret Service, a procedure that drew a small group of fascinated members of the White House staff. "It was empty," the aide recalls. "Someone, somehow, snapped up the cash."

The Secret Service had reported that tons of papers were piled up on the fourth and fifth floors of the Executive Office Building; there was concern, Becker had been told, "that the floors would cave in." In the first few days in the White House, Becker says, "The Nixon people were burning crap like crazy." Dozens of bags of documents were piled outside the basement burn room, awaiting incineration. Becker learned from a White House aide that the chemical paper shredder, known as a machination machine, had been operating at five times its normal capacity for weeks. There was constant pressure on Ford's men to stand aside, Becker says, and to permit the continued destruction of White House documents and the shipment of Nixon's papers to California. Becker, in these first days, seized authority as Ford's representative. He ordered the burn room to cease operations, except for the destruction of highly classified materials, and cut staff access to the chemical shredder.

On Saturday, August 10, the day after Nixon left, Becker was at work late at night in his office when he was told that three Air Force trucks were outside the White House, loading Nixon's file cabinets and other personal goods. Becker recalls walking outside to the parking lot, where an Air Force colonel was directing the loading operation. "This truck does not move," Becker said. The colonel did not back off an inch: "I take my instruction from General Haig," he said.

"I said," Becker recalls, "'Let's go right now'—and we went into Al's office." Haig professed ignorance, telling Becker, "I wasn't aware of it," and ordered the colonel to unload the trucks, which were to deliver their cargo to a waiting transport plane at Andrews Air Force Base, in suburban Maryland. "I had no illusions about Haig," Becker says, "and so I went outside and watched that son of a bitch unload."
Like I said...
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Channel surfing and landed on Fox News as they had President Obama speaking in Kenya. He was speaking out against female genital mutilation and other “bad traditions” that treat women as second-class citizens, in a speech in Nairobi.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tradition-women-second-class-citizens-nairobi

The Fox News headline running underneath the video footage? "A bad tradition - President Obama condones how Kenyan women are treated".

Keep fighting the good fight, Fox.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
THE STAR, IT BURNS SO BRIGHT

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...w-donald-trump-running-strong-iowa-nh-n398401

Donald Trump is running strong in the early nominating states of Iowa and New Hampshire, according to two new NBC News-Marist polls.

Trump leads the Republican presidential field in New Hampshire, getting support from 21 percent of potential GOP primary voters. He's followed by Jeb Bush at 14 percent, Scott Walker at 12 percent and John Kasich at 7 percent.

Chris Christie and Ben Carson are tied at 6 percent in the Granite State, and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are at 5 percent each.

In Iowa, Walker and Trump are in the Top 2 - with Walker at 19 percent among potential Republican caucus-goers and Trump at 17 percent. They're followed by Bush at 12 percent, Carson at 8 percent, Mike Huckabee at 7 percent and Rand Paul at 5 percent.

The polls were conducted July 14-21 - so before and after Trump's controversial comments belittling John McCain's war record on July 18. And they suggest the comments didn't affect Trump in Iowa (he was at 16 percent before the comments and 18 percent after), but they did hurt him in New Hampshire (26 percent before, 14 percent after).
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The polls were conducted July 14-21 - so before and after Trump's controversial comments belittling John McCain's war record on July 18. And they suggest the comments didn't affect Trump in Iowa (he was at 16 percent before the comments and 18 percent after), but they did hurt him in New Hampshire (26 percent before, 14 percent after).

This is absolutely bizarre.
 

Maledict

Member
And McCain is huge in New Hampshire - they love him there. That's where his comeback started in 2008, and that's what gave Bush the heart attack in 2000.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I just cant wait for his crash. Watching him see the votes roll in and he gets killed over and over again by the others is going to be glorious.

I've got to be honest--I think he's got a great shot to win this.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
He has zero percent chance

If he is not outside top 3 by middle of August I would be surprised. Everybody surges as the anti establishment alternative and eventually flames out.

I thought that until he absolutely blasted a decorated war veteran for being captured to barely any effect.

Maybe Romney pushed the far right so far away from the establishment that they know they need something else.
Who are they going to pick? Walker? Disastrous record, doesn't answer questions, caught lying about positions. Bush? He's a Bush.
 
I was listening to an episode of Diane Rehm from earlier this week that was all about Trump.

There was a caller, a registered Democrat, who said he was torn between supporting Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Populism is weird.
 
Who are they going to pick? Walker? Disastrous record, doesn't answer questions, caught lying about positions. Bush? He's a Bush.

I could see it coming down to Walker or Rand. Maybe Cruz, if he can keep his mouth shut. Bush is way to much of a long shot, Perry is already weak. Carson is gaining steam which I didn't see coming, but I don't see him pulling off a huge upset. The rest will bumble their way through the first debates and drop out, or drop out right after their sub-1% vote tallies in the first few states.

Regardless, Rubio will wind up as the VP pick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom