• 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.

Chichikov

Member
Oh, if you're done with our argument in the other thread, or not, I just wanted to express my enjoyment of our occasional lovingly sparring. I find it to be cordial, fruitful, high-minded and entertainingly meandering. (I'll let you decide which parts you bring to the table and which parts I do, you maliciously ill-informed son of a bitch.)
I do enjoy these as well, I don't engage in discussions that I don't enjoy, but I'm always disappointing to see big C conservatism talking points escape your carefully crafted "I'm above partisan politics" shtick.
not 100% serious, but man, saying abolitionism wasn't a major force in leading to the civil war is not only historically false (FFS, this whole thing started from talking about John Brown) but it also smells like the less retarded brother of the "slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war".
 

benjipwns

Banned
I thought conservatives generally like to pretend there's no racism ever in the United States and downplay anything bad ever done instead of saying everybody's racist and shitty.
Ahh, but I was saying slavery was the cause of the Civil War. As the Slave Power is the thread that intertwined all the socioeconomic and cultural divergences between the Union and the Confederacy. I was just disagreeing that hard racism vs. beautiful abolitionism was the major divergence. It was, like the clashes of the Left in Europe, a clash of racists. They disagreed on how to mistreat blacks and that disagreement was rooted in circumstances more than ideological purity.

And I think the spark point was the south's fear that the Republican ascendancy over the Whigs meant their power in all areas nationally was ending, not just slavery. The Tariff was the major national issue (and remained so) because the south was so dependent on its slave and agricultural economy.
 

benjipwns

Banned
GOP giddy over Hillary’s problems
Republican strategists say that Clinton’s political abilities have long been exaggerated. They contend she displays an unusual capacity to make trouble for herself and, unlike her husband, no great degree of nimbleness in getting out of it. They just hope the pattern continues.
“She’s a terrible politician,” said Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson. “She has never won a genuinely contested election. She is spectacularly bad. If her name was ‘Hillary Jones’, she couldn’t get elected to a Mosquito Management Board in Florida. She is not a woman who has ever been able to win a hot race.”

It’s not just Republicans who have questioned Hillary Clinton’s political chops.

Even some Democrats have wondered why her team’s response to the email flap has been flat-footed.

Former Obama adviser David Axelrod told MSNBC earlier this week, “this problem is being exacerbated by the lack of answers from the Clinton campaign, or the nascent campaign, and it would be good to get out there and answer these questions.”

...

“The question of her political competence is definitely on display,” said Dan Judy of Republican firm North Star Opinion Research, which has previously worked with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), but does not currently have an affiliation with a likely 2016 GOP candidate.

“The thing is, when people talk about the Clintons’ political talent, you think of Bill. She is not Bill. She has been very successful in politics but she is not a very talented politician — and I think that was on display in the 2008 primary, and it has been on display again since the time she left as secretary of State.”

Clinton’s main responsibility during her husband’s early years in the White House was shepherding health care reform, an effort which collapsed in ignominy.

And in 2008, she was upset in the Democratic primary by then-Sen. Barack Obama. He was an unusually compelling candidate but Clinton’s uncertain campaign, riven with infighting, also squandered some obvious advantages.

More recently, there have been several unforced errors from Clinton, notably her comment that she and President Clinton had left the White House “dead broke.” The revelation last month that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation had once again begun accepting donations from foreign governments, which it had prohibited during her time at the State Department, deepened questions about her financial dealings.

One of Clinton’s biggest selling points to Democrats has been that she has been fully vetted, on account of having been on the political front-lines for so long. But that claim has now been called into question by the email controversy.

“It shows that there are still surprises with Hillary Clinton and that there are likely to be more to come,” said Ron Bonjean, a Republican consultant.

Bonjean professed to be perfectly happy about the dynamics of the Democratic nomination race, with Clinton so firmly favored to emerge as the party’s presidential candidate.

“It looks like the Democratic donor community would like to rally around Hillary Clinton if she would let them,” he said. “But with the type of fodder she is providing at the moment, I think Republicans would very much welcome her to the race.”

...

“You’re going to get attacked much longer if you don’t have an opponent,” said Susan MacManus, a professor of government at the University of South Florida. “In some sense, competition does minimize the focus on one particular person. If you’re one person, you get hit from all sides, including from people within your own party.”

Clinton defenders would argue that she has many powerful advantages, ranging from her formidable fundraising power to her status as by far the most credible female candidate to yet seek the presidency.

She’s also far ahead in the polls.

But, for the moment at least, Republicans are very far from running scared.

“She’s not a natural. She has the policy expertise but not the political skills,” said Judy. “She’s just not all that great.”
 
So I guess Republicans officially is the party of the lazy, fat American stereotype

L8dzi5A.jpg
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage

I mean, I guess I could see it. On the other hand, she has been well-known for literally decades. She has a high favorability rating. People like her. I can't imagine many more things they can dig up about her.

This reminds me a bit of the "unskewed polls" disaster the GOP put themselves in last election. Keep telling themselves everything will be fine when there is a real problem they don't know how to overcome.
 

Crisco

Banned
I can't believe we're actually averaging more than 250,000 jobs / month at this point. At this rate, they could actually find the lost IRS emails on Hillary's personal server and it wouldn't even matter.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I can't believe we're actually averaging more than 250,000 jobs / month at this point. At this rate, they could actually find the lost IRS emails on Hillary's personal server and it wouldn't even matter.
If this continues, it's setting Bill Clinton up for one hell of a standard stump speech. Many voters still get all gooey-eyed at mentions of the 1990s economy, so Bill giving a "Dont fuck this up; you know you can trust me on this issue"-themed speech is easy pickins..

---

Perhaps my favorite FR thread this morning?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3264913/posts

I think Mickey Gilley said it best. The girls all get prettier at closing time.

That’s what I think about Jeb Bush.

Right now, the night is young, I’ve not yet had my first beer, there are lots of pretty women all across the bar, and Jeb Bush is the crazy size-24 cat lady in the corner who smells of urine and eats her boogers.

And has warts.

And poor personal hygiene.

And looks like she doesn’t like men anyway.

I wouldn’t blank her with your blank.

But I’m afraid I know how this night is going to turn out.

I fear, as it gets closer to closing time, and the other ladies quietly leave the scene, and I get drunker and drunker, Jeb and I are going to be a love connection.

What a horrible metaphor.
 
I agree Hillary isn't a good candidate, yet under normal circumstances will win easily. If republicans had a competent party that wasn't bogged down by extremists and out of touch idiots they could win. Hell they should have won in 2012. But no such GOP exists today, which is why they lost in 2012 and will lose to Hillary in 2016.

Hillary needs to go through a vigorous primary IMO.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I agree Hillary isn't a good candidate, yet under normal circumstances will win easily. If republicans had a competent party that wasn't bogged down by extremists and out of touch idiots they could win. Hell they should have won in 2012. But no such GOP exists today, which is why they lost in 2012 and will lose to Hillary in 2016.

Hillary needs to go through a vigorous primary IMO.

You dont think Jeb is the best guy they have even in the event that he does not win?

Its obvious the media does not want Hillary to be the democratic nominee. All these panic stories and looking for alternatives to hillary when we all know there is no Obama alternative this time. Its also obvious that media wants a Bush vs Clinton. The obsession with Jeb is astounding.

I was watching morning joe and joe scarborough is just eating this email controversy up. He was apart of the 90s republicans who hated the clintons.

I cant believe the Bush family can be so naive to think there isnt a problem with another of their family becoming president. Are they that power hungry?
 

NeoXChaos

Member
As far as advice for Bush’s wife, Columba, the former first lady said she has told her to give a “really good speech” in both Spanish and English, touting her multicultural heritage.
“I think that’s a huge advantage for her, I think it can be a huge asset for the Republican Party to reach out to Hispanics in our country. She’ll be great,” Bush said, adding that while Jeb’s wife doesn’t like the spotlight, neither did she when she entered the White House.

I dont see why people think this. That like saying if they nominate Rubio, the Hispanics will flock in droves to support him.
 
Why should capital gains be taxed a second time at all? When they're realized they're income.

If you followed Ben Stein's advice and bought Bear Sterns in 2005 and held it you would have been taxed pretty highly on gains you never actually realized.

Unless I am confused, and I might be, Captial Gains are not taxed until realized. Short-term gains are taxed as income, and long-term gains are subject to Capital Gains tax.

Can somebody confirm?

EDIT: Looks like this was jumped on at the time.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Unless I am confused, and I might be, Captial Gains are not taxed until realized. Short-term gains are taxed as income, and long-term gains are subject to Capital Gains tax.

Can somebody confirm?

EDIT: Looks like this was jumped on at the time.

Minor technical point: the tax on capital gains is part of the income tax. Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income, but there's no "capital gains tax" that is distinct from the income tax (in contrast to, e.g., payroll taxes or the estate tax).
 
What are the odds that people forget the economy as an issue now that it seems to be on cruise control and decide to make 2016 about ISIS or something trivial like "who you'd rather have a beer with"?
 
havent been this thrilled by the news of an indictment since tom delay. hopefully unlike the delay case, though, the charges stick and menenden is tossed into jail. that guy is scum.
 
I just had a county engineer call me an idiot on the phone because I didn't know the name of the contact person at the regional MPO who worked on a project last year (which I had nothing to do with)

His exact words were "why do they have you working on this project you are an idiot"

And that kids, is how the tea party is formed.

Fucking overpaid government assholes.
 

Cloudy

Banned
I agree Hillary isn't a good candidate, yet under normal circumstances will win easily. If republicans had a competent party that wasn't bogged down by extremists and out of touch idiots they could win. Hell they should have won in 2012. But no such GOP exists today, which is why they lost in 2012 and will lose to Hillary in 2016.

Hillary needs to go through a vigorous primary IMO.

What I don't get is why she just doesn't announce already She is getting attacked like someone running with no official rebuttal apparatus.
 
What I don't get is why she just doesn't announce already She is getting attacked like someone running with no official rebuttal apparatus.

Meh, I don't think anyone should announce now. No one is paying attention right now. Same reason Jeb isn't announcing right now.

Worse yet Hillary sounds bad each time she wades out in public. I'd rather have her behind the scene figuring out her gameplan.
 
five thirty eight has been a big disappointment to me, but if there's one thing they got right it is attacking a WSJ op-ed today for its idiocy.

Every now and then, though, one of the trolls finds his way off Twitter and into the pages of a major American newspaper. Like Friday, for example, when the following op-ed ran in The Wall Street Journal: “Seasonally Adjusted Jobs Numbers Offer Cold Comfort.”

It is, without exaggeration, one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. And I read Zero Hedge. (Disclosure: I used to work for the Journal. This piece ran in the opinion section, which is editorially independent of the news pages.)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab...ts-it-very-very-wrong-on-seasonal-adjustment/

/dead

2 birds with 1 stone.

And that WSJ article was such trash, holy shit. It's a short article I linked.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
He's being sarcastic.

It baffles me that you thought you needed to post this.

Oh since you're here, I'd like to get your thoughts on this comment from Carvin that I just read about today:

Do you agree with that assumption?

I'm always here. I wouldn't call Carvin's comment an "assumption," but I don't know whether it's true. Did you have some particular item of legislative history in mind?
 
It baffles me that you thought you needed to post this.

My post was also in jest. come on, now!

I'm always here. I wouldn't call Carvin's comment an "assumption," but I don't know whether it's true. Did you have some particular item of legislative history in mind?

I've read that the law itself describes the subsidies as necessary to work but I'm not willing to read the entire bit to confirm. :)
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'm always here. I wouldn't call Carvin's comment an "assumption," but I don't know whether it's true. Did you have some particular item of legislative history in mind?

Why do you need to to refer to legislative history (though I'm sure at least one person may have mentioned it when drafting the bill)?

What do you think will happen if people aren't provided subsidies (many of which cases, subsidies that they NEED) to buy health care?
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
I've read that the law itself describes the subsidies as necessary to work but I'm not willing to read the entire bit to confirm. :)

Do you remember where you read it?

Why do you need to to refer to legislative history (though I'm sure at least one person may have mentioned it when drafting the bill)?

Because we're discussing the claim that there is not a "scintilla of legislative history suggesting that without subsidies, there will be a death spiral." But if you're asking why Carvin felt the need to do so, it's because that fact (if it is a fact) may be important for those justices who consider legislative history in interpreting a statute.
 
Why do you need to to refer to legislative history (though I'm sure at least one person may have mentioned it when drafting the bill)?

What do you think will happen if people aren't provided subsidies (many of which cases, subsidies that they NEED) to buy health care?

well, in theory, the people in question will frantically lobby their states to establish exchanges and their state governments will listen, at which point they'll go without affordable health care for about two years

in practice, the governments in question will do this and they'll go without affordable health care until they either die or somehow string together enough funds to move to a civilized state
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom