Support NeoGAF

[reggieandTFE]

NBA teams, even not very good ones can still bring in a lot of money. And the Bucks aren't looking too bad for the next season. A decent mid-tier Eastern playoff team potentially.

The NBA forced their hand on this.The expectation was that they would have likely been moved to Vegas is Wisconsin didn't pony up the cash for the new stadium.

He stood tough against teachers and social workers because of ideology, why couldn't he stand tough against a cartel of billionaires? Dave Zirin, among others, has done fantastic reporting showing how professional sports teams and leagues threatening to move to blackmail subsidies ends up statistically being an economic loser for local taxpayers.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

NBA teams, even not very good ones can still bring in a lot of money. And the Bucks aren't looking too bad for the next season. A decent mid-tier Eastern playoff team potentially.

The NBA forced their hand on this.The expectation was that they would have likely been moved to Vegas is Wisconsin didn't pony up the cash for the new stadium.

I don't buy the "they bring in so much cash" The NBA is a billion dollar organization, they can issue bonds themselves. We shouldn't be loaning money to Millionaires, at interest without profit sharing/shared ownership with the public.

I sure would like to run into all these tinder people that go "oh hey, we matched? lets fuck". Alas, still gotta chat up every damn girl i meet there first, man. With all the matches i get, it's time consuming af

ask them about bernie!

Random thought: In this age of "swipe left or right to fuck or not", what are we really fighting for politically, particularly from the social angle?

Reading through the Tinder thread, it's increasingly clear that many of us millennials may never find someone and settle down, essentially making it more about ourselves and not how we see the world through meaningful relationships with other people. However, that is really important when it comes to championing social policy because as we know from previous socially liberal eras in the US, you have to make it about something bigger than yourself for it to translate into a cohesive message that will resonate with a large enough voting bloc to enact such social progress as actual law.

Is anyone thinking about the long term consequences of this? It's not just about Tinder, either, but the fact that generally speaking we younger folks are a lot more hesitant when it comes to wanting to commit to serious relationships.

LOL, Diablos is Diablosing about the social fabric

 

[Konka]

Random thought: In this age of "swipe left or right to fuck or not", what are we really fighting for politically, particularly from the social angle?

Reading through the Tinder thread, it's increasingly clear that many of us millennials may never find someone and settle down, essentially making it more about ourselves and not how we see the world through meaningful relationships with other people. However, that is really important when it comes to championing social policy because as we know from previous socially liberal eras in the US, you have to make it about something bigger than yourself for it to translate into a cohesive message that will resonate with a large enough voting bloc to enact such social progress as actual law.

Is anyone thinking about the long term consequences of this? It's not just about Tinder, either, but the fact that generally speaking we younger folks are a lot more hesitant when it comes to wanting to commit to serious relationships.

I don't really think that's true and the demographic here probably skews the responses, I'm 27 and friends/acquaintances are getting married and having kids left and right.

 

[Diablos]

Basing how people sleep around/date casually in their 20's to project long term won't really work out. Nearly everyone, millennials and otherwise are going to get married at least once and have a kid or two.

People said the very same thing about the Gen X'ers.

Yes but the Gen X'ers did not have sex on demand like we have now. You don't even have to try. You don't have to leave your house until you found someone. It's not quite as simple as saying "people in their 20's are being more sexually active". It's a sexual paradigm shift and is laying the groundwork for habits that will likely continue well past your 20's.

I don't really think that's true and the demographic here probably skews the responses, I'm 27 and friends/acquaintances are getting married and having kids left and right.

Right, certainly not everyone is going to ditch the idea of getting serious with someone in some capacity, but I just mean enough people in our generation are outright rejecting this idea in favor of rampant casual hookups that do not amount to anything, all the time, even as they approach the end of their 20's.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes but the Gen X'ers did not have sex on demand like we have now. You don't even have to try. You don't have to leave your house until you found someone. It's not quite as simple as saying "people in their 20's are being more sexually active". It's a sexual paradigm shift and is laying the groundwork for habits that will likely continue well past your 20's.

They had more sex though. And I think your overblowing how easy it is. There are a lot of people who never get laid on tinder

 

[RDreamer]

I don't really think that's true and the demographic here probably skews the responses, I'm 27 and friends/acquaintances are getting married and having kids left and right.

I see things like student loans affecting whether people get married and have kids way more than something like Tinder.

 

[Diablos]

I see things like student loans affecting whether people get married and have kids way more than something like Tinder.

Tinder is a smaller part of the bigger picture obviously, but it speaks more to the sexual aspect of the decisions many in our generation are making in how they want to live their lives and form habits that will likely stick around for a long, long time.

 

[User 406]

The NBA forced their hand on this.The expectation was that they would have likely been moved to Vegas is Wisconsin didn't pony up the cash for the new stadium.

 

[Cheebo]

Well, it's true. Don't underestimate how much voters would punish their state legislators and government if they let the NBA move their franchise. Few things get the public up in arms like sports franchises (well sports franchises from the big two US sports, football or basketball).

 

[Coriolanus]

Tinder is a smaller part of the bigger picture obviously, but it speaks more to the sexual aspect of the decisions many in our generation are making in how they want to live their lives and form habits that will likely stick around for a long, long time.

Yes, it's quite the change for the better.

 

[Konka]

Tinder is a smaller part of the bigger picture obviously, but it speaks more to the sexual aspect of the decisions many in our generation are making in how they want to live their lives and form habits that will likely stick around for a long, long time.

Again, I'd like the see the data to back it up...Since the 60s and birth control casual sex has been more of a thing, tinder is just a different avenue. I'm not convinced that the rate of long term relationships is going down, rather, the visibility of people not getting into them has simply gone up.

 

[speculawyer]

To be fair he didn't really have a choice. The NBA required Wisconsin to build a new state of the art stadium or they would have pulled the team out of the state since the NBA deemed their current stadium not up to their quality standards, the ownership's contract with the NBA required building a new stadium in the state or they lose the team and they would be moved elsewhere. And losing a NBA franchise would cost a lot more than 250 million in the long run for Wisconsin.

Walker is a piece of shit idiot, but his hands were pretty much tied here. The NBA had all the leverage.

He could have said no and let them leave.

And when they tried to leave, the other cities could say no too. But we are pushovers that get bullied by the jocks.

 

[Cheebo]

20 years from now most of todays millenials will be soccer moms & dads just like the generations before them. Every generation people look at how they are acting in their 20's and project they will be different. And it never happens.

Gen X'ers had just as much casual sex in the 80's and 90's, just without the internet.

 

[Coriolanus]

But remember the sixties and how those hippies tore at the very fabric of society, forever changing it?

 

[Cheebo]

He could have said no and let them leave.

And when they tried to leave, the other cities could say no too. But we are pushovers that get bullied by the jocks.

Other cities would have not have said no. There were multiple cities publicly declaring they would swoop in and build a stadium for the Bucks if Wisconsin passed. The public cares far more about sports than a lot of important policies, letting the state lose their NBA franchise would backfire badly.

I would love to have seen it blow up in Walkers face, but what they did made perfect political sense. You don't mess with professional sports. Nothing would piss the public off more.

 

[Macho Madness]

It may have been good politics for Wisconsin but was it good politics for Walker nationwide? That's ammo for opponents when he tries to trot out being a fiscal conservative. Pro sports welfare is not something a "fiscal conservative" should be about.

 

[RDreamer]

It may have been good politics for Wisconsin but was it good politics for Walker nationwide? That's ammo for opponents when he tries to trot out being a fiscal conservative. Pro sports welfare is not something a "fiscal conservative" should be about.

Yeah, I wonder about this. We can say what we want about republicans being hypocrites and totally wanting to give money to big business, but I don't think that plays terribly well to their base without somehow hiding it or peppering it up nicely. I'm not sure it's as easy to do with such a visible thing like an arena deal. I imagine when it comes down to it one of them will hammer him on it.

And if he makes it to the general, you can bet Hillary will hammer him on taking that same amount out of education and then funding the Bucks stadium. Personally I get kind of annoyed at putting it like that, because I view those as two separate decisions and I'd like to have funded both. Anyway, yeah, that's definitely going to be an attack ad.

 

[Cheebo]

It may have been good politics for Wisconsin but was it good politics for Walker nationwide? That's ammo for opponents when he tries to trot out being a fiscal conservative. Pro sports welfare is not something a "fiscal conservative" should be about.

I agree, he had to do it for local political reasons. It doesn't benefit him nationwide wide at all.

Although, regardless of state most fiscal conservatives would be for the govt spending money to keep their local NFL and NBA teams. Sports typically always trumps politics in loyalty and support.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Carson did research on 17 week fetal tissue.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/ben-carson-did-research-on-17-week-fetal-tissue/

 

[RustyNails]

Carson needs to do research on his brain, him being a neurosurgeon and all.

 

[speculawyer]

Other cities would have not have said no. There were multiple cities publicly declaring they would swoop in and build a stadium for the Bucks if Wisconsin passed. The public cares far more about sports than a lot of important policies, letting the state lose their NBA franchise would backfire badly.

I would love to have seen it blow up in Walkers face, but what they did made perfect political sense. You don't mess with professional sports. Nothing would piss the public off more.

So you agree that Walker lacks real conservative principles.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Carson defends fetal tissue research:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/

 

[RDreamer]

Carson did research on 17 week fetal tissue.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/ben-carson-did-research-on-17-week-fetal-tissue/

“At 17 weeks, you’ve got a nice little nose and little fingers and hands and the heart’s beating. It can respond to environmental stimulus. How can you believe that that’s just a[n] irrelevant mass of cells? That’s what they want you to believe, when in fact it is a human being.”

I really hate this line of defense. I saw some billboards around here I am now talking about how a fetus has TOES at whatever the hell week it is.

Ok? I don't think toes and a nose makes you a person worthy of all the strength of the law. Plenty of animals have toes and a nose.


My personal opinion on the abortion debate is that at one end we literally have some liquid that no one gives a fuck about. On the other end we have a baby that almost everyone would give a fuck about. Pregnancy is a process wherein one slowly becomes the other. It's all gray. Why are we as a collective to decide when that gray becomes black? Why not let the people on the ground floor of the issue decide that? Why not let the people actually more connected with the specific instance decide that? If one mother decides that she's really can't abort something with toes, then that's fine and I respect her decision, but if another mother decides gray is somewhere later then who the fuck am I to tell her no? Realistically the whole damned spectrum is gray!

Once a fetus is actually viable outside the whom you have a bit of a case that the gray is now black, but in that instance I think 99.999999% of doctors would just recommend delivering the damned baby, and 99.999999999% of women would want that anyway.

 

[AndyD]

Once a fetus is actually viable outside the whom you have a bit of a case that the gray is now black, but in that instance I think 99.999999% of doctors would just recommend delivering the damned baby, and 99.999999999% of women would want that anyway.

That's the rub though. At what point is the baby viable? And can you say they are viable if at least one baby ever has survived with no issues from that age, or 50%, or 90%? The definition of viability changes with progress in technology and medicine.

 

[RDreamer]

That's the rub though. At what point is the baby viable? And can you say they are viable if at least one baby ever has survived with no issues from that age, or 50%, or 90%? The definition of viability changes with progress in technology and medicine.

This is all situational, which leads me back to what I said: Let those on the front lines of this shit make that decision.

You're precisely right, one baby might have survived at that age with no issues. That's why the government shouldn't put some abortion ban based on that. There should be no abortion ban, because each situation, each fetus, and each mother is a separate situation. I would rather have the woman with the emotional connection and the doctor most knowledgable about the situation making that decision rather than trying to ride some arbitrary line that maybe worked in a few cases.

 

[ivysaur12]

First Cook Political Ratings of 2016:

http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

 

[sc0la]

Yahoo is a bunch of trolls.

WSJ is presumably a bunch of well to do people exposing some of the most despicable opinions I've ever seen. The whole editorial section is disgusting. So much dog whistle politics. It's almost unfathomable how much dog whistling they do.

I doubt they are all well to do. Probably a good amount of "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who comment at the journal since that is where a proper rich person would be. They are just practicing for later.
It's not called the American "Dream" for nothing.

 

[Grexeno]

First Cook Political Ratings of 2016:

http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

Look at all those not-Toss Up states.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Democrats are panicking.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/251008-dems-near-clinton-panic-mode

Nate Cohn says don't panic

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/upshot/is-hillary-clinton-really-in-danger-of-losing-the-primary.html?rref=upshot&smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

 

[NewLib]

How are Wisconsin and Nevada toss-ups when their 2012 election results were extremely close to Minnesota which is a Strong D state? Especially when the GOP VP candidate was from Wisconsin (something not guaranteed to happen here). Also Obama won all the tossup states other than Florida by more than Romney won NC, yet it's the only lean?

 

[Lucky Forward]

Carson defends fetal tissue research:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/

"You have to look at the intent," Carson said before beginning a campaign swing through New Hampshire. "To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it."

Uh......what?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Why do they insist on WI and PA being tossups every cycle? WI I can see based off of 2000 and 2004 results but PA? Kerry was able to pull out a win there in a lost nationally. Philly has too many votes for the R's to overcome the rest of the state. Diablos could tell you that.

smh

 

[speculawyer]

First Cook Political Ratings of 2016:

http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

Pennsylvania is toss up? Never ending fool's gold.

 

[ivysaur12]

They're tossups because we're 15 months out and they're being overly conservative in their choices. Also because putting any states as a Lean D ruins the narrative? I dunno.

 

[speculawyer]

Why do they insist on WI and PA being tossups every cycle? WI I can see based off of 2000 and 2004 results but PA? Kerry was able to pull out a win there in a lost nationally. Philly has too many votes for the R's to overcome the rest of the state. Diablos could tell you that.

smh

I can see Wisconsin since Walker could be candidate or VP. But Pennsylvania? Get out. At least leans D. And many of those toss ups could be lean D like Iowa, Colorado, etc.

 

[speculawyer]

Uh......what?

Taking a dead specimen and keeping a record? Why would anyone do that? Sounds like psycho.

 

[ivysaur12]

Personally, I would shift Pennsylvania and Nevada to Lean D, but that's just me and I'm splitting hairs.

 

[RDreamer]

I can see Wisconsin since Walker could be candidate or VP. But Pennsylvania? Get out. At least leans D. And many of those toss ups could be lean D like Iowa, Colorado, etc.

Eh... Wisconsin is still in Leans Dem category, even with Walker on the ticket.

His entire base would come out to support the guy, but he's also got a lot of hatred here, and progressives would be far more mobilized against him in a presidential election.

Walker won the state because he had an ass ton of money and went against milquetoast candidates in off presidential election years. We voted for Tammy Baldwin here, too, for god's sake!

 

[ivysaur12]

Eh... Wisconsin is still in Leans Dem category, even with Walker on the ticket.

His entire base would come out to support the guy, but he's also got a lot of hatred here, and progressives would be far more mobilized against him in a presidential election.

Walker won the state because he had an ass ton of money and went against milquetoast candidates in off presidential election years. We voted for Tammy Baldwin here, too, for god's sake!

If I were being conservative, looking at the state of Wisconsin now, and looking at the candidates, saying it's a tossup 15 months out seems like as good of a decision as any.

 

[Plinko]

With each day that passes, I become a little more skeptical that Hillary Clinton can actually win a general election vote. I don't know why. I just don't see how she is going to energize the average voter.

 

[Tarkus]

Resolve this now...or we can go to war
Seems like a truce has been made. The mentioning of The Donald on Fox has significantly increased in the past few days compared to last weekend.

 

[Third Strike]

With each day that passes, I become a little more skeptical that Hillary Clinton can actually win a general election vote. I don't know why. I just don't see how she is going to energize the average voter.

I see Obama and Bill actively campaigning next year. That could easily energize the base. Maybe even Sanders too. She's basically just coasting right now. And having a Bush on the ticket would be more than enough for most moderate/liberal voters to come out in mass.

 

[RDreamer]

With each day that passes, I become a little more skeptical that Hillary Clinton can actually win a general election vote. I don't know why. I just don't see how she is going to energize the average voter.

Negative campaigning.

Trump is... well... he's Trump.

Jeb is a Bush who wants us to go to war again and signed a law making women putting kids up for adoption publish their sexual history in the paper.

Walker has a shitty record and is a disphit who I know will sink in any debate he would have with her, especially on foreign policy.

Rubio believes in no exceptions for rape and incest on abortion.

Added to that the fact that she'll have Obama and Bill Clinton campaigning for her and she'd possibly be the first female president in US History, and I think she'd do fine.

 

[Tarkus]

I see Obama and Bill actively campaigning next year. That could easily energize the base. Maybe even Sanders too. She's basically just coasting right now. And having a Bush on the ticket would be more than enough for most moderate/liberal voters to come out in mass.

Bush won't be on the ticket. He is uninterested in being the president and you can see it in his eyes in his recent speeches.

Biden is how you energize the base.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Negative campaigning.

Trump is... well... he's Trump.

Jeb is a Bush who wants us to go to war again and signed a law making women putting kids up for adoption publish their sexual history in the paper.

Walker has a shitty record and is a disphit who I know will sink in any debate he would have with her, especially on foreign policy.

Rubio believes in no exceptions for rape and incest on abortion.

Added to that the fact that she'll have Obama and Bill Clinton campaigning for her and she'd possibly be the first female president in US History, and I think she'd do fine.

not if emails and benghazi dont sink her first.

 

[Aaron Strife]

With each day that passes, I become a little more skeptical that Hillary Clinton can actually win a general election vote. I don't know why. I just don't see how she is going to energize the average voter.

I think Hillary's "boringness" is overstated. She's not as charismatic as Bill or Obama, but she's a reasonably successful politician in her own right. Hell she won more individual votes than Obama did in 2008. Her favorable ratings with minorities are through the roof, they'll turn out for her.

2012 showed Democrats don't need to worry as much about swing voters as they do just turning out their base.

 

[ivysaur12]

I also think none of us (and those that report on it) are really paying attention to Hillary, making it seem like she's not as energized as she might be on the ground, because she has a pretty laser focus on Nevada, South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

And Trump. It's more fun to talk about Trump.

 

[Chichikov]

Resolve this now...or we can go to war
Seems like a truce has been made. The mentioning of The Donald on Fox has significantly increased in the past few days compared to last weekend.

 

[Retromelon]

There's a water bug crawling up your foot right now

Not cool dude

 

[BertramCooper]

Pot legalization will be on the Ohio ballot this fall.

Too bad the plan sucks and I'll probably end up voting against it.