• 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.
P

pigeon

Banned
PantherLotus said:
Hey spec you know I respect you dogg but you gotta stop editing those dumb quotes about Trump when you're quoting people. I get it and I'm with you but I can't be the only one that doesn't like it or find it funny.
Click to expand...

The funniest part is it's actually his browser addon doing it automatically.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Also,

@KenDilanianAP 11m11 minutes ago
(AP) — Diplomats routinely sent material later deemed classified over unsecured email during the past two administrations, records show.
Click to expand...

But clinton!

Bring on Biden!
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
HARWOOD: You said at the debate the other day that you can compete toe to toe with Hillary Clinton on people who live paycheck to paycheck because you lived paycheck to paycheck.

RUBIO: And I was raised paycheck to paycheck.

HARWOOD: How do you think people who live paycheck to paycheck will receive that your tax plan eliminates taxes on estates, capital gains, and dividends?

RUBIO: First of all, capital gains and dividends is investment. My father had a job as a bartender at a hotel. And the reason why he had a job as a bartender is because someone with money invested in that hotel. That’s why he had a salary, and that’s why he had tips.

HARWOOD: One of the critiques of your plan…has been, come on, that’s a step too far. You can’t eliminate capital gains and dividends. It’s a political loser.

RUBIO: Anything you tax, you’re gonna get less of. That’s why we tax cigarettes, because we don’t want people to smoke. We want more investment. Why would we tax it?
Click to expand...

Someone needs to educate him on most capital gains. Why they're considered "investments" in the legal sense, most are not actual intital investments. Me buying Apple stock from Pigeon isn't an investment by Apple. It's simply a reallocation of who holds the initial investment. Which is like 99% of all so-called investment.

This is something very few people understand and why people think lowering capital gains taxes would increase investment. No, it would simply increase trading which is essentially just gambling.
 
E

ErasureAcer

Banned
Cheebo said:
You can't "rig the vote". It'd be impossible to get away with that. No one buys into the nonsene of Bush stealing the election anymore or that nonsense about Diebold rigging the electronic ballots. Doesn't matter how rich you are.
Click to expand...

But the Secretary of State, who was in charge of the election and also W's campaign manager in Florida with her piece of shit butterfly ballot wasn't cheating? Or having W's second cousin call in the victory in Florida initially making it seem he was the winner.

You can't put out anonymous fliers, once you've identified who they're voting for. that says the wrong date of the election and/or wrong polling place. There's a lot of ways Republicans suppress the vote.

Cheebs. Why you Cheebing...again? Did you ever see the video to that Trump rally too? No way in hell that's 30,000 people as you claim. Never did hear back from you on that.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/u....html?rref=upshot&smid=tw-upshotnyt&smtyp=cur

Good article.

Basically

1. Trump's support might be overstated because a lot of his support come from people not as likely to vote in a Primary election

2. Jeb also suffers from this.

3. A lot of likely primary voters are undecided (about 1/4).

4. Guys like Walker, Kasich, and Huckabee fare better among likely primary voters than not.

5. Still, Walker is around 5% LOLOLOL.

But the Secretary of State, who was in charge of the election and also W's campaign manager in Florida with her piece of shit butterfly ballot wasn't cheating? Or having W's second cousin call in the victory in Florida initially making it seem he was the winner.
Click to expand...

The election was call (wrongly) when the Panhandle was still voting, a GOP stronghold, so it cuts both ways.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Black Mamba said:
Someone needs to educate him on most capital gains. Why they're considered "investments" in the legal sense, most are not actual intital investments. Me buying Apple stock from Pigeon isn't an investment by Apple. It's simply a reallocation of who holds the initial investment. Which is like 99% of all so-called investment.

This is something very few people understand and why people think lowering capital gains taxes would increase investment. No, it would simply increase trading which is essentially just gambling.
Click to expand...

RUBIO: First of all, capital gains and dividends is investment. My father had a job as a bartender at a hotel. And the reason why he had a job as a bartender is because someone with money invested in that hotel. That’s why he had a salary, and that’s why he had tips.
Click to expand...

RUBIO: Anything you tax, you’re gonna get less of. That’s why we tax cigarettes, because we don’t want people to smoke. We want more investment. Why would we tax it?
Click to expand...

That is just a fallacy. There is never a shortage of investment money. The banks & the Fed literally conjure up investment money from thin air by loaning it into existence. So there is never a shortage of investment money.

And so instead of taxing capital gains & dividends that overwhelmingly go to the rich, you are going to shift more tax to the labor of the poor. So we'll get less labor.

Rubio is just selling the old trickle-down economics. And he does a terrible sales job.

(But then again, the poor have nothing but their labor to offer so they'll have to provide it or starve. So I guess he's got poor cornered.)
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
:-( he's imperialistic, not really "fascist"

And I think Herge has apologized for a lot of the stuff. He's not trump or hilter or intentionally do it to piss off said groups

(and I'll admit I only discovered Tintin when I discovered the movie)
Click to expand...

I knew you didn't mean anything bad by picking that avatar, mate. Just that the contradiction between the post and the avatar was too funny to let it slide.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
I love TinTin. I used to watch the cartoon and read the comics all the time growing up in Haiti. It was very popular there when I was a kid.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
speculawyer said:
That is just a fallacy. There is never a shortage of investment money. The banks & the Fed literally conjure up investment money from thin air by loaning it into existence. So there is never a shortage of investment money.

And so instead of taxing capital gains & dividends that overwhelmingly go to the rich, you are going to shift more tax to the labor of the poor. So we'll get less labor.

Rubio is just selling the old trickle-down economics. And he does a terrible sales job.

(But then again, the poor have nothing but their labor to offer so they'll have to provide it or starve. So I guess he's got poor cornered.)
Click to expand...
But can u trademark short phrases tho
 
R

Retromelon

Member
We should tax bernie supporters then amiriiite

HYmcCVO.jpg
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Obama, according to current and former West Wing officials, is more inclined to support Clinton’s candidacy. Despite her woes, he sees her as a more electable candidate and a more effective keeper of his policy legacy. He’s done everything but endorse her already, putting his vast fundraising network in the hands of Clinton’s super PAC allies. Two of Obama’s top White House aides, John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, are running Clinton’s campaign and report regularly to their old West Wing friends — including the president.

But Obama has told people around him to give the vice president “space” to make his decision, and urged his staff not to make Biden feel pressured not to run.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday that the president wouldn’t rule out making an endorsement in the primaries — and other West Wing officials told POLITICO that Obama has privately expressed a preference for Clinton as his successor, while keeping up the pretense of being undecided in public. (“I love ’em both,” Obama said on NBC’s “Today” show in February when asked who he would back.)
Clinton’s camp, hands full with the email controversy and a surprisingly stout challenge from independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, isn’t in a patient mood. Bill Clinton, according to a person who has spoken with the former president in the past couple of weeks, is “very agitated” by the possibility of a Biden candidacy and incensed at the press hype around a possible bid.

Hillary Clinton, Democrats in her orbit tell POLITICO, is less concerned — and several top Clinton campaign officials have told associates they think a Biden bid would energize what has been a fairly lackluster performance by the candidate thus far.
Either way, the Clinton campaign is monitoring Biden’s activities closely — and Biden’s small team is acutely sensitive to slights against him, and to the possibility that her operation — including Correct the Record and other Clinton-friendly outside groups — would push anti-Biden opposition research to reporters in order to dissuade the vice president from running. “They better not do that,” said a Biden confidant. “That would bring really out his Irish.”

People close to Clinton say their boss wouldn’t let them push negative information on Biden even if they wanted to — and it would backfire anyway, considering Biden’s tragic family circumstances.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/joe-beau-biden-president-hype-2016-121749.html#ixzz3jxH1lEZv
 
S

speculawyer

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Hey guys. You want to see how Republicans are in a Demographic Death Spiral? Here is a tool you can use to see it in real time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

You can adjust turnout and percantages on these graphs and it shows how it would effect the EC.

Ex: If 2016 had the exact same turnout as 2012 but Hispanics went for Hillary 95-5. Hillary would win Texas.
Click to expand...

Just get Hispanics to go to the polls and it is all over. I think Trump is energizing the Hispanic vote this year.
 
U

User1608

Banned
I'm personally hoping we see Joe announce something soon. Love the guy and he's sure to bring a legendary moment or two, like with Rudy Giuliani looool.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
B

Basileus777

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Hey guys. You want to see how Republicans are in a Demographic Death Spiral? Here is a tool you can use to see it in real time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

You can adjust turnout and percantages on these graphs and it shows how it would effect the EC.

Ex: If 2016 had the exact same turnout as 2012 but Hispanics went for Hillary 95-5. Hillary would win Texas.
Click to expand...

Wow, Hispanic turnout before 2008 was only 28%.
 
S

Sianos

Member
another day, another tragedy, another failed gun control "debate"

I still want some critique on my argument re: why illegal possession of firearms and narcotics is different, though: anyone care to take a crack at it?

"Illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of narcotics are two very different situations despite them both involving illegal possession. The difference is that in the case of narcotics, most people prosecuted for possessing narcotics intended to use them for a high - illegal, but not going to intentionally cause harm to someone else. There is also the case of being able to plant trace amounts of drug residue on people to indict them as an excuse to arrest - it is more difficult to plant an illegal gun on someone and easier to trace where that gun came from if the indicted maintains their stance that the gun was planted. A person illegally possessing a gun has been barred from legally possessing a gun: if they weren't, why are they illegally possessing a dangerous firearm as opposed to a legal one? It makes no sense for a person to acquire a gun illegally when they have the legal option open, and if someone for whatever reason decides to acquire their gun illegally as opposed to the legal option they should be prosecuted. Most likely, a person who as acquired their gun illegally has been barred from having a gun for public safety, also likely is that if a person for whom it has been determined that gun ownership would be a threat to public safety has a gun, then they are going to be a threat to public safety using said gun. After all, if you are not going to commit a crime or endanger the public, why get your gun illegally when there is a legal avenue open to you? I see no reason why a person who has their gun illegally is not a credible threat to public safety. I see no reason why someone who can acquire a gun legally would need to acquire their gun illegally. Therefore we can extrapolate that in general, a person who is illegally possessing a gun either is banned from legally owning a gun or intends to do something criminal or nefarious with it.

Someone smoking weed is not a threat to public safety: driving under the influence and selling it to minors is and should be banned, but mere possession does not endanger the public. I think the difference here is that all illegal narcotics are illegal (they are demonstrably illegal because people caught possessing them go to jail) but not all guns are illegal, so a person illegally possessing a gun has clearly either been barred from possessing a gun legally or has suspicious motives for why they are acquiring their gun illegally."

I feel like my explanation meanders and is a bit repetitive, but I think the logic holds up.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
The empire strikes back: The media-political elite’s campaign to destroy Bernie (and Trump) and restore order
Last week's Sanders snark-down in the Times is just the tip of the iceberg: The oligarchy wants its politics back
Last week the New York Times deigned to notice that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is running for president – have you heard about this? – and even by the Gray Lady’s usual standard of treating everyone to the left of the Obama-Clinton Democratic center as a two-headed, kazoo-playing talking dog, it was quite a piece of work. Times reporter Jason Horowitz’s dispatch from a recent Sanders rally in Dubuque, Iowa, barely even pretended to be a news article. It emanated tangible hostility from beginning to end – sometimes veering toward distaste, sometimes toward mockery — and was loaded with scare quotes and attack adjectives. Sanders was described as grumpy, angry, disengaged, uncharismatic, judgmental and suspicious “of all things ‘feel good,’” yet also, despite those unappealing qualities, as a cult figure surrounded by a “circle of believers.”

Sanders’ references to the “corporate media” were enclosed in ironical quotes – what a ridiculous thing to say about the New York Times! – and his refusal to engage with questions about Hillary Clinton’s perceived political liabilities was described, twice within two paragraphs, as disdainful. Toward the end of the article, Horowitz finally expends a single paragraph outlining Sanders’ proposals for single-payer health care, expanded Social Security, free college tuition and breaking up the banking cartel. Without quoting anyone or citing any sources, Horowitz then introduces “the critique that none of these proposals is remotely plausible given the political realities in Washington,” and describes the political future envisioned by the Sanders campaign as a “fantasy scenario.”

...

But that sneering Sanders character assassination in the Times, which sought not just to demean the candidate but his supporters and the entire American progressive tradition he represents, went far beyond that kind of conventional horse-race analysis. It felt less like an effort to report the news than an effort to shape the news. I’m not saying that Horowitz was sent to Dubuque with specific instructions to rip Sanders apart with his glittering aperçus — in the print edition, the article’s pull quote read “A call for an uprising comes with little belief that it will occur” (oh, SNAP) – because that wasn’t necessary. Those instructions were undetectably but unmistakably present in the oxygen of the Times newsroom.

One might argue that this season of topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass politics, which continues to defy conventional expectations and deliver unexpected twists and turns, offers the political and media establishment a chance for some badly needed reflection and humility. I mean, none of us saw this coming, pretty much. It’s a moment to listen and learn, no? No one predicted that Donald Trump would surge to the front of the Republican field and stay there; no one predicted that a socialist septuagenarian from one of the smallest and whitest states in the nation would galvanize college-age crowds from coast to coast and emerge as a credible alternative to the Clinton coronation. Across the pond, almost nobody noticed when 66-year-old left-wing renegade Jeremy Corbyn threw his hat into the British Labour Party’s leadership race, in defiance of the apparent consensus that the party needed to tack rightward after its recent electoral defeat. Barring some unforeseen and nearly unimaginable turn of events, it now appears that Corbyn will take the reins as leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition on Sept. 12, despite overwhelming opposition from Labour insiders and elected officials.
Click to expand...
 
H

HyperionX

Member
NSQuote said:
another day, another tragedy, another failed gun control "debate"

I still want some critique on my argument re: why illegal possession of firearms and narcotics is different, though: anyone care to take a crack at it?

"Illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of narcotics are two very different situations despite them both involving illegal possession. The difference is that in the case of narcotics, most people prosecuted for possessing narcotics intended to use them for a high - illegal, but not going to intentionally cause harm to someone else. There is also the case of being able to plant trace amounts of drug residue on people to indict them as an excuse to arrest - it is more difficult to plant an illegal gun on someone and easier to trace where that gun came from if the indicted maintains their stance that the gun was planted. A person illegally possessing a gun has been barred from legally possessing a gun: if they weren't, why are they illegally possessing a dangerous firearm as opposed to a legal one? It makes no sense for a person to acquire a gun illegally when they have the legal option open, and if someone for whatever reason decides to acquire their gun illegally as opposed to the legal option they should be prosecuted. Most likely, a person who as acquired their gun illegally has been barred from having a gun for public safety, also likely is that if a person for whom it has been determined that gun ownership would be a threat to public safety has a gun, then they are going to be a threat to public safety using said gun. After all, if you are not going to commit a crime or endanger the public, why get your gun illegally when there is a legal avenue open to you? I see no reason why a person who has their gun illegally is not a credible threat to public safety. I see no reason why someone who can acquire a gun legally would need to acquire their gun illegally. Therefore we can extrapolate that in general, a person who is illegally possessing a gun either is banned from legally owning a gun or intends to do something criminal or nefarious with it.

Someone smoking weed is not a threat to public safety: driving under the influence and selling it to minors is and should be banned, but mere possession does not endanger the public. I think the difference here is that all illegal narcotics are illegal (they are demonstrably illegal because people caught possessing them go to jail) but not all guns are illegal, so a person illegally possessing a gun has clearly either been barred from possessing a gun legally or has suspicious motives for why they are acquiring their gun illegally."

I feel like my explanation meanders and is a bit repetitive, but I think the logic holds up.
Click to expand...

I also want to add this: Way too many pro-gun people blame the rhetoric of gun control people as the real problem that prevents gun control, as if toning down the anti-gun rhetoric will makes things better. This is one of the worst kinds of victim blaming there is. It's almost exactly the same stuff we saw in Gamergate threads, or police brutality threads, or threads about BLMs. It's a despicable opinion and is something that needs to stop in future threads.
 
G

gcubed

Member
benjipwns said:
If you set the Hispanics and Asians to zero because they've all been deported the GOP does much better.
Click to expand...

what comes first? The chicken or the egg? Trump needs to win to send them home with a bill to give to their families for their portion of the fence that he is going to outsource to China that will do it for one third the cost because he said so, then pocket a portion of the underspend and aptly use it for hookers and coke
 
R

Retromelon

Member
Look what i found on amazon while i was trying in vain to download sonic cd

Fk0Gt6K.jpg

In case i shrunk that image too badly, the author is one 'Mario Broes'

Robert Shaw was unhappy with his purchase
dHfv6Ia.jpg
 
T

Trouble

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Hey guys. You want to see how Republicans are in a Demographic Death Spiral? Here is a tool you can use to see it in real time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

You can adjust turnout and percantages on these graphs and it shows how it would effect the EC.

Ex: If 2016 had the exact same turnout as 2012 but Hispanics went for Hillary 95-5. Hillary would win Texas.
Click to expand...

My state is still blue if only white people vote. :D
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
#hotraciststove

With Alabama’s Republican-controlled legislature refusing to consider any tax hikes, the state is preparing to take drastic measures to address its budget crisis — including shutting down all state parks and the vast majority of Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs). The proposal to close dozens of DMVs across the state — starting in rural areas — could hurt voters who need access to those offices in order to get the ID they need to cast a ballot.

Susan Watson, the executive director of the Alabama American Civil Liberties Union, told ThinkProgress this could put up yet another barrier to voting for the state’s lowest-income residents.

“They want to disenfranchise the most people possible,” she said. “It seems like they work hard to try to find ways to make it harder to vote. We have zero days of early voting. You aren’t allowed to vote absentee unless you’re out of the county or working more than 10 hours on Election Day. It’s already hard to get an ID if you are in a rural place and don’t have a DMV close to you. But if they shut these offices down, I’m wondering what people are supposed to do.”

The proposed budget leaves just four DMV offices in the state, in Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile and Huntsville, meaning potentially several hours of driving and long lines for the tens of thousands of people who live far from those cities.

“This won’t just hurt voters,” said Watson. “I can see a lot more people getting arrested and fined for not having a current drivers license, since it’ll be harder for them to get one.”

Alabama implemented its voter ID law shortly after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which required the state get preapproval from the Justice Department every time it changed its voting laws because of its long history of racially-based and often violent voter suppression. The ACLU and other voting rights groups argue the law disproportionately burdens the elderly, people of color, students, and the poor — who may have difficulty finding transportation to an office during the narrow hours they are open, and who may lack a birth certificate or other document needed to get the free identification card.

The state itself estimated that 250,000 eligible voters lacked the proper ID, but gave out only about 1,000 as of last April.

In the 2014 midterm elections, hundreds of voters were disenfranchised by the ID requirement, and election turnout was the lowest it has been since the mid-1980s. As an example of the law’s harm, Watson cited the case of Willie Mims, a 93-year-old African American Alabama resident who was turned away from the polls last year because he didn’t have a proper ID. Mims had voted in nearly every election since World War II.

But Ed Packard, Alabama’s Director of Elections, defended the law, telling ThinkProgress that if the DMVs close, voters can still go to their Board of Registrar’s office in their county, or meet up with the mobile unit that travels around the state processing voter IDs. But he also admitted the Registrar offices have no evening or weekend hours, which presents difficulties for those with full-time jobs or multiple jobs. As for the mobile unit, it generally visits just one county per day and is open for just two hours at a time. Though Packard says his office plans to keep running the mobile unit through October, he told ThinkProgress that the future of the service is uncertain because of the current budget crisis.
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...out-to-make-it-much-harder-to-get-a-voter-id/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom