Support NeoGAF

[Coriolanus]

If that quote happened during the thick of it, he'd be done, but it might fly under the radar this early with relatively little talk about the election.

That wasn't what sank him, tho.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

I've never seen a godfathers pizza

The only ones I've seen are inside gas stations.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Looks like this is Ben Carson's ubibekibekibekistanstan moment:



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/carson-stumbles-little-details

That last bolded sentence is amazing.

you missed this gem

"We need to look at fresh ideas," said Carson. "I don't have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt? Right below Israel, they have some amount of territory, and it can be adjacent. They can benefit from the many agricultural advances that were made by Israel, because if you fly over that area, you can easily see the demarcation between Egypt and Israel, in terms of one being desert and one being verdant. Technology could transform that area. So why does it need to be in an area where there's going to be temptation for Hamas to continue firing missiles at relatively close range to Israel?"

it takes 2 seconds of googling

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6771977,34.6289926,118114m/data=!3m1!1e3

Desert vs desert.

And before people mention there are a few farms on the israeli side need I remind you that egypt has this huge thing called the Nile delta that kinda makes sinai farming a silly idea?

He's also saying that he'd put them in the Sinai (for 40 years maybe?) because that will make israel safe from Hamas, its not like there are attacks from the sinai, its totally safe!

These people want to be president?

 

[Crisco]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/world/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-elections-palestinian-state.html?_r=0

In a striking indication of how bitter tensions remain between the two, Mr. Obama told Mr. Netanyahu directly that the United States would have to “re-assess our options” after the prime minister’s “new positions and comments” on the two-state solution, according to a White House official who spoke without authorization to detail the private conversation.

For all the bullshit from the right about Obama's spineless foreign policy, this shows more balls than any US President of the last 50 years.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

If the GOP holds the senate and wins the presidency in 2016, this insane budget proposal would become reality, wouldn't it?

Bush wasn't able to handle the backlash for similar proposals when he was president, and so they didn't happen, but it seems like GOP voters don't give a crap about social security and medicare anymore (as long as the baby boomers are grandfathered out of the consequences).

GOP is pretty smart tho - they would take the entire 8 years to destroy infrastructure in exchange for corporate gain, and then when the bills finally have to be paid, that's when allow democrats to be elected to clean up the mess.

Once that is done, dems are associated as being big spenders and responsible for the "mess" and then Repubs get the spotlight again.

It's a pretty effective plan.

 

[Trouble]

you missed this gem

Ahhh, forced migration. What could go wrong?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/world/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-elections-palestinian-state.html?_r=0



For all the bullshit from the right about Obama's spineless foreign policy, this shows more balls than any US President of the last 50 years.

Bush Sr had no problem forcing them to the table.

Baker his SoS went to congress and said it was the Israelis fault they were getting nowhere in negotiations, because of the settlements and the constant announcements whenever he'd visit.

 

[maxcriden]

sup

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015...ittle-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities

That got us thinking: What do families in the middle of the income distribution actually make in cities around the United States?

2013 info but nothing too surprising. Guarantee Burlington, VT's is lower.

 

[AndyD]

sup

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015...ittle-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities



2013 info but nothing too surprising. Guarantee Burlington, VT's is lower.

Surprised NY is so low, yet they say they dont include suburbs. Maybe I don't understand what's considered city proper.

 

[CygnusXS]

CNN finally did something good.

 

[Teggy]

I don't know how many of you comes from Jewish families and now have the pleasure of receiving emails from your parents about how "if only Obama liked Israel as much as he likes Iran".

 

[Poodlestrike]

I don't know how many of you comes from Jewish families and now have the pleasure of receiving emails from your parents about how "if only Obama liked Israel as much as he likes Iran".

Nah. My mom shares my positions on Israel; we get why they are the way they are, but we don't have to like it.

 

[NobleXenon]

Honest question: What is with the GOP and their base's obsession on giving Canada free money? This is a serious question.

Today on the radio (Reno, NV) some tea party group had a commercial lambasting Governor Sandoval on his proposed tax hikes for schools. While it is a little funny that conservatives are eating their own; the tax plan isn't all that ridiculous. This conversation wouldn't be happening if people in 2014 approved at least one of the two ballot proposals during the last election. While the margin's tax was a little shaky, the mining tax should've definitely passed. Most of the mining companies here are from Canada, paying only 5% tax. When Tesla and a bunch of other tech companies here demand more rare-earth minerals and lithium, these Canadian companies are going to make BANK while paying very little tax. This and Keystone has my head scratching.

 

[Zero-Crescent]

Mmmmm, that Fox News takedown on last night's Daily Show, it was quite fantastic.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I don't know how many of you comes from Jewish families and now have the pleasure of receiving emails from your parents about how "if only Obama liked Israel as much as he likes Iran".

My Jewish Father-in-Law is pretty hardcore liberal in the New England Elite stereotype, so I get facebook posts about how terrible Congress is, lamenting Bibi's reelection, and praising Obama. I am OK with this.

 

[benjipwns]

you missed this gem



it takes 2 seconds of googling

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6771977,34.6289926,118114m/data=!3m1!1e3

Desert vs desert.

Google's atheist satellites (that invade God's domain) can't see the spiritual and moral difference between the lands.

 

[Black Mamba]

My Jewish Father-in-Law is pretty hardcore liberal in the New England Elite stereotype, so I get facebook posts about how terrible Congress is, lamenting Bibi's reelection, and praising Obama. I am OK with this.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Well, two things: for most of us, Jewishness is only part of our identity, and second of all, we will argue about fucking anything.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't know how many of you comes from Jewish families and now have the pleasure of receiving emails from your parents about how "if only Obama liked Israel as much as he likes Iran".

My parents don't share their opinion. I'm afraid of what my grandparents say but o usually hide my posts bashing Bibi from them

 

[Aaron Strife]

If there's one thing Jews love it's when Christians tell them what they're supposed to believe

 

[Wilsongt]

Mmmmm, that Fox News takedown on last night's Daily Show, it was quite fantastic.

I just watched it. Indeed it was. Too bad nothing will change.

 

[Metaphoreus]

How many commas are there in the Preamble to the Texas Constitution?

You'd think finding the answer would be simple, right? Just go here and select the Preamble to the Texas Constitution from the drop-down menus. There are two commas in the Preamble. Case closed.

Or is it? The first official publication of the current Texas Constitution (ratified in 1876) is here. One comma.

But maybe the preamble was amended, eh? After all, some 484 amendments have been made to the Texas Constitution in the last 140 years. Maybe someone was just like, "You know the Preamble? Let's just put in another comma, to screw with people!" But no. The Preamble has never been amended.

What can explain this? A typo? Maybe, since the handwritten version of the Texas Constitution features two commas. Yes, yes. That must be it, and nevermind what Gammel has to say about it.

Indeed, dearest reader, I thought I had solved the riddle, until I decided to investigate how Texas courts had treated the Preamble (I mean, that was the obvious next step, right?) and stumbled upon an article that posited a startling possibility: Maybe no one knows what the Texas Constitution is:

In order to become law, the Constitution of 1876 had to satisfy three requirements. First, the constitutional convention had to frame the constitution in 1875. Second, the convention had to submit the framed constitution to Texas voters for a ratification election. Third, voters had to ratify the framed constitution in an election in 1876. However, none of that happened.

The constitutional convention framed two different constitutions. The convention voted in favor of one of them, and ordered that it be enrolled, but it did not actually enroll that constitution. Instead, it enrolled another constitution—one with a text containing hundreds of punctuation marks and words that were different from those in the version that was approved and ordered to be enrolled. Neither of the two framed constitutions amended or replaced the other.

The convention submitted four other constitutions to voters for ratification; one was written in English, another was in German, one was in Spanish, and the fourth was in Bohemian. Voters ratified those four constitutions. The English version that voters ratified was different from both of the versions that the convention framed. Of course, each of the constitutions not written in English was different from the two English constitutions that the convention framed, as well as the English constitution that the voters ratified. None of the four ratified constitutions amended or replaced any of the other three ratified constitutions or the two framed constitutions. Thus, there were six different original versions of the current constitution.

In fact, there are six different current versions of the current Texas constitution because some sections have never been amended. No court has identified which, if any, of the six versions is in effect today.

The existence of six versions of the current constitution is an important problem that might be impossible to solve, as each of the different current versions of the Texas constitution could be the law today. No particular version is clearly more or less legitimate than the others. No Texas court has chosen which, if any, of the different current versions of the Texas constitution is in effect, nor has a court issued an opinion establishing criteria for determining which, if any, would be.

...

Every section of the original text of the current Texas constitution has a ratified version that differs from a framed version, because the Convention framed three English versions, and voters ratified three non-English versions. The differences are far more extensive than that, though. Many sections of the English version of the Texas constitution that was enrolled differ from the English version that was ratified. In fact, of the 279 sections of the original text of the current Texas constitution, 188 sections are different in the enrolled English version from the corresponding sections in the ratified English version.

And the preamble?

The Convention approved this preamble and ordered that it be enrolled: “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

However, that preamble was not enrolled. This one was: “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

The Convention ordered that the enrolled version be printed and distributed to voters before the ratification election, but it was not. Here is the English version of the preamble that was submitted to voters for ratification: “Humbly invoking the blessing of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

The three English preambles look very similar to each other. They differ only in the presence or absence of the letter s or a comma.

...

This is the preamble to the German version of the constitution: “Den Segen des allmächtigen Gottes erflehen, hat das Volk des Staates Texas diese Constitution entworfen und festgestellt.”

Here is the preamble in Spanish: “El Pueblo del Estado de Texas, invocando humildemente la bendicion del Todopoderoso, ordena y establece esta Constitucion.”

This is the Bohemian preamble: “Pokorně vzývaje pomoc všemocného boha lid státu Texas nařizuje a ustanovuje tuto ústavu.”

So, the answer to my question? Maybe 0, or 1, or 2, or maybe there isn't even a Preamble or Constitution to begin with!

(The whole article is worth reading. The author covers an analogous controversy regarding the 2d Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that I didn't even know existed.)

 

[Treechopper]

...Texas Preamble mess...

I'm bookmarking the article to read later; this is incredibly interesting. I don't know if it's funny or sad that my state was shooting from the hip like that though.

 

[jamesinclair]

Spanish, German....and Bohimian? Why

 

[Wilsongt]

Another week come and gone. No Lynch confirmation, human trafficking bill stalled, and now another budget battle again. 114th Congress proving it'll be just as useless as the 113th and the 112th.

 

[Mike M]

Spanish, German....and Bohimian? Why

The Bohemian language is rhapsodic to listen to.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Spanish, German....and Bohimian? Why

There was a pretty large German population in Texas at the time of independence. Maybe there was a decent size Bohemian population as well?

 

[ivysaur12]

How many commas are there in the Preamble to the Texas Constitution?

You'd think finding the answer would be simple, right? Just go here and select the Preamble to the Texas Constitution from the drop-down menus. There are two commas in the Preamble. Case closed.

Or is it? The first official publication of the current Texas Constitution (ratified in 1876) is here. One comma.

But maybe the preamble was amended, eh? After all, some 484 amendments have been made to the Texas Constitution in the last 140 years. Maybe someone was just like, "You know the Preamble? Let's just put in another comma, to screw with people!" But no. The Preamble has never been amended.

What can explain this? A typo? Maybe, since the handwritten version of the Texas Constitution features two commas. Yes, yes. That must be it, and nevermind what Gammel has to say about it.

Indeed, dearest reader, I thought I had solved the riddle, until I decided to investigate how Texas courts had treated the Preamble (I mean, that was the obvious next step, right?) and stumbled upon an article that posited a startling possibility: Maybe no one knows what the Texas Constitution is:



And the preamble?



So, the answer to my question? Maybe 0, or 1, or 2, or maybe there isn't even a Preamble or Constitution to begin with!

(The whole article is worth reading. The author covers an analogous controversy regarding the 2d Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that I didn't even know existed.)

This is absolutely fascinating.

 

[Jack Remington]

Is there a bigger scumbag in the world than Michael F. Cannon?

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/three-reasons-king-v-burwell-doesnt-constitute-coercion-under-existing

This man doesn't deserve to live in a first-world country. I can think of a few million innocent Iraqis or Nigerians under threat from ISIS or Boko Haram who would make better use of this guy's spot.

1. The ACA’s Exchange provisions don’t penalize states. They let states make tradeoffs between taxes, jobs, and insurance coverage.

Fucking lol. Black Mamba has written a novella's worth of analysis demolishing the notion that the insurance death spiral wouldn't be "penalty", so I don't think I really need to go into this much. It's also a pretty good illustration of lawyers pretending to understand subjects they know nothing about.

This whole thing kind of reminds me of a quote from Atlas Shrugged that I can't quite remember, but it was something about how Dagny had known that one day she would come face to face with true evil, and there it was.

King v. Burwell is the first time in awhile that I've been faced with a political debate where a lot of the people on the other side are just truly, 100% evil. Not everyone who supports Cannon's arguments is evil: some are just political hacks, others are clueless, and still others are so good at logical contortions that they've made themselves into human pretzels to convince themselves that they're actually the noble ones fighting for the rule of law. Adler, for example, I feel is in one of those groups. Watching him talk, I don't get the feeling that I'm watching a snake in human flesh.

Not Cannon though. He is an evil fucking man.

 

[B-Dubs]

How many commas are there in the Preamble to the Texas Constitution?

You'd think finding the answer would be simple, right? Just go here and select the Preamble to the Texas Constitution from the drop-down menus. There are two commas in the Preamble. Case closed.

Or is it? The first official publication of the current Texas Constitution (ratified in 1876) is here. One comma.

But maybe the preamble was amended, eh? After all, some 484 amendments have been made to the Texas Constitution in the last 140 years. Maybe someone was just like, "You know the Preamble? Let's just put in another comma, to screw with people!" But no. The Preamble has never been amended.

What can explain this? A typo? Maybe, since the handwritten version of the Texas Constitution features two commas. Yes, yes. That must be it, and nevermind what Gammel has to say about it.

Indeed, dearest reader, I thought I had solved the riddle, until I decided to investigate how Texas courts had treated the Preamble (I mean, that was the obvious next step, right?) and stumbled upon an article that posited a startling possibility: Maybe no one knows what the Texas Constitution is:



And the preamble?



So, the answer to my question? Maybe 0, or 1, or 2, or maybe there isn't even a Preamble or Constitution to begin with!

(The whole article is worth reading. The author covers an analogous controversy regarding the 2d Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that I didn't even know existed.)

I'm surprised you didn't know about the Second Amendment thing. It's been around forever. It feels like every history and government teacher I've ever known has taken a look at it at some point or another.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's also a pretty good illustration of lawyers pretending to understand subjects they know nothing about.

I don't think Cannon's a lawyer. In any event, your criticism overlooks that the question in King is one of law, not of fact.

 

[Jack Remington]

No, my point is that it's fairly disturbing that someone like Cannon can see the death spiral argument, shrug, and say, "Yes, it's completely reasonable that Congress might have set this outcome up as a consequence of turning down insurance money, and it's also reasonable to believe that states might make the rational choice to inflict this condition on themselves."

Either he believes what he's writing, in which case he's a fool of the highest order, or he knows he's spouting horseshit, in which case he's a pretty despicable human being. There's no scenario here in which Cannon looks good.

Remember that it's often not the causes we support, but what we are willing to do or see done in support of those causes, that shows our true moral character.

And if he really is that clueless, it's pretty disturbing that someone who knows so little about healthcare economics as to completely fail to understand the seriousness of the death spiral threat could be the architect of a case being argued before the Supreme Court that directly deals with healthcare policy, and more than that, purports to explain what Congress meant to do with a certain piece of healthcare policy.

Just as an example, I know jack and shit about the different types of air pollutants. So if I were to somehow end up as the mastermind behind a Supreme Court case that purported to explain what Congress actually meant with some air pollution bill, that would be pretty less than ideal for everyone concerned. And yet there you go.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Lets say that mandatory voting happened. Would it really change much in the Electoral College? Popular Vote yeah but EC.............

The south would still vote republican.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Lets say that mandatory voting happened. Would it really change much in the Electoral College? Popular Vote yeah but EC.............

The south would still vote republican.

I feel states like Texas, Georgia, and Arizona with large non-voting minority populations would shift quite a few points to the left. North Carolina and Florida would be blue states.

 

[Jack Remington]

None of the "swing states" would be swing states at that point. The GOP would be finished in it current incarnation. The party would probably be competitive again pretty quickly in name, but it wouldn't be the same party at all.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Do you all think it would affect statewide races too such as the legislature seats and Gubernatorial Races?

What would a 100% turnout 2010 have resulted in? Would it have really changed the trajectory of a mad electorate against obama's health care law at the time? What would that exta 60% vote look like and what would they have leaned in regards to the 40% that did turnout?(and mostly voted R)

 

[B-Dubs]

Do you all think it would affect statewide races too such as the legislature seats and Gubernatorial Races?

What would a 100% turnout 2010 resulted in?

If 2010 had the same sort of turnout that 2008 or 2012 did the Tea Party wouldn't have been able to take over so many state legislatures.

 

[Gotchaye]

Do you all think it would affect statewide races too such as the legislature seats and Gubernatorial Races?

What would a 100% turnout 2010 have resulted in? Would it have really changed the trajectory of a mad electorate against obama's health care law at the time? What would that exta 60% vote look like and what would they have leaned in regards to the 40% that did turnout?(and mostly voted R)

Probably it would have mattered quite a bit. It's weird to look at 2010 as a "mad electorate against Obama's health care law", as if lots of people voted differently in 2010 than they did in 2008. The big difference between 2008 and 2010 is that a lot of people who voted for Obama in 2008 just didn't vote in 2010. There's a reason that get out the vote efforts are so important and there's a reason that off-year elections are so much better for Republicans.

 

[CygnusXS]

How many commas are there in the Preamble to the Texas Constitution?

You'd think finding the answer would be simple, right? Just go here and select the Preamble to the Texas Constitution from the drop-down menus. There are two commas in the Preamble. Case closed.

Or is it? The first official publication of the current Texas Constitution (ratified in 1876) is here. One comma.

But maybe the preamble was amended, eh? After all, some 484 amendments have been made to the Texas Constitution in the last 140 years. Maybe someone was just like, "You know the Preamble? Let's just put in another comma, to screw with people!" But no. The Preamble has never been amended.

What can explain this? A typo? Maybe, since the handwritten version of the Texas Constitution features two commas. Yes, yes. That must be it, and nevermind what Gammel has to say about it.

Indeed, dearest reader, I thought I had solved the riddle, until I decided to investigate how Texas courts had treated the Preamble (I mean, that was the obvious next step, right?) and stumbled upon an article that posited a startling possibility: Maybe no one knows what the Texas Constitution is:



And the preamble?



So, the answer to my question? Maybe 0, or 1, or 2, or maybe there isn't even a Preamble or Constitution to begin with!

(The whole article is worth reading. The author covers an analogous controversy regarding the 2d Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that I didn't even know existed.)

One law professor has argued that the Second Amendment is
not in effect at all, because no version of it was framed and
subsequently ratified by a sufficient number of states.77 That
conclusion is correct, but impractical because, among other
reasons, too much depends on its existence. The U.S. Congress
and state legislatures, including the Texas legislature, have
enacted laws that are profoundly affected by the Second
Amendment.78 The courts, of course, have issued opinions
interpreting many of those laws.79 State and federal law
enforcement agencies enforce and implement laws that the
Second Amendment has been thought to authorize or
circumscribe.80 In addition, of course, American citizens have
been making, buying, selling, keeping, and using firearms for
centuries.81 The idea that a court would jeopardize all of those
activities and the institutions surrounding them because of a
legal problem with the ratification of the Amendment over 200
years ago is almost certainly incorrect.82

This part regarding the 2nd amendment is interesting vis-a-vis King, don't you think?

 

[speculawyer]

you missed this gem



it takes 2 seconds of googling

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6771977,34.6289926,118114m/data=!3m1!1e3

Desert vs desert.

And before people mention there are a few farms on the israeli side need I remind you that egypt has this huge thing called the Nile delta that kinda makes sinai farming a silly idea?

He's also saying that he'd put them in the Sinai (for 40 years maybe?) because that will make israel safe from Hamas, its not like there are attacks from the sinai, its totally safe!

These people want to be president?

This is a GREAT insight into Ben Carson's mind. And on the good side, he wants to be nice in that he just wants to move these people from where they live to another place.

But on the bad side . . . this is just batshit crazy Christian prophecy lunacy in wanting Israel to rule all of old original Israel in order to help bring back Jesus and bring on the Apocalypse. He is batshit (no, religious) crazy.

I know I give Muslims (and apparently Jews too) a hard time for being nutty religious but this is certainly a situation wherein a Christian is being unacceptably nutty religious. Ethnic cleansing is not a good thing. Shut the fuck up, Ben Carson.


But again . . . at least it is nice in that he doesn't want to kill people. Of course, that is a pretty low bar for a compliment.

 

[Jack Remington]

2010 had very little to do with the ACA. In a world in which the Dems had never pursued healthcare reform, they still likely would have lost the House in 2010.

 

[Jack Remington]

This part regarding the 2nd amendment is interesting vis-a-vis King, don't you think?

Don't make the mistake of thinking King supporters actually care about the rule of the letter of the law. What they care about is their side winning by damaging a five year old law they can't repeal and can't get over. The whole "rule of law" thing is a way to help themselves sleep better at night knowing that they are actively campaigning to take healthcare benefits away from >5m people.

The human mind is remarkably adept at shielding itself against moral dilemmas.

 

[Jack Remington]

Edit: double post

 

[Aaron Strife]

2010 had very little to do with the ACA. In a world in which the Dems had never pursued healthcare reform, they still likely would have lost the House in 2010.

Absolutely true. And even if ACA did cause Democrats to lose the House then what is the suggestion? That Democrats should never try and pass anything meaningful when swept into office with large congressional majorities? Obama had exactly one opportunity to get universal healthcare (or something close to it) and he seized it. Any other big ticket item (immigration reform, cap & trade, EFCA etc.) would have inspired the same ire with the right and met with a resounding "Well yeah, but what has he done for me lately" from the left.

2010 was always going to be a bloodbath. Proof? 2014. Democrats are just terrible at turning out. I don't know what the national campaigns could have done to alleviate this because they went pretty hard on GOTV efforts and lost nearly every competitive race - the exceptions being New Hampshire and Virginia which weren't supposed to be competitive!

 

[Jack Remington]

On the other hand, Democrats won 2006 pretty hard.

They're currently terrible at turning out without a major factor (a Bush type?) to motivate people to head to the polls.

Honestly, most Democrats I know just aren't getting half as much political content as the Republicans I know. Now I don't mean political content as informative content. What I mean is that the liberals i know generally read CNN, listen to NPR, and get their news from other very centrist sources, and don't spend any significant chunk of their day hating Republicans. They read the news, but it isn't politicized. It's just the news.

Now contrast this to Republicans. They spend a lot of time watching Fox News, listening to conservative AM radio stations, etc. They don't spend much time at all getting news from neutral sources (because anything left of Fox is liberal media). Perhaps they read Red State and the WSJ editorial page. All of these things have no other purpose except to convince them that Obama and the "radical left" are destroying their country. They get indoctrinated with this stuff for hours a day while liberals are thinking about wine/cheese combinations. Of course they're going to be more pumped to vote.

I don't even know how I'd want this to change. I don't want to see a "liberal" version of Fox News, because I am strongly against dishonesty in any kind. What I really want is for the Fox News fans to stop regarding everything to the left of their station as the liberal left. NPR is tediously centrist, and yet a lot of conservatives seem so to think it's basically a Bernie Sanders blog.

Just breaking the Fox News spell and introducing these people to the real world would do wonders, but it seems impossible.

 

[Third Strike]

On the other hand, Democrats won 2006 pretty hard.

They're currently terrible at turning out without a major factor (a Bush type?) to motivate people to head to the polls.

Honestly, most Democrats I know just aren't getting half as much political content as the Republicans I know. Now I don't mean political content as informative content. What I mean is that the liberals i know generally read CNN, listen to NPR, and get their news from other very centrist sources, and don't spend any significant chunk of their day hating Republicans. They read the news, but it isn't politicized. It's just the news.

Now contrast this to Republicans. They spend a lot of time watching Fox News, listening to conservative AM radio stations, etc. They don't spend much time at all getting news from neutral sources (because anything left of Fox is liberal media). Perhaps they read Red State and the WSJ editorial page. All of these things have no other purpose except to convince them that Obama and the "radical left" are destroying their country. They get indoctrinated with this stuff for hours a day while liberals are thinking about wine/cheese combinations. Of course they're going to be more pumped to vote.

I don't even know how I'd want this to change. I don't want to see a "liberal" version of Fox News, because I am strongly against dishonesty in any kind. What I really want is for the Fox News fans to stop regarding everything to the left of their station as the liberal left. NPR is tediously centrist, and yet a lot of conservatives seem so to think it's basically a Bernie Sanders blog.

Just breaking the Fox News spell and introducing these people to the real world would do wonders, but it seems impossible.

Perhaps we will see a difference once Gen X'ers and Millennials become older, likely becoming more reliable voters, and when Baby Boomers begin to die off.

 

[Averon]

It doesn't help when Democratic candidates run away from their own party and accomplishments. When you're trying out republican your GOP opponent, run away from Democratic ideals, and try to run away from the president, those are a great ways to demotivate Democratic constituents to go vote. 2014 was always going to be a tough election for Democrats, but I don't think it should've been as bad as it was.T here were things Democrats could have done, such as pushing hard for minimum wage increase. The issue was popular nation-wide, as seen by the successful ballot initiatives even in red states. Why Democrats gave up on it I have no idea.

I just don't think running as GOP-lite is a viable strategy anymore. Voters that come out in mid-term elections knows exactly what they are looking for. They ain't going to settle for a half-assed conservative when they can get the real deal.

 

[thepotatoman]

Perhaps we will see a difference once Gen X'ers and Millennials become older, likely becoming more reliable voters, and when Baby Boomers begin to die off.

Probably. All the statistics I've seen seem to show that young people aren't really voting any less than young people of the past. Just that they voted way more than usual in 2006 and 2008.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Either he believes what he's writing, in which case he's a fool of the highest order, or he knows he's spouting horseshit, in which case he's a pretty despicable human being. There's no scenario here in which Cannon looks good.

Of course there's a scenario where Cannon looks good: he believes what he's writing, and what he's writing is true. You read Cannon to be denying that a death spiral in insurance markets would occur, but I don't think he is. Instead, his argument, the bulk of which you omitted so you could attack a strawman while calling Cannon evil, is as follows:

If a state fails to establish an Exchange, the ACA withholds subsidies from a state’s residents, not the state. In New York v. United States, the Court held that imposing burdens on state residents does not coerce states: “The affected States are not compelled by Congress to regulate” when the “burden caused by a State’s refusal to regulate will fall on [private actors], rather than on the State as a sovereign.”

Moreover, forgoing the subsidies would also confer benefits on state residents. It would free many individual residents from the ACA’s individual mandate, and all in-state employers from the law’s employer mandate. As a result, residents would then see lower taxes, more jobs, more hours, higher incomes, and more flexible health benefits.

No, my point is that it's fairly disturbing that someone like Cannon can see the death spiral argument, shrug, and say, "Yes, it's completely reasonable that Congress might have set this outcome up as a consequence of turning down insurance money, and it's also reasonable to believe that states might make the rational choice to inflict this condition on themselves."

But there is evidence to support that Congress crafted the ACA to operate precisely as Cannon claims (including the text and certain legislative history of the statute), and there is also evidence to support that states "might make the rational choice" to go without a state-established Exchange even if that meant giving up tax credits (see point 2 in the article you linked).

I don't see the point in arguing over whether Cannon is evil or his conduct disturbing, but perhaps you should reconsider your conclusions on those questions given the apparent flaws in your premises.

This part regarding the 2nd amendment is interesting vis-a-vis King, don't you think?

I think that judges are undoubtedly influenced, if only slightly, by the practical consequences of their decisions, even when they believe those decisions are legally correct. But there are important differences between the questions raised about the IRS rule in King and the questions raised about the Second Amendment in the article. First, the IRS rule is not being challenged on procedural grounds, but because the challengers claim it is substantively contrary to the statute it purportedly administers. The closer anti-ACA analog would be Sissel, which claims that the ACA is unconstitutional because its substance originated in the Senate, not the House. However correct that argument may be, it would be difficult for a judge to throw out the law on such a seemingly minor technicality--and a technicality that was formally satisfied, no less. Second, the IRS rule was finalized in 2012, and Pruitt, the Oklahoma case challenging the rule, was filed that same year. Halbig was filed about a year after the rule was finalized, and King a few months later. In contrast, a modern challenge to the validity of the Second Amendment would come after more than 200 years during which its validity (as opposed to its meaning) was taken as indisputable.

Lets say that mandatory voting happened. Would it really change much in the Electoral College? Popular Vote yeah but EC.............

The south would still vote republican.

Here's an interesting blog post that says it may not have much of a partisan effect at all.

[P]olitical science research suggests that the partisan preferences of American nonvoters differ very little from those of people who vote in the status quo. Internationally, compulsory voting also has only relatively minor effects on partisan outcomes. It sometimes provides a modest boost to left-wing parties, but also is often a modest boon to far-right nationalist and racist parties. The political views of non-voters, however, do differ somewhat from those of people who do vote – but often in ways that American liberals would not be happy about.

In part because nonvoters tend to be less educated and more ignorant about politics than voters, they also tend to be more xenophobic, intolerant of racial and religious minorities, and more homophobic. They are more economically populist, as well, which translates into support for a larger welfare state, but also for various policies that go against basic economics 101 (including as understood by leading left-wing economists). If compulsory voting leads politicians to pay greater heed the the views of this group, the result will be policies that are more socially intolerant, more likely to be based on ignorance of economics, and more hostile to unpopular minority groups.

If there is any ideology that stands benefit from compulsory voting, it is relatively intolerant strains of big government social conservatism (the kinds of ideas associated with, e.g., Rick Santorum or Pat Buchanan in the US, or the National Front in France).

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Tedward Cruz will officially announce that he's entering the Presidential race on Monday.