• 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.
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Well it's the same as some Republicans suddenly viewing civil unions as an acceptable alternative. When Democrats like Kerry and even Obama were pushing for civil unions they were vilified for it by Republicans who said it was just as bad as gay marriage. Now the tide has greatly turned against them and they want civil unions - they'll say in the same sentence that they personally don't even support civil unions and wouldn't vote in favor of them, they'd just rather have that than see their precious sanctity of marriage desecrated.

They lost, now they're bargaining. If only Scott Walker could take that away too.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
"It's not a tough sell to current seniors or people about to enter the system because this won't affect them," Christie said in that interview "We're going to phase this in over a good period of time. But I also don't believe that the grandmothers and grandfathers of this country want to see these programs destroyed for their grandchildren. I think they care about the future of this country and the future of their grandchildren."
Click to expand...

I mean, they clearly don't, but whatever.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
But nope, adult children and grandchildren can you pay into this system that will only benefit me because we're going to yank it out from under you when I die?
Click to expand...

I do wish that some upper branch politician would just drop the pretense that any of these programs is still operating under some sort of gold standard. That'd be nice. Also would finally start moving the rethoric towards avoiding people that defend superavits on a federal level like the plague.

would also prolly be political suicide, but w/e
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
RustyNails said:
Obama needs to LBJ the fuck out of every Dem senator trying to backstab him on the Iran deal.
Click to expand...

I think he'll get aggressive in some way. We might not see all of it, but I can't imagine he'll roll over on this.

Nor will Kerry. The lack of respect this shows for Kerry is even more disturbing than the lack of respect it shows for Obama, considering Kerry's long tenure in the Senate.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
RustyNails said:
Obama needs to LBJ the fuck out of every Dem senator trying to backstab him on the Iran deal.
Click to expand...

The current bill does nothing but say that Congress could do something if it wanted to. If the Dems were willing to fuck over Obama and the deal then that's what would be happening right now instead of a meaningless vote.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Ready for Warren is still trying to get Warren to run. I dont get the hype about Warren. Has to be a extremely small percentage of hard core democrats.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
BertramCooper said:
I think he'll get aggressive in some way. We might not see all of it, but I can't imagine he'll roll over on this.

Nor will Kerry. The lack of respect this shows for Kerry is even more disturbing than the lack of respect it shows for Obama, considering Kerry's long tenure in the Senate.
Click to expand...

McCain's comments were especially stunning. To undercut the Sec of State and side with the Iranian Ayatollah's spin of the nuke deal...this is either one brilliant, unified game of chess, or blatant sabotage.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
B-Dubs said:
The current bill does nothing but say that Congress could do something if it wanted to. If the Dems were willing to fuck over Obama and the deal then that's what would be happening right now instead of a meaningless vote.
Click to expand...
It is still an attempt to meddle with executive powers and by extension Obama's legacy. All your hardwork for the past 6 years, millions of racked up frequent flyer miles, sleepless nights, diplomatic wrangling and a grand P5+1 game of texas poker. Now only to be in the hands of troglodytes that cannnot point Iran on a map. Kerry and Obama have to be fuming.
 
K

KingK

Member
Hillary talking in Iowa right now and she's actually sounding like a real progressive. If she keeps this up I'll be impressed.

B-Dubs said:
The current bill does nothing but say that Congress could do something if it wanted to. If the Dems were willing to fuck over Obama and the deal then that's what would be happening right now instead of a meaningless vote.
Click to expand...
I said this in the Iran thread, but democrats who want to kill the deal would have incentive to wait until it's actualy finished to avoid some of the backlash from their base. By passing this and waiting until June to kill it, they can claim they gave Obama a chance and that it just ended up being a bad deal. You and APK seem convinced they're doing this as political cover from the right/doners, but it might be for cover from the left. I really hope I'm wrong.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Hillary is basically spelling out her platform at this Iowa roundtable with students (in a garage?):

Luke Russert ‏@LukeRussert 5m5 minutes ago
HRC's 4 points--more robust economy, strengthen families, fix political system--get money out, protect our country
Click to expand...

Chris Cillizza ‏@TheFix 11m11 minutes ago
Clinton says campaign finance reform is one of her "4 big fights" in this campaign. Interesting.
Click to expand...
 
Y

Yellowtail

Member
One of Hillary's 4 pillars: To get "unaccountable money out of politics once and for all -- even if it takes a constitutional amendment"
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Yellowtail said:
One of Hillary's 4 pillars: To get "unaccountable money out of politics once and for all -- even if it takes a constitutional amendment"
Click to expand...

It's a bone to throw liberals, because such a constitutional amendment would never happen. I guess they could work on weakening the scope of Citizens United, though.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
ivysaur12 said:
It's a bone to throw liberals, because such a constitutional amendment would never happen. I guess they could work on weakening the scope of Citizens United, though.
Click to expand...

Always talk further out than the max reality will bear so that when reality happens it looks like a good compromise between ideal and nothing. At least that's what I learned about campaign politics and subsequent actions.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
It's a bone to throw liberals, because such a constitutional amendment would never happen. I guess they could work on weakening the scope of Citizens United, though.
Click to expand...

If memory serves, CU has ample rejection on both sides of the political spectrum (and i quite doubt that moderates look at it favorably). By pushing this talking point, it forces republicans to take a stance, and there are no downsides from whatever stance they take. At best, they'll agree to review it, and then you can demand such action from the current congress. At worst, they'll oppose it, at which point you can attack their defense of legalized bribery.

Can't see any negatives, really.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
KingK said:
I said this in the Iran thread, but democrats who want to kill the deal would have incentive to wait until it's actualy finished to avoid some of the backlash from their base. By passing this and waiting until June to kill it, they can claim they gave Obama a chance and that it just ended up being a bad deal. You and APK seem convinced they're doing this as political cover from the right/doners, but it might be for cover from the left. I really hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

This is a possibility, we can't ignore that, but I feel like this bill would have at least one tooth if this was going to be the case.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Coriolanus said:
If memory serves, CU has ample rejection on both sides of the political spectrum (and i quite doubt that moderates look at it favorably). By pushing this talking point, it forces republicans to take a stance, and there are no downsides from whatever stance they take. At best, they'll agree to review it, and then you can demand such action from the current congress. At worst, they'll oppose it, at which point you can attack their defense of legalized bribery.

Can't see any negatives, really.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, me neither. I was sort of just eyerolling at, "even if it takes a constitutional amendment!"
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Clinton's first event in Iowa seems to be a success. Instant polling of Democrats, Independents and Republicans seems to agree as well.

I think Hillary has a chance at capturing that Reagan magic where even Republicans might be able to convince themselves to vote for her, much like Reagan Democrats. Of course, the country is so polarized I don't think she'll do more than like, Obama 08 but that would still be highly impressive.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
24538031-E33A-4860-B6C7-F59E76C543D1.png.jpeg
Click to expand...

I was wondering if they'd save this for later in the campaign, or maybe with events featuring Bill.

It may mean nothing, or it could be a signpost of what's up ahead..

(Edit: sorry, Mamba! Haha..)
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
In some ways it kind of blows my mind that there's not more bipartisan support for campaign finance reform.

I mean, from most accounts, the current system makes life hell for members of Congress, having to constantly fundraise. Wouldn't they like a bit of relief from that burden? Is everyone is so used to the status quo that the thought of change frightens them?

Outside of campaign finance reform, I wish there were more discussion of expanding House terms to four years. Everyone likes talking about term limits, but I think four-year terms would ultimately be more beneficial.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
BertramCooper said:
In some ways it kind of blows my mind that there's not more bipartisan support for campaign finance reform.

I mean, from most accounts, the current system makes life hell for members of Congress, having to constantly fundraise. Wouldn't they like a bit of relief from that burden? Is everyone is so used to the status quo that the thought of change frightens them?

Outside of campaign finance reform, I wish there were more discussion of expanding House terms to four years. Everyone likes talking about term limits, but I think four-year terms would ultimately be more beneficial.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda split on term limits. I think the main desire to start term limits is to prevent the fuckery that campaign finance causes. Strictly limit campaign finance and less people are beholden to the hand that feeds them. The whole debate over congressional experience is a good one too IMO. If a congressmen deserves a continued vote he should get it and his experience should benefit him.

I think there's a lot of play across both parties for reform. Nobody makes noise about it though. The media doesn't drive the nation into a fervor about it and the politicians aren't going to snub their funds until forced. There's no immediate reason for them to change. I think in the short terms it's mostly just risk.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
BertramCooper said:
In some ways it kind of blows my mind that there's not more bipartisan support for campaign finance reform.

I mean, from most accounts, the current system makes life hell for members of Congress, having to constantly fundraise. Wouldn't they like a bit of relief from that burden? Is everyone is so used to the status quo that the thought of change frightens them?

Outside of campaign finance reform, I wish there were more discussion of expanding House terms to four years. Everyone likes talking about term limits, but I think four-year terms would ultimately be more beneficial.
Click to expand...

There was. Until the court weakened any chance of that

Remember mccain fiengold?
 
T

Trouble

Banned
BertramCooper said:
In some ways it kind of blows my mind that there's not more bipartisan support for campaign finance reform.

I mean, from most accounts, the current system makes life hell for members of Congress, having to constantly fundraise. Wouldn't they like a bit of relief from that burden? Is everyone is so used to the status quo that the thought of change frightens them?

Outside of campaign finance reform, I wish there were more discussion of expanding House terms to four years. Everyone likes talking about term limits, but I think four-year terms would ultimately be more beneficial.
Click to expand...

There used to be.

I agree on the four year terms for the house. As it is right now their primary jobs are campaigning. Four year house terms that align with Presidential elections would benefits Dems, if they were off years they would benefit Republicans, so I can't see it changing anytime soon.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
BertramCooper said:
In some ways it kind of blows my mind that there's not more bipartisan support for campaign finance reform.

I mean, from most accounts, the current system makes life hell for members of Congress, having to constantly fundraise. Wouldn't they like a bit of relief from that burden? Is everyone is so used to the status quo that the thought of change frightens them?

Outside of campaign finance reform, I wish there were more discussion of expanding House terms to four years. Everyone likes talking about term limits, but I think four-year terms would ultimately be more beneficial.
Click to expand...

Is that the case? It would be interesting reading.

And I don't mean that they spend a large amount of time fundraising, because I felt like they also did it before Citizen's United.

I also wonder if politicians would rather keep the system as is and be responsive to fewer less fickle corporate donors and interests that bankroll them, rather than revert to a more populist funding scheme where they would actually be accountable to their small fry constituents and more subject to getting kicked out.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
BertramCooper said:
I mean, from most accounts, the current system makes life hell for members of Congress, having to constantly fundraise. Wouldn't they like a bit of relief from that burden? Is everyone is so used to the status quo that the thought of change frightens them?
Click to expand...
What's next? Letting them vote how they want? Not using committee seats and chairmanships as rewards?

You sicken me.

Coriolanus said:
At worst, they'll oppose it, at which point you can attack their defense of legalized bribery.
Click to expand...
It's not bribery if someone offers you something to buy and you pay for it.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
BertramCooper said:
In some ways it kind of blows my mind that there's not more bipartisan support for campaign finance reform.

I mean, from most accounts, the current system makes life hell for members of Congress, having to constantly fundraise. Wouldn't they like a bit of relief from that burden? Is everyone is so used to the status quo that the thought of change frightens them?
Click to expand...

The politicians in power are the ones who are really good at fundraising. Limiting their own ability to fundraise takes an important tool out of their arsenal that could otherwise be used to defend their seats.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
benjipwns said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ing-existence-of-a-member-of-congress/277227/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washingtons-open-secret-profitable-pacs/
Click to expand...
I also recall a really good episode of This American Life on the subject a few years ago.

EDIT: Which I see you included. Derp.

ivysaur12 said:
But what if she didn't get guac today?
Click to expand...

What if she got guac, didn't get charged for it, and neglected to tell the cashier? What a scandal that would be.

(That actually happened to me at lunch today. Score.)
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
BertramCooper said:
I also recall a really good episode of This American Life on the subject a few years ago.

EDIT: Which I see you included. Derp.



What if she got guac, didn't get charged for it, and neglected to tell the cashier? What a scandal that would be.

(That actually happened to me at lunch today. Score.)
Click to expand...

Chipotle charges for guacamole?

Pssh.

Qdoba > Chipotle in every imaginable way.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
Trouble said:
There used to be.

I agree on the four year terms for the house. As it is right now their primary jobs are campaigning. Four year house terms that align with Presidential elections would benefits Dems, if they were off years they would benefit Republicans, so I can't see it changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Why not 6 so they alternate?
 
F

Future PhaZe

Member
got into an argument with a democrat friend who suggested that obama isn't great at politicking and hopes to see a huge makeover of the democratic party in 16

what are your thoughts poligaf? I thought he was being a little dismissive of Bams' accomplishments. I see his tenure as being quite successful.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
Future PhaZe said:
got into an argument with a democrat friend who suggested that obama isn't great at politicking and hopes to see a huge makeover of the democratic party in 16

what are your thoughts poligaf? I thought he was being a little dismissive of Bams' accomplishments. I see his tenure as being quite successful.
Click to expand...

Kind of agree. Obama's accomplishments have mostly been through regulation by letter and administrative action. They'll only last until someone with a different policy agenda takes the chair. That's not to say he hasn't accomplished anything of note. Nobody is going to reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell or anything. Aside from the ACA, though, you can't say he has much in terms of actual legislative accomplishments.
 
C

Cat

Member
Future PhaZe said:
got into an argument with a democrat friend who suggested that obama isn't great at politicking and hopes to see a huge makeover of the democratic party in 16

what are your thoughts poligaf? I thought he was being a little dismissive of Bams' accomplishments. I see his tenure as being quite successful.
Click to expand...

I learned some things from this article when I first read it, but it overall sums up a lot about how I feel too:

Rolling Stone - In Defense of Obama by Paul Krugman

I think he's been quite successful too.
 
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