• 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 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Butts-a-plenty

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
And this is the man Pinko is afraid of.
Click to expand...

scott-walker.jpg
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Matt Yglesias is saying dumb things again:

Matt Yglesias said:
From her adventures in cattle trading to chairing a policymaking committee in her husband's White House to running for Senate in a state she'd never lived in to her effort to use superdelegates to overturn 2008 primary results to her email servers, Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.

This is normally portrayed as a political weakness of hers, and in many ways it is. She can't credibly portray herself as the kind of outsider who's going to clean up a broken and corrupt Washington system, because she is very much a part of that system and has been for years.

But it's also an enormous source of potential strength. Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods. More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.

Liberals need an iron fist in the White House to make progress

Democrats have almost no chance of securing a majority in the US Senate and even worse odds of securing a majority in the House. So if there is a future for making progressive policy, that future is executive action.

. . .

But she truly is the perfect leader for America's moment of permanent constitutional crisis: a person who cares more about results than process, who cares more about winning the battle than being well-liked, and a person who believes in asking what she can get away with rather than what would look best. In other words, as nervous as the rumblings of scandal around her emails make many Democrats, the exact same qualities that led to the server drama are the ones that, if she wins, will make her capable of delivering on the party's priorities in a way few others could.
Click to expand...

It takes a special kind of hackery to transform "she doesn't care about the law" into a positive attribute. And what Yglesias calls "the perfect leader for America's moment of permanent constitutional crisis" is completely backwards. The perfect leader would be the one who recognizes that he or she can't get what he or she wants by executive fiat, but must work with Congress to accomplish whatever he or she can get. If that's nothing, too bad--the solution is to win more elections, not to ignore the elections you've lost. Preserving the system of checks-and-balances is more important than "making progressive policy" (or socialist policy or conservative policy or libertarian policy, for that matter).
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Matt Yglesias is saying dumb things again:



It takes a special kind of hackery to transform "she doesn't care about the law" into a positive attribute. And what Yglesias calls "the perfect leader for America's moment of permanent constitutional crisis" is completely backwards. The perfect leader would be the one who recognizes that he or she can't get what he or she wants by executive fiat, but must work with Congress to accomplish whatever he or she can get. If that's nothing, too bad--the solution is to win more elections, not to ignore the elections you've lost. Preserving the system of checks-and-balances is more important than "making progressive policy" (or socialist policy or conservative policy or libertarian policy, for that matter).
Click to expand...

This is an ideological choice and a desire for certain policy outcomes, don't pretend like its shared or people hold your premise. Never mind there still are the courts, congress can still block these orders, etc. This isn't even a revolutionary call and its been a constant for years.

And I think its silly how much constitutional conservatives who preach the wisdom of old dead men who constantly pointed out how systems should be changed, never mind the fact that they blew up the old system because it wasn't getting them what they wanted. The system isn't working for anyone who doesn't believe in some idea of "centrism".

He's not advocating "breaking the law" he's saying we need a more creative way of using political power within the system, designed to push it. Not that I think clinton is a great example of that or how the email stuff relates to it at all.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
This is an ideological choice and a desire for certain policy outcomes don't pretend like its shared or people hold your premise. Never mind there still are the courts, congress can still block these orders, etc. This isn't even a revolutionary call and its been a constant for years.

And I think its silly how much constitutional conservatives who preach the wisdom of old dead men who constantly pointed out how systems should be changed, never mind the fact that they blew up the old system because it wasn't getting them what they wanted. The system isn't working for anyone who doesn't believe in some idea of "centrism".
Click to expand...

I do agree with Meta here. We probably give more latitude towards people on our "team", but people's favorite party won't always be in power. While I do think the system we've established to elect representatives of the people's will through a first-past-the-post system might not be the most effective in 2015, ignoring that system and the rule of law is ridiculous because it's all we have.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Matt Yglesias is saying dumb things again:

It takes a special kind of hackery to transform "she doesn't care about the law" into a positive attribute. And what Yglesias calls "the perfect leader for America's moment of permanent constitutional crisis" is completely backwards. The perfect leader would be the one who recognizes that he or she can't get what he or she wants by executive fiat, but must work with Congress to accomplish whatever he or she can get. If that's nothing, too bad--the solution is to win more elections, not to ignore the elections you've lost. Preserving the system of checks-and-balances is more important than "making progressive policy" (or socialist policy or conservative policy or libertarian policy, for that matter).
Click to expand...

At some point in his career, Yglesias really internalized the #slatepitch.

That said, I don't really agree with you with regards to the ongoing constitutional crisis. Part of the reason we're in this situation is that Congress has become incapable, not merely of passing new legislation, but of engaging in the basic work necessary to keep the government from shutting down and the debt ceiling collapsing on us. This is a very real violation of constitutional norms, and it's inevitable that the interactions between the branches would change as a result -- and that ends up legitimizing executive action in order to "enact" less critical but still generally popularly supported legislation. That's certainly not ideal, but nobody is responsible for the delegitimization of Congress but Congress.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
pigeon said:
This is a very real violation of constitutional norms, and it's inevitable that the interactions between the branches would change as a result -- and that ends up legitimizing executive action in order to "enact" less critical but still generally popularly supported legislation. That's certainly not ideal, but nobody is responsible for the delegitimization of Congress but Congress.
Click to expand...

No one is responsible for that but the electorate.

Which does a good job of showing the flaws of the system, tbqh. Needs an update.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
NYCmetsfan said:
This is an ideological choice and a desire for certain policy outcomes, don't pretend like its shared or people hold your premise. Never mind there still are the courts, congress can still block these orders, etc. This isn't even a revolutionary call and its been a constant for years.

And I think its silly how much constitutional conservatives who preach the wisdom of old dead men who constantly pointed out how systems should be changed, never mind the fact that they blew up the old system because it wasn't getting them what they wanted. The system isn't working for anyone who doesn't believe in some idea of "centrism".

He's not advocating "breaking the law" he's saying we need a more creative way of using political power within the system, designed to push it. Not that I think clinton is a great example of that or how the email stuff relates to it at all.
Click to expand...

Checks and balances shouldn't be up for debate--certainly not unless we amend the Constitution that imposes that system. To abandon the system is to abandon the pre-political compromise that holds the nation together--we may all disagree about what the law should be, but we have already agreed on how the law should be made. And while it favors the status quo, that status quo may be liberal, conservative, socialist, or what-have-you--it doesn't favor one political ideology over another.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Of course one can always pivot on that point and argue that the Executive should push against those barriers and try to get away with doing as much as it can. If other branches have a problem with that, they're free to try to prevent it. Checks and balances would still be present.

Plus if the president does it, that means it's not illegal.

NeoXChaos said:
what would you propose?
Click to expand...

I'm big on term limits, but whatever has been studied and shown to be most effective at decreasing corruption, really.
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
Yellowtail said:
Chafee's been highlighting Hillary's scandals and warmongering all year.




Hillz better be ready to be explain her cattle futures and missing Rose Law Firm billing records on stage in front of millions because he's coming for blood.
Click to expand...

Can the Democrats kick this asshole out of the party?
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Checks and balances shouldn't be up for debate--certainly not unless we amend the Constitution that imposes that system. To abandon the system is to abandon the pre-political compromise that holds the nation together--we may all disagree about what the law should be, but we have already agreed on how the law should be made. And while it favors the status quo, that status quo may be liberal, conservative, socialist, or what-have-you--it doesn't favor one political ideology over another.
Click to expand...

What?

This is pretty silly as the check and balances system has been in flux since the beginning of the country. The supreme court constantly updates this and changes it up.

And I don't have a problem with upseting the balance a bit more. With a democratically elected president I don't know why we have to have congress be the source of so much. Especially when its undemocratic.

And I don't see using executive action (which the congress if it so desires can end) which many times is expressly granted by legislation is upsetting this balance.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Coriolanus said:
Of course one can always pivot on that point and argue that the Executive should push against those barriers and try to get away with doing as much as it can. If other branches have a problem with that, they're free to try to prevent it. Checks and balances would still be present.

Plus if the president does it, that means it's not illegal.
Click to expand...

This is my point, we still have the courts and congress to stop this. I don't know how this is the end of checks and balances. it seems like blaming the other party for its own incapability of governing and effectively using its power
 
U

User 406

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
what would you propose?

electorate gonna electorate.

Congress gonna Congress.
Click to expand...

Instant runoff voting, mandatory voting, all elections aligned on four year terms, expand Election Day to Election Week, and bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

That would at the very least give us a more accurate picture of just how collectively stupid we are, and how best to tune our forthcoming AI zookeepers.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
what would you propose?
Click to expand...

I mean, not to benjipwn all over this conversation, but the American presidential government system really is kind of a mess. People elect a head of state every four years to take actions they're constitutionally enjoined from taking by the other people that also got elected. Then you wonder why people have low confidence in the government's ability to get things done.

Juan Linz wrote about this a year or two ago -- presidential systems are extremely unstable relative to parliamentary systems. There's just way too much incentive and opportunity for the president to seize additional power, kind of like, you know, what Metapkmetsfan* is posting about right now. America's the only presidential democracy to survive as long as it has, and (benjipwns again) that's at least partially because of our good luck in selecting presidents who assumed dictatorial power during times of war but actually turned it back over when the war ended. We're 3 for 3 on not accidentally becoming a monarchy, but it's not, like, because our system naturally tends against it.



* Too far?
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
But what is a monarch if not a representative without term limits, really? If the people ever become dissatisfied with one's rule, they can always depose that person. Checks and balances are still present under that system.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
pigeon said:
I mean, not to benjipwn all over this conversation, but the American presidential government system really is kind of a mess. People elect a head of state every four years to take actions they're constitutionally enjoined from taking by the other people that also got elected. Then you wonder why people have low confidence in the government's ability to get things done.

Juan Linz wrote about this a year or two ago -- presidential systems are extremely unstable relative to parliamentary systems. There's just way too much incentive and opportunity for the president to seize additional power, kind of like, you know, what Metapkmetsfan* is posting about right now. America's the only presidential democracy to survive as long as it has, and (benjipwns again) that's at least partially because of our good luck in selecting presidents who assumed dictatorial power during times of war but actually turned it back over when the war ended. We're 3 for 3 on not accidentally becoming a monarchy, but it's not, like, because our system naturally tends against it.



* Too far?
Click to expand...
I guess we're skipping FDR's brutal communist dictatorship then?
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
Plinko said:
You're preaching to the choir. I said on here months ago that he could win a general election.

Here's the new gem:
Click to expand...

Carson has not taken a single punch in this election cycle. Not one. If Don is teflon, Carson is Floyd Mayweather. He may float like a butterfly in the primary, but in the GE he'll sting like a butterfly, just like Floyd, and the EC isn't boxing's ridiculous points system.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Bobby Jindal is screaming desperately into the void, praying someone hears him:

“Let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon,” Jindal said. “This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns.”

Jindal continued his personal attack on the killer’s father.

“Of course he doesn’t know,” Jindal said. “You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here.”

“He brags that he has never held a gun in his life and that he had no idea that his son had any guns,” Jindal continued. “Why didn’t he know? Because he failed to raise his son. He should be ashamed of himself, and he owes us all an apology.”
Click to expand...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/bob...oters-anti-gun-dad-he-owes-us-all-an-apology/
 
M

Makai

Member
j_k_redtail said:
Now to be fair (and I know I was the original linker) -- he could mean the "next memorial of this shooting."
Click to expand...
From the context of the video, I think he's saying, "I'm not going because I'm busy, but the people don't want me (or any other politician) to go anyway."
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
NeoXChaos said:
One wise lefty once told me "The only difference between Hillary and the Republicans is merely negotiating lubricant" & that "a vote to a subpar candidate is to be complicit in their mediocrity."
Click to expand...

He's somewhat correct, though I'd rather be complicit in mediocrity than be an accomplice of the horrible.

Though at this point, having any belief in governance at all sets you plenty apart from republicans, outside of the belief in the government supporting corporate interests and killing people in the middle east.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
i don't believe one of you are honestly worried about ben carson in any way at all (other than a symptom of the right's broken priorities). i don't believe your concern at. all.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
PantherLotus said:
i don't believe one of you are honestly worried about ben carson in any way at all (other than a symptom of the right's broken priorities). i don't believe your concern at. all.
Click to expand...

Democratic voter calmness meter from most calm to least calm:

"We're fucked."
"This story is going to do [Hillary/Bill] Clinton in."
"We need to start thinking about Al Gore running."
"The Dems will never win again."
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
pigeon said:
I mean, not to benjipwn all over this conversation, but the American presidential government system really is kind of a mess. People elect a head of state every four years to take actions they're constitutionally enjoined from taking by the other people that also got elected. Then you wonder why people have low confidence in the government's ability to get things done.

Juan Linz wrote about this a year or two ago -- presidential systems are extremely unstable relative to parliamentary systems. There's just way too much incentive and opportunity for the president to seize additional power, kind of like, you know, what Metapkmetsfan* is posting about right now. America's the only presidential democracy to survive as long as it has, and (benjipwns again) that's at least partially because of our good luck in selecting presidents who assumed dictatorial power during times of war but actually turned it back over when the war ended. We're 3 for 3 on not accidentally becoming a monarchy, but it's not, like, because our system naturally tends against it.



* Too far?
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating taking additional power. I'm advocating they do what the law gives them power to do and which they've never done.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Democratic voter calmness meter from most calm to least calm:

"We're fucked."
"This story is going to do [Hillary/Bill] Clinton in."
"We need to start thinking about Al Gore running."
"The Dems will never win again."
Click to expand...

I think "The Dems will never win again." needs to be above "We need to start thinking about Al Gore running."
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
ivysaur12 said:
I do agree with Meta here. We probably give more latitude towards people on our "team", but people's favorite party won't always be in power. While I do think the system we've established to elect representatives of the people's will through a first-past-the-post system might not be the most effective in 2015, ignoring that system and the rule of law is ridiculous because it's all we have.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the rest of the argument, I would think all of PoliGAF would know by now that the GOP isn't going to be held to any of its criticisms of the Obama Administration since 2009, and frankly, what various state governments have done since 2010 should show you that any GOP win, even by one single vote, will be seen as a mandate to install every far-right policy imaginable and because the electorate is overworked, overstressed, and been lied to partially by both parties and the corporate media for decades, the GOP will largely get away with it.

We may or may not want Obama or Hillary to do something in office, but we shouldn't care about whether it'll give a possible Republican President an opening - because the GOP President is going to take the opening even if it didn't exist.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
JesseEwiak said:
Regardless of the rest of the argument, I would think all of PoliGAF would know by now that the GOP isn't going to be held to any of its criticisms of the Obama Administration since 2009, and frankly, what various state governments have done since 2010 should show you that any GOP win, even by one single vote, will be seen as a mandate to install every far-right policy imaginable and because the electorate is overworked, overstressed, and been lied to partially by both parties and the corporate media for decades, the GOP will largely get away with it.

We may or may not want Obama or Hillary to do something in office, but we shouldn't care about whether it'll give a possible Republican President an opening - because the GOP President is going to take the opening even if it didn't exist.
Click to expand...
Yuuuup. And the media is quite complicit in this. Bush won 286 EVs in 2004 and it was called a mandate. Obama won 332 EVs in 2012 and it was called yet another example of a polarized electorate.

The Republican Party has the country by the balls with this perception that they represent America's default party, even though the rapid demographic shifts make it hard to justify that status. This is partially why Democrats are afraid of going too far - even compromise measures like Obamacare are met with harsh punishment at the ballot box. The Republicans are currently in denial, thinking if they just double down on harsh immigration rhetoric, ignoring looming threats like climate change and catering to the Christian right that will only hear what they want to hear, they can win enough of the white vote that losing minorities 80-20 (or some equally gaudy amount) won't matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu 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