• 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.
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
JKLYLkF.png


...

Webb in the lead of the nephews
Lessig not only above 0%, but above Chafee and O'Malley

Really hope they let him into the next debate. Sure he has a 0% chance to win the nomination but at this point everyone except Hillary has a 0% chance to win the nomination.

I know a lot of Democrats who don't like Hillary. I kind of feel like she gets by far the most hate from her own 'side' of anyone I can think of at the moment.

Only from the 18-29 age group, which might be shaping your perception if you mostly hang around that age group.
 
What is the 'boyfriend' equivalent to this? Because that's what my 'romantic' relationships look like.

Guy friend, I guess? Same concept though. Fuck buddy seems too crass since you do more than that I'm sure. We chill, have fun, and live our own lives.

Perfect for people like me who run from non-job related commitments. Maybe I'll grow up one day.
 

RDreamer

Member
Nah, Democrats by and large really like Hillary.

Mitch McConnell is absolutely the person most hated by their own party.

Obviously I'm talking anecdotally. The hate on Clinton that I've seen is kind of astounding to me.

Only from the 18-29 age group, which might be shaping your perception if you mostly hang around that age group.

Yeah that's likely it. My group of friends doesn't really stop at 29, but it doesn't go that terribly up in age. Probably like 18-40 or something is normal.
 
Really hope they let him into the next debate. Sure he has a 0% chance to win the nomination but at this point everyone except Hillary has a 0% chance to win the nomination.

Eh, I think we can throw Bernie a bone and say that he has a 1% chance.
Nah, you're right. Anyway, I agree that we should throw Lessig in the den and see how he dies.

Guy friend, I guess? Same concept though. Fuck buddy seems too crass since you do more than that I'm sure. We chill, have fun, and live our own lives.

Perfect for people like me who run from non-job related commitments. Maybe I'll grow up one day.

Growing up has nothing to do with it. Some people just have different preferences for what they want out of a relationship. And yes, my 'guy friends' are more than just fuck buddies. Though I certainly wouldn't consider any of them to be my boyfriend.
 
Growing up has nothing to do with it. Some people just have different preferences for what they want out of a relationship. And yes, my 'guy friends' are more than just fuck buddies. Though I certainly wouldn't consider any of them to be my boyfriend.

In my case it does, trust me.

I don't want a real girlfriend or relationship right now. What I have works pretty well. We had some recent issues but overall I feel good about it. Feels good seeing someone for a few days, having fun, enjoying each others company...and that's it. No demands, few expectations. Just "come thru." I'll take it.
 
In my case it does, trust me.

I don't want a real girlfriend or relationship right now. What I have works pretty well. We had some recent issues but overall I feel good about it. Feels good seeing someone for a few days, having fun, enjoying each others company...and that's it. No demands, few expectations. Just "come thru." I'll take it.

So you believe that you'll feel differently once you 'mature'? I mean, it's possible, but my point is maturity doesn't automatically lead to wanting to commit to a serious relationship. In fact, the opposite happened in my case. In my younger days, I was all about serious, monogamous relationships. After 'growing up' so to speak, I realized that I was merely conforming to social standards and that it wasn't really what I wanted.

If you feel that your situation is only temporary, more power to you. For me, I will happily live out the rest of my days without excess baggage.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Huh.

http://americansuppressorassociatio...ct-a-bill-to-remove-suppressors-from-the-nfa/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the introduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05). This historic piece of legislation will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015.

“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “The removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act has been our ultimate goal since day one. For months, we have worked alongside Rep. Salmon’s office and the National Rifle Association to craft this legislation. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working with Rep. Salmon and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”

Also known as silencers, suppressors are the hearing protection of the 21st century sportsman. Despite common Hollywood-based misconceptions, the laws of physics dictate that no suppressor will ever be able to render gunfire silent. Suppressors are simply mufflers for firearms, which function by trapping the expanding gasses at the muzzle, allowing them to slowly cool in a controlled environment. On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 – 35 decibels (dB), roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs. In addition to hearing protection, suppressors also mitigate noise complaints from those who live near shooting ranges and hunting lands.

Unfortunately, suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA regulates the transfer and possession of certain types of firearms and devices, including suppressors. Currently, prospective buyers must send in a Form 4 application to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax per suppressor, undergo the same background check that is required to purchase a machine gun, and wait months for the ATF to process and approve the paperwork. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use.

Rep. Salmon’s Hearing Protection Act will fix the flawed federal treatment of suppressors, making it easier for hunters and sportsmen to protect their hearing in the 41 states where private suppressor ownership is currently legal, and the 37 states where hunting with a suppressor is legal. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Trump apologizing for a "young intern" retweeting something. What was it?
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oh snap. Germany calling out Bibi.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34597283

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has re-affirmed her country's responsibility for the Holocaust, following controversial comments by Israel's prime minister.

Benjamin Netanyahu was criticised for saying Adolf Hitler had only wanted to expel Jews from Europe but that a Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, told him to "burn them."

Speaking at a joint news conference with Mr Netanyahu, Mrs Merkel said she was "very clear in [her] mind" that German soldiers were responsible.
 

FyreWulff

Member

Hahahaha that's such bullshit. Hunters don't need those and if anyone wants hearing protection they'll use earmuffs because it's fucking cold out there while they're hunting.

Another blatant bill on behalf of gun manufacturers, not owners.

As someone familiar guns I feel safe in saying I have never seen a fellow hunter actually want a suppressor. They're just tacticool bullshit and you're not allowed to discharge a gun within audible range of civilization in the first place.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
In sorry but the times spent the last 3 months saying biden was running. Why the hell should anyone believe their sources on this. It's clear their source has an ax to grind with clinton. None of that is "news"

Yeah, I hate 'inside sources' based articles. They generally read like fan fiction.
 
So you believe that you'll feel differently once you 'mature'? I mean, it's possible, but my point is maturity doesn't automatically lead to wanting to commit to a serious relationship. In fact, the opposite happened in my case. In my younger days, I was all about serious, monogamous relationships. After 'growing up' so to speak, I realized that I was merely conforming to social standards and that it wasn't really what I wanted.

If you feel that your situation is only temporary, more power to you. For me, I will happily live out the rest of my days without excess baggage.

Personally I think settling down and dealing with commitment is the end game. But I'm not there and actively avoid those topics, to the point of ruining past relationships. I could say I'm a scumbag based on how I've handled things in the past, and after realizing that I'm happier now. I was lucky to find someone who also isn't looking for anything serious, although she scared me recently with a "hey come meet some of my family members" thing, plus the general sense she's gaining feels. But it went well and we're still chilling.

Is it going to last? Probably not. But I've decided to live in the moment.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
No 50% majority so Edwards loses in the run-off?

He should lose going by the state's lean but Vitter is so negative in favoribility that the lean might not save him in a runoff. He is losing the runoff to Edwards in current polling.

For Edwards to win the runoff the people who would have voted for Vitter in a runoff stay home or vote for Edwards making his path with 30% of the white vote easier all while sub staining the R attack ads that are coming for him to make his ratings go down.

Tom and Hylian can also give you more incite since they also live here.
 
Hillary looks [understandably] tired. Having to put up with the bullshit being spewed from this panel must be physically exhausting when you factor in everything else she has to deal with right now.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of this hearing in theory, but in practice, it's nothing short of embarrassing. It's completely disingenuous and nearly insufferable, and it's clear that they're just trying to make her look bad.

I have to say though, I don't think Hillary is handling this as well as she should in terms of improving her public perception. As agitated as she may be, she needs to be a little less obvious about it and more straight-foward with her answers. Logically, her answers are fine, but perceptually, she may come across as dodgey and insincere at times, which may affect her favorability ratings, considering how publicized this testimony is.
 
Hillary looks [understandably] tired. Having to put up with the bullshit being spewed from this panel must be physically exhausting when you factor in everything else she has to deal with right now.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of this hearing in theory, but in practice, it's nothing short of embarrassing. It's completely disingenuous and nearly insufferable, and it's clear that they're just trying to make her look bad.

I have to say though, I don't think Hillary is handling this as well as she should in terms of improving her public perception. As agitated as she may be, she needs to be a little less obvious about it and more straight-foward with her answers. Logically, her answers are fine, but perceptually, she may come across as dodgey and insincere at times, which may affect her favorability ratings, considering how publicized this testimony is.

All media cares about is if there is a 30 second clip they can play.
 
Honestly at this point the panel is such a farce that her agitation works more in her benefit than detriment. But at the end of the day the people who hate her will continue to do so, and those who like/tolerate her will continue to do so. There's not much "middle" to fight over here.

Also I saw a poll that showed most people think the committee is politically motivated.

The GOP should have just let the FBI finish their investigation.
 

teiresias

Member
The polls already show most of the public view these as politically motivated. I certainly don't think the Republicans have done themselves any favors thus far today in alleviating that perception, and I think it may actually help that she treats this as most people already view it - an illegitimate exercise.
 
Honestly at this point the panel is such a farce that her agitation works more in her benefit than detriment. But at the end of the day the people who hate her will continue to do so, and those who like/tolerate her will continue to do so. There's not much "middle" to fight over here.

Also I saw a poll that showed most people think the committee is politically motivated.

The GOP should have just let the FBI finish their investigation.

[to the bolded] That may be the case with people invested in politics, but I'm not so sure that's the case with the general populace. I just think she could be a little more prudent with her responses. No reason to potentially make things worse for yourself, other than simply not giving a fuck.
 
[to the bolded] That may be the case with people invested in politics, but I'm not so sure that's the case with the general populace. I just think she could be a little more prudent with her responses. No reason to potentially make things worse for yourself, other than simply not giving a fuck.

No average American is actually watching this. At best, they'll read a generic news story about it tomorrow and maybe a short clip or two online of the most marketable lines/moments. Same thing with debates. You testify for a whole day and you're not going to answer every question as perfectly as possible.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
No average American is actually watching this. At best, they'll read a generic news story about it tomorrow and maybe a short clip or two online of the most marketable lines/moments. Same thing with debates. You testify for a whole day and you're not going to answer every question as perfectly as possible.

Except 35% of the population will be viewing the spliced together, "Make Hillary look as bad as possible" Fox News recap of the events repeatedly for months. That actually does have an effect.
 
Except 35% of the population will be viewing the spliced together, "Make Hillary look as bad as possible" Fox News recap of the events repeatedly for months. That actually does have an effect.

Yeah, but she's testifying for 5-6 hours. You can't answer every question with such perfection as to render it impossible to manipulate under those circumstances. You're also going to have pro-Hillary cuts in contrast. The overall media narrative about the hearings is what drives people's opinions and that's going to remain the same, it's not really controllable.
 
No average American is actually watching this. At best, they'll read a generic news story about it tomorrow and maybe a short clip or two online of the most marketable lines/moments. Same thing with debates. You testify for a whole day and you're not going to answer every question as perfectly as possible.

It's impossible to know, but personally, I wouldn't chance it. Also, if I was under public scrutiny, I would absolutely be very careful with my responses. I certainly wouldn't take the approach that Hillary's taking.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she's doing terribly, but I just think it would be in her best interest to put herself in the best light possible in situations like this.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
The polls already show most of the public view these as politically motivated. I certainly don't think the Republicans have done themselves any favors thus far today in alleviating that perception, and I think it may actually help that she treats this as most people already view it - an illegitimate exercise.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ed7bfe-7830-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html

The same poll that shows people think this is a partisan attack also give Hillary's approval of handling Benghazi at 35% approve and 54% disapprove.

Pelosi on Axelrod's podcast said that Republicans are leaving a hole in the middle that democrats need to fill up, but these types of things is basically salting the earth in the middle. It doesn't matter if the people in the middle hate you if you've convinced them to hate the other side too.
 

Diablos

Member
lol @ CSPAN caller. Hillary has to take responsibility for everybody.

Except Obama was the President when it happened and still is, dumbshit
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Good news!

Nearly three in four Americans say the House Select Committee on Benghazi is mostly using its investigation to score political points, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

Seventy-two percent said the panel is being used to score political points, compared to 23 percent who said it was carrying out an objective probe of the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya..

..and bad news:

Meanwhile, a slim majority, 51 percent, say Republicans have handled the hearings appropriately, up from 48 percent in late May and early June.

Good job, American people.
 
Does anyone else remember an article after the Dem debate about statistics regarding awareness of it? I remember it breaking down what percentage of Americans actually watched, heard about it later, saw clips online, etc but I can't seem to find it online (did I dream this?). I think it was something like only 25% of those who saw at least portion of the debate actually watched it live/directly and the vast majority just read about it in news articles or saw a clip online.
 
Also, Scott Walker is such an inspiring leader that a month after urging more GOP candidates to drop out of the race, a total of zero have dropped out of the race.

Jindal's only moments on television came after a mass shooting in his state and him calling the grief-stricken father of a shooter a loser (only because the father wanted more gun control) and he has no money and he's still in the race.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Obama just issued his 5th veto. This time on the National Defense Authorization Act.

White house saying they don't want to sign it until the sequestration is removed, and Republicans are already trying to frame it as Obama not caring about defense and wanting to spend that money on his "domestic agenda" instead.
 
Except 35% of the population will be viewing the spliced together, "Make Hillary look as bad as possible" Fox News recap of the events repeatedly for months. That actually does have an effect.

None of those people were ever going to not vote Republican anyway, I'm not sure why you think this matters.
 
Except 35% of the population will be viewing the spliced together, "Make Hillary look as bad as possible" Fox News recap of the events repeatedly for months. That actually does have an effect.

lol, don't give cable news that much credit. As much as Fox News likes to talk about being the "most watched cable news network," you're still talking about <5% of the population watching it. Closer to 1% daily, really.

Their ratings aren't great in the grand scheme of things. That's why they have shitty old people commercials and not a ton of commercials for new movies, coke, iphone, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom