• 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.
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Supreme Court Blocks Native Hawaiian Election Vote Count. The vote was 5-4 with a conservative majority. The injunction, which prohibits "counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the [challenged] election" is not a decision on the merits of the case, and is temporary--it lasts until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issues its opinion in the case. I don't know enough about the specifics of the case or the arguments on either side to have an opinion about which side is right. I've seen people decry the election as racist (in that it discriminates between people based on ancestry), but the general response is that it's no different from Indian tribes having their own government structures, which sounds reasonable to me as an initial matter.
Click to expand...
I don't see why the U.S. Supreme Court should have a say in foreign elections. Has Hawai'i born Barack Hussein Obama weighed in on this matter or has he completely disowned his home nation?
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
benjipwns said:
I don't see why the U.S. Supreme Court should have a say in foreign elections. Has Hawai'i native and foreign citizen Barack Hussein Obama weighed in on this matter or has he completely disowned his home nation?
Click to expand...

You're confused.

You're thinking of Kenya.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Texas Sues to Block Syrian Refugees. I was under the impression that states were basically powerless to stop the resettlement of refugees within their borders, but Texas has come up with an argument that says otherwise. Here's the complaint (PDF) in the case, and below are some excerpts summarizing Texas' argument:
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem like a very long-sighted long suit. It's just asking for the terms of the contract to be met, not a permanent stoppage of refugees from resettlement in Texas.

Even if we're to take Texas's argument as wholly factual, that the Obama administration is not communicating frequently enough with the state and providing adequate details about each refugee, then the administration would just need to fulfill said contractual duties and the suit would become moot.

Metaphoreus said:
Also, I was unaware of this:
Click to expand...

The full order is a lot more detailed than the actual quotes on what defines "immaterial support". It's a lot more detailed than "among other things" suggests:

Background
Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, inter alia, renders inadmissible an alien who provides material
support, including insignificant material support, to an undesignated terrorist organization; a
member of such an organization; or to an individual the alien knows, or reasonably should know,
has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity. In turn, section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the INA
authorizes the Secretaries to exempt certain terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds.
Click to expand...

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...significant_Material_Support_PM_Effective.pdf

Establish that he or she has not provided material support to any individual who the
alien knew or reasonably should have known committed or planned to commit a
terrorist activity on behalf of a designated (Tier I or II) terrorist organization, as
described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, for which no other
exemption applies;
• Establish that he or she has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he
or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S.
citizens, or U.S. interests;
• Establish that he or she has not provided material support that the alien knew or
reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives,
or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;
• Establish that he or she has not provided material support in the form of military-type
training [as defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 2339D(c)(1)], for which
no other exemption applies;
• Establish that he or she has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but
not limited to providing material support to a designated (Tier I or II) terrorist
organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, for which
no other exemption applies; and
• Establish that he or she poses no danger to the safety and security of the United
States.
Click to expand...

1. Knowledge
The applicant must establish that he or she did not know and reasonably should not have
known that the support he or she provided could be directly used to engage in violent or
terrorist activity. Some support—such as providing any quantity of weapons, explosives, or
ammunition, or any similar military-type equipment or material—is specifically excluded
from consideration under this exemption. Additionally, any material support the applicant
knew or should have known could be used directly to engage in violent or terrorist activity is
also excluded from consideration under this exemption. Some support—for example,
providing food, water, or shelter—will generally not disqualify an applicant unless
circumstances warrant otherwise.

2. Intent
The applicant must establish that he or she did not intend to further an organization’s violent
or terrorist activities. All indications that an applicant intended to support terrorist or violent
activities should be considered. Intent and motive may be inferred from the applicant’s
statements and surrounding circumstances.

3. Activities Constituting Insignificant Material Support
The applicant must establish that the material support he or she provided was “insignificant.”
Material support is “insignificant” only if: (1) it is minimal in amount; and (2) the applicant
reasonably believed that it would be inconsequential in effect. Adjudicators will evaluate
whether the material support provided was minimal by considering its relative value,
fungibility, quantity and volume, and duration and frequency.
Click to expand...
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Still just weird so far, some people going to run with the Saudi thing though:
Syed Rizwan Farook joined dozens of his colleagues from San Bernardino County's public health department. Farook, an inspector, seemed quiet during the early hours of the event, then vanished just as a group photo was about to be taken.

Shortly afterward, gunfire erupted at the Inland Regional Center where the employees filled a conference room. By the end of the day, police had identified Farook, 28, as a suspect in the massacre and said he was one of two people shot to death in a gun battle with officers. The other was 27-year-old Tashfeen Malik, who a family member said was Farook's wife.

Police officials said Farook had worked for the county for five years. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said that there were reports of a dispute before Farook left the party.

...

They said Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with a new wife he had met online. The couple had a baby and appeared to be "living the American dream," said Patrick Baccari, a fellow health inspector who shared a cubicle with Farook.

Baccari and Christian Nwadike said Farook, who worked with them for several years, rarely started a conversation. But the tall, thin young man with a full beard was well liked and spent much of his time out in the field.

...

Reisinger said she heard that the office recently threw a baby shower for Farook and that he had taken paternity leave.
Click to expand...
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...ican-dream-co-workers-say-20151202-story.html
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
ivysaur12 said:
That doesn't seem like a very long-sighted long suit. It's just asking for the terms of the contract to be met, not a permanent stoppage of refugees from resettlement in Texas.

Even if we're to take Texas's argument as wholly factual, that the Obama administration is not communicating frequently enough with the state and providing adequate details about each refugee, then the administration would just need to fulfill said contractual duties and the suit would become moot.
Click to expand...

True enough, but it could still delay resettlements into Texas.

ivysaur12 said:
The full order is a lot more detailed than the actual quotes on what defines "immaterial support". It's a lot more detailed than "among other things" suggests:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...significant_Material_Support_PM_Effective.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for pulling that up. I figured Texas was glossing over the details, given that (1) I'd never heard of it before; (2) it doesn't factor into Texas' argument--it only appears in the "Factual Background" section of the complaint; and (3) they claim the waiver was meant to enable the president to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees, but his goal wasn't announced until September 2015, while the rule cited was promulgated in early 2014.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
True enough, but it could still delay resettlements into Texas.
Click to expand...

I guess if your goal is to delay until Trump's 2016 win, I suppose? It feels less-than-solid, and that's assuming everything Texas is saying about the communication between the federal government and Texas is true.

Metaphoreus said:
Thanks for pulling that up. I figured Texas was glossing over the details, given that (1) I'd never heard of it before; (2) it doesn't factor into Texas' argument--it only appears in the "Factual Background" section of the complaint; and (3) they claim the waiver was meant to enable the president to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees, but his goal wasn't announced until September 2015, while the rule cited was promulgated in early 2014.
Click to expand...

Ha, I didn't even notice the date. Yeesh.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Diablos said:
As I read posts here and on comment threads across the web it seems like many are Diablosing (or cheering if you're conservative) over the idea that this single incident just won the 2016 election for the GOP.

Ehhh...
Click to expand...
It's far more likely to have won Donald Trump the GOP nomination than it is to have any sort of impact on the general election.
 
C

Cerium

Member
So Trump is refusing to release his health records. His children have apparently expressed concern about his diet and lack of exercise.

Trump once said that all presidential candidates should release their medical records. But so far in the 2016 race, he has declined to release his, and a campaign spokeswoman has not responded to multiple requests for comment about the candidate’s health records stretching back to October.

While the health of a presidential candidate is always important, and nominees release their medical records as a matter of course, Trump’s age, diet and self-professed lack of workout regimen makes the issue more pressing in his case.

If elected, the businessman would take office at the age of 70, making him the oldest person ever to ascend to the presidency. Ronald Reagan was 69 at the time of his first inauguration.

Over the course of his presidential campaign, Trump has said that he does not exercise or play sports regularly and that he eats whatever he wants – a diet heavy on bacon and steak.

Hillary Clinton – who, at 68, is 16 months younger than Trump -- released a summary of her health records in July. Jeb Bush, 62, and Chris Christie, 53, each released records in October.
Click to expand...
Trump too has raised the issue of Clinton’s health. “You have a big health question. Will she be healthy?” he said in a 2013 interview. “You always have to think about health.”
Click to expand...
But Trump — whose father was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in his 80s — has not released any documentation supporting his self-assessment. Clinton’s physician, Lisa Bardack, wrote in her summary of the former secretary of state’s health: “She eats a diet rich in lean protein, vegetables and fruits. She exercises regularly, including yoga, swimming, walking and weight training.”

Trump’s children, meanwhile, have voiced concerns about their father’s eating habits.

Asked in November by Barbara Walters what she would change about her father, Trump’s daughter Ivanka responded, “I want him to eat healthier.” Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., seconded his younger sister. “I agree with that. I agree with that 100 percent,” he said.

Earlier last month, Trump detailed his eating habits and said on an episode of Bloomberg’s “With All Due Respect” that he paid no heed to reports about the healthiness of different foods.

“I love steak and hamburger and pasta and French fries, all of the things that we shouldn't be eating,” he said in a response to question about his favorite foods. Asked if there were foods he could not resist, Trump responded, “Yeah, bacon, eggs, steak. You hear a report that comes out, and it says you can't eat it and then you can, so I eat what I like.”

On the same episode, Trump revealed that he does not exercise much. “Do you ever exercise on the ice?” co-host John Heilemann asked Trump during a discussion of ice skating. “No, I run for office,” the candidate responded. “I play golf, I play tennis, I love sports. I don't have much time for exercising, but I do love sports.”

In a September profile in the New York Times Magazine, Trump said that he is not following a workout routine for his campaign but he considers delivering speeches to be a form of exercise in itself. “All my friends who work out all the time, they’re going for knee replacements, hip replacements — they’re a disaster,” he said.
Click to expand...
What medication, if any, Trump currently takes, remains unknown, though in the past, he has been an advocate of transparency. In 1999, as he toyed with a third-party presidential run, the businessman appeared on “Larry King Live,” where the host asked him, “Do all candidates owe us their medical reports?”

“I think so,” said Trump. “I think you don't want to get into a situation where you elect someone and then you find he's terminally ill and he'll be in office for about three more months.”
Click to expand...
 
M

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
ivysaur12 said:
I guess if your goal is to delay until Trump's 2016 win, I suppose? It feels less-than-solid, and that's assuming everything Texas is saying about the communication between the federal government and Texas is true.
Click to expand...

Didn't the John Oliver's piece on Last Week Tonight suggest that the average time from application to actually getting asylum is 18 months to 2 years?

That would put the majority of any Syrian refugee applicants on the other side of the Presidential election anyway.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Feeling good about my Jeb!!!! Pick. He will win the establishment lane in New Hampshire and then it will be a straight shot to the nomination as he outdoes everyone in the debates and then his super pac blankets America in pro-Jeb! Greatness.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Y2Kev said:
Feeling good about my Jeb!!!! Pick. He will win the establishment lane in New Hampshire and then it will be a straight shot to the nomination as he outdoes everyone in the debates and then his super pac blankets America in pro-Jeb! Greatness.
Click to expand...

I figure two, maybe three more wacky human moments of unfiltered Jeb factorial will finally tip the balance and earn him the love of the GOP base that he deserves. Dad and Dubya got it, it's not like there's something wrong with him, or that he's a disappointment or anything, it'll happen, he's good enough, it'll happen.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Diablos said:
Water boy down to single digits again? WHAT
Click to expand...

rOxdN.gif

"No, sir.. I don't like it."

The electorate, thus far, doesn't appear to be wanting anything resembling "establishment." These kinds of numbers.. I'm sure this doesn't help the party's internal panic. Tee-hee.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
ivysaur12 said:
This is your BEST CASE map if Trump is the nominee. As in, Hillary runs a mediocre campaign, the economy stalls, etc:

l6ynwhr.png


Here is Hillary's best case map. As in, she runs a flawless campaign, the economy continues to slowly improve, Obama runs at 46%-48% approval, Trump continues to be Trump and maybe says something so inflammatory about Hillary in public that it comes off as brazenly sexist:

2IRt8Ue.png


It would also mean that even Senate and House Republicans who were considered safe would face longer odds if their challengers could complete full sentences.
Click to expand...

too optimistic . I guess if you had a lot of moderates in those plains and southern states unwilling to support trump voting for Hillary or staying home they could happen.
 
B

Bel Marduk

Banned
There is NO way a Democrat, any Democrat, wins Georgia let alone South Carolina.

Arizona is pretty doubtful.

North Dakota, Missouri and Louisiana are all trending toward being more conservative.

Texas will be blue again but not in 2016.

Indiana, Montana and North Carolina are possible but would require a massive get out the vote effort and actual enthusiasm, which Hillary Clinton doesn't generate much of.



Thankfully, none of these states are required to win.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
NeoXChaos said:
too optimistic . I guess if you had a lot of moderates in those plains and southern states unwilling to support trump voting for Hillary or staying home they could happen.
Click to expand...

I agree. Trump's worst case scenario is probably closer to what Ivy pegged as Trump's best case. Trump's best case scenario is Romney's results, but this would require Hilary doing stupid things.
 
E

Ecotic

Member
Europe Central Bank just cut rates, announced stimulus. I wonder how long weakness in China and Europe can not drag down the U.S.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
I really think getting excited about that poll is a bit odd. It comes across as an outlier. NO ONE else is showing a Jeb bump and there is nothing to support and out of the blue huge jump for him.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Bel Marduk said:
There is NO way a Democrat, any Democrat, wins Georgia let alone South Carolina.

Arizona is pretty doubtful.

North Dakota, Missouri and Louisiana are all trending toward being more conservative.

Texas will be blue again but not in 2016.

Indiana, Montana and North Carolina are possible but would require a massive get out the vote effort and actual enthusiasm, which Hillary Clinton doesn't generate much of.



Thankfully, none of these states are required to win.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts. I think Hillary will lose Indiana and NC. It seems very likely that she could do as poorly as Obama with white voters, given the FUD spreading right now. Ultimately these are states that she doesn't need though.

A few years ago there was a general assumption Hillary would out-do Obama electorally; she was more popular, white, and while we knew her negatives would rise it wasn't really the largest concern. But after multiple scandals and early campaign issues she's no longer the candidate people assumed she'd be. Obviously I still think the health of her campaign is improving and she'll win a general election, but maybe while doing worse than Obama's 2012 finish.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Cheebo said:
I really think getting excited about that poll is a bit odd. It comes across as an outlier. NO ONE else is showing a Jeb bump and there is nothing to support and out of the blue huge jump for him.
Click to expand...

Reuters polls have been weird lately. Last week they had Trump dropping 12 points (from 43%!) and now he's "rebounding" back up to 36%. I don't know what they're doing, but their results have been very different than what others are reporting.
 
Q

QuiteWhittle

Member
Bel Marduk said:
There is NO way a Democrat, any Democrat, wins Georgia let alone South Carolina.
Click to expand...

I personally think the three Romney states on the eastern seaboard are the Dems best states for future expansion and that they should always try to field good candidates, spend halfway decently, and build decent infrastructure in those three red states in particular.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
If true, I love this development.

"It's Bush!"
"No wait, it's Rubio!"
"Err.. Christie? Yeah, Christie!"

Keep dancing, fools. By all means, don't unite behind one pick. Time keeps on slippin'..
 
M

Makai

Member
"Christie's net favorability in NH has improved 50 points since August- from -11 at 35/46 then to +39 at 61/22 now"
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Y2Kev said:
Feeling good about my Jeb!!!! Pick. He will win the establishment lane in New Hampshire and then it will be a straight shot to the nomination as he outdoes everyone in the debates and then his super pac blankets America in pro-Jeb! Greatness.
Click to expand...

Man, Y2Kev is having a rough time this season.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Christie's been living in the state for the past two months. It's like a Guiliani situation. Even if he does good in New Hampshire, he hasn't been working on setting the ground work in other states.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Trump supporters strongly support the idea of treating Muslim Americans like 1930s German Jews:

As for Trump he was at 28% in mid-October and he's at 27% now, so his standing couldn't be much more steady. His favorability rating with Republicans has actually improved a tick, from 48/42 the last poll to now 50/39. The key to Trump's sustained success is that his supporters basically buy into everything he says. There's an almost cult like aspect to it, with Trump fans following the leader.

Examples:

-58% of Trump voters think thousands of Arabs in New Jersey celebrated the attacks of 9/11 to only 12% who don't think that happened. This is despite only 30% of Republican voters overall believing that to 39% who don't.

-53% of Trump supporters are in favor of a national database of Muslims, to only 22% opposed to that concept. This is despite only 29% of Republicans overall supporting the idea to 44% who are against it. In fact supporters of all 13 of the other candidates are against this concept.

-49% of Trump supporters want to shut down the mosques in the United States, to only 18% against that idea. Overall only 25% of Republicans support doing that to 44% who oppose it. Again on this issue supporters of every single candidate other than Trump are against it.

-Additionally we asked voters about an assault weapons ban and only 20% of Trump voters support it to 66% who are opposed. We then asked about a ban specifically on assault weapons for Muslims, and 56% of Trump voters support that to only 22% who are opposed.
Click to expand...

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ie-rising-clintonsanders-closely-matched.html
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Makai said:
PPP NH

Trump 27
Cruz 13
Rubio 11
Christie 10
Carson 9
Kasich 8
Fiorina 6
Bush 5
Paul 4:
Click to expand...

Establishments still only at 34% of the vote. Christie supporters were probably Rubio supporters two weeks ago, Kasich supporters six weeks ago after his little boomlet and Jeb! supporters three months ago.
 
Y

Yellowtail

Member
This is encouraging:
Kasich was in double digits and in the top 4 on both our August and October New Hampshire polls but is now seeing his standing slip with his 6th place showing at 8%. Kasich's also seen his favorability rating drop from 49/22 in August to then 45/29 in October to now standing at just 38/35. The more NH Republicans get to know him the less they like him
Click to expand...
The more unpopular Kasich becomes the harder it will be for the base to accept him as a running mate.
 
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