Aaron Strife
Banned
Just PMed him a bit ago. He's legit shook
Didn't know he had a ban bet riding on this. Ouch.
Btw PD our bet on the Dem Senate in 2016 - 3 months avatar change?
-
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
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Didn't know he had a ban bet riding on this. Ouch.
Btw PD our bet on the Dem Senate in 2016 - 3 months avatar change?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
This is ironincally a Metaphoreus-style argument, ignoring realpolitik for legal minutia.
In the real world, that clause doesn't mean anything-- and I suppose it would take a court challenge all the way to the top to have it otherwise.
Also, I think NYCmetsfan has a point when he says Meta is being disingenuous in this case. Evenhandedly, he'd address the legality of the recordings as well. Meta points his legal flashlight only where he wants to.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Two thoughts regarding Walker: I remember seeing this article last week, which makes his exit from the race less surprising:
My guess is that he decided to quit the race a bit more than a week ago, but waited to see how the debate helped his performance before following through. CNN's poll results came out yesterday, confirming it was time for him to quit.
Second, people keep talking about the Koch's $900m, but they never committed that to support him, did they? If memory serves, that's a false meme based on Walker's victory in a straw poll at a Koch fundraising event a few months ago--i.e., he won the straw poll, and people who didn't know any better thought that meant the Kochs were throwing their weight behind him. Am I remembering wrong?
That's not what "disingenuous" means, and the kind of "evenhandedness" you're demanding is the same sort that would be the target of derision if exhibited in the media. You're insisting that I have to address whether the videos were obtained illegally if I'm going to discuss what the videos show (and don't show). On what issue could those possibly be two sides? "On the one hand, here's a video that largely matches what Fiorina described except for some significant mistakes. On the other hand, some other videos from the same group were obtained illegally. We report, you decide!" What is there to be decided between those two points?
(For the record, it appears to me as an initial matter that the videos recorded surreptitiously by CMP were illegal. Now how do you think that affects the current discussion?)
My guess is that he decided to quit the race a bit more than a week ago, but waited to see how the debate helped his performance before following through. CNN's poll results came out yesterday, confirming it was time for him to quit.
Second, people keep talking about the Koch's $900m, but they never committed that to support him, did they? If memory serves, that's a false meme based on Walker's victory in a straw poll at a Koch fundraising event a few months ago--i.e., he won the straw poll, and people who didn't know any better thought that meant the Kochs were throwing their weight behind him. Am I remembering wrong?
That's not what "disingenuous" means, and the kind of "evenhandedness" you're demanding is the same sort that would be the target of derision if exhibited in the media. You're insisting that I have to address whether the videos were obtained illegally if I'm going to discuss what the videos show (and don't show). On what issue could those possibly be two sides? "On the one hand, here's a video that largely matches what Fiorina described except for some significant mistakes. On the other hand, some other videos from the same group were obtained illegally. We report, you decide!" What is there to be decided between those two points?
(For the record, it appears to me as an initial matter that the videos recorded surreptitiously by CMP were illegal. Now how do you think that affects the current discussion?)
Coriolanus
Banned
That's good. That's damn good.
What did you think was the bloody point? But no, you just had to spell it all out.
Basileus777
Member
It'll be another midterm election and Democrats will stay home again after Hillary gets nothing done in her first two years.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175151547&postcount=14994
Can't find the direct walker bet but this is one of them. Did anyone save his wagers?
This is my first post in this thread for a while. Just wanted to add my 2c on Planned Parenthood:
As a layperson watching the debate, it is not unreasonable to assume that Carly's comments regarding the 'baby in the bowl' were in the context of the Planned Parenthood leaks. To find out afterwards that her comments pertain to an unrelated video shows that she is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. If what PP is doing is self-evidently illegal then a more direct argument with supporting evidence should be made. But seeing that this link doesn't appear to exist (at this stage) it appears that the GOP candidates have to put misleading comments in the place of actual evidence.
Secondly, I find the GOP argument that the slack created up by the defunding of PP would be picked up by other health clinics. That position doesn't take into account that one of PP's main drivers is that it is organised to support Medicaid, thus providing reproductive health services for women and families on low income. The clinics that Bush et al are referring to include private clinics who do not accept medicaid patients (as the reimbursement is too low). Thus, defunding PP would have the effect of reducing access to health services based on class, a horrible outcome for those interested in public health policy. If the GOP wants to shut down the government over PP then at the very least they should have a credible plan for what accommodations will be put in place to reproductive health services to low income families. I'm not holding my breath though.
Finally, I'm on board with the position that abortion should be federally funded, just like other health services. Furthermore, defunding PP in the event of criminal activity is a standard that only appears to apply to PP. If Boeing were caught tomorrow committing <insert heinous crime here>, then the appropriate action wouldn't be to cancel all government contracts with Boeing; it would be to prosecute Boeing executives. As stated repeatedly before, PP is critical in achieving public health outcomes. Defunding may be good politics but it makes for horrible governance.
As a layperson watching the debate, it is not unreasonable to assume that Carly's comments regarding the 'baby in the bowl' were in the context of the Planned Parenthood leaks. To find out afterwards that her comments pertain to an unrelated video shows that she is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. If what PP is doing is self-evidently illegal then a more direct argument with supporting evidence should be made. But seeing that this link doesn't appear to exist (at this stage) it appears that the GOP candidates have to put misleading comments in the place of actual evidence.
Secondly, I find the GOP argument that the slack created up by the defunding of PP would be picked up by other health clinics. That position doesn't take into account that one of PP's main drivers is that it is organised to support Medicaid, thus providing reproductive health services for women and families on low income. The clinics that Bush et al are referring to include private clinics who do not accept medicaid patients (as the reimbursement is too low). Thus, defunding PP would have the effect of reducing access to health services based on class, a horrible outcome for those interested in public health policy. If the GOP wants to shut down the government over PP then at the very least they should have a credible plan for what accommodations will be put in place to reproductive health services to low income families. I'm not holding my breath though.
Finally, I'm on board with the position that abortion should be federally funded, just like other health services. Furthermore, defunding PP in the event of criminal activity is a standard that only appears to apply to PP. If Boeing were caught tomorrow committing <insert heinous crime here>, then the appropriate action wouldn't be to cancel all government contracts with Boeing; it would be to prosecute Boeing executives. As stated repeatedly before, PP is critical in achieving public health outcomes. Defunding may be good politics but it makes for horrible governance.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I didn't know if you were jabbing him intentionally or if you had got sucked into his vortex.
Elsewhere: I am legitimately shocked (and quite happy) that Walker is out. After the last debate I didn't think he had a chance anymore (and that was good news) but I didn't think *he* knew that.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
This crossed my mind earlier but I forgot to post it.
Assuming that the sting videos really do show criminal activity by Planned Parenthood staff-- then prosecute them. *Not* prosecuting them and defunding them is further fuckery.
BertramCooper
Banned
I was fairly certain he wasn't going to get the nomination, but I thought it was going to be a result of a singularly epic fuckup.
In reality, it was him just quietly being a fuckup in general.
In reality, it was him just quietly being a fuckup in general.
Coriolanus
Banned
Little from column a, little from column b, same as usual. Mostly horrified with how wide the interpretation for that line was allowed to de facto get under your system, even in the case of a severely restrained market such as fleshy near-human bits.
There were comments suggesting Walker was their favorite a few months before that straw poll. I don't think they committed to helping him - they said their organizations would stay neutral - but it seemed plausible that being the Koch brothers' favorite would help him get other donors.
For example: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...och-brothers-signal-support-for-scott-walker/
Retromelon
Member
In retrospect that last one was photoshopped
But still funny
But still funny
RustyNails
Member
PD respond if ur ok
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Thanks. That's what I thought.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I'm so happy. This boosted my spirits. I'm not even following this closely but damn this is cause for celebration.
Like PD, I too will take the L on Walker. I made a number of comments citing why he would be a threat. But clearly Trump has done a number of this race, and having a 'conservative record' just isn't enough.
So to paraphrase Governor Huckabee and his comments regarding Kim Davis: if you're going to ban somebody, ban me instead!
So to paraphrase Governor Huckabee and his comments regarding Kim Davis: if you're going to ban somebody, ban me instead!
don't ban me pls
Aaron Strife
Banned
Who cares? It's just going to be three more months of polls. He'll be back in time for Iowa
Armoured Priest
Member
Just to speak on this specific point, you are correct. The Koch's hadn't committed money to Walker yet. There were rumors that they were looking into putting heavy monies in the primary process this time around which they generally don't, and Walker was absolutely bandied about as the recipient with high probability.
However, the rumors tend to say that they were wanting to wait till the playing field cleared a bit...If they're going to put money into the primaries, it probably won't be until there are only 3-4 left and there's an obvious candidate who can placate the extreme side of the GOP, but is still more or less an establishment person.
Walker was their boy...but he obviously flamed out (again he's kind of lacking as far as charisma goes). If he's held in there with some measure of popular backing, then he'd probably have got the Koch money. Now it's probably going to be Rubio if he can hold in there.
FloydtheFathead
Member
I thought the same.. Surely y'all can just make him wear Walker's derp face as a punishment. The ultimate punishment
It's easy to see Bernie supporters in that thread you made. When it comes to poll numbers, as long as Bernie is doing good, they puff up their feathers and act big.
As soon as a poll comes out showing the opposite, it becomes a "Fuck polls, no one knows" array of responses.
Teehee.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
So where will Walker's *% of voters go?
Officerrob
Banned
Ironically enough, I'm getting this ad on this page right now:
Coriolanus
Banned
Backfire effect gon backfire effect.
RustyNails
Member
I wonder how many times PD clicked itIronically enough, I'm getting this ad on this page right now:
Poodlestrike
Banned
Waiiiiiit a minute, that was a ban bet?
FloydtheFathead
Member
Ironically enough, I'm getting this ad on this page right now:
So did I lol
yup and made an avatar bet about it.
Giant Panda
Member
LOL. I was just about to place my wager on Rubio when I saw the ad.
EDIT: DAMNIT beaten
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I've been thinking about who I wouldn't cheer them dropping out (seriously).
Kasich, as while he's conservative, his fiscal talk is appealing. I'd like to know more about *how* he changed things in Ohio, but on the surface his record is appealing. Plus, he's not pandering to religious loons.
Trump, because he keeps things off kilter. If by some weird circumstance he could become President, might govern more sanely than he campaigns.
...and that's maybe it?
Kasich, as while he's conservative, his fiscal talk is appealing. I'd like to know more about *how* he changed things in Ohio, but on the surface his record is appealing. Plus, he's not pandering to religious loons.
Trump, because he keeps things off kilter. If by some weird circumstance he could become President, might govern more sanely than he campaigns.
...and that's maybe it?
Black Republican
Member
ban bets are stupid, its the damn internet. Spare PD
Big Green Anus
Member
I still can't believe Trump is still high in the polls. I do wonder how things would look next year though.
Basically, one of the key points I was trying to make, but written in an understandable way.
Feels like my attempts to avoid using simple words that have a gradient of meaning so that people can't intentionally misinterpret my arguments has made them dense to the point where now they are unintentionally misinterpreted instead.
BertramCooper
Banned
I'm kind of surprised that ban bets are still a thing.
I think avatar or tag bets are fine, but ban bets are kind of dumb.
I think avatar or tag bets are fine, but ban bets are kind of dumb.
I thought they got rid of them after the whole Bjork vs God's Beard yearly hotdog-Bjork-always-getting-banned thing.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
The delusion of Bernie supporters is going to reach astronomical levels once Hilldawg actually starts campaigning for real.
The Gaming Gamer
Member
I was listening to Wisconsin conservative radio when I was driving and they were talking about how Walker didn't have a chance to shine with so many candidates, and no one wanted to hear about the important issues only he was talking about. Gold
I kinda feel bad about shitting on Bernie supporters. It's not like I don't like the guy and don't agree with a lot of what he says...
It's just he can't win in the general against the GOP. Unfortunately, his supporters all feel PoliGAF hates him because he's not Queen Hillary or something.
It's just he can't win in the general against the GOP. Unfortunately, his supporters all feel PoliGAF hates him because he's not Queen Hillary or something.
brainchild
Banned
Not at all. Though there is clear bias on both sides.
The double standards regarding the validity of polls depending on who's doing well is pretty fascinating to see in action, I must say.
EDIT:
It took me a long time to learn to stop the influence of confirmation bias. It's completely untrustworthy.
Bush probably. If he can hold off Kasich, Trump and Rubio it is and always has been his to lose
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked