• 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.
H

HylianTom

Banned
The Rubio vs Trump fight is about to get more heated. Rubio strikes back!

Marco Rubio: Trump Is A “Touchy And Insecure” Guy Who’s Not Informed On The Issues

Marco Rubio struck back at Donald Trump on Thursday, labeling Trump as a “touchy and insecure guy” who’s not informed on the issues.

“First of all, he takes shots at everybody that gets anywhere close to him, in terms of a poll, or anytime he hits a rough spot that’s what he does,” the Florida senator said of Trump on Kentucky Sports Radio.

“He had a really bad debate performance last week,” continued Rubio. “He’s not well informed on the issues. He really never talks about issues and can’t have more than a 10-second soundbite on any key issue. And I think he’s kind of been exposed a little bit over the last seven days, and he’s a very touchy and insecure guy and so that’s how he reacts, and people can see through it.”
Click to expand...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...y-whos-not-inf?utm_term=.ygVN6939P#.yr5wvoEog
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
I've waded into a cuple Benie threads now, and yeah, it's as bad as I thought.

I like Bernie.

I agree with him more on issues than anyone else.

But some people are really, really emotionally attached to him.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
HylianTom said:
The Rubio vs Trump fight is about to get more heated. Rubio strikes back!


http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...y-whos-not-inf?utm_term=.ygVN6939P#.yr5wvoEog
Click to expand...

colbert_popcorn_eating.gif
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Those Vitter numbers won't hold for obvious reasons.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicans-2016-two-down-14-to-go/

First up is the man who has absorbed the lion’s share of the available media light for three months, Donald Trump. It’s been on-the-job training for The Donald, but even his many enemies must admit that he’s learned quickly and become a better candidate overall. As a showman, Trump possesses natural political instincts that have served him well so far.

Now, “better” doesn’t mean “acceptable,” at least to the leadership of the GOP. Few frontrunners have ever attracted a nearly solid wall of unmovable opposition from their own party’s officeholders like Trump has. It’s true that, unlike Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in his withdrawal speech, most are not speaking out. As we always remind people, John F. Kennedy’s book, Profiles in Courage, is a short volume.

But when you get senators, House members, governors, party chairs, and big donors off the record about Trump, you’d better be ready for some blue language (and have Excedrin handy to ease their pain). They see him as an unserious narcissist whose harsh focus on illegal immigration has severely set back efforts to woo Hispanic and Asian Americans. You had better believe that GOP leaders will do everything in their power, mainly behind the scenes, to ensure that Trump is not their standard-bearer. The ones who are in their 60s or older compare Trump’s fall electoral prospects to Barry Goldwater, who lost in a crushing 1964 landslide.

Friends, there is no way on God’s green earth that the Republican Party hierarchy is going to allow Donald Trump to be their nominee for president if they have enough power to stop him. They hope that Trump will self-destruct, but they are willing to see some bloodletting if needed.

We too remember 1964 (well, one of us does), and just as Goldwater’s ascension could not be derailed, perhaps Trump’s rise can’t be either. Nonetheless, party leaders believe the initials of the GOP will be changed to RIP if Trump is on the November 2016 ballot, and this near-unanimity of leadership opinion should be enough to defeat Trump one way or the other.
Click to expand...
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Yeah, I can't see Vitter losing the election against a Democrat. It's just such a deep red state, overcoming that hurdle, even for someone unpopular, would be enormous.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
Benji, I've worked as an attorney for various licensing boards and agencies, including medical related, and after some of the crazy shit I've seen people do, licensing is absolutely necessary to protect the safety of the public. Companies do not do shit to fire troublemakers, and consumers are very uninformed. You'd be amazed at how long people operate completely below standard without any consequences until the agency gets involved. In the meantime, real people are harmed. In fact, often it is licensed facilities themselves that are guilty of systemic violations and abuses over a long period of time. If we don't act against such firms, who will? The market? Don't make me laugh.

Scary to think what an unlicensed healthcare market would look like. Seems like yet another concept that libertarians are in love with but that seems absurd to anyone with a bit of real world experience.

With respect to certificates of need, I agree that they are easily abused and there is much less of a justification for those kinds of laws. In practice it really often is run as a cartel. The logic though is that it is in the public interest to protect the long term institutional stability of healthcare facilities, because that would improve care for patients. Certificate of need requirements certainly do that, although you can debate about how effective and worthwhile they are.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
T

Thequietone

Member
Plinko said:
It's going to be everyone (except maybe Carson) against Trump by the end of this, and it's going to be amazing. I think it'll actually backfire on the establishment and people will start to feel sorry for him.
Click to expand...
Cruz seems to be buddy-buddy with Trump, at the very least I don't see him joining either side.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Slacker said:
Freakin' Scalia, man, I swear. First, he knows it's not mandatory, right? We're not going to force you to get gay married, Anton.

And does he really think the Court is supposed to rule based on the religious beliefs of many of our citizens? I refuse to believe that he's that stupid.
Click to expand...

NYCmetsfan said:
dude should resign if he doesn't feel qualified to do his job.

I mean they've been debating these questions since the beginning of the constitution and they've been greatly increased by the addition to the constitution of the 14 amendment that directly provoked these questions.
Click to expand...

It's hard to know what Scalia's argument is based solely off of HuffPo's selective quoting, which makes responding all the more difficult. Presumably, he was expounding on the arguments he made in dissent in Obergefell.

Scalia said:
t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that Scalia recognizes the limits placed by the Constitution, but doesn't think any of them are applicable here:

Scalia said:
The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule— constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures, and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?

Of course not. . . . When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.
Click to expand...

APK's response misses this entirely. Scalia isn't saying he won't interpret and enforce the Constitution's limits; he's saying he has interpreted the limits, and there's nothing to enforce in this case. That being so, according to Scalia, the decision rests wholly with the populace, not with the courts.

I imagine that Scalia's reference to religious beliefs was intended to support one of two points: first, that the decision had been wrested by the Court (not the Constitution) from the democratic majorities of each state, some of whom would have chosen a different political outcome; second, that the Court's removal of that decision from democratic majorities decreases the likelihood that a compromise among opposing sides to a political dispute can be worked out. So, in response to Slacker, Scalia doesn't think the Court should rule based on peoples' religious beliefs; he thinks the Court should rule based on the Constitution. When the Court fails to rule based on the Constitution (as he believes occurred in Obergefell), that ruling can have social side effects that the errant Court should keep in mind. But, again, we don't have the entirety of Scalia's comments, so it's hard to know what his point was.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
Yeah, I can't see Vitter losing the election against a Democrat. It's just such a deep red state, overcoming that hurdle, even for someone unpopular, would be enormous.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I can buy Edwards' numbers against the other candidates and I can buy that Vitter is weaker. Losing by double digits though? Yeah right.

The biggest goals for the 2015 elections should be Conway winning Kentucky, Democrats swinging the State Senate in Virginia (they just need one seat), and Jim Hood to hang on in Mississippi, the only statewide elected Democrat left. I'd say in that order. Picking up Louisiana would be amazing (especially if it meant Medicaid expansion) but I just don't believe it's a contest... Yet.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I thought the point of those medical segments charts was to point out how absurd the salaries for CEOs and chairmen are.

Then dude trots out the Salvation Army non profit CEO salary like that's fucking relevant. Way to go!
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
It's hard to know what Scalia's argument is based solely off of HuffPo's selective quoting, which makes responding all the more difficult. Presumably, he was expounding on the arguments he made in dissent in Obergefell.



Keep in mind that Scalia recognizes the limits placed by the Constitution, but doesn't think any of them are applicable here:



APK's response misses this entirely. Scalia isn't saying he won't interpret and enforce the Constitution's limits; he's saying he has interpreted the limits, and there's nothing to enforce in this case. That being so, according to Scalia, the decision rests wholly with the populace, not with the courts.

I imagine that Scalia's reference to religious beliefs was intended to support one of two points: first, that the decision had been wrested by the Court (not the Constitution) from the democratic majorities of each state, some of whom would have chosen a different political outcome; second, that the Court's removal of that decision from democratic majorities decreases the likelihood that a compromise among opposing sides to a political dispute can be worked out. So, in response to Slacker, Scalia doesn't think the Court should rule based on peoples' religious beliefs; he thinks the Court should rule based on the Constitution. When the Court fails to rule based on the Constitution (as he believes occurred in Obergefell), that ruling can have social side effects that the errant Court should keep in mind. But, again, we don't have the entirety of Scalia's comments, so it's hard to know what his point was.
Click to expand...

Here's the original write up, in case your issue was the HuffPo source itself:

http://www.startribune.com/scalia-addresses-constitution-same-sex-marriage-in-speech/328757761/

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday criticized judges who believe the Constitution is a "living" document, saying they amount to policy makers who are rewriting it and making moral decisions for the entire country about same-sex marriage and other issues. He also referred to this summer's same-sex marriage ruling as "extreme."

Scalia spoke to about 500 people at Rhodes College, where he was invited to deliver the school's annual Constitution Day lecture. He is the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Reagan in 1986.

In his speech, Scalia distinguished "originalism," which calls for adherence to the original text and meaning of the Constitution when interpreting it, from the theory of a "living" Constitution, which views the document as one that evolves and changes over time without being amended.

"They're not adhering to the text, they're operating as policy makers," Scalia, an "originalist," said of believers in a "living" Constitution. "They're not interpreting the constitution. They're writing one, they're revising one."

Later he added: "What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?" he asked. "It has nothing to do with the law. Even Yale law school doesn't teach that stuff."

Scalia was among four dissenting justices in the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June that cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry. Scalia said at the time that he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage as "this court's threat to American democracy."

On Tuesday, he called the same-sex marriage ruling "the furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants."

"Saying that the Constitution requires that practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens, I don't know how you can get more extreme than that," he said. "I worry about a Court that's headed in that direction."

Scalia also noted that only one sitting Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, is from the South: The others are from California, New York and New Jersey. He said believers of a "living" Constitution should be upset by that.

"You should be upset because these people are making a new Constitution and they are terribly unrepresentative of the country," he said.

Scalia said judges who believe in an ever-changing Constitution are making it more rigid, not more flexible.

"It's no use talking about abortion anymore. It's just off the democratic stage," he said. "No use arguing about it, coast to coast, now and forever, or unless the Supreme Court changes its mind. Is that flexibility?"

Scalia, a former law professor, also spoke with students in class and had lunch with them earlier in the day.
Click to expand...
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
I wish Edwards could defeat Vitter but we don't a substantial number of independents like MA does to help swing an election in a favorable environment.

MA has a history of being willing to back the opposite party(Republicans) in statewide elections.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Frank the Great said:
Hilldawg is so screwed if he wins. I can't see her path to victory without the black vote.
Click to expand...

This seems to imply that black people would vote for Carson simply because he's black. He's denied systematic racism and has said Obama is driving a wedge into race relations. Why would any black person for for that man?
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
Fenderputty said:
This seems to imply that black people would vote for Carson simply because he's black. He's denied systematic racism and has said Obama is driving a wedge into race relations. Why would any black person for for that man?
Click to expand...
He's been a sort of idol for some black teens growing up (like me) along with parents and maybe they haven't been exposed to his awful shit yet so many he could pick up some. But I doubt it'd be significant.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
PantherLotus said:
I thought the point of those medical segments charts was to point out how absurd the salaries for CEOs and chairmen are.

Then dude trots out the Salvation Army non profit CEO salary like that's fucking relevant. Way to go!
Click to expand...
You understood my point perfectly.

See, I was confused when he wrote:
It's so strange to see people twist and squirm on how to "fix" healthcare without even looking at the big fucking glaring problem: profits.
Click to expand...
And then posted that image as if it was related.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
benjipwns said:
You understood my point perfectly.

See, I was confused when he wrote:

And then posted that image as if it was related.
Click to expand...
It is related...a privatized healthcare system which focuses on profits for shareholders and CEOs cannot be tasked to take the utmost care of patients. I have personal experience with profit based healthcare system (not in US though) that prioritized how to make more profits than the health of the patient. I lost my dad to this system corrupted with money.
 
S

Slacker

Member
RustyNails said:
Anyone want to speculate what position Huma Abedin would be given in Hillary administration, if at all?
Click to expand...

benjipwns said:
I think that's between the two of them personally and none of our business.
Click to expand...

Well it's kind of our business as she'll be helping to run the country. That said, obviously Clinton doesn't have name her whole staff before the election. We're voting for President, not Chief of Staff.

And I don't know much about Abedin aside from the fact that she's been Clinton's right-hand-woman for a long time, right? I'd assume she'd end up somewhere high up. Deputy Chief of Staff maybe?
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
RustyNails said:
It is related...a privatized healthcare system which focuses on profits for shareholders and CEOs cannot be tasked to take the utmost care of patients.
Click to expand...
Making them non-profits just ensures more of the profits go to executives rather than being spent to the benefit of patients and consumers.

So I guess my point about the not-Salvation Army (which is a church and charity, not a retail company) CEO was relevant after all. CHS doubled it's CEO salary and it was only .004% of the company's profits. Goodwill gave a thousand times that % of their profits to their CEO.

Slacker said:
she's been Clinton's right-hand-woman for a long time, right? I'd assume she'd end up somewhere high up.
Click to expand...
Wow, more than we need to know. Much more.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
More on those scumbags at Goodwill:
In 2005, Goodwill Industries of the Columbia Willamette (GICW), Goodwill's Portland, Oregon, branch, came under scrutiny due to executive compensation that the Oregon attorney general's office concluded was "unreasonable". The President of the Portland branch, Michael Miller, received $838,508 in pay and benefits for fiscal year 2004, which was reportedly out of line in comparison to other charity executives and placed him in the top one percent of American wage earners. After being confronted with the state's findings, Miller agreed to a 24% reduction in pay, and GICW formed a new committee and policy for handling matters of employee compensation.
Click to expand...
A 2013 article on Watchdog.org reported that Goodwill's tax returns showed that more than 100 Goodwills (out of 165) pay less than minimum wage, while simultaneously paying more than $53.7 million in total compensation to top executives.
Click to expand...

Trouble said:
Is there a secret lesbian conspiracy theory for Hillary like there is a secret gay one for Obama? I can't keep up with all these.
Click to expand...
It's not really secret.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
benjipwns said:
Making them non-profits just ensures more of the profits go to executives rather than being spent to the benefit of patients and consumers.

So I guess my point about the not-Salvation Army CEO was relevant after all. CHS doubled it's CEO salary and it was only .004% of the company's profits. Goodwill gave a thousand times that % of their profits to their CEO.
Click to expand...
I want a single payer system, like the one in Canada. I dont want profits to be the driver of healthcare business. The very fact that there are people whose lives revolve around taking advantage out of sick people and their families so that shareholders can get a fatter check repulses me.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Trouble said:
Is there a secret lesbian conspiracy theory for Hillary like there is a secret gay one for Obama? I can't keep up with all these.
Click to expand...
Slacker said:
Can you explain what you mean here? I'm not understanding how my statement elicits a "wow."
Click to expand...
http://mrconservative.com/2013/05/1...-admit-to-being-lesbian-in-new-tell-all-book/
There’s something you need to know. I’ve been hearing tales around town that Hillary is having another thing with a woman.” I watched his face to see his reaction, and couldn’t believe it when he burst out laughing. I was stunned! I asked him what was so funny. “Honey,” he said, “she’s probably eaten more p**** than I have.” Bill said he had known for a long time that Hillary was attracted to women, and it didn’t really bother him anymore. His first clue came from her lack of enjoyment of sex with him. She didn’t like to experiment and insisted on the missionary position and nothing else. Because she wasn’t enjoying herself; neither was he. Sex with her became a duty; nothing more.”
Click to expand...

This time, those wondering if Hillary had been living a lie (in addition to constantly telling lies) focused on one person: Huma Abedin.

If Huma’s name seems familiar to you, it’s because she is married to Anthony Weiner, the Congressman forced to resign after he tweeted naked pictures of himself to other women. Huma stood by her man, and is now orchestrating his current attempt to get elected as Mayor of New York.

You may also recognize Huma’s name because Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R., Minn.) called to have her investigated. The media tried to turn this back on Bachmann, claiming that she was engaged in a crazed Muslim witch hunt, but Bachmann had a very good reason for seeking this investigation: Huma has worked closely with Hillary Clinton since 1996, when she started in the White House an intern. Since then, the two have been inseparable when it comes to work. Wherever Hillary goes, Huma goes. This means that Huma was Hillary’s closest aide when Hillary became Secretary of State.

...

The more titillating question for most people has been whether Huma and Hillary are now, or ever have been, lovers. Rumors about their relationship have never stopped swirling in political circles. For example, in 2007, it seemed a little too coincidental when Hillary, Huma, and openly gay talk-show host Ellen DeGeneris got together for a “girls’ only” weekend trip to D.C.

That year – 2007 – was the same year that the National Enquirer broke the story about John Edward’s affair, scuttling his presidential aspirations. Rumor had it that the LA Times was sitting on another major story (and is sitting on it to this day). Best bets among the politically knowledgeable back in 2007 were that it was a story about Hillary’s sexuality.
Click to expand...
Insiders say the biggest bombshell Hillary will drop is the flagrant lie she’s been telling for decades about the true nature of her sexuality.

“Bill and Hillary are the consummate politi­cians, and they realize the LGBT community is a huge voting bloc,” said a family insider.

“They want lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people behind Hillary in the 2016 campaign. So Hillary’s going to come clean for the votes. She’ll admit that she’s bisexual and has had lesbian relationships.”

Hillary dropped a major hint about her coming out in March when she announced her support of gay marriage in a six-minute video.

“Hillary sent a clear message about her true feelings, saying that her ‘personal views’ about gay life and marriage ‘have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved,’” explained the source.
Click to expand...
Hillary-and-Huma-and-Ellen.jpg
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
We all know that, if Hillary admits her sexuality, the mainstream media and the usual talking heads will celebrate her “courage” and her “openness.” None of them will comment on the fact that she blatantly lied to the American people for thirty years or that her secret behavior consistently compromised America’s national security. Bill Clinton’s secret behavior jeopardized it too, but at least he was a hetero hound dog. Hillary’s behavior both in the White House and at the State Department left her and, by extension, the entire American government, much more open to blackmail by America’s enemies.

(Read More: Father of Slain Seal At Benghazi I KNEW Hillary Was Lying About The Video.)

Hillary put her country at terrible risk. She shouldn’t be rewarded for finally confessing to her wrongdoing when she deems confession to be politically expedient. Instead, she should be driven once and for all from the political arena, with no chance ever again to interfere with America’s domestic policies or national security.
Click to expand...
pls print
 
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