• 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 2016 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Fedelias said:
Have any other Californians here been reading up about our ballot measures? It's kind of insane just how many important initiatives we're putting up to a vote. To name a few:

-Repealing the death penalty
-Instructing all state officials to use the extent of their constitutional power to overturn Citizens United
-Marijuana legalization
-Various gun reforms requiring registration + preventing some people from purchasing firearms

Not that I have to tell PoliGaf, but seriously, don't forget to vote.
Click to expand...

There's usually an OT thread for the California ballot measures. I haven't seen one this year. The death penalty was on before but people have revenge boners.
 
V

Vimes

Member
Fedelias said:
Have any other Californians here been reading up about our ballot measures? It's kind of insane just how many important initiatives we're putting up to a vote. To name a few:

-Repealing the death penalty
-Instructing all state officials to use the extent of their constitutional power to overturn Citizens United
-Marijuana legalization
-Various gun reforms requiring registration + preventing some people from purchasing firearms

Not that I have to tell PoliGaf, but seriously, don't forget to vote.
Click to expand...

Ever since the UK leave referendum (and before that, CA Prop 8) I've been scared dickless of direct democracy; but I will be all over that death penalty repeal for the second time. And the gun stuff of course.

Looks like I've got some homework to do on the rest. Apparently there's a decent sounding thing about releasing non-violent offenders from prisons earlier, pro side saying it will make more room for actual violent offenders.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Tarkus said:
Why is Clinton giving a press conference on a plane?
Click to expand...
in case the press conference goes baddly she can jettison in her private escape pod safely and ensure there are no survivors to recall the actual events in the "accidental" crash that follows.

Shame too, she really nailed the email question for all in attendance before they tragically met their demise. Wish you could see the transcript.
 
E

Eidan

Member
Spoiled Milk said:
You still want to ban abortion, defund planned parenthood, neuter Obamacare, and cut welfare spending.

Also this is your candidate back when he was a twink HOW DO YOU RESPOND?

foam.jpg
Click to expand...

Weren't these photos discredited? I mean, you can't even see a face, just a haircut.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Yglesias' argument is better than Jack's. In fact, his reasoning is similar to the reasoning for attorney-client, physician-patient, and priest-penitent privileges against testifying in court. But I'm not quite persuaded by it, for several reasons:

  1. As Yglesias notes, in-person and over-the-phone conversations aren't subject to FOIA. Why isn't that accommodation sufficient for frank discussions? It seems to me that at this point, we're balancing two interests: that of the government employees in having frank discussions via email (or Whatsapp or what-have-you)--not their interest in having frank discussions at all--and the public interest in government transparency. Isn't it obvious which should prevail?
  2. Email isn't exactly like letters or memos, but neither is it exactly like a personal chat. Maybe it shouldn't automatically be treated like the former, but that doesn't come close to showing that it should automatically be treated like the latter. Unless Yglesias has some better system of sorting emails into disclosable versus nondisclosable than presumed-non-disclosure, I think we should simply err on the side of disclosure.
  3. It's not clear to what extent fear of FOIA leads to a different outcome than a general fear of leaks.
  4. We have good reason to want records from executive agencies regarding inputs, as well as outputs. We ought to know why they're doing what they're doing, and not merely know what they're doing.
  5. At bottom, the problem is frank conversations that are (or could become) politically embarrassing. That's not a good reason to exempt the conversations from disclosure--in fact, the whole point of FOIA was to remove that as an excuse for non-disclosure.
You later suggest that FOIA should include more exemptions. Depending on the exemptions, I might or might not agree with that, but it's still a much better suggestion than Yglesias' presumption against disclosure.
Click to expand...
Jack Remington has been banned for months and you still get triggered by this subject. Seek help, man!

Diablos said:
Isn't another poll coming soon
Click to expand...
Why, does this latest poll... Bother you?

giphy.gif
 
U

User 463088

Banned
PoliGaf question:

The five year old learned the song Mammy in music. It's a song whose most well known performer would sing it in blackface, but it has been covered by other, usually white, singers. Liza did it. It's got the word Alabammy in it so it rhymes with Mammy. Am i off base for feeling like maybe this isn't the most appropriate or racially sensitive song to be teaching five year olds?
 
T

thebloo

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Yglesias' argument is better than Jack's. In fact, his reasoning is similar to the reasoning for attorney-client, physician-patient, and priest-penitent privileges against testifying in court. But I'm not quite persuaded by it, for several reasons:

  1. As Yglesias notes, in-person and over-the-phone conversations aren't subject to FOIA. Why isn't that accommodation sufficient for frank discussions? It seems to me that at this point, we're balancing two interests: that of the government employees in having frank discussions via email (or Whatsapp or what-have-you)--not their interest in having frank discussions at all--and the public interest in government transparency. Isn't it obvious which should prevail?
  2. Email isn't exactly like letters or memos, but neither is it exactly like a personal chat. Maybe it shouldn't automatically be treated like the former, but that doesn't come close to showing that it should automatically be treated like the latter. Unless Yglesias has some better system of sorting emails into disclosable versus nondisclosable than presumed-non-disclosure, I think we should simply err on the side of disclosure.
  3. It's not clear to what extent fear of FOIA leads to a different outcome than a general fear of leaks.
  4. We have good reason to want records from executive agencies regarding inputs, as well as outputs. We ought to know why they're doing what they're doing, and not merely know what they're doing.
  5. At bottom, the problem is frank conversations that are (or could become) politically embarrassing. That's not a good reason to exempt the conversations from disclosure--in fact, the whole point of FOIA was to remove that as an excuse for non-disclosure.
You later suggest that FOIA should include more exemptions. Depending on the exemptions, I might or might not agree with that, but it's still a much better suggestion than Yglesias' presumption against disclosure.
Click to expand...

For older and less technically inclined people, email is exactly like a chat.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
adam387 said:
PoliGaf question:

The five year old learned the song Mammy in music. It's a song whose most well known performer would sing it in blackface, but it has been covered by other, usually white, singers. Liza did it. It's got the word Alabammy in it so it rhymes with Mammy. Am i off base for feeling like maybe this isn't the most appropriate or racially sensitive song to be teaching five year olds?
Click to expand...

Never actually heard of the song before. I will say I do vaguely remember learning Zippity-do-da in kindergarten and the history of that song ain't exactly squeaky clean. So long as there's nothing blatantly offensive in the song, and they don't show a performance of it in blackface, I wouldn't make a big deal of it. Odds are they won't even remember it next year.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
B-Dubs said:
Never actually heard of the song before. I will say I do vaguely remember learning Zippity-do-da in kindergarten and the history of that song ain't exactly squeaky clean. So long as there's nothing blatantly offensive in the song, and they don't show a performance of it in blackface, I wouldn't make a big deal of it. Odds are they won't even remember it next year.
Click to expand...
I can't think of anything actually racist in the song. I've heard it a ton because it's on Liza with a Z. Like...just seemed an odd song to teach kids. I'm not going to say anything but I'm flooding his ears with other stuff to hopefully make it go away.
 
O

Owzers

Member
What do you do about Assad?

The iran deal was terrible. Is this a rerun? He's saying the same speech he already gave because he doesn't want to talk about Assad. Trump is filibustering a question from a guy who supports him.
 
N

newshinycd

Member
RustyNails said:
We are discussing the color of Hillary's phlegm in that coughing thread.
Click to expand...

Wtf. Honestly she probably caught something. For the last couple of days there has been some kind of coughing bug or something going around where I live. I caught it last Thursday and I've been coughing up a storm ever since.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Juvy court judges compensate for their college football team losing games by being racist to black kids.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22611

Employing the universe of juvenile court decisions in a U.S. state between 1996 and 2012, we analyze the effects of emotional shocks associated with unexpected outcomes of football games played by a prominent college team in the state. We investigate the behavior of judges, the conduct of whom should, by law, be free of personal biases and emotions. We find that unexpected losses increase disposition (sentence) lengths assigned by judges during the week following the game. Unexpected wins, or losses that were expected to be close contests ex-ante, have no impact. The effects of these emotional shocks are asymmetrically borne by black defendants. We present evidence that the results are not influenced by defendant or attorney behavior or by defendants’ economic background. Importantly, the results are driven by judges who have received their bachelor’s degrees from the university with which the football team is affiliated. Different falsification tests and a number of auxiliary analyses demonstrate the robustness of the findings. These results provide evidence for the impact of emotions in one domain on a behavior in a completely unrelated domain among a uniformly highly-educated group of individuals (judges), with decisions involving high stakes (sentence lengths). They also point to the existence of a subtle and previously-unnoticed capricious application of sentencing.
Click to expand...
 
I

IggyChooChoo

Member
I asked this question last night but it got lost in a Shenmue discussion, so I hope you don't mind if I try again: why shouldn't the Dems resurrect a version of the ERA? I know it is utterly unrealistic to pass it, but the mere act of making the GOP oppose it seems like a great opportunity to brand the them as opposing basic rights for women and LGBT citizens, and would help cement those groups' support for the Democratic Party. Put it in our platform and celebrate it. The text is just so stark:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex
Click to expand...

Naturally, the language would be updated to include LGBT. Maybe do the same thing with a Voting Rights amendment. I just think that when the other guys hold a position that is odious to the majority of the voting public (in this case, women and LGBT), you really ought to make the other side own it. It seems like both good policy and good politics, and also seems cost-free. So why is this not a good idea?
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
So Trump and Clinton are holding rallies at the same time, MSNBC is covering Trump with Hillary's rally being shown in a mini box on the screen. And now I'm seeing liberals on my timeline hand wring over this, as if it's some sexist slight or worse. I really, really cannot stand Media Matters types who monitor the media and look for things to cry about.

You're winning. It's not 2003 anymore. Grow a pair.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
metalslimer said:
And the top headline under the cnn poll is the coughing fit. I hope CNN is happy with themselves
Click to expand...

If I was the Clinton campaign I would say "See you fuckers, this is why we don't do Press Conferences. You asswipes don't even have the capability to cover them. You irresponsible childish fuckers"

This is one of the many reasons that I am not on the Clinton campaign...

Iolo said:
Does any of this, other than Florida, look plausible though?
Click to expand...

It's plausible that Trump is stuck at 44%. That's my take away.
 
S

Slayven

Member
whyamihere said:
She deleted it. But.

CrsS3o1WgAAvbJV.jpg
Click to expand...
THat is the great thing about being out of the public eye, you can say crazy shit
Cesare Borgia said:
So Trump and Clinton are holding rallies at the same time, MSNBC is covering Trump with Hillary's rally being shown in a mini box on the screen. And now I'm seeing liberals on my timeline hand wring over this, as if it's some sexist slight or worse. I really, really cannot stand Media Matters types who monitor the media and look for things to cry about.

You're winning. It's not 2003 anymore. Grow a pair.
Click to expand...

I think people should step back on constantly consuming news. back in my day we had news at 6pm and 11pm and we were just fine
 
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
  • 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
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom