• 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 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
Before the Pocahontas thing, I thought he was self-aware enough to not go full on overtly racist. I realize that was a fool's hope. I still don't think he goes full racist among African Americans. (I think he knows that's a no-no.) Everything else is on the table. And, I'm about 99% sure he will call her a bitch at some point.
 

itschris

Member
New York Times: White House Prohibits Cabinet From Addressing Democratic Convention

The White House has forbidden members of President Obama’s cabinet to address the Democratic National Convention this month, a stark break from past policy that is intended to avoid the appearance that the administration’s final months are being consumed by the politics of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

In 2012, as he campaigned for re-election, five members of the president’s cabinet addressed the party convention in Charlotte, N.C. But in issuing the prohibition this year, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, decided to “send a signal about the primacy of the Obama administration’s responsibility to manage the government and serve the American people,” said Jennifer Friedman, the deputy White House press secretary.

It is hardly the first judgment that Mr. Obama’s team has had to make about how deeply to get involved as the president takes on an increasingly active role in the raucous campaign to succeed him — decisions that involve not only considerations of policy and appearances, but legal ones, as well.

Federal law requires top appointees to carefully separate their official duties from political ones, and those distinctions have taken on added significance this year, given the unusual nature of the race to succeed Mr. Obama.

...

Administration officials must walk a fine line, one that sometimes involves hairsplitting differences.

Hurling a personal insult at Mr. Trump from a White House lectern? Off limits. But Mr. Earnest can note the many ways in which Mr. Trump’s positions are at odds with the president’s.

Headlining a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton? No problem for a cabinet secretary, as long as the secretary does not use his or her official title or ask for contributions.

...

The president and vice president are exempt from many of the legal strictures. But even Mr. Obama has taken precautions to separate his role as the head of the Democratic Party from his official duties. When Mr. Obama taped his endorsement video last month for Mrs. Clinton at the White House, it was done in the Map Room — part of the residence, rather than his West Wing offices — and Mr. Earnest was quick to note that it was “not filmed at government expense.”
 
Whee, we're fucked.

http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2364

Overwhelming majority of voters want more civil liberties restricted to protect against terrorism.
We can't infringe upon the second amendment, but who needs that fourth one!!!
Fuck the republicans, fuck obama, fuck everyone
Rand and Bernie were our last chance, now we have the queen of serveria versus Dolph trumpler. If warren isn't on the ticket I'm writing in for bernie

The american public will not realize the pandoras box they opened with the patriot act until the next snowden unveils that the NSA watches you while you masturbate through your phones camera and then show off the footage to all their colleagues high fiving and laughing about it
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
We can't infringe upon the second amendment, but who needs that fourth one!!!
Fuck the republicans, fuck obama, fuck everyone
Rand and Bernie were our last chance, now we have the queen of serveria versus Dolph trumpler. If warren isn't on the ticket I'm writing in for bernie

The american public will not realize the pandoras box they opened with the patriot act until the next snowden unveils that the NSA watches you while you masturbate through your phones camera and then show off the footage to all their colleagues high fiving and laughing about it

Well, we at least know what the single issue you vote on is.
I don't see how Bernie was going to change how things are now in that regard. He barely ever talked about it, and he was not against drone strikes either.
 

mid83

Member
I randomly lurk here and it seems like this is a pretty well informed and knowledge crowd. I try to keep up to date with politics, but I'd really like to increase my knowledge, especially in economics and foreign policy/affairs. I think that will require me to do more than scanning headlines on CNN every day or two.

Anyways, I was wondering if I could ask what newspapers/magazines/online news sources all of you read on a regular basis to stay informed.

I recently signed up for The Economist and am looking for more high quality news sources. I'm also considering a newspaper like The Financial Times or WSJ for economics news, but I'm not sure if a subscription is worth it these days with all the free news.

Hopefully this post will be ok on this thread since I imagine this is a group of well informed people who consume news on a regular basis. Thanks!
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
http://www.getlittlebird.com/blog/d...ek-follow-multiple-white-supremacist-accounts

CmfGrxQWIAEIUez.jpg
 
Well, we at least know what the single issue you vote on is.
I don't see how Bernie was going to change how things are now in that regard. He barely ever talked about it, and he was not against drone strikes either.
Like Joe said, its a big fucking deal. Hillary doesn't care, she vaguely talks about how the NSA needs oversight but is justified and then never brings it up again, hoping people forget the NSA exists. Of course there are other things I think about when I vote, but since there were only two candidates in the whole race repping an issue that everyone else preserves the status quo on, they need my support.
You cannot so easily dismiss me by saying single issue voter lol
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Like Joe said, its a big fucking deal. Hillary doesn't care, she vaguely talks about how the NSA needs oversight but is justified and then never brings it up again, hoping people forget the NSA exists. Of course there are other things I think about when I vote, but since there were only two candidates in the whole race repping an issue that everyone else preserves the status quo on, they need my support.
You cannot so easily dismiss me by saying single issue voter lol

Not really dismissing you, it's not a terrible issue to be single minded about.
Ron Paul was one of the few to campaign on the issue, but he had all of that baggage.
 

ampere

Member
The 8th amendment is never talked about for some reason.

Will take a solid liberal SCOTUS to strike down the death penalty, solitary confinement and other forms of torture before we hear an uproar about it. At least, I hope our current SCOTUS + Garland would do that

I don't foresee any legislative movement to make changes with regards to it though

Was looking up some stuff about past SCOTUS cases that have been related to solitary confinement:

31. Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

a. Blackmun’s concurrence sets out that the unnecessary pain prohibited by the 8th Amendment could include psychological as well as physical pain.

We see this to an extent in the rulings that the DOJ ruled a transgender prisoner cannot be denied hormone therapy

I randomly lurk here and it seems like this is a pretty well informed and knowledge crowd. I try to keep up to date with politics, but I'd really like to increase my knowledge, especially in economics and foreign policy/affairs. I think that will require me to do more than scanning headlines on CNN every day or two.

Anyways, I was wondering if I could ask what newspapers/magazines/online news sources all of you read on a regular basis to stay informed.

I recently signed up for The Economist and am looking for more high quality news sources. I'm also considering a newspaper like The Financial Times or WSJ for economics news, but I'm not sure if a subscription is worth it these days with all the free news.

Hopefully this post will be ok on this thread since I imagine this is a group of well informed people who consume news on a regular basis. Thanks!

Welcome. Your post is totally fine, you can basically post anything in community threads as long as you aren't being super mean or rude or something. If we get too too off topic mods might yell at us I guess, but the thread is pretty relaxed.

I generally read aggregate new sources like my Google news feed and Reddit's frontpage to make sure I'm not missing something huge. Foreign policy is pretty complicated and I can't give you much advice there, but for economics you may want to check out Paul Krugman's blog. I haven't read it very recently, but he's generally a good economic mind to learn from.
 

Diablos

Member
John C. Calhoun was the last. He was Vice President from 1825 through 1832, first under John Quincy Adams and then under Andrew Jackson.

The only other VP to serve under two presidents was George Clinton, who served from 1805 through 1812 under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Thank you. Odds of Biden staying on as VP are probably like 2%


We can't infringe upon the second amendment, but who needs that fourth one!!!
Fuck the republicans, fuck obama, fuck everyone
Rand and Bernie were our last chance, now we have the queen of serveria versus Dolph trumpler. If warren isn't on the ticket I'm writing in for bernie

The american public will not realize the pandoras box they opened with the patriot act until the next snowden unveils that the NSA watches you while you masturbate through your phones camera and then show off the footage to all their colleagues high fiving and laughing about it
Is this a joke post
 
NPR is left wing.

When I want to hear what someone from the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Brookings Institution, or the American Enterprise Institute thinks about the day's news, I turn to NPR. I don't know why they so rely on conservative think tanks for commentary. "Here are the facts, which a liberal analyst would simply agree with, so let's turn to the conservative perspective instead."

Here's a bit of Bernie graffiti I found in DC:

 
When I want to hear what someone from the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Brookings Institution, or the American Enterprise Institute thinks about the day's news, I turn to NPR. I don't know why they so rely on conservative think tanks for commentary. "Here are the facts, which a liberal analyst would simply agree with, so let's turn to the conservative perspective instead."

Here's a bit of Bernie graffiti I found in DC:

wat

One of the preeminent center left think tanks categorized as conservative? Where is center for you?
 

royalan

Member
Before the Pocahontas thing, I thought he was self-aware enough to not go full on overtly racist. I realize that was a fool's hope. I still don't think he goes full racist among African Americans. (I think he knows that's a no-no.) Everything else is on the table. And, I'm about 99% sure he will call her a bitch at some point.

It would be a lost cause.

After his Central Park 5 bullshit, black folks got his number. Well...most of us, anyway.
 
If Pence met with Trump then it's gonna be Pence, I guess.

I have the feeling it'll be Senator Jeffry Beauregard Sessions (R-Alabama)

I hope its him.

He was an early supporter of Trump's and seems to share his ideology.

He also thought the KKK was alright until he heard some of them smoked marijuana.
 

Crocodile

Member
It would be a lost cause.

After his Central Park 5 bullshit, black folks got his number. Well...most of us, anyway.

Didn't he just say a few months ago he wouldn't trust us to touch his money? Or what about "his African American"? I think us "the Blacks" have been done with him for a while :p
 
Terror attacks have nearly tripled under Obama, and the number of people dead from terror attacks has nearly quadrupled.

(By the way, under Bush attacks tripled as well, which leads to the "ninefold" increase since 2000.)

deaths%20from%20terrorism%202000-2014_branded.png


terrorism-2.jpg


The majority of these increases have come from four primary sources:
- the complete destablization of Syria due to the civil war and the rise of ISIS in the East
- the spilling over of ISIS violence into Iraq that has led to massive casualties
- the resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan due to their defeat in Afghanistan
- the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria

Withdrawing from Iraq was a mistake. Letting Bashar al Assad cross the red line with no consequences was a mistake. Not doing anything to help Nigeria combat Boko Haram is a mistake.

The world has seen extensive successes in counterterrorism under Obama. Rebuilding our international relationships has enhanced our information gathering abilities and strengthed our counterterrorism ops in other countries. We eliminated Osama bin Laden and have completely destabilized and degraded al Qaeda to the point of being an afterthought in conversations about global terrorism. There has not been a coordinated terror attack on US soil at all under this president's administration.

But the world is quantifiably more dangerous. The West has seen the most serious and most damaging terror attacks since 9/11 under this administration. At the start of this presidency, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and even Iraq were functioning countries, but by the end, Libya has seen extreme increases in violence and terrorism, Syria and Yemen are embroiled in civil war (with Syria being among the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st Century), Iraq losing its western countryside and third largest city to ISIS, and only Egypt having any semblance of order due to a military dictatorship supplanting the previous dictatorship.

This is Obama's fault by deviating substantially from what he calls the Washington Playbook, which is more aptly known as the broad consensus of security analysts working in DC.

You may argue fatalistically that the Middle East is doomed, or that we should turn our attention elsewhere, or that the goal of this administration is mostly just to keep us safe and abstain from sticky engagements in the region unnecessarily. But if the goal was ever to make the world safer, then the president has failed.

The jury is still out on whether it is worth the human and financial cost to succeed.
 

Piecake

Member
Terror attacks have nearly tripled under Obama, and the number of people dead from terror attacks has nearly quadrupled.

(By the way, under Bush attacks tripled as well, which leads to the "ninefold" increase since 2000.)

deaths%20from%20terrorism%202000-2014_branded.png


terrorism-2.jpg


The majority of these increases have come from four primary sources:
- the complete destablization of Syria due to the civil war and the rise of ISIS in the East
- the spilling over of ISIS violence into Iraq that has led to massive casualties
- the resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan due to their defeat in Afghanistan
- the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria

Withdrawing from Iraq was a mistake. Letting Bashar al Assad cross the red line with no consequences was a mistake. Not doing anything to help Nigeria combat Boko Haram is a mistake.

The world has seen extensive successes in counterterrorism under Obama. Rebuilding our international relationships has enhanced our information gathering abilities and strengthed our counterterrorism ops in other countries. We eliminated Osama bin Laden and have completely destabilized and degraded al Qaeda to the point of being an afterthought in conversations about global terrorism. There has not been a coordinated terror attack on US soil at all under this president's administration.

But the world is quantifiably more dangerous. The West has seen the most serious and most damaging terror attacks since 9/11 under this administration. At the start of this presidency, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and even Iraq were functioning countries, but by the end, Libya has seen extreme increases in violence and terrorism, Syria and Yemen are embroiled in civil war (with Syria being among the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st Century), Iraq losing its western countryside and third largest city to ISIS, and only Egypt having any semblance of order due to a military dictatorship supplanting the previous dictatorship.

This is Obama's fault by deviating substantially from what he calls the Washington Playbook, which is more aptly known as the broad consensus of security analysts working in DC.

You may argue fatalistically that the Middle East is doomed, or that we should turn our attention elsewhere, or that the goal of this administration is mostly just to keep us safe and abstain from sticky engagements in the region unnecessarily. But if the goal was ever to make the world safer, then the president has failed.

The jury is still out on whether it is worth the human and financial cost to succeed.

Why are you assuming that things would be better if we did involve ourselves in those matters?

Just because we did not take action and things look bad does not mean that things would be better if we took action. If we took action, things might be worse.

What could we have done in Syria when Syria is a major ally of Russia? Could we have defeated and prevented ISIS when all ISIS has to do is cross the border into Syria to evade us? Wouldn't that increase the fighting and hatred of Americans and Westerners? Should we have just ignored that the Iraqi's wanted us gone and stayed there?
 

Diablos

Member
Well first of all we never should have gone into Iraq in the first fucking place, and I don't believe anyone should have any regrets about withdrawing from the country. It was a complete waste of blood and treasure as the saying goes. But it really was.

And I refuse to believe that "if only" we approached things differently in Syria that this would have somehow magically prevented the increasing amount of violence and turmoil we're seeing throughout the Middle East.

Everyone knew the decisions that go along with winding down the wars and trying to deal with the uncertainty and instability in the region were not going to be an easy task. That's why you had people like Richard Clarke saying "I told you so" all along. The instant we invaded Iraq, WE FUCKED UP.

Also we live in a world where any fucking idiot can go online and feel inspired by ISIS and other propaganda, go out and get a gun and shoot things up. See: Orlando.
 
The West has seen the most serious and most damaging terror attacks since 9/11 under this administration.

I guess if you ignore 7/7 and the Madrid train bombing this is kind of barely true. Of course those were organized plots while we're dealing with a new and impossibly challenging genesis of lone wolf inspiration shootings and other forms of mass violence.
 
Didn't he just say a few months ago he wouldn't trust us to touch his money? Or what about "his African American"? I think us "the Blacks" have been done with him for a while :p
That is from a book that someone wrote about Trump who claimed he said that. The author claims that he didn't like that his accountant was African American because he only wants Jews to count his money. He most likely said it and still believes it, but it cant be proven he said it.
 

kirblar

Member
Yeah, the vast majority of that is due to the destabilization of Iraq.

Realpolitik isn't pretty, but it prevents shit like that.
 
The delusion of the far left. Everyone is an enemy.
Man, I did a double take. The same Brookings that argues we need a better response for the losers in trade and advocates for national wage insurance? Conservative?

Yeah, lets be like sanders and criticize Card and Krueger. Make enemies of the only people that develop the workable left leaning solutions to society's ills.

That'll work out great.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Yeah, the vast majority of that is due to the destabilization of Iraq.

Realpolitik isn't pretty, but it prevents shit like that.

Pretty much. You can trace a lot of the recent issues in the region to the destabilization created after the Iraq War.
 

Emarv

Member
The global rise of terrorism is multifaceted and due to a lot more than just interventionism and strong armedness, imo. But I guess we'll see when either Clinton or Trump takes office what an enhanced reaction does for the Middle East.

Regardless, I think it's a little fallacious to say "the world isn't safer" overall solely because of the rise in global terror and continued destabilization of the Middle East.
 
I mean, the destabilization of Iraq is really the culmination of decades of policies wherein we installed and supported puppet dictators in order to widen our (and limit the USSR's) sphere of influence. So really, it's more like "Thanks every post WWII president!" as opposed to "Thanks Obama!"

I much prefer Obama's focus on the Far East and his attempts to use soft power via things like TPP to limit Chinese influence and to widen American political power in the region. It can't work worse than empowering tin pot dictators and rebels who then turn around and work against our interests just years or decades later, at any rate.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
The global rise of terrorism is multifaceted and due to a lot more than just interventionism and strong armedness, imo. But I guess we'll see when either Clinton or Trump takes office what an enhanced reaction does for the Middle East.

Regardless, I think it's a little fallacious to say "the world isn't safer" overall solely because of the rise in global terror and continued destabilization of the Middle East.

It definitely is. The whole thing is just a mess of interconnected issues, most of which we are not in a position to deal with.

I mean, the destabilization of Iraq is really the culmination of decades of policies wherein we installed and supported puppet dictators in order to widen our (and limit the USSR's) sphere of influence. So really, it's more like "Thanks every post WWII president!" as opposed to "Thanks Obama!"

I much prefer Obama's focus on the Far East and his attempts to use soft power via things like TPP to limit Chinese influence and to widen American political power in the region. It can't work worse than empowering tin pot dictators and rebels who then turn around and work against our interests just years or decades later, at any rate.

Unfortunately the problem stretches back further than just the US in post-WWII, it goes back to Europe's race for colonies and resources. They just drew lines on the map however they wanted, regardless of how the people in those lines got along. We just managed to kick the can a few decades down the road with our actions.

EDIT: Except for Iran, that's totally on us and the UK.
 

Diablos

Member
Also these attacks remind me that this is why we should not assume the GE is in the bag for Hillary.

What is to stop another ISIS-inspired moron from shooting stuff up a week, a few days before, or hell, even the day of the election? I can't be the only one thinking of this possibility. Not to mention the possibility of a larger scale attack too...

The more it happens the more ammo it gives the GOP to blame Obama for winding down the wars and not having a magic wand to deal with Syria.
Also when Americans get scared they tend to vote even more irrationally than usual.
 
Unfortunately the problem stretches back further than just the US in post-WWII, it goes back to Europe's race for colonies and resources. They just drew lines on the map however they wanted, regardless of how the people in those lines got along. We just managed to kick the can a few decades down the road with our actions.

EDIT: Except for Iran, that's totally on us and the UK.

Sure, you can trace these issues back to the Colonial era. The reason that Boko Haram is able to destabilize Nigeria, for example, goes back to England's domination of Nigeria and their failure to support the region as it struggled to emerge in a post-colonial world in the 1960s.

The point is that Kris is being reductive, but I can never quite tell when he's serious about what he's saying or when he's being facetious on purpose just to be a provocateur.
 
Remember when everyone thought it was super unrealistic that Breaking Bad's final villains were Nazis and then three years later a U.S. presidential candidate started posting NeoNazi propaganda on his Twitter account?
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Terror attacks have nearly tripled under Obama, and the number of people dead from terror attacks has nearly quadrupled.

The curve of that graph seems like it could roughly correlate with kids in wartorn areas and subjected to hardships and the loss of family members coming of age over time after major conflicts and taking up arms against "the West".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom