• 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.
J

Jeels

Member
So GAF, should I expect literally a repeat of the last 8 years? AKA:

-Hillary wins
-Supreme court spot filled
-Democrats take senate but Republicans keep house due to gerrymandering
-Republicans use that as a mandate to block any legislation
-Nothing gets done, bickering back and forth. maybe some drama like government shut down threats
-Media continues to dramatize this and push the "both parties are the same" to maintain/drive ratings
-Nothing gets done
-Status quo
-Hillary wins 2020, republicans take senate and house due to slightly lower democratic turnout and American obsession with "balancing out" the branches of government
-Nothing gets done...

Or are the parties actually going to work together? Because I don't think I can take another 8 years (despite having the belief that there will be no president in my lifetime I admire as much as Obama).
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Jeels said:
So GAF, should I expect literally a repeat of the last 8 years? AKA:

-Hillary wins
-Supreme court spot filled
-Democrats take senate but Republicans keep house due to gerrymandering
-Republicans use that as a mandate to block any legislation
-Nothing gets done, bickering back and forth. maybe some drama like government shut down threats
-Media continues to dramatize this and push the "both parties are the same" to maintain/drive ratings
-Nothing gets done
-Status quo
-Hillary wins 2020
-Nothing gets done...

Or are the parties actually going to work together? Because I don't think I can take another 8 years (despite having the belief that there will be no president in my lifetime I admire as much as Obama).
Click to expand...

There's going to be more than 1 supreme court seat filled. Hillary will fill at least two, maybe a third depending on how things shake out.

Also, I don't think 2020 will play out like you think it will. The Dems will be throwing everything at the wall that cycle to ensure they can undo the gerrymandering that's keeping the GOP in control of the House.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
B-Dubs said:
He was really shitty on LGBTQ rights though, we shouldn't forget that at all. Otherwise, as per usual, we're pretty much sharing a similar opinion.
Click to expand...

But so was the entire country. Not that that gives him a pass but his view was the median view at the time.

But yeah.

I can only imagine how different everything would have been had he picked someone else besides Cheney.

I hope history treats him like a cockroach.
 
E

Emarv

Member
Nokagi said:
Yup. This is a great speech.
Click to expand...

You can already see the narrative, though. "Obama talked too much on race relations and not enough on the mourning of the cops. Bush had one great line and nailed it. Obama tried to do too much and politicized it."
 
B

Boke1879

Member
Emarv said:
You can already see the narrative, though. "Obama talked too much on race relations and not enough on the mourning of the cops. Bush had one great line and nailed it. Obama tried to do too much and politicized it."
Click to expand...

Good. Let Obama bear that burden.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Bush didn't like gays, appointed cronies everywhere, invaded Iraq out of personal vengeance because Saddam tried to kill his dad.

W wasn't a racist and he was willing to abandon conservative ideas to save the economy, but not all of his ideals were good.

W tried to appoint Harriet Miers ffs:

On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, saying, "Harriet Miers will be the type of judge I said I would nominate: a good conservative judge."[24] Miers' nomination was criticized by people of various political views, for the fact that she had never served as a judge at any level, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice. Many notable conservatives vigorously criticized her nomination, and numerous conservative groups normally considered part of Bush's political base planned to mount an organized opposition campaign.

Miers met with the Senate Judiciary Committee after her nomination and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[25] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she "flunked" and "[was] going to have to say something next time."[25] Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[26] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[27] In addition, Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional questions senators asked of her.[27] To White House lawyers, Miers was "less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president."[28]

In an unprecedented move, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy also requested that Miers re-do some of her answers to the questionnaire submitted to her by the Committee, noting that her responses were "inadequate", "insufficient", and "insulting" because she failed or refused to adequately answer various questions with acceptable accuracy or with sufficient detail.[29] Miers also privately expressed a belief in the right to privacy to the pro-choice Arlen Specter, only to later deny that she had communicated that position.[30] Her answers also included an error on constitutional law where she mentioned an explicit constitutional right for proportional representation; though many court rulings have found that legislative and other districts of unequal population violate the equal protection clause, the right to proportional districts is not explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[31]

After Miers failed in these private meetings, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback began drafting a letter asking the President's office to turn over legal memoranda and briefs Miers had written for Bush, in order to elucidate her views on political matters.[32] Brownback and Graham knew the memos were protected by executive privilege, that the White House was not required to turn them over, and that Miers could refuse to deliver the memos and then ostensibly step down on principle.[32] Miers would later use this request as part of a face-saving exit strategy for stepping down. In her letter withdrawing her nomination, she pointed to the senators' request for confidential documents as potentially damaging the executive branch's independence.[33]
Click to expand...

W was a guy who didn't follow the Republican line too much, but he was a guy involved with massive corruption and terrible wars as he pursued his own self interest.
 
I

itschris

Member
Jeels said:
So GAF, should I expect literally a repeat of the last 8 years? AKA:

-Hillary wins
-Supreme court spot filled
-Democrats take senate but Republicans keep house due to gerrymandering
-Republicans use that as a mandate to block any legislation
-Nothing gets done, bickering back and forth. maybe some drama like government shut down threats
-Media continues to dramatize this and push the "both parties are the same" to maintain/drive ratings
-Nothing gets done
-Status quo
-Hillary wins 2020, republicans take senate and house due to slightly lower democratic turnout and American obsession with "balancing out" the branches of government
-Nothing gets done...

Or are the parties actually going to work together? Because I don't think I can take another 8 years (despite having the belief that there will be no president in my lifetime I admire as much as Obama).
Click to expand...

Well, if Hillary fills Scalia's seat, there's a possibility that the Supreme Court could decide that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, which would hopefully make the House more flippable in the future.
 
E

Emarv

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Bush didn't like gays, appointed cronies everywhere, invaded Iraq out of personal vengeance because Saddam tried to kill his dad.

W wasn't a racist and he was willing to abandon conservative ideas to save the economy, but not all of his ideals were good.

W tried to appoint Harriet Miers ffs:



W was a guy who didn't follow the Republican line too much, but he was a guy involved with massive corruption and terrible wars as he pursued his own self interest.
Click to expand...

Sure, but...didn't you just want to have a beer with him, ya kno?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Bush didn't like gays, appointed cronies everywhere, invaded Iraq out of personal vengeance because Saddam tried to kill his dad.

W wasn't a racist and he was willing to abandon conservative ideas to save the economy, but not all of his ideals were good.

W tried to appoint Harriet Miers ffs:



W was a guy who didn't follow the Republican line too much, but he was a guy involved with massive corruption and terrible wars as he pursued his own self interest.
Click to expand...

That sounds pretty sane to me.

Compare that to the Cruz, Trump, Mike Lee leaders of the party today...
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Bush didn't like gays, appointed cronies everywhere, invaded Iraq out of personal vengeance because Saddam tried to kill his dad.

W wasn't a racist and he was willing to abandon conservative ideas to save the economy, but not all of his ideals were good.

W tried to appoint Harriet Miers ffs:


W was a guy who didn't follow the Republican line too much, but he was a guy involved with massive corruption and terrible wars as he pursued his own self interest.
Click to expand...

No disagreements here, but I'd still rather deal with W than the current crop of insane assholes the GOP has put forth. At least you could trust Bush to throw away ideology when it came to staving off complete economic collapse and another great depression. The current lot would cheer as the world economy careened off the cliff and into the abyss.
 
S

Skiptastic

Member
Holmes said:
What's the rationale with IN-09 on the Red 2 Blue list?
Click to expand...
The guy who won the GOP side is from Tennessee, but he had weak opponents and a lot of money. Evan Bayh is back. Pence has a lot of bad feelings around Indiana.

So there is a chance that the Dem nominee can take advantage of that.

If Pence is the VP, it actually hurts the Dem governor's race, in my opinion, because they can go with a less controversial nominee.
 
A

ampere

Member
nature boy said:
Wow.

imrs.php
Click to expand...

I'm most surprised that ~10% of people who trust Fox News the most want to vote Clinton
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
W was a sane Republican?

That's not how I remember it.
Click to expand...

He was an idiot and often incompetent, but he clearly didn't have the crazy malice that we are currently seeing with the republican base.

ampere said:
I'm most surprised that ~10% of people who trust Fox News the most want to vote Clinton
Click to expand...

Think about it this way:

- Obviously most conservatives prefer Fox News
- Trump is so toxic that even many conservatives have spoken against him
- Before Trump became the presumptive nominee, Fox News was very quick to attack Trump in an attempt to convince GOP voters to not pick him in the primary.
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
Bush was awful. Really really awful. We'll need another decade or two for context but I'm sure he's in the running for worst President.

Yes, Trump / Cruz et al. are worse in terms of temperament and reasonableness but it's like the difference between a pile of shit and a pile of shit on fire, it's not really worth waxing nostalgic about how good we used to have it.

Hell, you could make an argument that no one except Bush / Cheney would have had such a hard-on for a war in Iraq, a pretty good case for literally anyone from the present past or future being a better option for the 2000 election than them.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
balladofwindfishes said:
I guess.

But the people he surrounded himself with were evil. Cheney was a disgusting human being, if he even is a human.
Click to expand...
That's probably Bush's biggest crime. Not that he was a buffoon or had almost no intellectual curiosity. It's that he had absolutely terrible judgment in choosing staff and appointees.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
gutter_trash said:
I don't understand anything about economics (truth), I always equate ''growth'' as a good thing
Click to expand...

The article goes on to explain that the growth is hollow. I cut this from the article:

In a statement, Finance Minister Michael Noonan pointed out that growth numbers cut Ireland’s debt and deficit ratios. Trouble is, they carry downsides too.

For one, tax inversions artificially inflate the size of Ireland’s economy. When the headquarters of a group of companies becomes resident in Ireland, all of its global profits may be counted as part of the nation’s gross national income, according to the ministry.

Since 2008, that gauge has been boosted by about 7 billion euros thanks to corporate relocations, without accompanying substance or employment, the ministry has said. This in turn drives up the country’s contribution to the European Union budget, which is based on the size of the economy.

For a second thing, it leaves self-described “baffled” analysts like Power at a loss to explain the state of the Irish economy. Power says he’ll look at indicators like employment growth and tax revenue for a better gauge, and guesses Ireland’s underlying economic growth was 5.5 percent last year.

“To me, it looks like Ireland is growing at a reasonable, not dramatic rate,” said Power. “There are so many transactions going on that nobody understands.”
Click to expand...

Basically they aren't seeing a whole lot of new jobs associated with this growth. It's basically all just air in a balloon, there's no substance. Imagine their economy as a water balloon, instead of being filled with water all that growth is air. The truth is this could very well be a bubble, because once those companies leave, and they very likely could if someone else offers them a better deal, all that growth goes away overnight and the bubble bursts. There's a reason no one bases their economies on inversions.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Emarv said:
I think he'll stay close to the late 30's that he's currently placed at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Click to expand...

FDR at #2.

FDR was a fantastic president who did a lot of great things and was incredibly influential, but I can't really overlook the Japanese camps. I think that should move him down the list a bit.

Andrew Jackson being above basically everyone, but especially above Obama is also a little weird.

Looking at this list, it's also no wonder the Whigs died out. All their guys are at the bottom.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
FDR at #2.

FDR was a fantastic president who did a lot of great things and was incredibly influential, but I can't really overlook the Japanese camps. I think that should move him down the list a bit.

Andrew Jackson being above basically everyone, but especially above Obama is also a little weird.
Click to expand...

Andrew Jackson accomplished his whole agenda: Committing genocide and stealing land to expand slavery.

Presidential historians are fucking weird. They always rate James Polk highly for "accomplishing his agenda" but his agenda was mostly about stealing land from Mexico so how is that laudable?

Woodrow Wilson actually lied his entire way through his 1916 campaign and then went counter to his entire agenda by joining WW1 and imprisoning opponents of this move, but... he's rated highly as well?

Maybe History is just full of Alt-Right people who admire how much Wilson, Polk, and Jackson hated non-white people?
 
E

Emarv

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
FDR at #2.

FDR was a fantastic president who did a lot of great things and was incredibly influential, but I can't really overlook the Japanese camps. I think that should move him down the list a bit.

Andrew Jackson being above basically everyone, but especially above Obama is also a little weird.

Looking at this list, it's also no wonder the Whigs died out. All their guys are at the bottom.
Click to expand...

Part of it is what people call "Presidents of Destiny". People who just so happened to be there at the right moment in history and handled it either correctly or firmly. The list isn't like pure moral good.

Often these ranks are about total influence, particularly from both conservative and liberal historians. No matter how you shape it, objectively, FDR had huge "success" as a global and national leader.


I'd recommend Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians by Robert W. Merry, if you're interested in how these historians view the rankings of presidents. It's kind of silly and arbitrary at times, but I found it a pretty fast read.
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
itschris said:
Well, if Hillary fills Scalia's seat, there's a possibility that the Supreme Court could decide that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, which would hopefully make the House more flippable in the future.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but a liberal supreme court could strike down Voter ID laws, force states to make registering to vote more reasonable, force a reasonable standard on early voting, and get the preclearance part of the VRA rerecognized.

Only one I might be wrong on is the preclearance part, but since I know the actual law wasn't amended, I figure that overturning the 2013 decision would lead to it going back into effect.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Emarv said:
Part of it is what people call "Presidents of Destiny". People who just so happened to be there at the right moment in history and handled it either correctly or firmly. The list isn't like pure moral good.

Often these ranks are about total influence, particularly from both conservative and liberal historians. No matter how you shape it, objectively, FDR had huge "success" as a global and national leader.


I'd recommend Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians by Robert W. Merry, if you're interested in how these historians view the rankings of presidents. It's kind of silly and arbitrary at times, but I found it a pretty fast read.
Click to expand...

I mean, Nixon killed hundreds of thousands of people and ended the faith of Americans in the U.S. government and that's pretty influential/important so maybe he should be higher? lol
 
I

itschris

Member
HylianTom said:
Yeah, my first reaction was basically "whaaaa..?!"

I think this is a peek into her confidence regarding November's outcome, but it doesn't at all make her comments any better.
Click to expand...

Slate has a take on her comments:

RBG Just Risked Her Legacy to Insult Trump

There is really very little to debate about the ethics of Ginsburg’s comments. They were plainly a violation, the kind of partisan partiality that judicial ethics codes strive to prevent. But Ginsburg, who is a quietly canny judicial and political strategist, surely knows that her comments were an ethical error. That leads to a fascinating question: Why would the justice risk her reputation and good standing—and even her power to hear cases involving Trump—for a few quick jabs at the candidate? The answer, I suspect, is that Ginsburg has decided to sacrifice some of her prestige in order to send as clear a warning signal about Trump as she possibly can. The subtext of Ginsburg’s comments, of her willingness to comment, is that Trump poses an unparalleled threat to this country—a threat so great that she will abandon judicial propriety in order to warn against looming disaster.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
235
42K
OverHeat replied
Xbox 360 'First Party' dev/pub output DID NOT drop in 2nd half after Kinect, but barely changed. People are likely mixing up TP exclusives with FP.
2 3
148
8K
feynoob replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
3K
dorkimoe replied
Top Bottom