• 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 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Teggy

Member
Dana Bash said that they had "almost" seen physical arm twisting. I don't know what "almost" means in this context.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
ampere said:
It's beyond comical

And there's no way to accurately tell since everyone doesn't have the same volume voice anyway
Click to expand...

NYCmetsfan said:
Voice votes are discretionary to basically speed things up. If you have enough to make it not obvious you'd have enough to get a roll call vote. The problem is they basically ignored the rules and just said you can't do a roll call.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, obviously they're more symbolic than substantive, but at that point why have them in the first place? I can't recall a single voice vote where the chair has proactively gone, "you know, that was too close to tell, let's have a roll call". The chair decides what they want and then says that result had it.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
Yeah, I mean, obviously they're more symbolic than substantive, but at that point why have them in the first place? I can't recall a single voice vote where the chair has proactively gone, "you know, that was too close to tell, let's have a roll call". The chair decides what they want and then says that result had it.
Click to expand...

Its for speed. having a roll call on simple measures would take forever. It takes 30 seconds vs. requiring a few thousand people to vote
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
Its for speed. having a roll call on simple measures would take forever. It takes 30 seconds vs. requiring a few thousand people to vote
Click to expand...

I mean, I recognize that the rules of procedure likely require some form of active 'vote' to take place no matter what, but it seems like it would be simpler to just give the chair more authority to independently decide administrative matters or resolve it beforehand (effectively that's what already happens anyway). It's not like the chair is going to say the "nays" have it if the motion is required for things to actually proceed, any adverse result will just be ignored. Same thing with 'petitions' for the same adverse result, ultimately the chair will just find a way to ignore it (or so it seems anyway).
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Rudy Guliani just said that he put black people to work and that's why they should go with republicans lol. I know what he meant, but come on
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
I mean, I recognize that the rules of procedure likely require some form of active 'vote' to take place no matter what, but it seems like it would be simpler to just give the chair more authority to independently decide administrative matters or resolve it beforehand (effectively that's what already happens anyway). It's not like the chair is going to say the "nays" have it if the motion is required for things to actually proceed.
Click to expand...

the chair doesn't vote and make decisions. They basically just guide everything.

the whole point of parliamentary procedure to to most effectively help large groups hold meetings and come to consensus decisions letting the chair be a dictator would defeat that.
 
B

bangbang i'm a timpani

Banned
itschris said:
An intriguing look at the relationships between Obama and Hillary, and Obama and Biden:

Politico Magazine: Party of Two



A lot more at the link!
Click to expand...

"To Obama, this was a big, unwelcome problem. He had picked Biden for the ticket back in ’08 because he didn’t want him to run for president again, and besides, he honestly believed Biden would be crushed by a defeat he viewed as inevitable."

How the hell do you even come to that conclusion
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
the chair doesn't vote and make decisions. They basically just guide everything.

the whole point of parliamentary procedure to to most effectively help large groups hold meetings and come to consensus decisions letting the chair be a dictator would defeat that.
Click to expand...

It seems a rather empty distinction to say the chair doesn't actually make decisions they just decide which decision won (with respect to voice votes specifically). If the chair was actually arbitrating those fairly and objectively, they would have to call for roll call votes all the time because I imagine the difference in volumes between a 60-40 split is impossible to evaluate with any accuracy.

I'm not trying to say parliamentary procedure is pointless, I'm just trying to say that voice votes with a body of several thousand seems like a fool's errand because it's just going to sound identical every time and the chair effectively becomes the dictator who decides what the decision is regardless of what it 'sounded like'.

We live in a computerized world, there's got to be a better way to have 'quick' votes that still remain fundamentally objective.
 
U

User 85168

Banned
From the poligaf chat:

1wIPuw4.gif


m9YEkDe.gif
 
I

itschris

Member
bangbang i'm a timpani said:
"To Obama, this was a big, unwelcome problem. He had picked Biden for the ticket back in ’08 because he didn’t want him to run for president again, and besides, he honestly believed Biden would be crushed by a defeat he viewed as inevitable."

How the hell do you even come to that conclusion
Click to expand...

That seems like a reasonable belief to me - I mean, the polls showed Biden way behind Hillary the whole time until he confirmed he wouldn't run:

UGzNyPu.png
Click to expand...

EDIT: Unless you thought Obama was referring to the general election. But no, I think this later quote makes it clear Obama was worried about the primary:

Plouffe stepped up the pressure on his fellow Delawarean after months of gingerly trying but not succeeding to get Biden to step aside gently.

“Mr. Vice President, you have had a remarkable career, and it would be wrong to see it end in some hotel room in Iowa with you finishing third behind Bernie Sanders,” he said, according to a senior Democratic official briefed on the effort to ease Biden out of the race.
Click to expand...
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
It seems a rather empty distinction to say the chair doesn't actually make decisions they just decide which decision won (with respect to voice votes specifically). If the chair was actually arbitrating those fairly and objectively, they would have to call for roll call votes all the time because I imagine the difference in volumes between a 60-40 split is impossible to evaluate with any accuracy.

I'm not trying to say parliamentary procedure is pointless, I'm just trying to say that voice votes with a body of several thousand seems like a fool's errand because it's just going to sound identical every time and the chair effectively becomes the dictator who decides what the decision is regardless of what it 'sounded like'.

We live in a computerized world, there's got to be a better way to have 'quick' votes that still remain fundamentally objective.
Click to expand...
they do. but most decisions that voice votes use are not that close

but your missing the fact the chair has to recognize those motions so unless the flout the rules they're never a dictator when deciding voice votes
 
N

nature boy

Member
Fucker has his priorities straight:

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 26m26 minutes ago
.@CNN is the worst.They go to their dumb, one-sided panels when a podium speaker is for Trump! VAST MAJORITY want: Make America Great Again!
Click to expand...

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 22m22 minutes ago
Networks other than low ratings @CNN have been very fair and exciting!
Click to expand...
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
bangbang i'm a timpani said:
"To Obama, this was a big, unwelcome problem. He had picked Biden for the ticket back in ’08 because he didn’t want him to run for president again, and besides, he honestly believed Biden would be crushed by a defeat he viewed as inevitable."

How the hell do you even come to that conclusion
Click to expand...

It's Politico so you know 30-50% is bullshit. I've never seen a news org do a WH profile and claim Obama picked Biden because he wouldn't run in 2016. It's insulting.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
LOL at them just ignoring the roll call vote. Wow.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
they do. but most decisions that voice votes use are not that close

but your missing the fact the chair has to recognize those motions so unless the flout the rules they're never a dictator when deciding voice votes
Click to expand...

Although I'm sure it's selection bias combined with the fact I don't watch parliamentary procedure meetings on a regular basis, I have no memory of ever hearing a chair in an event like this say something like "I could not discern whether the 'ayes' or 'nays' had it". Or are you saying they are forced to recognize one as the winner and they do not have the option of saying it's too close to call? That would be kind of bizarre but I guess in terms of efficiency it's probably more ideal than the alternative.

In any event I agree that we're not exposed to the thousands of times where it proceeds normally; the only video clips you see online of stuff like this are the questionable ones. I still think the chair is, well, dictator is not the right word, but they're at least like a judge. So sure, your motion may be something that should be accepted or recognized normally, but if the judge/chair dismisses it for whatever reason it's not like you have much recourse because they ultimately get to decide what the rules are and who is right/wrong. So even if you bring another motion or whatever, there's no reason to think a hostile adjudicator is going to do anything other than create reasons why you're wrong. The chair may not be empowered by the rules to enact their own agenda, but they can certainly use their position to help independent proponents of their agenda at the expense of others.
 
P

Paskil

Member
Officerrob said:
The Terrible Towel is a Pittsburgh Steelers thing, a rival of the hometown Cleveland Browns
Click to expand...

Yup, I wasn't clear in my post. I imagine Paul Ryan doesn't follow sports super closely outside of maybe a few Wisconsin teams so he thought he was making a play to the Ohio crowd, while instead, actually making a huge faux pas. I tried to make it seem that that was the case by the second line about generic sports terms.

In my head, attempted pandering was failed pandering. Not just general pandering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
3K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
238
44K
Hrk69 replied
Evolution of Open World Games 1980-2021
2 3
141
13K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
Top Bottom