• 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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chichikov

Member
I know that she's not good at that stuff, but at the very least the act of showing up at one of the events would show solidarity with the protestors. It's an action that would be the start of a hopeful reignition of the Democratic base.

I can't speak for what it would achieve, but at the very least Clinton's vanishing after her defeat just feels fundamentally off.
So you want her to do something that probably going to distract from the important issues that are at stake and is not going to advance any actual political goal in the name of some nebulous ideas like solidarity and "not feeling off".

Listen man, I don't think we have the luxury for such things at this point in time, you have to think in a utilitarian way.
Was it going to help block the Muslim ban had Clinton showed at JFK? (yes/no)
Would it help save the ACA if she went to a town hall meeting in Kansas? (yes/no)
etc.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/...eakingNews&contentID=64956142&pgtype=Homepage

WASHINGTON — Journalists from The New York Times and two other news organizations were prohibited from attending a briefing by President Trump’s press secretary on Friday, a highly unusual breach of relations between the White House and its press corps.

Reporters from The Times, CNN and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer only allowed in reporters from a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed to attend.

Organizations allowed in included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all news outlets with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended.
 

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
Clinton needs to back the fuck off. If she goes anywhere near protests the story will be about her. They will twist it into she paid for the protesters. Anything you think of it will happen.

I am fine with a random tweet.
 
Partisan gerrymandering is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.

@CampaignLegal
BREAKING: The Wisconsin case is going to the Supreme Court! WI has filed an appeal - setting up a historic showdown. http://bit.ly/2mtsr9h

Last time this happened, Kennedy opened the door to striking down partisan gerrymandering if there was a formula or some way to look at it besides "this looks wrong". The plaintiffs specifically designed their arguments for Kennedy.

Imagine that the entire House (and state legislatures) had to run in 2018 with non-partisan districts with Trump at sub 40% approval ratings.
 
Partisan gerrymandering is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.



Last time this happened, Kennedy opened the door to striking down partisan gerrymandering if there was a formula or some way to look at it besides "this looks wrong". The plaintiffs specifically designed their arguments for Kennedy.

Imagine that the entire House (and state legislatures) had to run in 2018 with non-partisan districts with Trump at sub 40% approval ratings.

We'd theoretically be looking at a 5-3 split, correct?
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Partisan gerrymandering is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.



Last time this happened, Kennedy opened the door to striking down partisan gerrymandering if there was a formula or some way to look at it besides "this looks wrong". The plaintiffs specifically designed their arguments for Kennedy.

Imagine that the entire House (and state legislatures) had to run in 2018 with non-partisan districts with Trump at sub 40% approval ratings.
This case gives me life. This could be hugely historic.
 
Partisan gerrymandering is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.



Last time this happened, Kennedy opened the door to striking down partisan gerrymandering if there was a formula or some way to look at it besides "this looks wrong". The plaintiffs specifically designed their arguments for Kennedy.

Imagine that the entire House (and state legislatures) had to run in 2018 with non-partisan districts with Trump at sub 40% approval ratings.

This is great news
 

Blader

Member
When would the gerrymandering case be expected to be taken up by SCOTUS? Could we get a ruling by the end of the year?

For me at least, it's a Chicken/Egg thing. She's had multiple chances to appear at protests, but she didn't. She's had multiple chances before now to condemn Trump, but even in this she isn't condemning him. She spent 3 months ruminating over losing to Cheeto Hitler, and she then has the audacity to try and thank the DNC Leadership who went along with her mistakes?

She had her chance to make her stance, but she didn't when it would have been relevant. Where was she during the Woman's March protests? I'd much rather have her stay away from the Democrats now, especially since Trump likes to use her as a cudgel to batter Democrats.

Hillary showing up the Women's Marches would've completely stolen the spotlight from a major focal point of the marches: cultivating the next generation of Democratic leaders. Same reason why Obama and Biden should also be limiting their appearances (or not attending at all) with massive public events like that.
 
Everyone should read this interview with Tom Perriello. It's so good.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...that_the_party_s_best_bet_is_moving_left.html

Dahlia Lithwick: A lot of party leaders saw your entry into the race as late and disruptive. How do you respond to those who say this will re-create the problems of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary?

Tom Perriello: Trying to fit this primary into a frame of last year's race is lazy. Unlike Hillary, neither Ralph nor I have had to overcome decades of gendered public attacks. Neither of us have shattered glass ceilings, run the State Department, or systematically elevated the role of women around the world. Unlike Bernie, neither Ralph nor I have inspired millions to join a grass-roots revolution against inequality and corruption.

Democrats should be more focused on producing the next generation of ideas than on clearing primary fields that might help produce them. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the political balance in Virginia, but only if our voters care enough to show up in November. I was inspired by the vast number of Virginians who showed up to the Women's March and the protests at Dulles Airport. But I also was concerned that the majority of marchers didn't know there was a governor's race in 2017. My goal—my hope—is to build a campaign that connects the governor's race to the movement we've seen rise in response to President Trump's attacks on our core values. But Democrats should not assume anti-Trump advocates are sold on our party. We have to earn that support.

Also, YES:

I know you have thought an awful lot about the role states may play in the coming years: You were at Dulles Airport the day after the president's executive order on immigration went into effect. What do you think might happen at the state level, and what role will states' rights and federalism—not words that trip off the progressive tongue—play in the next four years?

As governor, I will use all legal executive authority to block federal abuses of power and fundamental rights. I don't say this lightly. Growing up in Virginia, I know firsthand that the ”states' rights doctrine" has often been used to block progress. Racists in my hometown of Charlottesville were at the forefront of Massive Resistance, shutting down public schools rather than allow the federal government to integrate. However, there are other examples throughout American history where states have been progressive leaders and used the 10th Amendment and every other tool at their disposal to stand up to unjust and inhumane federal policies. Jefferson and Madison used similar arguments to resist the Alien and Sedition Acts under President Adams.

As the great historian Eric Foner and others have noted, progressive governors in the 19th century heroically refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. They barred the use of state jails, state judges, and state law enforcement officials in the rendition of fugitive slaves, and the Supreme Court upheld their actions, holding that the Constitution did not permit the national government to conscript states into the enforcement of federal law. Only 20 years ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ruling in a decision joined by all of the court's conservative justices. I believe the fierce moral urgency of the Trump moment requires that same resistance from deep within our American progressive tradition.

He gets it:

If there is one lesson you take from the 2016 election, what is it? I have almost no patience for postmortems and finger pointing, but I am wondering what your vision of how to move forward from such a colossal defeat looks like.

The forces of economic and racial anxiety, if left unaddressed, are on a collision course in America. Internecine debates about which factor is stronger obscure the interconnection and thus acceleration of both. We also often miss the fact that economic anxiety is not limited to those below certain income levels.

Too often, Democrats defend the status quo, noting positive GDP and unemployment numbers instead of speaking to the underlying forces that threaten economic security. When we say our only problem is with messaging, we imply that voters are too dumb to realize how great we have been for them or would be for them. People are smarter than elites think. They already know that both parties were naïve about the costs of globalization and can see that both parties are again failing to address the impact of new forces like economic consolidation, automation, and exclusion.

Many people I meet know that Trump is full of smoke and mirrors. They recognize that he is two decades behind, and that we are no longer losing our manufacturing to China, but rather to computers. But at least Trump showed up and acknowledged their pain. As Democrats, we need to show up. We need to tell the brutal economic truth that of these jobs aren't coming back, and we need to offer a better solution than blaming minorities. We can do this.
 
Won't Gorsuch be on the court before it goes to them? How long would it take to go to the SC and have a ruling?

It doesn't really matter -- the argument is targeted specifically at Kennedy and the partisan makeup of the court hasn't shifted at all.

Garland would've really helped, but.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Partisan gerrymandering is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.



Last time this happened, Kennedy opened the door to striking down partisan gerrymandering if there was a formula or some way to look at it besides "this looks wrong". The plaintiffs specifically designed their arguments for Kennedy.

Imagine that the entire House (and state legislatures) had to run in 2018 with non-partisan districts with Trump at sub 40% approval ratings.

I think we have a pretty good equation for determining gerrymandering as well.

I would assume Gorsuch would be against it; but he has some conservative viewpoints that are very judicial power friendly, and gerrymandering might fall into that corner case, so who knows. But this will come down to Kennedy, and SCOTUS being willing to hear it means that Kennedy is ready for that formula.
 
I think we have a pretty good equation for determining gerrymandering as well.

I would assume Gorsuch would be against it; but he has some conservative viewpoints that are very judicial power friendly, and gerrymandering might fall into that corner case, so who knows. But this will come down to Kennedy, and SCOTUS being willing to hear it means that Kennedy is ready for that formula.

I mean, if we win, game on.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Partisan gerrymandering is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.



Last time this happened, Kennedy opened the door to striking down partisan gerrymandering if there was a formula or some way to look at it besides "this looks wrong". The plaintiffs specifically designed their arguments for Kennedy.

Imagine that the entire House (and state legislatures) had to run in 2018 with non-partisan districts with Trump at sub 40% approval ratings.

Do the right thing Kennedy

Do the right thing
 

Allard

Member
Getting rid of gerrymandering before 2018 would be such a blessing. Really hope it goes 5-3 or even 5-4 if it comes to it.

It would have an immediate effect even before the mid tems too, suddenly those hyper partisan hacks in the house (and this legitimately is a both sides issue although its become much more pronounced with Republicans because they control more states at the moment) would potentially have much, much more competitive districts then they have had in a long time. Suddenly they might actually have to care about what someone else thinks about their behavior besides their primary voter base in the house.
 
Do the right thing Kennedy

Do the right thing

ed9618c41337ec2c0d338dd72f0376a4.jpg
 

Wilsongt

Member
Even for Indiana, which has a draconian anti-choice record, these measures are extreme in their disregard for women’s health and privacy.

On Tuesday, the House Public Policy Committee approved H.B. 1128, which requires, among other things, that “a pregnant woman be informed orally and in writing before an abortion obtained through an abortion inducing drug that the abortion may be possibly reversed.”

Last week, the committee approved a similar bill, but was met with resistance by some House Republicans, who cited concerns about a provision requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound to determine a fetus’ gestational age. This provision was struck from Tuesday’s bill.

But the real controversy at the heart of this bill isn’t an abandoned ultrasound measure. Rather, it’s the junk science being peddled to dissuade women from exercising their constitutional right to abortion.

Heralded by anti-choice physician George Delgado, so-called “abortion reversal” involves injecting women who have already taken mifepristone — an abortion pill — with progesterone, a hormone typically administered to prevent threats of miscarriage. The idea is that the progesterone will “save” a pregnancy that is mid-termination just as it can with viable at-risk pregnancies.

https://thinkprogress.org/indiana-abortion-bills-ac5c9d98d605#.xumhetr8m
 
So you want her to do something that probably going to distract from the important issues that are at stake and is not going to advance any actual political goal in the name of some nebulous ideas like solidarity and "not feeling off".

Listen man, I don't think we have the luxury for such things at this point in time, you have to think in a utilitarian way.
Was it going to help block the Muslim ban had Clinton showed at JFK? (yes/no)
Would it help save the ACA if she went to a town hall meeting in Kansas? (yes/no)
etc.
Fair enough, I'm an idealist at heart. I mailed in my vote for Hillary, was disappointed when she lost and I just wish that there had been more fight from anyone in those months, something that would have looked better in the wake of all of the fuckups in election strategy made.

(Before anyone asks, I can't vote for regional candidates because I'm a filthy dual citizen living in Canada)
Who do you support for DNC chair? Because my support for Buttigieg solidified when all the other candidtes attended a donor retreat instead of the March.
Mayor Pete I'd support 110% if I didn't think he'd be better elsewhere. Granted, the same goes for Ellison, but I want one as the chair. Both of them are great though, and don't risk upsetting the purists of Bernie the way Perez does(who again, would probably do a great job) I do want him eventually to run for President, because the biggest "risk" about him is that he's openly gay, and Veteran Harvard Graduate Democratic Candidate might help mitigate the general ballwashing Military types have for Republicans.

Hillary showing up the Women's Marches would've completely stolen the spotlight from a major focal point of the marches: cultivating the next generation of Democratic leaders. Same reason why Obama and Biden should also be limiting their appearances (or not attending at all) with massive public events like that.
Fair enough, though I think Obama/Biden have a slightly better reason in the form of "We just served 8 years and have to hand over power to an orange Toddler and an X-men Villain"
 

Ecotic

Member
What happened to the second executive order travel ban that was promised this week? The one that was supposed to include the 7 countries again? IIRC Trump has been threatening it for two or three weeks now.
 
What happened to the second executive order travel ban that was promised this week? The one that was supposed to include the 7 countries again? IIRC Trump has been threatening it for two or three weeks now.

He wanted intel to cook up a report that said a travel ban was important.

Then intel released a report today saying that a travel ban would not help at all.
 

kirblar

Member
What happened to the second executive order travel ban that was promised this week? The one that was supposed to include the 7 countries again? IIRC Trump has been threatening it for two or three weeks now.
Every time it leaks the holes keep getting exposed immediately and it goes back in the oven. It's like they're crowdsourcing the legal team.
 
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...claims-lines-go-back-6-blocks-for-cpac-speech

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. — President Trump falsely claimed during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday that lines to get in stretched back “six blocks.”

It was a statement at odds with the quiet scene outside the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, where CPAC is taking place.

There were no lines getting into the Gaylord within the hour before Trump began speaking Friday morning.

"There are lines that go back six blocks. I tell you that because you won’t read about it," Trump said during his address.

The entire National Harbor development along the Potomac River stretches about six blocks. Streets surrounding the area were quiet save for a few people, mostly CPAC volunteers, stopping at a nearby Starbucks and security officers patrolling the front of the Gaylord.

At this point he's on autopilot with this shit.



What happened to the second executive order travel ban that was promised this week? The one that was supposed to include the 7 countries again? IIRC Trump has been threatening it for two or three weeks now.
Pushed back to next week according to reports, but WTF knows.
 

Plinko

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

Holmes

Member
Partisan gerrymandering is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.



Last time this happened, Kennedy opened the door to striking down partisan gerrymandering if there was a formula or some way to look at it besides "this looks wrong". The plaintiffs specifically designed their arguments for Kennedy.

Imagine that the entire House (and state legislatures) had to run in 2018 with non-partisan districts with Trump at sub 40% approval ratings.
There is no way they would be able to draw new lines everywhere in one year. They would make the ruling for 2020 or 2022 after the census.
 
You know that famous picture about the little kid and his parent staring at a dirty, messy room, and the parent sees a huge mess, while the kid sees a castle, forest, unicorn, etc., because he is using his imagination?

Somebody needs to translate this into Trump.
What's still scary is how people downplay it or rationalize it, always giving him a pass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom