• 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 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
I seem to have forgotten the ability of Obama to generate buzz. I wonder if Bams can pull crowds like this again:
lCdEE.jpg
.
If he can generate at least 60% of that excitement, then he is going to crush Romney. I have never seen Romney with anything like those numbers.
 
S

SouthernDragon

Member
PhoenixDark said:
This is nothing new, the losing party always does this.
Click to expand...

uh huh

right

Does someone need to post that chart showing the ridiculous growth of filibusters during Obama's tenure, or do we need to post quotes from GOP/Republican leadership stating that their intent is not to help the country but to deny Obama any successes or ability for re-election?
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
I seem to have forgotten the ability of Obama to generate buzz. I wonder if Bams can pull crowds like this again:
lCdEE.jpg
.
If he can generate at least 60% of that excitement, then he is going to crush Romney. I have never seen Romney with anything like those numbers.
Click to expand...

Can't wait for PD to dampen your spirit, Pangloss
 
M

markatisu

Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
I seem to have forgotten the ability of Obama to generate buzz. I wonder if Bams can pull crowds like this again:
lCdEE.jpg
.
If he can generate at least 60% of that excitement, then he is going to crush Romney. I have never seen Romney with anything like those numbers.
Click to expand...

His visit to University of Iowa was pretty impressive today, almost 500 people in standing room only space for a small stump speech

But you know young people don't care according to PD ;)
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Dr. Pangloss said:
I seem to have forgotten the ability of Obama to generate buzz. I wonder if Bams can pull crowds like this again:
lCdEE.jpg
.
If he can generate at least 60% of that excitement, then he is going to crush Romney. I have never seen Romney with anything like those numbers.
Click to expand...

Misleading image. Forced attendance via Obama's union thug army.
 
L

leroidys

Member
So both Britain and Spain are officially back in recession. Sarkozy is likely going to lose the presidential election which is probably good for the citizens of France, but it will be horrible for the EU and the Franco-German leadership that has quieted the markets up until this point. On top of that, we will have another ~million college grads dumped into the fray. I think that we will see a summer of misery part 2, and it will be Mitt's only shot to harp on that non-stop.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
Not sure if already posted, but there is some good news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/u...ts-defeated-after-opposing-health-law.html?hp

WASHINGTON — The defeat of two conservative House Democrats by more liberal opponents in Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary illustrates the strong hold the new health care law still has over committed Democratic voters and foreshadows an even more polarized Congress next year in the aftermath of the latest round of redistricting.
Click to expand...

Looks like the Democrats are waking up and fighting back against the rot in their party.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
speculawyer said:
Cinco de Mayo in Ohio. Well played, sir.


Didn't Romney recently get caught admitting that if he couldn't improve his Latino numbers, he was toast?
Click to expand...

Romney will just bring up his vacation homes in Mexico. "That'll make me fit in! Hey, my servants are Mexican!"

Politics are a funny game, though. Cinco de Mayo in Ohio? Guaranteed he is drinking a Corona or Dos Equis or something in public on that day. Don't worry, that logo will be in full view, too.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Learn2read said:
Bush v. Gore
Click to expand...

Which was 7-2 as an equal protection violation. hardly partisan. The 5-4 was regarding an injunction on the recount that was totally in line with their approach to law. Would have been the same vote in the opposite scenario.

Just because a decision came out the same way a party line might vote doesn't mean that's how it went down.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
Which was 7-2 as an equal protection violation. hardly partisan.
Click to expand...

It was thoroughly partisan. Two dissenters thought the recount had problematic implications for equal protection. But only five justices decided to stop the Florida recount and install Bush as president.

Black Mamba said:
The 5-4 was regarding an injunction on the recount that was totally in line with their approach to law.
Click to expand...

Not at all in line with anybody's approach to law. No credible legal minds believe Bush v. Gore legitimate. Justice Souter, a Republican appointee who was one of the Justices who thought there was an equal protection violation, almost resigned over it because he thought it made so much a mockery of the court.

Black Mamba said:
Would have been the same vote in the opposite scenario.
Click to expand...

No way in hell.
 
A

Al-ibn Kermit

Junior Member
Vahagn said:
It's a pipe dream, all Mitt might be able to do is get a few young voters to kind of feel apathetic enough not to vote for Obama, but he won't actually get their votes.
Click to expand...

On this you're wrong, if PD is registered to vote.


Gruco said:
Well I mean sure, now it looks like there might have been consequences for Romney tacking hard right on immigration and offering to destroy planned parenthood during the primary, but once he tells voters that he was just kidding, it's a whole new ballgame!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Santorum broke Romney's etch-a-sketch. And then Gingrich farted on it.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
empty vessel said:
Not at all in line with anybody's approach to law. No credible legal minds believe Bush v. Gore legitimate. Justice Souter, a Republican appointee who was one of the Justices who thought there was an equal protection violation, almost resigned over it because he thought it made so much a mockery of the court.
Click to expand...

Is that why Erick Erickson called him a child molesting goat fucker?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
empty vessel said:
It was thoroughly partisan. Two dissenters thought the recount had problematic implications for equal protection. But only five justices decided to stop the Florida recount and install Bush as president.
Click to expand...

One would have to demonstrate the justices came to a conclusion contrary to their judicial beliefs. The Georgetown SCOTUS project (or whichever school it was) guessed the case exactly right. It was a computer program that would input the type of case into its database to spit out who would vote what based on their previous cases and was over 90% accurate, IIRC.

Not at all in line with anybody's approach to law. No credible legal minds believe Bush v. Gore legitimate. Justice Souter, a Republican appointee who was one of the Justices who thought there was an equal protection violation, almost resigned over it because he thought it made so much a mockery of the court.
Click to expand...

Except many legal scholars agree it was correct while many don't and others say the outcome was right for the wrong reasons. And Toobin's book was sensationalist to sell copies. It was also denied by others close to Souter. Yeah, I'm sure the dude literally spent nights weeping. :rolleyes:

No way in hell.
Click to expand...

I've never seen any evidence to the contrary. I've seen legal scholars demonstrate that ruling right in line with each justice's legal beliefs. But this is already so long ago and Gore was trying to cheat his way into election, anyway.

People want them to be partisan because it sounds better. Truth is, they have their own beliefs and follow it. The notion that these justices just opted to go against their entire belief system for an election seems bizarre.
 
K

kehs

Banned
Rolling Stones article with Obeezy, didn't see it posted, faux apology if posted already.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-interview-with-barack-obama-20120425?page=1

You've shied away from demanding marriage equality for all. Are you at least willing to say that you support it on a personal level?
I'm not going to make news in this publication. I've made clear that the issue of fairness and justice and equality for the LGBT community is very important to me. And I haven't just talked about it, I've acted on it. You'll recall that the last time you and I had an interview, we were getting beat up about "don't ask, don't tell" in the LGBT community. There was skepticism: "Why's it taking so long? Why doesn't he just do it through executive order?" I described very specifically the process we were going to go through to make sure that there was a buy-in from the military, up and down the chain of command, so that it would be executed in an effective way. And lo and behold, here we are, and it got done.

Ending "don't ask, don't tell" has been the dog that didn't bark. You haven't read a single story about problems in our military as a consequence of the ending of the policy. So whether it's on that, or changing the AIDS travel ban, or hospital visitation rights, or a whole slew of regulations that have made sure that federal workers are treated fairly in the workplace, we've shown the commitment that I have to these issues. And we're going to keep on working in very practical ways to make sure that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are treated as what they are – full-fledged members of the American family.
Click to expand...
 
L

Loudninja

Member
Chrysler posts best quarterly profit in 13 years
DETROIT (AP) -- Chrysler followed its strong first-quarter sales with a big profit, sending its 2009 brush with financial death farther into the rearview mirror.

The Auburn Hills, Mich., company made a net profit of $473 million, its best quarter in 13 years, mainly on the back of strong U.S. sales. From January through March, Chrysler's sales were up 39 percent as customers bought more Ram pickups, Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs and Chrysler 200 midsize sedans.

Not bad for a company that almost died three years ago. A government auto task force deadlocked on whether to save the company in 2009, with the tie broken by President Barack Obama.

Chrysler's first-quarter profit was more than four times the $116 million that the company made in the first quarter of last year. It was Chrysler's best performance since the third quarter of 1998 when it made $682 million during the pickup truck and SUV boom.

Chrysler made more in the first quarter than it did during all of 2011, mainly because of a huge accounting charge last year for refinancing and the government loans that saved it from the auction house.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/chrysler-posts-best-quarterly-profit-062519432.html
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Copernicus said:
Rolling Stones article with Obeezy, didn't see it posted, faux apology if posted already.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-interview-with-barack-obama-20120425?page=1
Click to expand...

It's really a breath of fresh air to read an interview like that after all the campaign rhetoric. Obama is clearly a very thoughtful, pragmatic man who's willing to look at different solutions, no matter who's proposing them. He seems understanding and not quick to judgement of people based on their opinions no matter how contrary they may be. To me it seems downright insane that a guy with those answers is painted as some crazy guy with a radical agenda.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
One would have to demonstrate the justices came to a conclusion contrary to their judicial beliefs. The Georgetown SCOTUS project (or whichever school it was) guessed the case exactly right. It was a computer program that would input the type of case into its database to spit out who would vote what based on their previous cases and was over 90% accurate, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Are you a lawyer? One who practices before the Supreme Court? One who practices civil rights or constitutional law? I ask because nobody who does any of these things believes this. I could see believing it if, perhaps, you have been reading right-wing apologetics. But nobody who has expertise believes that Scalia, Rehnquist, or Thomas would have voted to greatly expand equal protection rights in a voting case unless it was to achieve a particular outcome. The court's actions were transparently outcome driven, and this is uncontroversially accepted by anybody who knows anything about the Supreme Court.

Black Mamba said:
Except many legal scholars agree it was correct while many don't and others say the outcome was right for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

This is empirically incorrect. Very few scholars defend the outcome of Bush v. Gore (and those that do are not credible).

Black Mamba said:
And Toobin's book was sensationalist to sell copies. It was also denied by others close to Souter. Yeah, I'm sure the dude literally spent nights weeping. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's not what the book said. The point isn't whether Souter wept. It is that the decision was so transparently outrageous that he considered resigning over it.

Black Mamba said:
I've never seen any evidence to the contrary. I've seen legal scholars demonstrate that ruling right in line with each justice's legal beliefs.
Click to expand...

You either saw wrong or what you saw was base apologetics. Nobody with any credibility or expertise believes that Bush v. Gore was in line with each Justice's legal beliefs. It is the very distance--and we're talking a grand canyon-sized chasm--between the ruling and the majority's prior individual voting patterns and rulings on these constitutional issues which is the give-away as to its partisan motivation. Justice Scalia, for example, believes that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not even prohibit discrimination based on sex. Justice Thomas believes that States are not bound by the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment. These are radical state's-rights judges who relied on a novel and extremely broad interpretation of federal power and the Fourteenth Amendment to stop a recount of votes in order to install a particular person as president of the country.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
It seems like Black Mamba & empty vessel are both talking in absolutes. Both of you are going to have to pony up evidence. Not just assertions without links.
 
O

Odothehero

Member
Copernicus said:
Rolling Stones article with Obeezy, didn't see it posted, faux apology if posted already.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-interview-with-barack-obama-20120425?page=1
Click to expand...

Wow, some of those comments....

The man is a weasel
Click to expand...
He is also a socialist whose policies are an abysmal failure
Click to expand...
what a narcissistic sob and traitor caring nothing for the constitution except how to get around it
Click to expand...

You've got your work cut out for you if you're trying to reason with those guys...
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
Jobless Claims still more than expected

I think next week's employment report won't be pretty for Obama
Click to expand...

Yeah, the sustained increase is hugely discouraging. All the underlying data was very strong, and in just a few weeks the floor has dropped out of claims, manufacturing data, and more. It really does feel like the start of last year all over again.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Sirpopopop said:
It seems like Black Mamba & empty vessel are both talking in absolutes. Both of you are going to have to pony up evidence. Not just assertions without links.
Click to expand...

This isn't something I feel the need to prove (and it would require a law review article or book to explain it to a layperson in such a way that they could understand how transparently political the court's actions were). I don't think it's the least bit controversial that Bush v. Gore was an indelible black mark on the Court. I'm only responding to Black Mamba so that the nonsense he is writing isn't left hanging out there.

That so many Justices were willing to act so deeply against type, and that each ended up supporting the result that they would have preferred as a political matter, prompted many to question the legitimacy of the institution. Reaction was swift and remarkably negative. Given that the nation was almost evenly divided on the outcome of the election, one might suppose that reaction to the Court’s decision would be similarly divided—with the half of the nation that supported Bush praising the decision as a brilliant and necessary intervention, and the half that supported Gore condemning it as a partisan power grab by the Republican Justices. Yet the reaction was in fact overwhelmingly critical of the Court.

A review of unsigned editorials and op-eds published in the country’s top twenty newspapers by circulation in the week following the decision, for example, finds eighteen unsigned editorials critical of the decision and only six praising it. Signed op-eds in the same newspapers were also overwhelmingly critical, with twenty-six critical op-eds and only eight defending the decision.

Law review commentary, a rough guide for the academy’s assessment of the decision, was also predominantly critical. Of seventy-eight articles that have discussed Bush v. Gore between 2001 and 2004, thirty-five criticized the decision, and only eleven defended it. Some 625 professors signed a letter shortly after the decision expressing their dismay at the Court’s failure to abide by the rule of law.

Public polls also reflected serious questions about the Court’s legitimacy among a large segment of the population. Polls taken around the time of the decision found between 37% and 65% of respondents thought that the Justices’ personal politics influenced their decision. One poll reported that 46% of respondents said that the decision made them more likely to suspect that Supreme Court Justices have a partisan bias. Another found that 53% of respondents felt the Court’s decision to stop the recount was based mostly on politics. In short, Bush v. Gore led the press, the academy, and the public to question the Court’s legitimacy as an institution guided by principle rather than politics.
Click to expand...

David Cole, The Liberal Legacy of Bush v. Gore, 94 Georgetown Law Journal 1427 (2006).
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
What do you think would happen if democrats got back majority in house/senate this year and Obama won? Would they fuck it all up again by compromising and being nice or will they have learned their lesson and push full left legislation all the way? (Whichever congressman aren't bought obviously)
 
G

gcubed

Member
Angry Fork said:
What do you think would happen if democrats got back majority in house/senate this year and Obama won? Would they fuck it all up again by compromising and being nice or will they have learned their lesson and push full left legislation all the way? (Whichever congressman aren't bought obviously)
Click to expand...

i think that Obama would push more to the left, and then return back to the right as he gets nothing accomplished through the senate... again
 
T

thefro

Member
Angry Fork said:
What do you think would happen if democrats got back majority in house/senate this year and Obama won? Would they fuck it all up again by compromising and being nice or will they have learned their lesson and push full left legislation all the way? (Whichever congressman aren't bought obviously)
Click to expand...

Too many centrists still. Republicans would say "we lost because Romney wasn't conservative enough!" and dig in even further.
 
F

Fox318

Member
Angry Fork said:
What do you think would happen if democrats got back majority in house/senate this year and Obama won? Would they fuck it all up again by compromising and being nice or will they have learned their lesson and push full left legislation all the way? (Whichever congressman aren't bought obviously)
Click to expand...

The party will only go so far as its middle is willing to swing for.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
Ed Schultz took a jab at Fox & Friends‘ Gretchen Carlson for criticizing President Obama’s appearance on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, but praising George W. Bush’s appearance on Deal or No Deal. Carlson said that she didn’t think it was appropriate for someone of Obama’s position to go on a comedy show. However, some years ago, she said that George W. Bush’s appearance on Deal or No Deal was a pleasant breaking down of barriers between the President and the people.
Click to expand...

Video at the link: http://24wired.tv/38586/fox-friends...ce-on-fallon-praises-bush-on-deal-or-no-deal/
 
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
3K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom