Black Republican
Member
Erick Erickson's a little salty @ redstate
-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
It's quite funny watching the GOP bitch about Obama taking credit and campaigning on killing Bin Laden.
As if the GOP didn't spend the previous decade exploiting 9/11.
As if the GOP wouldn't crucify Obama if the operation to get Bin Laden failed, or worse yet ended up being Black Hawk Down: The sequel.
As if the GOP didn't spend the previous decade exploiting 9/11.
As if the GOP wouldn't crucify Obama if the operation to get Bin Laden failed, or worse yet ended up being Black Hawk Down: The sequel.
makingmusic476
Member
Ron Paul all the delegates:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/04/ron_paul_supporters_dominate_l.html
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/04/ron_paul_supporters_dominate_l.html
I fell asleep 3 sentences into that diatribe.
Yeah. We could fill pages delineating the evidence of dysfunction.
As much as we unduly focus on Iran, it's even more salient in Israel. I'm not surprised there's been an effort to dampen the rhetoric. What prominent figure could command the nation's respect and affect the debate? Perhaps Robert Gates or Petraeus could have a substantial impact if they were to fervidly oppose a preventive strike. Richard Clarke's opinion would be ignored. Even if he were a prominent figure, Republicans truculently and shamefully besmirched him years ago.
He killed our relationship with Great Britain? Did I miss something?
And really I don't get all the shit about Obama killing our relationship with Israel. I've seen the speeches and things and it looks like the difference between Obama and Romney is the same as the difference between "All options are on the table, even war" and "We will most certainly, definitely go to war with Iran if Israel wants." They're both pandering to Israel...
And really I don't get all the shit about Obama killing our relationship with Israel. I've seen the speeches and things and it looks like the difference between Obama and Romney is the same as the difference between "All options are on the table, even war" and "We will most certainly, definitely go to war with Iran if Israel wants." They're both pandering to Israel...
Arrowgigantic
Member
That's probably referencing when he returned the bust of Winston Churchill that had been in the Oval Office when he moved in. It was one of the O.G. molehills the nitpickers latched onto. You never forget your first!
NihonTiger90
Member
BEHOLD:
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/12/ohio_congressional_district_ma.html
The 9th stretches from Toledo across the Lake Erie shoreline to Lorain and west Cleveland. That's about 116 miles.
The only positive from redistricting is that my county is finally in a district with all the other counties in Northwest Ohio, which it should have been all along.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Also, the most recent poll in Israel that I could find, I think done this past December, showed Obama with a rising approval rating. 54% favorable, 39% negative. He was also in the top 5 "world leader (outside your own country) do you admire most" question.
I'm trying to find a more recent one but I don't think there was one done.
speculawyer
Member
That is so different than other things Romney he has said. Once again, it is flip-flop Mitt . . . he is hard to criticize on his opinions because he holds every different position on every different issue as Quantum Mitt.
But those guys are trying to spin Mitt's $20Billion research program at private Universities offer as help for the car makers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1
speculawyer
Member
Once again, it is just the simple lack of correlation with reality that drives me crazy.
Was hit because the right keeps trying to shut down the government and make us look ridiculous.
Is doing FUCKING GREAT. Oil production increased more during the Obama administration than anytime during the last 30 years.
Is being killed by the natural gas industry. And that is good because coal is really dirty.
Is doing GREAT. Just got 50 million new customers.
Doing just fine. Much better than most of the rest of the western world.
Is just fine. He is whining about the fact that we don't kiss the ass of the far-right in Israel.
Is just fine.
eBay Huckster
Member
See also the southern half of the 11th district and, uh, that entire clusterfuck in Columbus.
Absolutely disgusting.
Except Romney was going to use private money to bail out the auto makers which never would have happened. The only thing that would have come out of Romney's bankruptcy is the liquidation of the auto industry causes millions in job losses.
Holy shit, that's terrible. It shouldn't be possible to do such a thing. As much as I dislike Indiana sometimes, at least we don't have any districts gerrymandered even close to that bad. Then again, this state is pretty solidly conservative other than Gary so they don't really need to.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
What the hell at district 4?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I want in my life time, to see someone defending such crap under oath.
It will never happen, but one can dream.
empty vessel
Member
It seems so obvious to me that virtually every American regardless of political orientation would agree that congressional districts should be required to be squares or rectangles of varying sizes (barring state borders requiring angles) as needed to make them of equal in population. This kind of districting is an affront to democratic governance, and it's amazing that it we allow it. It reflects an utterly broken system, I think.
There also needs to be a movement to greatly expand the number of representatives in the House, possibly 3 or 4 or even many more times its current number. Reducing the number of people served by each representatives greatly enhances accountability and democratic control. The small number of representatives in the constitution was one of the objections to its ratification, and that number was set at 1 in 30,000 Americans. Madison responded that the number would grow as the population grew so as to maintain the proportion between people and representatives. It did continue to grow until, 1910, when it was frozen. Of course, the population has continued to grow so now instead of 1 representative per 30,000 the average is upwards of 1 per 700,000.
I think these reforms should go hand-in-hand with campaign finance reform and movements to end corporate citizenship as each is integral to reclaiming democratic governance.
I think you're being way too prescriptive here.
I have no doubt you can create an immensely unfair districts even under those limitations.
And honestly, I think we were approaching such problems all wrong - instead of putting a metric ton of rules that try to make sure that even retarded partisan monkeys can't fuck it up, we should really focus on making sure that retarded partisan monkeys are not tasked with such jobs.
Because they may be monkeys and they may be retarded, but when it come to ignoring the spirit of a law, they are second to none.
I've been hearing those suggestions for a while now, and they always ring true to me.
But I feel I should educate myself a bit more on the subject, maybe it's time I do.
The Librarian
Banned
Yeah honestly I think one of the easiest things we can do is to double the number of representatives in the House. 1200 or 1600. I don't think we'll ever get the ratio of 1 to 30,000. That'd be like 16,000 representatives.
I don't feel like you can do it without a major congressional overhaul, but I think we need one anyway.
Under its current structure and under the current campaign laws, the house will be an even bigger sideshow with double the members.
Goddamn it. Was watching MTP, and Gregory was doing a good job with republican hack Ed Gillespie, when he asked why the Bush tax cuts didn't work throughout 8 years, and he let him get away with it by saying that there was 52 months of straight job growth. Not fucking pointing out that while that may be true, it was the SLOWEST growth we've had since the Bureau of Labor Statistics was created! And the total amount of jobs created were the worst since then as well.
So close, Greggers. So close.
So close, Greggers. So close.
speculawyer
Member
Followed by millions losing their jobs in one gigantic dump.
He was basically doing the BigSicily graph blocking out the massive job losses and saying "look here!" at the point where jobs went up.
speculawyer
Member
Romney was giving Bush advice. It was advice that Bush ignored thankfully.
But what if they didn't all have to go to Washington? Just ranking and committee members whips etc. and all the others telecommute from their home district?
empty vessel
Member
Definitely doable. There is no reason that we would have to build, e.g., a House floor that could accommodate thousands of people (although there also isn't any reason we could not). I think the benefits of enhanced representation and accountability far outweigh the downsides to large bodies. The power of individual politicians would be drastically diminished and the results produced by the aggregate body more organic and representative of the people's will.
Then we can abolish the Senate!
Aaron Strife
Banned
I hope Ron Paul wins one more state. He has Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, and Colorado. He needs one more to force a vote at the RNC.
Which would be hilarious because the 10-15% of Ron Paul supporters would just wreak havoc on everything.
Which would be hilarious because the 10-15% of Ron Paul supporters would just wreak havoc on everything.
The senate isn't going anywhere. ever. sorry.
Just abolish the filibuster and let the house bypass the senate with supermajority
EDIT:
Brilliant
The GOP will never let this happen.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It'd make them look even worse if they tried to block it somehow.
But they don't care about appearances. Clearly.
makingmusic476
Member
What if the Paulites were right all along...
D:
D:
Then I should apologize to him for thinking he is a racist.
It's not winner take all.
He won some delegates.
He think it will mean something.
He is wrong.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Alex Castellanos constantly shows why he is one of my favorite GOP consultants.
lol
Fuck David Gregory, you actually had a policy discussion there, and that cunt dumb it down to some horse race talking point like "turning the clock back".
Fuck off, two of your guests made conflicting factual statements in front of your face, how about you do your journalistic duty and tell the viewers who is right?
Hint: it rhymes with Lachel Maddow.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You can tell everyone is attempting to dismiss Maddow as a talking head, but she's anything but. Strict focus on policy, until Gregory and Alex moved things back to horse race politics.
Ultimately women are more concerned with the economy than anything else, but health issues are also a major issue for them as well. And right now the GOP is failing hard on those issues. I'm surprised Maddow didn't just say "look, Obama is up 15-20 points with women as of today, this isn't even close. Something is wrong on the GOP end of things and you know it."
Ultimately women are more concerned with the economy than anything else, but health issues are also a major issue for them as well. And right now the GOP is failing hard on those issues. I'm surprised Maddow didn't just say "look, Obama is up 15-20 points with women as of today, this isn't even close. Something is wrong on the GOP end of things and you know it."
speculawyer
Member
Well if there is no pay gap then why not vote for the equal pay law since no one will be able to file a case under it? Why lose the women vote by voting against a law that doesn't make any difference at all (in their opinion)?
I kinda agree with him . . . I don't think it happens all the time. But just having the law will probably help make sure it doesn't happen.
speculawyer
Member
Through sheer persistence and badgering, Paul may win the majority of delegates in some states. He will still have a very small amount of the total number of delegates.
But hey . . . I'd love to see the Paulites do something crazy for my amusement. Go get 'em, Paulites!
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I like this direction. Now add in some strong elements of direct democracy and partcipatism in there. And experiment with syndicalism and you have my wet dream of a country.
While obviously discrimination exists in gender pay, I do think his points are true to an extent. The stark difference in the gender pay gap is due to a combination of reasons. Nevertheless discrimination is one of the, if not the biggest, reason.
It's a good thing republicans don't care about numerical values, or constituent's true intentions.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I would like a graph that breaks down the pay over a variety of fields, namely time spent on the job, total pay divided by total hours worked, specialization or training certifications, and so on.
If there is a wage gap because more men than women work in fields that have a higher degree of specialization/degrees/danger, and those are the main reasons that men make more than women, then the point is moot.
If men make more than women factoring in the time that women take off for maternity leave, child care, and so on, ditto.
But, taking all those factors together, and equalizing the playing field, if women who work the same time, duration, have the same amount of degrees, training and so on don't make as much as their male counterparts, then that is a problem we need to address.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked