• 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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Librarian

Banned
BREAKING NEWS (AP) – PHOENIX "PD" DARK TOLERATES WOMEN

"In the early morning hours on March 7th, 2013, NeoGAF user Phoneix "PD" Dark proclaimed his tolerance for women. We're joined now by anchorwoman Dax01; she's live from the PoliGAF thread."

"Thanks, Hitokage. There were many mutterings of 'Finally!' when PD at long last admitted, publicly, that he tolerates women. He had this to say in a statement: 'It's true. I couldn't support Hillary Clinton otherwise.' More on this story as it develops."
 
R

rSpooky

Member
Let me be clear, I do not like Rand Paul. But he actually stood there and talked for 13 hours to filibuster rather then just threaten etc. Hats of for that at least.
But I can not help but wonder .. If we had a republican pres and Rand Paul was a dem. Would fox news headlines be "Rand Paul wastes time defending terrorists!" ?
Because really.. the waterboarding favoring crowd seem to now all of a sudden have issues with this .. I find is suspect tbh.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
rSpooky said:
But I can not help but wonder .. If we had a republican pres and Rand Paul was a dem. Would fox news headlines be "Rand Paul wastes time defending terrorists!" ?
Click to expand...

Most definitely.

rSpooky said:
Because really.. the waterboarding favoring crowd seem to now all of a sudden have issues with this .. I find is suspect tbh.
Click to expand...

It fits pretty well in with their narrative that the state is going to suddenly turn against them, come take their guns, and enslave them into socialism or something.

As for Rand Paul's filibuster, I do like that there's a highlight on our drone program now, but I wonder if some of his more hyperbolic statements will make people think it's just him being ridiculous rather than there being a legit issue buried there. I mean, him talking about drone striking some cafe in San Francisco really doesn't do the cause much justice, and it makes the response by Holder seem even more reasonable when paired up.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
An absolutely incredible editorial from Linda Greenhouse in the NY Times absolutely eviscerating the court's pending decision on the Voting Rights Act:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/a-big-new-power/?hp

The Roberts court stands on the brink of making an error of historic proportions. A needless and reckless aggrandizement of power in one case to satisfy the current majority’s agenda will erode the court’s authority over time.

But there was no sign from the majority last week of an appetite for stepping back this time, as the court did in its last confrontation with Section 5 four years ago. Justice Scalia – he who flaunts his refusal to join any portion of any opinion that cites legislative history – returned repeatedly to his view that manifest Congressional support for the Voting Rights Act was somehow illegitimate, not to be taken at face value. The problem was, he said, that members of Congress “are going to lose votes if they do not re-enact the Voting Rights Act.”

Justice Scalia, that’s called democracy.
Click to expand...

I would make a topic on this editorial, but I feel people on GAF would rather talk about drones, even though this issue is far more important.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Goddamn... got into an argument on facebook with a climate change denier. He called it a "libtard conspiracy." Dude's a total nutter.

I don't even get what the conspiracy is. Like, what's the end goal here? We... uh... make earth better? We piss on businesses? What? Like why would scientists all get together and decide to be wrong?
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
RDreamer said:
Goddamn... got into an argument on facebook with a climate change denier. He called it a "libtard conspiracy." Dude's a total nutter.

I don't even get what the conspiracy is. Like, what's the end goal here? We... uh... make earth better? We piss on businesses? What? Like why would scientists all get together and decide to be wrong?
Click to expand...

If the planet were big banks and corporations, it would've been saved a long time ago.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
RDreamer said:
Goddamn... got into an argument on facebook with a climate change denier. He called it a "libtard conspiracy." Dude's a total nutter.

I don't even get what the conspiracy is. Like, what's the end goal here? We... uh... make earth better? We piss on businesses? What? Like why would scientists all get together and decide to be wrong?
Click to expand...

Those "scientists" (more like marxist elitists) are all bought off by the EcoMENTALists so they can sell Green tech. I know this is true because [insert think tank created and funded by any number of petrochemical businesses here] told me.
 
R

rSpooky

Member
RDreamer said:
Goddamn... got into an argument on facebook with a climate change denier. He called it a "libtard conspiracy." Dude's a total nutter.

I don't even get what the conspiracy is. Like, what's the end goal here? We... uh... make earth better? We piss on businesses? What? Like why would scientists all get together and decide to be wrong?
Click to expand...

Well , someone I know posted on her wall she had more bad news concerning sequester fur lows for her husband etc. And she wanted to know thoughts of those friends that had a different political view then her. So we had a civil discussion which is what normal people can do , but she really feels Obama's end goal is to destroy this country, she just feels it "in her heart" I told her that it is irrational, again what is the end goal? And also that we human beings tend to also suffer from confirmation bias, which does not help.
The conspiracies theories are total non nonsensical.
Another guy I know got angry with me because I said something along the lines of "well I for one cannot wait to sign up to work in the fema death camps" when he posted his usual Obama is Hitler insinuations. lol

I also found it fun that on one hand gvt is too stupid to do anything yet at the same time they can have elaborate domination plans.(according to them)
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
R

RustyNails

Member
Good news for hillaryis45

Clinton had the edge in a hypothetical presidential race against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, defeating him by 45 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll. She won by a wider 50 to 34 percent margin against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and 50 to 38 percent against Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), echoing earlier polling that's shown her as a formidable challenger.

But the poll also had good news for Christie, who ran the best of the three Republican candidates polled. He won against two other Democrats seen as presidential contenders, eking out a 3-point advantage over Vice President Joe Biden, and a resounding 27-point margin over New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Other matchups were closer, with Rubio losing narrowly to Biden and tying with Cuomo. Ryan ran slightly behind Biden and just ahead of Cuomo.
Click to expand...
 
A

adamsappel

Member
RDreamer said:
Goddamn... got into an argument on facebook with a climate change denier. He called it a "libtard conspiracy." Dude's a total nutter.

I don't even get what the conspiracy is. Like, what's the end goal here? We... uh... make earth better? We piss on businesses? What? Like why would scientists all get together and decide to be wrong?
Click to expand...

yPtYbTy.jpg
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Hitokage said:
Ok, I'm no expert on Senate rules and may be totally wrong, but my impression is the following:

It's sixty votes to force debate to end, slamming the door on a filibuster in progress even though a senator has the floor. Once the floor is ceded it can be brought to a vote without sixty votes. The problem is that procedures as they are now allow for an effortless and perpetual floor hold so the filibuster never ends unless forced.
Click to expand...

Yes. You need 60 votes to formally open the floor for debate on a bill, and to close the floor on debate, or to force a fillibuster to end. Every bill needs to go through debate on the floor of the Senate before it can be brought to a vote for passage or rejection, which is by majority rule.

The cloture votes are supposed to be used for time management, to decide which bills the senate should consider and focus on, and when they should start and stop focussing on them. Not to outright block legislation. But they get used to block legislation by opponents as a loophole.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
GaimeGuy said:
Yes. You need 60 votes to formally open the floor for debate on a bill, and to close the floor on debate, or to force a fillibuster to end. Every bill needs to go through debate on the floor of the Senate before it can be brought to a vote for passage or rejection, which is by majority rule.

The cloture votes are supposed to be used for time management, to decide which bills the senate should consider and focus on, and when they should start and stop focussing on them. Not to outright block legislation. But they get used to block legislation by opponents as a loophole.
Click to expand...

It's actually funnier than that. In the original Senate rules, you could "move the previous question" to end debate. Aaron Burr argued that the rule was unnecessary because nobody ever used it, so the Senate removed it. As any developer will be expecting, this immediately created a bug where it would be technically impossible to ever end debate without unanimous consent. It took another hundred years for the Senate to actually introduce the cloture rule to make sure it WAS possible to occasionally vote on things. Before that, we got by on unanimous consent. Yes, this means we got all the way to and through the Civil War without the Senate breaking down the way it's broken down today.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
pigeon said:
It's actually funnier than that. In the original Senate rules, you could "move the previous question" to end debate. Aaron Burr argued that the rule was unnecessary because nobody ever used it, so the Senate removed it. As any developer will be expecting, this immediately created a bug where it would be technically impossible to ever end debate without unanimous consent. It took another hundred years for the Senate to actually introduce the cloture rule to make sure it WAS possible to occasionally vote on things. Before that, we got by on unanimous consent. Yes, this means we got all the way to and through the Civil War without the Senate breaking down the way it's broken down today.
Click to expand...

They still require unanimous consent on appointments, right? That's why you hear about "Secret Holds"; A single senator objects and thus the approval or disapproval of the appointment can not happen.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
GaimeGuy said:
They still require unanimous consent on appointments, right? That's why you hear about "Secret Holds"; A single senator objects and thus the approval or disapproval of the appointment can not happen.
Click to expand...

Unanimous consent or a cloture vote is necessary for every single vote the Senate takes.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Thursday went after Sen. Rand Paul's talking filibuster of CIA director nominee John Brennan, calling the Kentucky Republican's claim that the U.S. could have hypothetically conducted a drone strike on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War "ridiculous."

"To somehow allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies, is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous," McCain said on the Senate floor. McCain said he agrees with Paul that more discussion on targeted killings is needed, but he said he does not believe that American citizens have reason to fear for their lives.

"So we've done a, I think, a disservice to a lot Americans by making them believe that somehow they're in danger from their government," McCain said. "They're not. But we are in danger. We are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction. And this leads us to having to do things that perhaps we haven't had to do in other more conventional wars."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who often moves lock-step with McCain on many issues, also directly called out many of his Republican colleagues who joined Paul's filibuster last night for not taking such a bold stand during the previous administration.

"This is an important issue," he said on the floor. "We should be talking about it. I welcome a reasoned discussion. But to my Republican colleagues, I don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone."

Graham continued to rebut Paul's demand of Obama: "Noncombatants under the law of war are protected, not subject to being killed randomly. So to suggest that the president won't answer that question somehow legitimizes that the drone program is going to result in being used against anybody in a room having a cup of coffee, to me, cheapens the debate."
Click to expand...

What world am I living in...
 
R

RDreamer

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
What world am I living in...
Click to expand...

They're kind of agreeing with what I said earlier. There's a large discussion to be had on drones. We need to talk, and it needs to be transparent, but crying about Obama possibly dropping a bomb on a cafe in San Francisco out of nowhere does cheapen the debate. I fear a lot of people will hear silly Rand and his hyperbole and just think he's being a crazy person (like usual).
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
empty vessel said:
Well, in Paul's (and the Republicans who supported him) defense, Bush never actually used a drone to assassinate an American citizen. As far as I know, he never even contemplated it, because, well, it's about the most extreme act an executive can ever take.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that. Its just odd seeing Graham and McCain defend Obama in any way shape or form (even when they shouldn't defend him as in this case).
 
C

Chichikov

Member
I really wish we focus less on Anwar al-Aulaqi's passport color and more on nature of the threat he and his facebook page posed to the US.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
RDreamer said:
Didn't they have dinner (or lunch) with Obama yesterday? Maybe he really sweet talked 'em.
Click to expand...
I believe both praised him after Obama started calling individual Repub Senators regarding a big deficit reduction deal, a couple days ago. Also according to TMP many Senators at the dinner yesterday were flabergasted when they heard Obama put cuts for entitlements on the table. The same cuts we have known about for months. The Senators claimed leadership never told them about said cuts.
 
C

codhand

Member
empty vessel said:
Well, in Paul's (and the Republicans who supported him) defense, Bush never actually used a drone to assassinate an American citizen. As far as I know, he never even contemplated it, because, well, it's about the most extreme act an executive can ever take.
Click to expand...

this wasn't jim bob on the way to the piggly wiggly. but no i dont agree with the policy either, no one should, also id say water boarding is a pretty extreme act to not only do once, but have as standard ops.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
I believe both praised him after Obama started calling individual Repub Senators regarding a big deficit reduction deal, a couple days ago. Also according to TMP many Senators at the dinner yesterday were flabergasted when they heard Obama put cuts for entitlements on the table. The same cuts we have known about for months. The Senators claimed leadership never told them about said cuts.
Click to expand...

Do they not have the Internet? Lol
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Dax has confused me. So I thought the entire point of the talking filibuster was that if a senator stopped talking the filibuster was automatically over without the 60 votes, and the 60 votes is needed only to end a filibuster while a senator is still talking. Is that right or wrong?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Giant Panda said:
Dax has confused me. So I thought the entire point of the talking filibuster was that if a senator stopped talking the filibuster was automatically over without the 60 votes, and the 60 votes is needed only to end a filibuster while a senator is still talking. Is that right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Today all that's necessary to filibuster a bill is for one senator to object to the unanimous consent request to begin or end debate. Bam, 60 votes and two days now required.

Merkley's proposal changes only one aspect of this. If a bill got 60 votes for cloture, it would go forward; if it got less than 51, it would fail. If it got between 50 and 60, though, it would enter THE LIGHTNING ROUND. In this situation, unlimited debate on the motion (talking filibuster) would be allowed, but if there was nobody actually talking at any point, the Senate would proceed automatically to a second cloture vote on a majority-rules basis. So Dax's description, in this case, isn't quite accurate; Merkley's proposal would indeed allow bare majority laws to be passed after a talking filibuster. It's possible she's referring to a different talking filibuster proposal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...erkleys-talking-filibuster-how-it-would-work/
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
pigeon said:
Today all that's necessary to filibuster a bill is for one senator to object to the unanimous consent request to begin or end debate. Bam, 60 votes and two days now required.

Merkley's proposal changes only one aspect of this. If a bill got 60 votes for cloture, it would go forward; if it got less than 51, it would fail. If it got between 50 and 60, though, it would enter THE LIGHTNING ROUND. In this situation, unlimited debate on the motion (talking filibuster) would be allowed, but if there was nobody actually talking at any point, the Senate would proceed automatically to a second cloture vote on a majority-rules basis. So Dax's description, in this case, isn't quite accurate; Merkley's proposal would indeed allow bare majority laws to be passed after a talking filibuster. It's possible she's referring to a different talking filibuster proposal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...erkleys-talking-filibuster-how-it-would-work/
Click to expand...

Lol.

Also Harry Reid gave a wink when asked about revisiting Filibuster reform. Suuuurrrree Harry.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Giant Panda said:
Dax has confused me. So I thought the entire point of the talking filibuster was that if a senator stopped talking the filibuster was automatically over without the 60 votes, and the 60 votes is needed only to end a filibuster while a senator is still talking. Is that right or wrong?
Click to expand...
That's wrong. Even after the senator in questioned has stopped filibustering, you need to invoke cloture if there isn't unanimous consent. It's the same for nominees and bills. As BB notes here —http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/03/what_paul_hath_wrought.php?m=1 — Durbin still needed to invoke cloture even though Rand filibustered.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
To clarify, talk of re-opening the filibuster changes is moot until another congress is sworn in correct? Durbin makes it sound like something can be done right now (outside of the nuclear option).
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
pigeon said:
Today all that's necessary to filibuster a bill is for one senator to object to the unanimous consent request to begin or end debate. Bam, 60 votes and two days now required.

Merkley's proposal changes only one aspect of this. If a bill got 60 votes for cloture, it would go forward; if it got less than 51, it would fail. If it got between 50 and 60, though, it would enter THE LIGHTNING ROUND. In this situation, unlimited debate on the motion (talking filibuster) would be allowed, but if there was nobody actually talking at any point, the Senate would proceed automatically to a second cloture vote on a majority-rules basis. So Dax's description, in this case, isn't quite accurate; Merkley's proposal would indeed allow bare majority laws to be passed after a talking filibuster. It's possible she's referring to a different talking filibuster proposal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...erkleys-talking-filibuster-how-it-would-work/
Click to expand...
To be fair, I never mentioned Merkley's proposal last night. I was only arguing that the current rules do not allow for a majority vote after a talking filibuster, and that only changing the rules to force people to talk will not solve the problem of obstruction and getting things done in the Senate, because you would still need sixty votes to pass anything.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Climate argument is still going on facebook... Dude is accusing me of not knowing math, because I posted a survey that showed 97% of experts had agreed it's man-made. He's sitting there saying "No, only 75 out of the 10,000 said that! I'm trying to tell him that's not how polling works, and even if you use the regular sample size of non climate-change specialists you still get over 80% of scientists saying he's fucking wrong.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
RDreamer said:
Goddamn... got into an argument on facebook with a climate change denier. He called it a "libtard conspiracy." Dude's a total nutter.

I don't even get what the conspiracy is. Like, what's the end goal here? We... uh... make earth better? We piss on businesses? What? Like why would scientists all get together and decide to be wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, you see the scientists just do it in order to get more grant money. Of course such a conspiracy theory makes no sense because the same scientists could go work for an oil company and make much more money.

And there is this weird theory of 'you just want to give money to poor countries' on some theory that climate change action will require rich nations paying poor nations. (I'm not sure why . . . perhaps to get them to use different energy other than coal plants?) Actually, I'd like to keep money here by switching to alternatives so that we buy less foreign oil!

The 'climate change is a hoax' meme boggles my mind. I get people who are just "well I don't give a shit what happens 100 years from now" or "you'll take my big pick-up truck away from my cold dead fingers" . . . but a hoax? That is ridiculous. No motive, impossible to do, no benefit, etc.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Cyan said:
No, the point is to get rid of the 60+ requirement on every vote.

The point is not to eliminate the filibuster altogether, but to return it to what it once was--an extreme tool used as a last resort. Returning it to the talking filibuster does not in itself do it, but simply by making it more difficult to use, it should reduce its use. Additionally, forcing senators to make a spectacle of themselves may also give them second thoughts.
Click to expand...
I don't know. That's never the impression I got from reform. As I said all along last night, I think the main problem of the Senate isn't necessarily the filibuster as it is requiring sixty votes to invoke cloture. All along people were complaining about how 41 senators have more power than 59. Or 45 senators have more power than 55. The Senate can't pass legislation because it requires sixty votes to get anything to get done.

I agree making people stand and talk for filibusters will reduce the number of filibusters, but not the number of needed 60+ votes. Because whether or not someone filibusters, you need to end debate, and that requires sixty votes if there isn't unanimous consent.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Cyan said:
My recollection was that the reform would fix that, but perhaps I'm remembering wrong.
Click to expand...

As pidgeon pointed out on this page, Merkley's did, but the whole reason that whole discussion on cloture and filibusters and sixty votes was because I said that, in hindsight of Rand's filibuster, Senate reformers should not only focus on getting people to stand and talk, but tweak the cloture number as well. Doing the former without the latter would not solve anything I believe.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
RDreamer said:
Climate argument is still going on facebook... Dude is accusing me of not knowing math, because I posted a survey that showed 97% of experts had agreed it's man-made. He's sitting there saying "No, only 75 out of the 10,000 said that! I'm trying to tell him that's not how polling works, and even if you use the regular sample size of non climate-change specialists you still get over 80% of scientists saying he's fucking wrong.
Click to expand...

Everyone with a Facebook profile thinks they're some kind of political expert I swear to god.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Maninthemirror said:
Oh boy. Cold blooded response

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...imits-to-governments-authority-to-use?ref=fpa
Click to expand...

Based on the rationales we've seen to date about the president's power to summarily execute Americans, there has been no reasoned legal basis offered for the position that the president lacks the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil. So it's quite fitting that Holder doesn't even bother to give one. This administration displays a remarkable contempt for civil liberties.

And what's pathetically sad is Paul's response: "I'm quite happy with the answer and I'm disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it." He's happy that no legal basis distinguishing the circumstances of the president's use of summary execution of an American citizen abroad versus at home has been given?
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
empty vessel said:
Based on the rationales we've seen to date about the president's power to summarily execute Americans, there has been no reasoned legal basis offered for the position that the president lacks the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil. So it's quite fitting that Holder doesn't even bother to give one. This administration displays a remarkable contempt for civil liberties.

And what's pathetically sad is Paul's response: "I'm quite happy with the answer and I'm disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it." He's happy that no legal basis distinguishing the circumstances of the president's use of summary execution of an American citizen abroad versus at home has been given?
Click to expand...
These are not "summary executions" use all the scary words you want but they're not what you are saying they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
638
MaestroMike replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
If Phil Spencer tears down the wall of exclusives on Xbox, will those of you who own an Xbox sell their system?
23
1K
Kururu replied
Will Palworld remain an Xbox exclusive?
2 3 4 5 6
289
15K
fersnake replied
Dragon's Dogma 2 - OT Title Ideas!
Community 2
68
2K
Svejk replied
LTTP: Splinter Cell Blacklist PS3 (2013)
21
1K
tommycronin replied
Top Bottom