US Politics October: This is how we roll in the Hussein Clown Posse

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics October: This is how we roll in the Hussein Clown Posse

«‹›115 »

max4me: Jun 15, 2003; by FactsAreUseless

Sword of Chomsky posted:

It isn't entirely a result of the commission. The GOP wanted to throw the commission map out, but failed. California just hates the GOP, and they have almost no footholds left here.

Oh the inland empire and kern county are still going strong.

Basically republicans in the state legislature kept holding the budget hostage. With the negotiation tacit of "give me everything i want and lets call that compromise"

So they got voted out and the dems cut spending and raised taxes and now we have functioning state.

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 14:01

Lycus: Aug 5, 2008; Half the posters in this forum have been made up. This website is a goddamn ghost town.

max4me posted:

Oh the inland empire and kern county are still going strong.

Kern county and orange county. The inland empire is not a Republican stronghold. :colbert:

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:07

max4me: Jun 15, 2003; by FactsAreUseless

Everyone I ever dealt with there, (granted not as much as kern) came off as a teabagger.

Orange county is just....weird....

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:11

Lycus: Aug 5, 2008; Half the posters in this forum have been made up. This website is a goddamn ghost town.

I don't know about the particular people you've interacted with, but while the IE isn't as liberal as LA, its generally moderately Democratic. San Bernardino moreso than Riverside.

Lycus fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Oct 2, 2014

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:14

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

I go to school at UCI at I'm pretty sure the university is the only thing keeping the city in the Democratic column (then again, Tustin also went for Obama twice, but it has a lot more of those people).

Hell, I'm pretty sure that the county going from voting 60% for Bush to 52% for Romney can be attributed to the GOP making GBS threads the bed with minorities and losing all the ground they'd built amongst the Vietnamese, Latino, Iranian etc. communities here.

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:21

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

You know, as long as we're talking about insane ideas to fix Congress, if the problem with the Senate is that large states have diluted representation compared to small states, why don't we just split the large states up? Limit the disparity in population between large and small states to the ratio of largest/smallest when the constitution was signed and redistrict the entire country after each census.

(This is a terrible idea btw, just like increasing the number of representatives, but it's not like "abolish the Senate!" Is more practical or more likely.)

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:35

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Kalman posted:

You know, as long as we're talking about insane ideas to fix Congress, if the problem with the Senate is that large states have diluted representation compared to small states, why don't we just split the large states up? Limit the disparity in population between large and small states to the ratio of largest/smallest when the constitution was signed and redistrict the entire country after each census.

(This is a terrible idea btw, just like increasing the number of representatives, but it's not like "abolish the Senate!" Is more practical or more likely.)

This would result in the rural areas of a state being lumped together and then the urban areas split off so that the urban majorities still have their two senators but the rural areas of the country get even more senators. It's a really terrible idea.

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:42

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

It would also require producing new state bureaucracies in all your new states. If anything, America has too many states.

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:47

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Stultus Maximus posted:

This would result in the rural areas of a state being lumped together and then the urban areas split off so that the urban majorities still have their two senators but the rural areas of the country get even more senators. It's a really terrible idea.

Why would you assume it generates more states, rather than fewer? Forming Wyomontanaho also reduces the disparity between largest and smallest states, after all.

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:50

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

A federal appeals court is allowing Texas to enforce its awful new law that would force all but 7 abortion clinics in the entire state to close while the case is on appeal.

http://kxan.com/2014/10/02/appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-hb2/

# ? Oct 2, 2014 23:53

Star Man: Jun 1, 2008; There's a star maaaaaan
Over the rainbow

Kalman posted:

Why would you assume it generates more states, rather than fewer? Forming Wyomontanaho also reduces the disparity between largest and smallest states, after all.

More people live in Puerto Rico than Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho combined.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 00:02

Alkydere: Jun 7, 2010; Capitol: A building or complex of buildings in which any legislature meets.
Capital: A city designated as a legislative seat by the government or some other authority, often the city in which the government is located; otherwise the most important city within a country or a subdivision of it.

FlamingLiberal posted:

A federal appeals court is allowing Texas to enforce its awful new law that would force all but 7 abortion clinics in the entire state to close while the case is on appeal.

http://kxan.com/2014/10/02/appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-hb2/

Goddamnit. And we were so close to getting rid of that toxic piece of legislation.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 00:06

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Stultus Maximus posted:

This would result in the rural areas of a state being lumped together and then the urban areas split off so that the urban majorities still have their two senators but the rural areas of the country get even more senators. It's a really terrible idea.

Easiest solution for which there is already a framework: interstate compacts with governing authority, like with the Great Lakes

# ? Oct 3, 2014 00:11

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Unzip and Attack posted:

No, they aren't. In 1999 readers of the NY Post declared Bill Clinton to be the 2nd most evil person of the 20th century, just behind Hitler and far above Stalin and Pol Pot.

It's not that the Democrats are "bad" at politics. It's that the Republican Party is backed by people who are completely irrational and don't actually participate in "politics" as much as they "do their best to actively sabotage and destroy political processes".

Also the left is gaining ground in the ground game, and the right really is resorting now to blatant rule changing to win, something that really does piss of voters. You see the whole idea of acceleration is bullshit, if a majority or at least a majority who actively participate begin to feel that a certain side is taking away their voice, they begin to go from being opposed to that side out of general disagreement, to hating that side by instinct. Now well I know the majority here supports the warren court, alot of Americans, did not, in fact much of the time a majority of the country that participate in the electoral process did not. The GOP seized on that and played to those who felt dispossessed. The left is slowly being reinvigorated and much more election savy. It will play on the fact that the Roberts Court is made up of a bunch of corrupt sociopaths, and ensure that it has loyal supporters for a generation at least. Also unlike the dems with the ascent of the third way, there are really strong wealthy backers in the GOP who are not going to go away and are not going to let the party retreat from bircherism.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 00:19

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

Pohl posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWuMp6TRcYM

Holy poo poo, Bill Clinton did an ad for Grimes.

Wrong grimes :fist:

# ? Oct 3, 2014 00:31

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Extra bonus quote of the day, "I'm the first United States senator I ever knew." ~ Joe Biden

# ? Oct 3, 2014 00:43

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Joementum posted:

Extra bonus quote of the day, "I'm the first United States senator I ever knew." ~ Joe Biden

Why didn't I know this man before 2008?

# ? Oct 3, 2014 00:46

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

"Isn't it a bitch?" ~ Joe Biden on being Vice President.

Not quite as good as "not worth a bucket of warm piss", but I'll take it.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 00:53

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Joementum posted:

"Isn't it a bitch?" ~ Joe Biden on being Vice President.

Not quite as good as "not worth a bucket of warm piss", but I'll take it.

Are these all made today, or just released/leaked today?

# ? Oct 3, 2014 01:01

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

My Imaginary GF posted:

Are these all made today, or just released/leaked today?

From the Q&A portion of his Harvard speech tonight.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 01:03

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Joementum posted:

From the Q&A portion of his Harvard speech tonight.

Funny, innit, Biden speaks at Harvard while Obama visits Northwestern.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 01:05

InequalityGodzilla: May 31, 2012

Radish posted:

We might as well be reading chicken bones instead of nine people trying to determine what about eighty dudes really wanted over two hundred years ago and why we have to follow that now.

We all know the SC would be far more into haruspicy. RBG would probably be the one doing the gutting.

Joementum posted:

Bonus quote of the day, "While good, affordable health care might still be a fanged threat to freedom on Fox News, it’s working pretty well in the real world." ~ Barack Obama

It's nice to know that he at least has the balls to give someone a hard time :rolleyes:

Joementum posted:

Extra bonus quote of the day, "I'm the first United States senator I ever knew." ~ Joe Biden

Joementum posted:

From the Q&A portion of his Harvard speech tonight.

Go Joe

# ? Oct 3, 2014 01:07

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Stultus Maximus posted:

Why didn't I know this man before 2008?

I've been rooting for Joe for 20 years. Don't worry, you didn't miss much.
By that I mean, just pay attention and anything you missed before will happen again. It isn't Joe's fault, it is just how poo poo works.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 01:07

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Pohl posted:

I've been rooting for Joe for 20 years. Don't worry, you didn't miss much.

Did he miss the live girl and fast car?

# ? Oct 3, 2014 01:09

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

FlamingLiberal posted:

A federal appeals court is allowing Texas to enforce its awful new law that would force all but 7 abortion clinics in the entire state to close while the case is on appeal.

http://kxan.com/2014/10/02/appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-hb2/

On the subject of Texas and federal courts, here have more awful poo poo

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/02/3575079/the-supreme-court-will-hear-a-case-that-could-obliterate-fair-housing-law/

quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take a case Thursday morning that is expected to demolish a crucial legal protection against racial discrimination in housing. The case concerns how plaintiffs can prove that governments and developers are discriminating.

Over the course of many years, discrimination by race has become increasingly subtle because almost everybody knows better than to overtly announce racial intent. Nonetheless, data shows that racial discrimination clearly persists. In the housing sphere, a recent study on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development found that black and Asian homeseekers are shown or told about 15 to 19 percent fewer homes than whites with similar credit qualifications and housing interests. During the subprime lending boom, African Americans with good credit scores were 3.5 times as likely as whites with good credit scores to receive higher-interest-rate loans, and Latinos were 3.1 times as likely to receive such loans. And the Federal Reserve found that in 2009, African Americans were twice as likely to be denied a loan, even controlling for income and other qualifying criteria.

In order to prove this discrimination, nine federal appeals courts to consider the standard for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act have permitted plaintiffs to show what is known as �disparate impact� � statistical evidence that shows a policy yields a disproportionate adverse outcome for minorities, without requiring plaintiffs to meet the exceedingly high bar of proving discriminatory intent. Last year, HUD even issued a regulation interpreting the Fair Housing Act as allowing claims of disparate racial impact. This standard has been the bread and butter of racial discrimination claims for years under the Fair Housing Act, which forbids racial discrimination by landlords, homeowners, state housing authorities, and others.

The Justice Department has wielded this disparate impact theory to win expensive settlements against banks accused of race discrimination in lending. In one suit, for example, the mortgage lender Countrywide agreed to a $335 million settlement due to allegations that Countrywide �charged higher fees and rates to more than 200,000 minority borrowers across the country than to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk.� DOJ discovered that in one year, for example, �Countrywide employees charged Hispanic applicants in Los Angeles an average of $545 more in fees for a $200,000 loan than they charged non-Hispanic white applicants with similar credit histories.� Because the law permits disparate impact litigation, DOJ was able to use this pattern of discrimination to win a settlement. Without disparate impact litigation, it is much less likely that DOJ could have prevailed without a smoking gun document where Countrywide�s management confessed to racial discrimination.

Nevertheless, a five-justice majority on the Roberts Court is not expected to look as kindly on �disparate impact,� given its eagerness to review an issue on which all lower courts have agreed, and its hostility to the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action, and other means for rooting out racial discrimination.

That�s why civil rights groups have been glad to avoid Supreme Court review in the past. In each of the last two Supreme Court terms, the justices agreed to hear a case reviewing the �disparate impact� standard. But each of these cases settled before the cases were decided, averting a high court ruling on the issue. As corporate lawyer John Culhane told Forbes last year after the Supreme Court agreed to hear another case on this question that later settled, �The perception is the Supreme Court has taken this case because it feels there is no disparate-impact theory of liability, and is prepared to rule to that effect.�

This time, the government party in the case is the state of Texas�s Department of Housing and Community Affairs. And the Lone Star State is not likely at all to back down with a settlement. That means the question may at long last see resolution at the high court this term.

The litigation in this case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. concerns the placement of subsidized low-income housing in Dallas. A community group that connects individuals with this housing under the federal Section 8 program for housing subsidies argued in a lawsuit that the state was approving developer tax credits for such housing only in low-income and minority-heavy neighborhoods, while denying Low-Income Housing Tax Credit applications in majority-white and majority-Hispanic neighborhoods. The plaintiffs, Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., note that this has perpetuated and actually exacerbated the city�s racial segregation before 1955, which a federal appeals court called �a sordid tale of overt and covert racial discrimination and segregation.�

Both lower courts agreed that the Inclusive Communities Project had proved discrimination by showing disparate impact, and Texas seeks to win the case not by arguing the facts of the case, but by seeking to obliterate the disparate impact standard.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 01:11

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

FlamingLiberal posted:

A federal appeals court is allowing Texas to enforce its awful new law that would force all but 7 abortion clinics in the entire state to close while the case is on appeal.

http://kxan.com/2014/10/02/appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-hb2/

Am I the only one who thinks that pro-choice advocates should take one on the chin instead of going to the right-wing activist Supreme Court and risking ruining abortion rights for the rest of the country, instead of just Texas?

# ? Oct 3, 2014 02:17

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Amused to Death posted:

On the subject of Texas and federal courts, here have more awful poo poo

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/02/3575079/the-supreme-court-will-hear-a-case-that-could-obliterate-fair-housing-law/

Read this earlier. In short, the fact that SCOTUS is taking this on despite the consensus of lower courts pretty much signals the likely death knell for "disparate impact" as a tool in housing discrimination suits. If so, as long as you don't explicitly say "no blacks" landlords and those involved in real estate will be able to get away with anything.

Might not be long until Roberts just outright says that ~~Fuller~~ Brown might have been on to something with that "separate but equal" thing.

ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Oct 3, 2014

# ? Oct 3, 2014 02:39

Salvor_Hardin: Sep 13, 2005; I want to go protest.; Nap Ghost

Joementum posted:

"Isn't it a bitch?" ~ Joe Biden on being Vice President.

Not quite as good as "not worth a bucket of warm piss", but I'll take it.

Pretty sure it's a bucket of warm spit. (So hock a loogie for Bingo Bob.)

Edit: Just checked and apparently John Nance Garner originally may have said "piss" but I am going to take Will and Toby's version as canon.

Salvor_Hardin fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Oct 3, 2014

# ? Oct 3, 2014 02:45

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Y-Hat posted:

Am I the only one who thinks that pro-choice advocates should take one on the chin instead of going to the right-wing activist Supreme Court and risking ruining abortion rights for the rest of the country, instead of just Texas?

I'd certainly wait for the court to change. Once upon a time this was new legal ground, but now it is an established political battleground, trusting the court seems really dumb.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 02:47

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

Y-Hat posted:

Am I the only one who thinks that pro-choice advocates should take one on the chin instead of going to the right-wing activist Supreme Court and risking ruining abortion rights for the rest of the country, instead of just Texas?

Hopefully.

edit

Thanks to the GOP, a Texan in El Paso will have to travel through the equivalent of ten Rhode Islands to get to the nearest clinic.

Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Oct 3, 2014

# ? Oct 3, 2014 02:52

SirKibbles: Feb 27, 2011; I didn't like your old red text so here's some dancing cash.

Sir Tonk posted:

Hopefully.

edit

Thanks to the GOP, a Texan in El Paso will have to travel through the equivalent of ten Rhode Islands to get to the nearest clinic.

But they're killing babies *ignores all the dead kids in places they bomb.*

# ? Oct 3, 2014 03:10

Dominus Vobiscum: Sep 2, 2004; Our motives are multiple, our desires complex.; Fallen Rib

Sir Tonk posted:

Hopefully.

edit

Thanks to the GOP, a Texan in El Paso will have to travel through the equivalent of ten Rhode Islands to get to the nearest clinic.

My first thought was that someone should open a clinic on the New Mexico state line. Turns out one of the operators of clinics in Texas already had a similar idea.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 03:18

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

ComradeCosmobot posted:

If so, as long as you don't explicitly say "no blacks" landlords and those involved in real estate will be able to get away with anything.

So the Roberts gang's ruling on this case will likely say this, and their previous ruling on quid pro quo said that it can only mean "giving money in exchange for political favors." As a person who interprets the law, aren't you supposed to understand nuance? Don't they teach you that in every law school in America (except for the dominionist diploma mills)?

Sir Tonk posted:

Thanks to the GOP, a Texan in El Paso will have to travel through the equivalent of ten Rhode Islands to get to the nearest clinic.

It really sucks that pro-choicers have to basically concede a big state for now in order to fight another day if they want their cause to stay alive. If you don't live in Texas, the best thing to do is to not move there unless you're rich white Southern Baptist male, otherwise you're just another warm body for the state GOP to oppress.

Anyway, glad that some other people here are thinking the same way I am regarding taking abortion rights cases to SCOTUS. Now the question is- will they heed our advice, or will they foolishly believe that they won't go right-wing activist?

# ? Oct 3, 2014 03:40

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

SirKibbles posted:

But they're killing babies *ignores all the dead kids in places they bomb.*

These are the same people who lauded that guy who shot Dr. Tiller dead in the middle of a crowded church.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 04:03

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Y-Hat posted:

Anyway, glad that some other people here are thinking the same way I am regarding taking abortion rights cases to SCOTUS. Now the question is- will they heed our advice, or will they foolishly believe that they won't go right-wing activist?

Just to clarify, the Court of Appeals has not yet heard this case. They just allowed the state to continue to enforce the law until they do hear it.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 04:04

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Hasn't SCOTUS actually had cases in the past several terms related to abortion they could've taken up and went "ehhhhhh, no, not touching that again right now. loving over minorities is easier"

# ? Oct 3, 2014 04:28

max4me: Jun 15, 2003; by FactsAreUseless

I mostly dealt with people from corona and riverside also hemet

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

I go to school at UCI at I'm pretty sure the university is the only thing keeping the city in the Democratic column (then again, Tustin also went for Obama twice, but it has a lot more of those people).

Dang I live right over by south coast.

The vietnamese in Westminster are hard republicans because SMASH COMMUNISM...I agree that if the GOP could tell the racist to go gently caress themselves, they could peel alot alot of minority votes

# ? Oct 3, 2014 05:03

Berke Negri: Feb 15, 2012; Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao

They never will though.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 05:04

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

max4me posted:

I mostly dealt with people from corona and riverside also hemet

Dang I live right over by south coast.

The vietnamese in Westminster are hard republicans because SMASH COMMUNISM...I agree that if the GOP could tell the racist to go gently caress themselves, they could peel alot alot of minority votes

Westminster was like the only of those heavily Vietnamese cities that didn't vote for Obama in either 2008 or 2012, whereas Garden Grove and Fullerton went McCain in 2008 and then Obama in 2012. I'm guessing the younger generations just don't give a gently caress for all that :argh:

commie stuff.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 05:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 14:01

1337JiveTurkey: Feb 17, 2005

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

Westminster was like the only of those heavily Vietnamese cities that didn't vote for Obama in either 2008 or 2012, whereas Garden Grove and Fullerton went McCain in 2008 and then Obama in 2012. I'm guessing the younger generations just don't give a gently caress for all that commie stuff.

Asian Americans have swung from something like voting 2 to 1 for Bush in 1992 to about 2 to 1 for Obama in 2012 so yeah there's something big going on there.

# ? Oct 3, 2014 05:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics October: This is how we roll in the Hussein Clown Posse

«‹›115 »