|
the_paradigm_shift posted:Ugh. I'm glad to hear that guy say a lawsuit is certain, this is outrageous and clearly the final intent of a lot of the voter ID laws. quote:So roll out the welcome wagon to the Justice Department, and tell the world what it already so desperately wants to hear. Another good editorial on the same law here: http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/alabama_sends_message_we_are_t.html#incart_river_home
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
ndiana GOP’s House Leader resigns after texting sexually explicit video of himself cheating on wife to everyone on his “Contacts” list http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/ind...dium=socialflow
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Estimates are that between 1400 and 5100 people died from the added air pollution from this and we can't do anything? There's always criminal fraud. Only thing that's really required is prosecutorial will; a good prosecutor can find something to charge them with if he or she wants to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Coatlicue posted:How does this keep happening? Why on earth, as a sitting house member, would you record such a video? Like I'm not even mad at the hypocrisy of regulating other people's marriages while cheating, I just want to know how all our elected leaders are so idiotic that they keep having leaks of that sort of material. Everybody loves hot old-rich-whitedude-on-staffer action I guess
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:So do we even know who the shooter is yet? is it the eggman looking dude? is it the neckbeard? is it some muslim guy like my one friend thinks it is? This is honestly just as well. These mass shootings are usually a kind of suicide attempt, and it is well documented that reporting on suicide attempts encourages more suicide attempts. See, e.g., http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/suicide-prevention/recommendations-for-reporting-on-suicide.shtml
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What President would you point to as an example of getting really mad (specifically in public speeches)? Depending on the speech, maybe either Roosevelt. But neither was really what passes for anger in modern cable news.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Riptor posted:why are they beholden to agree with the "gunman is voldemort" crowd? It's the media's job to report on the facts of the story, including the identity of the killer From what I've read at least, there is good reason to believe that reporting on suicide events increases their frequency. The media really should be more responsible on this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Speaking of the Supreme Court, what ever happened to that 3rd Amendment case from a year or two back, where the guy was claiming that police snipers setting up in his house was a violation of his 3rd Amendment rights? Supreme court ruled against him because police arent' soldiers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Holy poo poo this would be incredible because he would officially give up his campaign. "South Carolina is in the middle of a catastrophic, thousand-year-mark flooding disaster. Who better to lift up my sagging poll numbers there than the hero of Katrina?"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Why can't we just say "Redo" and then start again with all finances. I mean if everyone's hosed why not? Clear all debt off the books and start again. Well, that is the actual purpose of bankruptcy laws. How many lobbyists do you have?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:lmao Privilege bubble. He honestly thinks he's running a good campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Oh, you meant for Pelosi. There's literally no way 30 Republicans are going to be be willing to give up their careers. Theoretically they could change parties.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:The sex scandal theory is mainly being advanced by Tea Party sites who have a vested interest in fantasizing about how corrupt the RINOs are. The theory doesn't exactly hold up, as no one in the Freedom Caucus seems like they would have the tact to keep their mouths shut if they knew of such a thing. The funny thing is, this means that in a practical sense, the Republican Party has effectively split in two: the Tea Party is a separate party with separate goals, and it is unwilling to form a coalition with the Republicans. This is what a parliamentary crisis looks like in a first-past-the-post system.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
DolphinCop posted:being a democratic house of representatives member has got to be like, super relaxing True story, being a democratic state congressman in a state with a Republican supermajority was John Grisham's day job while he wrote his first novel.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:
First Bad Bernie position I've seen. The AWB was a bad law and doesn't need to be brough back. There are other better ways to improve gun control, including better funding for the instant background check system.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I was at the event he announced this at, and he definitely spoke to mental health access, closing the gun show loophole and strengthening background checks before mentioning that he wanted to ban semiautomatic assault weapons "whose only purpose is to kill groups of people". Yeah that all sounds reasonable but one man's "semiautomatic assault rifle," is another man's hunting rifle, and the guy who calls it a hunting rifle is way more likely to vote based on that issue. The AWB was a really bad law, poorly written with bad definition s, and bringing it back is not an auspicious proposal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The AWB in particular is unpalatable because it largely consisted of a ban on a set of cosmetic features rather than things that affected the functioning of the gun. If you put the same gun in a redneck hunting stock, it shouldn't suddenly be OK. Or, for that matter, requiring prompt and complete compliance with the background check system by local police forces and making sure appropriate funding is granted for them to do so. The background check should have stopped Dylann Root's handgun purchase, but it didn't. But yes, basically you're saying what I was trying to get at. The AWB is a bad law full of gibberish terminology and a lot of gun owners justifiably view advocacy for it as a sign that said advocate is demagoguing the issue and not presenting a serious policy position. Bernie is better than that; everywhere else he has real positions, not bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
greatn posted:I think with gun control laws people just need to get a handle on the fact that an inconvenience isn't a curtailing of your rights. A lot if this sounds good but would be vulnerable to political exploitation. For example, the reason that you can buy a gun if there is no response from the instant check system after three days, is that gun advocates were concerned that the instant background check system would be underfunded or nonfunded, resulting in an effective ban. And they weren't wrong. The IBC system *is* underfunded, which is part of why Dylann Roof was able to buy a gun despite his pending charges. There are some productive changes that could be made to the gun laws but they involve spending more money (requiring better reporting compliance by local police forces, etc), go counter to entrenched interests, or require more nuance than anyone in the debate is prepared to bring to the table. Basically the issue is too thoroughly politicized to be productively addressed, much like every other issue in American politics. Edit: to be clear I support the IBC system and agree it needs reform, but the "holes" in it -- the three day time window, the private sale loophole - exist for actual reasons, they aren't just there to give Wayne LaPierre a stiffy. They weren't solved in 1994/because nobody had a good solution for them then, and it appears our politicians still don't. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I'm not sure what forcing republicans into an ideological corner is going to do, but I guess we're going to find out. Eh it's not like "we" have much to do with it. This is the inevitable consequence of the modern Republican party (and right wing media, gerrymandering, etc.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Somebody with not-much to lose is going to step in, I suppose. It's less that nobody is acceptable and more that candidates fear one of the job responsibilities is to appease the Sun God and the only way he can be appeased is with blood of people with jobs like yours. I suspect nobody can do the job. If you're moderate enough for mainstream support you're disqualified from fringe support and vice versa. The Republicans have split into two parties and are refusing to admit it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:House doesn't matter. Senate, though, that will be interesting. Republicans will certainly seek to knock out any SCOTUS nominee they can, but I don't actually think a moderate would have any greater chance of making it through than a liberal. No matter who they are, they'll be demonized as super liberal on the right and it'll be a question of what you can make stick with the public at large (or, if it even matters what the public at large thinks). There's a decent chance nobody at all could get confirmed. I honestly think this is the most likely result (presuming democratic president / republican senate) and any vacancies on the Court will simply result in a smaller Court.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Any slim chance of that died when they alienated the Smug Centrist/Moderate crowd. Has this actually happened? Has the realization that the Republicans really are that loving crazy finally broken through to the "truth is in the middle" professional pundit class?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
PDP-1 posted:Did you happen to catch this David Brooks column in the NYT last week? He's as professional pundit-y as they come and he seemed to be having a moment of clarity: Yeah, but that's happened before with other pundits, like David Frum a few years ago when he left Marketplace and so forth. The question is whether or not the rest of the media follows.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Hillary won the debate, not by a huge margin but she dismissed some of the issues that have dogged her and made a good case for her candidacy. While Bernie also did well, he really didn't provide the outstanding performance he needed to overcome Clinton dominance. I will, however, be interested in seeing if Bernie gains any minority supporters from his statements tonight. It looks like "enough with the drat emails" is going to be the takeaway line in the media covering the debate, so that may give him a visibility boost.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:What is it supposed to measure? What kind of idiot googles Hillary Clinton? well if Sander's goal for the debate was to gain visibility then people going "well who IS this crazy grandpa, he sounds interesting" is a good metric.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:It wasn't even the "It was my first day!" that'll sink Chafee as though he had far to drop, right?); it was the way he followed up with "And besides, it was a 95-5 vote!" Like the peer pressure got to him. He defended his vote for the Patriot Act by saying "It was 99-1!" which was particularly stupid considering that the 1 was right there on the same stage as him. The one Senator was Feingold. Sanders voted against it but he was a House member at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
blah doublepost forumsweird I made the same mistake during the debate and had the same "but Bernie was the one" thought but then I checked wikipedia to make sure and realized I'd been wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
It's interesting how debate reaction polls had Bernie as the clear winner, but the news headlines this morning all are "Clinton wins."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
the_paradigm_shift posted:Debates never mean anything if there isn't a major gently caress up. Both sides are entrenched enough by now it was really just a showcasing of candidates. I'd be surprised if it really affects the actual polls, except maybe to give one of the also rans a small bump. Oh, I think there's a good chance Bernie will get a significant bump just from increased visibility. O'Malley might pick up a few percentage points too for the same reason, though I'm not sure where he'd get the points *from*. Webb and Chaffee hosed up though -- "my first day" and "I killed a dude" -- but yeah they can't go negative so it won't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:similarly, it's interesting how Ron Paul is currently our president based on dumbass online polls. Wasn't just online polls -- the focus groups afterwards also had Bernie as clear winner. Though yeah he did do badly on the foreign policy side. He had high highs and low lows.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:I am excited to see what the Sanderistas will do when Bernie loses. Join Jim Webb's death-or-glory killsquads
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
zoux posted:Nice job stophillarypac That screenshot makes him look like Voldemort
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Snowden realizes that he's just a bargaining chip for Putin and will be sold out to the US whenever it's convenient for Russia. That being the case he wants to cut a deal, but I don't think that even a (very) hypothetical Sanders JD would bite. I read Sander's Snowden comments as basically saying he'd grant him a commutation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:And Obama wants to close Gitmo and free all non-violent federal drug offenders. Political reality and what a president would like to do don't always match up. The pardon power is wholly executive, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I have no problem with Vietnam draft dodgers. But it looks really bad when a draft dodger asks for the job of being the head of the military, which necessarily means they will be the head of an organization that routinely punishes service members who fail to do their duty or abandon their posts as well as ordering personnel into conflict, whether they agree with the conflict or not. I think that someone who objects to pointless wars and refuses to participate in them is exactly the sort of leader our troops need and deserve. "Dodging" an immoral draft doesn't matter; what matters is recognizing when risking the lives of our troops is moral and when it isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I've gotta say that as a Canadian watching your miserably long election cycle from the outside, I really can't understand why anyone would support Hillary over Bernie. Just looking at their voting records alone seems to be enough to prove that Hillary is a complete shill and has no real beliefs or stances on any issues of substance, and that she doesn't give a poo poo about anything other than being elected. I mean I guess that's fine in a normal election where your only other options are weirdos like Webb and Chafee, but this election has an actual real human being in it who gives a poo poo about the country and seems to be willing to try to make real changes to try to repair some of the extensive damage that's been done to it since Reagan was elected, and there are still people on Hillary's side? I don't understand. Electability is part of it, but as others have said Bernie is just as electable and just as likely to get anything done in the face of Republican opposition. I personally support Bernie but think the real argument for Hillary is superior presentation; she's a more professional candidate. But that cuts both ways, and is something she still has to demonstrate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There is a work requirement for disability and Medicare. Small potatoes. We clearly need a work requirement for Medicaid.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What ? No! That's monstrous. Think of it as an especially efficient way to trim the rolls. Especially since Medicaid is the only way to pay for long term care!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:
Medicaid is very efficient, especially for kids. Also there are a number of very necessary things that Medicare won't cover but Medicaid will -- long term health care, certain types of power wheelchairs, ABA therapy for kids with autism, etc. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
Lessail posted:Hillary supporters think Hillary won They each "won" in that they each achieved their goals. Hillary wanted to keep her lead, not gently caress up, and put scandals to bed, and she did all of those things. So she's still "winning" in that sense. Bernie wanted to increase his visibility and get his name out and get people FIRED UP and he did that in a big way. So he "won" also.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 02:24
|
|