Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

by **pacino** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:08:38

With Udall's defeat, NSA reformers lose an ally on the inside

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:11:49

thephan wrote:The opening line to his new book How to be a Bad Winner Without Really Trying

Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, proclaimed Wednesday that Republicans may have built a “hundred-year majority” in the House.

His point was depending on how the uncalled races break it would be the party's largest majority in (almost) one hundred years.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:55:38

pacino wrote:the president is 'incompetent' eh

I think that's a fair evaluation of his ability to turn political disagreements to his own advantage. He's a good campaigner, he's obviously very bright, and I think he has a very nuanced understanding of the government and the law... but none of that speaks to the down-and-dirty business of back-slapping, I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine politics. It's as if he suspends his obvious gifts for organizing once he actually turns to the job of being president - like that is not about political organizing and instead about having the best idea. It's basically never about having the best idea.

by **pacino** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:02:36

You can't out Bible the right, Mark

by **drsmooth** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:23:20

jerseyhoya wrote:If you want a bullet point list of why the GOP won a landslide victory in the midterms I'd go:
1) The president is unpopular and incompetent
2) The midterm electorate is more favorable to the GOP than presidential electorates have been in recent years (though the GOP did better among almost all demographic subgroups as well - see 1)
3) The Senate seats up for election this cycle were favorable, and House districts favor the GOP even in neutral years for a number of reasons (though you could note the governors races were anything but favorable and the GOP still added two seats - see 1)
4) The GOP did a fantastic job nominating the candidates capable of winning tough races as noted by some brilliant observers earlier this election season

Whatever.

Costa and Rucker in WP wrote:"Republicans worked to polish Ernst’s presentation and policy platform. “She is naturally disciplined, and I assume that has a lot to do with her military training and her farm-girl roots,” said David Kochel, an Ernst adviser."

gee whiz, Dave, really? Tell me more. No, wait - don't.

Costa and Rucker in WP wrote:In New Hampshire, Scott Brown, the former senator from neighboring Massachusetts, waffled about taking on....Shaheen. Brown said he would pull the trigger only if the party met an eight-point list of demands that included not allowing another government shutdown or a loose-cannon conservative like Akin to become the nominee in another state. Party operatives assured him they would do their best, and Brown was in.

oh, for the love of - like he had lots of other stuff he had to be torn away from to persuade him to go a-carpetbaggin'.

"Krone" appears 17 times in that wayyyyy overlong bit of "reporting"

BTW: #1 - love the "and incompetent" part.

If I were the guy, I would resolve to demonstrate very clearly to McConnell and that mob the danger of riding that incompetence meme. I'd "incompetent" all over Mitch's triumphant pasty ass every day, probably twice a day, during the quite small window he has before people take up their 2016 base-placating, to actually concoct any viable "look we're doing governing effectively over here" legislation.

by **Roger Dorn** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 13:41:30

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

Princeton study basically confirms what everyone knows anyway, that the U.S. system of government is essentially an oligarchy controlled by the elite and wealthy in society. Shocker.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 14:11:20

That's still not what the paper says

by **pacino** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 14:21:43

td11 wrote:The Conservative Case for Football

several great quotes from doc smooth's favorite congressman, jason chaffetz

So the Subcommittee on Football’s Never-Ending Existential Crisis would stipulate that Chaffetz knows something of the game. Although he’s not Steve Young, Chaffetz has been knocked around. Congressman, would you call federal hearings on head injuries?

“I’d rather not,” Chaffetz said. “We have enough to do in this world. If you don’t want to get a concussion, don’t play football."

...

Chaffetz said he had no interest in using Oversight as a prosecutor-at-large for sports leagues. He said he wanted “relevant people, non-steroid-using people” hauled before him. Is that true, Congressman? You won’t call hearings on brain injuries?

“Are there things the Department of Defense has learned about our troops in combat?” Chaffetz said. “Yeah. Let’s share best practices and some of the science. I buy that. But a congressional hearing to figure out that coming across the middle looking for a pass is going to hurt when you get smacked? Duh. Why do you think I watch the games?”

got around to this at lunch. Crazy stuff

by **Monkeyboy** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 14:53:34

Werthless wrote:
td11 wrote:vote ron paul

What is this, 2008?

Holy crap, Wendy Davis. I didn't realize some of the crazy stuff you've done.

http://michellemalkin.com/2014/10/28/the-spectacular-self-immolation-of-wendy-r-davis/

You get your news at michellemalkin.com? She's vile. Even if everything in the article is true (haven't read it), she has no reason to say anything about anything or anyone.

by **pacino** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 14:54:51

nearly 2/3 of voters said the economic system is unfair and favors the wealthy.

by **Monkeyboy** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 15:04:02

jerseyhoya wrote:The individual candidates nominated in key races were personally more popular than the party. They did a great job of emphasizing the positives of the GOP agenda, avoiding the negatives, and keeping the focus on the unpopular president.

Even when it meant tying him to ebola to do it.

Is it effective? Sure. Is it racist? You bet.

Has anyone done anything detailing the GOP's plan to move away from racism and dog whistles to win elections? You'd think they could still win by just piling on the poor and sick, but I guess it's better to keep the racist stuff just in case.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 15:15:44

pacino wrote:
td11 wrote:The Conservative Case for Football

several great quotes from doc smooth's favorite congressman, jason chaffetz

So the Subcommittee on Football’s Never-Ending Existential Crisis would stipulate that Chaffetz knows something of the game. Although he’s not Steve Young, Chaffetz has been knocked around. Congressman, would you call federal hearings on head injuries?

“I’d rather not,” Chaffetz said. “We have enough to do in this world. If you don’t want to get a concussion, don’t play football."

...

Chaffetz said he had no interest in using Oversight as a prosecutor-at-large for sports leagues. He said he wanted “relevant people, non-steroid-using people” hauled before him. Is that true, Congressman? You won’t call hearings on brain injuries?

“Are there things the Department of Defense has learned about our troops in combat?” Chaffetz said. “Yeah. Let’s share best practices and some of the science. I buy that. But a congressional hearing to figure out that coming across the middle looking for a pass is going to hurt when you get smacked? Duh. Why do you think I watch the games?”

got around to this at lunch. Crazy stuff

gotta say I actually thought Chaffetz came off as fairly rational in there. With a sense of humor, even; his one-liner about being peeved he couldn't get a job, seeing how as a kicker he had so much spare time on his hands

so weird that the real soft-handed wingnuts like ingraham (one twisted, bitter skank) & bennett (now we know how he came about his evident brain damage; playing football - at Williams?) etc make the issue about making people wimpy.

Fuck no, let 'em bash their brains in. Just make sure - very sure - they're compensated for sacrificing their consciousnesses. Give them a part of the team if you "can't afford it" otherwise, externality-exploiting motherfuckers. Flynn's spluttering outrage over people pursuing compensation in court is boneheaded bullshit

by **dajafi** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 15:32:08

Glad I read that. I actually agree with a fair bit of it--so long as participants know the risks inherent to what they're doing, and all reasonable steps are taken to minimize harm (even if it means goofy looking helmets), no need for government intervention.

That said, I sort of hope that my son doesn't come to me in eight or nine years asking to play football. My wife is dead set against it. My position I think would be "I want to say no, but will let you try to convince me"… probably hoping he succeeds.

by **pacino** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 15:34:50

i think it's fair of me to say that the culture of football is the thing that needs to be changed, and slowly is, not necessarily football itself. This goes down to the midgets level, where up until recently many coaches were still teaching some very unhealthy things as far as tackling goes, especially for young, smooshy heads. driving through is not the same as diving into.

i was more saying crazy as much of the piece where people were quoted as it showing us as being a wimply nation, etc etc

by **dajafi** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 15:38:15

Yeah, but those assholes have a few stock things they say in response to almost any question or "issue." Bill Bennett presumably knows football best through its gambling aspects. Why anybody would give a shit what he or Laura Ingraham thinks is the real question IMO.

There's an odd proud history with Republicans and football. Nixon designed a play for the Washington team. Arlen Specter would sometimes joke about using the powers of Congress to give the Eagles an easier schedule or better draft pick.

by **pacino** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 15:45:44

Teddy Roosevelt busted heads back in the day, but people were dying on field.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 16:51:43

pacino wrote:certainly, different people learn differently. i'm not sure you could argue against that, really. if we truly tried to cater to that, it'd cost a lot of money in hiring more people, in-class assistants, etc.

If we're going to err, maybe we should be more worried about pushing stuff onto kids too soon rather than kids learning ever more stuff at a younger age. One thing I've noticed is that as a nation, we don't do so badly up to say 5th grade or so, but things begin to deteriorate after that. Maybe we should more or less let kids hang out until they're seven or eight--there's plenty of time to learn calculus later.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 18:04:13

For whatever legitimate reason is Boehner threatening the POTfuckingUS with "burning" and "poisoning"

by **td11** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 18:06:04

dajafi wrote:Glad I read that. I actually agree with a fair bit of it--so long as participants know the risks inherent to what they're doing, and all reasonable steps are taken to minimize harm (even if it means goofy looking helmets), no need for government intervention.

That said, I sort of hope that my son doesn't come to me in eight or nine years asking to play football. My wife is dead set against it. My position I think would be "I want to say no, but will let you try to convince me"… probably hoping he succeeds.

and that is where i have the biggest problem, because at the high school and prior levels, the kids have absolutely no idea how much risk they're taking. i can name probably four guys i played with in high school who had concussions on the field and went back into the game after an assistant coach did some "tests." and of course the kids themselves are super eager to just be on the field, so they'll do whatever it takes.

i just found the over non-chalance and attitude of "it's football: you get hurt" to be appalling because it's what allows these garbage high school and junior level coaches to absolve themselves of all responsibility for the kids' health 10, 20, 30 years down the line.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 18:08:36

6th Circuit upheld some gay marriage bans. I fully admit to not having read the opinion, but this is utter garbage from the author of the opinion:

"When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers," Sutton said. "Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way."

That's completely fucking irrelevant as to whether something is unconstitutional. That sort of statement should never be found in a serious work of jurisprudence. Of course it's better if society decides to do the right thing for itself... but that's why we have the concept of judicial review in the first place. Thank goodness John Marshall didn't say "no, I think we should let the people decide what the law is."

Oh well, now at least SCOTUS has to take the issue up.

Archived

Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.