Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2014, 04:26:26 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 221
1  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do you approve of Obama's executive orders on immigration? on: November 21, 2014, 03:09:08 pm
Immigration was never really an issue I cared much about but policy decisions should not be made by one person.

Well, that's kind of impossible when you have a unitary executive...

In what sense? (The "strong" sense, or the "weak" sense?)
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / House Files Lawsuit Against Obama on: November 21, 2014, 11:44:32 am
Quote
House Republicans on Friday filed a long-awaited lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of overstepping his executive authority when implementing his signature health care law.

And though the suit is centered on the Affordable Care Act, the GOP moved on the legal action the morning after the president announced he will unilaterally grant temporary relief to millions of undocumented immigrants.

"Time after time, the president has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress. That's not the way our system of government was designed to work,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/house-gop-file-lawsuit-against-obama-n253456
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Jeb Runs... on: November 21, 2014, 12:02:53 am
He, like Hillary Clinton, has already probably been chosen as the nominee.

That's not how this works....
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could Wyoming go Democrat in 2016? on: November 21, 2014, 12:02:26 am
lolno
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas SoS: Obama's exec. order could lead to ethnic cleansing of whites on: November 20, 2014, 08:09:28 pm
what is wrong with these people
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: New House Oversight Chairman won't continue crusade against Obama on: November 20, 2014, 08:05:39 pm
We'll see. The caucus will surely pressure him to do otherwise.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Texas state rep. introduces bill to prohibit enforcement of federal laws.... on: November 20, 2014, 08:00:33 pm
..laws regarding gun control, that is.

Quote
A Texas state representative filed legislation Monday that would prohibit enforcement of federal gun control laws in the state.

H.B. 176 was introduced by state Representative Tim Kleinschmidt, who represents several counties in central Texas. The bill would deem all federal restrictions “invalid” and “not enforceable,” according to the Tenth Amendment Center.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/texas-state-representative-introduces-bill-banning-federal-control-regulations-state/#djMuuL6ZKGfK73Ti.99

God Bless Texas!
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Arizona versus Georgia on: November 20, 2014, 07:53:22 pm
GA, easily.
9  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone III - Lowborn Egoism Herrings on: November 20, 2014, 02:13:40 pm
Feeling pretty down today. Sad
10  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Barack Obama on: November 17, 2014, 06:12:37 pm
A good number of Republicans think he's the anti-Christ.

Obviously a FF.
11  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Is Bill Clinton massively overrated? on: November 17, 2014, 06:11:11 pm
Proof that good politics =/= good policy. Not that anyone cares about the difference.
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: November 17, 2014, 11:50:07 am
Quote
While Obama’s recent job approval isn’t high by historical standards, his second-term numbers overall have been more stable than those of his predecessors. Although many factors contribute to a president’s approval in the public’s eye, it often declines after an election when a president’s party loses.

George W. Bush’s rating, for instance, dropped consistently after his 2004 reelection, including five points after his second midterm election in 2006 (to 32%), when Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. Ronald Reagan, who entered the 1986 elections with a 63% approval rating, dropped 16 points by December — largely due to the damage done by the Iran-Contra affair, which came to light in November 1986. Like Obama, Reagan’s party gave up the Senate and lost seats in the House.

Dwight Eisenhower’s job approval rating fell 5 points (57%-52%) in November 1958, according to Gallup, after a disastrous midterm for the GOP. Harry Truman’s rating declined 8 points (41%-33%) post-election in 1950, when Democrats barely held control of both houses.

One president who fared well after his second midterm was Bill Clinton, whose approval rating hit 65% as his party gained House seats in his second midterm election (the only time this occurred in the 20th century).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/13/obama-job-rating-flat-after-midterm-losses-unlike-bush-ike-truman/
13  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: November 2014 Special At-large Senate Election on: November 16, 2014, 09:45:36 pm
1. SWE
2. Bacon King
3. Cris
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: I want good old world back! on: November 16, 2014, 02:15:34 pm
plz ban
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: House Republicans considering another government shutdown over immigration on: November 16, 2014, 02:10:20 pm
This is why our party can't appeal to Latinos.

Lucky for you, they often don't vote anyway.

And judging by the restrictive voting laws that Republican lawmakers have passed in 20+ states over the last four years....they don't want them to vote.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / 22 (mostly) GOP-dominated states have passed laws restricting voting since 2010 on: November 14, 2014, 06:58:27 pm
Quote
Election laws have long been prone to politicization, but for decades there were no major legislative movements to restrict voting. Indeed, the last major legislative push to cut back on voting rights was after Reconstruction. The first stirrings of a new movement to restrict voting came after the 2000 Florida election debacle. Indiana and Georgia passed restrictive photo ID laws in 2005 and 2006, respectively, and Arizona voters approved a ballot initiative in 2004 requiring registrants to provide documentary proof of citizenship when signing up.

But the 2010 election marked a major shift. From early 2011 until the 2012 election, state lawmakers across the country introduced at least 180 restrictive voting bills in 41 states. By the 2012 election, 19 states passed 27 restrictive voting measures, many of which were overturned or weakened by courts, citizen-led initiatives, and the Department of Justice before the election. States continued to pass voting restrictions in 2013 and 2014.


snip:
Quote
Partisanship played a key role. Of the 22 states with new restrictions, 18 passed entirely through GOP-controlled bodies,[4] and Mississippi’s photo ID law passed by a voter referendum. Two of the remaining three states — Illinois and Rhode Island — passed much less severe restrictions. According to a recent study from the University of Massachusetts Boston, restrictions were more likely to pass “as the proportion of Republicans in the legislature increased or when a Republican governor was elected.”

Race was also a significant factor. Of the 11 states with the highest African-American turnout in 2008, 7 have new restrictions in place.[5] Of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth between 2000 and 2010, 9 passed laws making it harder to vote.[6] And nearly two-thirds of states — or 9 out of 15 — previously covered in whole or in part by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because of a history of race discrimination in voting have new restrictions since the 2010 election.[7] Social science studies bear this out. According to the University of Massachusetts Boston study, states with higher minority turnout were more likely to pass restrictive voting laws. A University of California study suggests that legislative support for voter ID laws was motivated by racial bias.

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/state-voting-2014

Meanwhile, voter turnout in the 2014 election hit a 72-year low.

Quote
Only 36.4% of eligible voters voted in this year’s midterm elections, down from 40.9% who voted in 2010, according to preliminary analysis by Michael McDonald at the University of Florida. The last time voter turnout was that low was 1942, when only 33.9% of voters cast ballots, according to the United States Elections Project.

http://time.com/3576090/midterm-elections-turnout-world-war-two/

Congratulations, Republicans.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Most left-wing person who could conceivably be elected president in 2020? on: November 14, 2014, 01:11:19 am
NOTA
18  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: WV is now officially dead for Democrats on: November 14, 2014, 12:00:59 am
It is not just about running candidates. Your party has to define itself as the party of the poor people first as the number one priority. As long as the national party is defining itself on social issues and such forth you can run Zell Miller and still lose in WV and similar places.
No, running as the party of poor people is the worst possible strategy. Nobody likes poor people or want to be associated with them. The Democrats need to position themselves as the party of the "middle class."

They already do that.
19  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: If Woodrow Wilson were alive today, which party would he be affiliated with? on: November 13, 2014, 10:27:31 pm
Wilson was not really "blatantly racist"-certainly not compared to most other white Southerners of his time, or even many white Northerners. Not saying he was by any means a saint, and yes he had Southern sympathies. But that didn't mean he was a neo-Confederate or like a Klansman or whatever.

To the extent that Wilson was racist, I would argue that it was more implicit with him-like many educated white elites today, actually, of any party or ideology.

Anyway, he basically pioneered the modern Democratic Party's emphasis on pragmatic reform of institutions, and greatly expanded the then-small welfare state. Plus, his foreign policy was the definition of internationalism. I don't see a strong case for him being a Republican today.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal' on: November 13, 2014, 10:21:07 pm
I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Actually, Congress has been authorizing the use of force going all the way back to the Quasi War with France without using a formal "declaration of war".  It's not just the war powers clause but also the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;" that is applicable when it comes to the use of force.



Fair enough, but where is the Congressional authorization for force against these landlocked pirates called ISIS?

Good question. Why can't Congress get its sh*t together?
21  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 13, 2014, 10:14:32 pm
"The intelligence community" is not monolithic. From what I understand, the CIA was under a lot of pressure to tow the administration line, particularly from the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. Douglas Feith even had a special office that was dedicated to recycling intel from dubious-at-best sources.

Anyway, a lot of people were warning the Bush administration not to go into Iraq, but those warnings were ignored or scoffed at. Worse, the Republican Party used support of the war as a litmus test for patriotism, and successfully persuaded a majority of the American public that the  invasion of Iraq was a necessary part of the Global War on Terror (despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not pose an imminent threat to the US or its interests). This was particularly relevant in the 2002 election cycle, when anyone who dared oppose the war was called a terrorist-enabler. Therefore, Hillary and other Democrats'  lack of moral courage may be distressing, but it's somewhat understandable,  considering the context of the time.



22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Which Vice President came to the office most prepared and qualified? on: November 13, 2014, 10:17:02 am
Cheney

This, unfortunately.
23  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Alexander Hamilton on: November 12, 2014, 05:36:48 pm
FF.

Also he cannot by definition be the worst of the founders, considering that he did not own hundreds of human beings as property and was not a supporter of slave-holder agrarianism.

You may be correct about quantity, but I do not believe that Hamilton was entirely innocent of chattel slavery. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2011_winter_spring/hamilton-and-slavery.html

In any case, individuals ought to be assessed based on the context of their time period. I suppose you would condemn Jefferson for being homophobic in addition to being a slaveholder? Was the Magna Carta a horrible document since its crafters all "owned" serfs?

Whereas chattel slavery had unfortunately been a part of American colonial life for nearly two hundred years at the time period, Alexander Hamilton existed in a time period in which the colonies had already revolted against British mercantilist policies, and did more than any other individual to implement those very same British mercantilist policies that had been rejected.

Chattel slavery as practiced in the Americas was among the most cruel, barbaric, inhumane, and downright evil institutions ever created. And it was controversial even in Jefferson's day. Don't make excuses for it.
24  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would you rather live in Dublin or Belfast? on: November 12, 2014, 05:34:25 pm
Belfast of course

why?
25  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Describe the likely political views of the previous hypothetical person on: November 11, 2014, 09:04:52 pm
Age:  38
Gender: Male
Race:  White
Education: BA in Software Engineering
Occupation: Software Engineer
Income:  $100,000/year
Marital status:  Divorced (1 kid)
Religion:  Lapsed Catholic
Location: Centennial, CO
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 221


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines