Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics (Read 1847382 times)

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #22020 on:** December 13, 2012, 06:27:58 PM »

Quote from: BrandNew on December 13, 2012, 03:52:16 PM

Not a bad appointment. But in shittier appointment news, Susan Rice withdraws her name from SoS possibilities.

Fuck John McCain, dude needs to croak already.

John McCain was all over her like white on rice.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[/stolen]

[close]

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #22021 on:** December 13, 2012, 06:28:50 PM »

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22022 on:** December 13, 2012, 08:25:22 PM »

I don't think it has anything to do with the filibuster stuff, and I honestly believe she would have been approved if she was nominated.

The media's reporting on the filibuster has been horrible btw, and is another example of how bad they are when discussing policy. Reid is not even considering the "nuclear option" of completely ending the fillibuster, yet every day Politico or a TV network uses that phrase and concern trolls about the ramifications. From what I understand they are discussing ending secret holds and potentially bringing back the Jesse Helms filibuster (or as everyone else likes to refer to it as, the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington filibuster): endless talking on the senate floor to extend obstruction.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #22023 on:** December 14, 2012, 12:44:50 AM »

Susan Rice had a financial stake in the Keystone pipeline. I hope that was the reason due to conflict of interest.

Oblivion · « **Reply #22024 on:** December 14, 2012, 10:29:26 PM »

http://www.mediaite.com/online/christian-radio-host-god-didnt-stop-ct-shooting-because-we-took-prayer-out-of-the-classroom/

Groogrux · « **Reply #22025 on:** December 15, 2012, 01:31:05 AM »

Quote from: Oblivion on December 14, 2012, 10:29:26 PM

http://www.mediaite.com/online/christian-radio-host-god-didnt-stop-ct-shooting-because-we-took-prayer-out-of-the-classroom/

That's so messed up on so many levels. Leave it to a so-called "Christian" to say something like this. I've seen this crap on Facebook today too and I can't believe how low people will go to press their agenda.

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #22026 on:** December 16, 2012, 11:04:57 PM »

Quote

The main reason that the manufacturing/GDP ratio has declined in the U.S. and around the world is that productivity gains for durable goods have significantly lowered the price of those goods relative to: a) the prices of services, and b) national incomes. In other words, the declining manufacturing/GDP ratio reflects declining prices for manufactured goods globally, which is a sign of economic progress, not regress. The standard of living around the world today, along with global wealth, income and prosperity, are all much, much higher today with manufacturing representing 16% of total world output (including the U.S.) compared to 1970, when it was almost twice as high at 26%. And for that progress, we should celebrate, not complain about the “decline of manufacturing.”

Brehvolution · « **Reply #22027 on:** December 17, 2012, 09:16:39 AM »

Quote from: Oblivion on December 14, 2012, 10:29:26 PM

http://www.mediaite.com/online/christian-radio-host-god-didnt-stop-ct-shooting-because-we-took-prayer-out-of-the-classroom/

Can the same be said about the Holocaust?

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #22028 on:** December 19, 2012, 03:11:19 PM »

Oh this fiscal cliff stuff is sure high drama .. will they come to a conclusion?!!?

Steve Contra · « **Reply #22029 on:** December 19, 2012, 04:09:33 PM »

Quote from: ToxicAdam on December 19, 2012, 03:11:19 PM

Oh this fiscal cliff stuff is sure high drama .. will they come to a conclusion?!!?

The biggest non-story of the year (after the inevitable re-election of Obama of course).

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #22030 on:** December 19, 2012, 04:19:20 PM »

Narrated by Ed Asner

Mandark · « **Reply #22031 on:** December 19, 2012, 05:44:34 PM »

The "fiscal cliff" is a bad frame and worse metaphor, but this is one of those times where one of the most fundamental aspects of government (how much do we spend on what and how do we pay for it?) is getting hashed out, and much more explicitly than usual.

So if you think that stuff is important, this is fairly interesting. If you don't, then I'm not sure why you'd follow politics.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22032 on:** December 19, 2012, 06:11:24 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/fiscaloffers2_big.jpg

Ladies and gentlemen, John Boehner.

Barry Egan · « **Reply #22033 on:** December 19, 2012, 06:17:42 PM »

so basically, he's just conceding that there isn't going to be a deal?

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #22034 on:** December 19, 2012, 06:27:28 PM »

what a fucking cunt

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #22035 on:** December 19, 2012, 06:28:01 PM »

Boehner's problem is the lunatics in his caucus who want to live in Red Dawn and take down the evil soshilust presnint. WOLVERINES!

Mandark · « **Reply #22036 on:** December 19, 2012, 06:32:48 PM »

You could put a bar on that graph with Obama's name on it that looks a bit similar. He's been daring the House GOP to pass a bill that locks in the Bush rates for the lower brackets ("let's pass what we all agree on, the pen's on my desk to sign that" etc) and then negotiate the rest of the stuff separately.

Which the GOP obviously doesn't want to do, because their best chance of keeping the lower rates on the wealthy are to tie them to lower rates for everyone else. So Boehner's trying to flip that by proposing a bill that does what Obama asks, except it raises the threshold for the top bracket to $1M rather than $250k. "You said you wanted to tax millionaires, so this should be okay, right?" I think they know it's not going anywhere, but half these negotiations are convincing the public and/or the media that it's the other side that's unwilling to strike a deal.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22037 on:** December 19, 2012, 06:51:00 PM »

Hilariously, Norquist gave the plan his blessing; meanwhile the Club For Growth is shitting on it, as are far right conservatives. If this was Boehner's play to show he has his caucus under control, it just may end in hilarious fashion tomorrow by failing to pass the House. And if he can't pass a tax on income over 1mil in the House, how the hell will he pass one on income above 250 or 400m?

Obama is giving them social security cuts - a rail everyone assumed was untouchable just a few weeks ago - and they still won't say no. So yea bros, it's time to roll off the curb. Let that pressure force republicans to pass the middle income tax cut in early January. Hell, raise it to 300k instead of 250k to protect ~~Wall Street firms~~ small businesses, go ahead. Best believe republicans will pass it if we go over the cliff.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #22038 on:** December 19, 2012, 07:13:58 PM »

I'd love to go over the cliff.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #22039 on:** December 19, 2012, 07:52:18 PM »

I WISH A MOTHERFUCKER WOULD

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #22040 on:** December 19, 2012, 08:58:34 PM »

Quote from: Mandark on December 19, 2012, 06:32:48 PM

You could put a bar on that graph with Obama's name on it that looks a bit similar. He's been daring the House GOP to pass a bill that locks in the Bush rates for the lower brackets ("let's pass what we all agree on, the pen's on my desk to sign that" etc) and then negotiate the rest of the stuff separately.

Which the GOP obviously doesn't want to do, because their best chance of keeping the lower rates on the wealthy are to tie them to lower rates for everyone else. So Boehner's trying to flip that by proposing a bill that does what Obama asks, except it raises the threshold for the top bracket to $1M rather than $250k. "You said you wanted to tax millionaires, so this should be okay, right?" I think they know it's not going anywhere, but half these negotiations are convincing the public and/or the media that it's the other side that's unwilling to strike a deal.

If the GOP passes the lower tax rates exactly as Obama wants, with the only difference being the 1 million rate, couldn't the bill then go to the Senate and get morphed completely into the Senate version through reconciliation?

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #22041 on:** December 19, 2012, 09:12:33 PM »

Quote from: The Experiment on December 19, 2012, 04:19:20 PM

Narrated by Ed Asner

OMG class warfare!

Mandark · « **Reply #22042 on:** December 19, 2012, 10:18:06 PM »

Quote from: AdmiralViscen on December 19, 2012, 08:58:34 PM

If the GOP passes the lower tax rates exactly as Obama wants, with the only difference being the 1 million rate, couldn't the bill then go to the Senate and get morphed completely into the Senate version through reconciliation?

No. Reconciliation's complicated and I don't completely understand it, but both houses have to vote to declare a bill part of the reconciliation process, which means the leadership of both houses have to be on board (it won't come up for a vote unless Boehner wants it to).

The Senate could pass its own version that sets the threshold at 250k, and then the bill would go to conference. If they got a compromise in conference, the House and Senate would both have to vote on that final version. So you can't have a law that passes without each house having approved its final form.

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #22043 on:** December 19, 2012, 11:36:16 PM »

Oh, I thought on issues of budget that was streamlined in some way.

Oblivion · « **Reply #22044 on:** December 19, 2012, 11:56:02 PM »

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/piers-morgan-eviscerates-pro-gun-advocate-youre-an-unbelievably-stupid-man-arent-you/

benjipwns · « **Reply #22045 on:** December 20, 2012, 12:05:20 AM »

All reconciliation does is cut off debate after a specific time and limit amendments. Which is more or less why it can't be filibustered.

If the House agreed to reconciliation, the Senate could theoretically just take whatever the House sends them and change it into a bill that raises taxes to 9000% on anyone who voted for the GOP under reconciliation. The House still has to approve the bill the Senate passes or a conference bill.

And I believe you can only use reconciliation once per year.

EDIT: This is what the House passed in March:

Quote

Reconciliation in the FY 2013 Budget
The budget includes reconciliation instructions for the following six House committees, directing them to find additional program savings that would total $261 billion in deficit reduction over 10 years: Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; Financial Services; Judiciary; Oversight and Government Reform; and Ways and Means.

So the House may have already agreed to allow reconciliation?

I'm not sure at all what effect the Senate not passing budget resolutions has on this process, like if they could just pass one with reconciliation instructions right before or not.

Mandark · « **Reply #22046 on:** December 20, 2012, 12:54:08 AM »

I think it's a moot point, because the main advantage of reconciliation is cutting down debate time in the Senate, and the Senate's not going to kill anything that Obama and Boehner agree with.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post's editorial board opposes Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense because he wants to cut military spending too much and is soft on Iran.

benjipwns · « **Reply #22047 on:** December 20, 2012, 12:59:53 AM »

Yes, yes, I got off track there from the specific case to the general. Though maybe we could find a Senator to filibuster whatever is agreed to. That would be quite fun.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #22048 on:** December 20, 2012, 01:08:58 AM »

Quote from: Mandark on December 20, 2012, 12:54:08 AM

I think it's a moot point, because the main advantage of reconciliation is cutting down debate time in the Senate, and the Senate's not going to kill anything that Obama and Boehner agree with.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post's editorial board opposes Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense because he wants to cut military spending too much and is soft on Iran.

Well, any place that would employ Jennifer Rubin would probably have that opinion

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22049 on:** December 20, 2012, 01:41:13 AM »

Reconciliation is moreso a means of passing budget/tax legislation without dealing the filibuster, it'll have no role in the cliff talks. The 250k cut has already passed the senate, and I haven't seen any rumblings from McConnell that threaten to scuttle a larger deal; in fact he's been completely irrelevant in the discussions. Whatever Boehner and Obama agree to will pass the senate.

The problem is that the House is far more extremist than the senate. As I said earlier, we will see tomorrow just how fucked the process is. If Boehner cannot pass his ridiculous Plan B, he probably can't pass anything (this year).

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #22050 on:** December 20, 2012, 08:59:02 PM »

Plan B for BIIIIOOTCH!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The wingnuts are now officially running the asylum, I guess. I wonder who will be Speaker next term.

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #22051 on:** December 20, 2012, 09:08:07 PM »

Oblivion · « **Reply #22052 on:** December 20, 2012, 09:21:22 PM »

Quote from: Joe Molotov on December 20, 2012, 08:59:02 PM

I wonder who will be Speaker next term.

Louis Gohmert.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22053 on:** December 20, 2012, 09:33:32 PM »

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #22054 on:** December 20, 2012, 09:57:42 PM »

Can we eject the entire GOP Congressional delegation into the sun yet?

Oblivion · « **Reply #22055 on:** December 20, 2012, 10:23:00 PM »

Can't watch the video at work. Summary plz.

Yeti · « **Reply #22056 on:** December 20, 2012, 10:24:47 PM »

Quote

"The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass," Boehner said in a statement. "Now it is up to the president to work with Senator (Harry) Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff."

"We Republicans can't come up with a plan that the Republicans will agree to. So now it is up to Obama and the Democrats to come up with a plan that the Repuplicans will agree to."

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22057 on:** December 20, 2012, 10:45:41 PM »

Steve Contra · « **Reply #22058 on:** December 21, 2012, 11:19:18 AM »

So the house has implicitly said they are going to tie this whole thing to the debt ceiling now?

Steve Contra · « **Reply #22059 on:** December 21, 2012, 01:36:34 PM »

The problem with the right's position is that the general populace is ready to blame them, not Obama. So if a deal isn't struck they just look like assholes (which they are).

Brehvolution · « **Reply #22060 on:** December 21, 2012, 01:41:56 PM »

That NRA speech really showed me that the speaker and anyone who believes any of that bullshit aren't mentally qualified to own guns.

We need a police state for freedom now?

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #22061 on:** December 21, 2012, 01:58:09 PM »

Quote from: Steve Contra on December 21, 2012, 01:36:34 PM

The problem with the right's position is that the general populace is ready to blame them, not Obama. So if a deal isn't struck they just look like assholes (which they are).

The larger problem is that by and large, their obstinance is going to play well at home in their gerrymandered districts, where their voters have been conditioned via Fox and talk radio to believe that Obama is destroying MURIKA, thus their brave congresscritters playing Wolverines is an act of patriotism instead of stupidity.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #22062 on:** December 21, 2012, 02:55:41 PM »

I think we go over the cliff... the question then becomes, are there enough Republicans in the house who will vote for a simple bill cutting taxes on just those making under 250k a year? They can legitimately tell Grover Norquist at that point they never voted for a "tax increase", all they did was let tax cuts for high earners... drown in a bath tub so to speak.

Or, will they refuse to vote for anything that doesn't include tax cuts for the wealthy too? Gonna be fun to watch.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22063 on:** December 21, 2012, 03:30:56 PM »

I think there will be enough republicans to pass the tax cut next year. Remember there will be 201 democrats in the House next year, meaning Boehner and Obama will only need 17 republicans to pass the tax cut.

The funniest thing is that Boehner managed to get Obama to put Social Security on the table...and republicans still refused the deal. Newt Gingrich would have had so much fun with Obama in the 90s

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #22064 on:** December 21, 2012, 03:33:29 PM »

Why do people care what Grover Norquist thinks? I certainly don't.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #22065 on:** December 21, 2012, 09:35:12 PM »

norquist is the gatekeeper for several extremely rich republican donors and special interests. he's the brandt to their lebowski.

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #22066 on:** December 21, 2012, 09:51:59 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on December 21, 2012, 03:30:56 PM

I think there will be enough republicans to pass the tax cut next year. Remember there will be 201 democrats in the House next year, meaning ~~Boehner~~ Cantor and Obama will only need 17 republicans to pass the tax cut.

The funniest thing is that Boehner managed to get Obama to put Social Security on the table...and republicans still refused the deal. Newt Gingrich would have had so much fun with Obama in the 90s

Mandark · « **Reply #22067 on:** December 21, 2012, 10:33:13 PM »

House only votes on what leadership allows a vote on, and Boehner will only bring a vote to the floor if he doesn't think it'll get him deposed. I'd be very, very surprised to see a deal that passes with unanimous Democratic and token Republican support in the House.

Boogie · « **Reply #22068 on:** December 22, 2012, 02:10:31 AM »

Bu-bu-bu what about that episode of the West Wing when all the Democrats hide out in the VP's office and trick the Speaker into thinking they all left town so that he calls the vote and then it's all "AHA! We're all here, SUCKA!"

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #22069 on:** December 22, 2012, 02:31:04 AM »

Aaron Sorkin liked to do a lot of cocaine. A LOT.

Boogie · « **Reply #22070 on:** December 22, 2012, 02:42:18 AM »

Quote from: Creepy Old Guy on December 22, 2012, 02:31:04 AM

Aaron Sorkin liked to do a lot of cocaine. A LOT.

That episode was two seasons after Sorkin left the show! So...HA!

...

Yes, I'm pretty much the biggest West Wing geek on the planet.... $:-\$

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #22071 on:** December 22, 2012, 01:34:15 PM »

Oh my, sounds like Barry done grown a pair

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/wsj-fiscal-cliff-talks-between-obama-boehner-broke?ref=fpb

Quote

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

"You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #22072 on:** December 22, 2012, 04:18:16 PM »

Is the fiscal cliff still a "debt crisis" in the popular consciousness?

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22073 on:** December 22, 2012, 04:41:57 PM »

Quote from: Boogie on December 22, 2012, 02:10:31 AM

Bu-bu-bu what about that episode of the West Wing when all the Democrats hide out in the VP's office and trick the Speaker into thinking they all left town so that he calls the vote and then it's all "AHA! We're all here, SUCKA!"

this actually happened...?

I only got through 2 West Wing eps before giving up. I love politics/legislative drama but the writing was just too much for me.

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #22074 on:** December 22, 2012, 09:33:19 PM »

Quote from: recursivelyenumerable on December 22, 2012, 04:18:16 PM

Is the fiscal cliff still a "debt crisis" in the popular consciousness?

The GOP has successfully framed this as "absence of government spending hurts the economy" instead of "let's bring down the debt"

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #22075 on:** December 23, 2012, 10:20:43 PM »

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/statuses/282927803274502144?tw_i=282927803274502144&tw_e=media&tw_p=tweetembed

brawndolicious · « **Reply #22076 on:** December 23, 2012, 11:31:23 PM »

Culture war.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22077 on:** December 24, 2012, 01:30:47 AM »

Even Noonan agrees with some basic gun control
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cory-booker-lambasts-false-gun-debate-i-dont-know-if-anybody-here-has-seen-someone-shot-i-have/

but good lord her voice is grating.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22078 on:** December 24, 2012, 04:12:21 AM »

You have to see the entire episode of that round table btw
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-week-politics-18050022

Booker is like a shark on a mountain completely out of his element. I'm not some major fan of his, but it was stunning watching him cut through Beltway bullshit as the other hosts continued to repeat the same talking points over and over again.

Eliminating specific guns, or even specific ammunition, will not solve gun violence. It's the most polarizing way to address the issue and arguing over it ensures nothing will get done. Requiring background checks by eliminating gun show loopholes would help immensely, the vast majority of people agree on it, etc. I hope this gun debate doesn't end up dying on a hill because half the country thinks any ban on guns violates the second amendment, but that's going to happen

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #22079 on:** December 24, 2012, 09:17:51 PM »

Just when you think there's no more election schadenfreude to be had, that surely every last drop has been wrung out by now, then you read something like this, Middle-aged Conservative Love Boat:

http://nymag.com/news/features/republican-caribbean-cruise-2012-12/

Quote

Hassett, with an oddly cheerful, Oh-What-My-Country-Has-Done-Now mien, predicted economic doom under Obama, the most likely scenario being another Great Depression, which would make 2008 look like a joyride.

That prompted a tall, extremely tanned blonde named Kay, from Old Greenwich, Connecticut, to ask Hassett, the co-author of the 1999 book Dow 36,000, “So what do we do with our money?”

Quote

Then Hassett pivoted to the liberal media. “I actually think that Goebbels was more critical of Hitler than the New York Times is of Obama,” said Hassett, tucking into a piece of strudel. “I was in the middle of the fight against the propaganda, and I have stories like you wouldn’t believe. These people are so evil. They’re basically Fascists. It’s unbelievable.”

Quote

After dinner was a program called the “Light Side of the Right Side.” A frenetic, tightly wound man named James Lileks, a National Review columnist from Minnesota, warmed up the crowd with one-liners: “If we can put a man on the moon, we can put 50 million Democrats up there as well!”

Quote

Jonah Goldberg attempted a note of optimism, garnering hearty applause when he said conservative ideas were “still salable because, A, they’re correct. Two plus two is four. You have to believe that we’re going to be proven right by reality.”

In response, the moderator recounted the litany of dreary statistics from Reed and Rasmussen earlier that day. “So therefore we should give up and burn our passports and stay on this boat forever?” said Goldberg with real exasperation.

The crowd erupted in cheers.

News:

Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics (Read 1847382 times)