|
My Imaginary GF posted:And you are a voice which is purposefully ignored in American politics. You ever stop to wonder why you feel so disenfranchised, apart from swelling up with self-righteous rage at imagined 'corporatist monsters'? Hint: I bet you don't even contribute to your local and state political parties. I love this whole post, but especially the end. You don't get enough credit, dude
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It's not anti-smoking legislation, its anti-imported tobacco consumption legislation, which does not impact Uruguayan producers of smoked agricultural commodities to nearly the same degree. It is protectionism which you refuse to see as anything close to resembling an objective understanding of its policy impacts. The objective policy impact of allowing a tobacco company to sue a nation for enacting policy which can reasonably be expected to decrease tobacco consumption is to put nations under threat of penalty for serving the best interests of their citizens... though I also note you're simply making observations. Do you think allowing corporations to sue governments for these reasons is good policy or bad policy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:And you are a voice which is purposefully ignored in American politics. You ever stop to wonder why you feel so disenfranchised, apart from swelling up with self-righteous rage at imagined 'corporatist monsters'? Hint: I bet you don't even contribute to your local and state political parties. My hunch is that a majority of people from any country would believe that Phillip Morris should not have the right to sue Uruguay over lost profits because of Uruguay's anti-smoking legislation. I cannot find a poll on this specific issue, but anecdotal evidence suggests opinion is overwhelmingly against Phillip Morris' right to sue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 These corporatist policies are enacted because corporatists have undue and disproportionate influence over the political process virtually everywhere. These policies are not enacted because it is the prevailing popular opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Wikileaks had released details about these arbitration agreements: They have released what are purported to be them, with absolutely no evidence they are. When is this going to get through your head? comedyblissoption posted:These corporatist policies are enacted because corporatists have undue and disproportionate influence over the political process virtually everywhere. These policies are not enacted because it is the prevailing popular opinion. Oh, word? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
I'd love a separate thread for making fun of the republican clown car and other news about the race. And I guess this thread could be for endless arguments about Hillary/Bernie's lack of ideological purity and trade agreements or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They have released what are purported to be them, with absolutely no evidence they are. When is this going to get through your head? https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/ quote:Oh, word? If you asked respondents on whether or not multi-national corporations should be able to sue governments in a binding international arbitration court because the government passes legislation to benefit public health, you would likely get a very different response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Wikileaks has publicized this content. That would be an awful poll question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
I'm a little late but is it safe to say that any pro-SSM Republican can't win the primary but any anti-SSM candidate can't win the general? How will they will deal with this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:
Yes, typically if you ask questions worthy of a push poll you get different responses. Faustian Bargain posted:I'm a little late but is it safe to say that any pro-SSM Republican can't win the primary but any anti-SSM candidate can't win the general? How will they will deal with this? They will not focus on the issue in one or both races and hope it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
I will never ever tire of The Donald's one facial expression, or him shamelessly complimenting himself. Donald Trump giving up 'The Apprentice' to run for president quote:Washington (CNN) Don't expect a new season this fall: Donald Trump is giving up "The Apprentice" so that he can run for president. Also, Mike Huckabee is not just peddling biblical cancer cures, but is also dabbling in mental health care. His first patient: Chief Justice John Roberts. And he's not letting go of this whole 'nullify Supreme Court gay marriage ruling' schtick. Mike Huckabee Says He Wouldn’t Listen To Court’s Ruling As President quote:Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says Chief Justice John Roberts “apparently needs medication for schizophrenia,” citing his decision last week to dissent in the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional but also writing the majority opinion upholding federal subsidies in Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
rear end cobra posted:I'd love a separate thread for making fun of the republican clown car and other news about the race. And I guess this thread could be for endless arguments about Hillary/Bernie's lack of ideological purity and trade agreements or whatever? Completely agreed. I'm here to eat popcorn and watch Joementum document a Republican slapstick routine, not listen to humorless leftists and pedants argue over who bleeds the most correct shade of red.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Wikileaks has publicized this content. Wikileaks has no confirmation that it is true. What are you not getting? You're just making stuff up now. Or you think those poor deluded foreigns are just too stupid to "question things". Also you're deciding that polls should be based on completely unsubstantiated guesses of what a treaty might contain. Sorry, but I place way higher stock in the Vietnamese and Chileans then you seem to. Faustian Bargain posted:I'm a little late but is it safe to say that any pro-SSM Republican can't win the primary but any anti-SSM candidate can't win the general? How will they will deal with this? Eh, I think the first part isn't true, but the second part definitely is true. A lot of Republicans seem willing enough to accept hurting the gays that way as a lost cuase, but they're sure as poo poo not gonna grab 270 electoral votes while rabidly against the gays.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Yours is by far the minority opinion. Just because an opinion is popular at the time, like Obama's complete pullout from Iraq with absolute refusal to send troops back in until ISIL threatened to perform a second Benghazi in Erbil, doesn't make the opinion the correct policy to implement. If Uruguay is truly acting for the best interests of its citizens, and not enacting protectionist measures to promote domestic smoking-product agriculture, then Uruguay should have no issue making such a case before binding arbitration. What, would you rather Phillip-Morris pull a Coca-Cola Brazil on the Uruguayan legal system, or that Uruguay is afforded the opportunity to defend its policies before binding arbitration? Because, like it or not, those are really the only two actionable outcomes of this kerfuffle. Personally, I'd prefer the process of binding arbitration to death squads, wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:I'm a little late but is it safe to say that any pro-SSM Republican can't win the primary but any anti-SSM candidate can't win the general? How will they will deal with this? Judging by Jeb!'s response to the Supreme Court decision, the strategy seems to be to shift the subject to "religious freedom" (i.e. allowing businesses to discriminate against gays).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Completely agreed. I'm here to eat popcorn and watch Joementum document a Republican slapstick routine, not listen to humorless leftists and pedants argue over who bleeds the most correct shade of red. Do we really want to have two separate Primary threads?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
In terms of NAFTA/free trade, Americans are mostly negative. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113200/opinion-briefing-north-american-free-trade-agreement.aspx http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/09/americans-are-of-two-minds-on-trade/
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:I'm a little late but is it safe to say that any pro-SSM Republican can't win the primary but any anti-SSM candidate can't win the general? How will they will deal with this? computer parts posted:They will not focus on the issue in one or both races and hope it doesn't matter. That, but also by moving the goalposts. It is now vital that we "protect religious liberty" by ensuring that you don't catch the gay by baking a cake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Judging by Jeb!'s response to the Supreme Court decision, the strategy seems to be to shift the subject to "religious freedom" (i.e. allowing businesses to discriminate against gays). Yeah, that's the actionable course to take. Watch Congress enact legislation to protect religious liberty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:In terms of NAFTA/free trade, Americans are mostly negative. In terms of TPP specifically, Americans are plurality positive, with the negative side significantly lower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
A second Benghazi has hit the thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:I'm a little late but is it safe to say that any pro-SSM Republican can't win the primary but any anti-SSM candidate can't win the general? How will they will deal with this? Well, there aren't any pro-SSM candidates in the Republican pool. Jeb and Rubio are attempting to be the neutral-SSM candidates, but we'll have to see how much that dings them. After all they're already heretics on immigration. However a candidate who was simply neutral on same sex marriage could conceivably be unpenalized in the general election for such a stance. But then half the fun of the GOP clown car is seeing candidates attempt to appeal to their insane base while still remaining viable in the general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In terms of TPP specifically, Americans are plurality positive, with the negative side significantly lower. Mostly because Americans' attitude toward policy is largely based on the attitudes of their politicians and when you have Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, and Ted Cruz all supporting something, most Americans will also support it. Which is a good thing!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Well, there aren't any pro-SSM candidates in the Republican pool. Jeb and Rubio are attempting to be the neutral-SSM candidates, but we'll have to see how much that dings them. After all they're already heretics on immigration. However a candidate who was simply neutral on same sex marriage could conceivably be unpenalized in the general election for such a stance. But then half the fun of the GOP clown car is seeing candidates attempt to appeal to their insane base while still remaining viable in the general. I think all the pro-SSM candidates in the Republican pool are under Federal investigation this cycle, potentially for incidents which occured in the pool with underaged individuals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Completely agreed. I'm here to eat popcorn and watch Joementum document a Republican slapstick routine, not listen to humorless leftists and pedants argue over who bleeds the most correct shade of red. I didn't realize this was the Republican Presidential Primary thread. I figured it was okay to discuss items relevant to the 2016 Presidential Primary which, as far as I can tell consists of primaries for at least two parties. Although perhaps two threads would be better than one: 2016 Republican Primary: Clowncar Shitshow Mockery ITT (policy discussion not allowed) 2016 Democratic Primary: Smug Mainstreamers Lecture People They Think Are Purists (serious business only)
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do we really want to have two separate Primary threads? I don't think that two separate threads is a great idea, but we can't seem to keep from devolving into slapfights whenever it comes to the democratic primary, because then it turns into the debate of cynics and idealists. Even though I'm pretty sure just about everyone in this thread is going to vote Sanders in the primary, and then support Clinton in the general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Even though I'm pretty sure just about everyone in this thread is going to vote Sanders in the primary, and then support Clinton in the general. Even the Republicans?! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:I don't think that two separate threads is a great idea, but we can't seem to keep from devolving into slapfights whenever it comes to the democratic primary, because then it turns into the debate of cynics and idealists. I want to vote for him. But I'm in Texas, and I don't know if he'll last until our primary, which likely have different rules since 2008 than I remember. Unless they're the same?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Even the Republicans?! I assume Republicans are going to roll a d20 (might need a d100 in a few weeks) and let the fates decide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I want to vote for him. But I'm in Texas, and I don't know if he'll last until our primary, which likely have different rules since 2008 than I remember. Unless they're the same? A vote is a solutary, private act, which is almost meaningless and with very little value. If you want to be a valued stakeholder in the future direction of the Democratic party, have you considered making a campaign contribution today? A contribution of $10, $50, or even $5,000 will win far more votes than your single vote is worth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Even the Republicans?! Of course! Bernie gets 80% in Vermont, after all. That cross-sectional appeal is clearly going to translate to the rest of the nation. The Lord of Hats fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I want to vote for him. But I'm in Texas, and I don't know if he'll last until our primary, which likely have different rules since 2008 than I remember. Unless they're the same? Texas' primary will be on March 1, the same day as Vermont's, and Bernie will likely be on the ballot. The Texas Democratic Party awards Presidential delegates based on the vote in State Senatorial Districts with a minimum 15% viability threshold, so maybe he picks up a couple of delegates in Austin out of the 137 available. Then another 100 delegates are awarded based on State-level conventions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Also, Bill Kristol thinks Bernie is a stalking horse for Al Gore, so that's wrong, but funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
It really seems like beltway pundits and strategists are watching a different race then we are. E: Like O'Malley's campaign strategist who thinks Sanders is a Herman Cain style "anything but" protest candidate. Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It really seems like beltway pundits and strategists are watching a different race then we are. They always have. Remember the undiluted hate towards Nate Silver from all corners of the beltway elite? The right hated him because he was a disgusting limp wristed human being who favored Obama, and the left hated him because he wasn't following the established playbook and made bold predictions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-forecast.html quote:But he landed in the middle of a row after the New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan condemned him for tweeting a bet to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough as unbecoming of a Times journalist. Despite getting 49/50 right in 2008 years later Silver was still treated like a non-entity by all the beltway experts and political gurus. pentyne fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It really seems like beltway pundits and strategists are watching a different race then we are. How much money has Sanders gotten? That's your answer as to whether he's a viable candidate. And before you go 'b-b-but Obama!!!!', Obama had Pritzkers before he had netroots. pentyne posted:They always have. Remember the undiluted hate towards Nate Silver from all corners of the beltway elite? The right hated him because he was a disgusting limp wristed human being who favored Obama, and the left hated him because he wasn't following the established playbook and made bold predictions. Journalists shouldn't publicly bet on the outcome of races which they cover. They should make those bets in private.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
pentyne posted:They always have. Remember the undiluted hate towards Nate Silver from all corners of the beltway elite? The right hated him because he was a disgusting limp wristed human being who favored Obama, and the left hated him because he wasn't following the established playbook and made bold predictions. Well, no poo poo. He made a lot of them obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Well, no poo poo. He made a lot of them obsolete. I always used to buy the paper for the burrito rankings, but now Nate Silver gives that to me for free! Get hosed, traditional media.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:A second Benghazi has hit the thread What difference does it make?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Lindsey Graham just alienated a lot of the GOP base:quote:Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" that if the Republican party doesn't change its official position on same-sex marriage it will "hurt" the GOP in 2016. In 2012, the Republican platform read, "We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Miltank posted:It really seems like beltway pundits and strategists are watching a different race then we are. The difference between Herman Cain and Ron Paul is pretty large, but not enough that it should alter O'Malley's strategy or his strategist's advice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:59
|
|