|
joeburz posted:you can still call out his poo poo when its a terrible policy position even if youre going to vote for him eqeta Not only can but should. Apologizing for bad policies because they were advocated by someone you support just leads to even more bad policies being enacted. See: Obama, Barack, Presidency of.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Maarek posted:Not only can but should. Apologizing for bad policies because they were advocated by someone you support just leads to even more bad policies being enacted. See: Obama, Barack, Presidency of. Please, tell us more about your fantasies that are unrelated to reality. If only the left had yelled at Obama more....
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
joeburz posted:you can still call out his poo poo when its a terrible policy position even if youre going to vote for him eqeta Yeah, I agree on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
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". There is a debate on the Democratic side sometime soon, isn't there? I do hope that Trump will be livetweeting it, but I'm looking forward to American politicians actually discussing existing problem issues, as opposed to, you know, walls with Mexico and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted: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. The kind of person who refers to what's typically considered an assault rifle a hunting rifle isn't voting for a democratic candidate either way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah, but that's not quite the same as saying people of X districts go gently caress yourselves, enjoy no representation in the House until you pony up for your special elections. That seems way better than go gently caress yourself you don't get to vote at all, which is self-evidently acceptable. We put restrictions on who can run for office already, age, natural born status, residency, etc. so setting a bar of "isn't going to piss off 2/3rds of the house by conspiring in the basement of a mediocre tex-mex restaurant to destroy the federal government and the world economy" doesn't seem to be a particularly novel or onerous restriction. The bar is pretty loving high to exercise that method, and it's not going to happen, but I don't see anything morally wrong or dangerous about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
You're misunderstanding me. Expelling elected (republican) reps will bring more political backlash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Expelling them from the party would be totally normal and splits like that are common (or at least used to be common) in the UK. Expelling the Freedom Caucus from Congress itself would be some Roman Empire poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Expelling them from the party would be totally normal and splits like that are common (or at least used to be common) in the UK. Expelling the Freedom Caucus from Congress itself would be some Roman Empire poo poo. But expelling them from the party wouldn't do poo poo to solve the Speaker problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
random theoretical question: can the house nominate and elect the president as speaker?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Time for them to bring out literal whips.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:random theoretical question: can the house nominate and elect the president as speaker? You can't work for two branches of government at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Yea, expelling them from the party, even putting aside the political backlash against the party itself, wouldn't do anything to solve the problem of electing a Speaker. They'd still be in the House, as independents or whatever splinter party, and would now absolutely vote against whomever the Republicans would want to put in as Speaker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
There is no real mechanism for expelling people from parties in the US though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:The Brady bill was over twenty years ago and predates the recent mass shooting epidemic by a couple years shy of 20. "I was against this bill because in 1993 it wasn't a great idea, but recent events have made it clear that it is a good idea" isn't a particularly hypocritical standpoint. I entirely agree, which is why it baffles me people still don't give Hillary credit evolving on criminal justice and racial issues. Sure, she supported the war on drugs and tougher sentencing back in the 90s, but she is very much running on the opposite platform today. You'll notice she supports banning military equipment from police which is in rather distinct contrast to Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:45
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:You can't work for two branches of government at the same time. hmm, ok. doesn't the vice president work for two branches, though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:hmm, ok. doesn't the vice president work for two branches, though? Yeah, but the Constitution explicitly requires that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I entirely agree, which is why it baffles me people still don't give Hillary credit evolving on criminal justice and racial issues. Sure, she supported the war on drugs and tougher sentencing back in the 90s, but she is very much running on the opposite platform today. You'll notice she supports banning military equipment from police which is in rather distinct contrast to Sanders. Sanders has repeatedly called for demilitarizing the police.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:hmm, ok. doesn't the vice president work for two branches, though? But he has no voting authority except in the case of senatorial ties. Additionally, the constitution explicitly prohibits any member of the legislature from serving in an office of the executive branch. That's just another reason Lindsay Graham is a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
AegisP posted:Yea, expelling them from the party, even putting aside the political backlash against the party itself, wouldn't do anything to solve the problem of electing a Speaker. They'd still be in the House, as independents or whatever splinter party, and would now absolutely vote against whomever the Republicans would want to put in as Speaker. Democrats + non-Tea Party Republicans have a majority in the House.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah, but the Constitution explicitly requires that. E : refresh thread first BlueBlazer fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Charles Koch gave an interview today, "Because what we're after, is to fight against special interests." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Charles Koch gave an interview today, When they went on 60 minutes and this CBS stuff it's nothing but huge glowing pieces about how awesome, nice and charitable the Kochs are. Downsides of their buddies owning the majority of the media outlets I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Charles Koch gave an interview today, Technically true. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
I wonder if this ever works on regular people. Is there someone just kicking back in their apartment drinking a Coors and watching 60 minutes who decides those Koch guys must be alright after all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Sure lots of people don't even know who they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Maarek posted:drinking a Coors and watching 60 minutes Yeah I think that's going to be hard to find....
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I wonder if this ever works on regular people. Is there someone just kicking back in their apartment drinking a Coors and watching 60 minutes who decides those Koch guys must be alright after all? I don't think you're describing a person that exists. There is virtually no overlap between coors drinkers and 60 minutes watchers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:Yeah. Bernie's stupid on GMOs and labeling as well, but I just look past it because I care a lot more about the positions he's good on than those he's lovely on. Is he also stupid about atoms? I might be mixing him up with some other guy that's not a D or a R.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
You know there's a reason why 60 minutes is immediately after football, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You're being a crazy person right now. There's not even the thinnest veneer of legal logic - which even the ACA case had - to justify the idea that opting out of voter registration is unconstitutional. Scalia literally believes that rocket launchers should be considered under the 2nd amendment due to them being man-portable and thus people can "bear" them. And no, the ACA challenge didn't have even the thinnest veneer of legal logic, it was as pants on head crazy as sovereign citizen claims until we saw 3 years of Fox saying it was valid and correct
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:You can't work for two branches of government at the same time. So I guess that's one way to get him to stop being president.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Is he also stupid about atoms? Of course he's stupid about atoms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You know there's a reason why 60 minutes is immediately after football, right? Something to fall asleep to after football? *not on the Best Coast
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You know there's a reason why 60 minutes is immediately after football, right? They bank on a million or two people being passed out drunk with the TV on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
duz posted:So I guess that's one way to get him to stop being president. Now I'm picturing Biden immediately resigning, re-elevating Obama to the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Nm
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted: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. I agree that there are areas of gun control that are less divisive. I would argue that it isn't against the realm of possibility to come up with a palatable AWB law or adjust the framing on the issue so it's more palatable to gun owners that aren't single-issue voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:When they went on 60 minutes and this CBS stuff it's nothing but huge glowing pieces about how awesome, nice and charitable the Kochs are. Downsides of their buddies owning the majority of the media outlets I guess. I take some comfort in seeing the comments are overwhelmingly negative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Aliquid posted:Expelling them from the party would be totally normal and splits like that are common (or at least used to be common) in the UK. Expelling the Freedom Caucus from Congress itself would be some Roman Empire poo poo. Fun fact: given their actions in disenfranchisement by requiring an ID to vote and then closing down all places to get said ID in the black counties, we are supposed to expel all of Alabama's representatives
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:01
|
|