|
In news that should surprise no one at this point, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Obama does not have the authority to set up DAPA or expand DACA.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:In news that should surprise no one at this point, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Obama does not have the authority to set up DAPA or expand DACA. The fifth circuit's geography suggests they'd overturn the emancipation proclamation if the 13th amendment hadn't already set it in stone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Kinda OT, but isn't that an R+11 seat? Why is there a Democratic primary? Did Susan Brooks get caught with a dead intern or something? Are there really two candidates who want to put themselves through a Congressional run? Or is this a case where you have a semi-serious flag-bearer and a crazy person, and the crazy person is forcing a primary? There being a Dem primary is because there is a guy who I guess usually runs and is expected to run again (though he is yet to declare). I wouldn't call him a crazy person, but he's not so much a good fit for who you would have serve as a challenger - fewer community ties, doesn't really match the demographics, not particularly heavy on the retail politics with the people who live there, and about as much polish as your usual Indiana Dem (not much). Then there is the campaign I'm working on where another vet repeatedly tried to contact Brooks about a veterans issue Brooks voted against, never got a response, so now she is challenging Brooks to send a message about don't ignore your constituents and honestly a little bit of spite, which is fine by me since that and whiskey are my prime motivators in life. Between being a woman veteran with farming experience who now works as a livestock veterinarian she hits the demographic profile more, has more ties (she goes to a lot of farms), and has been doing the retail politics since about June when she got angry at Brooks and decided to run. She's more the flag bearer here. I haven't seen her give a speech or hit up voters yet so I can't evaluate her as a politician, but she's good odds for grabbing some gop voters in that district. Worst case we draw some resources out if the governor's race (or more likely away from the education superintendent race) and send a message on veterans policies. Best case she can tap into voter dissatisfaction and desire for an outsider. Me I'm doing some it work and fundraising research, since I can already do the former and need to learn the latter for my other goals anyways. Also, like I said, I'm spiteful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Sorus posted:I think people are capable of having sympathy for persons who find themselves in a bad position after foolishly voting for it, while at the same time chastising them for blindly voting against their best interests. The best thing to do is try and protect the people from their own actions in KY, even if they'll hate the person for helping them. I really recommend people here follow Sean McElwee on twitter, he combines Bro_pair snark with policy deep dives and graphs Here he is in a recent medicaid expansion study http://www.salon.com/2015/11/07/the...dicaid_crusade/
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Went and watched the Yale video. What a bunch of whiny loving babies who wouldn't even let the him talk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
There are few things more unappealing as a topic than *~campus politics~*.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:That assumes that voters are well-informed and make rational choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
So apparently, it seems that Ben Carson wasn't lying about one of his stories, surprisingly enough: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ben-carsons-yale-classmate-we-did-the-prank-test-that-carson#.vxwxvowNL
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So apparently, it seems that Ben Carson wasn't lying about one of his stories, surprisingly enough:
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Has anybody taken the necessary step at a press conference yet and asked Jeb how he would kill Baby Hitler Pillow to the face?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
If you know that it's baby Hitler that would make you a god and you can do what you want.  Hate to defend Jeb! but that's that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Also free speech. Not really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Has anybody taken the necessary step at a press conference yet and asked Jeb how he would kill Baby Hitler What was the gun control situation like in the late 19th century Austria-Hungary?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:What was the gun control situation like in the late 19th century Austria-Hungary? Anarchists! Anarchists everywhere!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Also free speech. You do not have the right to express yourself by burning a cross on someone else's lawn
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:There being a Dem primary is because there is a guy who I guess usually runs and is expected to run again (though he is yet to declare). I wouldn't call him a crazy person, but he's not so much a good fit for who you would have serve as a challenger - fewer community ties, doesn't really match the demographics, not particularly heavy on the retail politics with the people who live there, and about as much polish as your usual Indiana Dem (not much). Then there is the campaign I'm working on where another vet repeatedly tried to contact Brooks about a veterans issue Brooks voted against, never got a response, so now she is challenging Brooks to send a message about don't ignore your constituents and honestly a little bit of spite, which is fine by me since that and whiskey are my prime motivators in life. Between being a woman veteran with farming experience who now works as a livestock veterinarian she hits the demographic profile more, has more ties (she goes to a lot of farms), and has been doing the retail politics since about June when she got angry at Brooks and decided to run. She's more the flag bearer here. I haven't seen her give a speech or hit up voters yet so I can't evaluate her as a politician, but she's good odds for grabbing some gop voters in that district. Yeah, nothing personal or anything it just always surprises me that people want to deal with a primary in races like these that are always such longshots in the first place. I mean it makes sense if your candidate got really pissed off personally by the incumbent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The right of free speech doesn't exist on private property That's inaccurate. The right of free speech exists. But so does the right of the property owner to tell you to get the hell off his lawn. (Cross-burning is a little bit different - you don't have the right to burn a cross, even if you did so on your own property, if it's intended to intimidate or threaten violence.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I really recommend people here follow Sean McElwee on twitter, he combines Bro_pair snark with policy deep dives and graphs Thanks for that link and recommendation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Has anybody taken the necessary step at a press conference yet and asked Jeb how he would kill Baby Hitler Certainly not an abortion. Wouldn't be pro life!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. The "Jeb! would kill baby Hitler" thing is real, not an Onion article?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Holy poo poo. The "Jeb! would kill baby Hitler" thing is real, not an Onion article? It's real. I'm looking forward to him bumbling a response to "Well how do you know a baby aborted today wouldn't be hitler tomorrow?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Has anybody taken the necessary step at a press conference yet and asked Jeb how he would kill Baby Hitler This is so painfully obvious. He wouldn't go back and time and kill baby Hitler directly. He'd go back in time and gently caress Hitler's mom 12 months before Hilter would be born. That way Hilter ends up a cum stain. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Holy poo poo. The "Jeb! would kill baby Hitler" thing is real, not an Onion article? It's just the kind of backwards thinking the American people are crying out for right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:This is so painfully obvious. He wouldn't go back and time and kill baby Hitler directly. He'd go back in time and gently caress Hitler's mom 12 months before Hilter would be born. That way Hilter ends up a cum stain. Wouldn't make a difference, Samuel Prescott Bush was already Hitler's dad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Has anyone considered that the president using time travel to rewrite the timeline in order to kill baby Hitler is just another example of flagrant executive overreach? I'd rather have a president who would staunchly preserve our way of life by never violating the sacrosanct rules of the universe. Obviously this is just another dent in Bush's poorly organized campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Nichael posted:Has anyone considered that the president using time travel to rewrite the timeline in order to kill baby Hitler is just another example of flagrant executive overreach? When a Republican President does it, it's not flagrant nor overreaching.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Nichael posted:Has anyone considered that the president using time travel to rewrite the timeline in order to kill baby Hitler is just another example of flagrant executive overreach? I'd rather have a president who would staunchly preserve our way of life by never violating the sacrosanct rules of the universe. Obviously this is just another dent in Bush's poorly organized campaign. The only moral time travel is my time travel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The right of free speech doesn't exist on private property But but but but
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
I think anyone who would want to kill baby Hitler is probably a pretty simple minded person
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
If I met baby Hitler I would raise him Jewish. See what alternative history mischief happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Anyone with a time machine who insists on trying to stop Nazi Germany from happening would be better off trying to stop the Burning of the Reichstag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
I would travel back even farther and appear on the road to Damascus in a flash of bright light, and tell Paul not to listen to that other bright light, that other bright light was lying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
I'd slap a baby but only in self defense
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
The next three Dem debates are all hidden behind sports days. Almost like DWS et al didn't want anyone to watch  The next one is up against some good college football this weekend as the season hits its stride. While the next one is the Saturday before Christmas and up against a couple of early college bowl games, an NFL game (Jets and the Cowboys); and a big slate of college basketball games. The third one is during the NFC/AFC second round game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The next three Dem debates are all hidden behind sports days. Almost like DWS et al didn't want anyone to watch I'm also perfectly willing to accept the "DWS is completely incompetent" narrative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
DWS is terrible. It is not in the Democratic party or Hillary Clinton's interest to not be seen by people. People tend to remember they don't like her, until they see her on TV and are like "wait, why didn't I like her again? Oh yeah I forgot the bad stuff Republicans say is bullshit". Her campaign seems to think the same way and keep her hidden from public view as much as possible, it's bad strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The next three Dem debates are all hidden behind sports days. Almost like DWS et al didn't want anyone to watch I feel this really doesn't matter at all when you take into account DVRs and people uploading the debate to YouTube. Anyone who was going to watch the debate is going to consume that content one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
I would go back in time and join the Bolsheviks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Also free speech. Not even close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:Is there any significant overlap between "people who watch football obsessively" and "potential Dem voters that are on the fence re: Bernie v. Hillary?" Not to discount such folk, but it seems like a small part of the potential audience. Frabba posted:I feel this really doesn't matter at all when you take into account DVRs and people uploading the debate to YouTube. Anyone who was going to watch the debate is going to consume that content one way or another. In terms of just general exposure, its hard for people to even think about DVR-ing them if they're lost in that sort of programming shuffle. It's also harder to capture the national narrative in the way that the RNC has for each of their debates. Being on Saturday/Sunday almost assures that instead of getting two or three whole news cycles out of it, you get some talk on the Sunday morning shows (which is preaching to the choir) and maybe a note on Monday morning as an after thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:55
|
|