USPOL September - No one's impeaching anyone!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL September - No one's impeaching anyone!

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

ReindeerF posted:

John Titor represent.

We have already circumvented a number of Titor's predictions so we are likely in an alternate timeline to his at this juncture.

Whether it's a better timeline or not is a question. Perhaps 9/11 and the War on Terror prevented the Civil War he claimed would come. But I'm not sure that's much brighter a future than the one he predicted.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2014 07:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 16:36

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

hangedman1984 posted:

"If Obama really cared about women, he wouldn't of let us block equal pay legislation"-GOP

The link the the GOP twitter post if anybody wants it: https://twitter.com/GOP/status/506524410158006272

Today's edition of oppositeofreality.png

# ¿ Sep 2, 2014 23:17

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Doomtalker posted:

God, could you imagine them getting primaried on those grounds? "This rear end in a top hat wants the government to work- gently caress him! BURNITALLTOTHEGROUND2014!" It could be magical.

You aren't thinking like a spin doctor. When you consider potential situations like this, think about what the most disingenuous shitheel in the world would say and that's what the Republican line will be.

"X voted to raise the debt ceiling x times, working with the Democrats to force our country to borrow more money from China without any significant reforms. Vote for Z, a true fiscal conservative, not a Washington Insider."

# ¿ Sep 3, 2014 23:40

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Elephant Ambush posted:

I will still never understand "unlawful assembly". Unless you're hurting people or barring access to a place I don't understand how peaceful sit-down protests are not protected by the 1st amendment. I'm gonna guess this is just subjective enforcement or something?

It's deliberately written in such a way as to permit the authorities to disrupt assemblies they wish to disrupt on little to no pretense, while allowing whichever assemblies to continue that they want to continue. Vague laws can be good for people in power sometimes. Isn't it grand that local and state laws can abrogate the Constitution in such an explicit manner?

(looks to the left, looks to the right)

I hope that last sentence didn't set off that alarm they have in TFR and GiP.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2014 21:10

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

hangedman1984 posted:

I just hate how the debate is framed as a big mystery. Like we haven't raised the minimum wage multiple times in the past, and every time the right's doomsday scenarios prove to be bullshit.

Any time that anyone pushes for any sort of reasonable economic reform, it is always framed by the Right as no less than utter insanity, a tyrannical power grab, and the death knell of the Republic. The initial rhetoric over Social Security was almost identical to that about about the ACA.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 18:36

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Phone posted:

Yeah, 80 hours @ $7.25 vs 40 @ $15, it's going to be really rough.

"Some people are working less because now they don't need a second job to pay for their health insurance, they must be LAZY" all over again.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 18:43

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Amergin, what is the current federal minimum wage?

What was it 8 years ago? 18 years ago? 26 years ago? 37?

How are do the profits and employment numbers of restaurants compare now to then?

That is all.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 19:19

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

People. If you have to engage Amergin in a debate, then for goodness sake don't let him take the high ground from the start. If you choose to debate him over a chart regarding future economic possibilities that was made by Heritage, he's already winning.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 19:28

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Amergin posted:

That's another great assumption.

Is it really? People who live paycheck to paycheck can't afford to save much money.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 19:33

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Amergin posted:

But if your wage is doubled, are you still living paycheck to paycheck?

We're assuming costs and inflation don't change, too, remember.

Okay, let's work this out. Someone is poor and living paycheck to paycheck. Their wage doubles. They have more breathing room. Do they start saving? No. They start buying necessities they couldn't afford before. Leasing instead of renting to build equity. Planning to mortgage a house a few years down the road. Basically? it pushes a bunch of poor people into the middle class.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 19:38

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

ComradeCosmobot posted:

This is exactly what everyone's conservative friends actually do, though, so by that argument they're winning too.

Change the battleground then. Cite historical facts and trends relevant to the argument instead of meaningless projections.

This is why I like Amergin. He's a great "single-minded conservative uncle" simulator.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 21:32

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

effectual posted:

I thought there was an amergin quarantine thread, why is he back to derailing this thread?

On topic, the air force is refusing to re-up an atheist, even though they used to have a secular contract until last year.

Some dude tried to make an Amergin quarantine thread, but everyone laughed at the OP because his reasoning boiled down to "Amergin's posts espouse a different point of view than mine so I shouldn't be forced to see it" and eventually his thread just because a trolling circlejerk before Xylo canned it.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 09:27

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

I'm just hoping that the Democrats manage to keep 50 seats in the Senate. I don't think it's that unrealistic, even by the projections we're seeing now.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 17:54

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

stinkles1112 posted:

This thread has filled me with way too much pessimism for me to hope that the Dems will retain the Senate. I just take cold comfort in the fact that, as has been demonstrated for several years now, unless you have 60 reliable votes in the Senate it doesn't really matter.

If the Democrats manage to retain 50 or more votes then they will still control judicial and executive appointments, which is all I really care about for the next two years. I'd like it if Congress could do more, but if they can do at least that much I'll be content.

Then we'll get to 2016, which looks like it might be as bad an election for the Republicans as 2014 will be for the Democrats.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 18:11

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

computer parts posted:

There's still the filibuster, and they might be wary on ditching that since it's likely that they'll lose control of the Senate in 2016.

There's always the possibility that the Senate becomes so crazy and blinded by their Obama rageboner that they want to do everything they possibly can to gently caress him over with their new majority, and are completely blinded to the possibility of losing the Senate... ever, because America Is On Our Side Now.

This is most probable in a McConnell loses his seat but Republicans gain the Senate scenario.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 20:35

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Nessus posted:

Oh they're definitely going to impeach him for Presidenting while black if they take the Senate. They'll then get unspeakably furious it doesn't pass (doesn't impeachment require like 2/3rds of the Senate, which they cannot get?)

Initiation of federal impeachment proceedings only requires a simple majority of the House of Representatives. What a lot people are confused about is that they think impeaching someone actually means anything. It's simply an accusation.

Once someone is impeached, the official is effectively put on trial in the Senate. The trial is officiated by the Chief Justice, and the Senators are effectively the jury. Two thirds of the Senators are require to convict.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 21:16

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Joementum posted:

If Republicans won every single election in November, they would still be one seat short of 2/3rds.

If they win the Senate but can't convict, would you really put it past them to start impeaching various federal officials willy nilly just so they can say "(x person) was impeached on (ridiculous charges)" in campaign ads?

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 21:35

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Joementum posted:

Michele Bachmann already proposed doing exactly that, but we'll sadly miss her wisdom in the next Congress

The Senate is currently controlled by those villainous Democrats, so if they did it now it would just look silly and desperate. But if they gained a majority in both houses? Why, that's a mandate. Why, I'd say it's the Democrats who are being obstructionist by not letting the Republicans impeach everyone! That's what they were elected to do!

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 21:55

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Trabisnikof posted:

What we really need is a con-con.

You trust the jackasses in Washington today to write a new constitution?

Article 1 of the 2016 Constitution: REPEAL OBAMACARE

# ¿ Sep 7, 2014 08:00

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Phone posted:

loving Lolololol

Just drove into Florida and loving Rick Scott has appended his name to the welcome sign along with "OPEN FOR BUSINESS". This state is so awful.

Rick Scott is a bad, yes.

You see why the Democrats here are so desperate to oust him that they're willing try and prop up Charlie Crist of all people in an attempt to beat him. Crist has no convictions, but that's better than a man with no morals who should be convicted.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2014 17:36

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

I think the average person would tell you to just get information forwarded to you to, say, a P.O. box if you don't have a stable address. As someone with experience in that situation, I assume that's a lot more impractical than it sounds.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2014 20:35

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Guess which Ebola-ridden ISIS terrorist entered the US illegally.

Time to build a fence along the length of Lake Erie!

I wonder, did he enter Canada in his jihadi costume, or did he travel all the way to the border as Trustworthy White Man and switch things up there to make a point?

I thought so.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2014 20:40

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Make them wear the logos of those who fund them, like NASCAR drivers.

When they run out of cloth on their suits, bust out the tattoo needle.

Nah, you bring out the tattoo needle right from the start. Only for long term, major donors though.

The number of investment banking firms Cantor would have had tattoo'd on his rear end... But alas, his time is past.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2014 20:16

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

twodot posted:

If hate speech is counted underwords, I don't understand what purpose hate speech serves. The fourteenth amendment argument is just nonsensical, it doesn't apply to individuals, it'd be like arguing that my buddy who doesn't want to hear people bash conservatives in his house is violating my first amendment rights (wrong).

There is a shocking proportion of Americans that not only don't understand the Constitution on general, but completely misinterpret the Bill of Rights on a regular basis. Congress shall make no law abridging all these freedoms, but that just means that you're free and clear at a federal level. You aren't free to tell your boss to gently caress off and die to their face and be immune from the consequences.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2014 21:48

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Not really. Verbal abuse has well documented and scientifically proven (negative)effects and hate speech is nothing less than verbal abuse. Speech in general has effects on those who hear it, if it didn't we wouldn't have arguments about things like campaign finance in the first place.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can only be emotionally scarring for life!

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 00:00

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

ReindeerF posted:

Anecdotal and all, but I have some friends involved in local government in the small, rural town I grew up closest to and they're all either sort of casual conservatives who vote straight R or outspoken Republicans. I hear nothing but bitching about the tea party people specifically due to the chaos they cause and the constant blocking of anything. Basically, you hear a lot of, "We can't fill a pothole without these people loving it up." and so on.

All of God's Chosen will be Raptured any day now! No need for continued spending on infrastructure!

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 09:59

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

zoux posted:

This is actually a political issue with some evangelical Christians.

I wasn't joking.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 17:23

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

snorch posted:

This point seems almost valid, but why would the political speech he mentions be corporate in nature instead of belonging to the individuals involved?

The cast and producers of SNL are just employees of NBC. If the implication Cruz is making here is that companies should be held fully accountable for whatever their employees do, and that their individual employee's speech counts as corporate speech... well, that's one hell of a precedent, with slippery slope that could apply to a lot of things.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 17:58

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

DeusExMachinima posted:

You're totally free to yell fire in a theater, actually. Good job picking a line from a court case that imprisoned someone who protested the draft. An excellent argument against proscribed speech categories.

You're totally free to yell fire in a theater. And the owner of the theater is totally free to kick you out for it. And people are totally free to bring you to court if they get hurt because of it.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 18:26

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

mcmagic posted:

Anyone see this poll that has the GOP up 38(!!!!!) points up in who people trust to handle national defense? What the loving gently caress?

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/10/more-nbcwsj-poll-gop-takes-edge-on-top-issues/

The fact that people trust Republicans +10 on the economy is even more baffling to me.

The average American is pretty significantly dumb, ignorant or some mix of both.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 20:04

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

comes along bort posted:

Or that the guy who does all the political material on SNL is a Republican?

Yeah but he's probably a Reagan Republican who hasn't moved much further right since the 80s. AKA "practically a Democrat".

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 20:46

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Monkey Fracas posted:

And most people don't really care a whole lot if our voting percentages are anything to go by.

Make federal elections (both midterms and presidential) national holidays. Make voting mandatory, any registered voter who fails to vote without an excuse is levied a small fine.

At least do the first part.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 22:52

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

computer parts posted:

Money sign, duh.

And there's the double-throat-slash!

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 23:14

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Zeitgueist posted:

No but calling the people who aren't as informed as you stupid or lazy sure does.

Stupid probably isn't the right word, you are correct. Ignorant is more fitting: aware of the general details and form of current events but ignorant of the actual details of the matter. And that's ok, I don't know about some things too. I'm not an expert on high-level math, for example. So when someone else talks about math, I defer to them.

The problem is when people are ignorant but still willing and eager to open their mouths and express an opinion about something they don't know anything about. The BIG problem is when they're ignorant but think they aren't and thus increase their confidence to express themselves, like (regarding uninformed voters) when they listen to news sources that deliberately keep them ignorant.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 23:25

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

SirKibbles posted:

My point is that you pretty much said any one who pays attention or is active in politics has to be middle class which is dumb bullshit and also totally against the basics of socialism

Socialism is dead, replaced by bourgeois social democracy, and even instances of that are few and far between compared to the neo-liberalism that is pervasive worldwide.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2014 23:47

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

With the rise of the super-wealthy as a class unto themselves in the 150 years since Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto, I can't help but feel that identifying everyone as either proletariat or bourgeoisie just isn't suitable for today's political enviroment. Proletarians labor, bourgeoise own the means of production, and this new class manipulates the production system without contributing anything themselves. Bourgeoise are the managers. The new class are the CEOs. Bourgeoise own a franchise of McDonalds, the new class are the ones profiting from the percentages of McDonalds franchises worldwide. Bourgeoise might be a consultant for a bank. The new class is an investment banker that makes money off other companies.

The bourgeoise is the vampire sucking the blood of the laborer, but the new class sucks the blood out of the system itself.

Any ideas as to a name?

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 00:15

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

radical meme posted:

The Club for Growth and Heritage Action have decided that the Export Import Bank must go and that the House needs to be ready to shut down the government over the issue.

I think this idea will go down in flames and when it does, it will be one more nail in the coffin of for these two organizations. The more House Republicans that just ignore their insane "key vote" mandates the better.

On the other hand, a shutdown battle over something so amazingly irrelevant would be hilarious.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 00:41

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Talmonis posted:

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell didn't get my kicks growing up tormenting others until they kill themselves and being pleased with the result. I'd think behavior like that would be deemed aberrant.

Bullies become bullies for a reason. You didn't get your kicks tormenting others growing up, but then again you probably also didn't grow up with abusive parents, or in a broken home, or any other number of things children could be dealing with that they end up refocusing into bullying. Usually kids have *reasons* to bully others, perhaps to have something they control in their lives for once. There are few actual sociopaths who bully just for the fun of it.

Like so many things bullying is a symptom of underlying social ills that people are happy to ignore in favor of treating the symptoms.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 18:19

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Amergin posted:

Some of the worst bullying actually comes from and goes to girls, it just tends to be less physical and more emotional.

But carry on assuming everything bad in the world comes from white males.

My half-assed psychoanalysis of the root sources of bullying has this to say on female bullying: female bullies are generally more a result of parental neglect than full-on parental abuse. Female bullies tend to seek to get as much attention as they can, in order to gain something they never got at home. Once they develop a stable circle of friends they grow confident enough to openly reject anyone who they don't care for, even if it means being emotionally cruel.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 18:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 16:36

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Stultus Maximus posted:

There are a lot of factors that cause bullying, a lot of combinations of factors. It's not something you can predict or pin on just one surface observation.

The punchline is that it almost always starts in the home though, one way or another.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 19:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL September - No one's impeaching anyone!

«‹›3 »