|
Mr Interweb posted:Ugh. I was watching my local channel 7 news and they ran a segment that was indistinguishable from something you'd see on Fox. This "congressional reporter" got a hold of some stupid report by a Republican who found $100 billion in "government waste" and said she wasn't able to find a single person who could defend the things in it (you know, the typical high-lariously useless sounding projects that conservatives love to tout like $5 million on mating habits of fruit flies and such). It was so Fox News-y that they even had lovely stock music playing in the background signifying how shady and wasteful the government is. The "reporter" ends the segment by saying that the "American people shouldn't expect answers any time soon". This is the author of that "report". 
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I'm in a real bad and worried mood so I gotta ask. What would a Trump presidency look like exactly? What is the extent of what he could do with the power that comes with being the PoTUS? How much damage could he theoretically do? What checks and balances could there be to stop him from being a total monster? I'm asking this as a serious question, so please don't post one of the trillion jokes about a Trump America. I've read and laughed at them all. If Trump actually won the Presidency he would get less done than the typical GOP candidate. Congress wouldn't put up with his poo poo. Likely he'd not pass much GOP legislation, but would escalate things in the middle east and nominate some judges. If Bush or Rubio get elected then the senate will remove the filibuster and ram down as much legislation as they can in 2 years. Trump won't win the nomination let alone the Presidency though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Even ignoring Fox News's obvious outlier, even PPP could only muster a Clinton +1. General election polls this far out are not accurate and should be disregarded.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Paul amendment fails 54-45. Did the senate parliamentarian say that the reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare was ok to do?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Given the carte blanche that is the 2001 AUMF, is there any reason he would actually want a new AUMF? I understand that Congress has been trying to write a new authorization for some time, but there's little agreement about what restrictions that would entail. The GOP doesn't want to change anything because they want the ability to put lots of troops in the middle east without congress if they win the presidency. And if they don't they get to kick and scream about illegal wars by Clinton and Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:What's different about Predictit that won't get it shut down like Intrade? You can only invest up to $850 in one bet and $4,500 total which makes the entire site worthless except for poor people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You post this every single time Predict it is mentioned like some sort of compulsion its sad. He asked why they have the waiver. They are allowed to operate because they limit it at $850 per bet and $4,500 total, sorry you find that sad. This requirement of artificially low bets means that it's not a good representation of what people with money are actually betting on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:do these people even know what Marxist means? and that trump was parodied long before his political maneuvers Most of the GOP candidates are on record supporting tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:What if Obama recognized he was wrong at nearly every step, completely underestimated ISIS when they were forming, called them contained a month ago, said they weren't a threat here two weeks ago, and admitted that "we're going to do more of what we've been doing, trust me it's fine" is milquetoast and nobody believes it? What if you learned how to do a minor amount of research into those quotes and learn what context means?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:It's pretty clear the government has not been able to change their policies fast enough to deal with the changing strategies of terrorists. Are you going to ignore the wildly successful U.S. led military campaign against ISIS? http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-03/u-s-targets-islamic-state-s-baghdadi-as-special-forces-gear-up
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:The ability for terrorists in other countries to connect with citizens and radicalize them, as seen in France and California. How do you let one shooting shake you to your core? 540% more people die every day from car accidents than died in that shooting. It's better for the US to not become debilitated in light of small terrorist attacks. I'd rather policy not be dictated by a couple wack-jobs. If you look at the facts ISIS is in very bad shape and we should stay the course.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Quote of the morning,  I hope that gets some media attention.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Moktaro posted:"When we come to that conclusion you don't want to jam any members," McCarthy said, I love that when Ryan was elected he was championing that they were not going to do short-term funding shenanigans anymore and that wasn't the right way to govern.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
CalmDownMate posted:If you lose the presidency 3 times in a row your party will be going into crisis whether you like it or not. The party will split between the Business Wing and the Crazies. You know it. There are no ideological differences within the GOP, it's all disagreement on tactics. It's not going to split. And no, the party that controls the supreme court, house, senate, 70% of state governments is not going to go into crisis mode. And if they lose the presidency their share in government will only grow more in 2018.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Eventually the business wing is going to get sick of not getting many of the reduced regulations and taxes they've been lobbying for. The crazies have benefited from the relationship because it funded their campaigns, but the business guys have gotten very little out of it. At the state level businesses have gotten huge reductions in taxes and regulations. Once again at the federal level it's a disagreement on tactics- they will still be heavily supporting the GOP. It's also safe to assume that a GOP-led house has prevented regulations.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Sam Wang says that it's not just population clustering favoring the GOP in the house, but that redistricting gave about 11 house seats to the GOP post 2010. http://election.princeton.edu/2015/...tes/#more-13110 quote:It is possible to quantify the effects of population clustering and partisan redistricting separately. In my SSRN paper, I estimate that population clustering was responsible for a net shift of 9-10 House seats towards Republicans. The total effect of post-2010 redistricting added a net gain of 11 additional seats for Republicans. (this combines 14 seats in seven GOP-controlled states with 3 seats in two Democrat-controlled states). In other words, partisan redistricting in just seven states created a distortion that exceeded the effects of population clustering in all 50 states combined.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The House just passed, by voice vote, a five day CR, so the government is funded through next Wednesday. Glad to see Ryan also sticking with his "no more waiting until the the last moment (deadlines) to govern" stuff too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Alzion posted:Since I *swallows back vomit* actually agree with MIFG's over elaberate callout of this derail. Don't know why everyone keeps citing this +5 Trump poll as reason for Trump's decline. This is actually Trump's strongest showing in the NBC/WSJ poll this entire election so far.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Because he's only +5 ahead of Cruz, whereas in earlier polls he was far out ahead of everybody else, even if his absolute numbers were smaller. That's entirely not true. The previous NBC/WSJ polls: NBC/WSJ 12/6 - 12/9 Trump +5 NBC/WSJ 10/25 - 10/29 Carson +6 NBC/WSJ 10/15 - 10/18 Trump +3 NBC/WSJ 9/20 - 9/24 Trump +1 NBC/WSJ 7/26 - 7/30 Trump +4 NBC/WSJ 6/14 - 6/18 Bush +5 Additionally, the most recent NBC/WSJ poll has Trump at 27 which is his highest ever in a NBC/WSJ poll.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Adar posted:Trump has a floor of 20-25% in every election until he drops out. One school of thought the correct one says that's also close to his ceiling and when enough also rans drop out he'll promptly lose every other state 70-30. The other says he is too strong for that and this is an iconic election where the populist could win against a fragmented plurality. This poll is good news for the first group as Carson's vote should theoretically have gone to Trump but didn't; every other candidate's voters are already not going to Trump as a second choice (except for Cruz's, but when and if he stops being the flavor of the month they'll conveniently find the next Great White Hope around the corner.) I completely agree that Trump is going to lose the nomination (I think he'll flame out before Iowa) but citing the NBC/WSJ poll as evidence for his decline isn't correct.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:
What a loving idiot. Also that's quite the favorable view of Bush's debate performance by the author.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:32
|
|
Touché
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Hmm, yes, it's totally stupid for him to disavow supporting someone who's taking the party along a dark, dangerous road to full on interment camps and fascism-lite. Please do explain how that strategy will help him secure the GOP nomination.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
In other fiscal news, Oklahoma is completely controlled by the GOP at the state level since 2010. Oklahoma is #1 in the US in public education cuts since 2010. Oklahoma is projected to have a $900m deficit in 2016. Oklahoma recently cut the highest bracket from 5.25% to 5.00%, and no other income brackets. This is after it fell from 6.65% to 5.25% over the 8 previous years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Not to rain on the Bernie haters parade but the version from a non lovely news org mentions nothing about an 'audit' (and neither does the buzzfeed article tbf) JT Jag posted:This stinks of DNC fuckery to me, not that it's really necessary since Bernmentum tanked months ago Actually it was Sanders national data director who wrongly accessed the data plus 3 others. Sanders campaign initially tried to play it off as "low level staffer". https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/677736055412510720 quote:Story coming shortly, but Sanders staffer who was fired over voter file breach was their data director. & 4 usernames from campaign ran searches while the Clinton data was exposed. WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f433_story.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:It is probably a better question to ask "Was Sander's campaign also exposed? If so did Hillary's campaign do the same thing?" An audit was performed and only one campaign was found to have wrongly accessed data. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-18/sanders-campaign-fires-data-director-after-breach-of-clinton-files quote:The bug allowed users who already had access to voters’ files to search by and view—though not export, save, or act on—attributes added to those files by other campaigns. After the firm identified the bug, it began an audit and determined that "only one campaign took actions that could possibly have led to it retaining data to which it should not have had access," Trevelyan said in a statement.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Update on the Sanders data incident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/12/18/the-dnc-needs-to-restore-bernie-sanders-access-to-voter-data-fast/ quote:On the other hand, multiple accounts say that as many as four users associated with the Sanders campaign may have accessed the Clinton data. The Sanders campaign does not deny this; it says that those staffers did so at the behest of their boss, the staffer who has been fired. As you can see, our knowledge of what happened is pretty murky right now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Sanders campaign going nuclear against the DNC, claimed they sent Sanders data to Clinton, and has announced their intention to sue Raising the stakes in a situation they seem to have been caught red-handed. The DNC is saying they exported and downloaded data. Interesting to see how this pans out for either side.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Man I do not like Jeff Weaver. Sanders needs to surround himself with better people. I'm wondering how much autonomy Weaver has in the Sanders campaign and in a situation like this if Sanders made the call on some of these things. Weaver hosed up badly before the previous debate too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Things just got more interesting (probably bad for Sanders): http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-staffers-clinton-data-saved-files quote:Four members of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) presidential campaign this week conducted searches of data stored by Hillary Clinton's campaign and saved some of the files, according to reports from the Associated Press and NBC News.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Disney paid something like $4b for that IP. Got to make that back some how. $4b was actually a huge discount for the IP. Lucas thought it would be in better hands at Disney. It's thought of as easy money for Disney.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Clinton campaign response: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-campaign-responds-dnc-data-breach quote:Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign released a statement on Friday afternoon calling for a swift investigation into the breach of its voter data by members of opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) staff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah, gently caress that guy. Seems like that email leaves out some important details as to why the access was revoked.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:As far as IT policy goes, the Bernie campaign does have a beef with what I'm reading in that suit. The Sanders campaign did not receive the Clinton data from a bug. The Sanders campaign staffers (4) actively exploited a bug to improperly access and save proprietary Clinton voter data for 40 minutes. In addition one staffer attempted to hide two folders of Clinton data. Also the lawsuit is strictly about the punishment and really has nothing to do with admittance of guilt (which they have via firing).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:And then the Sanders campaign told the Clinton campaign what its staffers did, and fired them. Meanwhile you're posting like some Trump supporter. Wrong. The first party to notify of the improper access was the vendor to the DNC. Then the DNC took action. The Sanders campaign did not notify of the improper access before that time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:What's kind of obvious is the bug was somehow time-based. They stole personal information from voters for 40 minutes, what made them stop? The DNC didn't suddenly close the bug right then. Plus you have the guy who hacked people's vital info saying he had noticed the bug before - so how do we know this was the only time he exploited it to gain access to people's information he should not have had access to? There was no bug before- it was misinformation from the Sanders campaign and related to a different vendor (not NGP VAN): quote:Second, there has been independent confirmation that NGP VAN has not received previous notice of a data breach regarding NGP VAN. Josh Uretsky, the former National Data Director for the Sanders campaign confirmed on MSNBC (at 5:47), and also on CNN, regarding the previous incident: “it wasn’t actually within the VAN VoteBuilder system, it was another system.”
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm not suggesting that there is a conspiracy, and I don't think there is a conspiracy. Rather, I think DWS has her head so far up Hillary's rear end in a top hat that there need not be any conspiracy, and that she gravely miscalculated here and probably the Clinton campaign is nearly as pissed off about this as any Bernie supporter. I completely agree. It's a difficult decision though- they have to be punished some how. I hope that the access is quietly restored tonight or early AM and then the issue primarily becomes about the stolen voter data. Shutting off the access for any long-term period would definitely hurt the Democratic party (and Clinton), regardless of the severity of what happened.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't see why the Sanders campaign would need to be punished, it was clearly the mistake of a specific individual, and they've fired him. As far as I'm concerned the DNC has exactly the right approach here: The Sanders campaign can regain access as soon as it can show that it no longer has any misbegotten data. A slap on the wrist to be sure, but that's all that it required. We're all friends here after all, in spite of the opinions of a few folks who seem to want to go to war with each other just like the Republicans have been. As of a few hours ago the Sanders campaign was refusing to participate in any independent audits from the DNC or the Clinton campaign. They are essentially saying we already took care of it trust us, and give us back our stuff. Considering how fast that stuff got shared in the logs I wouldn't be surprised if it's all over the place in USB drives and etc by now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Yeah like we can make fun of insane Bernie supporters because we're random assholes on a dying comedy forum but uhhh if your like a press secretary for a major candidate who is already kicking the poo poo out of a candidate and you'll eventually need these people to help you win the general maybe not do that? I think the Clinton campaign is probably a bit irritated at the reaction to the DNC decision as well as the great reaction by the Sanders campaign in the afternoon to turn it into a huge rallying cry. Right now the Sanders campaign should be curled up into a tiny ball crying but instead they're riding high. The longer the DNC holds out the better for the Sanders campaign and the worse for the Democratic party and the 2016 chances. David Axelrod: https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/677999836961050624 quote:The disproportionate @dnc reaction actually got @BernieSanders crew off the hook for their own stupidity. Not helpful to @HillaryClinton. quote:If I were @HillaryClinton, I'd would have much preferred to see @BernieSanders campaign stew in its own juices.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yes plenty of people on planet Earth will do exactly that. Maybe you can count on your hands and feet, the number of people who will cite one particular tweet as a reason not to vote for Hillary in the general, but "I don't like how she ratfucked Bernie over esoteric GOTV stuff" will definitely turn a lot of people off, and so far the response from the Clinton campaign has been to mostly play into exactly that narrative. Agreed and what's concerning to me is that Clinton and her past campaigns have shown a great ability to be tone deaf and unable to read obvious political winds. Mostly because she surrounds herself with loyalists and yes-men instead of the best people for the job.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Anyone got a clip for this (from the Dem thread):Concerned Citizen posted:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 03:23
|
|
