Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3203 of them)

ever the martyr, you.

Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:53 (six years ago) Permalink

Zac that Ratigan interview is very odd, whats with the random end bit of "oh hey you're into surfing lets talk about that instead of WORLD DOOM for a bit ok yeah".

Trayce, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:11 (six years ago) Permalink

i didn't even watch the clip tbh, i was just keeping the link from the original taibbi article that the quote was from.

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:24 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah, i think the fact that most congressional elections are effectively non-contested kinda proves iatee's argument ... who's gonna give money to a sacrificial lamb?!?

― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, January 4, 2012 4:50 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whole lotta hat hanging on the word "effectively" there

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:54 (six years ago) Permalink

most congresspeople are popular within their district so even when they're seriously contested, spending more money isn't enough. this isn't an argument that money doesn't matter, just that it buys influence more than it wins election.

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:57 (six years ago) Permalink

s

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:57 (six years ago) Permalink

and why are they non-contested? because the gerrymandering is done by the two corporatist parties? High rate of incumbent return is another result from the same game-fixing.

xxp

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:59 (six years ago) Permalink

also cause most voters are happy w/ their shitty congressperson as long as they bring home a project or two and don't have a sex scandal

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:01 (six years ago) Permalink

"happy" implies that they're actively satisfied. the truth is they don't really give a fuck.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:30 (six years ago) Permalink

and why are they non-contested? because the gerrymandering is done by the two corporatist parties?

short answer: no

goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:34 (six years ago) Permalink

It's complicated, but I'd say gerrymandering done by the two corporatist parties is a factor along with zoning rules, the history of residential segregation, various other political and economic issues, and more.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:12 (six years ago) Permalink

YES Cordray appointed

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:15 (six years ago) Permalink

FYI

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:15 (six years ago) Permalink

disgust with the NDAA not overwhelming enough to keep me from lol'ing at Republicans getting endrun on the Cordray appt

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:24 (six years ago) Permalink

did he end up going with Rob or Nate

Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:33 (six years ago) Permalink

@natecordray
Nate Cordray
X Games party tonight at the Conga room
31 Jul via Twitter for Android Favorite Retweet Reply

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:36 (six years ago) Permalink

I wanted really badly to post that as an image but am too dumb :(

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:36 (six years ago) Permalink

Recess appointments for the NLRB too...

carson dial, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:38 (six years ago) Permalink

MITT ROMNEY IS ANGRY!

“President Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is perhaps the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy in the history of our nation, headed by a powerful and unaccountable bureaucrat with unprecedented authority over the economy. Instead of working with Congress to fix the flaws in this new bureaucracy, the President is declaring that he ‘refuses to take no for an answer’ and circumventing Congress to appoint a new administrator. This action represents Chicago-style politics at its worst and is precisely what then-Senator Obama claimed would be ‘the wrong thing to do.’ Sadly, instead of focusing on economic growth, he is once again focusing on creating more regulation, more government, and more Washington gridlock. As President, I will focus on turning around our economy so that America can once again lead the world in job creation.”

commenters on speaker.gov demand impeachment!

no one knows what they're talking about!

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/recess-graph.png

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:08 (six years ago) Permalink

on twitter: "Romney, if recess appointments are 'Chicago-style politics, then Reagan is Al fucking Capone."

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:11 (six years ago) Permalink

To be fair, doing it the way Obama has is pretty unprecendented...but I'm sure he'd be willing to promise to do it again in return for an up-or-down vote on the rest of his slate...

carson dial, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:18 (six years ago) Permalink

"not to do it again"

carson dial, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:21 (six years ago) Permalink

not unprecedented

gnome rocognise gnome (remy bean), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:23 (six years ago) Permalink

unprecedented in the sense that the Senate is not technically in recess due to ridiculous GOP antics

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:23 (six years ago) Permalink

the resistance in the senate is totally unprecedented too

xps

goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:24 (six years ago) Permalink

^^^^^^^^^^^^

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:33 (six years ago) Permalink

unprecedented in the sense that the Senate is not technically in recess due to ridiculous GOP antics

^^^ I had misgivings too until I remembered the reindeer games Senate GOP has played the last three weeks.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:38 (six years ago) Permalink

Recess appointments....

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:57 (six years ago) Permalink

recess appointment = getting high with the choom gang

buzza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:03 (six years ago) Permalink

Password case reframes Fifth Amendment rights in context of digital world

i'm a little skeptical that ramona fricosu was such an advanced user of encryption that the prosecution can't break her password (did they try "password"?) but it's interesting

mookieproof, Thursday, 5 January 2012 00:41 (six years ago) Permalink

Another proud moment in Obamaland

In a crushing blow to the healthcare community, President Obama is expected to sign new legislation that prohibits federal funding on needle exchange programs both domestically and abroad -- a federally funded program that he himself signed into effect in 2009.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/needle-exchange-programs-san-francisco_n_1184420.html

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:00 (six years ago) Permalink

click link, find out it's a poison pill in a much larger bill.

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:09 (six years ago) Permalink

wow that fuckin sucks

k3vin k., Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:11 (six years ago) Permalink

then that's just fucking fine, Matt. Goddamn you all to hell.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:24 (six years ago) Permalink

fuck

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:34 (six years ago) Permalink

fuck this fucking guy

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:34 (six years ago) Permalink

I can't even from the degree of assholism necessary to oppose needle exchange programs. That is just next-level asshole

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:35 (six years ago) Permalink

saying

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:45 (six years ago) Permalink

like there's "oh this will affect people a few-levels-removed down the bueraucratic chain" and then there's "actual irl people will get fucked the fuck up thanks to this particular thing"

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:46 (six years ago) Permalink

Thre's actually people in the huffpo thread saying this is a good thing, they should be left to die because its their choice to do needle drugs. I mean... I just...

Trayce, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:47 (six years ago) Permalink

only w/r/t politics obv

iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:59 (six years ago) Permalink

I get in arguments with Dems who, clawing for reasons to defend Obama, say "politics is the art of the possible." Jay Rosen interviewed by Greenwald:

I think it’s crippling sometimes to our own sense of efficacy in politics and media, if we assume that the media has all of the power to frame the debate and decide what consensus is, and consign things to deviant status. That’s not really true. That’s true under conditions of political immobilization, leadership default, a range for normalcy, but in ordinary political life, leaders, by talking about things, make them legitimate. Parties, by pushing for things, make them part of the sphere of debate. Important and visible people can question consensus, and all of the sudden break it. These spheres are malleable; if the conversation of democracy is alive and if you make your leaders talk about things, it becomes valid to talk about them.

And I really do think there’s a self-victimization that sometimes goes on, but... there’s something else going on, which is the ability to infect us with notions of what’s realistic is one of the most potent powers press and political elites have. Whenever we make that kind of decision — “well it’s pragmatic, let’s be realistic” — what we’re really doing is we’re speculating about other Americans, our fellow citizens, and what they’re likely to accept or what works on them or what stimuli they respond to. And that way of seeing other Americans, fellow citizens, is in fact something the media has taught us; that is one of the deepest lessons we’ve learned from the media even if we are skeptics of the MSM.

And one of the things I see on the left that really bothers me is the ease with which people skeptical of the media will talk about what the masses believe and how the masses will be led and moved in this way that shows me that the mass media tutors them on how to see their fellow citizens. And here the ‘Net again has at least some potential - because we don’t have to guess what those other Americans think. We can encounter them ourselves, and thereby reshape our sense of what they think. I think every time people make that judgment about what’s realistic, what they’re really doing is they’re imagining what the rest of the country would accept, and how other people think, and they get those ideas from the media.

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2012/01/jay-rosen-on-political-possibility.html

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 12:34 (six years ago) Permalink

click link, find out it's a poison pill in a much larger bill.

I've seen far worse rhymes.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:35 (six years ago) Permalink

too bad the rest of the country isn't massachusetts

thank god it isn't. brown's just triangulating his position b/c of warren, who came out crowing about the wonderfulness of the appointment that she really deserved. i've said it befor and i'll say it again, scott brown is a really nice dude but he is just so fundamentally ... opportunistic that it makes me question everything about his careeer.

gnome rocognise gnome (remy bean), Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:43 (six years ago) Permalink

more on the needle exchange funding ban

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/December/21/needle-exchange-federal-funding.aspx

goole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:00 (six years ago) Permalink

x-post

Will have to read this whole What if He Loses series later, but Lithwick's court piece leads with this:

For anyone considering the 2012 election’s importance to the future of the American judiciary, one fact stands out: next November, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be seventy-nine years old. If a Republican wins the presidential election, he or she may have an opportunity to seat Ginsburg’s successor, replacing the Supreme Court’s most reliably liberal jurist with a conservative.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:04 (six years ago) Permalink

obama? seems like this is what happens when you elect a republican house majority.

the ban stood for 21 years, was lifted in 2008, now reimposed. what do you think happened in that time?

xp

goole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:04 (six years ago) Permalink

the excuses just never end

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:12 (six years ago) Permalink

sorry, but lol @ stupid

Johnny Fever, Saturday, 3 November 2012 21:54 (five years ago) Permalink

The Perlstein article reads a lot like he has never ever heard of spam before in his life. I see a lot of those '23-Cent Heart Miracle' ads on a lot of sites - isohunt for example - they don't really signify "you'll buy anything" as much as "we have no idea what to sell to you, or what to sell you as". If it's an indictment, it's of the fact that there's no coherent audience on these sites - my favourite ads on the conservative sites that I've started to click on (thanks to ILX) are the ones where the ad-provider has gone "fuck it, throw them a World of Warcraft ad".

Andrew Farrell, Sunday, 4 November 2012 14:49 (five years ago) Permalink

But then there's this...

Maggie Neale is a 69-year-old retiree living in Central Virginia. She’s a registered Republican who voted for John McCain in 2008 but plans to vote for President Obama this time around. We talked by phone.

Q: Who are you planning to vote for in this election?
A: Well, my husband would roll over in the grave if he heard this… actually he’s up on the shelf so maybe he’d explode [laughs softly]. But I’m going to vote for Mr. Obama.

Q: And did you vote for him last time around?
A:No, I voted for McCain in 2008. I’m a registered Republican. I did vote for Carter way back when, but I’ve pretty much voted for Republicans ever since. If I had been a year older, I would’ve voted for Mr. Kennedy when he was running.

Q: So what changed your mind this time?
A: I liked the man running against Obama in ’08, and I don’t like the man who’s running against him now. And I don’t think Obama’s done that bad a job. People will point to the economy being bad, but the problems have been worldwide. We haven’t slipped any, and we’ve come up since.

Q: Do you have criticisms of Obama?
A: He could have been stronger on a few issues. Maybe on the debt.

Q: And what don’t you like about Romney?
A: His feelings on a lot of issues dealing with women, his attitude toward women. I think he’s for the upper class. I know if Obama wins, my taxes will go up because I live on stock income, since my husband was a farmer, but… I don’t know if I’m going old or what, but I’m more socially-minded than I used to be.

Q: Were social issues a big factor for you in the last election?
A: No. Last time, it was Afghanistan and things like that. And the economy. But Obama has inherited this mess, this banker’s mess.

Q: And what’s your take on Afghanistan?
A: We never should’ve gone over to start with. We’re making ourselves broke with all these wars. And a lot of it’s about oil and all that. We need to concentrate on using less oil at home and being energy conscious. And that would probably better under Obama, especially with conservation and the fuel economy standards. I do think we need to be more conscious of everything we do environmentally. Romney would get rid of a lot of environmental rules on companies, but I don’t think that’s the right way to go.

Q: Has Obama’s health care law been a big issue for you?
A: I don’t think the health care bill was the best it could have been, but the country needed something and a step in the right direction. And I think repealing it would be awful for the poor and those on the edge.

Q: Have you been saturated with ads out in Virginia? Anything that stands out for you?
A: I really don’t pay much attention to TV. I read. My most contact has been through the phone. I’m out here in central Virginia, rural Virginia. I bet the Republican National Committee has called me 10 times for every call Obama has made. It’s gotten to the point where I just hang up when I see the initials RNC.

Q: Anything else that strikes you about this election?
A: I don’t know that I have ever completely voted my conscience before, but the Republican Party has gone way way too far to the right. I know a lot of middle-class people will vote for them because they think it will make economy better, but I think we’re doing the best we can right now.

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Sunday, 4 November 2012 17:08 (five years ago) Permalink

WKIW this lady I think.

Doctor Casino, Sunday, 4 November 2012 18:01 (five years ago) Permalink

yes

absurdly pro-D (schlump), Sunday, 4 November 2012 18:42 (five years ago) Permalink

Supposedly it's a really minor fracture and he'll be back in a week

The Perlstein article reads a lot like he has never ever heard of spam before in his life. I see a lot of those '23-Cent Heart Miracle' ads on a lot of sites - isohunt for example - they don't really signify "you'll buy anything" as much as "we have no idea what to sell to you, or what to sell you as". If it's an indictment, it's of the fact that there's no coherent audience on these sites - my favourite ads on the conservative sites that I've started to click on (thanks to ILX) are the ones where the ad-provider has gone "fuck it, throw them a World of Warcraft ad".

What you're missing is the endorsement aspect. Republican newsletters and personalities directly endorse and advocate for snake oil. It's not sold ad space.

Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 4 November 2012 18:56 (five years ago) Permalink

totally xxp

all mods con (k3vin k.), Sunday, 4 November 2012 18:57 (five years ago) Permalink

ugh zing failure again sorry, gotta work on that

Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 4 November 2012 20:06 (five years ago) Permalink

meet the new boehner, same as the old boehner

all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 7 November 2012 20:38 (five years ago) Permalink

Surprise surprise

Raymond Cummings, Wednesday, 7 November 2012 20:46 (five years ago) Permalink

Whoa, Boehner might be willing to be reasonable on the budget!!

The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, striking a conciliatory tone a day after the Republican Party’s electoral drubbing, said on Wednesday that he was ready to accept a budget deal that raises federal revenue as long as it is linked to an overhaul of entitlements and a reform of the tax code that closes loopholes, curtails or eliminates deductions and lowers income tax rates.

hold the phone, was that a typo...?

The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, striking a conciliatory tone a day after the Republican Party’s electoral drubbing, said on Wednesday that he was ready to accept a budget deal that raises federal revenue as long as it is linked to an overhaul of entitlements and a reform of the tax code that closes loopholes, curtails or eliminates deductions and lowers income tax rates.

but how would that even

Mr. Boehner made it clear that his vision for additional revenue includes a tax code that lowers even the top income tax rate from where it is now, 35 percent, not where it would be in January when the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire — 39.6 percent. At least some of that additional revenue would come from economic growth that he said would be fueled by a simpler tax code.

FUCK YOU JOHN BOEHNER

but the boo boyz are getting to (Z S), Wednesday, 7 November 2012 22:29 (five years ago) Permalink

yeah he was being extra sneaky today, fuck him forever

all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 7 November 2012 23:30 (five years ago) Permalink

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0aKPIse1bbtAHD3LIdkpTfHfw7g?docId=c116e763ff084c0289aa2bd1b519032d

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California man behind an anti-Muslim film that roiled the Middle East was sentenced Wednesday to a year in prison for violating his probation stemming from a 2010 bank fraud conviction by lying about his identity.

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder immediately sentenced Mark Basseley Youssef after he admitted to four of the eight alleged violations, including obtaining a fraudulent California driver's license. Prosecutors agreed to drop the other four allegations under an agreement with Youssef's attorneys, which also included more probation.

Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 7 November 2012 23:41 (five years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.