Randomville

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
GigaBook.com
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 33   Go Down

Author Topic: 2012 Elections  (Read 34117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cockney Rebel

  • I don't have an accent. You do.
  • Global Moderator
  • City Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,782
  • Art is impossible to define. Shitty art is not.
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2011, 08:46:16 AM »

I was quite admiring that resignation letter until he brought all that god shit into it
Logged
Opulence. I has it.

Markalot

  • Citizen
  • Posts: 353
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2011, 08:49:29 AM »

Look at his voting record.  I think the entire thing is bullshit.
Logged
-- Mark

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,656
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2011, 07:49:24 PM »

I think that Gingrich has two dominant characteristics that come across no matter which side of the line you're on.

The first is that he's very smart.  As a political strategist, and even as a policy analyst the guy knows his shit.  I don't know if there is anyone who has a better fundamental understanding of core/traditional conservative values and how those values play out across current events.  I think he is better than Reagan (whose understanding was sort of innate, because that's just who he was) or Clinton.  That makes him dangerous.

The second thing though, is that pretty much everyone thinks he's an asshole.  I'm not talking about his political views if you're liberal, or the way he treated his wife if you care about his personal life.  Just on an every day, person-to-person sort of level no one really likes him.  I think that is true of voters, other politicians, and just as importantly the general wonks and PR types and campaign staffers.  And it's really hard to win the Presidency unless someone really, really likes you.  Because you're asking people to stake their careers on you while working insane hours and to fall on their swords if they have to.  I can't see anyone doing that for Gingrich.

Gingrich has a gift for sort of cutting through the crap and distilling things into nice, bite-size, somewhat friendly, logical chunks.  Unlike the Tea Partiers, he doesn't try to win every battle and get himself in a bad position defending something clearly stupid that really isn't that important.  He's the master of the talking point.  Problem is, he can't deliver the message himself.  You have to come across like "Hey, I'm just talking common sense and telling you what you already knew."  But Gingrich always comes off like "Hey, see how smart I am?  I just totally broke this down for you, because I'm a genius."  He's fundamentally unlikeable.

I thought that maybe taking some time out of the spotlight might have smoothed the rough edges, but I don't think it has.  You can make people forget about or forgive you for the whole infidelity thing, but he's still an asshole.   Which means he just creates new wounds and enemies all the time.

I will say one thing, though.  If you are conservative, a Romney/Gingrich pairing (Gingrich doesn't have to be VEEP, he could be in the cabinet or whatever as long as he's pulling strings behind the scenes) could potentially be a devastatingly effective combo.  I think that is true whether you are far-right/Tea Party, mainstream, or moderate.  These Tea Party idiots can't get anything done.  I don't care if you agree with their politics or not.  Just too stupid and too crazy.  You'd be better off voting for Romney/Gingrich as you'd actually get more policies you believe in implemented.

The real problem with the GOP is not so much the candidates they have running for President, but the candidates they have running in virtually every other election (state and local).  Conservatives can't seem to grasp that reducing the *size* of government does not reduce the power of government.  Reduce the government to just one guy.  Take away the budget so everything has to be done by rule.  That's not a free market.  That's a dictatorship.

As for Obama, if you're a liberal you really don't have that much to complain about.  The problem for him is can he get the sort of non-traditional, non-involved liberals to show up at the polls again?  And even if he wins, I doubt he's going to get much done given who else is going to be in Congress and in Governor's seats.

euro60

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 4,154
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2011, 11:58:57 PM »

If Gingrish somehow wins the Republican nomination, Obama is a shoo-in for re-election. But with the new system of proportional representation in the Republican primaries, I very much doubt that Gingrish can win the nomination, as this will turn into a long slug and I think he simply doesn't have the ground forces to content in the long run. Thank goodness.
Logged
"A blind faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth" - Albert Einstein (1901)

The Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra is one of Cincinnati's underappreciated treasures

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,656
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2011, 09:44:18 PM »

I'm really getting tired of conservatives complaining about how there are no quality candidates.  It's not like the GOP is trying to screw with the little guy.  The little guys are running the show, and they demand stupid Tea Party types.  You get who you ask for.

What's wrong with John Huntsman?

euro60

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 4,154
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2011, 01:51:42 AM »

What's wrong with John Huntsman?


Nothing, and he'd make a great candidate. He just can't get any traction in this election for some reason.
Logged
"A blind faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth" - Albert Einstein (1901)

The Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra is one of Cincinnati's underappreciated treasures

luisterpaul

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 1,123
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2011, 08:37:46 AM »

Logged

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,656
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2011, 10:03:49 AM »

I think Newt Gingrich just destroyed any remaining chances he had left with that "Let's start arresting judges" gambit.

Markalot

  • Citizen
  • Posts: 353
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2011, 10:41:48 AM »

Well, maybe, but in complete context I think I understand where he is going.  Basically if a judge threatens to lock someone up for a so called crime, especially when related to speech, then that judge should be held responsible for his actions.  

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/a-judge-of-the-day-back-in-the-news-fred-biery/

In particular:

Quote
And he is prepared to back up his order with the power of the federal government, stating that violators could face incarceration for contempt of court.

So in this case, not only did he make an order that the religious right disagreed with, he threatened to lock people up if they did not comply with the order.  That's the step that angered so many and led to:

Quote
UPDATE: On Friday afternoon, the Fifth Circuit dissolved Judge Biery’s temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. You can read the Fifth Circuit’s per curiam order here and a press release from the Liberty Institute here

Locking people up for what they say is a bad bad thing.
Logged
-- Mark

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,656
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2011, 11:55:44 AM »

That's a pretty twisted interpretation of the case.  What he ruled was that you a student can't lead a prayer at a public school ceremony.  Therefore, that speech wasn't protected because allowing it to proceed would violate the separation of church and state in the First Amendment.

Regardless of whether you feel the judge over-reached in his ruling, IF he makes that ruling he has to issue an injunction.  One side is saying "Hey, I don't think the other side should be able to do this, because it strips me of a constitutional right."  Obviously they are going to ask for an injunction to preventing the other side from doing it.  The judge can't be like "I agree. It's a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights, but I'm not going to do anything about it."  He has to grant the injunction.

And if you disobey an injunction you are in contempt of court.  And if you are in contempt of court, you can go to jail.  In all likelihood you won't, but you can.  And if anyone was going to be charged with contempt it would have been the school district and not the student who gave the speech.

That's what judges do.  They decide what is and is a right/freedom and they prevent people from doing shit by issuing orders telling them not to do it.  Someone has to have that power, and we have given it to the judiciary.  How does the balance of checks and powers work if judges can't issue injunctions? 

I actually agree with the initial decision, but admittedly it's a tough case.  And at any rate, the guy's ruling got overturned on appeal.  So where is the problem?  It all got fixed without any intervention from the executive branch.

Markalot

  • Citizen
  • Posts: 353
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2011, 12:23:28 PM »

For me the problem is simple.  I don't like locking anyone up for speech, and I don't recognize religious speech led by students as unprotected speech.  That is simply ludicrous, and the appellate court agreed.
Logged
-- Mark

dirk

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 1,444
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2011, 01:17:33 PM »

While I can certainly see where you are coming from, you have to look at it from outside of this case.  When a judge issues a ruling, there has to be some teeth behind it to ensure it is followed.  What Newt is saying is that if a judge rules in a way that I don't like, I will have him on trial as well.  So for example if a judge says "You are not allowed to go on TV and say that 'the president is a child molester who raped and knocked up Lindsay Lohan when she was 12 'because it has been proven false", there has to be consequences for ignoring the judge and doing that.  That is contempt of court.  According to your theory, they should still be allowed to go on tv and say that because threatening them with jail time is wrong.  It is not about whether you (or anyone else) agree with the original ruling, that is what the upper courts are there to decide.  Once a court rules on something, it should be enforced unless it is stayed or overturned, because it is the de facto law of the land at that point.

So while I agree with some parts of his ruling and disagree with others, the ruling should have been enforced unless it was overturned (which it was).  You can't throw out the system that is in place because of one bad ruling.  In the end, this is about rule of law, not this ruling.
Logged
1+2+2+1
Gown removed carelessly. Head, less so. - Joss Whedon

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,656
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2011, 01:56:58 PM »

For me the problem is simple.  I don't like locking anyone up for speech, and I don't recognize religious speech led by students as unprotected speech.  That is simply ludicrous, and the appellate court agreed.

The appellate court in the FIFTH circuit agreed because that is the most conservative court in the country.

Had this been in the ninth circuit, it almost certainly would have been upheld because the ninth circuit is at the opposite end of the spectrum and there would have been strong legal precedent as well.

Lassonde v. Plesanton Unified School District






Markalot

  • Citizen
  • Posts: 353
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2011, 02:21:09 PM »

Quote
So for example if a judge says "You are not allowed to go on TV and say that 'the president is a child molester who raped and knocked up Lindsay Lohan when she was 12 'because it has been proven false", there has to be consequences for ignoring the judge and doing that.  That is contempt of court.

But that ruling would be thrown out because it's protected, yet slanderous speech.  You can't pre-prevent someone from saying something illegal, but you can certainly apply the law after it's said if the speech is found to be illegal.  A subtle but important difference.  Fire in a crowded theater, etc.

There is nothing illegal about students praying, no matter how hard someone tries to make it so.  It can be illegal for the school to SPONSOR a prayer event.

I would also counter that it's the jail part that upset so many.  We have liberal judges letting all kinds of criminals walk free but god dammit if you pray at that school I'm locking your ass up!  I mean really, what reaction should be expected here?
Logged
-- Mark

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,656
Re: 2012 Elections
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2011, 04:05:54 PM »

There is nothing illegal about students praying, no matter how hard someone tries to make it so.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you about that.  Should we fire them?

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 33   Go Up