Inigima Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, Fez said: Well. It would be kind of hilarious if the Senate was at a 50-50 split and the Vice President kept breaking ties in opposition to what the President wanted. It would! But that seems very unlikely, particularly because the Republicans have better party discipline. 11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: OAR, Who would you have take over for the President if the President dies if not the Vice President? I don't understand what in OAR's post makes you think he has a problem with the Vice President being the second in the line of succession. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Inigima, He said the VP was a useless office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 31 minutes ago, Inigima said: Why would that be great? The Vice President doesn't actually do that much unless the sitting president dies. A veep with a hostile president would do less. 31 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: What would be great about that? The Vice Presidency is a stupid, almost always inconsequential office. It would be novel but meaningless. It is true that the VP does not do much unless the President dies, resigns, is impeached or is unable to discharge his or her duties due to medical reasons... but the odds of at least one of these things happening are not that trivial given the ages of the candidates and become even less trivial if the successor would be radically different. It would add some intrigue to the game. Quote Right, which is why I think he could create turmoil in Northeastern Democratic states, but not Southern and Western Republican ones. Yes, but he could also mess up some of the battleground states (e.g. North Carolina) for the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Oh for christ's sake, both of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Oh, alright, let's move on to something more serious. For example, it appears that major corporations have found yet another way to pay politicians who might be President directly: speaking fees. To be sure, there is some effort and a bit of risk involved on part of the politician, but according to this article, it appears to be worth it: Quote Goldman Sachs -- the investment bank that was so instrumental in causing the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression -- pays Hillary Clinton $200,000 an hour or more to speak to their executives and investors. ... What do Hillary and the Wall Street bank discuss that's worth over $200,000 an hour? And what does Goldman Sachs, and other Wall Street firms who have paid Hillary $2.5 million in the past two years, expect in return? If you ask Hillary, you'll never find out. When asked by a reporter in Manchester, New Hampshire on Friday if she would release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, she laughed and turned away (just as she initially laughed when asked about her email server.) ... The contract, made public through a Nevada's public records law after she spoke at UNLV, stipulates that the only record of her speaking events allowed are made by a stenographer approved by Clinton whose transcription will be given only to Clinton. It also provided that she must travel only on a $39 million Gulfstream G450 jet or larger, be put up in the Presidential Suite of a luxury hotel of her choosing (along with five more rooms for her advance staff), detailed requirements on the refreshments to be provided in the green room, and Clinton's approval of all publicity, moderators or introducers. As far as I can tell, these aren't even campaign contributions -- this is a personal payment akin to a salary (if there existed salaries of $200K+ per hour). People from other countries should take note: this is how you properly package bribery. After all, nobody can possibly prove it is a bribe rather than a simple reimbursement for services rendered. I'm sure she has much to say that is of value to investment bankers, pharmaceutical companies and whoever else she is speaking to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Inigima, He said the VP was a useless office. I said it was "stupid" and "almost always inconsequential," which it is. Succeeding the President is one of the VP's few consequential roles. It's pretty weird that we have this position that maybe casts a rare tie-breaking vote while waiting around for the President to maybe die (and I'm far from the first person to make a comment to this effect), but I don't have a problem with that, particularly. If I were to redesign our system, I wouldn't be tinkering with the line of succession as much as overhauling everything. 1 hour ago, Altherion said: It is true that the VP does not do much unless the President dies, resigns, is impeached or is unable to discharge his or her duties due to medical reasons... but the odds of at least one of these things happening are not that trivial given the ages of the candidates and become even less trivial if the successor would be radically different. It would add some intrigue to the game. Yes, but he could also mess up some of the battleground states (e.g. North Carolina) for the Republicans. Maybe NC, you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Inigima said: Why would that be great? The Vice President doesn't actually do that much unless the sitting president dies. A veep with a hostile president would do less. This used to be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Good news everyone! http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/iowa-democratic-caucus-in-peril-amid-volunteering-crisis Quote Things are looking grim for the Iowa Democratic party’s efforts to mount a successful caucus on 1 February. The Guardian has learned the party is still lacking a temporary chairman to run the caucuses in up to 300 locations across the state with just over a week to go before caucus night. They should call in Debbie W-S to fix this, she knows how to handle stuff. Ugh....As they said, I belong to no organized party, I am a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Are we seriously taking "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg seriously? Fuck that self-important dickbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Altherion said: Oh, alright, let's move on to something more serious. For example, it appears that major corporations have found yet another way to pay politicians who might be President directly: speaking fees. To be sure, there is some effort and a bit of risk involved on part of the politician, but according to this article, it appears to be worth it: As far as I can tell, these aren't even campaign contributions -- this is a personal payment akin to a salary (if there existed salaries of $200K+ per hour). People from other countries should take note: this is how you properly package bribery. After all, nobody can possibly prove it is a bribe rather than a simple reimbursement for services rendered. I'm sure she has much to say that is of value to investment bankers, pharmaceutical companies and whoever else she is speaking to. Where's the bribery? People are paid to speak and they speak. What are the people attending these getting in return other then being spoken to? (ie - what they paid for) To sort of illustrate this point, the article there brings up Wall Street speaking fees and yet Wall Street contributions have swung hard towards the GOP over the last many years. It does not seem that they have much faith in their speaking fees being bribes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 50 minutes ago, Shryke said: Are we seriously taking "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg seriously? Fuck that self-important dickbag. Yeah...the guy had the city charter amended just so he could run for a third term. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Yes, really. He was an excellent mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Bloomberg wouldn't get more than 15%. It's not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Yes, really. He was an excellent mayor. If you were white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, Shryke said: If you were white. Under Bloomberg, violent crime in New York City dropped to historic lows. Since minorities are disproportionately likely to be both the perpetrators and victims of violent crime, I think there's a case to be made for Bloomberg being not that terrible for non-whites as well, who are now being murdered and assaulted at appreciably lower rates than before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: Under Bloomberg, violent crime in New York City dropped to historic lows. Since minorities are disproportionately likely to be both the perpetrators and victims of violent crime, I think there's a case to be made for Bloomberg being not that terrible for non-whites as well, who are now being murdered and assaulted at appreciably lower rates than before! Guess it depends on whether you consider the massive racial profiling and reduction of nonwhite civil liberties worth the security cost: Quote Lieberman and others could instead recite the statistics on stop-and-frisk: The NYPD made 4.4 million stops between 2004 and 2012, and frisked 2.3 million people. In 2011, when the tactic was at its peak, there were more than 685,000 stops — with 84% of the targets either Hispanic or black. Nearly 90% of those stopped were not arrested nor given summonses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 31 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Yes, really. He was an excellent mayor. Yea he was pretty good. Definitely have a lot less issues with Bloomberg than I do De Blasio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mexal said: Yea he was pretty good. Definitely have a lot less issues with Bloomberg than I do De Blasio. And that's just it. He balanced the budget. He invested in city infrastructure and economic development. He prioritized education. He prioritized the environment and green spaces. City agencies worked more transparently (not to say crystal clear but at least not a black box of patronage). Supported same sex marriage. Hell, select bus service alone is kind of amazing. I could go on and on. Did I agree with everything he did? No way. Won't ever find a politician that I agree with 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 49 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Yes, really. He was an excellent mayor. I think I'd bring up stop and frisk and quite honestly end the point there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I keep mulling this over... Clinton - old and under the sort of investigation that sometimes puts people in prison. Does know the system, but is utterly loathed by the republican party. Sanders - old, period. Not well thought of by a lot of people in his own party. Trump - energetic but old. Despised by many republicans and democrats alike, ignorant of international affairs, prone to pointless temper tantrums. Cruz - Younger, but hated by pretty much everybody of note in DC. The rest, at this point, look to be jokes. I don't see any of these people lasting more than one term. Given the polarization on DC, I see nothing but obstructionism and gridlock for anything they might attempt. As per my now closed 'Political Shift' thread, I suspect we are looking at a sort of migration of the 'Business Lobby' of the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Depressingly, this would leave near certifiable crazies in complete charge of a major political institution. So, is there anybody relatively sane who might make the ballot in 2020? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.