US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1348

On October 17 2014 03:21 Nyxisto wrote:
The one guy had a fan below the lectern and so the scary bald guy didn't want to debate him, I don't actually know why and I'm not sure I understand how Florida works

On October 17 2014 22:16 farvacola wrote:
How much do you know about Scott's record as Florida's governor?

President Barack Obama is naming Ron Klain, a former chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, as the point man for the U.S. government's response to the Ebola crisis, amid criticism the government's response to the virus has been sluggish and inadequate. But the president said he continued to oppose a ban on travel from West Africa.

Klain has been out of government since leaving Biden's office during the Obama's first term, but has remained a trusted adviser to the Obama administration. The White House said that Klain would report to national security adviser Susan Rice and to homeland security and counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco. Klain, a lawyer, also served as chief of staff for Vice President Al Gore. He previously served under Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.

Friday's decision followed remarks a day earlier that it "may be appropriate” for him “to appoint an additional person" to head the administration’s effort in addressing the ongoing situation. Obama authorized calling up military reservists for the U.S. fight against Ebola in West Africa on Thursday.

The president also said he is "not philosophically opposed" to a travel ban from the Ebola-afflicted region of West Africa "if that is the thing that is going to keep the American people safe." But he said experts tell him a ban would be less effective than measures currently in place.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration chief Michael Huerta told reporters separately that the government was assessing whether to issue a travel ban “on a day-to-day basis.”

The administration is under growing criticism from lawmakers over its efforts to contain the disease at home. Lawmakers in Washington focused questions and pointed criticism at a Thursday congressional hearing on Centers for Disease Control director Thomas Frieden.

“We need to look at all the options available to keep our families safe and move quickly and responsibly to make any necessary changes at airports,” Democratic Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa told the hearing.

On October 17 2014 22:05 Melliflue wrote:
Tbh, if I were scheduled to have a debate with somebody and we had agreed a set of rules for the debate but then my opponent broke those rules before the debate even started then I would feel the same way as Scott, because I would not trust my opponent to debate honestly and I would not want to partake in the debate.

On October 17 2014 22:05 Melliflue wrote:

I guess it is very hot standing in a suit with those lights pointing at you. Visibly sweating during a debate is undesirable because it tends to put voters off. Saying somebody was sweating portrays them negatively because of some of the connotations of "sweating", for example; it may make a voter believe the person sweating is nervous or dishonest or guilty.

Anyway, Charlie Crist broke the rules of the debate before the debate even started and then used Rick Scott's absence as a way to promote himself (by implying that Scott did not care about the issues.) I have a lot of sympathy for Scott in this case. You can argue that Scott is silly for almost stopping a debate over a fan, but it was important enough for Crist that he was willing to break the rules of the debate in order to have the fan there. The blame for that incident lies with Crist, not Scott.

Tbh, if I were scheduled to have a debate with somebody and we had agreed a set of rules for the debate but then my opponent broke those rules before the debate even started then I would feel the same way as Scott, because I would not trust my opponent to debate honestly and I would not want to partake in the debate.

There is the further discussion about why the condition about the fan/electronic devices was part of the rules in the first place. If it was to prevent a candidate taking up a tablet pc or smart-phone so their advisers could pass along answers/facts during the debate then the fan isn't important. If fans were meant to be forbidden then, yeah, it is a big deal that Crist broke that rule, although I would still be curious why fans were banned.

On October 17 2014 04:04 IgnE wrote:


Yes I am assuming that, because they didn't do that. "Oh yes, here's 2 million for our rehab center for lawsuits brought against it this year." That's simply not how government-run agencies work. They typically scrounge for every dollar they can get, and most don't get extra money for unforeseen circumstances, especially something like an adverse court decision. And you make this silly argument as if private corporations don't anticipate these kinds of expenses. It's private corporations that have control of their own budget. They aren't living from year to year on whatever is allotted them by the most recently elected politicians, and they are far better equipped than something like the only state-run rehab center in the area to "build these expenses into the budget."

On October 17 2014 14:31 IgnE wrote:


Yeah it's called experience.

On October 18 2014 03:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:


are you for real? it's a fan..

If it was to prevent a candidate taking up a tablet pc or smart-phone so their advisers could pass along answers/facts during the debate then the fan isn't important.

On October 18 2014 04:28 IgnE wrote:
1. Of course private companies don't have complete control. The point is clearly that they have more control than state agencies whose budgets are apportioned by legislatures. Do you disagree?

2. When I said that "they typically scrounge for every dollar they can get" I did not mean that they are always trying to maximize "productivity" and cut costs in an effort to improve "efficiency." What I meant was that the money they get is almost always appropriated for certain things (salaries, projects, whatever) as soon as they get it such that they don't just have a surplus sitting around. There are people in every agency that depend on a certain amount of money from the budget every year, and so when an agency gets hit with what sounds like a relatively steep fine (given the size of the agency), something has to get cut within the agency, and at least some people, possibly most of the people there, will not like it.

A federal judge struck down Arizona's ban on gay marriage on Friday and cleared the way for legally recognized same-sex unions in the state, a decision that was followed by a Supreme Court denial of Alaska's last-ditch attempt to stop gay marriages pending an appeal.

The decisions came amid a federal government announcement that it will recognize same-sex marriage in seven more states.

The Arizona ruling by U.S. District Judge John Sedwick bars state officials from enforcing a 1996 state law and a 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage in the state.

Sedwick ordered the state to "permanently cease" its ban on gay marriage and declined to stay his order, writing that Arizona restrictions on gay marriage were "unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that they deny same-sex couples the equal protection of the law."

The decision, which is expected to bring the number of states that allow gay marriage to 30, comes as barriers to such unions have fallen in many states in recent weeks following a string of federal court decisions.

On October 17 2014 16:36 Roe wrote:


If someone believes in science and someone else doesn't, it necessarily follows that they don't agree with them. It's a necessary truth, a tautology even, so it's superfluous. Aside that, anti-science beliefs can have real, material, human costs when applied to governmental policy, hence the concern.

On October 18 2014 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

1. Depends if you consider an agency to be separate from the legislature. To my knowledge, agencies are involved in the budgeting process regardless.

2. It's a similar dynamic for a private business. If you are hit with a steep fine (given the size of the firm) something has to get cut and could even result in bankruptcy.

As for not trying to increase productivity and improve efficiency... well that's part of the problem.

An anti-war California liberal and a Texas conservative who once spoke approvingly about impeaching President Barack Obama are demanding an immediate audit of the Pentagon.

The bipartisan team is introducing legislation Thursday that would reduce funds to spending areas the Department of Defense says are unauditable.

Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Michael Burgess, R-Texas, will announce the "Audit the Pentagon Act of 2014" alongside Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich., is another original co-sponsor.

A 2013 version of the bill died in committee. But with an eye toward passage, the new edition imposes a 0.5 percent cut to unauditable spending areas, rather than the 5 percent reduction proposed last year.

On October 18 2014 09:17 IgnE wrote:


1. Your statement is too vague to be meaningful, and yet you still say it.

2. While sometimes true, not always. Plenty of large corporations routinely set aside money for lawsuits, settlements, and fines, as the cost of doing business. Microsoft for example was paying millions in fines every month years ago because the fine was less than the money they were raking in by not being in compliance. Banks routinely pay large fines, having already made many times the amount of the fine by ignoring an agency's or court's decision. You cannot say the same thing about small state agencies. In any case I was originally replying to Kwark and his implication that government agencies are somehow better suited to handle unexpected fines like this because "taxpayers' money," whatever that means.

As for always trying to increase "productivity" and improve "efficiency," they are arbitrarily defined concepts that are oriented towards certain market indicators and economic indices with little regard for what an economy is actually for. Always trying to improve them without considering why you are trying to improve them is a far bigger problem today.

Are some government agencies wasteful, even by the most lax interpretation of "wasteful"? Yes. Are they all wasteful all the time? No. Who is the biggest offender? The military industrial complex. Why do conservatives usually not care about the military's wastefulness? Because they redefine their priorities when evaluating that branch's of the government spending. "Efficiency" does not top the list of priorities when it comes to national defense. Assuming that it should always and everywhere top the list for every enterprise that is not the military (perhaps healthcare is another area where efficiency is not the top priority) is taken for granted when it shouldn't be.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A federal judge has ordered Wyoming to allow same-sex marriage but has stayed his decision so that the state can appeal if it wants.

U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled Friday that the state must comply with a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that permits same-sex marriage.

But he says his ruling will not take effect until next Thursday in order to allow time for the state to appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review several federal court rulings that upheld gay marriage as a constitutional right. The rulings include the one from the 10th Circuit, which covers Wyoming and five other states.

With the Nov. 4 ballot measure, Colorado is at the forefront of a fierce food fight raging across the nation: whether or not to label foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, so consumers can easily see if the food they buy is a product of genetic engineering.

Similar ballot initiatives failed in California and Washington in the past two years.

This spring, Vermont became the first state to approve GMO labeling. But then a group of national organizations — led by the Grocery Manufacturers Association — filed a lawsuit in federal court that challenges the new law. This could be the first of many lawsuits to block mandatory GMO labeling, experts say, and now Colorado jumps into the high-stakes debate.

"It will be a hot issue for quite a while in this state," said Katie Abrams, an assistant professor at Colorado State University who researches consumer understanding of food labels. "And it's going on in more places than just Colorado."

GMO labeling will also be on the ballot in Oregon, and this year about 35 similar bills were introduced in 20 states.