|
The Ape of Naples posted:All that's true but I bet they'll definitely use age against her if they have a relatively young candidate. No GOPer relates with youth unless they are the specific group of youth already inclined to vote for republicans because they are dead inside/grr abortion.
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
It's been going on for a while now, but here's a decent article on how Nebraska became the centerpiece of the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas, and how successful it's been: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/jane-kleeb-vs-the-keystone-pipeline.html?hp&_r=0. I was at that football game they mention, and yes, it was really loud boos for the TransCanada ad. I'm glad Jane Kleeb's getting the recognition for her work she deserves; she's done more for Nebraska than the politicians here have. Here's a good quote from the article by some TransCanada employees: quote:The company’s public-relations team has responded by arguing that Kleeb fomented the farmers’ uprising on behalf of East Coast environmentalists who hate fossil fuels. “Jane is a very effective misinformer,” Barry Rubin, a former head of the Nebraska Democratic Party and now a consultant for TransCanada, told me. “She uses hyperbole and fear to make reasonable people think that something awful is about to happen. She’s embellishing to susceptible people.” We were sitting in Rubin’s office, drinking Blanton’s bourbon. He said that he was concerned about the environment — he had voted for Obama twice — but that “there’s the delusion that if the pipeline isn’t permitted, it will slow development of the oil sands. It won’t. The oil will get used.” If not in a pipeline, he added, it would come out in trains. Also, the personal attacks on Jane Kleeb are completely off the mark. She's as honest a person as I've ever met and really seems to genuinely care about the ranchers she's helping organize. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 00:28 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:So you think as poverty gets worse there will be more shootings? Interesting. So far as poverty has gotten worse its had no effect on violent crime rates. Do you think shootings are an outlier to that overarching trend? Poverty in densely urban areas coupled with the drug war and the intense ghettoization of the black community are huge factors for what makes up the US murder rate. Reminder that blacks make up less than 15% of the total US population and account for more than half of all murderers and murder victims. E: by ghettoization I mean through housing discrimination and not some culture war bullshit. Miltank fucked around with this message at 00:37 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:So you think as poverty gets worse there will be more shootings? Interesting. So far as poverty has gotten worse its had no effect on violent crime rates. Do you think shootings are an outlier to that overarching trend? It depends which shootings you are talking about but Mark Ames makes a case linking poverty, income, work stability, worker protections and stress from all of the above with workplace shootings in Going Postal
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:It's been going on for a while now, but here's a decent article on how Nebraska became the centerpiece of the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas, and how successful it's been: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/jane-kleeb-vs-the-keystone-pipeline.html?hp&_r=0. I was at that football game they mention, and yes, it was really loud boos for the TransCanada ad. I was at that game too and I was absolutely ecstatic.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
greatn posted:A guns and circumcision discussion thread. Should Hilary decide to run, I imagine the incredibly stupid poo poo said during 2012 would be as a candle to the sun. No matter how many times GOP strategists say "please shut the gently caress up about rape" there's always some doughy sack of cholesterol who just can't help himself.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:02
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Call it fores' and bores. This is who they are, and if they were willing to change they wouldn't be Republicans. Which is what makes it so infuriating, having to lose to these incompetent shitheads over and over.
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:if the Republicans win the House we'll see impeachment proceedings Did you mean to type "Senate" here? Because barring John Boehner and Eric Cantor getting caught running an underage sex slavery ring out of D.C., the Republicans are gonna hold the House. Or is this just an obtuse way of saying there's gonna be impeachment in 2015 no matter what?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Did you mean to type "Senate" here? Because barring John Boehner and Eric Cantor getting caught running an underage sex slavery ring out of D.C., the Republicans are gonna hold the House.  .But yeah we're probably seeing impeachment. No conviction though, just like with Clinton.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I could see an impeachment and conviction over drone strikes. You know drat well those subhuman trash would do it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Poverty in densely urban areas coupled with the drug war and the intense ghettoization of the black community are huge factors for what makes up the US murder rate. Hmmm, good point. I see what you mean about the systemic poverty issue since we as a nation incarcerate the poor for anything and everything along with denying them access to even a hint of mental/medical care which only exacerbates the basic problem of ghettoization by housing discrimination. Fried Chicken posted:It depends which shootings you are talking about but Mark Ames makes a case linking poverty, income, work stability, worker protections and stress from all of the above with workplace shootings in Going Postal Interesting, that makes a lot of sense. I've had that drat book on my list forever. I guess I'll pick it up after I read this new Taibbi book. Which, sidebar, is all about the increasing poverty rate and the ways in which the entire system now favors and protects the rich while actively crushing the poor. Its great thus far.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
In a fair world I wouldn't really be opposed to impeachment over grey legal area drone strikes but the people pushing for it outside of a few non-actors are basically the same people who think the problem with Iraq is that we didn't occupy five or six more countries in the Middle East so I'm incredulous.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I could see an impeachment and conviction over drone strikes. You know drat well those subhuman trash would do it. Also drone strikes don't piss off enough Republicans to make it an issue.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Drone strikes are wayyyy more legal than sexual harassment and even that didn't get a conviction.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Conviction requires a 2/3rds majority. While this is true, it highlights the fact that we live in a country where one half of the political establishment will straight up impeach a sitting President of the other party for completely fabricated reasons and the only thing stopping them is that they don't have quite enough membership to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Nebraska Senatechat: I know Nebraska is the rear end-backwards mulefucking farmhouse of the country but every once in a while there's something like a Dave Domina yard sign 2 houses down from Warren Buffett's house. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Consider: Clinton was using cruise missile strikes, which are literally identical to drone strikes, a ton in the late 90s and it was never even once considered for an impeachment reason by the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Consider: Clinton was using cruise missile strikes, which are literally identical to drone strikes, a ton in the late 90s and it was never even once considered for an impeachment reason by the Republicans. There's something about Clinton that makes it different, can't really put my finger on it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
I drive past Warren Buffet's house every once in a while on a shortcut to get to Popeyes.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
I sincerely hope the Republicans try to impeach Obama over their insane theories about the Benghazi attacks since politically its about as suicidal for them as impeaching Clinton for the murder of Vince Foster.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
They will impeach Obama over the nsa scandal if they get the majority 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Impeaching the president is step one of Newt Gingrich's magic spell to get a Bush in the white house. E:^that would be awesome actually.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:I sincerely hope the Republicans try to impeach Obama over their insane theories about the Benghazi attacks since politically its about as suicidal for them as impeaching Clinton for the murder of Vince Foster. I'd like to see someone push the Arkansas CIA drug running angle. That'd be much funnier and get a lot more noise out of the fringe.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
The Ape of Naples posted:All that's true but I bet they'll definitely use age against her if they have a relatively young candidate. lol, they might try, but it'd be pathetic. Young women will turn out in droves to vote in the First Female President. Considering the terrible records almost every major Republican candidate has on women's issues, that would more than counterbalance any "youth appeal". This is even assuming they could get competent at appealing to younger voters. The only one who could would be Rand Paul, and he's definitely bad enough on women's issues to give Clinton another advantage.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:lol, they might try, but it'd be pathetic. Young women will turn out in droves to vote in the First Female President. Considering the terrible records almost every major Republican candidate has on women's issues, that would more than counterbalance any "youth appeal". This is even assuming they could get competent at appealing to younger voters. The only one who could would be Rand Paul, and he's definitely bad enough on women's issues to give Clinton another advantage. If women did what their husbands told them to, this wouldn't be an issue. Yet another reason that America is in decline,
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:While this is true, it highlights the fact that we live in a country where one half of the political establishment will straight up impeach a sitting President of the other party for completely fabricated reasons and the only thing stopping them is that they don't have quite enough membership to do it. Given that after the acquittal he was cited for perjury-related contempt, the reasons weren't exactly fabricated. Shbobdb posted:They will impeach Obama over the nsa scandal if they get the majority We can only hope. Spatula City posted:Young women will turn out in droves to vote in the First Female President. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:They will impeach Obama over the nsa scandal if they get the majority
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
baw posted:Reince has laid down the gauntlet, we can question Hillary's health. "It was fair game for Ronald Reagan!" ...... "Who had loving Alzheimer's and also I am a piece of poo poo." Ghost of Reagan Past posted:That's a thing that'll never happen. It'd actually be politically diabolical, but neither political party is generally interested in doing anything other than hoping it goes away. Wrong. The NSA thing was all Obama, the republicans never had anything to do with it at all and were demanding it stop from the get go. The democrats won't release information about it, why not???? Republicans have never been in support of NSA spying or secrecy at all. Vote republican in 2016 for are country. *plays on repeat on Fox News for literally 8 consecutive months without coverage of any other issue at all* They don't give a gently caress. They'll lie, lie, and lie some more and voters will eat it up like a dog sniffing through the grass for moist glistening piles of poo poo to chow down on. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:They will impeach Obama over the nsa scandal if they get the majority This is almost comically nonsensical, since the majority needed to impeach is one they already have, and the majority they do not possess is not sufficient to convict. This is leaving aside that the NSA stuff is about the last thing that any Republican congress would use as grounds for impeachment. Anyway, just so I can more accurately target the date of your departure, do you mean that the US House will vote to impeach if the Republicans gain a simple majority in the US Senate?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:This is almost comically nonsensical, since the majority needed to impeach is one they already have, and the majority they do not possess is not sufficient to convict. This is leaving aside that the NSA stuff is about the last thing that any Republican congress would use as grounds for impeachment. I'm almost certain he meant if Republican's gained a majority in the Senate. He was arguing that Republican's are so loving crazy now, they will impeach Obama for anything, even if it is something that aligns with their ideals.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm almost certain he meant if Republican's gained a majority in the Senate. and he's right. Does anybody actually believe that republicans gave even one cumquatmafrillionth of a gently caress about Clinton cheating on Hillary? Do we really believe they didn't do the same poo poo? Hell, was Gingrich part of those proceedings? Do we fantasize that they cared about him lying about it under oath? They don't care. It's irrelevant. If given the opportunity they would impeach him for breathing, eating, walking, talking, wearing clothes, having children, being married, existing, thinking, or being alive at all.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
I doubt they'd use anything about the NSA as a reason to impeach Obama, though. It can so easily be linked directly back to Bush, and the GOP establishment obviously really, really wants Jebus to run. Who can blame them, Romney has been out there in pre-primary mode. I never thought he'd actually run in 2016, but after reading Double Down, I actually think he really plans to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:This is almost comically nonsensical, since the majority needed to impeach is one they already have, and the majority they do not possess is not sufficient to convict. This is leaving aside that the NSA stuff is about the last thing that any Republican congress would use as grounds for impeachment. They don't want to do it now because the optics are poo poo at the moment. Impeaching Obama before an election looks incredibly petty and would drive democratic voters to the polls in huge numbers as a gently caress you to the republicans. In 2015 its a whole different ballgame as they will probably have a larger 'mandate' by controlling both houses. I will be sad to see him go however. I could see it for Benghazi or something, but NSA spying? That doesn't piss off the republican base all that much, and it doesn't have the sting of a scandal which is the whole idea to an impeachment they know they are going to fail. I have a 50/50 feeling they will go for impeachment because they are loving insane, but I don't see how it would ever be about the NSA.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm almost certain he meant if Republican's gained a majority in the Senate. But I don't really understand that reasoning, since the political calculus of impeachment doesn't change at all unless you have enough senate votes to convict. edit: Like I see impeachment as being equally likely if they succeed or fail at gaining the senate in the midterms. And I rate that likelihood at extremely low. The reason why it wouldn't happen is because the remaining house establishment GOP would know that it could lose them the presidency AND congress AND statehouses in 2016 so they would be super motivated to kill it, and if they somehow failed the Senate GOP would be even more motivated to kill it. Besides, having Yoho draft Articles of Impeachment and getting "stabbed in the back" by the establishment and Dems would be great political theater for a dying Tea Party in 2016, so I consider that far more likely. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 02:59 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:But I don't really understand that reasoning, since the political calculus of impeachment doesn't change at all unless you have enough senate votes to convict. Nothing the GOP does has any point except to waste resources, grandstand, and generally throw a spanner in the works. "We tried our best to kick that wily Obama out of office, but the Democrats in the senate ignored the will of the people." *doffs cap*
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
I'd say the way they're dealing with Benghazi right now suggests that they do want to try impeachment. The problem is that if they keep flogging Benghazi and never do anything with it other than use it to campaign the base that they're energizing with it will get restless and upset with it, so the renewed focus on Benghazi is probably not just campaign fodder for 2014.Warchicken posted:Wrong. The NSA thing was all Obama, the republicans never had anything to do with it at all and were demanding it stop from the get go. The democrats won't release information about it, why not???? Republicans have never been in support of NSA spying or secrecy at all. Vote republican in 2016 for are country. BUSH 2112 posted:I doubt they'd use anything about the NSA as a reason to impeach Obama, though. It can so easily be linked directly back to Bush, and the GOP establishment obviously really, really wants Jebus to run. Who can blame them, Romney has been out there in pre-primary mode. I never thought he'd actually run in 2016, but after reading Double Down, I actually think he really plans to do it.  amanasleep posted:But I don't really understand that reasoning, since the political calculus of impeachment doesn't change at all unless you have enough senate votes to convict. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:That's a thing that'll never happen. It'd actually be politically diabolical, but neither political party is generally interested in doing anything other than hoping it goes away. While I do admit it would be funny to impeach Obama on the NSA scandal, one of the many things that he's terrible on, the only thing Republicans would ever impeach him on is Benghazi. Never mind that they can't explain the scandal or how what happened is even a crime in a coherent manner, that they shout about it like demented schizophrenics about the aliens in their heads as they piss themselves or that the majority of Americans don't even know what the gently caress Benghazi is since it has been nearly two years. So like most everything else the GOP does, it is completely devoid of all logic, the complete wrong way to go about things and doomed to failure. I do want the GOP to try though. The best case scenario for the GOP securing the senate is to devote all their time and energy to try and impeach Obama on Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
The NSA scandal would be an interesting one if only for all the Bush admin officials to come out of the woodwork and constantly defend Obama on Fox News.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The NSA scandal would be an interesting one if only for all the Bush admin officials to come out of the woodwork and constantly defend Obama on Fox News. Or you know, Reagan and Bush era officials too.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm almost certain he meant if Republican's gained a majority in the Senate. Ding ding ding. It's less that they are so totally crazy (though they are that), it's that the NSA scandal dropped during Obama's tenure due to Snowden and the Right Wing freaked out because Obama's fascist America was spying on good Conservative Americans. It's an easy sell. And the way Cheney drafted the whole NSA-deal, it is shady as gently caress and pretty clearly extra-Constitutional. Impeaching a Democrat for extra-Constitutional spying would be a sweet, sweet revenge for Nixon. It's a huge deal for both establishment Republicans (Nixon's revenge) and a huge deal for Tea Partiers (who hate the NSA spying on white men) as well as every Republican ever (Impeaching Obama!). Slam dunk. It won't hurt Bush because 1) Who? 2) Why are you bringing up the past? 3) It was a different time and 4) When Bush did it, it was different. Edit: Also, 5) I was against it when Bush did it, and Obama's expansion of the program is unconscionable! Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 03:42 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:37
|
|