|
fleur_de_leet posted:Robert Reich is teasing a potential run on Facebook. Serious contender, or hopeful pretender? He's a Clinton loyalist. I doubt he runs.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, it's kind of amazing how little he managed to remain ignorant about that revolution in military affairs that happened seventy years ago. For all their wankery about WWII, Republicans sure are good at missing the lessons of that war. To be fair, it might have been a calculated risk that Obama couldn't prepare a snappy comeback - "smaller navy than a century ago" vs some sort of "it's more complicated than that" answer might work. Up until that week, Obama hadn't really been hitting with zingers. He dropped "Romnesia", "Please, proceed Governor", and that bayonets thing in like the same week. Sir Tonk posted:Holy poo poo I would love to see Freep if Bush did this at the convention. Talk about a collective revolt. He'd be better off saying that they're going to decriminalize weed, then all the young white men could justify voting the way they wanted to anyway. Yeah, but does Freep actually matter? If Freep pushes one way and and all the pastors go "he's still worse than that baby-killer Hillary" do you think it's going to seriously depress Republican turnout?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
radical meme posted:One of Cruz's big talking points is that there are "millions of voters" who have sat out the past elections when the GOP nominated a mushy middle of the road candidate and that a true conservative like him would bring those millions out to vote for him. He has talked about these millions of absent voters in the past and he made the same statement in his speech at Liberty. Is there any data anywhere that shows that these "millions of voters" exist anywhere other than in Cruz's warped mind? The idea that they exist is a major part of his imagined road to victory. While just under a million more people voted for Romney than McCain, a couple more million people voted for Bush in 2004 than either McCain or Romney. Which can easily be explained by mortality rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
fleur_de_leet posted:Robert Reich is teasing a potential run on Facebook. Serious contender, or hopeful pretender? Positioning himself for veep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Real Name Grover posted:Wait, hold on. How did "rock music" respond to 9/11 anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Real Name Grover posted:Wait, hold on. How did "rock music" respond to 9/11 anyway? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLDDvlcNSMo
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
fleur_de_leet posted:Robert Reich is teasing a potential run on Facebook. Serious contender, or hopeful pretender?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Yeah, but does Freep actually matter? If Freep pushes one way and and all the pastors go "he's still worse than that baby-killer Hillary" do you think it's going to seriously depress Republican turnout? Oh no, they don't matter to anyone outside of their hundred or so users. They're just funny to watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:"We have these things called aircraft carriers. PLANES LAND ON THEM." Something I love about this moment is that the entirety of the right seemed to get sent into fits over it. The base started strawmanning by seizing on the fact that the military still uses bayonets as if A) anyone cares B) Obama said we don't use them at all, as opposed to saying we have fewer. The establishment tried to double down on the idea while the actual Navy brass said the "fewest ships since 1917!!!!" meme was a bunch of bullshit (Ray Mabus likened it to comparing the telegraph to the smartphone) and even engaged in a bit of strawmanning of their own by telling the Naval shipyards Obama doesn't care about you a-bloo-bloo-bllooooo. Like I understood debates are now a burn contest but I don't think I'd seen anything like that and "Please proceed governor" sending a whole movement into a rage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:This has been a Republican stand-by call for nearly forty years. It's one of their favorite fictions that if the 'silent majority' would simply stand up and be counted, they would win in a landslide in every race. That way they're the clear majority being unfairly oppressed by the minority because, darn it, the last candidate just wasn't conservative ENOUGH. IE there's zero proof at all but it fits their narrative. It's not just a Republican stand-by. I have literally heard this from communists, socialists, libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans. Everyone who refuses to accept that compromise is a necessary part of politics eventually hooks their wagon to the idea that the people who don't bother to vote will magically turn out to be on their side, and all you have to do is be stringent and absolute to get them enthused and then you'll get your absolute majority and never ever have to compromise again. Meanwhile, that group of people who never bothers to vote continues to never bother to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
radical meme posted:One of Cruz's big talking points is that there are "millions of voters" who have sat out the past elections when the GOP nominated a mushy middle of the road candidate and that a true conservative like him would bring those millions out to vote for him. He has talked about these millions of absent voters in the past and he made the same statement in his speech at Liberty. Is there any data anywhere that shows that these "millions of voters" exist anywhere other than in Cruz's warped mind? The idea that they exist is a major part of his imagined road to victory. Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics is the one who offered that post 2012 explanation, the data journalism crowd batted it around for a bit
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:My god, scary thought: Whereas Democrats have traditionally gone for the underdog and Republicans for the establishment figure, the two parties may have switched and now Cruz is the Republican underdog running a conservative insurgency of a campaign against Jeb's Clinton '08 style of announcing in the summer. when did weed get legalized in illinois
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:It's not just a Republican stand-by. I have literally heard this from communists, socialists, libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans. Everyone who refuses to accept that compromise is a necessary part of politics eventually hooks their wagon to the idea that the people who don't bother to vote will magically turn out to be on their side, and all you have to do is be stringent and absolute to get them enthused and then you'll get your absolute majority and never ever have to compromise again. ...except that on the liberal side there's actually some truth to the idea, and all you need for proof is to look at midterms vs. Presidential election years. Compare turnout percentages, especially minority turnout, in 2008 and 2012 with 2010 and 2014. There are people that ONLY vote in Presidential years, who, if they bothered to show up during midterms, could potentially have prevented the disaster that is the current Congress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:...except that on the liberal side there's actually some truth to the idea, and all you need for proof is to look at midterms vs. Presidential election years. Compare turnout percentages, especially minority turnout, in 2008 and 2012 with 2010 and 2014. There are people that ONLY vote in Presidential years, who, if they bothered to show up during midterms, could potentially have prevented the disaster that is the current Congress. And there are people who don't vote at all who could have gotten McCain or Romney elected. What's the point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics is the one who offered that post 2012 explanation, the data journalism crowd batted it around for a bit I wish people would stop giving this low rent Franz Luntz exposure...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:when did weed get legalized in illinois
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:I'll just echo that no one seemed to care, and the role of the president seemed more like celebrity figure head after Clinton. Everyone was so comfortable back then in every way, it just really did not seem to matter. I remember watching the debates in my dorm with two other people. One guy was a big time Republican and he wasn't even crazy (yet). W was running as a "compassionate conservative" and Gore was basically sleepwalking. No one was excited for Gore, but no one was excited for Bush either. The running joke was that they were the same, what's the difference, vote for whoever. Vote for Nader, why not? But no, there was no pre-ordained candidate like Clinton. Certainly not Gore, who was just an awful candidate at the time. It was only after he lost, disappeared from the scene for a while and grew a crazy man beard that Gore found his voice. Had 2004 era Gore run in 2000, he would have cleaned the floor with Bush. None of the above, gently caress it cut the cord
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
He's catching on!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Are those chairs blocked off because they're in the spray zone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
They're chairs full of invisible Obamas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Are those chairs blocked off because they're in the spray zone? Maybe he is afraid of getting glitterbombed
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
They don't see race, so those chairs look like they're occupied by black people to them
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Are those chairs blocked off because they're in the spray zone? Rand literally blew the people in those chairs away
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
I had to read the story that headline is from and there are tons of different "Rand Paul receives standing ovation at [place]" articles to choose from. He seems like a real popular guy amongst conservatives and liberals alike; I'm sure he'll get the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:More for Gore or the son of a drug lord How'd that work out for the people who didn't vote that time around?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Rand Paul supporters are finally bringing "...and then everybody stood up and clapped" to the big game.  mcmagic posted:How'd that work out for the people who didn't vote that time around? Choosing none of the above generally means you aren't happy with either one. The fact that one of them turned out to be a real turd is affirmation, not condemnation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It may just be optimism on my part, but if it ends up being Bush v Clinton, Hillary should be able to hammer in over and over that there's no daylight between W and Jeb. The general campaign gives candidates the advantage of being able to address each other more or less directly (if one candidate raises a question, the press will get an answer from the other one or excoriate them for dodging it). I dare (and presumably Hillary will as well) anyone to substantively explain the policy differences between W and Jeb in a way that will resonate. What is Jeb going to say? "Well, I'm going to cut taxes even more", "I'm going to deregulate and privatize more than my brother", "I'm going to spend so much on defense that the world will be scared of us"? And we've all seen the adviser Venn diagram, the same exact thing is going to happen for domestic policy. What's the response there, "Well, unlike my brother I'm hiring these people to tell me what not to do"? I don't think that stuff is going to fly outside of a Republican primary. What Bush'll say is "do you want to keep what you have?" to middle-class Americans who are afraid of their taxes going up. Also Bush has been removed (but not really) from politics for awhile so he'll try to set himself apart from the Republicans in Congress. He's not going to take responsibility for the lunatics there. Instead he's "not going to play the Washington blame game."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Rand Paul supporters are finally bringing "...and then everybody stood up and clapped" to the big game. The implication is that there is no difference between Gore and Bush is just an ignorant denial of reality. Saying "I'm not happy with either one so gently caress it" is foolishness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The implication is that there is no difference between Gore and Bush is just an ignorant denial of reality. Saying "I'm not happy with either one so gently caress it" is foolishness. It's a rap lyric so we're in a thought experiment here, but if a person really truly honestly held and continued to hold the opinion that there was no real difference because both of them are trash, you can't really get on their case because one of them turned out to be trash and the other is an unknown. If anything, they're vindicated. I'm of the opinion that Gore would've been better (because poo poo, who wouldn't be?) but I don't assume every person who says "I hate both" secretly supports one side without any other evidence. I'm a liberal democrat but I certainly don't think "neither" is that crazy of a response for a modern American. poo poo sucks all over. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:It's a rap lyric so we're in a thought experiment here, but if a person really truly honestly held and continued to hold the opinion that there was no real difference because both of them are trash, you can't really get on their case because one of them turned out to be trash and the other is an unknown. If anything, they're vindicated. I knew a lot of people in 2000 who's politics were greatly influenced by listening to Rage lyrics. I'm probably one of those people to some extent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:So he suddenly really liked country music in the wake of 9-11, I wonder what his thoughts were about U2, a band that bridged classic rock with alternative rock in the early 90s and then played the Superbowl halftime show with a very large tribute to the victims of 9-11. Are u talkin' U2 to me, Ted Cruz?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Well as a liberal Democrat I say bummer, but I'm not in the business of dictating other people's opinions and/or votes. Including people who say "neither". Which as far as I'm concerned is a completely understandable response to American politics today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
 Even Mike Lee won't endorse Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Huh? I thought Lee was his only friend in Washington...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
I dunno, it seems pretty early for an endorsement and Mike Lee is probably delusional enough to think his endorsement is worth something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
richardfun posted:Huh? I thought Lee was his only friend in Washington... I think recently Lee has tried to be less of an rear end in a top hat who everybody hates and endorsing the rear end in a top hat who everybody hates is a bad way to do that...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
CNN Breaking News posted:GOP Sen. Ted Cruz tells CNN's Dana Bash he will sign up for coverage through Obamacare law he has fought to kill. OK...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Thought that was a well formed joke. Nope, genuine real life. quote:Cruz's campaign appeared caught by surprise Monday by questions about the senator's health care. Asked how Cruz's family would be covered after his wife lost her Goldman Sachs benefits, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler repeatedly answered that he didn't know. It really is Republican primary season now, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Thought that was a well formed joke. Nope, genuine real life. A video representation of the Cruz campaign launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Zcn-aIitw
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:13
|
|
