|
 This goes on and on  "He's a Canadian" *jaws hit floor*  Someone posted this monstrosity in response  Anyone who doesn't mind some right wing insanity popping up in their news feed should check out the group. It's a constant spiral of dismissing the EPA while invoking Reagan and other fun stuff. They're also very impressed with him signing up for national healthcare  
Donovan Trip fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Mar 30, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
who wants to bet "dale rice" when pressed will turn out to be one of those people who's "1/8th blackfoot indian"
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
TedIs45: It will be a great debate weapon! For Ted!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:To be fair, if you're apparently going to draw legislative inspiration from Batman comic books, the storyline where the Joker talks Iran into making him their ambassador so that he has diplomatic immunity isn't the worst place to start. Interesting, does that actually work? I would assume that wouldn't require legislation to stop. Doesn't the country receiving the ambassador have to recognise and acknowledge the Ambassadors credentials, usually at a formal ceremony. You can't just send anyone and they have to accept. Besides which you can expel them any time you like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Hmm, this here Batman comic about a billionaire playboy ninja inventor crimefighting assassin is starting to sound a mite unrealistic in its treatment of international protocol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Under Cruz's bill, if the Ambassador tries to get off the plane in the US and claim diplomatic immunity, any American is allowed to shoot him and say, "It's just been revoked  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
The plan involves the Joker showing up to the UN in robes and a turban and laughing while Batman curses his inability to harm him because of diplomatic immunity. Also, this is simply meant to distract Batman so the terrorists can nuke Gotham. I feel like I have to clarify this was a 1988 storyline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Tell me it was a Frank Miller storyline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Under Cruz's bill, if the Ambassador tries to get off the plane in the US and claim diplomatic immunity, any American is allowed to shoot him and say, "It's just been revoked It's taken almost thirty years, but finally, reality is getting ready to mirror the Lethal Weapon films. All we need is Cruz with an 80's mullet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
I'm curious to know how the Republicans honestly rate their chances at the white house. The relatively (small m millionaire) rich parents of one of my good friends who are top end donors for the state party have already decided to not donate anything nationally this year, since they don't like Bush or the likely candidates in case Bush fails. They also think John Thune is the absolute best candidate for president because he is "globally respected", so they might not have their fingers on the pulse of the party as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Deki posted:I'm curious to know how the Republicans honestly rate their chances at the white house. Sean Trende is about as honest an analyst as it gets on the right. Here's his take. quote:The median congressional district has a PVI of R+2. This means that the easiest winning House coalition for the Democrats involves sweeping all of the Democratic-leaning seats, evenly matched seats, and R+1 seats, then winning 12 of the 14 R+2 seats. If they lose any of those seats, they have to make it up with a win in a district that is R+3 or greater. To put this in perspective, Republicans control half of the D+2 seats, 75 percent of the D+1 seats, half of the “even” seats, 75 percent of the R+1 seats, and all of the R+2 seats. Democrats hold only five seats that are R+3 or greater. Trende tends to hold that the demographic swing seen in the last two elections was the result of a unique Obama coalition of unusually large minority and youth voters (combined with a mysterious drought of white, middle class voters) that will be difficult to replicate and 2016 will look more like 2004 than 2012. It's possible that he's correct about this and we'll need to wait for the exit polls on election night to find out. It's also possible that he's incorrect and there is a lasting demographic advantage for the Democratic party that will make it impossible for Republicans to win the Presidency without a major ideological shift. Likely, the truth is somewhere.... in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Sean Trende is about as honest an analyst as it gets on the right. Here's his take. The bolded part was more or less the core reasoning behind "unskewing" the 2012 polling and didn't turn out to be particularly valid then, I fail to see why it should be given any more credence now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Gotta let them keep unskewing their polls, how else will Ted Cruz rocket to victory in every state? Or anyone really. Unskew them enough and you realize how much of a political steamroller [INSERT CANDIDATE NAME HERE] is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Well it was still an Obama election at the time. Unskewing in 2012 would have been too early because the main part of the theory was still active: Obama was uniquely suited to engaging minorities and the under 30 set. We'll see more in 2016. While I don't think this theory is correct, I also don't think it's wrong. Democrats have been riding Obama's coattails with minority voting and have done only a little more to secure their votes other than "not be racist republicans." It's pretty likely the demographic shift will continue to be noticeable but not a sea change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Sean Trende is about as honest an analyst as it gets on the right. Here's his take. This is probably the most prudent analysis I've seen in a while of the likelihood of either party controlling all three branches. A higher likelihood of the Presidency held by a Democrat, yes, but the other two branches being held by the other party, even more likely. In essence, this frozen, dysfunctional system of governance we are experiencing is unlikely to change, going past 2020 and more. 2008-2010 was a freak occurance, destined to occur only every several decades or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:TedIs45: It will be a great debate weapon! For Ted!!! *It's funny, because Hillary Clinton actually will be the 44th person to hold the Oval Office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
eternalname posted:who wants to bet "dale rice" when pressed will turn out to be one of those people who's "1/8th blackfoot indian" Don't be silly. Those type of people are never more than a self stated 1/16 but more generally frame it as "part" until pressed. Lot's of blond and blue eyed American Indians who need an SPF of 30+ running around. Shageletic posted:This is probably the most prudent analysis I've seen in a while of the likelihood of either party controlling all three branches. A higher likelihood of the Presidency held by a Democrat, yes, but the other two branches being held by the other party, even more likely. In essence, this frozen, dysfunctional system of governance we are experiencing is unlikely to change, going past 2020 and more. 2008-2010 was a freak occurance, destined to occur only every several decades or so. As long as the Democrats hold the white house for that extended period of time, it's only a matter of time until they control 2 of the 3 branches. Didn't Reed get a whole lot of Obama judges confirmed, somewhat alleviating our backlog of vacancies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Gyges posted:As long as the Democrats hold the white house for that extended period of time, it's only a matter of time until they control 2 of the 3 branches. Didn't Reed get a whole lot of Obama judges confirmed, somewhat alleviating our backlog of vacancies? Sure did, thanks Sen. Cruz! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Gyges posted:As long as the Democrats hold the white house for that extended period of time, it's only a matter of time until they control 2 of the 3 branches. Didn't Reed get a whole lot of Obama judges confirmed, somewhat alleviating our backlog of vacancies? Yes, that session is responsible for 2/3rds of Obama's judicial nominees that were confirmed. The vacancy rate is about 5% currently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:The bolded part was more or less the core reasoning behind "unskewing" the 2012 polling and didn't turn out to be particularly valid then, I fail to see why it should be given any more credence now. I mean saying it is an Obama coalition, or rather Campaign Obama coalition 08, isn't a horrible theory. Obama won about 5 million less votes in 2012 than in 2008, but Romney only scored a million more votes than McCain. So there's about 4 million voters who voted in 08 but not in 12. And we also know that, despite the repeated press releases of OFA saying "we're not going away" between POTUS years they...pretty much did, so there was no energizing Obama voters or even sharing valuable voter information between OFA and Democratic campaigns. And now OFA is some kind of non-partisan organization all together so it is very possible that that information is completely inaccessible to future candidates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
eternalname posted:who wants to bet "dale rice" when pressed will turn out to be one of those people who's "1/8th blackfoot indian"  He goes from complaining about an oppressive government violating his people, straight into proudly declaring being a member of that very same government's primary apparatus for being able to violate his people. It's not even a new sentence. It's literally separated only by a comma.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Okay I know this is a Hillary is 44 joke* but I forget the exact context. http://ask.metafilter.com/111261/Why-is-it-Great-news-For-John-McCain
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Gyges posted:As long as the Democrats hold the white house for that extended period of time, it's only a matter of time until they control 2 of the 3 branches. Didn't Reed get a whole lot of Obama judges confirmed, somewhat alleviating our backlog of vacancies? Guess how many have been confirmed this year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
"Trende" is an amazing name for an analyst to have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Don't be silly. Those type of people are never more than a self stated 1/16 but more generally frame it as "part" until pressed. Lot's of blond and blue eyed American Indians who need an SPF of 30+ running around. Anyway its possible this guy is legit, there's no shortage of government conspiracy theorists among NA population for what should be obvious reasons. Equally possible he's not. Being a minority is not proof against stupidity, lunacy, or voting against your interests. Inferior Third Season posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Trende tends to hold that the demographic swing seen in the last two elections was the result of a unique Obama coalition of unusually large minority and youth voters (combined with a mysterious drought of white, middle class voters) that will be difficult to replicate and 2016 will look more like 2004 than 2012. Which implies that the inherent Dem demographic advantage is real, and that it's a matter of turnout.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
There's also a shitload of people in Texas, at least, who are "1/16th Cherokee" because they actually show a physical trait or two that suggest black ancestry, but you can't go talking about THAT, now can you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:
That's probably just because his period key seems to be broken 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:There's also a shitload of people in Texas, at least, who are "1/16th Cherokee" because they actually show a physical trait or two that suggest black ancestry, but you can't go talking about THAT, now can you? The mythical Cherokee Princess that lurks in family trees throughout the American South.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Someone posted this monstrosity in response Jesus that image has been through it. I wonder what the chain of painstaking screenshots/MSPaint recaptioning was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
New Ted Cruz ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-AncjlTHpY THIS IS OUR FIGHT
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Ted Cruz constantly looks like he's wearing a mask and it's highly disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Guess how many have been confirmed this year. I'm guessing 0 because McConnell's use of Shell is super effective
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:Ted Cruz constantly looks like he's wearing a mask and it's highly disturbing. Elvira tweeted this 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Oracle posted:That's a lot more common than you may think. You can easily be blond and blue-eyed and have a full-blooded grandparent or two, and blood quanta is not the sole determinate of tribal status, tribes have adopted people throughout recorded history, and if they changed this to some blood quanta it would decimate quite a few of them. Must be virtually ubiquitous, because I'm the whitest motherfucker who ever whited, and one of my great^3-grandparents was full-blood Cherokee. Or maybe it's great^4, I can't remember and at that level of remoteness it doesn't really matter, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:Ted Cruz constantly looks like he's wearing a mask and it's highly disturbing. its a mask of makeup to make him look more white
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:New Ted Cruz ad  Not the best still for your video. Looks like something out of Wizards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:Ted Cruz constantly looks like he's wearing a mask and it's highly disturbing. Whenever he talks its like a House of Cards satire of patronizing campaign pandering, but unironically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
The chroma range on Ted Cruz's face makes a mockery of Youtube and JPG compression, and that loving owns
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
This picture would look exactly the same on a 256 color monitor. This is life, this is happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:15
|
|