|
So will we one day look back fondly on Campaign Hillary the way we do for Campaign Obama? Because I'm really liking Campaign Hillary.
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
^^^^are you surprised she'd say that??Fulchrum posted:B-b-but she once got fooled into voting for a WAR! Yeah it's only one of the biggest foreign policy gently caress-ups ever. Heh, can't believe some people are still hung up about it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
It's almost as if Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and is pledging to do things that are in line with the platform of the Democratic party 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
I'm having trouble thinking of who could have standing to initiate a case aimed at leading to something that overturns the CU ruling.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
the shadow toker posted:Given that the establishment plays a much bigger role in selecting candidates than the evangelical base (although it's sure loud and consistent in picking losers) I think Rubio is by far the most threatening candidate. Rubio can't win Hispanics in a general election unless he supports Immigration Reform. People are really loving sick of it and Obama pushing it has given Hillary a sure winner there against Rubio. If we get to a debate between the two and Rubio is forced to attack that he will lose many Hispanic votes. Overall Rubio is just way too conservative for Hispanics in every way and form. Obamacare is very popular amongst latinos as is the opening up of Cuba. Rubio loses heavily on those positions as long as Hillary pushes them. I feel the whole police violence thing is also definitely something that is in the mind of latinos and depending on how Rubio postures himself there it could hurt him. PerpetualSelf fucked around with this message at 02:39 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Alex DeLarge posted:Yeah it's only one of the biggest foreign policy gently caress-ups ever. Heh, can't believe some people are still hung up about it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Woah, you guys are saying that Hillary Clinton is opposed to the Citizen's United ruling? A case which was about the group's right to air this movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOYcM1z5fTs Big, if true.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Can someone give me a reason to not fear a Marco Rubio candidacy? Initially I dismissed him out of hand because he committed the cardinal sin of not being old and white, but he's actually managed to run a campaign so far not riddled with mistakes and other than inexperience he has no obvious flaws. Marco Rubio's Foreign Policy isn't very palatable since it's 100% on board with more war in the Middle East, preferably yesterday. Remember he and Cotton tag teamed McConnell in an idiotic attempt to tie recognition of Israel to any Iran deal. Also he's been just this side of a petulant child on easing the Cuba embargo. Also he's going to Republican it up in an election just as well as any candidate not named Cruz or Paul. He is among the best bets to actually win the election for the Republicans, but considering a field the phrase damning with faint praise is not nearly adequate to convey the situation. Plus being a Freshman Senator who just announced his candidacy, it's way, way to early to chicken little it up. Give the man time to step all over his dick on a national stage or get opposition researched to hell and back. Rumors abound of skeletons in shallow graves from back when he ran for Senate. Among them are ties to Obama's scandalous friend Rezko. There's lots of stuff that could sink him in the primary, like suffering from the temporary insanity of not believing South American immigrants to be demonic, job stealing, anchor baby having, ISIS terrorists with calves the size of cantaloupes. Zwabu posted:Jeb Bush is coming across as a lazy candidate. As if his approach were that none of this matters until he officially announces and he can phone it in until then. Even retaining all the major neocon Iraq players from his brother's administration seems lazy. Yes, each party has a somewhat limited talent pool, but it shouldn't be impossible to avoid having Wolfowitz and the most recognizable names anywhere near his candidacy. Jeb is being a lazy candidate because he's currently trying not to candidate at all so he can continue to build his silly Right to Rise brand into an electoral juggernaut with ridiculous millions ready to totally not coordinate with his campaign once it actually starts. He's fully aware that everything the candidates do right now is all but irrelevant, and he's still soaking up the invisible primary stage donors and infrastructure while the clown car travels around in circles. He could 100% implode like a supernova once he officially jumps into the race, but right now he's not actually campaigning campaigning.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Sorry Joe. Thought it would be good thread material. Clearly not up to your standards I see, however.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
site posted:Sorry Joe. Thought it would be good thread material. Clearly not up to your standards I see, however. Oh, it's great to see her answering questions and taking actual positions. This one isn't particularly shocking.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Jeb Bush's actions right now are never going to be irrelevant in a general when his name is attached to the worst presidency in the history of this nation and he's campaigning against the wife of what is remembered as one of the best recent ones. In a Clinton - Bush general election no amount of money is going to get Bush elected. I'm praying for him to win the primary. His political machine no matter how much money it has will never be as good as Clinton's. Especially if it retains the structure Obama had in place. Obama + Clinton machine is the thing of dreams or nightmares depending on your side. Bush's machine wasn't all that great honestly. He got by based on the incompetency of the people going up against and the memory of 9/11, but the Clintons are no laughing matter. Hillary will demolish Jeb in any debate.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:See, I really don't get this. Because as far as excuses go, "the President lied to me" is a pretty drat good one. Funny how that Obama guy seemed to figure out it was a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm having trouble thinking of who could have standing to initiate a case aimed at leading to something that overturns the CU ruling. It's pretty simple. A state passes a law that violates CU, it goes to a newly liberal majority SCOTUS, and the justices kill CU.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:It's pretty simple. A state passes a law that violates CU, it goes to a newly liberal majority SCOTUS, and the justices kill CU. Sounds highly unlikely, because states have rarely been bastions of campaign restrictions.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm having trouble thinking of who could have standing to initiate a case aimed at leading to something that overturns the CU ruling. Congress passes a law regulating political donations, some PAC challenges it, and the Supreme Court says, "Oh, wait, CU was stupid and a mistake, our bad, go ahead and regulate political donations in a nonpartisan manner that comports with existing principles of free speech."
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
sullat posted:Congress passes a law regulating political donations, some PAC challenges it, and the Supreme Court says, "Oh, wait, CU was stupid and a mistake, our bad, go ahead and regulate political donations in a nonpartisan manner that comports with existing principles of free speech." What likely congress in the next say 8 years is going to actually pass any sort of working restrictions on political donations? They're all absolutely filthy in it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
sullat posted:Congress passes a law regulating political donations, some PAC challenges it, and the Supreme Court says, "Oh, wait, CU was stupid and a mistake, our bad, go ahead and regulate political donations in a nonpartisan manner that comports with existing principles of free speech." Hell why even go through that effort, just get an existing PAC to sue saying that what measly regulations exist now are too restrictive.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What likely congress in the next say 8 years is going to actually pass any sort of working restrictions on political donations? They're all absolutely filthy in it. I thought you were asking who would have standing to sue to overturn Citizens; not whether or not it will happen. Now that I think about it, though, it's more likely that the IRS will issue some new rules regarding "political activity" and then try and enforce them. Word on the street is that American Crossroads wasn't rubberstamped as an exempt organization, that could easily trigger a challenge.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
sullat posted:I thought you were asking who would have standing to sue to overturn Citizens; not whether or not it will happen. Now that I think about it, though, it's more likely that the IRS will issue some new rules regarding "political activity" and then try and enforce them. Word on the street is that American Crossroads wasn't rubberstamped as an exempt organization, that could easily trigger a challenge. Thankfully that's not how the tax code works.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:"A Democratic member" who also happens to be the chairwoman of the commission. It's obvious enough to anyone watching that avoiding PAC coordination is a wink wink, nudge nudge situation, who do you think you're kidding? Jeb Bush is very clearly running for president and even with his recent slip-up he's still probably going to just keep running his Super PAC and argue that he didn't formally announce and he has clarfied that he misspoke and totally isn't running for president yet. PerpetualSelf posted:Jeb Bush's actions right now are never going to be irrelevant in a general when his name is attached to the worst presidency in the history of this nation and he's campaigning against the wife of what is remembered as one of the best recent ones. I know it'd just get played across media as "look at that shrill harpy Hillary" but I want to see her just loving rip in to whomever she's debating, especially Jeb. If it's Jeb I want opening salvos along the lines of "your brother was worst POTUS in recent history and you've filled your team with members of his administration, including those who lied to get us in to Iraq. You talk about small government and keeping the government out of people's lives yet you made Terry Schavio your own personal crusade, passing highly unconstitutional laws that your own judges immediately struck down." It'll never happen though because in the debates both sides make a bunch of bullshit demands about how the debates are handled, including poo poo that the candidates aren't allowed to bring up or certain questions that the moderator won't ask. I'd be stunned if Jeb's horrific meddling in the Terry Schavio situation isn't demanded as being off the table at the (general election) debates.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
The debates aren't even really debates, they are essentially just a series of stump speeches given by each candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm having trouble thinking of who could have standing to initiate a case aimed at leading to something that overturns the CU ruling. What if instead of getting the justices to listen to a case and pull a BvB, just have Congress pass campaign finance laws, or would it take an amendment to get around the judges
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Sounds highly unlikely, because states have rarely been bastions of campaign restrictions. Montana? Connecticut?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Thankfully that's not how the tax code works. Except for the parts where it is? You may recall the IRS targetting scandal from a few years ago? Not as visceral as Benghazi gate, but has certainly consumed as much investigation time? You may not recall that the IRS's proposed rules regarding political action by exempt organizations was greeted by a storm of controversy because, well, frankly it is kind of a boring story, but the IRS does have to figure out which exempt organizations can do political activity and how much, since it absolutely is part of the tax code.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Alex DeLarge posted:Funny how that Obama guy seemed to figure out it was a bad idea. Wait, are you actually saying this will be the Republican response? Hillary: "I voted for the Iraq war because your brother's administration presented falsified evidence." Jeb: "Well that Obama guy was able to see through our bullshit." Because in the general it will make absolutely no difference that people on the left were opposed to the war from the beginning. e: Especially if they weren't even in the federal government at the time. Vienna Circlejerk fucked around with this message at 04:25 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
sullat posted:Except for the parts where it is? You may recall the IRS targetting scandal from a few years ago? Not as visceral as Benghazi gate, but has certainly consumed as much investigation time? How does that relate? quote:You may not recall that the IRS's proposed rules regarding political action by exempt organizations was greeted by a storm of controversy because, well, frankly it is kind of a boring story, but the IRS does have to figure out which exempt organizations can do political activity and how much, since it absolutely is part of the tax code. Limited guidance as to what 501(c)s can do, yes. CU would not affect the outcome of any litigation involving that. And American Crossroads is a 527, which wouldn't be affected in any case.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
If Jeb's team doesn't make no talk about Iraq part of their debate demands then they're stupid. A Bush talking about Iraq is just bad, no matter what they're saying and can only lose votes, not gain them. Now is the only time Jeb can talk about Iraq in an attempt to make it a finished deal and have it never come up again while we're still forever and a day away from any actual voting. Paul and Cruz probably are going to find ways to bring it up any chance they get in debates though because it'll hurt him. If he's actually talking to Hillary about Iraq though, he's all kinds of loving up. Series DD Funding posted:Limited guidance as to what 501(c)s can do, yes. CU would not affect the outcome of any litigation involving that. And American Crossroads is a 527, which wouldn't be affected in any case. If the hypothetical Liberal Juggernaut Supreme Court wanted, they could take up just about any tangentially related case and then just make a shockingly broad ruling from it that rules CU moot. Gyges fucked around with this message at 04:41 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:The debates aren't even really debates, they are essentially just a series of stump speeches given by each candidate. This is why we need a series of seven Lincoln-Douglas style debates with a time keeper but no moderator. I'll even let him use a Tele-Prom-Ter!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:This is why we need a series of seven Lincoln-Douglas style debates with a time keeper but no moderator. I'll even let him use a Tele-Prom-Ter! I did L-D in high school and it was some of the most stressful experiences I can remember. I endorse this plan.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Who won't vote for me? You? How 'bout you?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:This is why we need a series of seven Lincoln-Douglas style debates with a time keeper but no moderator. I'll even let him use a Tele-Prom-Ter! I miss Newt, he was the best part of the last election.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
lamentable dustman posted:I miss Newt, he was the best part of the last election. I do too. Fortunately, his Instagram is fantastic. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
I do hope we'll see Hillary rip into the GOP nominee, and I hope it's Cruz. With his swollen ego and how easy it is to bring out his failure, I could see him openly weeping and being unable to continue. He already looks halfway there.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Someone please tell me this was playing.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
YALL EATIN SUPPER AT MA FEET NOW
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
This deserves to create a lot of single issue voters.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Slow night at Coyote Ugly.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:So it turns out W. was the smart one, and JEB really is GOB to his Micheal Bluth. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
I demand to be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 07:11
|
|
