|
Rick Perry engages in hypotheticals, spits on the sacrifices made by Our Troops:quote:“You know, this whole issue of — this question that gets asked, ‘If you — with what you know today, would you have ordered the invasion of Iraq?’” Perry told a breakfast audience here. "I think if you look what’s happened today, and the answer is no. I mean, with that hindsight, no, I would not have done that.”
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
I guess this goes in here? So a question I have been having, it seems that it is being generally accepted that there is a scandal involving donations to The Clinton Foundation even though there is no actual evidence to suggest impropriety and a completely reasonable explination for why the same groups would donate to the Clinton Foundation and pay for a speech by the Clintons, groups that see value in the work The Clinton Foundation does would also like to hear from the people running the Clinton Foundation. But the bigger question for me is, doesn't there have to be a scandal at the center of a scandal? As far as I know the Clinton Foundation isn't not only non-controversial, it is extremely well respected for the work it does globally on things like health and clean water. This isn't like a Clinton Super PAC or a partisan charity, they vaccinate and provide clean water to children in Africa and the such, what would be the reason for not donating to the Clinton Foundation? As far as I can tell the only controversial thing about the Clinton Foundation is it has the name Clinton on it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Rick Perry engages in hypotheticals, spits on the sacrifices made by Our Troops: "I wouldn't have went into Iraq, but we should have stayed longer."- A smart man with glasses.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:
Another recent scandal occurred when Hillary didn't tip at Chipotle, so there's your answer. Vienna Circlejerk fucked around with this message at 18:56 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Rick Perry engages in hypotheticals, spits on the sacrifices made by Our Troops: you know, he made a perfectly good answer and came off as way better then jeb took it and then he had to keep talking everyone always has to keep talking
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:What's your take on the government shutdown? Well, it fired up certain elements of our base, and certainly didn't hurt us in the elections. So... thumbs up as a political move.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:As far as I can tell the only controversial thing about the Clinton Foundation is it has the name Clinton on it. It's the 90s all over again, brings back fond memories.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Well, it fired up certain elements of our base, and certainly didn't hurt us in the elections. What's it like, identifying politically with people who hate people who have sex?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:"I wouldn't have went into Iraq, but we should have stayed longer."- A smart man with glasses.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:For all the dumb things Republicans say, this isn't really one of them. You can think that going to war is a bad idea, and also have opinions on how to best wage it if it happens, anyway. The dumb thing, of course, is that he's about 12 years too late on being against the invasion in the first place. It is if you are aware of the Status of Forces Agreement.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Well, it fired up certain elements of our base, and certainly didn't hurt us in the elections. So, the other half, do you believe it was a good thing to have the government shutdown, aside from the temporary political gain? I'm honestly curious.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:What's it like, identifying politically with people who hate people who have sex? I'm assuming you voted for Obama in 2008, you tell me.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I'm assuming you voted for Obama in 2008, you tell me. I have it on good authority that Obama has had sex at least twice
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:So, the other half, do you believe it was a good thing to have the government shutdown, aside from the temporary political gain? Personally, there are valid times and reasons to shut down the government, this wasn't one of them. The most telling thing is that we got almost nothing substantive from a policy perspective, and we aired a whole bunch of intra-party dirty laundry at the same time. I'm not even sure we actually got any political gain, just a lack of a political loss. That being said, the promised implosion and voter backlash that would throw up out into the cold never materialized.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Rick Perry engages in hypotheticals, spits on the sacrifices made by Our Troops: The man is incapable of finishing a sentence without starting another one. Senf fucked around with this message at 20:01 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
I'm not hearing much about what you think of turning closing down the government into a political tool, since it seriously affected a huge number of people. Turning the conversation into whether it made tactical sense doesn't address that it's bad to burn a country down just so you can be king of the ashes. Also, about the Iraq war question, I have to begrudgingly admit that someone can consistently believe Iraq should not have been invaded but once it was invaded it became America's problem, and that leaving "early" allowed the situation to degenerate. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's not incoherent, and as for the status of forces agreement I imagine Republicans would see Obama failing to negotiate a new agreement to keep American troops in the country as a diplomatic failure of his, presumably one that they'd somehow have avoided (probably by violently overthrowing any Iraqi government that tried to claim they couldn't be there if they wanted to be).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Personally, there are valid times and reasons to shut down the government  Well I guess our current understanding of the universe doesn't entirely rule out alternate dimension Adolf Hitler coming over and being elected speaker.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
Look, when it's a legitimate reason, Congress has a way of shutting it down. What is so controversial about that?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
I see what you did there.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Oops I made a good-faith post, back to partisan snark then.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
So apparently the buzz around some of my friends who are close to Clinton stuff Texas is that she's seriously courting the possibility of Julian Castro. Are they just talking poo poo because they heard one dude from San Antonio say 'yea Castro's the guy' is there a real chance of that, because I'd be pretty down for Castro as a VP.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Look, when it's a legitimate reason, Congress has a way of shutting it down. What is so controversial about that? Like, at least the right was attempting to leverage an actual meaty issue like healthcare. Dems once shut down the government trying to push the Fairness Doctrine through.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:I think the RNC said it was going to have 8 candidates featured in the primary debates? I can't find where I read that, though. So I would imagine that many of them, after having gotten enough campaign money, will drop out entirely before Iowa. Are there any legal repercussions for just taking the money from your PACs and calling it quits? Because if not this has to be the best scam.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Like, at least the right was attempting to leverage an actual meaty issue like healthcare. That was sixty-five years ago. Can you reference an example that's happened within the last generation? Or at least something more recent than the Dixiecrats being an actual party?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Like, at least the right was attempting to leverage an actual meaty issue like healthcare. Except the right simply didn't want the law to go in to effect period and had no backup plan for the uninsured other than "gently caress em all" and the only thing that saved the GOP from the utter beating it was taking over the shutdown is hat the ACA site was in piss poor shape at launch. Though a year later the ACA was a massive success while the GOP's shutdown only succeeded in costing the country even more money than if they hadn't been a bunch of petulant children. e: vvvv Grooming him for a possible VP pick would make things interesting, especially if Clinton won and then Castro ran in 2024 (or 2020 if Hilary leaves after 1 term). Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So apparently the buzz around some of my friends who are close to Clinton stuff Texas is that she's seriously courting the possibility of Julian Castro. Are they just talking poo poo because they heard one dude from San Antonio say 'yea Castro's the guy' is there a real chance of that, because I'd be pretty down for Castro as a VP. They're certainly grooming Julian for something. VP would be a good place to put him.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Like, at least the right was attempting to leverage an actual meaty issue like healthcare. lol at the idea of the shutdown being anything other than Cruz trying to steal the spotlight and lying to his fellow republicans that he had a plan.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So apparently the buzz around some of my friends who are close to Clinton stuff Texas is that she's seriously courting the possibility of Julian Castro. Are they just talking poo poo because they heard one dude from San Antonio say 'yea Castro's the guy' is there a real chance of that, because I'd be pretty down for Castro as a VP. He balances out her deficiencies, is from a state that will be contested in the future, and it gives him a good base to try for his own Presidential ambitions. It's not a bad choice.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I'm assuming you voted for Obama in 2008, you tell me. What does this mean
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He balances out her deficiencies, is from a state that will be contested in the future, and it gives him a good base to try for his own Presidential ambitions. It's not a bad choice. Yea I'm all for it, it's just the first real rumbles I heard of it that wasn't some San Antonio dude saying 'hey have you heard that Castro is pretty cool, bet Hillary wishes she had a guy like him'.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:That was sixty-five years ago. Can you reference an example that's happened within the last generation? Or at least something more recent than the Dixiecrats being an actual party? Ummm this was in the late eighties but whateves.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So apparently the buzz around some of my friends who are close to Clinton stuff Texas is that she's seriously courting the possibility of Julian Castro. Are they just talking poo poo because they heard one dude from San Antonio say 'yea Castro's the guy' is there a real chance of that, because I'd be pretty down for Castro as a VP. This has been the rumor since at least last year so someone has to have it in mind by now.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Ummm this was in the late eighties but whateves. You mean the shutdown that was almost entirely about funding the Contras and only peripherally about the fairness doctrine?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Except the right simply didn't want the law to go in to effect period and had no backup plan for the uninsured other than "gently caress em all" Who cares we still wiped the floor with you in 2014.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Like, at least the right was attempting to leverage an actual meaty issue like healthcare.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So apparently the buzz around some of my friends who are close to Clinton stuff Texas is that she's seriously courting the possibility of Julian Castro. Are they just talking poo poo because they heard one dude from San Antonio say 'yea Castro's the guy' is there a real chance of that, because I'd be pretty down for Castro as a VP. I've been saying he's going to be the VP choice for months. It makes too much sense not to tap Castro for VP. If not, she's stuck with some boring old white guy like Tim Kaine.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:lol, what happened to "good faith" arguments? That was over the funding of the Contras, try not bullshitting. Also, they weren't trying to push the Fairness Doctrine through; the Fairness Doctrine was already in place, they just wanted the FCC to actually enforce it (which they had mostly stopped doing.) I can't imagine the Republicans trying to shut down the government because the executive stopped enforcing something. Never happen.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You mean the shutdown that was almost entirely about funding the Contras and only peripherally about the fairness doctrine? quote:The House and Senate opposed funding for the Contras and wanted the Federal Communications Commission to renew enforcement of the "Fairness Doctrine". They yielded on the "Fairness Doctrine" issue in exchange for non-lethal aid to the Contras. So if we define the shutdown by the concessions won and claim everything else was "peripheral", our shutdown was primarily about verification of eligibility of subsidies, rather than an attempt to repeal Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Who cares we still wiped the floor with you in 2014.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:So if we define the shutdown by the concessions won and claim everything else was "peripheral", our shutdown was primarily about verification of eligibility of subsidies, rather than an attempt to repeal Obamacare. So where in that shutdown were the Democrats attempting to "push through" a doctrine the FCC had already enacted? They just wanted the president to enforce the laws that already existed, man.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:25
|
|