|
QuoProQuid posted:Coping with the death of your child is extremely difficult and, at the time, what Santorum did was recommended practice according to the American Pregnancy Association. have you ever heard the phrase "Your poison womb is making heaven too loving crowded"? if not google it, look at the first result, and then realize you are fighting a losing battle
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:It will be interesting to see if Kasich is able to make it to the top tier debates. I have doubts. He's competing for the same voters as Jeb!/Rubio/Walker/Christie, and all of them will have as much money if not MORE backing their campaigns. Kasich isn't getting anywhere the first debate, let alone the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I look forward to seeing what effect Obergefell will have as a whole on the Republican party in the elections. Will they be emboldened, demoralized, or unaffected? Will it affect the voter base in any meaningful way? Will Hillary figure out a way to spin this into a positive for her campaign? I really hope whoever wins the nomination doubles down hard against Gay Marriage, because doing so might single handedly ruin their campaign. This ruling is not going to get any less popular as the less crazy opponents of SSM take a breath and look around and notice that it literally hasn't affected them at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Note: almost all of the Republican candidates have launched their campaigns with a personal family story, including Cruz, Jeb!, Jindal, Graham, Carson, Rubio, and Christie. I'm betting this is a reaction to the last cycle where it was assumed that Romney was too impersonal in his campaign. If so, we're in store for a lot more of it over the next year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:have you ever heard the phrase "Your poison womb is making heaven too loving crowded"? if not google it, look at the first result, and then realize you are fighting a losing battle He's right though. There's a galaxy of other things to call him out on. For example when he forced his children to dress up as nerds and made them attend his concession speech in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Note: almost all of the Republican candidates have launched their campaigns with a personal family story, including Cruz, Jeb!, Jindal, Graham, Carson, Rubio, and Christie. I'm betting this is a reaction to the last cycle where it was assumed that Romney was too impersonal in his campaign. If so, we're in store for a lot more of it over the next year. The less I know about Trump's personal life the better. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Hobnob posted:And her love made Christie grow so big, they had to leave their home. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Is there any particular reason why Santorum wouldn't inherit the usual runner up into presumptive nominee spot, other than the fact that he's obviously an unpleasant weirdo with no chance of winning a general election?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Kasich isn't getting anywhere the first debate, let alone the nomination. The first debate's August 6, right? Announcing two weeks beforehand and hoping it bumps you over the threshold is a pretty transparent attempt to game the rules, but I wouldn't be surprised if it works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Is there any particular reason why Santorum wouldn't inherit the usual runner up into presumptive nominee spot, other than the fact that he's obviously an unpleasant weirdo with no chance of winning a general election? He wasn't the establishment first or second choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I look forward to seeing what effect Obergefell will have as a whole on the Republican party in the elections. Will they be emboldened, demoralized, or unaffected? Will it affect the voter base in any meaningful way? Will Hillary figure out a way to spin this into a positive for her campaign? Almost 40% of total Republicans support Same Sex Marriage, according to an article from last year I found in a quick Google. The main group pulling that number down is the 65+ crowd who only support it at around 1 in 5. It's an amazingly silly hill that almost the entire field has now insisted that they shall die upon. Especially since the percentages seem to only be going up, and soon everyone will realize the world has not been destroyed by an angry homophobic god. As a result of the overall population being in favor of same sex marriage by a huge majority, it's certainly going to be something Hillary attacks on in the general. Alter Ego posted:He's competing for the same voters as Jeb!/Rubio/Walker/Christie, and all of them will have as much money if not MORE backing their campaigns. It's hilarious that the establishment group is following the lead of the nutso group and splitting their vote with way too many candidates. Trump may end up with the largest single pool of voters, all of whom are drawn to only the classiest of campaigns. If only Rand was half the insane leprechaun his father was, the Paultards could finally be in the cat seat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Is there any particular reason why Santorum wouldn't inherit the usual runner up into presumptive nominee spot, other than the fact that he's obviously an unpleasant weirdo with no chance of winning a general election? He wasn't a very clear cut number two. Also, he lacked the campaign infrastructure to keep the Santorum flowing during the interim four years. Both Romney and Hillary had organizations that were ready to rise back into action when the time came.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Is there any particular reason why Santorum wouldn't inherit the usual runner up into presumptive nominee spot, other than the fact that he's obviously an unpleasant weirdo with no chance of winning a general election? He's been politically irrelevant for close to a decade, his positions don't align with the establishment orthodoxy, and he doesn't have the financial backing or organizational apparatus to make an impact. He managed to snag runner-up in 2012 by virtue of being the last not-Romney not-Paul standing, against an incredibly weak field. I'd be surprised if he hangs around til Iowa this time, although I'm not sure if he has Foster Freiss backing him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Is there any particular reason why Santorum wouldn't inherit the usual runner up into presumptive nominee spot, other than the fact that he's obviously an unpleasant weirdo with no chance of winning a general election? Mostly because that's more of a coincidence than a rule that has an effect on the primary outcome, much like the purported predictive power of the South Carolina primary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Ray Liotta wearing a loaf of pumpernickel on his head says "stop the madness"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He's right though. There's a galaxy of other things to call him out on. For example when he forced his children to dress up as nerds and made them attend his concession speech in 2008. I find it hard to call out somebody for an event that gave us the best campaign-related photograph of the last 20 years. Sometimes I still look up that pic and it's like seeing an old friend by chance on the street.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He's right though. There's a galaxy of other things to call him out on. For example when he forced his children to dress up as nerds and made them attend his concession speech in 2008. did I say he was wrong???
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's hilarious that the establishment group is following the lead of the nutso group and splitting their vote with way too many candidates. Trump may end up with the largest single pool of voters, all of whom are drawn to only the classiest of campaigns. If only Rand was half the insane leprechaun his father was, the Paultards could finally be in the cat seat. It was a massive miscalculation on Rand's part to think he'd need to be an amalgam of every GOP wing. Now he's just stuck out there between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio somewhere talking about issues that will never bring him any voting bloc ever. Shoulda stuck with the Paultard line and grabbed his guaranteed 15%! I still think that's his tendency to be a Austrian Economist Argle Bargle, he's just overcorrecting to try to get the support he thinks his dad needed from the party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:Who wants more fun with Trump I really want to believe Trump writes all his own tweets, or angrily and loudly dictates them to one of his minions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Also, Bill Kristol thinks Bernie is a stalking horse for Al Gore, so that's wrong, but funny.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Well done Richard Nixon twitter accounts are one of my favourite things. Also, Al Gore is never coming back. He'll be 68 years old in 2016 (and isn't running) and in 2024 he'll be 76. He's also incredibly rich now and doesn't need the hassle, especially after the 2000 debacle, which probably shaved a few years off his lifespan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Did Bernie for yay or nay for the recent TPP or TAA?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
I really hope the Republican race stays relatively tight among the top 3 or so candidates, because a brokered convention would be a dream come true, and this is easily the best shot we've had at one in my entire life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:Who wants more fun with Trump  richardfun posted:I really want to believe Trump writes all his own tweets, or angrily and loudly dictates them to one of his minions. He's got to be doing them himself. Either that or his personal assistant has an interesting sense of humor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
You'd get fired for writing that kind of stuff, they look like someone making fun of him. Anyone but Trump on his campaign would try to cast him in a better light that he does himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:You'd get fired for writing that kind of stuff, they look like someone making fun of him. Anyone but Trump on his campaign would try to cast him in a better light that he does himself. You know, assuming he has a remotely competent campaign staff which hahaha
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
He doesn't even have a campaign staff, much less a competent one. Trump is somehow taking this less seriously than Herman Cain and that dude was quoting Pokemon and doing insane interviews with The Daily Show/Colbert.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:57
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:have you ever heard the phrase "Your poison womb is making heaven too loving crowded"? if not google it, look at the first result, and then realize you are fighting a losing battle drat, ML shuts down another caremad with a classic gbs line. You go girl!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Well he isn't wrong about Mort Zuckerman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Did Bernie for yay or nay for the recent TPP or TAA? Nay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Note: almost all of the Republican candidates have launched their campaigns with a personal family story, including Cruz, Jeb!, Jindal, Graham,.. What family?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:What family? He talked about losing his mother and father at a young age and becoming guardian of his sister, helping to raise her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
This one's probably going to cost me.Peztopiary posted:Why? The Republicans aren't going to come to sane social positions until their base dies off, and without those no matter how reactionary you think I am I'm voting as hard left as possible. Even becoming centrists would require a massive change in their economic policies. You can't really get equality without getting it everywhere after all. Social positions don't make you a liberal, and if Republicans adopted them they wouldn't be any better. Jesus christ kill all hipsters forever and bring back LF. Acebuckeye13 posted:You have no goddamned idea what half the words you used even mean. I probably should've worded it better: Nobody should be defending what the US did during the Cold War. And if you do, you'll rightfully get called out as a neocon shitheel. Just because NATO was involved does not make it right. You cannot argue about these without talking about old, archaic, power structures left over from the Cold War. Nintendo Kid posted:No, it isn't, unless you're using some bizarre usage of the word fascist no one else does. I'm going to take back my claim, but you're not going to take back yours. Instead, you'll just go back and whine in the DaD chat thread about how unreasonable I am. Why I really don't support Gadaffi is really simple: He never was all that progressive or a socialist. The only thing Gadaffi was right about is that the US was going after him, Assad, and the cesspool of other dictators in the Arab League and summarily execute them. It was part of Bush's long term strategy to topple Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Nintendo Kid posted:Uh yeah we were, seeing as we had decided to grant him recognition and treat him as One Of The Good Ones shortly before the civil war broke out. Seriously were you not paying attention? He went from being near Axis Of Evil material to a grudgingly accepted ally for quite some time. The US refusing to participate would have meant the ongoing endorsement of his actions. I'll start with a quote: U.S. and Western hypocrisy was clear to see. While Libyan attacks on unarmed civilians was a casus belli, the U.S. sanctioned the Saudi invasion of Bahrain to support the Bahraini monarchy’s attacks against its opposition. Seen in this way, the Western support for the no-fly zone is about derailing the Arab revolution while posing as its friend. I really thought about this statement. It doesn't even make any sense. The Arab Spring was happening at the time. The US backed the military dictatorship in Egypt, and kept the autocrats in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in power- even when there were videos of them gunning down protestors. How did you even draw this conclusion? We had military and financial reasons for letting those states oppress the ever living gently caress out of their people. Nobody at the time gave a poo poo about their human rights abuses. That's culpability. Not providing military or monetary support to a country engaged in a civil war isn't. There is no reason to believe the US suddenly got a heart to go in and help those poor, poor islamist militants in Libya. It makes a lot more sense if we take into context that the Saudis wanted Gadaffi gone, and the EU had a stake Libya's oil exports. But I digress, you're just deliberately using bad optics to justify bombing in Libya on behalf of Zionist-imperialism in the Middle East, and there's not a chance in hell you'll assume an opinion that doesn't suit your candidate. For reference, Here and here are a good list of her views on foreign policy. And yeah I'm sure all those Syrians being gassed agree with her Obama has not intervened enough. I don't think anyone should give a poo poo about what the FSA, Al-Nusra, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda have to say about human rights abuses. They all stand to benefit from a US intervention and any bombing campaign is going to turn into a shitshow real fast. Venom Snake posted:If a tiny elite own only 30% of the global wealth and workers are no longer mistreated a stolen from than I will be more than happy. I'm not an out and out communist, but I like to style my self as someone who understands Socialism is not the enemy of those with money; rather a way that people with money will have less (but still enough to be wealthy) while the people at the bottom no longer have to suffer and be stolen from. The rich have already co-opted socialism to benefit them in the form of authoritarian state capitalism and the PRC. Joementum posted:Mostly because Americans' attitude toward policy is largely based on the attitudes of their politicians and when you have Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, and Ted Cruz all supporting something, most Americans will also support it. I hate to point out the 800 lb gorilla in the room but why is everyone in DnD suddenly on board with legislation that Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan support? Both of these men are idealogues in the most literal of sense when it comes to economic agenda. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
$500,000 ad buy from Bobby's Super PAC in Iowa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxUJwbUFOcE
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I hate to point out the 800 lb gorilla in the room but why is everyone in DnD suddenly on board with legislation that Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan support? Both of these men are idealogues in the most literal of sense when it comes to economic agenda. I should have been more clear: I wasn't saying the legislation itself was good, in my opinion. I was saying that it's good that people are able to take cues from their leaders on what they should support, rather than have to learn all of the details of every piece of legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:But literally every GOP candidate from the past two elections has been either a beep-boop robot or too much of a fundie retard to get any traction. Which one of those was McCain?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
pentyne posted:For all the "Oh another Clinton" the only other option is a theocratic dictator who promises to disband the parts of the constitution they don't like and their only platform is "undo the last 8 years asap". Well the median income was higher 8 years ago, let's let the people decide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:$500,000 ad buy from Bobby's Super PAC in Iowa Does Jindal have a millionaire/billionaire sugar-daddy like half the Republican field seems to? Because I'm having trouble figuring out who gives money to a Jindal Super PAC. He's a term-limited, unpopular governor who polls below Donald Trump nationally. Is it just the usual corporate suspects hedging their bets in case Jindal-mania sweeps the nation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Which one of those was McCain? Sarah Palin On edit: you know, the more I think about it, the more McCain seems like he was the party's last hope. I considered voting for him until he chose Palin. McCain has a history of being fairly reasonable, amenable to compromise, and not locked in to the party line. I mean, look at McCain-Feingold for God's sake. McCain was probably ready to bridge the GOP's demographic gap with immigration reform. The guy seemed like he had the chance of seriously reforming the party after Bush and making it sustainable into the next century. And then he threw it all into the toilet by picking the worst running mate ever. Then after Obama got elected the Tea Party nut cases arrived. Nice knowing ya, moderate GOP! neonnoodle fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
RACHET posted:Absolutely. Treating a baby corpse like a cabbage patch doll is disgusting by any rational standards. As opposed to the dignified, rational treatment of baby corpses by the left (vacuuming them out in pieces, throwing out in a biomedical waste bag). Of course I suspect the most tragic event you've ever experienced is "saddled with an 8:15 AM Humanities class" so you probably wouldn't understand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:37
|
|