|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:who was the last president to get more than 2 Reagan: Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Reagan: Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor. I keep thinking Kennedy was Bush 41, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Remember when the fascist everyone was flipping out over nominating turned out to be a secret super-liberal But he and Glenn Close really got along great. For real though, in 2016, 3 justices will be in their 80's with a 4th entering that area within the term. It is not an absurd notion that the next president (especially assuming an 8 year term) gets to nominate 3 justices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
The cloud has come for its young. mcmagic posted:If the next president serves for 8 years I doubt they won't get 3... The court is OLD. If Bernie wins, Scalia might drop off on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
I know about "Oops" and the sexual harassment scandal of Cain. Did every not-Romney in 2012 have a defining moment of their downfall? Bachmann, the first frontrunner, certainly seems to have gradually levelled off. Will Trump gradually decline in favor of a more moderate candidate, or is there some scandal or gaffe capable of hurting him?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I keep thinking Kennedy was Bush 41, thanks. If Rick Santorum gets to replace Bryer, Ginsberg and Kenndey, we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If Rick Santorum gets to replace Bryer, Ginsberg and Kenndey, we're hosed. rick santorum's only brush with the wh might be getting invited to a state dinner
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Jeb! says that he's tired of the divisive rhetoric of Donald Trump and Barack Obama. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFpzMyl3HTA Trump... Obama.... hmm, are they brothers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Obviously caffeine free Looks more like dirty caffeinated diet cherry pepsi to me.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:rick santorum's only brush with the wh might be getting invited to a state dinner Replace him with Scott Walker. No difference. We're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
I thought the mormon thing was about hot drinks, which makes it even dumber tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:i doubt the next president gets to hit jeb bartlet levels Well he did just make something a national park to block the path of the nuclear waste train, does that count?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
According to Eleanor Holmes Norton, Hillary wants DC statehood. Unrelated, here's a video of Holmes Norton trying to park.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Choo choooo And pro-life businesswoman Carly Fiorina responded: quote:“I am proudly pro-life. I believe that every human life has potential and that every human life is precious. This latest news is tragic and outrageous. This isn’t about “choice.” It’s about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment.” Senator Ted Cruz, another pro-life presidential candidate, has also issued a statement calling for Congress to launch an investigation. quote:“Today’s news regarding allegations that Planned Parenthood is possibly selling the body parts of the babies it has aborted is sickening. http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/rick-perry-and-carly-fiorina-slam-planned-parenthood-for-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies/
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
The question of this election. Can you actually buy the primary? It's always been the defacto support success level meter. On the right you have the Koch brothers(two individuals) using Scott Walker as their money vessel. R-Money bought his primary last time witht eh help of PACs, I guess its just how it works on the right. On the left you have Bernie running against Hillary on anti-money, for what Hillary thought since she already had all the money support lined up was is a sure win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Choo choooo
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Joementum posted:According to Eleanor Holmes Norton, Hillary wants DC statehood. good
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:"We need to launch a full investigation to determine how any of this makes any sense at all." Planned Parenthood-ghazi Planned Parenthood-gate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
site posted:Planned Parenthood-ghazi PP-gate
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Senator Ted Cruz, another pro-life presidential candidate, has also issued a statement calling for Congress to launch an investigation. Ah, have we finally found our new BENGHAZI!!!!, at long last?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:On the left you have Bernie running against Hillary on anti-money, for what Hillary thought since she already had all the money support lined up was is a sure win. I think you're getting ahead of yourself if you think Hillary's thinking of her nomination being a sure thing in the past tense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
FiveThirtyEight has a truly excellent page listing campaign endorsements and providing an explanation of their importance. It'll be in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Is a single Democratic candidate that hasn't said they oppose citizens united? Both Sanders and Clinton said it was a litmus test for SCOTUS nominees. Clinton won't touch it as president thanks to the millions she receives from corporations. I'm frankly surprised that she even has the balls to mention it in the campaign at all, do you have a video or source? Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The RNC doesn't control who gets invited to the debates, the media channels do. They could beg More importantly, why are the networks doing this weird adult table of 10/kiddie table of 6 thing and why is the RNC permitting it? Why not just have two debates, each with a panel of eight chosen randomly? The difference between one candidate having 4% versus another having 5% makes no substantive difference. The RNC candidate who is the most ridiculous is one of the frontrunners!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:23
|
|
not to let Trump in, but good loving luck getting a TV station to throw away that ratings bonanza. Their alternative would be to refuse to show up for the debate, which might have worked for Romney in 2012, but with a field this crowded just makes it easier for Christie or Rand to edge in on their territory. Their best move is to show up, say "I'll cut taxes" and "I'll repeal Obamacare" a few times and hope the field winnows itself somehow by December.
|
Joementum posted:FiveThirtyEight has a truly excellent page listing campaign endorsements and providing an explanation of their importance. Nate's shop is slowly redeeming itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:The question of this election. The Kochs aren't putting the weight of their money behind Walker in the primary, they're waiting until the general election to drop their $1billion. They've gone on record saying they like Walker and will probably donate the maximum individual contribution to his primary campaign ($2700), and it's likely that their interest in him could flag support from others in the invisible primary. But they're not going to use up their war chest just to push Walker into the nomination; he's still going to have to stand on his own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Grijalva'd!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:More importantly, why are the networks doing this weird adult table of 10/kiddie table of 6 thing and why is the RNC permitting it? Why not just have two debates, each with a panel of eight chosen randomly? The difference between one candidate having 4% versus another having 5% makes no substantive difference. The RNC candidate who is the most ridiculous is one of the frontrunners! I'd imagine the RNC is in favor of it as a way to start narrowing down the field. The candidates who don't make the cut for the debate will probably see their already minuscule support dry up, and will drop out earlier than if they were part of a second, equal debate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Clinton won't touch it as president thanks to the millions she receives from corporations. I'm frankly surprised that she even has the balls to mention it in the campaign at all, do you have a video or source?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:3 SCOTUS seats might differ with you on that. Three? Who's up other than Ginsburg?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Clinton won't touch it as president thanks to the millions she receives from corporations. I'm frankly surprised that she even has the balls to mention it in the campaign at all, do you have a video or source? Citizen's United was an organization dedicated to trashing Hillary Clinton, she probably hates that decision more than any other person running. I'm pretty sure she also stated that it would be a litmus for any court nominees. Edit: The case was over whether it violated election laws to broadcast this movie trailer so close to primaries. Air Skwirl fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Three? Who's up other than Ginsburg? Ginsburg is 82, Scalia is 79, and Kennedy is 78 so those are who to put money on. Breyer is 76 so he will more than likely make it two more terms unless he retires. Sadly Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are only 60, 65, and 67 respectively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:the thing is, only one of rubio or bush get to stay in the race (they draw off the same base) where as walker draws from a different wing, that will gain support after the other 85630 candidates go away. Isn't Walker part of the Establishment crew along with Christie? The difference is that Walker seems to actually be drawing support from a couple different GOP cliques while everyone else seems to be stuck splitting the vote of individual cliques with other candidates. Lumberjack Bonanza posted:If Bernie wins, Scalia might drop off on the spot. Nah, his pure and undying hate will have him in triathlon shape and on a vegan diet by January 20 2017. His hate will sustain him for a hundred years if need be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I thought the mormon thing was about hot drinks, which makes it even dumber tbh. Some actual info, gotten from real Mormons: There's a few schools of thought. It wasn't strictly written down what hot drinks meant, back in the day. It was *generally known* that it meant coffee and tea. The church's official position is "Look. It says no hot drinks. No coffee and tea. That's all we're gonna say." In actuality, people do one of the following: 1. No caffeine at all, obviously that's why it was written down. This means decaf is fine. And soda. 2. No coffee or tea at all. That means soda is fine. 3. No coffee, tea, or caffeine of any type. 4. gently caress that, I'm going to Dunkin Donuts instead of church. My theory which is obviously wrong but pretty funny, is that "hot drink" really meant rum and whiskey, because those were the hard liquors of the time. Just warning against getting drunk. Seriously, this is 100% wrong, but I love espousing it as a theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Ginsburg is 82, Scalia is 79, and Kennedy is 78 so those are who to put money on. Wow, Thomas was young when he nominated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Some actual info, gotten from real Mormons: Personally, I like the idea of it being taken literally. All drinks are fine, as long as they are appropriately chilled. God doesn't want you to burn your mouth, it really hurts!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Clinton won't touch it as president thanks to the millions she receives from corporations. I'm frankly surprised that she even has the balls to mention it in the campaign at all, do you have a video or source? From: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-four-fights/revitalizing-our-democracy/ Reduce the influence of money in politics posted:Appoint Supreme Court Justices who will protect the right to vote and Reduce the influence of money in politics posted:Propose a Constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform she also has this to say about big donors: An era of political dysfunction posted:Donations of the few overpower the voices of the many And here's an article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hillary-clinton-citizens-united-supreme-court-20150518-story.html She's not afraid of losing the "liberal/centrist but wealthy" money, what's their alternative? Sanders? Bush?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Personally, I like the idea of it being taken literally. All drinks are fine, as long as they are appropriately chilled. God doesn't want you to burn your mouth, it really hurts! I can get down with a protective god like that 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
God would quickly reverse His position after He sees the unholy markup most coffeeshops apply to iced coffee. Also Supreme Court nominations seem like a place where a President will make ideological choices regardless of their donors, it's too big a deal for half-measures. If Hillary says she'll pick anti-Citizens United candidates I'd believe it, especially since the decision itself was made against her in the first place and I'm pretty sure the Republicans have been the bigger beneficiaries of the decision so it aligns with straight-up party self-interest. If you think Hillary's that compromised by money you should be worried she's planning to deliberately throw the election because the wealthy would prefer a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Joementum posted:FiveThirtyEight has a truly excellent page listing campaign endorsements and providing an explanation of their importance. what is this poo poo no trump no sanders no fun
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 00:07
|
|
