|
Nintendo Kid posted:He's Rick Santorum. There's nothing he's doing that another candidate can't do better. Attract insulting (to him) euphemisms?
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Who the gently caress are these independent voters, when the gently caress have they done anything other than try to make Democrats appeal to them and lose to Republicans (who clearly give zero shits), where the gently caress do they live, and why the gently caress are they able, despite their evident lack of decision making capacity and carefully cultivated neutrality, able to cast such a mighty spell over media coverage? I think you're correct that the media also loves to play up the narrative to build drama and get views. But the reason that these pieces sell pageviews is because lots of people, for whatever reason, care about them. Independent voters are usually people who mostly don't follow politics, so they tend to get caught up on things like "it's a political dynasty!" or "yeah, I'd like to have a beer with that guy." Soundbites. It's probably too early to tell if Hillary will do well with independents. Independent voters will use Bill Clinton as a shorthand reference, though. quote:She certainly is not. Like unless you're gonna turn up some secret brother of hers that was actually governor of Arkansas before/after Bill or something. Her brother ran for a US Senate seat in Florida, actually, in 1994 (he lost). He sought to capitalize on Bill's political strength -- Bill and Hillary both helped him campaign, just as Bill will help Hillary during this cycle. This isn't shocking stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:
Someone failing to win doesn't count towards making a political dynasty, otherwise my family's a political dynasty because my great-great uncle was mayor of some coal town in PA and then my uncle tried to run for township council in NJ and lost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:My personal impression is that it either means "I'm actually further left from the Democrats and don't identify as one because I support Full Communism or whatever" (and that only in some areas), or "I really don't want to call myself a Republican, but I'm so intensely culturally programmed against the Democrats I can't bring myself to vote for one, so I spend a lot of time and energy reaching the conclusion of Full Republican Ticket." I'm a self-described independent who doesn't want to call himself a Democrat because come on, have you LOOKED at the Democrats?  But I still end up voting for them most of the time because oh my GOD have you looked at the Republicans? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is she particularly awful or is it more 'a Rothschild lol'? She's basically the pro tier version of Ann Romney, and had a penchant for hilarious interviews during the 2008 race after publicly endorsing McCain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:You really want to argue that Jeb Bush, brother to President George W Bush, son to President George HW Bush, grandson to Senator Prescott Bush, great-grandson to robber baron and war-profiteer and Department of War adviser Samuel P. Bush, is not part of a dynasty? And that's just the direct line on his father's side, go look at the Walker and Pierce families to see how heavily historically connected they are. I motion that anyone who tries to use "But its true for Bush" to defend the continued use of a practise that is exclusively used by this forum to denigrate the wife of an ex president be shot in the genitals. Besides, we have more than enough proof Bush is terrible without invoking his pappy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:She's basically the pro tier version of Ann Romney, and had a penchant for hilarious interviews during the 2008 race after publicly endorsing McCain. oh was she in the HillaryIs44 crowd?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:I'm a self-described independent who doesn't want to call himself a Democrat because come on, have you LOOKED at the Democrats? Though the South Park analogy honestly kind of works too - after all, an over-sized vaginal cleansing product IS a lot better than feces on bread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:You really want to argue that Jeb Bush, brother to President George W Bush, son to President George HW Bush, grandson to Senator Prescott Bush, great-grandson to robber baron and war-profiteer and Department of War adviser Samuel P. Bush, is not part of a dynasty? And that's just the direct line on his father's side, go look at the Walker and Pierce families to see how heavily historically connected they are. Does his touch cure scrofula? Did his grandsire receive the mandate of heaven? Does he make the corn grow and the mighty Connecticut River to flood? If not, it doesn't count as a dynasty
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Vox Nihili is right; "Independent" is another way of saying "low-info voter."
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Someone failing to win doesn't count towards making a political dynasty, otherwise my family's a political dynasty because my great-great uncle was mayor of some coal town in PA and then my uncle tried to run for township council in NJ and lost. When a familial relationship functions causally to put someone in a political office, they have benefited from a political dynasty. Brother, son, husband, wife, cousin. By the definition most sources use, Hillary is part of a dynasty. She benefited politically from her husband's political career. It doesn't have any impact on her merits as a candidate, of course. It's media fodder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Oh, also, Lincoln Chafee is definitely a dynastic candidate, but who cares Literally noone cares  poor guy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:When a familial relationship functions causally to put someone in a political office, they have benefited from a political dynasty. Brother, son, husband, wife, cousin. By the definition most sources use, Hillary is part of a dynasty. No she isn't. She really, really isn't. Nice attempt to backpedal though, when your claim that it should count because a brother in law failed to get into office was debunked as a stupid reason!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Has anyone seen the schedule released by Trump showing his investments, etc? Or is that one page TEN BILLON DOLLARS document all there is at the moment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
PDP-1 posted:Literally noone cares Nobody would vote for us if we ran. If this guy was a politician and can't get a single vote then why should we care?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No she isn't. She really, really isn't. So do you not recognize marriage as a family connection or do you require a certain number of connections in order for it to "count?" I'm curious how the cognitive dissonance shakes out here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:So do you not recognize marriage as a family connection or do you require a certain number of connections in order for it to "count?" There's no cognitive dissonance, it's simply not a dynasty when you happen to be married to someone who got into office. By definition, you need multiple generations to be a dynasty. Kennedys: multiple generations in office. Bushes: same thing. Clinton: just the one person, and Chelsea sure as poo poo ain't going for office higher than nonprofit CEO. Maybe Chelsea's kid will get into politics, then you can call it a dynasty. Even in the loosest definition, there would need to be continuous or near continuous power, i.e. Hillary getting president after the 2000 election, or maybe after 2004 at a stretch. Instead, there's 16 years in between them, with some unrelated offices in the middle - and no one else related in politics at all! Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Since 2016 is shaping up to be a poo poo show beyond even 2012, it got me wondering when was the last time a party put up such a string of weak candidates? I guess you could go Carter, Mondale and Dukakis. It's hard to call a sitting president a weak candidate, but there you go. And breaking that string only took 1) a recession, 2) a popular 3rd party run, 3) an incredibly charismatic candidate, and 4) a change in the party philosophy, tacking towards the opposition. I suppose 1) is always possible again, 2) seems unlikely, 3) bwahahaha, and 4) loving lol And Donald Trump is not Reagan, cmon now, that is just silly. Beyond practical differences like never holding an office anywhere ever, Trump is the anti-Reagan of the charisma game. Reagan could call Mexicans shifty criminal rapists and make it sound agreeable. He had god level wit. Trump could make roller skating, ice cream and puppies sound vile and pornographic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There's no cognitive dissonance, it's simply not a dynasty when you happen to be married to someone who got into office. The distinction is whether you think a "political dynasty" in a democracy must closely resemble a royal dynastic lineage. Most people interested in the subject seem to believe that's not the case. I think that's an accurate assessment: political power flowed from a king to the heirs of his lineage; not generally to his wife. As a practical matter today, the flow of political power isn't limited by patriarchal lineage and can flow along any number of family connections. The Wikipedia article on the matter already lists the Clintons. Looking through the huge list of political dynasties in the United States, a large number of them are just two, three, or four brothers who didn't benefit from their parents but rather from one another. Bob and Elizabeth Dole are a good example of another husband and wife dynasty; also listed in the article. The people who recorded all this stuff seem to believe that it doesn't take multiple generations. A bunch of spouses from other countries are also recorded as political dynasties. Maybe you don't like Wikipedia. This article recognizes the spousal relationship as constituting a type of dynastic political relationship. The media certainly thinks a husband and wife team counts as a political dynasty. There's room for disagreement. It's a matter of degrees, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
I'd argue against McCain being put in the big loser's category. He was a war hero with a reputation for being against the party leadership with some decent practical ideas. He was losing, but with dignity. He didn't enter walking punchline territory til Palin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Who cares what the precise mechanical definition of the term is? Clinton has already enormously benefited from her husband's political influence, is continuing to benefit from it, and has shown unwillingness to walk back policies that President Clinton passed into law during his time in office. You're a fool if you think she would have become Senator of New York if Clinton hadn't been coming off two elected terms as President, or if she'd been able to orchestrate this majestic network of donors and supporters and endorsements if she didn't have the political weight and influence acquired from Clinton's Presidency. People are also conveniently overlooking the fact that President Clinton would be a significant voice and influence behind the stages if Clinton was elected. Bush is surrounding himself with his brother's and father's same advisers. Everything we've seen out of Bush on the campaign trail so far has been his full-throated support of his brother's policies or dodging around the fact that he supports and intends to continue his brother's policies and goals. Bush and Bush became governor in no small part thanks to Bush being a President, and Bush became a President largely due to Bush's influence helping him float along, and Bush is going to be a top candidate for President again thanks specifically to not only his family name (giving him instant credibility and recognizability) but also the necessary system and network being already in place for him to take advantage of. Considering that the general is very likely to come down to Clinton vs. Bush, and considering how much of their relatives' teams and influence and political ideas they're carrying over, that means the spirit of the 22nd Amendment will absolutely be violated in 2016. Not being a pedantic legalist I find this concerning -- and if you don't, then why not repeal the 22nd? I guess variety isn't important anymore? The entire point of the 22nd is to prevent any one person from accumulating too much power, and the amendment itself restricted that power accumulation through forbidding holding the Presidency for more than two terms, but no one is going to be able to deny that Bush and Clinton have both accumulated an enormous amount of power and influence as a direct result of their families' participation in the Presidency. This is specifically what the 22nd was trying to prevent! If you don't think that's important then come out and say so, otherwise spare us the sly references to dictionaries and Wikipedia articles to try to derail the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There's no cognitive dissonance, it's simply not a dynasty when you happen to be married to someone who got into office. Eh, seems like it depends on how you define it: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty By the first (traditional?) definition given, that would be the case, and the second (more modern?) one, no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
I'll come out and say that no, it doesn't violate the 22nd Amendment in spirit or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
PDP-1 posted:Literally noone cares well now hold on, if you convert those polling results to metric...
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Nobody would vote for us if we ran. If this guy was a politician and can't get a single vote then why should we care? I'll have you know that My Ole Ma would vote for me
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I'd argue against McCain being put in the big loser's category. He was a war hero with a reputation for being against the party leadership with some decent practical ideas. He was losing, but with dignity. He didn't enter walking punchline territory til Palin. McCain became fair game when he back slided on all of those issues that made him a GOP maverick just to get the GOP nomination. And since then has gone from being victimized by his VP to an angry old man with an axe to grind against Obama, going so far as to do all but endorse a terrorist group in the middle east just to criticize his foreign policy. McCain was a good politician with a pretty well deserved reputation but drat has he squandered that. Makes him more tragic than the rest of the field in that he actually had something to lose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
PDP-1 posted:Literally noone cares Chaffee 2016: Less Than No One
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Chaffee: N/A you can believe in
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The distinction is whether you think a "political dynasty" in a democracy must closely resemble a royal dynastic lineage. Most people interested in the subject seem to believe that's not the case. I think that's an accurate assessment: political power flowed from a king to the heirs of his lineage; not generally to his wife. As a practical matter today, the flow of political power isn't limited by patriarchal lineage and can flow along any number of family connections. There is no room for disagreement. It was a dumbass attempt when the Republicans attempted to use it against her in th epast, and it's dumb as hell now. The media is poo poo, so they'll do stupid things like call the Clintons a dynasty and int he next breath talk about how great a candidate Jeb! is, he just looks presidential somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There is no room for disagreement. It was a dumbass attempt when the Republicans attempted to use it against her in th epast, and it's dumb as hell now. The media is poo poo, so they'll do stupid things like call the Clintons a dynasty and int he next breath talk about how great a candidate Jeb! is, he just looks presidential somehow. Thank you for the extremely good-faith response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is she particularly awful or is it more 'a Rothschild lol'? In 2008 she, a woman holding aristocratic title, claimed that she preferred Hillary over Obama because he was too elitist. That's almost a direct quote, incidentally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Getting into a semantics argument with Fishmech is the world's second oldest blunder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Thank you for the extremely good-faith response. There is no requirement to say bullshit theories are correct to be arguing in good faith. If anything, that would be arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Mmmmm, no. You got BTFO by Vox Nihili's sources, and, as is usual when this happens, you retreated into endless "Nuh-huh" instead of any meaningful response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
I thought the purpose of the 22nd Amendment was to prevent another FDR, which is why there was talk of repealing it in Reagan's second term. Obviously, no problem if it's St. Ronald.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I thought the purpose of the 22nd Amendment was to prevent another FDR, which is why there was talk of repealing it in Reagan's second term. Obviously, no problem if it's St. Ronald. Yeah, the funny part is that it took 50 years for the Democrats to elect someone that might've been elected for more than two terms while the Republicans had two people in that same time period (Eisenhower and Reagan).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Mmmmm, no. You got BTFO by Vox Nihili's sources, and, as is usual when this happens, you retreated into endless "Nuh-huh" instead of any meaningful response. "Look buddy webster's dictionary specifically defines dynasty thusly and no other definitions are allowed" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Mmmmm, no. You got BTFO by Vox Nihili's sources, and, as is usual when this happens, you retreated into endless "Nuh-huh" instead of any meaningful response. No idea what your made up acronym is supposed to be, but nope, you're wrong, and he's wrong. Clinton ain't a dynasty no matter how much Rush Limbaugh and your buddies want them to be.  If you want to whine about how mean Clinton is, I invite you to return to GBS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Has Scott Walker looked at anything today?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:39
|
|
