|
Montasque posted:Super right-wing blog, and Freep favorite THE AMERICAN THINKER has come on side of Trump in regards to his 9/11 comments: I was like, "Huh, is this really The American Thinker?" for most of it until I got to the end. quote:After 9/11 George W. let Muslims into the country like never before, some of whom perpetrated terrible attacks. Have you ever heard of the Boston Marathon bombers? George W. Bush let these fine Muslims into the country in 2002, the year after 9/11. If he had stopped Muslim immigration, all the people killed and maimed in Boston would be alive and well right now. George Bush didn't keep us safe because he didn't ban Muslims from the USA.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
"Satan turns down House Speaker position"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:It's looking more and more likely that Paul Ryan will just...not do it. We could be facing a situation where, if no one can win, Boehner will be not allowed to resign and forced to keep on being Speaker. I don't see why Boehner would have to continue on? If he resigns, that's that. I don't think they can veto a resignation, or force him into the position, can they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Boehner should enter the race and collect the establishment vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
I want to have a chat about "Conventional Wisdom" in regards to this GOP primary. Here are some pearls of Conventional Wisdom past: 1. Polls this far out don't matter as no one is paying attention. 2. Ad buys are powerful at shaping narrative. 3. The Republicans never attack their own. "Reagan's law" 4. Although they may grumble, Republicans falls lockstep inline with the establishment. 5. The Candidate with the most establishment support will be the nominee. Do these conventions hold up? IS THIS TIME DIFFERENT?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
The GOP can have a lot of influence holding majorities in Congress but they can't really drive the agenda without the White House, and especially not with the spite driven, Tea Party dominated current GOP, they can't govern at all without the White House, they can't even pass any significant legislation. As far as economic policy they can keep things close to the status quo just by obstructing. But they basically have no ability to drive foreign policy. There's a pretty huge difference between what the GOP has been doing with House and now Senate majority and what they could do with the White House.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:we need another bush, this ones busted. someone find marvin, he should be facedown in some cocaine somewhere. "Jeb! This is your cousin, Marvin! ... MARVIN BUSH! You know that new sound you were looking for?" *holds outstretched telephone towards Trump Wrestlemania appearance*
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:They're going to have to summon a friendly Outsider, maybe a Bearded Devil to appeal to the hipster crowd. Can they do this? I've seen people throw out Romney and Gingrich. Does the Speaker not need to be a Representative?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Valentin posted:AP confirms that yeah, there are donors and lots of Kentucky GOPers who think Rand should drop out of the presidential race and focus on his Senate seat. Some show on NPR was talking about Rand running for both Senate and President and how he had to change the state's primary system to a caucus so he could legally run. I remember D&D discussing that last year, but I don't remember hearing that his campaign agreed to reimburse the state for half a million to cover the costs associated with changing the format. Perhaps that's why he's being pushed to drop out, they're worried that this whole ordeal will be a huge waste of time and money for Kentucky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:"Satan turns down House Speaker position" Naturally, he's gotta coach the team against the Colts tomorrow evening. The season's just getting started. (Go Patriots!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Do these conventions hold up? IS THIS TIME DIFFERENT? no, it's not. the polls still don't matter except in the sense that the media uses polls to drive a horse race narrative (which demands continual polling, natch). republicans, by and large, aren't attacking each other except for trump and he's a sideshow. no one's sewn up establishment support, but establishment support is still critical for GOTV and fundraising. republicans, by and large, fall into lockstep behind a nominee when there's a clear frontrunner which hasn't emerged yet. trump isn't a frontrunner, he's a sideshow. the republican party isn't run by the idiots baying for the blood of mexicans - they're just the clueless rubes that get pulled along for the ride every 4 years. we used to call them the 'moral majority', back when people still gave a poo poo about what evangelical christians thought. they don't represent a majority of the country, and they don't even represent a majority of the party. they're just the loudest idiots on the short bus of primary politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
also ky-gov goes dem more often than not, there's a lot of southern dems who loving hate obama down there 'cuz he's black so it's gone blood-red in presidential politics. they love them some clintons though - killary could theoretically put KY in play but it's a hell of a long shot (and if KY is in play for the dems then whoever's playing this turn of sacrificial republican presidential candidate is having a very bad time)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Gregoriev posted:I don't see why Boehner would have to continue on? If he resigns, that's that. I don't think they can veto a resignation, or force him into the position, can they? There's really no precedent for it, but there has to be a Speaker or Congress can't do business. There's some old rule that says if there's no Speaker of the House, the King (or Queen) of England can appoint one, and nobody wants that to happen. But that might be the final and best option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Of course polls matter, Scott Walker would still be in the race if he didn't poll at 0% and was actually able to raise non super pac money and Jeb wouldn't be throwing away millions of dollars on ad buys if he could poll higher than 4th place. If trump wasn't the front runner his comments about bush and 9/11 wouldn't get any attention. Hell the 9/11 poo poo wouldn't have even been brought up if trump wasn't a front runner at a debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Gregoriev posted:I don't see why Boehner would have to continue on? If he resigns, that's that. I don't think they can veto a resignation, or force him into the position, can they? He can resign from the House, but if there isn't a new Speaker elected, the incumbent Speaker remains Speaker...and the Speaker doesn't have to be a member of the House.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
sullat posted:There's really no precedent for it, but there has to be a Speaker or Congress can't do business. There's some old rule that says if there's no Speaker of the House, the King (or Queen) of England can appoint one, and nobody wants that to happen. But that might be the final and best option. Really want this to happen. First corgi speaker of the house would be glorious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:Really want this to happen. First corgi speaker of the house would be glorious. Ah, yes, the never-invoked "political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved, unless the states have trouble appointing the next Speaker of the House" clause
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Montasque posted:I want to have a chat about "Conventional Wisdom" in regards to this GOP primary. We can say for sure that #3 is dead dead dead, and it's not just Trump who's violating it. Fiorina's entire pitch is that she's the meanest person in the room and half the candidates have said some variation of "No more Clintons or Bushes" as a way of taking a shot at Jeb! #2 should be interesting to test, but we won't know until we get closer in. The problem is that (as advertisers in non-political fields would happily attest to their political counterparts) more and more people of all ages don't watch ads. Period. The ads that are relevant are the ones that end up being so outlandish or newsworthy that they are played again and again on the late night shows and the news shows to be discussed, because those are the ads people will actually see. You don't get political ads on Netflix, you don't get political ads if you're just DVRing your favorite shows to binge later, you don't get political ads if you're watching clips of Stephen Colbert the following morning on Youtube. Some "I have faith in American optimism and its ability to face the problems it has with conservative solutions that worked when I was governor of Florida. I'm Jeb! Bush and I approve this message" kind of spot that is basically all the people of IA and NH will see if they actually watch live television is just white noise. Some novel, bombastic, or newsworthy ad, especially a negative ad, that gets discussed on the news shows etc., on the other hand, could be very powerful. #4 is probably true for the general, in that Rubio or Jeb! won't spark a third party challenge or whatever. For the primaries? I think it ties to #5. We will see, but Jeb! Bush is a clusterfuck of a candidate and Marco Rubio is a blank slate at the moment and we haven't seen how he performs under serious fire conditions yet. #1? If polls didn't matter, Scott Walker wouldn't have dropped out and Jeb Bush wouldn't be doing massive payroll cuts and flying coach.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:no, it's not. the polls still don't matter except in the sense that the media uses polls to drive a horse race narrative (which demands continual polling, natch). republicans, by and large, aren't attacking each other except for trump and he's a sideshow. no one's sewn up establishment support, but establishment support is still critical for GOTV and fundraising. republicans, by and large, fall into lockstep behind a nominee when there's a clear frontrunner which hasn't emerged yet. trump isn't a frontrunner, he's a sideshow. In regards to polls - Scott Walker dumped out, and the idea that "no one is watching" is absolutely false as 25/24 million people watched both GOP debates. Trump has put a bright and ugly spotlight on things, everyone is watching, hence Jeb's miserable poll numbers and dumpster level favorables. As far as falling lockstep in support with the establishment look at what Ted Cruz and the Freedom caucus is doing in the house. The short bus is pissed off and trying to drive the entire GOP off a cliff. I agree that the establishment is important, and the candidate who captures their support will be the nominee, but until then we are in for a complete gong show that is challenging convention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Ah, yes, the never-invoked "political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved, unless the states have trouble appointing the next Speaker of the House" clause It's part of the common law, which was adopted by the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Nessus posted:While we say there is always more and it's always worse, there has to be an actual upper bound on how many furious Republicans can vote. You don't get bonus votes from frothing on the e-voting machine screen, as far as I can recall, and the people who are Real Mad At The Clintons seem like an eroding segment of the population. This is not to say that they probably can't get a good performance out in '18, but this isn't a long term coalition. Right now, the Right-Wing Media hates Obama's guts but the MainStream Media is neutral/positive on him. The thing with Hillary is that both the RWM and the MSM hate her. Like the NYT will never pass up a shot at Clinton. Things could get bad. Patter Song posted:He can resign from the House, but if there isn't a new Speaker elected, the incumbent Speaker remains Speaker...and the Speaker doesn't have to be a member of the House. For serious? This is amazing. I just assumed he didn't want to totally screw the country so he was sticking around just in case we need a speaker for like debt limit stuff. I hadn't imagined he might be genuinely for real stuck with the job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
sullat posted:It's part of the common law, which was adopted by the US. But just because America uses common law, like most of the countries on Earth, it's absurd to suggest that Queen Elizabeth II has any de facto power in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Chamale posted:But just because America uses common law, like most of the countries on Earth, it's absurd to suggest that Queen Elizabeth II has any de facto power in the United States. Yes, I imagine if that rule still has any effect it would be interpreted as giving the power to select a speaker to the President, since he/she holds the corresponding position to H.R.H. QEII as Head of State.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
The establishment wields very little power within the GOP at this point. They made several deals with the devil to try to beat Obama and none of it worked, and the deals are all coming due at once. Donald Trump, playing the part of Lucifer, has come to show them how he can use all of their fondest wishes to destroy them utterly. Montasque posted:I agree that the establishment is important, and the candidate who captures their support will be the nominee, but until then we are in for a complete gong show that is challenging convention. The harder the establishment tries to push their candidates the more pushback there is. Jeb is a great illustrator of that. He sucks, everyone knows, and the harder they try to push him the more it reminds people of all the other people saying that he sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
sullat posted:There's really no precedent for it, but there has to be a Speaker or Congress can't do business. There's some old rule that says if there's no Speaker of the House, the King (or Queen) of England can appoint one, and nobody wants that to happen. But that might be the final and best option. She knows how to pick 'em 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
That's an odd photoshop of a corgi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Yes, I imagine if that rule still has any effect it would be interpreted as giving the power to select a speaker to the President, since he/she holds the corresponding position to H.R.H. QEII as Head of State. By my understanding, and I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, the common law applies to issues of civil and criminal law, not the procedures of the highest level of federal government. The term we're all looking for is "Constitutional Crisis," and it would be interesting to see the first one in over a hundred years occur during the presidential administration of well-known Constitutional Law professor Barack Obama. sullat posted:It's part of the common law, which was adopted by the US. Once again, I know nothing about the law, but the common law is the precedent that gets used when the law is unclear we can't find precedent anywhere else. I'm pretty sure that the existing precedent of Washington v. Hanover, 1776 would apply instead. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
The last time they couldn't decide on a speaker, they just temporarily made it so the winner only needed a plurality instead of an absolute majority. I imagine they'd do the same thing this time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:The last time they couldn't decide on a speaker, they just temporarily made it so the winner only needed a plurality instead of an absolute majority. I imagine they'd do the same thing this time. What if the house manages to bungle that by having the largest shares be equal, though some strange combination of maliciousness and incompetence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
NewMars posted:What if the house manages to bungle that by having the largest shares be equal, though some strange combination of maliciousness and incompetence? Then Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:The harder the establishment tries to push their candidates the more pushback there is. Jeb is a great illustrator of that. He sucks, everyone knows, and the harder they try to push him the more it reminds people of all the other people saying that he sucks. Jeb still has money/the support of powerful figures from state to state/and the Bush name(for what that's worth) He's down but not out, he can still turn it around maybe... But yeah, at this point I'd put my money on Rubio getting the nom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Explain it to me, because I'm clueless about politics—why is it that Jeb is down and potentially out soon because of his polls but the guy most favoured to get the nomination in his stead is not the guy who's been consistently winning the polls? I do not get why so many people are bending over backwards and tripping over themselves to come up with reasons to denigrate Trump's performance and chances. Is there any substance to that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Nietzschean posted:Explain it to me, because I'm clueless about politics—why is it that Jeb is down and potentially out soon because of his polls but the guy most favoured to get the nomination in his stead is not the guy who's been consistently winning the polls? I do not get why so many people are bending over backwards and tripping over themselves to come up with reasons to denigrate Trump's performance and chances. Is there any substance to that? Polls fluctuate wildly in December and January of presidential election years and the establishment has more say in picking the nominee than you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Yeah, the way bad polls can have an effect on a candidate right now is it's an indicator of their future viability. Things like the big Bush ad-buy, for example, were supposed to prove that even if his numbers were low now he had the means to recover that ground when it starts to matter - it failed, so the fear is that he won't be able to make up that ground ever. These indicators also act as part of the "invisible primary" (that's gotten pretty visible) the establishment holds to decide who they'll throw the weight of their support behind. It's costly to throw money and endorsements at someone too early and have to shift gears to someone else when it turns out the voting public has no appetite for them. Signs of weakness like these are what killed Walker's campaign, since the money problem would've been fixable if he'd put in a promising performance so far, and they're also why people are starting to desert Bush's camp for Rubio's. Trump is beholden to no one for money or media attention and seems to crave enemies over endorsements, so he's facing an entirely different kind of situation where he doesn't have to worry about courting important establishment supporters. His biggest danger would be burning out before the votes get counted, either the public gets outrage fatigue and loses interest in the Latest Crazy Trump Stunt or he finally finds some line to cross that get his supporters to dump him. If the primaries started tomorrow he'd be in a strong position but keeping up his numbers for months could be challenging since his narrative probably can't survive a slump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Yeah, it's only
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Thing is, though, most politicians are avoiding weighing in on this race like the plague. If you go to 538's endorsement tracker here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ Notice that the Democratic side is this endless list of names of all sorts of Democratic officeholders that is far longer than the GOP list, and nearly all are for Clinton. That's a pretty powerful sign, indeed. The longest list on the GOP side is Jeb!'s, but it's vastly inflated by the 11 Florida Congressmen on it. (One Florida Congressman is with Rubio, along with Rubio himself, Florida's sitting senator) Once you get beyond the home staters, even Jeb's list looks shockingly sparse. While there are three Senators, one is Susan Collins, the least conservative Republican in either house of Congress and someone whose endorsement is probably a net negative outside of Maine in tarring Jeb as a RINO, and another is Orrin Hatch, a powerful figure indeed but someone who was elected to the Senate in the Carter Administration and is more of a relic in the GOP than anything else. It says something that Rubio's been in the Senate since 2010 and doesn't have a single one of his fellow Senators' endorsements. If "The Party Decides" the Party seems pretty damned indecisive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
endorsements by sitting members of national government are meaningless in the republican primary because they don't get any votes at the convention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Then Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker. I genuinely can't tell whether or not you're joking. Montasque posted:Jeb still has money/the support of powerful figures from state to state/and the Bush name(for what that's worth) I suppose he could have his dad literally murder Trump in a worst case scenario. Trump strikes me as the kind of guy who talks big but could still lose a life-or-death fight with a well-trained but frail 91-year-old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Then Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:I genuinely can't tell whether or not you're joking. Trump kicked Vince "The Genetic Jackhammer" McMahon's rear end at Wrestlemania, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:50
|
|
