|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Did anyone ever actually think have an impossibly crowded primary was good for the Republican party, or was it one of those "turn a positive into a negative through sheer force of will" things. It was one of those perverse incentive things. The party would benefit from unifying against Not Trump, Not Zodiac, but any given candidate wanted to stay in for at least a little while.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It was one of those perverse incentive things. The party would benefit from unifying against Not Trump, Not Zodiac, but any given candidate wanted to stay in for at least a little while. Shouts to Kasich for allowing this to happen. Though remember that time when Rubio gave a victory speech for coming in like third, then in the next primaries proceeded to faceplant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Ramirez is a grade-A moran
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Did anyone ever actually think have an impossibly crowded primary was good for the Republican party, or was it one of those "turn a positive into a negative through sheer force of will" things. This is the one downside to Republican total dominance of lower office in the US. They get a huge influx of up and comers that have proved themselves in the fighting pits of state legislatures to earn Governorships and Congressional seats only to find themselves with too many candidates that view themselves as "THE ONE" to coalesce around a few strong potential presidents that aren't bloodied all to hell. Also hurts that their damaged philosophy attracts idiots and sociopaths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
It like how Jeb got pushed off to the side even in a cheerleading cartoon
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:It wasn't even Hillary, it was Biden lol How? How could anyone ignore the looming Hillary run? Has she ever taken her eyes off the presidency?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Did anyone ever actually think have an impossibly crowded primary was good for the Republican party, or was it one of those "turn a positive into a negative through sheer force of will" things. Yes, because people thought that having Bush, Rubio, Walker, Christie, and Kasich would guarantee that they wouldn't lose their only strong guy to a scandal, and they figured that 4 of those guys would be dropped out and endorsing the 5th by around the time of the Nevada caucus. They had no concept that Trump would get 25-30% of the vote, they thought he'd get 5-10% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Happy Underpants posted:How? How could anyone ignore the looming Hillary run? Has she ever taken her eyes off the presidency? If he used Hillary he wouldn't be able to tap into the base's seething hatred of the feminine without being too obvious. Thus, Biden in a dress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:What if Trump decides to run again in 2020? Wouldn't Trump be old as gently caress by then? Like, Biden is 73 now and we're talking about Trump running by the time he's a year older than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
is it better to be a "GOP talking point visualizer" or a "young adult movie novelizer" on the creative scale?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Wouldn't Trump be old as gently caress by then? Like, Biden is 73 now and we're talking about Trump running by the time he's a year older than that. Sure, but after this, what's going to compare the narcissistic high of millions wanting to make you the most powerful man on Earth? Not even running a Fox knockoff could compare to that. And who is the crucial gibbering racist idiot bloc going to go for? Really, I'm just trying come up with a wacky scenario where the Democrats take the House back and de-gerrymander the country. It's sad and scary to think that's what has to happen if we want a Legislative Branch that is more concerned with functioning at a bare minimum than getting revenge on the country for failing to vote for a Republcian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Wouldn't Trump be old as gently caress by then? Like, Biden is 73 now and we're talking about Trump running by the time he's a year older than that. His doc said he's the most health. All positive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Trump is likely to completely melt down after this election and be in serious physical decline well before 2020. He's a junkie who will never get this kind of high again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Plexiwatt posted:is it better to be a "GOP talking point visualizer" or a "young adult movie novelizer" on the creative scale? The latter has an advantage in that they are not usually aiding and abetting an unethical cause
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It was one of those perverse incentive things. The party would benefit from unifying against Not Trump, Not Zodiac, but any given candidate wanted to stay in for at least a little while. It's hilarious, because the GOP as a party denies that the tragedy of the commons is a thing (because it demonstrates that a free market with everyone acting in their own self-interest can lead to the worst possible situation for all), but it precisely describes the situation that resulted in Trump winning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
nachos posted:Trump is likely to completely melt down after this election and be in serious physical decline well before 2020. He's a junkie who will never get this kind of high again. I mean He's a 70 year old who probably hasn't done any real physical activity in his life and as far as we know believes in a lot of health woo-woo It's not like he has any chance of being on an upward trajectory in that regard
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Our wonderful governor once again ladies and gentlemen. Unfortunately nothing will come of this yet again and we have to deal with two more years of this ignorant guy. I realize incumbent governors have an advantage but loving hell, this guy should have never been elected in the first place. Not sure I should be happy or sad to be moving to Massachusetts next month  Though honest question, not sure where I should be voting in November. Last time Maine split the vote, but maybe I should research the ballot question first..
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
AbuBakerAlBaghdadi posted:I mean He's also getting like 4 hours of sleep a night or less. This campaign is taking years off of his life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Is there actually a decent source for that "Trump is on amphetamines" thing, the best I've seen is an unnamed source on Gawker, although I've never really looked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Is there actually a decent source for that "Trump is on amphetamines" thing, the best I've seen is an unnamed source on Gawker, although I've never really looked. No decent source. Though, you'd think that'd be something that WikiLeaks would be interested in finding out... you know, if it wasn't so obviously a Russian propaganda arm at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:: It's a bit more nuanced than that. She poles horribly when asking for a promotion. She's fine running for re-election. She barely squeaked into her senate seat thanks to a libertarian spoiler but was re-elected by a nearly 35 point margin. Seeing her in action soothes a lot of vague sexist fears I think and next time around people have confidence in her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Trump's "most health, he's all positive." letter says he takes daily statins. Don't know what those are or the side effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
I'm extremely skeptical of the Clintons, and question their devotion to progressive causes, and carry the full roster of ~*BernieBro*~ hangups. But I have to say, forums poster McAlister is the most impressive Clinton surrogate that I've run across. McAlister's effort post defending her healthcare policies was one of the best posts I've seen this election season. Anyway far better than the retards at Vox or the :puke: Blue Nation Review.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Trump's "most health, he's all positive." letter says he takes daily statins. It's just bog standard cholesterol controlling medication.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:The post 2016-GOP attempts to rebuild are going to be interesting. There's a lot of cracks in the party that they're going to have to fill. They've held post-mortems in 2008 and 2012 which they immediately ignored I don't see them suddenly sobering up this time around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Trump's "most health, he's all positive." letter says he takes daily statins. Cholesterol medication for those at risk for heart disease. Not at all surprising since he's a 70yr old blob. Oddly enough one of the side effects can be sexual dysfunction. Sad!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
I highly doubt that Trump has ever had his mental health seriously looked at in-person by an expert, in between him "doing a standard retard" I mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:I'm extremely skeptical of the Clintons, and question their devotion to progressive causes, and carry the full roster of ~*BernieBro*~ hangups. Thanks. I'm starting to dig into whether or not prior presidents ran charities while in office and I'm positively giddy at learning that not only did FDR hold annual fundraisers for his anti -polio charity ( now called March of Dimes - originally named after a hot spring FDR got treatment at ) in the Whitehouse. Not only did he invite wealthy philanthropists to party with him in the whitehouse in return for donations to his charity. But also his wife raked in nearly 75k a year in 1930's money ( little over a million a year today with inflation ) doing paid speeches whose proceeds were donated to charity.. Way to go Eleanor Roosevelt. I mean, I knew all along that charitable works in presidential candidates have historically been lauded rather than attacked. But to find such a precise analog of today in history is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Yeah but Hillary is having seizures and her eyes are rolling back. I know, I've seen seizures. - My Mom
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:This is the one downside to Republican total dominance of lower office in the US. They get a huge influx of up and comers that have proved themselves in the fighting pits of state legislatures to earn Governorships and Congressional seats only to find themselves with too many candidates that view themselves as "THE ONE" to coalesce around a few strong potential presidents that aren't bloodied all to hell. Pretty obvious conclusion considering they've held strong independence as a virtue above all other things while stuff like 'cooperation' and 'sacrifice' is reserved for weak-willed liberals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:They've held post-mortems in 2008 and 2012 which they immediately ignored I don't see them suddenly sobering up this time around. The biggest problem wit the postmortems is that while they are 100% accurate, the base just can't bring themselves to even stomach Step One, don't purposefully antagonize Hispanics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:lol yup And yet, note how Fiorina's big burly avatar is the only one on the top bench not manspreading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
I think Cruz is the obvious GOP play for 2020. He'll be able to point to his convention speech as proof that he wasn't onboard the Trump Train and he's the ultimate answer to "well, we didn't run a real conservative, if we did, the ~SILENT MAJORITY~ will come out in droves." And I think he's the only candidate more unlikable than Hillary, so she'll kick his rear end assuming the country hasn't gone completely to poo poo in those 4 years. Also, he's (the whitest looking) Hispanic, so he totally gets the GOP more of that vote. (Spoilers, no, he won't.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Isn't Rick Perry taking a run at Cruz's senate seat? Cruz pissed a lot of people off apparently. I'm sure he could still run without a senate seat though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So are we expecting more deadlock if the House remains slightly republican majority during Clinton's first years? As others have said, yeah, there will be more deadlock. If the Senate goes Dem, that at least allows them to fill a number of bench vacancies. If the Republicans have 51 seats, you're going to see immense pressure on the more moderate Republicans (like Collins) to jump ship and switch over, which may be successful if the party seems to be in full-Trump mode after the election. There's usually at least one Senator who decides to go rogue when it means a poo poo-ton of personal power or election survival - ask Jim Jeffords, or Arlen Specter, or Joe Lieberman, or Richard Shelby, or Ben Campbell. The real interesting question will be how well Ryan is able to hold poo poo together for two years. He can't continue to balance the "I'm a serious Republican" with "I refuse to deal with Democrats" positions he's been holding for the last year - he can do it now because he can claim that Obama doesn't get a real fourth year, but he can't honestly say that the people rejected Hillary Clinton when she wins by six to eight points. And he's going to end up in the same position as Boehner as a result, because the Freedom Caucus will have just as much or more power with the smaller majority. So either he gets to be the wunderkind he wants to be and get all the press adulation he wants, or he does what the Freedom Caucus tells him and he keeps his Speakership. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he's tossed out or resigns next year, and wouldn't be surprised if it were a result of the Freedom Caucus/Issa/Gowdy demanding impeachment hearings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he's tossed out or resigns next year, and wouldn't be surprised if it were a result of the Freedom Caucus/Issa/Gowdy demanding impeachment hearings. It's November 10th. Paul Ryan's phone rings. "Paul? It's John. This can all be over and you can join me. I sip wine all day and mow my lawn. I've never been happier. Do it, Paul. Let some other sucker run things for a while. It's better out here." Paul hangs up the phone, looks at the "Hang in there, baby" cat poster he has on his wall, and sheds a single tear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Let's say the Democrats get within, oh, let's say ten seats of taking the House. Does this affect any of the GOP logic at all or would that depend entirely on other factors and whether or not those Democrats are replacing key nuclei of insanity?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Let's say the Democrats get within, oh, let's say ten seats of taking the House. Does this affect any of the GOP logic at all or would that depend entirely on other factors and whether or not those Democrats are replacing key nuclei of insanity? After this election the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus types will make up a greater proportion of Republicans in the House, no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The medical world is way, way behind on IT and security in general. I used to work with an electronic health record system that worked with ActiveX browser components and IE8 was the order of the day because guess what, that's the latest thing supported on XP. It's probably a majority of the install base for medical providers. Most of the smart ones are running it in a sandboxed Citrix environment though. Considering I was literally installing equipment for a hospital group this summer I can say "No."
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
nachos posted:It could be worse. Trump could have been running against a better candidate that wasn't smeared for 2 decades. In all the alternate universes, there is one where 2016 Trump is running against 2008 Obama. I wish I could see a news feed from there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:48
|
|
