|
mdemone posted:I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the statement that GHWB was the best president since Nixon, externally from the merits of Bush the elder. That sentence logically implies that Nixon was the better president of the two; else the claim would have been "best since LBJ" or however far back you want to push it. Nixon: * Saved America’s environment by creating the Environmental Protection Agency and Clean Air Act while approving the most sweeping environmental legislation in history. * Simultaneously reformed welfare and brought in serious new civil-rights laws and agencies for minorities, women, the handicapped and children. * Proclaimed the first official U.S. Earth Day/Earth Week in 1971. * Totally reformed the government’s relationship with Native Americans, bringing new self-determination and civil rights to U.S. tribes while saving such Indian natural wonders as Pyramid Lake — the tribe even renamed its capital “Nixon.” * Was even described as “the Abraham Lincoln of the Indian people.” * He went to China man. * Spent more on social programs than defense! * created OSHA
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Joementum posted:3. The RNC will be held in late June / early July in 2016, rather than late August / early September. This is being done entirely for campaign finance reasons. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats follow suit. What are the campaign finance reasons? Does the RNC raise a lot of money for whoever the presidential candidate is?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:The only one who won had an 8 year gap between campaigns, his previous loss was one of the closest presidential races in US history, and the Democratic field was a complete mess (between the incumbent announcing he wasn't running and the front runner being assassinated). Whereas Romney got stomped badly, and Hillary being an incredibly strong candidate. Who looks at Adlai Stevenson and says, "See Romney, it's not impossible"? I don't want to start a counter factual slap fight here, but RFK was not the front runner and I've mostly read presidential historians conclude he would have had little chance if he survived anyway. I agree that the American public wont tolerate a loser even more so than decades ago, and after watching that documentary Mitt I have to put his chances of running at roughly 0.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Huh. Ideally without getting into a full slapfight... can you give a source on this? I've got time to read over the summer, and I'm way too young to know much about RFK, but the impression of him I had was that he was picking up steam fast, especially after winning the California primary on the night of. The most I can remember is two posts by presidential historian Anthony Bergen here and here. Summary: -LBJ and RFK hated each other, and LBJ would have pulled the necessary stings at the convention to get Humphrey nominated -RFK was still behind Humphrey in delegate count even after his win in California -Eugene McCarthy was still doing well enough in the primary to split the anti-war vote with RFK -RFK's California win + assassination romanticize the amount of momentum he had in the bigger picture of the whole primary quote:So, to sum it all up, if Bobby Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated after winning the California Primary in June 1968, I think he and Vice President Humphrey would have had a battle on the floor of the Democratic National Convention. If that had happened, I think Humphrey would have been in far better shape to win enough delegates for the nomination — he was the Administration’s choice, he was President Johnson’s choice, he had a solid lead in delegates, and he was far more popular and appealing to the powers of the Democratic Party in 1968 than RFK, who was the people’s choice. The people, however, only choose the delegates — the delegates nominate the candidate. In my opinion this is a pretty solid reading for a counterfactual. For reference: "Wikipedia posted:At the moment of RFK's death, the delegate totals were: A Bag of Milk fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:We're talking about a field that includes Rick Santorum, so the bar for "really weird" about abortion is pretty high. I had thankfully forgotten about that time he and his wife took their stillborn infant home to meet their children and pray with it, but now you reminded me. Joementum posted:Quick reminder: more white women voted for Mitt Romney than Barack Obama. Romney even won white women aged 18-29, by 2 points.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Does Dan Snyder count? Because right now he's covering for that guy's defense of a racist slur as a football team nickname. Still a step up from doing legal work for the Penn State administration after the pedophilia scandal, or for that dude who boils and eats his political enemies.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:And what is wrong with any of that? People were going below the food stamp limit because they were choosing not to work, why should the government subsidize that? His state was losing jobs that it was going to have gained, why would he not fight against that? I honestly don't see anything wrong with the last one either, I'd have to read more but if it really was pushed through on its own I don't think it would qualify as an earmark, it certainly wasn't wasteful either. The food stamp thing is him trying to weaken his political opponents by starving them. Sounds pretty bad to me. I don't think anyone should starve, regardless of circumstance, and especially not as a political move to lower the already rock bottom power of the working class. Second part is "the only moral government spending is my government spending."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's official: Ted Cruz is no longer a Canadian Whatever happened to the essay he was supposed to write about why he didn't want to be a Canadian citizen anymore?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Riptor posted:I'm so torn because there's nothing I would love to see more than the inevitable mental break that Romney would suffer should he win the nomination again and then lose the general once more, but the potential of him becoming President is just not worth it in my mind I sincerely want Romney to be president more than anyone else in that poll though. Imagine the potential for a Rand Paul presidency, should he get the nom (he won't, but neither will Romney). Lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Except that if Hillary and Cheney shook hands at a debate they would automatically fuse into a single individual like they were wearing the Potara earrings Ideally they'd have to do a fusion dance.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
I'll be happy as long as at some point during the primary, even if for a moment, Carson is leading in the polls. I want that moment. I need it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2014 06:26
|
|