|
In related news, Joe Biden called another four people he thought were Martin Walsh to congratulate them on becoming Mayor of Boston.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
CubsWoo posted:And it isn't like the age factor is out of play - nearly a third of voters were concerned about McCain's age and its effect on his possible Presidential responsibilities, and her husband's team used age as an attack against Dole in 1996. This discounts big parts of McCain's campaign. Age was a minor but not massive issue until two factors came up: That his opponent was twenty five years younger than him, and that his VP choice was someone who was stupendously stupid. To your average voter (particularly non-Conservative to start with), the idea of being one heart attack away from President Palin is/was frightening. One heart attack away from President Castro? Not nearly so much unless you're mumbling the word 'wetback' under your breath, and those people would vote for a sack of potatoes with the word 'REPUBLICAN' scrawled on it with a Sharpie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Julian Castro seems like he'd be in line for a better cabinet post first. Not sure what. Just using him as a random example there. But even with his resume lacking, he doesn't have the fear punch of President Palin. None of the likely Dem VP candidates do. That's a definite factor in worrying about Hilary's age.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Geeez. HRC's private email was run out of a server in her home. One thing just doesn't make sense to me - HRC's activities as SoS have already been gone over with a fine-toothed comb. How many thousands of man-hours were put into the multitude of Benghazi hearings, which included a ton of her email communications? And NOBODY (on any side) noticed that she wasn't using an official email? That just seems like a downright odd thing to have missed, especally since the GOP was desperately hunting for something to pin her with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
No one cares about the email outside of the pundits. If you're someone who cares about the emails, then you're someone who already doesn't like Hillary from the seventy million little (and big) things that she's been slapped with in the last twenty-five years she's spent in national politics. It has zero traction, it's exceptionally minor on the scandal front and it can't be pressed by actual GOP candidates because it will make their own party look like complete morons for having missed it for so long. The Venn diagram of "People who care about Hillary's emails" and "People who had any chance to vote for Hillary in the first place" have no overlap. Now, is she going to govern well? Debatable, though honestly she has a better shot at it than Obama has had. But in terms of the general her opposition has resumes that read like a Three Stooges script for their ability to run things. Walker's DOA the moment someone actually starts producing stats about Wisconsin, Christie is laughable, Rubio will never get through the primary and I'm not even going to bother trying to justify the likes of Cruz, Perry or Carson. The GOP has Jeb (who looks viable but has his own heavy, heavy baggage) and Paul (which is a really sad statement).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, making hay over the emails is just part of the generalized Republican "strategy" of constantly filling the air with anti-hillary scandals (BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI). It's not about substance it's just about keeping the base worked up and keeping everyone else vaguely associating Hillary's name with BAD THINGS. I agree, though my point's more that I don't think it's really worth the time. Or the amount of words being wasted on it here. Plus as I said, it's going to heavily come down to her opposition in the general. This may be another clown car primary and it's very possible her opponent is going to be so stupendously bad that she'll walk through it. I mean, just resume-wise, you're talking about pitting a former First Lady/multi-term senator/Secretary of State who has multiple decades of experience dealing with every level of the system against a guy who can't manage to keep Wisconsin from defaulting on debt payments and who thinks that international terrorism is no more complicated than public employee union negotiations. The question of governing ability there is laughable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:I think Marco Rubio has more of a chance than Rand Paul. Rand is more likely to stick around to the end of the primaries than Rubio, but that's because Rubio will actually end his campaign if it's clear he's not going to win. Rand will follow the exact same trajectory as his father did in 2012. Oh, I fully expect so. But should Rand somehow make it out of the primaries I think he'd have a vague shot. He'd get the gauranteed 45% Not-A-Democrat vote, and he's got enough youth/guile/snake oil to get some sway versus Hillary. He'd probably still lose in the long run, but he's sadly got more of a chance at it than most of the GOP field. Which, as I stated, is a pretty sad statement considering it's a Paul we're talking about. Rubio might do okay in the general, but I agree - he'll bail in the primary early when he can't get traction. Randpaul will hold out until the end for that sweet sweet moneybomb.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Apparently the Venn diagram between people who would consider voting for Hilary and people who think this is pretty suspect and worth discussing has no overlap. The idea that an elected official could do this and then go 'welp, phones are hard, whatja gonna do?' and get vehemently defended in such absolutist terms boggles my mind. Let me rephrase: This is not a good thing she did. But it is not going to have any impact on her electability, nor is it going to be something that acts as turning point for undecided voters. On one hand, this is a woman who has been accused of nearly every possible crime by her opponents; of money laundering, murder, infidelity, bribery and likely unpaid parking tickets. She's spent very literally twenty-five years being smeared, slandered and attacked (both with and without proof) non-stop. We're just coming off of her getting through a months-long witch hunt to try and slap her with treason charges (that coincidentally went through all her emails and utterly failed to notice this supposed scandal) that pundits are still talking about four years after the fact. Who's honestly out there going "Well, I know that maybe she did or didn't have something to do with Benghazi but my god she didn't have her email server configured properly? That bitch!"? The GOP's spent so many years crying wolf about her for so many things that if you give half a poo poo about her email security then you've already got a million other more serious problems with her from everything else that's been levelled at her over the years; and if you don't care about any of that, why in hell would THIS be the straw that broke the camel's back? On the other hand, this also has no effect on expectations on her governing ability. No one really thinks she's going to be some kind of liberal bastion or a hero of the people. This is one of a ton of issues that show her to be kinda a lousy person and rather suspect. However, her opponents are people who are openly discussing military coups to get what they want, are actively undermining our international treaties, are agitating to go to war with anywhere between three and seven countries, openly consider somewhere around 60% of their own citizens to be subhuman, and we're just talking about what they've said and done this week. Hillary could be a baby-eating cannibal and she's still likely a better choice than what she's up against. I don't give a drat about where she stores her emails because at the end of the day her opponent is going to likely plunge us back into the dark ages, except with more bombs. If you're going to vote against someone because they went 'welp, phones are hard, whatja gonna do?' and their opponent is going 'welp, the Bible says we gotta stone the gays, whatja gonna do?', you have seriously hosed priorities but I will concede that the Venn diagram does meet for one tiny asinine point. Tempest_56 fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
radical meme posted:One of Cruz's big talking points is that there are "millions of voters" who have sat out the past elections when the GOP nominated a mushy middle of the road candidate and that a true conservative like him would bring those millions out to vote for him. He has talked about these millions of absent voters in the past and he made the same statement in his speech at Liberty. Is there any data anywhere that shows that these "millions of voters" exist anywhere other than in Cruz's warped mind? The idea that they exist is a major part of his imagined road to victory. This has been a Republican stand-by call for nearly forty years. It's one of their favorite fictions that if the 'silent majority' would simply stand up and be counted, they would win in a landslide in every race. That way they're the clear majority being unfairly oppressed by the minority because, darn it, the last candidate just wasn't conservative ENOUGH. IE there's zero proof at all but it fits their narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:Pretty revealing, actually. It makes me think about us all sitting here and rattling around all these hypotheticals, when just from a structural position, there's a 78 out of 270 structural advantage built into being a Democratic presidential candidate, just from having a (D) after your name. It's worse than that for the GOP, honestly. If you look at historical trends and give each party every state that they've won at least five out of the last six elections for and it ends up being 257-158 in favor of the Ds. Even restrict that to six for six and it's still 242-102. Maybe stretch it to include all those southern states that've voted R for the last four elections straight - then you're still at 257-191. The GOP is at a HUGE structural disadvantage to the point where they can win everything remotely possible west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon (ie everything that's not the coast states and MN) and STILL be trailing. To have a shot they need to really set the world on fire with a candidate - not much in the current field has the kind of star power for that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:You're taking a sample of six elections, five of which the GOP lost, and saying "if elections keep going like the last six, the GOP is hosed". Permanent, absolutely not. But there's absolutely an in-built advantage going on at this current time and a significant one. And I don't see a better way to get an idea than watching those results - the statistics are always going to be suspect because there's just not that many presidential elections to look at. It's not like you're going to be seeing New England or the West Coast turn red for Scott Walker - historical trends are likely to stay true.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I must of missed it but if that is true that is crazy Direct quote: quote:I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities. That one's a good two years old, from his big anti-drone fillabuster. He didn't 'go hawk'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 21:23
|
|
I was on vacation the last few weeks so I was only able to read on my phone. I also missed some direct questions pages ago but it's hard to go back and find them. sorry
|
Question that's not about Bernie: With all the stuff that's going down in Baltimore and in light of things coming up in the news (what David Simon wrote, for example) what if any impact is this likely to have on O'Malley's situation? Particularly since he's been positioning to try and run to Hillary's left. I'm not familiar enough with Maryland to know how much tar he's gonna get hit with before the feathers come out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Do you guys think that Clinton could tap Sanders for VP? If not, who might Clinton pick for her VP? Basically zero. He brings nothing to the table to help her in the general, several things to hurt her and his age is a bigger issue than hers is. It's a complete pipe dream. She's likely to choose someone who is 1) male, 2) a visible minority, and 3) considerably younger. My money's on a Castro, maybe Booker.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The idea that Hillary is "Republican lite" is absurd. But but but she voted for a war once.  And there are banks donating to the campaign of a Presidental frontrunner! That's scandalous!
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Lazy_Liberal posted:I just learned a lot about rocket fuel in this presidential primary thread. For more fun, look up PYF's FOOF thread. There's some scary, fascinating poo poo that goes on in there, some of it including rockets and all of it involving phrases like "This is mixed with liquid TNT to make it more stable".
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Like, at least the right was attempting to leverage an actual meaty issue like healthcare. That was sixty-five years ago. Can you reference an example that's happened within the last generation? Or at least something more recent than the Dixiecrats being an actual party?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Look I'll admit Moving Pictures was something of a disappointment but you can't deny the power of Red Barchetta. Now I know you're a goddamn troll, any Rush fan knows that Moving Pictures was one of their best albums.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Just to be clear, you are calling this woman a flip flopper/ etch a sketch with no principles, Yes? She voted for war once, so she doesn't pass the purity test. Death by guillotine.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Dolash posted:I was too young to really follow politics in the 90s, is this what we have to look forward to for the next nine years? Endless insinuation and half-baked "follow the money" conspiracies? It's going to get far more entertaining once the primaries are over and the actual race starts. Remember, Hillary has literally been accused of everything in the last twenty five years from high treason and capital murder to petty theft (look up the one about her stealing White House furniture when Bill left office for a good laugh). Whining about her email habits and possible tax dodges is nothing compared to the full-screaming noise machine that's coming. I'm looking forward to the next conpsiracy theory about Hillary murdering someone - my money's on some Dem congresscritter having an unexpected heart attack and the screams will come up that he was killed for not supporting her/having evidence of Yet Another Bad Thing We Swear. quote:Almost seems like they're wasting their ammunition, since it's not like any of this is enough to derail Hillary from getting the nomination. Shouldn't they wait for the general election before trying this, to avoid outrage fatigue setting in early? There hasn't been a point in the last twenty five years where they haven't been firing full guns at her. Slowed down, yes, but never stopped. There's a reason the public as a whole is exhausted about the accusations and barely pays attention anymore. We're closing in on three decades of screaming with minimal to no evidence. There's no benefit to them stopping now since they're well past the saturation point; and if they hit the general Hillary's probably going to obliterate whoever the GOP nominee is.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Judging by this thread and the US Pol thread, yes. Also, Fox News says bad things = Clinton's awesome/smart/cool/etc. See, this is a position that I don't understand where it comes from. (Other than blind idiot tribalism, of course.) There are a lot of people in D&D who admit that Hillary's almost certain to be the eventual Democratic nominee, yes. There are a good number who are pointing out that she holds (at least on the surface) a number of good, supportable positions on several issues, yes. There's a ton that at least grudgingly believe she's a better choice for President than all or nearly all of the current GOP clown car, absolutely. But I'm hard pressed to name more than two, maybe three people who are actually full-on supporters of hers. Because yeah, she IS scummy. She's someone who's been a federal-level politicial figure for several decades. You don't get to that level let alone stay there without doing a bunch of things that are at least questionable. Oh no, one of the most influential and powerful figures in US politics who's been around for twenty-something years has overseas connections. What a shock! And she may have used her influence to do things for people who support her? Like literally every god damned politician ever? At least the accusations back in the 90s were interesting and novel. I'd love for some kind of amazing super-candidate to come out of the woodwork and snatch the nomination (and the presidency) from her. But it's not happening. A year and a half from now, the real situation is that there's two actual drat choices on the table - one will almost certainly be Hilary (barring the super longshot of Bernie, which is a nice dream but not terribly likely) and the other is pretty much gauranteed to be someone who believes that we should go to war with Iran, cut our social safety nets completely, skew the tax structure even more heavily against those on the lower three-quarters of the income level and push the faces of every minority group in the country into the mud. I'll take someone who hides their emails over someone who openly says they'd like to re-institute sodomy laws, thank you very much. I accept she's the preferable choice, but this constant harping of how much she's loved/accepted/supported is dumb and not held up by reality. I don't like Hillary and I never will, but the last eight years have been a pretty drat good case for putting aside idealism for at least delaying the dry-loving of the American dream.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Firebert posted:A Dem president being elected for 16+ years seems hard to imagine One party holding the Presidency for 16+ years has happened four times. The Republicans held the presidency from 1861-1933, broken only up by Johnson (who wasn't even elected), Cleveland and Wilson - 52 of 72 years. There is absolutely nothing saying that the Dems can't have a similar run. Though yeah, VP seems to be a dead end for anything except the Presidency. The last one to go back into office afterwards was Hubert Humphrey.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Another major factor that cuts against parties holding the Presidency for a while is blame. At this stage, it's tougher and tougher for Barack Obama to say "well that was Bush's fault" or "it was like that when I got here" (even when it was blatantly Bush's fault), and Hillary won't be able to do that at all. So by the time 2024 rolls around, anything people are unhappy about in the government or economy or whatever will probably be seen as the Democrats' fault. But that's not true, because of the exact thing you cite: quote:That said, to me the difference with 2024 to me would be the Tea Party Congress. We have spent the last eight years hearing, yes, about The Evil Black Man In The White House, but we've also heard nothing but a long, continuous string of Congress being utterly incapable. That the folks in there now are historically the least effective, most childish people to ever hold the office. Blame it on Bush? Probably won't work. Blame it on Congress? Piece of cake, and reinforced on a daily basis by the continued inability for a party that holds both houses to pass basic legislation. Going into the next election, the Dems can get out of a huge amount of disssatisfaction simply by pointing out that 1) the GOP controls both houses of Congress and 2) Congress has been laughably dysfunctional for years. They're super easy to blame for everything. "We wanted to fix INSERT ISSUE HERE but Congress decided instead to try to repeal Obamacare more than fifty times."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I'd be pretty surprised if anything Walker wears is tailored, and it obviously doesn't need to be because dressing well is not his job. The basic rules of professional dress, though, act as a filter, a sort of warning system: if he can't remember which buttons to fasten on a jacket, what else can't he remember? Hey man, remembering what to do with three things is tough!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Also, voting rights obviously polls quite strongly with minorities, but also polls way down the list of "things people care about". Well, no, of course not. If they could GET to the voting booths, they wouldn't be as concerned about their lack of voting rights now would they?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Feather posted:For my part I'm as baffled by "white support" of Hillary or any other conservative. Let me qualify that. I get why affluent or very wealthy people (of any race) would support Hillary. I even get why a large fraction of feminists (of any gender or race) would (breaking race barriers to the office as Obama did was important, likewise gender). And instead they're supposed to support.... ? An old white man from the whitest state in the union, who's talked around the topic of race so much he's actively being called out for avoiding it? The guy who's trying not to have the phrase 'mass arrest' show up in his press kit? That guy from Rhode Island who nobody remembers? Vermin Supreme? Seriously, if my option as a demographic is between someone who at least pays lip service to my needs and someone who tries to pretend the problem isn't there, I don't see what's so mystifying. Particularly when the former is 75-95% likely to win.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:Uh huh. Tell that to the residents of the poorest counties of the Southern Tier of NY, which Governor Cuomo wanted to use as a fracking laboratory. Meanwhile the entire NYC watershed was completely off-limits. Because heaven forbid anything happen to the drinking water of a major city, but a few hundred thousand impoverished farmers and small-town yokels? gently caress it, let's see what happens. Counterpoint: Cuomo is a fuckhead. He'd screw NYC into the ground if he could figure a way to make it benefit him. It's not a terribly good example because Christ, what an rear end in a top hat. (I still agree with you, Upstate solidarity.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I've seen people in upstate NY flying the confederate flag from their pickup trucks, people in rural areas are pretty similar regardless of what rural area they're from imo. I've seen people in Canada and Europe flying Confederate flags. I don't disagree but that drat thing isn't exactly a perfect gauge. edit: I've also seen it in NYC, LA, Toronto and London. It's less suggestive of anything rural or Southern and more of 'I'm a racist fuckhead'. Tempest_56 fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:In terms of the primaries, if Bernie (somehow magically which is impossible because he's amazing) loses the primary, I'm not sure how I can vote for Hillary. I just don't stand behind her politics at all. Because her opponent is likely going to disassemble a huge chunk of the New Deal's remnants, put 1-3 ultra-conservatives on the Supreme Court and have us invade Iran. And that's a good outcome scenario. Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:Is there any hope of a Hillary presidency doing any good based on what we know today? We all had high hopes for Obama, but I feel like it's just going to be 4/8 more years of the same poo poo. She's been putting up pretty decent rhetoric so far, which is notable. She's in enough of a powerful position (both in the primary and the general) that she doesn't really get much benefit from pandering - but she's been talking a good game anyway. Worst case she's probably going to continue the current administration's general poicies. She's likely to at least make things no worse. (On the plus side, no worrying about disappointment! You've got such low hopes she can't help but do better than them.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:Not good enough. We need to be making active progress on (for example) climate change, wealth inequality, and election reform immediately and urgently. These are fights that we lose critical ground on every day that passes in which we "make things no worse." There are some issues that trend gradually in the progressive direction if we just hold the line - although we should never be satisfied with that, come on! - but others don't work that way. And what? President Bernie is going to suddenly get decades-entrenched Congresscritters to throw down the oppressive weight of their corporate overlords and do the right thing? Rewrite the Constitution to fundamentally alter how the electoral process works? What you're talking about would require an en mass alteration of more or less the entire US political system from the state (in some cases, local) level upwards. You're talking about a revolution, not an election. Look, support the guy, vote for him, give him all you're able to. But don't lose sight of what the results are likely to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:I don't know if you've listened to any of Sanders' speeches or interviews, but he agrees with you. He literally says we need a political revolution. Overturning Citizens United and instituting public election financing are two of his talking points. Defeatist? No, the situation we're facing isn't that. There's no shame in being able to look at a situation and realizing that the idea solutions are an extreme longshot if not wholly impossible. And there's nothing wrong with trying for that longshot. My issue is taken with the idea that once it does come down to a two-person race after the primaries, the purity tests come out and people who swear to be liberal choose to sit on their thumbs and go "Well, we tried!". THAT is being defeatist - you take good enough instead of ideal. Take a step back instead of surrendering. That's the attitudes I've got a problem with. I don't particularly like Hillary either, but I'll take stagnation over damnation any day of the week.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Well the median income was higher 8 years ago, let's let the people decide. This is a lie and easily verifiable by the US Census historical income tables. Median household income in 2007 was $50,303; as of 2014 it was $51,939. There was a slight dip in 2009-2010 (shockingly a global recession does that) but even then the median was higher than any year in the Bush term aside from 2007 (2006 was next highest, coming in at $48,201).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Are those in same year dollars? No, but he also didn't make the argument of adjusting it for inflation/purchasing power/etc, and I don't respect TheDisreputableDog enough to correct his mistakes for him. What he said is untrue, full stop.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Yadoppsi posted:Household median is $45,016. Median for a single person is $32,140. At the time of that article's writing, household median income was $51,324. An individual was $42,693. So the infographic is still showing people earning 3.5-13 times what the average American is. Within the realm of 'you may know 1-2 people in this bracket', but still obviously highly deceptive when discussing tax rates.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:This is the key point. There is no use wasting a minute of time on his college background when you can simply just discuss any of his many lovely policies or failures. He's a complete moron and hopefully being on the national stage will force him to actually answer a loving question, or at least make him squirm in front of a huge audience. Opponents should and likely will (if he makes it to the general, few if any of his GOP opponents are going to call out his record), but I think it holds at least a little water. Not a major line of attack, but remember we're in a campaign where there's already been a week-long  scandal based on where Hillary stopped to get lunch one day. A SuperPAC attack ad sniping him with it could get in a decent zinger with the Gen-X/Millineal crowd. "You worked for years to get a degree, put yourself into tens of thousands of dollars of debt and the promise of a good job turned out to be working in the mail room for a dollar over minimum wage. Everything you apply for wants a Master's plus 2-6 years industry experience. This slack-jawed idiot dropped out and has never held a real job in his life. He thinks he should be President. Shouldn't you expect a President who's the best this country can offer, rather than someone who's dumber and less experienced than you are?" Not the best, but it could get traction.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Eonwe posted:i still dont get why you guys dont talk about walker's lovely policies Mostly because it's the primaries still, and the people he's currently running against think his policies are awesome. Walker isn't going to get attacked by Jeb or Carson about union-busting or cutting education - being called out on being a drop-out and never holding a real job is much more fair game. Come the general, totally different story (though I still think that it could be a useful attack tool), that's when you'll actually see someone calling out Walker's poo poo positions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Yes, let's save the Executive for the high-pressure crucible that is "community organizer". Ah yes. A man who graduated from Columbia and Harvard, then taught law school for twelve years before going into politics is totally equivalent to a C+ student who dropped out of college to go right into office. C'mon man, you're a lovely gimmick but this one was tired eight years ago and can be shot down with under a minute's worth of fact-checking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
botany posted:Can we still dislike Clinton for being pro Israel and showing no indication of regulating the financial industry? I'm somewhat surprised by the amount of pro-Hillary sentiment in this thread. I think you may be misinterpreting "Hillary is not the literal daughter of Satan, the Queen of Lies, incarnate of all things bad" as support.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
DOOP posted:If Trump doesn't file paperwork with the FEC, what's the worst that can happen? Does anybody believe the FEC will do its job and enforce the rules? Even if they don't, it gives a legit excuse for the RNC to toss him out. I think he'll do it. The crazy bastard will actually do it, though I suspect the disclosure he files is going to be full of so many insane claims and contradictions it'll be practically useless. He's polling in a position where he has an actual shot at the nomination (or at least can tell himself he does). His ego won't let him step out now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:I've always been annoyed with politicians (mostly republicans, but democrats too) who will go to a synagogue or Jewish community center, say how good they are on Israel and expect the votes to come rolling in. I assume many Hispanic communities feel the same about immigration...yes it's an important issue, but I think most members of those communities would appreciate more what a politician can do for them, in this country, now. From my own experience, you're an outlier there. Every jewish person I know over the age of 40 is exactly that - Israel is the Holy Land and must be protected at any cost. Even ones who have never even visited or have family members there. In the younger demographic, there's more of an attitude split but there's still a decent number of those true Zionists there. You might not notice the folks who are as I've found (aside from Facebook, where they never shut up) it isn't brought up much. When it is, the reactions I find are often shock that anyone would dare to not give complete support to Israel in everything forever. There's definetly a very significant portion of the jewish community where it's not just a big deal, it's THE deal. I know lifelong Democratic voters who've sworn to never support the party again because Bibi doesn't like Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 17:42
|
|