|
Unzip and Attack posted:Watching Romney flail to stay relevant has been even more rewarding than his actual loss. Is there any precedent for a losing politician to hang around and snipe rather than actually do anything other than Palin? Did she create a new political cliche? Al Gore.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Religion abandoning stuff science explains is an incredibly recent thing and it has fought it every step of the way.Kalman posted:No, they really weren't. Literalism is a recent development. Maybe the shift back but the origins of religion are pretty much always founded in explaining the world around them. tsa fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no you are actually wrong about this, at least for the major trends in Christianity and Islam the attitude has always* been that science is basically another way of examining god's work Right that's what I said. Modern religions move away from it but it's still there in forms. Hence why scientists haven't had the best relationship with churches even after Tommy boy said his thing. I mean even read the passage linked, it's all about keeping the church relevant as science moved forward.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
No problem, I should have specified what "recent' meant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Who speaks at a Bernie Sanders-as-candidate DNC? Marx and Lenin, once hell freezing over leads to their escape. Chavez will do standup.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:
Except this is the real world and in the real world power vacuums are filled. The US sucks. The other countries that would take our place are a lot worse. This is really obvious for anyone who isn't hopelessly idealistic. hakimashou posted:We must not have read the same post. And then these same people beg the US to intervene all over the world. Who exactly do they think would be stopping Russia if not for US hegemony around the world? They talk about how much they hate US imperialism and then beg the US to save Syria, Kurdistan, Ukraine, and so on. Even Libya would have been completely impossible without the US, something that had overwhelming approval here. International politics is no more comparable to a playground than illegal immigration is to someone breaking into your house. Which is why the simplistic analogies people make here utterly fail and their ideas have literally no traction with anyone of influence. icantfindaname posted:no seriously, you're a sociopath. seek mental help, and stay away from politics Yet you are going to vote for people with the exact same views, hope this helps.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:But thats the whole thing, do the things the government does or wants to do benefit us enough to make up for their costs? Often times the answer is no. Wheeee posted:lol I dunnno Wheeeee, the idea that the US does more bad than good seems to be the overwhelming opinion here, maybe you should talk it out and get your views straight. Seems a lot want to have the US be this extremely powerful country that never exerts its influence or at least only does so in the most ideal way possible; such a country has never existed and I can't imagine that is changing anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:Well, Hillary didn't gently caress up and lose an election to one of the two or three worst Presidents in U.S. history while mired hip-deep in two losing wars. There is that. Bush still had solid approval ratings through 04, for some reason dems just thought bush was hated by everyone but it just wasn't true until about half a year post election when he started to dive as Iraq got worse. In general it's incredibly hard to unseat a 1 term president- HW had lovely approval ratings (down to 30%) throughout the last year and some claim Perot helped Clinton out (they're wrong). No new taxes just destroyed him though. Going beyond that Ford and Carter are the only other modern examples but I don't think it's a tough argument both had far bigger problems than Bush 2 going into their elections. I guess what I'm trying to say is the idea Kerry hosed up is largely born from dems that were incredibly overoptimistic for no real reason- a sitting president with >50% approval rating and a war going on is going to be incredibly tough to beat and Kerry only lost by a narrow margin.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I think one article that should scare Democrats is this one. The title sounds like it's something a Republican booster would write, but he's a liberal writer, so. Millennials shifting to the right wouldn't really be a surprise at all, they have been pretty hosed over even as the economy booms, not to mention massive disillusionment over Obama. If I had to guess the religious component of the right is going to start becoming much less influential again, leading to a much greater libertarian influence that plays very well with young people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Did the Fox Poll Come pre Un-Skewed? What on earth are you even talking about? You can quite easily look up the MOE if you'd like ( +- 3%). Also skewing is a normal polling procedure that literally every polling company uses since weighted sampling increases polling efficiency, among other things. When it is done wrong, however, you can greatly increase polling bias so it's not entirely incorrect to question whether or not the polls were weighted correctly. It was fairly easy to see that the "un-skewing" guy was completely off base though and his complaints had little merit. But there's a huge difference between talking heads on fox news and their actual scientific polling which is done in conjunction with other reputable polling agencies. There's no reason to assume a poll is wrong just because it doesn't say what you want. e: It's also really easy to tell what the approx. margin of error is, polling companies most often just give the conservative one which is just 1/sqrt(n) tsa fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Riding the train is awesome, the problem here has been completely misidentified. Trains dont necessarily need to get to their destination faster, they just need to get there more comfortably and cheaper. Recent trends have been about buckling down on train travel since the primary management in the industry are gigantic fuckwits who think their trains are ground airplanes so ripping out luxuries and adding more seats is the only way to fix their hemorrhaging business model. If your seats are cheaper and people can go get ripped in your bar car and then pass out on a leather couch or play some pinball next to a jukebox while making their trip for cheaper than a flight would be you will book every single train. People already have a soft spot for the idea of taking a train trip, but the price and dinginess of the current state of the industry makes dealing with an airplane a no brainer. This sounds good but the numbers just don't work out like you think they do, at least for moderate to long distance travel. Even on very short stretches, like Chicago -> nearby major cities (twin cities, detroit, etc.) it's still going to be rough to make the numbers work. The ultimate problem for trains is that planes are just too drat cheap. What does competing on price and comfort actually mean when I can get from Chicago to LA in about 4 hours for just over 250 bucks? You can't, even if it was free your time would have to be worthless for the train to be a better option, because at 100 mph your trip from Chicago to LA is going to take at least 4-5 times what the plane would take. Remember it won't be a straight run, not to mention how long picking up new passengers along the way would take. Which then destroys your "comfort" argument, because I who gives a poo poo how comfortable you make it when ultimately you will still be in a very small area for a very long time. And this isn't even getting into things like labor costs, which will be massively inflated considering you have to pay 24 hours of wages per trip vs. 4. I don't think the management are idiots, I would guess they ran the numbers and found out very quickly what you are trying to do won't work. Slow cheap travel is an oxymoron. tsa fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:
Not in 2008 they didn't, or 2006. It's not some law that they are automatically going to get high turnout every election, they have to work at it just like the dems. They just tend to be better at it. DynamicSloth posted:
What makes you think that? There's no way she's going to be as good as Obama is on the issue. If you mean she won't scuttle the Iran deal, sure, but she might not press it too much if the republicans fight it, either. If you think she has to keep the same policy as Obama just because she was SoS, well no that isn't historically true at all. tsa fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 18:13
|
|
She was Secretary of State for four years, she can distance herself from Obama on many issues if she wants to but she's going to have to own the current foreign policy direction.
|
Like if Colin Powell ran and won for some reason do you really think he would just mimic Bush policy? I doubt that very much, people can shift pretty easily in this regard.HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Is he diabetic? He seems to always be thirsty. Dry mouth is an incredibly common side effect of a bunch of meds. tsa fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Rivensteel posted:Maybe I'm being naive, but how can a PAC for a candidate possibly have a live interview/statement from that candidate without there being any coordination? Well a statement is easy. If I run a PAC in 2012 and I like Obama, I'm definitely going to replay any speeches from him because he is a good speaker. I'm no expert on the law but I think coordination has to be a lot deeper than that to count. Even an interview could be done in a way that avoids it, though of course in practice there's probably at least a little something going on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Lockback posted:That's very different. Colin Powell left the Sos position BECAUSE he was seen inside the administration as a detractor. Clinton left much more amiably and Kerry's role seems to be pretty similar to hers. OK we don't disagree then, I already said she won't scuttle the Iran deal. Concerned Citizen posted:Not necessarily true. Republicans really do vote at higher rates, naturally, than Democrats. Their base intersects with the voters most likely to turn out - older, whiter, richer. Democrats have an actual larger base of voters, but they are far less likely to turn out and they are disproportionately concentrated in fewer states. The GOP's turnout machine is generally considered to be a joke, although they've gotten better at it. They simply have far fewer marginal voters to turn out, so they don't really need to do a lot of GOTV. I've seen some things that suggest it but the studies always make a lot of dubious assumptions. I'm not even sure what "naturally higher" can even be shown convincingly, there's way too many variables going on. Ignoring that, the point is republican turnout isn't a guarantee like some are suggesting. The size of the base isn't a very convincing argument, that doesn't have to mean republicans have a higher propensity to vote, though it is a possible explanation. It could also be that republicans simply have a higher propensity given other variables which are confounding the relationship. Something like propensity score methods could be used, though they still don't guarantee you have isolated the effect to just Party vs. voting percent. tsa fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
eternalname posted:It's common for there to be surprises in crowded fields with no clear frontrunner like the republicans are currently looking at, but 2008 is literally the only time that an obvious "probable nominee" was upset. The establishment candidate pretty much always wins. Hillary's 08 'inevitability' has also become more and more exaggerated as time goes on. Charliegrs posted:I think even later into the election cycle than this in 07/08 everyone thought it was going to be Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guliani. Candidate predictions this early are such a crap shoot. They were the forerunners in polling at this point I think but anyone with a brain knew Rudy didn't have a chance. If there was going to be another Obama this time we'd already have heard of him/her. tsa fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:Does anyone have a concise, sober summary of things we could reasonably expect under three branches of GOP government? This is the leftist equivalent to "HUSSAIN OBAMA THE MOST MARXIST MUSLIM EVER".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Welp, nice knowing ya, Chris. It's funny people ever thought he had a chance, calling him this year's Giuliani is being unfair to Giuliani.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:They have where it counts, and they've gobbled up the first-rate support between them. Rubio's left with their crumbs and second-rate donors at best. *waves hands*
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Because he's a tier-1 Republican candidate. He's the only Republican in the race able to successfully straddle the line between establishment money and the TeaParty grassroots crazy. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I know this may seem like madness to us, you're not thinking like an establish Republican would. Is this english?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I agree that he's dangerous, but I also think he blew his load too fast. Unless this was literally his plan, he really should've waited a few years before pissing off everyone in Congressional leadership. Dude is very savvy and can be quite good in a debate, but he looks like a used car salesman. Most of the older GOP types I know in Texas are embarrassed by him and want Kay Bailey Hutchison back. "used car salesman" is such a stupid critique, which basically means "i dont like this white guy".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Pandering to racist midwesterners? Bet there's a lot more westerners who would be interested, you have lots of young professionals who would be interested in limiting legal immigration from china and india. messagemode1 posted:You'd be wrong, that the Koch brothers have thrown their support behind Walker proves you wrong. They didn't though. They would be very silly to only support one candidate at this point. tsa fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:One who commits war crimes? Raskolnikov38 posted:He was either punished or dismissed for conducting a mock execution on an Iraqi police officer 'believing' he had information on plans for an attack. The officer of course knew nothing. That's against international law, but isn't considered a war crime and nobody has ever been prosecuted for it on those grounds.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Direct quote: He's right. Stop  ing
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Apollo_Creed posted:Possible idea: Would honestly not be surprised. Dirk the Average posted:I ran into this with my dad when he complained about Obama being "soft" on Russia. Honestly the best attack they have on this issue is that Obama was completely blindsided while Romney identified this as a potential issue. tsa fucked around with this message at 19:43 on May 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I'm confused, is the consensus that it is totally okay to sell weapons to dictators to help suppress popular revolt? Arkane said it though, he could say the sky is blue and you'd have dumbasses here trying to argue.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:If she does co-opt their economic positions, then Bernie will have accomplished exactly what I wanted him to--push Hillary left. Until of course she swings back to center after the nomination/election.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
FMguru posted:It's an interesting contrast to the 1990s (when Bill Clinton ran as a third-way triangulator and took every opportunity possible to punch hippies to show he wasn't one of Those Liberal Democrats) and the 2000s (where John Kerry ran on his military service and Barack Obama ran on bipartisan bringing-both-sides-together-ism). I'm sure Clinton is doing this because she figures the biggest threat to her getting the nomination is someone to the left of her getting traction so she's trying to foreclose that, but even so it's a measure of how the political landscape is changing. His first election was fairly lefty / populist economically, it wasn't till he got into office that he started swinging to the right. He ran on raising taxes and expanding government spending. Then he got in, Greenspan said " " and his tune changed pretty quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
The Larch posted:So who do we vote for then? Bernie? You certainly don't believe anything a new way dem has to say about regulating business, post Clinton I the democrats are more in bed with finance than the republicans. Gyges posted:Guess I missed Hillary's policy proposal to burn all hedge funds to the ground. As far as I can tell the argument isn't that they shouldn't exist but that they should be regulated in a stricter manner, which is not incompatible with either her son-in-law or daughter working at one. It's in the same vein as thinking taxes should be higher but not kicking in extra to the IRS on your own return. That money buys things, there's no reason at all to think she'll regulate WS in any significant manner. You don't bite the hand that feeds if you want to stay relevant or get reelected.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
There's legitimate reasons the guy is worthless, I honestly don't see the need to lie and pretend he's a bad businessman because he uses bankruptcy law to his advantage. The whole line of argument -- he's a bad businessman!! -- is stupid to begin with, by using it you are implicitly agreeing that the president should be a good businessman. At any rate you aren't going to convince anyone but the choir that a person with a personal wealth of over a billion dollars is terrible at business.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
I have no idea how he plans on running a modern presidential campaign with that weight. Like it's not even about the voters focusing on looks, which is a huge part of it, it's the technical aspect of how tough election campaigns are physically. There's a reason the last couple candidates and presidents have been in incredible shape.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Pohl posted:How did you guys miss the exorcism stuff years ago? It's been 6 years since he was really relevant and talked about, if you're under 24 you've probably never even heard about him or only in passing. e: Kit Walker posted:A friend of mine who lives in New Orleans and who I sincerely believe would castrate Jindal given a pair of rusty shears and five minutes alone with him posted this article which should answer any questions: http://m.thenation.com/blog/210793-bobby-jindal-broke-louisiana-so-badly-even-gop-doesnt-want-him quote:Rush Limbaugh declared him "the next Ronald Reagan"; The Washington Post, "a political meteor." A meteor burns up in the upper atmosphere, this might have been one of the most correct things Limbaugh ever said. tsa fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Trump does not have much in actual money. Everything is for show. That is why the bankruptcy jokes aare especially good. This is just plain wrong, most billionaires have most of their wealth in investments. Regardless even if you are just looking at cold hard cash he has more than anyone here will see in their entire lives.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/bobby-jindal-video-kids-announcement/ Seriously, how is BJ so terrible at making videos/promoting himself? It's not just bad, it's aggressively awful. I mean I get going for (and loving up) the folksy family appeal. But you litterally cannot even see his face. (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153008087295095 for direct announcement).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
FireSight posted:Why do people believe that the USA is something special in gods eyes? I don't really understand it. Largest and strongest economy of the world. Largest /best trained military. Lots of reasons really. When the kurds were about to be wiped out by ISIS who stopped them? The USA.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:... Eagle Run? Eagle rare. Depending on year it can get moderately pricey, 500+
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:the same people who are going to pay for any other successful candidate The dems are much more in bed with finance and wall street than the republicans, this happened during Clinton. Republicans rely more heavily on defense and energy sectors.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:I bet Hillary cares deeply about crushing student debt. *checks donor list* No, probably not  Sanders does though, and honestly has a great chance against the joke candidates the R's got.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
McAlister posted:Why? The criticism isn't one of philosophical positions. It isn't saying they have a bad position or that they are lying about their position. It's tearing out ones hair because the person who agrees in principle is always to busy with something else to do something concrete about civil rights right now. Its a criticism of priorities, not positions. You can't defend him from the critique by asserting he has correct positions because that isn't what is being criticized. lol if you think hillary will be any better on the issue because she talks about it more. She's talking about a lot of poo poo she's going to do jack gently caress-all to change. This is 2008 all over again with people focusing more on pretty words than actually thinking for a second.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 05:09
|
|