|
zoux posted:Imagine how his kids hug him when he comes home and he sits there interested in listening about their day and then his wife comes in an gives him a kiss on the cheek and they sit down to a nice family dinner. And then they take their kids to bed, change out of their human skins, and then make sweet reptilian love before going to bed.
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The sounds of the GOP masturbating.txt Well, whatever 1/3 of the GOP that the RNC actually represents these days, that is 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Almost certainly not true. If the GOP pushes the country over the cliff, we'll have to spend months or years rebuilding depending on the scale of the fallout. If a sitting president just seized power and broke the constitution over his knee, the nation would never recover (nor would the Democratic Party).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Scott Forstall posted:Ryan's a chump if he takes this deal lmao Bbbbut they pinkie promised!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:so is paul "andrew" ryan going to be speaker or have the tea party hosed everything forever? It depends on whether Ryan is going to make them kiss the ring or not. If he doesn't, he's a fool.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
fade5 posted:A default could send us in Greece-style hosed up-ness, and cause a worldwide recession as hard as 1929 if not harder. Or it could just be a hiccup that lasts 48 hours while the RNC get told by their elite donors that if they don't square themselves then their tap is going to go dry, and the RNC starts ejecting people from the GOP. I mean the reality is that no one knows. But outside of the  Fallout scenarios, most likely we'd be talking about an instant recession if it lasted longer than the weekend. That would be hard, but not "decades of rebuilding" and certainly not the equivalent of kicking the constitution to the curb.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Even though he's as right-wing conservative as they come, Ryan is still going to get taken to school by the suicide caucus for being a RINO. I give him four years tops, and he'll be hating the job within six months.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think everyone's going to be in for a nasty shock over the next few months as it becomes clear just how loving crazy Paul Ryan actually is. Dude has maintained abolishing Medicaid (well, turning it into under-funded block grants) as a central policy position for years, and he's supported blowing the debt ceiling in the past. Oh agreed. For all that the media has been painting him as a moderate, the reality is that he was emblematic of the Tea Party back in the 2012 campaign, and holds a host of bizarre "throttle the government" opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Also, when asked about abortion being okay if the life of the mother was at stake Carson said: "I believe there's room to discuss that". "Is it a boy child? This is important." 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Hillary is out of touch with real America and accepted this weird french food that sounds like crud!! Personally I'm shocked that they even know that it's called a crudité, because to most Americans it's just a veggie plate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Boon posted:Oh. So at the end of her first term she'd be about the same age as when McCain expected to begin his first term. Republicans have to be really delicate about bashing Hillary for her age, not only because so much of their base is old retirees who loudly object to any implication that they are affected by their age, but also because Hillary is still younger than Reagan was when he ran for president. That being said, if she's elected she'll be the third oldest presidential elect, after Reagan and Harrison. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Trump is 69 and Carson is 64. So ummm kettles and pots and such. We're also in an era where graying presidential candidates is increasingly the norm, and visible appearance and vitality counts for a lot. Trump is only a year older than Hillary, but he looks aged standing next to her, even with all his spray tan and ridiculous overly dyed and teased hair. It's really funny how Trump was bashing Bush for being slow and old, when Trump is almost seven years older and has seven grandchildren. Bernie Sanders is 74, and he comes across as a firebrand on stage. That being said, you only have to look at how Obama aged 15 years in the last 7 to see how much the job demands of you. Age matters, and it goes without saying that Reagan started going senile in his first term. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Didn't work for Ryan against Biden though. It's just a really tricky card to play, because you have to whistle-blow it or else the AARP set will cry foul and let loose the walkers of war. Democrats have the same issue, though to a lesser extent. On the flip side, it's definitely a real issue, particularly for the folks who are pushing 70. I mean Bernie Sanders would be 83 at the end of a hypothetical second term. Alter Ego posted:
Well presumably half that time would be spent with them standing there awkwardly while a succession of young rebels mount the stage and seize the mics. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:24
|
|
Not exactly sure what purpose having an entire 2+ hour debate on it would serve. The questions should be asked in debates about domestic policy, definitely, but what the hell would they do with 2 straight hours?
|
Trabisnikof posted:The only person shouting at the Democratic debate was Sanders really. Like dude was legit shouting, not that he shouldn't. I get that he's passionate, but it's rather bad form to take a woman to task for supposedly shouting, when yelling is practically your trademark. That being said, only an ideologue would accuse Bernie Sanders of misogyny. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:So hypocrisy is what we are settling on here? There's nothing hypocritical about recognizing that it's bad optics, but ultimately political theater.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:It is a beautiful dream. Please bring me crashing down to Earth tia. I've already talked to a number of Bernie supporters who are refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton if/when she is nominated. It's quite early in the general election race, but the polls are pretty bad for Democrats right now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
zoux posted:Produce these polls. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html Clinton is either trailing or neck and neck with every serious contender except for Trump. Biden was looking great, but of course he was essentially untested and his numbers would have gone down.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Wheres the data on Bernie? Or is it just for Clinton? They've got Sanders against Bush and Trump, but not the less likely candidates. Mostly Sanders shows up in the primary polls.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:national polls are for chumps anyway Right, chumps who vote. Nate Silver does a much better job of breaking down the polling info than anyone else, and he's certainly not excited about the Democratic chances for pulling off a win next year. Any way you look at it, it'll be a tough election for liberals. And so far there isn't really public awareness of that fact since the Republican field looks like a circus.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Is it even likely Sanders can get the nomination . Ugh. Hillary may cost us the Presidency. Sanders has never really had much of a chance of getting the Democratic nomination, and he'd have an extremely difficult path to victory in the general election. He struggles to compete with the Republican front-runners even though they haven't even really turned their attention toward him. He's only had maybe a month or so of attacks from the right, otherwise he's been ignored. Hillary Clinton has the advantage of being a known candidate, and so her numbers have been fairly consistent and predictable since entering the race. There aren't a whole lot of surprises there, or undecideds who simply don't have an opinion of her. Her numbers are probably as low as they're going to get, particularly against GOP candidates that remain relatively noncommittal in the public sphere. Carson, for example, is doing great right now because he's coming across as a conservative evangelical who is otherwise a blank slate that moderates and conservatives can project their opinions onto, and hasn't been subjected to much in the way of detailed negative campaigning. His numbers will certainly go down as he becomes more well-known.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
That's a bit like saying that the only polls that matter are the ones conducted on Nov. 2. State polls are more accurate predictors of the actual outcomes of the state elections, but national polls are quite sufficient for gauging party support on a national level. The writing is clearly on the wall that this is going to be a tough election for Democrats, unless the Trump Circus gets the nomination.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:When people go " Look at these great policy's the Democrats passed when they had a supermajority" all 'i hear is " Look at these great Republican policy's that got passed". ACA is Romneycare. Republican policies as represented by liberal Massachusetts. A policy that was reviled by the Republican party and stood no chance of ever being implemented on a national scale while a Republican was elected, even were it Romney himself. This sort of "Democrats are secret Republicans" screed is just fundamentally non-persuasive.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:He'll get Bush's nickel when he drops out. I mean, he's done right? He's quickly becoming a punchline and everyone's gleefully shoveling dirt on his grave. He looks like he's been running on fumes for a while now and wants this to be over with. He's pursuing a March-April ground-game strategy, so I think that he'll at least wait until the results are in for the early states. Unless he completely loses ground, which he hasn't, he's going to keep waiting until the front-runners also have a campaign operation to match their polls. Trump and Carson might be convinced that cable news coverage is all you need to win an election, but I think the veterans aren't going to believe that until they at least see some primary results come in. Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Mike the TV posted:It's hard for me to believe that people still blame Nader for Gore not becoming president in 2000 despite it not being true even a little bit, but I guess the media narrative at the time was popular among defeatist liberals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's absolutely true that if Nader had not run then Gore certainly would have been president. Nader is not the sole reason that Gore lost, but he definitely made it easier for Bush to win.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Also true of Dr. John Hagelin, who ran on a platform of replacing the DoD with a thousand levitating yogis which would create a positive vibe missile defense shield around the US. I mean sure if 2,000 votes is equivalent to 90,000 votes and a national campaign slamming Gore and the Democratic Party. Which is why Hagelin disbanded his third party in 2004 rather than spoil the election again. Third parties are incompatible with the American election system, and Nader (and Green Party progressives generally) should have known better. The 2000 election results absolutely fall on Nader's shoulders, because he stabbed progressives in the back with his vanity campaign. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Nader did not hand the presidency to Bush, Gore running a losing campaign did. It's hard to run a winning campaign when your nominal allies are constantly slamming you and stealing your votes. Sure Gore could have run a better campaign, but it's insane to ignore that Nader stole nearly 3 million sure-fire Democratic votes from him, just to see his name on the ticket.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
zoux posted:The third-party narrative operating in 2000 was that Gore and Bush were indistinguishable from one another. Turns out there were a couple of key differences. Pretty much. The Green Party campaign was essentially two-parted: Gore and Bush are exactly the same so who cares, and Gore is going to win anyway so we should register our support for progressivism and potentially get the Green Party access to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund had they received 5% of the vote. But it turned out that Bush was a disastrous corporatist warmonger, while Gore explored his lifelong love of environmentalism, the Green Party never even got close to that money, and Nader's fruitless ego campaign threatened liberal politics for another two election cycles while everyone begged him to not run - until thankfully he got too old to keep actively stabbing Democrats in the back.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:If this gets out, Rubio's campaign will be destroyed. If this got caught on film, it would probably cause a permanent 3-5% drop in polls.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 20:30
|
|