PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can only imagine he's warping this to say that gay people can called themselves married if they want. I guess. I dunno.

I've always hated how much of a two-faced asshole Medved was, but he's topped himself.
 
My understanding today was that all the cpac speakers were essentially calling for conservatives to go against the current gop establishment. It looks like the gop is on the train to batshit crazier at full speed.
 
Oblivion said:
I got a little confused since congress decides how much money is spent every year, but the fed has the power to increase the money supply, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, in the sense that they have their own securities they can sell just as the Treasury Dept has their own securities to sell. It's in the same sense that all banks have the power to increase the money supply, by being able to lend out more money than they actually have. And they have some control over how much lending is happening by having control of the interest rate.

Obviously the Fed is not a normal bank. They get their investors by the force of law, and their goals are not profit, and they don't have to follow the same regulations. But accounting wise I don't think they are very different from any other bank at all. They can make moves which effectively increase monetary supply but they can't just order the Treasury Dept to print money and give it to them whenever they feel like it. In fact they can't even purchase Treasury Securities directly from the Treasury, having to buy it second hand to maintain their role as independent from the government.
 
As I said in the CPAC thread, the crazy thing is that the GOP could easily compete with democrats if they simply weren't insane. 5 years of Obama's economy hasn't impressed anyone, there are plenty of voters out there who would be receptive to a decent republican candidate. But...no such candidate exists. It's stunning.

Republicans have quite a small window in which they could potentially win an election, before demographics make it too hard; 2012 seemed like it was a possibility if they had a perfect candidate, and the same applies to 2016. Once we get to 2020+ they'll be completely forced to evolve.

Which is why I believe they need a Bill Clinton type who can slowly pull them out of the ditch, confront some of the fringe (a Sista Soulja moment, basically), etc.
 
PhoenixDark said:
As I said in the CPAC thread, the crazy thing is that the GOP could easily compete with democrats if they simply weren't insane. 5 years of Obama's economy hasn't impressed anyone, there are plenty of voters out there who would be receptive to a decent republican candidate. But...no such candidate exists. It's stunning.
Click to expand...

If you go to any right wing site like Breitbart of Red State they're pretty convinced that the majority of Americans are Reagan Democrats waiting for a "true conservative" like Ted Cruz.

The thing is they wont change. we'll go through eight more years of this crap under Hillary because they despise Hillary with a burning passion much greater than they have for Obama.
 
Samarecarm said:
Let's be fair, it's not just Obama. Bush Derangement Syndrome was also a very real phenomenon back in the day -- "Bush is an idiot who reads books upside down and leaves the lens cap on binoculars" vs. "Bush is an evil mastermind who was is behind 9/11 and is going to re-institute the draft"
Click to expand...

But what Bush did isn't even remotely comparable to what Obama's done. Healthcare reform is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq and the tens of millions of lives destroyed through wars and economic collapse.
 
Sirpopopop said:
I'm actually really happy that Rutgers got Condi to speak...

A university should be about the free exchange of ideas. Condoleeza Rice is a very accomplished individual whose major flaw seems to be coming from the other side of the aisle. She's going to speak at a liberal northeastern United States university. One of the major things students should learn is how to listen to individuals from the other side, who aren't antagonistic blowhards. The first African American female Secretary of State.

This isn't Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld we're talking about here...

It's also far more prestigious than who I got for my commencement speaker - Jane Goodall.
Click to expand...

Eh. I guess. I've never personally liked the woman so it makes it easier to just avoid the whole thing entirely.

I'd rather have someone non political outside maybe whoever the president happens to be at the time.

edit i should say someone less of a polarizing political figure.
 
Dems up 40-38 in a Fox News generic ballot poll

I don't really think there will be a big enough wave to sweep the Democrats into the House majority, but I think there will be at least a definitive advantage and one big enough to pick up some House seats, hold the Senate (with breathing room) and win a bunch of gubernatorial contests (ME, MI, PA, FL, WI, OH, AZ, KS)
 
Samarecarm said:
Let's be fair, it's not just Obama. Bush Derangement Syndrome was also a very real phenomenon back in the day -- "Bush is an idiot who reads books upside down and leaves the lens cap on binoculars" vs. "Bush is an evil mastermind who was is behind 9/11 and is going to re-institute the draft"

That pushed me to the right back that just as the Tea Party pushes me to the left now :p
Click to expand...
There was certainly a lot of "Bush is an idiot" stuff. Kinda hard to avoid that with all the Bushisms.

But the 9/11 truthers were pretty much a tiny fringe and largely not even on the left (Would you call Alex Jones a lefty?). And it was a Democrat (Charlie Rangel) that pushed for bringing back the draft and the Republicans eventually put it up for a vote and all voted against it.
 
PhoenixDark said:
As I said in the CPAC thread, the crazy thing is that the GOP could easily compete with democrats if they simply weren't insane. 5 years of Obama's economy hasn't impressed anyone, there are plenty of voters out there who would be receptive to a decent republican candidate. But...no such candidate exists. It's stunning.

Republicans have quite a small window in which they could potentially win an election, before demographics make it too hard; 2012 seemed like it was a possibility if they had a perfect candidate, and the same applies to 2016. Once we get to 2020+ they'll be completely forced to evolve.

Which is why I believe they need a Bill Clinton type who can slowly pull them out of the ditch, confront some of the fringe (a Sista Soulja moment, basically), etc.
Click to expand...
And as I pointed out in that thread, the problem with your thesis is that the GOP has no credible plan for economic recovery. And as someone else pointed out, you are just saying they should be Democrats.
 
PhoenixDark said:
2012 seemed like it was a possibility if they had a perfect candidate, and the same applies to 2016.
Click to expand...
They may not have had the perfect candidate, but they sure did have the Perfect Campaign!

Do you ever think the GOP might have a real problem on their hands? All of your analysis seems to be predicated on the idea that their misfortune over the past few years has been a fluke, and we're a second away from Obama imploding and resulting in President Christie. Maybe the reason they don't have any good candidates is because their primary voting base is fucking insane and purged all of the decent moderate candidates from the party, or otherwise turned them into right-wing zealots?
 
Cyan said:
Truthers weren't mainstream in the slightest. The more common sentiment was that Bush was a genial well-meaning moron while Cheney was an evil puppetmaster. Which at least had internal consistency.
Click to expand...

I think we can all at least agree on the Cheney evil puppetmaster part.
 
speculawyer said:
There was certainly a lot of "Bush is an idiot" stuff. Kinda hard to avoid that with all the Bushisms.

But the 9/11 truthers were pretty much a tiny fringe and largely not even on the left (Would you call Alex Jones a lefty?). And it was a Democrat (Charlie Rangel) that pushed for bringing back the draft and the Republicans eventually put it up for a vote and all voted against it.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a chart that correlates a higher level of 9/11 truther belief while Bush was in his presidency?
 
Aaron Strife said:
They may not have had the perfect candidate, but they sure did have the Perfect Campaign!

Do you ever think the GOP might have a real problem on their hands? All of your analysis seems to be predicated on the idea that their misfortune over the past few years has been a fluke, and we're a second away from Obama imploding and resulting in President Christie. Maybe the reason they don't have any good candidates is because their primary voting base is fucking insane and purged all of the decent moderate candidates from the party, or otherwise turned them into right-wing zealots?
Click to expand...

Eh...to be fair to PD, I don't think he's totally off base. Yes, Mittens wound up losing eventually, but let's not ignore the fact that he did so by a 6 point margin. This is a man who vowed to shred entitlements if he got into office and he still only lost by 6 points. And Romney achieved this while being a pretty horrible campaigner.

Let us not forget that this is a country that voted twice* for George W. Bush. The American people can be persuaded to vote for pretty much anyone given the right conditions.

*well not really, but you get what I'm saying
 
Oblivion said:
Eh...to be fair to PD, I don't think he's totally off base. Yes, Mittens wound up losing eventually, but let's not ignore the fact that he did so by a 6 point margin. This is a man who vowed to shred entitlements if he got into office and he still only lost by 6 points. And Romney achieved this while being a pretty horrible campaigner.

Let us not forget that this is a country that voted twice* for George W. Bush. The American people can be persuaded to vote for pretty much anyone given the right conditions.

*well not really, but you get what I'm saying
Click to expand...

Actually Romney only lost by 3.9 percent, which makes me wonder why people were so quick to say the GOP was doomed after the election.

Romney was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign and pretty much was the farthest right the Republican Party had ever gone in a Presidential election, and only lost by 3.9%. That's 47.2% of the population who thinks it's completely okay for the entire country to be turned into a giant Wisconsin or North Carolina.
 
WayneMorse said:
Actually Romney only lost by 3.9 percent, which makes me wonder why people were so quick to say the GOP was doomed after the election.

Romney was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign and pretty much was the farthest right the Republican Party had ever gone in a Presidential election, and only lost by 3.9%. That's 47.2% of the population who thinks it's completely okay for the entire country to be turned into a giant Wisconsin or North Carolina.
Click to expand...

3.9%? Did some of the vote get eaten up by the (LOL) independent vote?

But yeah, I agree. To paraphrase Bill Maher: the biggest thing to fear is an extremist who comes off as a moderate. All the Republicans need is someone who can fit the bill.
 
To be fair, the GOP candidate was going to get at least 46-47% regardless. The days of Reagan/Nixon/FDR blowout victory margins are probably over. By proxy of being the republican candidate, a large portion of the country voted for Romney - I wouldn't read too much into that.

We're stuck with one legitimate political party right now, and that's not a good thing. And while I think democrats will be better off with an actual leader in two years, at the end of the day they'll still be dealing with rampant obstruction and a tepid economy. To me the argument boils down to the next few years: can republicans cause enough damage to get a shot at the White House, before demographics demand immediate change? Clearly republicans are betting on the white vote and absence of a black candidate on the ballot, but if that doesn't work in 2016...then what? It took democrats three president terms in the wilderness (1980-1992) to find a moderate candidate. Are republicans on a similar trajectory?
 
WayneMorse said:
Actually Romney only lost by 3.9 percent, which makes me wonder why people were so quick to say the GOP was doomed after the election.

Romney was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign and pretty much was the farthest right the Republican Party had ever gone in a Presidential election, and only lost by 3.9%. That's 47.2% of the population who thinks it's completely okay for the entire country to be turned into a giant Wisconsin or North Carolina.
Click to expand...

Romney only got about a million more votes than McCain. It was close because Obama had about 3.5 million vote dropoff from 2008.
 
Metaphoreus said:
A couple of months ago, there was some discussion in this thread regarding a school finance case pending before the Kansas Supreme Court. The court issued its decision in that case today. Here's the (unanimous) opinion. The court spends a good deal of time dealing with the political question issue I raised earlier in the thread, ultimately rejecting it.

I still think they're wrong.
Click to expand...

So, I was right and you were wrong. Told you it was justiciable.
 
Samarecarm said:
Regardless of your feelings about the comparative merits of Bush 43 vs Obama, my comment was more that criticism of Bush had a similar lack of logical consistency--"Bush is an incompetent idiot who's also this all-powerful evil mastermind."
Click to expand...
The point remains: Who was making this specific criticism?
 
Can someone give a TL;DR version of why/how California is practically in no shape or form a State Republicans can win in national elections, even in best case scenarios?
 
TacticalFox88 said:
Can someone give a TL;DR version of why/how California is practically in no shape or form a State Republicans can win in national elections, even in best case scenarios?
Click to expand...

The same reason republicans won't win New York, New Jersey, and all of new england (sans new hampshire) and Democrats will never, ever win louisiana, alabama, and most of the bible belt.

The demographics are simply wrong for the message. The culture is different, the values are different, and it's only gotten more so over time as both parties become more polarized.
 
Hitokage said:
The point remains: Who was making this specific criticism?
Click to expand...
The fringe far left, who believed Bush was going to start a war in Iran and declare martial law to cancel the 2008 election? I wish ToxicAdam was here, he certainly remembers those threads.

Fahrenheit 911 also made the general argument that Bush was an idiot but also well connected to a variety of complex conspiraciess. I spent a lot of time listening to Randy Rhodes during Bush's terms, and posting on her forum; in terms of paranoia there isn't a large difference between the fringes of either party. The ultimate difference comes from how the mainstream of their political parties accepts them. Republicans feed the frenzy. Democrats gave them some winks with respect to Iraq war conspiracies (pipelines), but overall they shunned the nonsense. Remember how democrats embraced Cindy Sheehan before she went off the deep end? Republicans make no distinction, and prop up conservative versions of her nonstop (Benghazi, Obama personally sending an imam to damn Navy Seals to hell at their funeral, F&F, etc etc).
 
Samarecarm said:
Regardless of your feelings about the comparative merits of Bush 43 vs Obama, my comment was more that criticism of Bush had a similar lack of logical consistency--"Bush is an incompetent idiot who's also this all-powerful evil mastermind."
Click to expand...

I remember those types of comments being made as well, but, and correct me if im wrong and this is revisionist, but I remember there being as much or more of "Bush is an idiot and Cheney is an all-powerful evil mastermind pulling all the strings."
 
A typical Sahil Kapur article
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-mccarthyism-falls-flat

The site spent a lot of time noting just how horrible of a campaign Stockman ran, and they did the same for Liz Cheney and many of the other primary candidates listed as examples. Their losses say more about their horrible campaigns than it does about the fall of "Obama McCarthyism" - at least, to most people who have been paying attention.

So yea...TPM has been pretty bad lately.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
Can someone give a TL;DR version of why/how California is practically in no shape or form a State Republicans can win in national elections, even in best case scenarios?
Click to expand...
California is like a mini-version of the USA in that it is deeply divided between rural red-territory (central valley, far Northern California, many military people, etc.) and urban blue-territory (SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, etc.). Except that the blue-territory significantly out populates the red territory.

The Hollywood liberals, SF Bay Area tech people, and latinos generally vote Dem and they outnumber the farmers in the central valley and the loggers in Northern California. (This is of course over-simplified . . . both regions are purple but one region is blue-purple and the other region is red-purple.)
 
PhoenixDark said:
The fringe far left, who believed Bush was going to start a war in Iran and declare martial law to cancel the 2008 election? I wish ToxicAdam was here, he certainly remembers those threads.

Fahrenheit 911 also made the general argument that Bush was an idiot but also well connected to a variety of complex conspiraciess. I spent a lot of time listening to Randy Rhodes during Bush's terms, and posting on her forum; in terms of paranoia there isn't a large difference between the fringes of either party. The ultimate difference comes from how the mainstream of their political parties accepts them. Republicans feed the frenzy. Democrats gave them some winks with respect to Iraq war conspiracies (pipelines), but overall they shunned the nonsense. Remember how democrats embraced Cindy Sheehan before she went off the deep end? Republicans make no distinction, and prop up conservative versions of her nonstop (Benghazi, Obama personally sending an imam to damn Navy Seals to hell at their funeral, F&F, etc etc).
Click to expand...
And that is the big difference. Yes, there is a fringe far-left that is cuckoo. But they have almost no power and only rarely get people into office. But fringe far-right makes up a significant chunk of the right's base. They have their meetings like CPAC where the nuttiness is on public display. They get people into office like Michelle Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, Paul Broun, etc.
 
speculawyer said:
California is like a mini-version of the USA in that it is deeply divided between rural red-territory (central valley, far Northern California, many military people, etc.) and urban blue-territory (SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, etc.). Except that the blue-territory significantly out populates the red territory.

The Hollywood liberals, SF Bay Area tech people, and latinos generally vote Dem and they outnumber the farmers in the central valley and the loggers in Northern California. (This is of course over-simplified . . . both regions are purple but one region is blue-purple and the other region is red-purple.)
Click to expand...

California used to be divided by North vs. South, now it's coast vs. inland with the coast being the blue and the inland being red. (Obama won all but two coastal counties.)
 
speculawyer said:
California is like a mini-version of the USA in that it is deeply divided between rural red-territory (central valley, far Northern California, many military people, etc.) and urban blue-territory (SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, etc.). Except that the blue-territory significantly out populates the red territory.

The Hollywood liberals, SF Bay Area tech people, and latinos generally vote Dem and they outnumber the farmers in the central valley and the loggers in Northern California. (This is of course over-simplified . . . both regions are purple but one region is blue-purple and the other region is red-purple.)
Click to expand...

Also, any time the California GOP attempts to moderate, either on purpose (agreeing to a slight tax hike in exchange for other things) or by accident (hey Ahnold!), the 'base' of the party attempts to turf those people out.
 
Notrollious said:
Republicans to ban exploring new frontiers and the future.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't attempted that already considering the whole Earth being older than 6,000 years old thing wouldn't sit right with these folks.
 
Hey PoliGAF, wanna help me with an essay? I'm supposed to find a couple political ads, speeches, etc. and basically expose all the fallacies in them. I've already teared apart Rick Perry's Strong ad. Now this is where you all come in. Can you guys find me some good ads or speeches to write about? Preferably Republican ones, because they are so much more fun for me to make fun of :P.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Mista replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
938
Azzurri replied
Good New Music?
2
2K
bitbydeath replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
Resetera and the pedo problem (updates)
NSFW  43 44 45 46 47
2K
487K
notkeylime replied
Top Bottom