PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fuckabee being Fuckabee.

The attacks on Christianity "won’t stop until there are no more churches, until there are no more people who are spreading the Gospel, and I’m talking now about the unabridged, unapologetic Gospel that is really God’s truth," said the former Arkansas governor and ordained Southern Baptist minister during an interview on "Washington Watch with Tony Perkins."
Click to expand...

Speaking about this to radio host Tony Perkins, who also is the president of the Family Research Council, Huckabee said, “Tony, this is bizarre and I think it’s a phony crisis. It’s been manufactured by the left, just as was the war on women. There was no war on women. The left has gotten very good at creating a crisis, something to divide the country, something to create the sense in which ‘we have to go after these conservatives because they’re trying to trample over our rights.’"

"It is a classic example of, really, a page out of 1984 when what things mean are the opposite of what they really are, and that’s what I’m seeing here," said Huckabee. "In the name of tolerance, there’s intolerance. In the name of diversity, there’s uniformity. In the name of acceptance, there’s true discrimination. It’s just bizarre. And the sad thing is a lot of these major companies and CEOs are just capitulating."

"Here’s what’s even sadder to me," he said. "A lot of the people in the political realm are just deciding that it’s easier to fold and quit than it is to fight. The result of that is we invite more of this. Nobody likes to have a fight, nobody likes to be hated. Sometimes you just have to stand up and say, you’re wrong on the issue and I’m not backing down because your facts are not facts. They’re fiction, and we’re not going to stop.’"
Click to expand...

Oh the ironing is strong in his statements. (Misspelling intended)
 
PhoenixDark said:
The only chance for immigration reform passing in the next 5-6 years is Jeb Bush winning the presidency next year. If not it won't happen. There's no way republicans allow Hillary to get it done, whereas the framework is in place for a republican president to get it done; all Boehner needs to do is put the bill on the floor
Click to expand...
There is no universe in the entire set of planck's infinite universes in which the current Republicans pass a meaningful, citizenship granting immigration reform. They will pass their version of reform where dronestrikes are gonna be hitting border jumpers and expanding existing visas. Ronald Reagan would be burned at the stake if he tried passing his amnesty today.
 
RustyNails said:
There is no universe in the entire set of planck's infinite universes in which the current Republicans pass a meaningful, citizenship granting immigration reform. They will pass their version of reform where dronestrikes are gonna be hitting border jumpers and expanding existing visas. Ronald Reagan would be burned at the stake if he tried passing his amnesty today.
Click to expand...

Or, they'll do it and say their inspiration for doing so was modeled after God Reagan and his infinite kindness.
 
Wilsongt said:
Or, they'll do it and say their inspiration for doing so was modeled after God Reagan and his infinite kindness.
Click to expand...

In much the same way that fundamentalist Christians have a version of Jesus where he recommended private-run health care, the GOP has a version of Reagan that never raised taxes and always held the line on immigration reform.

If you brought up Reagan's actual actions, you'd be a heretic. And you know what happens to heretics!
 
pigeon said:
In much the same way that fundamentalist Christians have a version of Jesus where he recommended private-run health care, the GOP has a version of Reagan that never raised taxes and always held the line on immigration reform.

If you brought up Reagan's actual actions, you'd be a heretic. And you know what happens to heretics!
Click to expand...

They get elected president?
 
pigeon said:
In much the same way that fundamentalist Christians have a version of Jesus where he recommended private-run health care, the GOP has a version of Reagan that never raised taxes and always held the line on immigration reform.

If you brought up Reagan's actual actions, you'd be a heretic. And you know what happens to heretics!
Click to expand...

I'm always reminded of a rolling stone article some years ago when thinking about this. It opened up with a quote and an allusion that the quote was from Obama when it was in fact a Reagan quote about distribution of wealth. My righty friends just dismisses the article because of the source.
Edit: how the GOP became the party of the rich.
 
pigeon said:
In much the same way that fundamentalist Christians have a version of Jesus where he recommended private-run health care, the GOP has a version of Reagan that never raised taxes and always held the line on immigration reform.

If you brought up Reagan's actual actions, you'd be a heretic. And you know what happens to heretics!
Click to expand...
Thats an interesting analogy especially considering the fact that Reagan is now GOP's patron saint.

Jon Stewart confronted Norquist about St. Reagan's tax hikes, and Norquist weaseled his way out by saying that Reagan cuts were only temporary and he was just restoring them. My point is its fruitless to show them what Reagan actually did when it goes against the GOP agenda.
 
RustyNails said:
Jon Stewart confronted Norquist about St. Reagan's tax hikes, and Norquist weaseled his way out by saying that Reagan cuts were only temporary and he was just restoring them. My point is its fruitless to show them what Reagan actually did when it goes against the GOP agenda.
Click to expand...

Norquist's quite well rehearsed excuse for that is that Reagan had an agreement with congress that he'd raise taxes and then they'd do something for him (think it was two dollars of cuts for every one dollar of tax raises or something equally stupid), and that the democrats then backed out of the deal AND THAT IS WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER TRUST DEMOCRATS EVER AGAIN FOREVER.
 
Wilsongt said:
Ted Cruz is good at hitting all the spaces on that false equivalency bingo.
Click to expand...

“Is there something about the left — and I am going to put the media in this category — that is obsessed with sex?”
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok. Go to Fox News and scroll down the page. At any given time, you'll see pictures of scantily-clad women or stories about sex. I almost never see those at CNN or NPR.
 
Plinko said:
Yeah, ok. Go to Fox News and scroll down the page. At any given time, you'll see pictures of scantily-clad women or stories about sex. I almost never see those at CNN or NPR.
Click to expand...

I just tried.

Yep. Story about Pamela Anderson stripping and about a WWE Diva going into porn.
 
Black Mamba said:
The media is letting the Republicans get out with a free pass with Iraq.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but Hillary Clinton spoke for and voted for the war when she was a Senator. She knew more than the average American about the intelligence and probably even more than most senators after eight years in the White House with Pres. Clinton, who ordered an attack on Iraq in 1998.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
Click to expand...

Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton's floor speech in favor of Iraq war authorization
 
NeoXChaos said:
Maryland Democratic Primary Poll:

Clinton 63
O'Malley 3

Dominating. O'Malley has a 41% approval rating
Click to expand...

O'Malley is a DIVF: A dad I'd vote for.

But, he's not going anywhere. This election is all about Clinton mopping the floor with whoever the GOP reluctantly decides to finally put their weight behind.
 
Samarecarm said:
Counterargument: The gerrymandering of the House increases polarization of the parties, and then the increasing partisanship of the Senate happens as a result because Senators belong to the same two parties as Representatives.

edit: Not saying that's what's happened, but I don't find Kondik's argument very convincing.
Click to expand...

There's dysfunction and then there's gerrymandering. He's arguing that removing one does not necessarily solve the other. Ted Cruz is crazy right wing and he didn't serve in the House or State Legislature ditto for Rand Paul. If you believe that by electing Democrats, dysfunction decreases then its possible but polarization will persist. The next 2 years will look like the last 6 if the Dems regain the Senate but not the House. The players will remain the same sadly. Which is why the Supreme Court is really the best outcome of the election next year if you believe in Democratic issues.

If Hillary is going to be dealing with a Republican House for her whole 1st term, she cant afford this version of them. The current party needs a shellacking to change their ways. If nothing else we need compromise. As Aaron hinted earlier, the country in 2018 might lose their minds and revert the senate right back to Republicans ensuring the last 2 years look like the current 2 years.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4e0386-ff2e-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html


Fox News announced guidelines Wednesday that will winnow the field of participants in the first Republican debate of the 2016 presidential campaign.

The network will require contenders to place in the top 10 in an average of the five most recent national polls in the run-up to the event, narrowing what is expected to be a field of 16 or more by the Aug. 6 event in Cleveland.

The rule could trigger an early rush of spending by lower-tier candidates seeking to boost their standing in national surveys before the pivotal first forum.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, CNN laid out a different approach for the second debate on Sept. 16, which will be split into two parts — one featuring the top 10 candidates in public polling and a second that will include lower-tiered candidates who garner at least 1 percent in polls. The forum, being held at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., will also required participants to have at least one paid campaign worker in two of the four early voting states.
Click to expand...

Determining which contenders will get to participate in the official forums sanctioned by the Republican National Committee has been a thorny challenge for the cable news network and party officials. No GOP primary debate has ever featured more than 10 candidates.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Wednesday that the party supports the approaches taken by the two cable networks.


It remains to be seen how many candidates will be included in the Fox News debate under the criteria, which could allow more than 10 participants if some are tied in the polls.

The top 10 contenders in the five most recent national polls are former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, real estate tycoon Donald Trump and former Texas governor Rick Perry, according to a Washington Post analysis.
Click to expand...

Fox News plans to provide additional coverage and air time Aug. 6 to the candidates who do not place in the top 10, according to the details, which were first obtained by The Post.
Click to expand...

Should be pretty amazing .
 
Trouble said:
Is this a legit filibuster, or a "filibuster" like last time that had no actual effect and was completely pointless?
Click to expand...

Depends on if he goes past midnight, if not it's a bullshit fake filibuster. If he does then it's legit filibuster starting at 12:00:01.
 
Mario said:
Just saw on CNN he gave up after 10.5 hours. Nobody else joined him in filibustering.
Click to expand...

So once again he chickened out and didn't actually filibuster anything. Such bravery! Unbelievable resolve! Such a chickenshit asshole, all he cares about are the optics.
 
B-Dubs said:
He started at 1:20pm. Add 10 hours and 30 minutes to that, it brings us to 11:50pm. He didn't go past midnight.

EDIT: It wasn't a filibuster, even the CNN article on it was careful to point out that it wasn't.
Click to expand...

He went right up to midnight, and it didn't matter, because:

Shortly after Paul's speech ended, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) moved to adjourn, meaning the Senate won't be able to take a procedural vote on either a surveillance reform bill or a "clean" extension of the Patriot Act until at least Saturday.
Click to expand...

He did the one thing that he set out to do.
 
ivysaur12 said:
He went right up to midnight, and it didn't matter, because:



He did the one thing that he set out to do.
Click to expand...

Still not a filibuster. If he wants to filibuster something then he should have the balls to actually do it, he doesn't. He could have done his speech as a filibuster just by altering the start time but he didn't because he doesn't really care, he was just in it for the optics.
 
B-Dubs said:
Still not a filibuster. If he wants to filibuster something then he should have the balls to actually do it, he doesn't. He could have done his speech as a filibuster just by altering the start time but he didn't because he doesn't really care, he was just in it for the optics.
Click to expand...

It's a futile battle. Most of these types of "filibusters", real or not, are for optics. And he delayed debate until Saturday. So for that, get gets his W.
 
ivysaur12 said:
It's a futile battle. Most of these types of "filibusters", real or not, are for optics. And he delayed debate until Saturday. So for that, get gets his W.
Click to expand...

No way, he doesn't deserve it. The only reason he "succeeded" was because everyone had gone home and didn't want to vote that late, knowing they had more time. If he had done it at a time when it actually mattered he'd get his W, but he didn't so he doesn't. If this were the first time he had a fake-filibuster then I might agree but it isn't. He's done this shit before. The guy's more about optics than doing things that matter.
 
ErasureAcer said:
So if Clinton does when the Democratic Nomination...whom does she choose as VP? Who is on the shortlist?
Click to expand...
She'll announce her running mate a few days before the DNC Convention in late July.

The leading choices are Tim Kaine and Julian Castro.

Also on the shortlist will probably be Cory Booker, Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper, Sherrod Brown, Steve Bullock, and Martin Heinrich.

A lot will depend on what the opposing ticket turns out to be (and she has the advantage of adjusting her pick after the Republican nominee announces their running mate first) and how she's doing in the polls next summer. But I wouldn't be surprised by her picking Castro considering how bold her campaign has been so far, and how much her strategy seems to be turning out the Obama coalition.
 
Yellowtail said:
A lot will depend on what the opposing ticket turns out to be (and she has the advantage of adjusting her pick after the Republican nominee announces their running mate first) and how she's doing in the polls next summer. But I wouldn't be surprised by her picking Castro considering how bold her campaign has been so far, and how much her strategy seems to be turning out the Obama coalition.
Click to expand...

Castro seems like a clear front runner, yeah. The advantages are too obvious to list. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton camp is already vetting him. Let's hope they do it thoroughly, and let's hope they give the green light.

Still, the announcement is more than a year away as you say. A lot can happen etc. etc.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Tim Kaine or Mark Warner. After 2014's midterm I'd guess Kaine. Tom Perriello will be appointed to finish Kaine's term, ie a favor for not runner for governor in 2012.
Click to expand...

This makes more sense than picking Castro. VA going blue means Republicans need to take just about everything else(Florida, Ohio, Colorado or Wisconsin, Nevada or Iowa) should Democrats have VA on lockdown.
 
BertramCooper said:
Ohio is finally replacing the deplorable William Allen in Statuary Hall.

Unfortunately, they're replacing him with Thomas Edison, who can barely be considered an Ohioan since he only lived here until he was 7.

SMH.
Click to expand...
Can you have more than one person?
Cause if you want to OMG Science they should have Michelson and Morley high-fiving each other.
Yeah, neither was born in Ohio, but they pretty much gave birth to modern physics (or at the very the theory relativity) in fucking Cleveland.
Cleveland!
 
Chichikov said:
Can you have more than one person?
Cause if you want to OMG Science they should have Michelson and Morley high-fiving each other.
Yeah, neither was born in Ohio, but they pretty much gave birth to modern physics (or at the very the theory relativity) in fucking Cleveland.
Cleveland!
Click to expand...
Each state gets two statues. Ohio's other one is James Garfield.

I feel like we should have been allowed to use the Wright Brothers in a single statue.
 
BertramCooper said:
Each state gets two statues. Ohio's other one is James Garfield.

I feel like we should have been allowed to use the Wright Brothers in a single statue.
Click to expand...
And thus the great Ohio North Carolina war of 2015 began.
I wish success to both sides.

though really, the Wright Brothers is another great choice, regardless of the state that gets them.
 
B-Dubs said:
No way, he doesn't deserve it. The only reason he "succeeded" was because everyone had gone home and didn't want to vote that late, knowing they had more time. If he had done it at a time when it actually mattered he'd get his W, but he didn't so he doesn't. If this were the first time he had a fake-filibuster then I might agree but it isn't. He's done this shit before. The guy's more about optics than doing things that matter.
Click to expand...

I'd say in this instance he has at least done something. Better than all of the shitfuck politicians that will blindly renew this disgusting bill.
 
Chichikov said:
And thus the great Ohio North Carolina war of 2015 began.
I wish success to both sides.

though really, the Wright Brothers is another great choice, regardless of the state that gets them.
Click to expand...

I roll my eyes every time I see North Carolina's "First in Flight" license plates. I mean, it's fine for them to acknowledge what happened at Kitty Hawk, but the amount of credit North Carolina takes for that accomplishment is absurd. Fuck them.

If not the Wrights, I feel like Neil Armstrong should have been considered. But I don't think he was included for consideration because he was still alive when the movement to get rid of the William Allen statue started.
 
BertramCooper said:
I roll my eyes every time I see North Carolina's "First in Flight" license plates. I mean, it's fine for them to acknowledge what happened at Kitty Hawk, but the amount of credit North Carolina takes for that accomplishment is absurd. Fuck them.

If not the Wrights, I feel like Neil Armstrong should have been considered. But I don't think he was included for consideration because he was still alive when the movement to get rid of the William Allen statue started.
Click to expand...
John Glenn is another great choice (though still alive).
 
Louisiana Democrats' best hope to beat David Vitter? Vote Republican

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/05/edwards_vitter_governors_race.html


I worked 17 years for U.S. Sen. John Breaux, perhaps the most popular member of Congress from Louisiana in the past half century. No disrespect to Breaux, but I wouldn't bet $100 that he could beat Vitter today in a head-up race for governor. This is not about the impressive political skills or moderate ideology of Edwards (or Breaux); it's about the hard right turn the state took over the past 10 years.
Click to expand...

Let's get to the point: A Democrat – even one as effective, honest and politically moderate as Edwards – cannot win a Louisiana statewide election. Twenty years ago, someone like Edwards would have been unbeatable. Today, however, a vote for the Amite Democrat is, for all practical purposes, a vote for Vitter.
Click to expand...

Democrats must face facts. This is a GOP state, not just in national elections, but statewide contests, too. Most striking is the almost complete abandonment of the party by white voters. As recently as her 2008 re-election, Landrieu received 33 percent of the white vote and about 95 percent of the black vote. Six years later, she earned the same black percentage, but only 18 percent of whites.
Click to expand...

Edwards' advocates will argue that he can beat Vitter because he is not Landrieu (i.e., he's not perceived as a D.C. liberal). He's an Army veteran and endorsed in 2011 by the NRA. He's "pro-life" and has never been embroiled in a prostitution scandal. That's all true, but Edwards is still a Democrat – and that is probably all that will matter in statewide races for the next decade or so.
Click to expand...

If Democrats have any power left in Louisiana politics, it is electing moderate Republicans. That's not a goal that will launch Democratic activists out of bed each morning but it's about all the power the party has left (in statewide elections, at least).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
984
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
256K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom