• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey GAF, I'm back.

Reading this thread while I've been banned it seems that I've confused people with my post history. I can clarify if someone wants to/is curious enough.

Both are also going to have a lot of money. Paul should be able to get some of his father's support/money, and he has studied his father's online model. Meanwhile Cruz will be bankrolled by Texas money and the grassroots. Ultimately I think this will boil down to Christie and Rubio trying to moderate (to a degree), while Cruz and Paul pull the party to the far right.

Paul will never get the nomination. Outside of a share of people from the tea party and the fringe youth vote nobody really cares about the Pauls and their "libertarian revolution". You are right that if anyone is likely to be a candidate its going to be Christie or Rubio.

If you look close enough, Chris Christie has accomplished basically nothing of note as governor of NJ and, in fact, has several fuck ups on his resume.

Some prior commentary on this:

Christie reminds me a lot of Walker. Fucked up his state but everyone claims that he has some how "cured" it. Proof by assertion is a powerful thing.
 
So, Erick Erickson has been on a roll lately. Early this morning he wrote a post calling Josh Barro a "late twenty-something gay male" and saying he has "never had a job in responsible policymaking or politics of any kind. He has worked no campaigns."

Josh Barro wasn't pleased, naturally.
 
Christie reminds me a lot of Walker. Fucked up his state but everyone claims that he has some how "cured" it. Proof by assertion is a powerful thing.

He has a penchant for getting his name in the news and pulled a tough guy Republican play for a while.

But look, here we are in 2013 and still at 8.7% unemployment.
 
Click again . . . this time I get a Chevron ad.

WTF is with that old bat? How can anyone get so worked up over bicycles?

The GOP goes insane over bicycles. WTF is wrong with them? They are just bicycles. Get over it.


http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894

No! They are just fucking bicycles! Get your fucking heads screwed on straight.

Stealing this for a thread, this is nuts

EDIT: Whoops
 
Since when does "showing respect for his service" equal "replacing him with a democrat?" Christie is the governor, he'll choose who he wants, and then the people of NJ will ultimately choose who they want in November (2013 or 2014? I keep reading confusing reports).

Christie can appoint a moderate republican and then call for a special election, which would appease his "democratic" support in the state, while not shitting on his own party like nominating Booker would.

I was reading an article earlier that the party doesn't want Booker on the same ticket as Christie's re-election ticket as it could hurt down ticket races.
 
For Heir Platypotamus, the WSJ is basically arguing that bike lanes are symbolic of totalitarian regimes.

Well in that case my town has already been taken over, since we have bike lanes everywhere, and we're in the middle of a red state, sheriffed by Joe Arpaio!

Those two bike stories are cracking me up. Is this part of Agenda 21???

Nah, Agenda 21 is where they force everyone to move into government-made homes, like in Soviet Russia.
 
I know it is par for the course, but what an absolute douchebag.

Barro's response is perfect and highlights why the GOP is fucked in the short term. Erickson is the GOP's current target demographic, and you cannot build a large coalition with people like that driving the bus.

Erickson doesn't get it, and never will. He strikes me as a genuine, True Believer conservative who cares about the cause (unlike...Rush Limbaugh) but is a complete partisan who doesn't understand broad coalition politics. In his mind republicans will always win elections if they follow strict conservative principles, don't compromise, etc; therefore if a republican loses=they weren't conservative enough. Which is why I want to see Ted Cruz or Rand Paul get the nomination. OR Paul Ryan.
 
Barro's response is perfect and highlights why the GOP is fucked in the short term. Erickson is the GOP's current target demographic, and you cannot build a large coalition with people like that driving the bus.

Erickson doesn't get it, and never will. He strikes me as a genuine, True Believer conservative who cares about the cause (unlike...Rush Limbaugh) but is a complete partisan who doesn't understand broad coalition politics. In his mind republicans will always win elections if they follow strict conservative principles, don't compromise, etc; therefore if a republican loses=they weren't conservative enough. Which is why I want to see Ted Cruz or Rand Paul get the nomination. OR Paul Ryan.

Much of his writing is in a character, its exagerated. Not to say he doesn't believe what he says but hes aware of reality more than people know. He gets ia but is riding this current baby boomer rage and do as much damage before the milenials become the majority. He is a true believer though

I do think EE does a lot of this because he can feel powerful and important. And he relishes the PC stuff.
 
Whoa I had to go all the way back to the second page of community. Midterm elections season is going to start soon, but is there any chance of either the House or Senate changing hands? It was apparently possible in 2012 and it was a pretty tense wait even if the polls accurately predicted what would happen.
 
I still don't see why republicans don't just filibuster neary everyone and dare Reid/Obama to change the rules. If they do change them it ties into the "Obama out of control" narrative for them. If they don't change the rules, they call Reid's bluff. Seems like win win to me.
 
Whoa I had to go all the way back to the second page of community. Midterm elections season is going to start soon, but is there any chance of either the House or Senate changing hands? It was apparently possible in 2012 and it was a pretty tense wait even if the polls accurately predicted what would happen.
Senate will be close. 90% shot gop keeps the house
 
Whoa I had to go all the way back to the second page of community. Midterm elections season is going to start soon, but is there any chance of either the House or Senate changing hands? It was apparently possible in 2012 and it was a pretty tense wait even if the polls accurately predicted what would happen.

Senate yes, House no
 
I still don't see why republicans don't just filibuster neary everyone and dare Reid/Obama to change the rules. If they do change them it ties into the "Obama out of control" narrative for them. If they don't change the rules, they call Reid's bluff. Seems like win win to me.

unless their goal is to try to break records with their base turnout, no one really cares about their narrative
 
In another example of the GOP's commitment to fiscal conservatism, states that opt out of the ACA's Medicaid expansion will not only harm the lives of millions of Americans, they will actually spend more on uncompensated care than if they had participated in the expansion.
Sorry for the late, late reply.

I generally see where you're coming from and don't disagree very strongly. One small point though.
The influence that US acquired in 40's/50's was facilitated by the international situation. WWII finally forced USA to spend some monies on the army. The outcome and then Korean War necessitated keeping that spending at higher level than before. Had such situation arose earlier, the results would be the same because from the end of XIX century, they had the economic potential to achieve them. They simply chose not to use that potential.

I agree that demographics were not the sole reason but for me it was the most important one. (Second being the overall development of the economy)
It seems to me that after some point the geographic isolation may have retarded the US rise.
Certainly, exogenous factors were instrumental in facilitating America's ascent to superpower status. The U.S. does not exist in a vacuum, and the utter devastation of every competing great power granted the U.S. unprecedented influence and power. The economic and industrial might of the U.S. was unparalleled when Fox created the term in 1944. A superpower necessitates a clear hierarchy of states. And when a state assumes preeminence among an order of devastated great powers, as the U.S. experienced in 1944, the distance between the most powerful state and its rivals is significant enough to warrant classification as a superpower. So the complete destruction of America's rivals provided an opportunity for America's ascent. You misconceive the role of agency in America's ascent. It was not that America chose to ignore its potential. It's that America's rivals, even if they were less powerful than the U.S., were strong enough to counter American power.
 
I still don't see why republicans don't just filibuster neary everyone and dare Reid/Obama to change the rules. If they do change them it ties into the "Obama out of control" narrative for them. If they don't change the rules, they call Reid's bluff. Seems like win win to me.
I don't think your right about them winning on obama out of control. That only works in the bubble. They be pinned as obstructionists saying no for no reason.

Its why they want this quite and a quite deal to make it go away.
 
Just saw this on twitter:

The New York Times ‏@nytimes 3m

Breaking News: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey Calls Special Election for U.S. Senate for October

Seems like the fairest thing for Christie to do, but I don't know how well this will go over in the GOP...
 
Just saw this on twitter:

The New York Times ‏@nytimes 3m

Breaking News: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey Calls Special Election for U.S. Senate for October

Seems like the fairest thing for Christie to do, but I don't know how well this will go over in the GOP...

The primary will be on August 13th.
 
Just saw this on twitter:

The New York Times ‏@nytimes 3m

Breaking News: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey Calls Special Election for U.S. Senate for October

Seems like the fairest thing for Christie to do, but I don't know how well this will go over in the GOP...

Thus Christie gets out of his dilemma.
 
Just saw this on twitter:

The New York Times ‏@nytimes 3m

Breaking News: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey Calls Special Election for U.S. Senate for October

Seems like the fairest thing for Christie to do, but I don't know how well this will go over in the GOP...
Christie said he doesn't care about the costs. Doesn't sound like talk of a person who's going to run.
 
So, will Booker run for this?

I don't see how he doesn't. He was going to be going for the seat anyway, he's got to at least have a small part of his operation in place already. Plus he's got the name recognition, who can run against him? That guy who tried to accuse Menendez of getting a hooker?
 
*backpat*

i see Christie took the best way out for his future career... avoiding having Booker on the ticket with him the next month harming down ballot races as most dems may stay home otherwise, but not naming a republican for the next year and a half.
 
Drudge is savaging Christie for "wasting tax payer money" to avoid Booker on the ballot. It's not a bad move but still disappointing. I'd love to see what would have happened with Booker on the November ticket.
 
Drudge is savaging Christie for "wasting tax payer money" to avoid Booker on the ballot. It's not a bad move but still disappointing. I'd love to see what would have happened with Booker on the November ticket.

ha, I think the article last night or this morning was via NPR and said exactly that. If the governor decided on the special election opposition from the right will certainly vilify him for what will be called a waste of taxpayer money.
 
I still don't see why republicans don't just filibuster neary everyone and dare Reid/Obama to change the rules. If they do change them it ties into the "Obama out of control" narrative for them. If they don't change the rules, they call Reid's bluff. Seems like win win to me.
I don't think average american voters are going to care much about switching to a simple majority for anything.

In fact they probably already think we have that, judging by the number of people confused by the fact that gun control went down on a 54-46 vote in favor.
 
He has a penchant for getting his name in the news and pulled a tough guy Republican play for a while.

But look, here we are in 2013 and still at 8.7% unemployment.

And people worship him like a God in the sticks and yuppie areas. Its sad because for businesses it really is like its 2009 here. I remember when I worked at a restaurant with a bunch of servere who many of which were a bunch of pro-Walker people, they were mostly whites from Racine, and they were all "standing for Scott Walker" because he did such a great job. This was while this restaurant became a ghost town over the past year since Walker took over. And it just wasn't the restaurant but a shit ton of places. Same thing happened to the night club I now work at.

Also is his administration somehow linked to all of the construction that is taking FUCKING FOREVER!? I-94 has been in construction for an eternity. Construction projects take forever now. Did he decrease funding to the construction sector?
 
Christie has no shot on the national level.

Robert Barchi did a KO on him. The NJ press was looking for years to get something to truly stick on him, and they got their big fish in the President of Rutgers.

Sure, he'll win the gubernatorial election with relative ease, but he won't win nationally.
 
I still don't see why republicans don't just filibuster neary everyone and dare Reid/Obama to change the rules. If they do change them it ties into the "Obama out of control" narrative for them. If they don't change the rules, they call Reid's bluff. Seems like win win to me.

That would be Reid changing the rules, not Obama. People know the difference. And it would not be "out of control" since all Reid has to do is show some graphs of the way the filibuster rate has change.


And I stick to my view of get rid of the filibuster. The Senate is already massively undemocratic based on the number of people represented by each Senator. The filibuster just makes it worse. And the Dems don't really use it much when they are in the minority anyway because they are pussies. If they GOP wants to pass something crazy, let them and there will be an electoral price to pay. The only place it will really suck is when they appoint judges . . . . and the Dems don't filibuster nuts like Scalia, Thomas, etc. anyway. Are they really less radical than Bork?
 
And people worship him like a God in the sticks and yuppie areas. Its sad because for businesses it really is like its 2009 here. I remember when I worked at a restaurant with a bunch of servere who many of which were a bunch of pro-Walker people, they were mostly whites from Racine, and they were all "standing for Scott Walker" because he did such a great job. This was while this restaurant became a ghost town over the past year since Walker took over. And it just wasn't the restaurant but a shit ton of places. Same thing happened to the night club I now work at.

Also is his administration somehow linked to all of the construction that is taking FUCKING FOREVER!? I-94 has been in construction for an eternity. Construction projects take forever now. Did he decrease funding to the construction sector?
Republicans don't want governance, they want an in-your-face asshole to go up there and stick it to unions while giving more money to the rich. Delusions of grandeur give them hope that some day they'll be in that privileged class of job creators, but until then, blame the Democrats.
 
and the Dems don't filibuster nuts like Scalia, Thomas, etc. anyway. Are they really less radical than Bork?

Scalia yes. Thomas is probably just as crazy

Just saw this on twitter:

The New York Times ‏@nytimes 3m

Breaking News: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey Calls Special Election for U.S. Senate for October

Seems like the fairest thing for Christie to do, but I don't know how well this will go over in the GOP...

How does he have it in october?!
 
Rumsfeld at a conference with noted white supremacists and islamophobe David Horowitz says he "can't tell" if Obama has "switched sides on the war on terror"

I'm sorry this shit is racist and beyond the pale. Democrats don't insinuate that the president sides with terrorists, they might have said bush's polices helped the terrorists but our side of the isle doesn't do this crap. Never mind the crap Rumsfeld still has the gall to comment on these matters.
Speaking at a conservative gathering late last month, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he didn't know if President Barack Obama had switched sides in the War on Terror.

The video below — mined by Democratic opposition researcher James Carter IV — shows Rumsfeld answering a question from a man off-screen at an event hosted by the David Horowtiz Freedom Center on May 21 in the Los Angeles area.

"As you go around the country, do you have any sense or the same sort of sinking feeling that the rest of us have that [Obama has] actually switched sides in the War on Terror?" the man asked, drawing a smattering of applause from the audience.

"You know, I just don't feel competent to answer," Rumsfeld said. "I can't tell."

Rumsfeld added, "It bothers me greatly that he's unwilling to identify the enemy. I don't see how you win if you don't."

Carter, best-known for spotting the infamous "47 percent" video involving Mitt Romney, told TPM that the full video of Rumsfeld's appearance went up on the Freedom Center's website on Monday. How did he find the video?

"This is just what I do," Carter said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KBJ3ZZlauIo

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rumsfeld-cant-tell-if-obama-has-switched-sides


Where did the conservative leaders decide their international policy was going to openly embrace racism and islamophobia? Practically begging for (and trying to start) a clash of civilizations.
 
Welcome to the world where the president is allowed to unilaterally start a war but isn't allowed to say 'hey, uh, maybe we're wasting our money here'

FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR
 
Rumsfeld at a conference with noted white supremacists and islamophobe David Horowitz says he "can't tell" if Obama has "switched sides on the war on terror"

I'm sorry this shit is racist and beyond the pale. Democrats don't insinuate that the president sides with terrorists, they might have said bush's polices helped the terrorists but our side of the isle doesn't do this crap. Never mind the crap Rumsfeld still has the gall to comment on these matters.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KBJ3ZZlauIo

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rumsfeld-cant-tell-if-obama-has-switched-sides


Where did the conservative leaders decide their international policy was going to openly embrace racism and islamophobia? Practically begging for (and trying to start) a clash of civilizations.

"As you go around the country, do you have any sense or the same sort of sinking feeling that the rest of us have that [Obama has] actually switched sides in the War on Terror?" the man asked, drawing a smattering of applause from the audience.

"You know, I just don't feel competent to answer," Rumsfeld said. "I can't tell."

Wow.

First of all, the fact that someone could rationally think that question was worth asking is amazing. Obama has droned the shit out of people and is getting backlash from that even from many of our allies and the countries working with us.

But "I can't tell." . . . really? Have you really sunk this low Rummy that you feel you need to pandering to crazy conspiracy theorists? Are you really that desperate?


I mean seriously now . . . you always get the 'both sides do it' . . . but really? Sure . . . whatshisname can post his usual set of pictures with nuts and their Bush=Hitler posters . . . . but do you get high-level Dems saying "Yeah, I'm not sure if Bush is Hitler."? NO!

The right is in such desperation these days. You can see it in the fact that they pander to to the crazies. I mean look at the "scandals" going on right now. Sure, they are hoping they'll hit pay-dirt on something. But with some of these, they know at this point that there is no there there. Why are they continuing with the witchhunt if they know there is no witch? . . . . to placate their crazy base and not get primaried by someone further to the right.

This puts their party in a negative feedback loop. The have to get crazier to win a primary and stay in office . . . and it works for a while until they finally cross the crazy line wherein they can't win in the general for their race.

Edit: And that is exactly what happened with people like Mourdock, O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, etc. They lost seats they could have won because they got pushed too crazy. Crazy like that sells in Texas and Kentucky hence clowns like Cruz and Rand Paul. But they are really becoming a regional party.
 
Sure, Obama killed Bin Laden, but did anyone ever think he did so that he could then step in and take control of Al Qaeda?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom