PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadriplegicjon said:
Some of those things are taken a bit out of context though and completely ignore other things he has done. But yes, Obama has generally continued some of Bush's policies that many liberals were not happy about.
Click to expand...

some? seems like all of the worst ones and then more of his own horrible ones
 
Hokuten said:
I love watching progressives curse themselves for supporting Democrats after hoping for unabashed progressivism from a decidedly centrist party, then calling for putting someone even more aligned with centrism in power. Surely this will lead to more progressive outcomes....
Click to expand...

Damn, someone's had enough. I kind of get the feeling that we like imagining there's one candidate out there who will usher in this great progressive era without our continued pressure and activism.
 
Jaladinozozo said:
some? seems like all of the worst ones and then more of his own horrible ones
Click to expand...


Well, many of those seem to be about Afganistan, and if so, you were not listening to him at all during his campaign. Libya also seems to be successful. A bunch of the rest have ridiculous commentary.
 
Hitokage said:
Obama is pretty much presidential damage control at this point. :/
Click to expand...
Like most Presidents. I've been voting since 1988 and have never had the opportunity to vote for a Presidential candidate that I really supported. I suspect I'll die without ever having that opportunity.
 
besada said:
Like most Presidents. I've been voting since 1988 and have never had the opportunity to vote for a Presidential candidate that I really supported. I suspect I'll die without ever having that opportunity.
Click to expand...

That is the unfortunate reality of the two party system. Not enough independent voices are heard (within each party), and as such you end up having to vote for the candidate that sort of fulfills some of what you want.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
That is the unfortunate reality of the two party system. Not enough independent voices are heard (within each party), and as such you end up having to vote for the candidate that sort of fulfills some of what you want.
Click to expand...
Like a girlfriend?
 
Eh, I don't even think with a multi-party system, I'd ever run into a candidate that shares my same views 100%. More choice is appreciated, though.
 
Byakuya769 said:
Damn, someone's had enough. I kind of get the feeling that we like imagining there's one candidate out there who will usher in this great progressive era without our continued pressure and activism.
Click to expand...

There is, Jesus
 
So I've just put a largeish amount of money on Paul Ryan for GOP candidate, if he runs I think he will get it. Anyone else think so or if not, why not?
 
zomgbbqftw said:
So I've just put a largeish amount of money on Paul Ryan for GOP candidate, if he runs I think he will get it. Anyone else think so or if not, why not?
Click to expand...
I'm sure his platform of "abolish Medicare while cutting taxes for the rich" will be a winner.
 
Plinko said:
My sentiments exactly. My wife felt the same way--and she was raised by parents who instilled in her the idea that the GOP could do no wrong and that democrats were evil. She was absolutely disgusted.
Click to expand...
Seriously. I'm not fucking around on this. I know there will always be stupid people, and folks that are simply ignorant to the point where they could say, and justify it, "Well, they can't be THAT poor if they have one of those fancy refridgeration machines!". But the idea that a news channel is slinging this stuff out there in such high doses means there's a large audience for it.

What's worse is that John Stewart and a few other people (mainly comedians) seem to be the only people with any sense when it comes to the shit Fox News is pulling. The Daily show basically makes Fox News a target EVERY SINGLE NIGHT and they're supposed to be a comedy program.

I have family who are republicans and it seems like they are impervious to any form of thought when it comes to ANY of this. Have you been on the fox news website? The comments section is like the asshole of America. The shit that's being said there is disgusting. I saw one guy say that Obama was a loser who never worked a day in his life, and praised George W Bush for his work ethic. WTF.
 
Jaladinozozo said:
some? seems like all of the worst ones and then more of his own horrible ones
Click to expand...
Bill Maher made a comment the other night that was basically "If Obama has given the republicans everything that they've wanted, then why are they still blaming the economy on him? Isn't this the republicans economy at this point?"
 
Paul Ryan brings nothing to the table. Nothing special about his ideas versus the Republican ideology, and he's not very telegenic or charismatic.

I mean, sure he's one of the "Young guns", but he's still been just a rep for 13 years now!

Also, the only thing less popular than Obama and the Dems is a Washington Republican.
 
besada said:
I'm reluctant to name names, but we have two regulars who've held strong anti-interference opinions, at least in some parts due to the unlikeliness of this happening in a reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...
That was one of the concerns I expressed when the intervention started. And positive as the news has been in the last couple of days, I think it'll be a while before my other major concern about the intervention is addressed--it doesn't strain the imagination at all to imagine a world where things become substantially worse in Libya after Qaddafi's departure, or one where the resulting instability becomes truly problematic for the United States--Afghanistan style.
 
zomgbbqftw said:
So I've just put a largeish amount of money on Paul Ryan for GOP candidate, if he runs I think he will get it. Anyone else think so or if not, why not?
Click to expand...

Paul Ryan will be splitting a base (god-fearin' tea partiers, that are currently enamored with Perry/Bachmann), and the much smaller Ron Paul base (hardcore libertarians).

He also does not enjoy any regional advantages. No Southern connection, no New England connection and no built-in hometown states that he can capture early in the process.

He has no advantage in money-raising or debate skills over his competitors. He doesn't really have any national allies of note.

That's not to mention his name being dragged through the mud by Dems with his budget bill. All baggage and no benefit.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Paul Ryan will be splitting a base (god-fearin' tea partiers, that are currently enamored with Perry/Bachmann), and the much smaller Ron Paul base (hardcore libertarians).

He also does not enjoy any regional advantages. No Southern connection, no New England connection and no built-in hometown states that he can capture early in the process.

He has no advantage in money-raising or debate skills over his competitors. He doesn't really have any national allies of note.

That's not to mention his name being dragged through the mud by Dems with his budget bill. All baggage and no benefit.
Click to expand...

and doesnt he charge like 15 bucks for his constituents to see him? That will kill him right there
 
ToxicAdam said:
Paul Ryan will be splitting a base (god-fearin' tea partiers, that are currently enamored with Perry/Bachmann), and the much smaller Ron Paul base (hardcore libertarians).

He also does not enjoy any regional advantages. No Southern connection, no New England connection and no built-in hometown states that he can capture early in the process.

He has no advantage in money-raising or debate skills over his competitors. He doesn't really have any national allies of note.

That's not to mention his name being dragged through the mud by Dems with his budget bill. All baggage and no benefit.
Click to expand...

Not only that, haven't there been a few polls placing him as the single most disliked politician in American politics at this point?
 
Gonaria said:
and doesnt he charge like 15 bucks for his constituents to see him? That will kill him right there
Click to expand...


You wonder if that won't be the wave of the future due to the Giffords incident. Charge people and keep some riff-raff away and it will also help pay for increased security.

But it is tawdry just at face value.
 
ToxicAdam said:
You wonder if that won't be the wave of the future due to the Giffords incident. Charge people and keep some riff-raff away and it will also help pay for increased security.

But it is tawdry just at face value.
Click to expand...

Its tawdry, cheap, and slime ballish at all levels. Anyone who charges their constituents to see them should be voted out of office ASAP
 
ToxicAdam said:
You wonder if that won't be the wave of the future due to the Giffords incident. Charge people and keep some riff-raff away and it will also help pay for increased security.

But it is tawdry just at face value.
Click to expand...

Eh, if you're willing to kill someone, I don't think a cover charge will dissuade you.
 
Byakuya769 said:
Nice, buuuuuuuuuut....

"Prior performance does not indicate future outcome."
Click to expand...


Not to mention the variables of the Democrat party primary system (the voters and the process itself) behave completely differently.


Tamanon said:
Eh, if you're willing to kill someone, I don't think a cover charge will dissuade you.
Click to expand...


True, but it can serve to thin out a crowd and make it more manageable.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Paul Ryan will be splitting a base (god-fearin' tea partiers, that are currently enamored with Perry/Bachmann), and the much smaller Ron Paul base (hardcore libertarians).

He also does not enjoy any regional advantages. No Southern connection, no New England connection and no built-in hometown states that he can capture early in the process.

He has no advantage in money-raising or debate skills over his competitors. He doesn't really have any national allies of note.

That's not to mention his name being dragged through the mud by Dems with his budget bill. All baggage and no benefit.
Click to expand...

Bachman and her ilk would tear him apart over TARP and the various other bad votes he took when Bush was president. Right now he benefits because many aren't familiar with his record; that changes the minute he jumps in.

Plus, Ryan is simply too "smart" for the current GOP;. He's not a firebreather or red meat giver, and public personality wise he seems more like Obama than anyone else.
 
scorcho said:
i think the biggest improvement in a potential Clinton presidency would be that the lines of communication between the WH and Congressional Dems would be handled better. especially of late, it seems as if Obama's team is content with giving their statements first without any vetting or consideration from other Dems.

how that would inform policy, especially the health care bill, is debatable.
Click to expand...

It would probably have helped Libya if the "congressional lines" were open to the point they requested authorization.
 
I voted for Hillary in the Ohio primary but felt a bit guilty about it since it was clear that she was going to lose by then and supporting her could only prolong a nasty primary fight.

Now I am happy that I voted for Hilldawg.
 
It's easy to always in hindsight go "Oh, I should have voted for Hillary". Nobody knows how a Hillary Presidency would have turned out. Everyone's just idealizing right now.

Easily, she could have been the same or worse than Obama at this point, and then everyone would be "Oh, I should have voted for Obama".

It's pointless to idealize something that never happened.
 
Rubenov said:
It's easy to always in hindsight go "Oh, I should have voted for Hillary". Nobody knows how a Hillary Presidency would have turned out. Everyone's just idealizing right now.

Easily, she could have been the same or worse than Obama at this point, and then everyone would be "Oh, I should have voted for Obama".

It's pointless to idealize something that never happened.
Click to expand...

Well of course, that goes without saying. But again, if Obama was kicking ass and taking names, this conversation wouldn't even take place.
 
zomgbbqftw said:
So I've just put a largeish amount of money on Paul Ryan for GOP candidate, if he runs I think he will get it. Anyone else think so or if not, why not?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're about to lose a largeish amount of money...
 
Since the left has become so focused on illegitimizing the Texas economic recovery, the right should take their contribution away from the post-recession recovery and see what the national numbers would look like. If it doesn't count for Perry, then it shouldn't count for Obama.

It would be amusing.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Since the left has become so focused on illegitimizing the Texas economic recovery, the right should take their contribution away from the post-recession recovery and see what the national numbers would look like. If it doesn't count for Perry, then it shouldn't count for Obama.

It would be amusing.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem with that is that really doesnt make sense. The problem with Texas is that they basically just stole jobs from other states. Obama's figures won't take those stolen jobs into account since it wasnt a job added, just a job moved.

Though, of course, not making sense hasnt stopped the republicans before
 
Paul Ryan won't even jump into the race, much less win. He's made it quite clear he's got young kids and he won't even consider getting in because of that.
 
I don't mind the bet, just wait until the guy gets in the race.

It's like betting on the Clippers for the 2012 NBA Championships, even though there might not be a season.
 
The Clintons are just as firmly in the grasp of the rich corporatists as Obama is. A Hillary presidency wouldn't have been terribly different from what we have now. We'd still have Wormtongues whispering into her ear to give deference to the Republican and conservative views/voters, that Wall Street needs to be fixed before Main Street, trickle down works, etc.
Shit, a Hillary presidency would have been worse. The Clintons have loooong since been out of touch with the rest of the country. Being extremely rich and traveling in elite circles has that effect, after all.

And the Tea Party would have happened either way. Just that instead of endless amounts of racism, you'd see a endless amounts of sexism. Oh, and by the way, Hillary killed Vince Foster, don'tchaknow?
Folks, this is what conservatives ALWAYS do, especially when a Democrat is in office. They've done this since forever. During Kennedy's era, they were called the Birchers. During Carter, they were calling themselves the Minute Men, I believe. Reagan, they decided to call themselves the Moral Majority. Clinton they didn't have a name, but were largely dismissed as the "Black Helicopter Crowd" by a lot of folks. Now they're calling themselves the Tea Party.
...but it's the same insane shit. The only difference today is that now they have a cable "news" network and massive radio station network inserting this willfully ignorant shit directly into the national conversation and legitimizing it.
 
It is the height of hilarity to see GOPers that backed Afghanistan and Iraq screaming at Obama for having participated in the Libya operation. Could they be any more wrong?

Fuck the conventional wisdom about the GOP being better on defense/wars. Obama got Bush's nemesis Osama. Obama got Reagan's nemesis Ghadaffi (sort of).
 
speculawyer said:
It is the height of hilarity to see GOPers that backed Afghanistan and Iraq screaming at Obama for having participated in the Libya operation. Could they be any more wrong?

Fuck the conventional wisdom about the GOP being better on defense/wars. Obama got Bush's nemesis Osama. Obama got Reagan's nemesis Ghadaffi (sort of).
Click to expand...

Funny, I was thinking there was hypocrisy on both sides, the war mongers on the right suddenly worrying about nation building and whether the President is going "too far" while the left that was once so dovish has all turned into bloodthirsty war mongers cheering the invasion of Tripoli as if they were watching someone play a FPS death match.

Oh, right.

In a phone interview, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the largest antiwar protests during the Bush administration, Michael McPhearson, said part of the explanation is political partisanship. A lot of the antiwar protesters, he said, were Democrats. “Once Obama got into office, they kind of demobilized themselves,” he said.

“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”

Mr. McPhearson says antiwar protests of the sort that drew hundreds of thousands of people during the George W. Bush administration now draw 20,000 at best. He said his group’s strategy now is to emphasize the cost of the wars and the Pentagon amid Washington’s focus on trimming the deficit.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

With Love, Meghan (Netflix) is everything I dreamed of and more
44
3K
Days like these... replied
  • Poll
Your ranking of all Fast and Furious movies
24
990
Rockondevil replied
Amouranth says Crypto-thieves invaded her house in the middle of the night, dragged her out of bed, and she shot one of them before SWAT arrived
Drama  2 3
122
11K
near replied
Project Gravitaur - Unreal engine to create film and VR of Bob Lazars "S4"
4
811
sono replied
  • Locked
El Salvador offers to house violent US criminals and deportees of any nationality in unprecedented deal
36
2K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom