el retorno
Member
He's gonna appoint a republican and any democrat would appoint a democrat.
edit: sorry for the double post
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
He's gonna appoint a republican and any democrat would appoint a democrat.
edit: sorry for the double post
Aaron Strife
Banned
When Obama appointed Judd Gregg to the Cabinet there was an uproar over the possibility that New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) was going to appoint a Democrat in his place, giving Democrats a 60 seat majority. To a point where Lynch had to promise he'd appoint a Republican.
But the shoe is on the other foot so no one gives a fuck, which is typical in American politics. Let Republicans work the system while Democrats play nice.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Same principle. I don't think Lautenberg would be very happy if he knew his replacement was a Republican.
The man just died for christ's sake, I don't think it's asking too much of Christie to show some respect for his service.
In the long term it won't matter much because Booker will just win the seat in his own right in November, but still.
Of course being self employed will require more work on your part, however -
1. most people aren't self employed.
2. even for the self employed, you shouldn't have to do anything beyond reporting your income to the government.
jamesinclair
Banned
Ladies and gentlemen....
A must see video of the week.
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-d...4D.html#!C6D8BBCE-B405-4D3C-A381-4CA50BDD8D4D
The WSJ is now officially the onion.
If I still had a subscription, Id cancel it many times over.
A must see video of the week.
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-d...4D.html#!C6D8BBCE-B405-4D3C-A381-4CA50BDD8D4D
The WSJ is now officially the onion.
If I still had a subscription, Id cancel it many times over.
speculawyer
Member
Oh come on. There's no respect in politics. They didn't respect Daniel Inouye's wishes and he was a dedicated war veteran that died.
If Christie were to appoint a Democrat, his chances of winning the GOP presidential primary would be zero. He'll split the baby and appoint a moderate republican like Christie Todd-Whitman.
speculawyer
Member
Clicks . . . gets ad for a car . . . closes window.
The WSJ opinion page has always been a land of crazy and I've never bothered reading it unless I want to know the opinion of rich people who don't understand how most people live.
Depends on what you guys are into. The museums are a must though, especially the MET. It has a shark in a tank. If you like poetry hit up the Nuyorican, if you like comedy there are a handful of great clubs in the city to go to. Just don't use a car, take the subway while on Manhattan.
:lol If they want, but there's a lot more interesting stuff to do.
Wow, you weren't kidding. How can the Onion outdo that?
jamesinclair
Banned
Trust me, the car ad makes it even better. Keep watching.
Protip: The super rich WSJ editor describes herself as the average new yorker.
The Librarian
Banned
I WANT A PICTURE
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'd say Christie's chances of winning the GOP presidential primary are already zero.
Zero percent is being a little generous don't you think?
The Librarian
Banned
Jooney, visit Josh Marshall's office and tell him PoliGAF loves him.
el retorno
Member
Maddow talking up Christie Nominating booker. lol
I don't think Christie is dead in the republican primary, I really think people are going to be placated into voting for a winnable candidate. It always happens.
I don't think Christie is dead in the republican primary, I really think people are going to be placated into voting for a winnable candidate. It always happens.
If Christie nominates Booker, shit I don't know what I'll say. I'll be shocked that's for sure.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think Christie's apparent friendship with Obama is going to be a bridge too far for most GOP primary voters. It doesn't matter how effective his leadership was during Sandy, in their eyes he may as well have been frolicking arm-in-arm with Satan in a gay pride parade.
For Heir Platypotamus, the WSJ is basically arguing that bike lanes are symbolic of totalitarian regimes. And Platy's been here long enough to realize that that's not an exaggeration. Cliff notes via Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/03/1213450/-Bike-totalitarians-are-coming-to-get-you
Dude Abides
Banned
That's "OpinionJournal" - it's the WSJ editorial page in video form, which has always been completely nuts.
I don't know if the Murdochization of the WSJ has affected its news coverage also.
el retorno
Member
Not gonna happen
And romney's flip flops? Saying he was pro-choice, pro universal health care, etc. Voters have short term memories and forgive if they feel they'll win.
Yeah the video will be brought up but if the establishment wants him you'll see him tear apart his opponents. The mistake he won't make is kowtowing to the base like romney did.
That would be ballsy. I mean he's got this thing and it’s fucking golden. And he's just not giving it up for fucking nothing. He's not going to do it. And he can always use it. He can parachute himself there. You know?
Hence my shock if it did.
jamesinclair
Banned
I'd say Christie's chances of winning the GOP presidential primary are already zero.
All I see are two right-wing candidates?
PhoenixDark
Banned
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).
speculawyer
Member
This. The nutty right-wing talkers always go on about their favorite nut-ball like Perry, Santorum, newt, Huckabee, etc. But in the end, the GOP has picked relatively moderate people like Bush (who at least initially ran as a moderate), McCain, and Romney.
Ted Cruz . . . not going to be nominated. Rand Paul . . . not going to be nominated.
speculawyer
Member
el retorno
Member
my favorite thing is when liberal attacks work in GOP primaries see the Bain attack by newt
speculawyer
Member
Time heals all wounds.
The GOP has to find some normal person to run. They can't nominate a tea party nut-bag. They know that.
Of course I generally think that there is no way you can know anything this far in advance. And I still think that. But that said . . . I just can't see how the GOP can win in 2016 unless the economy implodes. That is their only hope. Their candidates are clowns, their appeal is to a shrinking base, and they just have NO POSITIVE AGENDA. Killing Obamacare and cancelling programs is just not a positive agenda.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
You should have seen the self employed fishermen here in Louisiana during the BP oil spill. If you will remember, BP set up a fund to pay out money to people who had their livelihoods destroyed by the spill. Basically, it was going to be based off 3-5 years of tax returns, but all the fishermen under reported their income. They claimed $30,000 income to the government when it was more like $50,000. And some screwed themselves when BP was paying out.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Having a cordial relationship with Obama probably wouldn't matter in a 2020 or 2024 primary, sure. But the 2016 primaries will happen while Obama is still president. I'm not convinced.
The right's hatred for him - and all associated with him - will not die until he leaves office. And probably a few years after. Then in ten years opportunistic Republicans will wash his balls and claim his endorsement until he gives a rousing speech endorsing the Democratic nominee.
I'd have been really tempted to say this going into the 2012 primary, and I'd have been wrong, but it seems to me that, eventually, the party will be sufficiently radicalized that a crazy person gets nominated. This has happened before - Goldwater came from a similar place.
This really did come close to happening in 2012, too, and Romney felt enough pressure to take on a crazy VP candidate. I think Paul Ryan might have a shot.
I also just have a really hard time figuring out which moderate is going to be positioned to do nearly as well as Romney, McCain, or Bush. He was a governor who ran for the 2008 nomination who had a long, long time to lay the groundwork for his 2012 run. McCain had been a major figure in Washington for a very long time and was at one point pretty widely respected. Bush was a Bush.
Of arguably sane, prominent people, who do we have? Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio? I really do think Christie is toxic; current governors are either crazy or unelectable, and the Republicans will only nominate people who haven't had to govern recently or who were crazy while governing. Rubio is much less clearly sane than the others and is very dependent on immigration reform playing out just right. Bush is still a Bush. I guess I'd say that he's the most likely, but I think Paul Ryan or a crazy governor could give him a run for his money.
speculawyer
Member
Could be Romney again.
But I agree . . . their bench is weak and most of the people that get discussed are too nuts.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The most glorious match-up would be Joe Biden and Paul Ryan.
What the fuck. There are no words. Seriously sounds 100% like the Onion.
hahahahah the bike lobby is an all powerful enterprise? What in fuck
There should be a thread about this.
it's most likely going to be rubio or paul ryan. unless a dark horse candidate pops up (john thune, whats-her-name new mexico governer, et al)
i'd love it to be rand paul or somebody for lulz but recent history shows they usually nominate down the middle. or the relative middle anyway
CharlieDigital
Banned
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:
CharlieDigital said:Chris Christie is a fuck-nut for cancelling the ARC tunnel project which was shovel-ready, would have brought a lot of jobs to the region, and also improved the transportation options into and out of NYC for decades and would have paid for itself over time.
He is also an ass-hat for giving out a huge tax credit for the Xanadu project (yeah, just what New Jersey needs -- another fucking mall. Oh, and it looks like a giant stack of shipping containers...) while cutting state funding for education and property tax relief for seniors (we have insane property tax rates here) while refusing to raise taxes on the wealthiest earners in the state....
Fuck Christie.
Edit: this abomination:
Sirpopopop said:
CharlieDigital said:
Aaron Strife
Banned
but he's a moderate republican beloved by all
the media will mollycoddle him for eternity just on that
jamesinclair
Banned
For the second time, what can bring congress together into a bipartisan orgy?
ME ME ME ME ME.
This time, the entitled brats want their non-stop flights to continue. Last time they worked together it was to make sure their non-stop flights werent delayed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...ines-usairways-congress-idUSBRE94R0ZN20130528
ME ME ME ME ME.
This time, the entitled brats want their non-stop flights to continue. Last time they worked together it was to make sure their non-stop flights werent delayed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...ines-usairways-congress-idUSBRE94R0ZN20130528
RustyNails
Member
Jeff Sessions desperately trying to sink the immigration bill
If you've been paying attention to the immigration debate in Congress, then you've probably noticed Jeff Sessions.
It would be hard to find a more persistent and vocal foe of the bipartisan Senate immigration bill than the Alabama Republican. But so far, Sessions has appeared to be more of a lone wolf rather than a man who's on the cusp of rallying a large coalition to stymie the plan.
Sessions offered 15 amendments to the bill last month, the most of which would have gutted its core proposals. (Only one of Sessions' minor amendments was adopted without being changed). Several times a day his office also circulated materials from law enforcement groups like the ICE union and conservative pundits like Michelle Malkin and Erick Erickson blasting the plan. Sessions himself railed (and railed, and railed...) against the proposal during committee hearings, claiming it would hurt American workers and violate the rule of law.
Once the bill moves to the Senate floor in the next two weeks, Sessions will certainly amplify his efforts to defeat it, and key anti-immigration reform foes are betting on him winning the debate.
"I believe this bill allows more people into the country than we can absorb economically," Sessions told ABC News. "I believe this bill does not increase lawfulness in the system in the degree that needs to be done."
But his opponents detect more sinister motives. To undermine his arguments, they point to studies that show that liberalizing immigration laws could boost the nation's GDP while having a negligible impact on the labor market for native-born Americans.
Instead, they accuse Sessions of stretching the facts to play to the fears of poor and lower-middle class voters in Alabama who worry that a wave of immigrants could hurt them economically.
"He is playing to a segment of Alabama society that is scared," said Helen Hamilton Rivas, an immigrant-rights advocate who has lived in Alabama since 1980. "Fear drives a lot of the anti-immigrant stuff. Fear and ignorance."
Immigrant advocates like Sharry also like to refer to the Alabamian by his full name -- Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III -- to conjure up an image of a Confederate general leading the charge.
"We can no longer overtly be tough on African-Americans, but we can overtly be tough on Latinos because we can hide behind the rule of law argument," is how Sharry summed up Sessions' immigration views.
Of course, Sessions vehemently denies that he holds racist or xenophobic views or that any such views inform his opinions on immigration.
"I don't appreciate it if someone says that, 'you are not kind and you're mean-spirited and you don't like immigrants.' Because I do favor immigration," he said. "We've got to ask some fundamental questions. A lot of people are concerned about this. And I intend to make sure that as best I can that these issues are debated openly."
Aaron Strife
Banned
Oh look, a republican senator from a southern state who thinks he's important
speculawyer
Member
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.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Bicycles don't support the oil industry.
adamsappel
Member
When you work for Wal-Mart, you're already trapped.
And I'm sure Obama will heap tons of praise on Christie, quickly dooming him.
I think Ryan checks too many boxes for him to not be a major player going forward. Rand Paul is an inferior substitute and I think his current success in polling is a bubble. Republicans are concerned about young voters - Ryan looks really young. Republicans are concerned with not being the "stupid party" - Ryan's got his wonk routine down. Republicans don't want to talk about social issues so much - Ryan cares a lot more about economics but has a sufficiently conservative record on social issues that he doesn't need to defend it against attacks from the right. He's got name recognition and at one point had a great approval rating. A little bit of good PR distancing him from Romney and he can get it all back, and he'll get along much better with the establishment than other people who are similarly crazy.
The thing is, even if we set aside the preposterous idea that criteria for tax exempt status have anything substantive to do with the individual and c-corp federal tax regimes (especially ones for which donations received are not tax deductible to the donor, like a 501(c)4), and ignore the fact that Title 26 § 1.501(c)(4)-1 is a simple tax code, unless you completely cripple an IRS successor agency's ability to react to tax-avoiding behavior in a manner faster than the labored pace of Congress, determinations will have to be made about what constitutes wage income because of tax-avoiding innovation.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Republicans tend to have a very dependable strategy of nominating the next guy in line, at least in recent memory. Nearly every GOP nominee since 1960 has been an establishment republican: a vice president or someone else on a clear "next in line" hierarchy. Ford was an obvious choice. Reagan, despite what republicans argue today, was a clear establishment candidate who came up short in 1976 before taking the nomination four years later. Then his VP won, and after him Mr. Establishment himself, Bob Dole.
The only nominee that doesn't fit is Goldwater. Goldwater because he was a fringe candidate who beat out establishment choices. He moved the party to the very far right, and scared the shit out of moderate republicans. There's a story about Jackie Robinson being troubled by the hate he overheard and saw at the 1964 convention, much of which was aimed at Kennedy.
The last two primaries were basically fought over the board that Bush left republicans. McCain, the next in line. Romney, Santorum, Gulianni, Bachman, Rick Perry, all of them were products of the Bush era in one way or another. But I think 2012 closed the chapter on Bush's legacy, and thus 2016 will feature the next crop of candidates. Under normal circumstances Santorum would be the choice, the obvious next in line. But instead I think we'll get a bunch of "new" faces attempting to remodel the republican party as Reagan and W Bush once did. Christie, Paul, Cruz, Bob McDonnell, Rubio, etc.
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz aren't establishment guys, and could trigger the 1964 redux the party probably needs in order to come back to reality. Both are senators yet both are clearly more radical than their republican senate colleagues, both are more libertarian than establishment republicans, and both have no interest in moderation. Paul may be making some friends within the establishment (he's campaign for McConnell) but he's far more extreme than John McCain on a variety of issues.
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.
The only nominee that doesn't fit is Goldwater. Goldwater because he was a fringe candidate who beat out establishment choices. He moved the party to the very far right, and scared the shit out of moderate republicans. There's a story about Jackie Robinson being troubled by the hate he overheard and saw at the 1964 convention, much of which was aimed at Kennedy.
The last two primaries were basically fought over the board that Bush left republicans. McCain, the next in line. Romney, Santorum, Gulianni, Bachman, Rick Perry, all of them were products of the Bush era in one way or another. But I think 2012 closed the chapter on Bush's legacy, and thus 2016 will feature the next crop of candidates. Under normal circumstances Santorum would be the choice, the obvious next in line. But instead I think we'll get a bunch of "new" faces attempting to remodel the republican party as Reagan and W Bush once did. Christie, Paul, Cruz, Bob McDonnell, Rubio, etc.
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz aren't establishment guys, and could trigger the 1964 redux the party probably needs in order to come back to reality. Both are senators yet both are clearly more radical than their republican senate colleagues, both are more libertarian than establishment republicans, and both have no interest in moderation. Paul may be making some friends within the establishment (he's campaign for McConnell) but he's far more extreme than John McCain on a variety of issues.
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.
Black Mamba
Member
but but but Obama thugs!
empty vessel
Member
That rope is already taut.
Too bad Obama already conceded the issue.
- Status