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

Status
Not open for further replies.
benjipwns said:
Or they may just realize they can't possibly get a conviction even with legitimate scandals so it will backfire like the Clinton one did.
Click to expand...

Spec is right, if they had anything real they would have tried already. Right now all they have is stuff that won't survive outside the conservative bubble. All of their "scandals" have been exposed as bullshit and if they tried to impeach Obama with bullshit they would implode. If they had anything they would be pushing for impeachment.

If it were something real, like Watergate, then people would get behind them. Anything short of that will backfire.
 
I don't think so, there's no value in impeachment. Like major scale recalls they're seen as too risky and in a way illegitimate. Especially if you can't win.

It's why Bush wasn't impeached when the Democrats took Congress. They knew they couldn't convict.
 
benjipwns said:
I don't think so, there's no value in impeachment. Like major scale recalls they're seen as too risky and in a way illegitimate. Especially if you can't win.

It's why Bush wasn't impeached when the Democrats took Congress. They knew they couldn't convict.
Click to expand...

Well this is sort of what I was saying. If there was something Watergate level going on they would be pushing for it, but they won't do it for anything short of that because of how it would be viewed. It would blow up in their faces.
 
benjipwns said:
I don't think so, there's no value in impeachment. Like major scale recalls they're seen as too risky and in a way illegitimate. Especially if you can't win.

It's why Bush wasn't impeached when the Democrats took Congress. They knew they couldn't convict.
Click to expand...

If Obama was really guilty of something then the Senate, even a Dem controlled Senate, would convict him.

Clinton got off (hurr hurr) because it was just a BJ unrelated to his job as president. But if Obama really targeted conservatives with the IRS or intentionally let people die in Benghazi, I think the Dems would convict him. A bunch of Senators would be trying to set themselves up as the next Presidential candidate since Hilary would be tarred as part of the administration.

But they have NOTHING.
 
benjipwns said:
I don't think so, there's no value in impeachment. Like major scale recalls they're seen as too risky and in a way illegitimate. Especially if you can't win.

It's why Bush wasn't impeached when the Democrats took Congress. They knew they couldn't convict.
Click to expand...

This is the same party that shut down the government for a month in an attempt to repeal the ACA at the 11th hour. A repeal that the party's leader (Boehner) had admitted was out of the question just 1 year prior.

The GOP leaders created a monster with their base and some new members in Washington that they can't really control or know what to do with, anymore.

Risk analysis no longer matters. I agree with Spec. If anything tangible existed, they'd push it to the point of falling on their face.
 
You guys have a lot more faith in the GOP to be both partisan and patriotic than I do.

Government shutdowns are no big deal, impeachment is major, especially with the trial.

The Nixon Administration was doing far worse things, more illegal things, but breaking into an office is what provoked his downfall. Same with Clinton and his perjury in a sexual harassment case.

And in both instances there were tapes. Nixon was hoist on his own paranoia in creating the tapes.

The government is a lot smarter about this stuff with each tiny drip, what with the fake/private emails and everything else done to avoid FOIA. Don't record anything or allow access to it and nobody will be able to complain in the first place.

I don't think you'll see another President impeached in our lifetimes. No matter what high crimes or misdemeanors they've committed. Though maybe if they're caught doing drugs or betting on the Super Bowl in the Oval Office.
 
Aylinato said:
Michigan's economy has not improved, we are also worse off in education than all but Mississippi and Alabama as a whole.


However Synder will probably be re-elected because of "social issues"


However he sure has fucked up our state for the next 20 years. way to fucking go republicans.
Click to expand...
Really glad I moved away, though it us sad to see the state of my state.
 
benjipwns said:
You guys have a lot more faith in the GOP to be both partisan and patriotic than I do.

Government shutdowns are no big deal, impeachment is major, especially with the trial.

The Nixon Administration was doing far worse things, more illegal things, but breaking into an office is what provoked his downfall. Same with Clinton and his perjury in a sexual harassment case.

And in both instances there were tapes. Nixon was hoist on his own paranoia in creating the tapes.

The government is a lot smarter about this stuff with each tiny drip, what with the fake/private emails and everything else done to avoid FOIA. Don't record anything or allow access to it and nobody will be able to complain in the first place.

I don't think you'll see another President impeached in our lifetimes. No matter what high crimes or misdemeanors they've committed. Though maybe if they're caught doing drugs or betting on the Super Bowl in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

I think you're mostly right, but the idea was that if there was something, even small, to pin on Obama, the GOP would impeach. They don't have to win because, like with Clinton, it isn't about winning but pandering to their racist aspect of their base.

The GOP clearly has no problem doing things that hurt their long term prospects. gov't shutdown, immigration reform, etc are all evidence of this. It's a party that without change will become irrelevant nationally within a decade's time.
 
I think if the GOP had anything on Obama they would move to impeach. They've made it clear in how they've tried pushing these minor issues, even when they're not related to the White House.
 
I think one other reason I find it unlikely is there is or was a GOP meme that basically all the scandals would snowball along with the failure of Obamacare and the economy, initially to push him out in 2012, and now to lead to a huge 2014 victory. Along with the grand reclamation of the Presidency in 2016 obviously.

So if you assume this as a core tenant, then impeaching on any lone scandal would suck the oxygen out of the endless parade of scandals AND prevent a future impeachment. So if you had tried to impeach on Fast and Furious, you have a lot less political capital to try it again on Benghazi, and then again on the IRS, and then again on George Zimmerman's prosecution, etc.

Even if you think there's a there there you might not think there's enough accessible evidence to pull it off. With Clinton you had the tape of him denying and everyone knew he was lying and they still got pushback on it. With Johnson you had a Cabinet member barricaded in his office and they still got pushback on it.

It's a lot easier to get away with a short government shutdown because you can blame "Washington culture" or some crap and only like 20% of the government actually shuts down, whereas with an impeachment you have to draft the articles and then have the trial. You're committing to something a lot more concrete and detailed. And everyone knows that's the last thing you want to do as a politician.
 
benjipwns said:
I think one other reason I find it unlikely is there is or was a GOP meme that basically all the scandals would snowball along with the failure of Obamacare and the economy, initially to push him out in 2012, and now to lead to a huge 2014 victory. Along with the grand reclamation of the Presidency in 2016 obviously.

So if you assume this as a core tenant, then impeaching on any lone scandal would suck the oxygen out of the endless parade of scandals AND prevent a future impeachment. So if you had tried to impeach on Fast and Furious, you have a lot less political capital to try it again on Benghazi, and then again on the IRS, and then again on George Zimmerman's prosecution, etc.

Even if you think there's a there there you might not think there's enough accessible evidence to pull it off. With Clinton you had the tape of him denying and everyone knew he was lying and they still got pushback on it. With Johnson you had a Cabinet member barricaded in his office and they still got pushback on it.

It's a lot easier to get away with a short government shutdown because you can blame "Washington culture" or some crap and only like 20% of the government actually shuts down, whereas with an impeachment you have to draft the articles and then have the trial. You're committing to something a lot more concrete and detailed. And everyone knows that's the last thing you want to do as a politician.
Click to expand...
So....they got nothing.
 
APKmetsfan said:
K9tl833l.png


Good discussion on race on Hannity IMO. All the guests bring their unique experiences. Middle aged white guy 1 lived a totally different life than Middle aged white guy 3.
Click to expand...

To be fair they had two races on there, white male and white woman.
 
Aaron Strife said:
polls consistently showing Pryor up

D+6 on the generic ballot

so yeah basically
Click to expand...
Shit, even you think so? :o

Do you all realize that if this happens, Obama is probably going to use the veto more than any President in history up to now?

Also they are going to try really really hard to impeach him.
 
speculawyer said:
I'll say it. The USA was NOT READY FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT. Yeah, he got elected. Twice even. But there is an ugly rump of racism that made it such that he could get nothing done. He was damn lucky to get the ACA passed. Yeah, they HATED Clinton. And they had crazy paranoid conspiracy theories about him. But at least they could pass SOMETHING with him in office. The only big thing passed by Obama was the ACA and that was done with zero GOP votes. And since then, they've blocked EVERY substantial thing he's tried to do.

I'm an old white guy so I can say it . . . fucking racism has really retarded Obama from doing much of anything.

It really hit me during the Syria conflict. Syria apparently launched chemical weapons but when Obama tried to launch JUST a missile strike, the right pushed back. And a caller into OnPoint with Tom Ashbrook pointed out that when Bush alleged Saddam MIGHT have chemical weapons, the right backed a land invasion of Iraq . . . and when Syria ACTUALLY launched a chemical attack, the right didn't want Obama to even launch a missile attack. Why? Made no sense.

18:45 here:
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/09/11/obama-speech-syria
Click to expand...

I'd disagree because Clinton was accused of rape and murder by elected officials, and investigated non-stop; his friends were investigated and even indicted for not agreeing to make up shit about him. He was also impeached, and his term included multiple cases of right wing violence (Waco, Oklahoma City Bombing).

Clinton's second term successes were largely due to triangulation, ie taking republican talking points and passing them. Obama hasn't really been willing to do that outside of a few olive branches. I think part of his failure is due to him being a bad politician, at least with respect to working in Washington; obviously he's a great politician in terms of campaigning.

You're right about Syria. Another example is the fiasco over his comment on Israeli 1967 borders with land swaps. Long standing US policy, yet both republicans and democrats attacked him - and actually sided with a foreign leader in distorting a US president's statement.

I think the biggest difference between Clinton and Obama hate is the underlining them of other-ness republicans have painted Obama with. Clinton was just a burn out draft dodger in their eyes - American, yet un-American. Whereas many on the right constantly suggest Obama isn't American, either in birth or ideology ("the president doesn't understand America"). Ugly shit. And this ties into every conspiracy or accusation they make, be it "Obama let Americans die at Benghazi" or "Obama wants to dismantle the constitution."
 
Regarding Clinton vs. Obama, one could blame Clinton for the start of this. That is, right-wing lunacy seen today by the GOP in DC. By adopting what is now known as moderate stances on positions, he embraced many of the then-right wing positions GOPers were championing at the time and left Republicans with NOTHING to work with. One could argue it was smart at the time because it gave Clinton a sense of ownership in setting the tone for what would be legislated, but I think they severely underestimated the future implications of such a tactic at the time; Clinton honestly helped move the GOP further to the right to compete with Democrats who were beating them at their own game.

Then Bush got elected after an extremely close, polarizing and wildly contested (to this day) election in 2000, 9/11 happened, we got bogged down in two unnecessary wars, the SCOTUS was solidified as a right-leaning court, the economy had been a bi-polar mess, then it crashed, we're on a slow but steady 'recovery' that is changing the face of how people work, and things just keep getting more and more cut-throat. It is an abyss and we're never going to recover, not for another generation at least, but not until the GOP can exhaust every last measure preventing us from getting there which just buys them more and more time. And there are real and lasting implications such as SCOTUS rulings on everything from campaign finance to the voting rights of minorities that should worry every American who isn't a right-wing loon.

Obama being a biracial President probably didn't help fan the flames of the teabagger crowd over the past 5 years, but it wasn't the only thing.

I think we're right at the brink of, for all intents and purposes, turning into a plutocracy. We're practically there. That isn't what this country was about, but the GOP is rewriting history with every law and court ruling that passes/is upheld in their favor. It is 'bad news', for real.

Again, if the GOP takes the Senate there is going to not only be a huge push from the party internally, but all the Koch-funded and similar special interest groups ejaculating their money and influence over Washington on a daily basis, to impeach Obama or at least send bills his way every month that seek to roll back every inch of progress he's been able to achieve as President. It's going to be a fucking war.

If Hillary doesn't win in 2016 'doomed' won't be such a joke word around here.
 
Diablos said:
Regarding Clinton vs. Obama, one could blame Clinton for the start of this. That is, right-wing lunacy seen today by the GOP in DC. By adopting what is now known as moderate stances on positions, he embraced many of the then-right wing positions GOPers were championing at the time and left Republicans with NOTHING to work with. One could argue it was smart at the time because it gave Clinton a sense of ownership in setting the tone for what would be legislated, but I think they severely underestimated the future implications of such a tactic at the time; Clinton honestly helped move the GOP further to the right to compete with Democrats who were beating them at their own game.
Click to expand...
Clinton really had no other choice. As much as leftists HATE to say it...the country moved right in the 80s. This is why Democratic candidates got curb stomped more than Obama did McCaine in 2008. Policies like welfare reform and statements like "the end of big government" are basically what saved the party because...well that's what most Americans agreed with at the time.

RustyNails said:
Only way Hillary cant win is if its found out that she personally went to Benghazi armed with a machine gun and killed those 4 Americans.
Click to expand...
You say this as if that didn't really happen.
 
Benghazi will be irrelevant in 2016. I'm sure the foreign policy debate will bring it up but that's about it. The GOP nominee will no doubt mention it nonstop though.
 
There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to convince me that the vast majority of the hate Obama gets from the Right isn't race related, either subconsciously or not. You could maybe, MAYBE argue that most of the elected GOP officials don't truly hate him (
KuGsj.gif
yeah right), but their base? Nope. Nope. NOPE.

Their base hates him because he's black and their ignorant, selfish assholes. You've had six (SIX FFS!!!) goddamn years of ridiculous amounts of evidence, dog whistling, dumb as fuck scandals, outright made up shit, yet we still have people in this thread trying to deny it?

Come the fuck on, peeps.

The GOP is a party that's fundamentally built on racism and hatred of non-whites.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to convince me that the vast majority of the hate Obama gets from the Right isn't race related, either subconsciously or not. You could maybe, MAYBE argue that most of the elected GOP officials don't truly hate him (
KuGsj.gif
yeah right), but their base? Nope. Nope. NOPE.

Their base hates him because he's black and their ignorant, selfish assholes. You've had six (SIX FFS!!!) goddamn years of ridiculous amounts of evidence, dog whistling, dumb as fuck scandals, outright made up shit, yet we still have people in this thread trying to deny it?

Come the fuck on, peeps.

The GOP is a party that's fundamentally built on racism and hatred of non-whites.
Click to expand...

Even their god, Reagan, used the Southern Strategy to win his election in a landslide.
 
So the poll that showed Cotton and Pryor tied in Arkansas was actually part of 5 polls commissioned by Karl Rove's group by Harper (the right-wing's "answer" to PPP) to show that Republicans can win the Senate.

The other four are Colorado (Udall 45-43), Louisiana (Cassidy 47-43), Michigan (Land 43-40), and Montana (Daines 42-35). Republicans lead in three of the five races but the neat thing is that the Democrats are doing better in four of five of those since the last time those states were polled by Harper. Pryor was losing by 6 and is now tied, Peters went from a 5 point loss in Michigan to 3, Udall went from a 1 point lead to 2, and Daines' lead in Montana got cut in half. The only one who lost any ground is Landrieu.

So sure Democrats are doomed yeah whatever.

Interestingly Alaska and North Carolina were also polled last time but apparently not this time. Or they were and they just didn't want to release the results. Always possible.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to convince me that the vast majority of the hate Obama gets from the Right isn't race related, either subconsciously or not. You could maybe, MAYBE argue that most of the elected GOP officials don't truly hate him (
KuGsj.gif
yeah right), but their base? Nope. Nope. NOPE.

Their base hates him because he's black and their ignorant, selfish assholes. You've had six (SIX FFS!!!) goddamn years of ridiculous amounts of evidence, dog whistling, dumb as fuck scandals, outright made up shit, yet we still have people in this thread trying to deny it?

Come the fuck on, peeps.

The GOP is a party that's fundamentally built on racism and hatred of non-whites.
Click to expand...
Meh . . . "fundamentally built on racism and hatred of non-whites"? . . . No. But is that used to get votes? Certainly.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to convince me that the vast majority of the hate Obama gets from the Right isn't race related, either subconsciously or not. You could maybe, MAYBE argue that most of the elected GOP officials don't truly hate him (
KuGsj.gif
yeah right), but their base? Nope. Nope. NOPE.

Their base hates him because he's black and their ignorant, selfish assholes. You've had six (SIX FFS!!!) goddamn years of ridiculous amounts of evidence, dog whistling, dumb as fuck scandals, outright made up shit, yet we still have people in this thread trying to deny it?

Come the fuck on, peeps.

The GOP is a party that's fundamentally built on racism and hatred of non-whites.
Click to expand...

You could almost say they love him because he rallies the base and keeps them easily re-elected.

And I disagree with the last sentence. Not fundamentally, but opportunistically taking advantage of it. I don't think they will hesitate for a second to change tune on immigration and other related race matters if it means it is essential to their staying viable and elected.

As a matter of fact we are starting to see it already with the whole "Republicans freed the slaves" narratives starting to build. It's an easy message to translate to the eventual "freeing" of illegal immigrants from Democratic federal government oppression.
 
New York joined California, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, and Massachusetts in campaign to assign their electoral colleges to national popular vote instead of state popular vote.

Seems like a great idea to me, but it's not going to happen unless at least a couple Republican states sign on too.

So why aren't republican states signing on? Don't they know the electoral college is completely against them right now? Romney probably would have easily lost with even a 2% popular vote going his way. Do they expect the map to drastically change by itself after Obama? Do they really expect their voter suppression and campaign finance deregulation to turn those swing states completely in republican favor again?

I don't really get it.
 
thepotatoman said:
New York joined California, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, and Massachusetts in campaign to assign their electoral colleges to national popular vote instead of state popular vote.

Seems like a great idea to me, but it's not going to happen unless at least a couple Republican states sign on too.

So why aren't republican states signing on? Don't they know the electoral college is completely against them right now? Romney probably would have easily lost with even a 2% popular vote going his way. Do they expect the map to drastically change by itself after Obama? Do they really expect their voter suppression and campaign finance deregulation to turn those swing states completely in republican favor again?

I don't really get it.
Click to expand...
Republican Presidential nominees have won 2 out of the last 6 electoral votes where they have only won 1 out of the last 6 popular votes.

But I get your point, the EV map is really stacked against them. Something like 243 EVs have gone Blue the past 6 elections or around there, while Romney only got to 206.
 
speculawyer said:
Meh . . . "fundamentally built on racism and hatred of non-whites"? . . . No. But is that used to get votes? Certainly.
Click to expand...

Let's say it's fundamentally built on classism, which can be hard to fully separate from racism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
11K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
1K
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
18K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
Good New Music?
2
2K
bitbydeath replied
InFAMOUS [Mafia] [OT] No Good Karma...
69 70 71 72 73
4K
188K
OceanicAir replied
Top Bottom