Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

That's the number I got from Daily Caller and is only a quote from McDaniel's staff.

Cochran's claiming that they're digging past the democrat primary double votes and into other things.

I bet that's what it is. Really doesn't make sense that a large group of black voters showed up for the dem primary, considering at the time it wasn't seen as mattering. I'm assuming the McDaniel camp is counting a variety of bullshit allegations, from people voting in the wrong district to addresses that were recently changed.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Here's an interesting perspective on the Hobby Lobby decision from a federal district judge:

Following up on this, turns out Judge Kopf is kind of a creeper.

In candor, I have been a dirty old man ever since I was a very young man. Except, that is, when it comes to my daughters (and other young women that I care deeply about). And that brings me to the amusing debate about how (mostly) young female lawyers dress these days. . . .

True story. Around these parts there is a wonderfully talented and very pretty female lawyer who is in her late twenties. She is brilliant, she writes well, she speaks eloquently, she is zealous but not overly so, she is always prepared, she treats others, including her opponents, with civility and respect, she wears very short skirts and shows lots of her ample chest. I especially appreciate the last two attributes.

I was surprised to see (in that blog post) Judge Kopf write the following sentence:

The groom had no idea what the fuck had just happened.

 

[rex]

The fact the USA had connections (not even close to being "involved" with them) with most events in the 20th century is fine to say (it also misses the fact we helped and allied with Left-Wing governments, promoted democracy, helped expand trade and agriculture lifting billions out of poverty). We were a world power why spied and wanted information. To insinuate we direct and control things rather than react and try to find the best angle for the US is silly, conspiratorial and wrong. But people don't like that history isn't directed by a higher power. It happens and is the product of a lot of different things

Yup, it's clear that when good things happen in the world, it's because the US had agency and directly brought it about.

The bad things? O, the US only had 'connections' with those.

What nonsense.

You can draw a straight line from the 1953 coup in Iran to today. With the exception of one moment only, when the Twin Towers were brought down and the need for intervention in Afghanistan was unmistakable, the US had full power over the choices it made, and considerable influence over the course of events.

It couldv'e chosen not to arm Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, particularly not with chemical and biological agents. It couldv'e chosen not to intervene when he invaded a total non-entity in Kuwait, our reaction to which put us on Bin Laden's radar screen. It obviously could've chosen not to invade Iraq in 2003.

The US is directly responsible for a significant portion of the bloodshed in the Middle East, and they've aided and abetted it at other times. The Terrorists which are coming to kill us on our beds have thrived in the wake of the petty great power games we've played with Iran, Syria, and of course, the Soviet Union.

The US is guilty of, at minimum, an astounding degree of incompetence and gross negligence. A large percentage of the problems it faces in the Middle East are self-made, and every single strategic error it has made has been unforced.

These errors continue today. Arming the third weakest faction in Syria against two stronger opponents is totally consistent with the US's constant bungling. Toppling Gaddafi, lest he commit a (phony) massacre in the city of Benghazi, was equally stupid, since it turned the country over to militants and dispersed his regime's weapons.

If you want to make the argument that US interests in the Middle East, whatever they happen to be, are so vital, that it's worth the several hundred-thousand body count we've racked up along the way, as well as the trillions we've flushed down the toilet, then I'd be curious to hear it, because it'd have to be one hell of an argument to justify all the heinous shit we've done, or, if you prefer, have had 'connections' to.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yup, it's clear that when good things happen in the world, it's because the US had agency and directly brought it about.

The bad things? O, the US only had 'connections' with those.

What nonsense.

I agree that's nonsense, because that's not what I said at all. And the rest of your post is something like Gish Galloping

 

[rex]

I agree that's nonsense, because that's not what I said at all. And the rest of your post is something like Gish Galloping

Is the US government partially or fully responsible for it's current frosty relationship with Iran, the situation in Iraq, or the outcome in Libya?

I get the impression you don't think it bears any responsibility whatsoever, either for its own foreign policy predicaments or for the violence in the Middle East.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Is the US government partially or fully responsible for it's current frosty relationship with Iran, the situation in Iraq, or the outcome in Libya?

I get the impression you don't think it bears any responsibility whatsoever, either for its own foreign policy predicaments or for the violence in the Middle East.

That's no my position at all. we've done a lot of horrible stuff that we bear responsibility for (I would hesitate to say we're fully responsible for anything or outside forces didn't have roles to play). Its not an absolvement of history but want of a fuller accounting (for example British involvement in Iran, the desire of other countries to topple Saddam, etc). I also think the wholesale condemnation of many things we're condemned for is ignorant either to the intent behind them or the factors than brought them about. (I'm kantian/utilitarian in my ethics)

Its the idea the US comes up with world domination plans and enacts them rather than being a big player in many things in which we do things that have lead to bad outcomes and sometimes even with bad intents but its not some kind of "elders of neoliberalism"

 

[rex]

That's no my position at all. we've done a lot of horrible stuff that we bear responsibility for (I would hesitate to say we're fully responsible for anything or outside forces didn't have roles to play). Its not an absolvement of history but want of a fuller accounting (for example British involvement in Iran, the desire of other countries to topple Saddam, etc). I also think the wholesale condemnation of many things we're condemned for is ignorant either to the intent behind them or the factors than brought them about. (I'm kantian/utilitarian in my ethics)

Its the idea the US comes up with world domination plans and enacts them rather than being a big player in many things in which we do things that have lead to bad outcomes and sometimes even with bad intents but its not some kind of "elders of neoliberalism"

That's fair.

Obviously, the place on the map the US happens to occupy doesn't protect it from terrorism, but I tend to view its interactions with other countries in a harsher light when I consider its fortunate geography. Going 'abroad in search of monsters to destroy' may be too simplistic of a description of what's happening, but a lot of what it does seems to fit that description.

I'm not saying the world would be all roses if the US stayed on its side of the globe. But if it refrained more often, perhaps that would lessen the sum of violence in the world or, at least, might take us out of the crosshairs from time to time.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's fair.

Obviously, the place on the map the US happens to occupy doesn't protect it from terrorism, but I tend to view its interactions with other countries in a harsher light when I consider its fortunate geography. Going 'abroad in search of monsters to destroy' may be too simplistic of a description of what's happening, but a lot of what it does seems to fit that description.

I'm not saying the world would be all roses if the US stayed on its side of the globe. But if it refrained more often, perhaps that would lessen the sum of violence in the world or, at least, might take us out of the crosshairs from time to time.

I think you also need to balance it with the good which is what I was trying to do.

But International relations is a story with many actors. One isn't super dominate, the actions of others force others hands, mistakes, or successes happen. Someone people cheat and do horrible thing, sometimes they are selfless.

When you try to drill down to specifics about this issue or that issue you miss the bigger pictures and tend to have a confirmation bias or see the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Its worth talking about those specifics but its when they amplified to tell the two story I think people don't do history justice.

 

[Giant Panda]

I'm not sure why preventing Qadhafi from continuing to slaughter his own people is considered a bad thing…

 

[speculawyer]

I'm not sure why preventing Qadhafi from continuing to slaughter his own people is considered a bad thing…

Well, the place is not holding together well. But hopefully they can work it out. And recently, there have been some agreements between various rebel groups and the government.

I supported the air intervention in Libya and remain cautiously optimistic. They Libyans have been given a chance . . . they need to get their act together or it can fall apart.

I'm little worried about Egypt . . . apparently they are killing the gasoline subsidies and that is not going to go over well. But they really have no choice . . . they can't afford to pay for them.

 

[Giant Panda]

Well, the place is not holding together well. But hopefully they can work it out. And recently, there have been some agreements between various rebel groups and the government.

I supported the air intervention in Libya and remain cautiously optimistic. They Libyans have been given a chance . . . they need to get their act together or it can fall apart.

I'm little worried about Egypt . . . apparently they are killing the gasoline subsidies and that is not going to go over well. But they really have no choice . . . they can't afford to pay for them.

Yeah Libya has definitely been having some problems, but our action there was not morally wrong which is what rex seemed to be implying.

 

[rex]

I'm not sure why preventing Qadhafi from continuing to slaughter his own people is considered a bad thing…

Well, I'm biased towards not interfering in conflicts like Libya 2011 to begin with, but I would say two things about the merits of the case:

One, the president and others strongly intimated that Gaddafi's forces were about to purposefully target innocent civilians in Benghazi. The President used the phrase 'door to door' in his statement, a phrase also used by Gaddafi, but apparently only in relation to actual rebel soldiers. Of course, a lot of innocent people would die as a result of any assault on the city. But that's not what the President and others seemed to be talking about. They suggested that government forces would go out of their way to kill civilians, which I think is an exaggeration of what Gaddafi said.

And two, it's another example of unintended consequences resulting from intervention. There's a bunch of different stories and officials describing the 'chaos' in Libya. The flow of weapons and fighters to other countries is apparently a big problem.

Of course, I'm sure the war itself was chaotic, and conducive to the same kind of bad outcomes. But I think it's likely we exacerbated the situation, and all to prevent a purposeful massacre of civilians that quite frankly I don't think was going happen.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm not seeing Diablos anymore in this thread. Did he get sedated by gaf secret police? Tranquilized? Black site?

 

[speculawyer]

Well, I'm biased towards not interfering in conflicts like Libya 2011 to begin with, but I would say two things about the merits of the case:

One, the president and others strongly intimated that Gaddafi's forces were about to purposefully target innocent civilians in Benghazi. The President used the phrase 'door to door' in his statement, a phrase also used by Gaddafi, but apparently only in relation to actual rebel soldiers. Of course, a lot of innocent people would die as a result of any assault on the city. But that's not what the President and others seemed to be talking about. They suggested that government forces would go out of their way to kill civilians, which I think is an exaggeration of what Gaddafi said.

And two, it's another example of unintended consequences resulting from intervention. There's a bunch of different stories and officials describing the 'chaos' in Libya. The flow of weapons and fighters to other countries is apparently a big problem.

Of course, I'm sure the war itself was chaotic, and conducive to the same kind of bad outcomes. But I think it's likely we exacerbated the situation, and all to prevent a purposeful massacre of civilians that quite frankly I don't think was going happen.

Meh. There was a popular uprising and there were good signs that it would lead to democracy. People in France were saying this was a good action to take. So taking out a dictator that we've not liked for decades and giving them a chance at freedom was worth a shot. If it works out . . . good. If we just get another dictator . . .we are just in the same position we were in before. It didn't cost much and it has helped provide us with an oil exporting ally in that region. That is a good thing in my book. I just hope they can work things out.

 

[RustyNails]

Well, I'm biased towards not interfering in conflicts like Libya 2011 to begin with, but I would say two things about the merits of the case:

One, the president and others strongly intimated that Gaddafi's forces were about to purposefully target innocent civilians in Benghazi. The President used the phrase 'door to door' in his statement, a phrase also used by Gaddafi, but apparently only in relation to actual rebel soldiers. Of course, a lot of innocent people would die as a result of any assault on the city. But that's not what the President and others seemed to be talking about. They suggested that government forces would go out of their way to kill civilians, which I think is an exaggeration of what Gaddafi said.

And two, it's another example of unintended consequences resulting from intervention. There's a bunch of different stories and officials describing the 'chaos' in Libya. The flow of weapons and fighters to other countries is apparently a big problem.

Of course, I'm sure the war itself was chaotic, and conducive to the same kind of bad outcomes. But I think it's likely we exacerbated the situation, and all to prevent a purposeful massacre of civilians that quite frankly I don't think was going happen.

There was a legitimate reason to get involved in Libya and the involvement was done with NATO Commanders leading the operation, not our cowboys riding missiles into tripoli. It was a "regime change" done right. If only we had done the same (IF really needed) with Iraq, we could have saved a million iraqi lives and 5500 US soldiers would be alive today. Qaddhafi was past his time. He was butchering his own people, and all signs pointed to a massive massacre in Benghazi.

 

[benjipwns]

My question is merely if you are actually in support of some of those quotes like the one I mentioned. Some of them are truly batshit insane perspectives on the immigration issue.

I don't know who is serious anymore, being on NeoGAF has skewed my perspective on when someone is being sarcastic or not, and I'm not terribly familiar with your positions yet.

Most of those quotes are from the 1920's, so I figure that it's just a joke.

Alright, I didn't have any real context, and I'm not familiar with him, so I would have been fascinated to hear someone argue in defense of those points of view. Sort of like what would happen if FREEP suddenly came onto NeoGAF.

He's one of those guys that you can never really tell what's going on, I only bothered checking dates because I didn't recognize the Representative from New York.

It's to illustrate the argument is unchanged. There's no tactical or strategic consideration here about votes or elections or what have you, it's a fundamental opposition to human rights and free trade tied to a fear of loss of culture.

You can find all of those same exact arguments made regularly today by anti-immigration people. Back then it was Southern and Eastern Europeans, now it's mostly Mexicans but also Muslims. That aren't really "batshit insane" as they may seem but merely slightly out of the mainstream both then and now. (Except for the open racism part which is now culturally taboo instead of a big electoral advantage.)

The arguments against restricting human rights haven't changed either:

Democrat Adolph Sabath of Illinois, himself an immigrant from what is currently Slovakia , held that this bill “would be the first instance in our modern legislation for writing into our laws the hateful doctrine of inequality” between parts of the population by creating first and second class citizenship and would not foster national solidarity, instead disrupting it.

Sabath continued that he was in favor of measures which would “humanize and strengthen our immigration law” but was opposed to provisions that were harsh or discriminatory. Sabath also opposed using the 1890 census and classifying “six million of our citizens as being inferior.” Coming to their defense against charges they were not good Americans, Sabath argued that the immigrants the bill was aimed at had “demonstrated during the war in every conceivable way that they are law-abiding, that they are patriotic, that they are deserving people.” Republican Nathan Perlman of New York responded to Representative Vaile’s comments, on how the nation was developed first by Northern and Western European immigrants, wondering that with passage of the bill using the 1890 census if “at some future time there would be agitation in favor of letting into the United States only the English race, because in the days of 1776 the majority of people here were of English birth or parentage.”

One of the bills harshest critics was Democrat Meyer Jacobstein of New York. Jacobstein repeatedly referred to the bill as “un-American” and consider its consequences to be “evil” and part of a “wicked philosophy.”

...

Future Mayor and then Republican Congressman of New York Fiorello LaGuardia rejected the arguments in favor and said Congress was hearing “extracts from the books of cranks, theories upon racial reproductions, varancies on assimilation, and expressions of fear for the future of the Republic unless we slam the door in the face of races which have a thousand years of civilization back of them and open the doors only to Anglo-Saxon stock.”

Democrat John O’Connor of New York responded that he was “surprised and shocked” by Vaile’s comments. O’Connor said he thought that bill supporters openly “boasted of the fact that this bill discriminated against Southern and Eastern Europe,” and quipped that he thought the “bill was one in favor of blonds against brunettes.”

Referring to reports and testimony by the Carnegie Foundation and Henry Laughlin that purported to prove “those races were inferior, socially and nationally,” O’Connor wondered about the need for the reports if the bill did not discriminate and that “f they were inferior stock, why put them on the same basis with the stock that earlier settled the country?” “Let us not try to delude ourselves that we are trying to legislate and yet are not discriminating when the record shows that we are discriminating,” O’Connor advised.

O’Connor also remarked that it gave the appearance of “[o]nce we get in, we close the gates behind us and keep out the struggling immigrant who springs from the same ancestors we do,” and pointed to Secretary of Labor James Davis and American Federation of Labor’s President Samuel Gompers “great desire to exclude from this country and not afford the opportunities of this country to probably their own relatives after they have so eminently profited from its opportunities.” Accusing the proponents that the message they were sending to millions was “You come from an inferior race. Your race is practically barred now from this country, and we today regret that we let you in,” O’Connor concluded, “[t]hat is not the America I belong to. That is not the America that I was brought up to love and worship. That is not the America I want to be a part of.”

 

[Oblivion]

The twittering twit of the tundra ponders the next job that she'd like to quit (stolen from DK):

Any interest in doing a political talk show, either on TV, radio or the Internet?

Maybe. But the politics would have to be interspersed with a whole lot of fun and real life and inspiration showcasing American work ethic, because those topics are all pretty much the antithesis of today's politics, which I find incorrigibly disastrous! It'd be so much fun to shake it up taking on issues that make audiences objectively consider all sides, and I'd do it with my own real-life groundedness, candor and commonsense that I'm known for. Media needs that today, versus the condescension that oozes from TV and radio. I hear everyone recently got canned from The View, maybe a show like that needs a punch of reality and a voice of reason from America's heartland to knock some humble sense into their scripts. You know, someone willing to go rogue.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/sarah-palin-hillary-clinton-advice-716401

 

[Joe Molotov]

The twittering twit of the tundra ponders the next job that she'd like to quit (stolen from DK):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/sarah-palin-hillary-clinton-advice-716401

More like "The View" of Russia from her back porch, amirite?

 

[neurosisxeno]

The twittering twit of the tundra ponders the next job that she'd like to quit (stolen from DK):

Never happen. They got canned for having outlandish views. Sarah Palin would be the producers worst nightmare... "WHY CAN'T I TIE BENGAZHI INTO THIS???"

 

[benjipwns]

I actually think she outlines a pretty sound show that'd do decently. Especially the "feel good" patriotic stories aspect.

I'm telling you guys, she's ("street") smarter than you think from her politics. That answer to the Hillary question is built out of media savvy granite. It's almost a work of art.

In ten years she's going to have a statue that chants "All hail Sarah! Sarah is life!" and eats birds that fly into its mouth.

 

[Aaron Strife]

In ten years she's going to have a statue that chants "All hail Sarah! Sarah is life!" and eats birds that fly into its mouth.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's to illustrate the argument is unchanged. There's no tactical or strategic consideration here about votes or elections or what have you, it's a fundamental opposition to human rights and free trade tied to a fear of loss of culture.

You can find all of those same exact arguments made regularly today by anti-immigration people. Back then it was Southern and Eastern Europeans, now it's mostly Mexicans but also Muslims. That aren't really "batshit insane" as they may seem but merely slightly out of the mainstream both then and now. (Except for the open racism part which is now culturally taboo instead of a big electoral advantage.)

The arguments against restricting human rights haven't changed either:

Oh I know, I got all that. Of course there's a certain amount of xenophobia driving the fight against immigration reform, there always has been at times far more outright as you point out, but if it wasn't for all that in the Tea Party we probably would see something approaching reform at this point. It's reaching the point where you would think even self-preservation would outweigh that sort of thing, but so long as the Tea Party is willing to primary anyone that's willing to move on it they'll always take short term survival over the long term health of the party. After all, who is to say if they'd even still be here when a lack of immigration reform comes back to bite them.

Basically: short term survival > long term politics.

I was just pointing out that sometimes it can be tough to tell if your serious about something or not. You can be very dry sometimes is all.

I actually think she outlines a pretty sound show that'd do decently. Especially the "feel good" patriotic stories aspect.

I'm telling you guys, she's ("street") smarter than you think from her politics. That answer to the Hillary question is built out of media savvy granite. It's almost a work of art.

In ten years she's going to have a statue that chants "All hail Sarah! Sarah is life!" and eats birds that fly into its mouth.

At the very least Palin's got some really smart people working for her. How many people have been able to turn a failed run at the vice-presidency where you looked like a total nitwit into a career? She knows what her audience wants, that's for sure.

 

[benjipwns]

We shouldn't forget what happened in 2005-2007 with immigration reform. You had Bush and all the congressional leadership in general AND specific agreement.

Then they had to shut down the Congressional offices switchboard and swaths of members in both parties bailed out.

 

[B-Dubs]

We shouldn't forget what happened in 2005-2007 with immigration reform. You had Bush and all the congressional leadership in general AND specific agreement.

Then they had to shut down the Congressional offices switchboard and swaths of members in both parties bailed out.

I think the general tone of the politics surrounding it has changed for the general public a bit since then, the Minutemen used to be a thing and now they may as well not even exist. Again I don't disagree as to the cause of what's been stopping any recent agreement, I just think at this point if it wasn't for the threat of being primaried from the right that we may be closer to something that looked like a deal. Not an actual deal, but we'd at least be having a conversation about what such a thing might look like instead of having half of congress being too afraid to even talk about it.

 

[benjipwns]

the Minutemen used to be a thing and now they may as well not even exist.

IIRC they got in a fight over all the new money they were getting and the leaders all sued each other over who owned it.

I think those people just gravitated into the Tea Party because that's where the money and organization is. And there's a sympathetic ear.

 

[thepotatoman]

It's really interesting to contrast this talk about the long term strategy failure of immigration, with the line of thought that republicans are the ones that know how to do long term strategy and the democrats only know how to be reactionary to the republicans.

To some extent, i think both views are right. The conservative ecosystem of think tanks, advertising, and media didn't exactly get built overnight, and it does certainly seem that they have an uncanny ability to propose something crazy, stall with FUD, and over the course of 10 years eventually get democrats to support a large part of that original proposal. Climate change denial seems like another one of those stalling tactics to get another long term plan accomplished on the issue of global warming.

But this immigration thing just reminds you that the entire house of cards is built on a foundation of racism. You can't really build a long term strategy around demographic changes when harboring fear towards those demographics is the only way they've had the ability to create an audience that would accept something like climate change denial.

 

[benjipwns]

Neither party knows how to do long term strategy because you can't really.

Ten years ago the demographics of the Ownership Society all said there would be a Republican Congress for generations!

In 2002, Hillary "had to" vote for expanding the Iraq War. In 2008, this helped derail her campaign. In 2016, her foreign policy record might become an advantage.

Four years ago nobody would have thought Benghazi would sink the Democratic Party forever as the truth comes out.

Ten years from now Mexican immigration won't even be an issue because Putin will have invaded Mexico due to America's weakness and created an economic powerhouse which leads to the American people begging Sarah Palin to run for President to restore strong leadership and defeat the Russians single handily like Reagan did.

 

[RustyNails]

Why wont Boners simply bring Iimmigration bill to the floor. Teabaggers can simply vote no on it, go back to their constituents and say they voted against illegal brown people. Whereas democrats and border town republicans with lot of immigrant population can vote yes. Both sides win. Things have changed since 2006. Rush Limbaugh is not organizing a call in campaign to congressmen over this. Whats the speaker afraid of.

 

[Chichikov]

Ten years from now Mexican immigration won't even be an issue because Putin will have invaded Mexico due to America's weakness and created an economic powerhouse which leads to the American people begging Sarah Palin to run for President to restore strong leadership and defeat the Russians single handily like Reagan did.

You know not the meaning of strength.

These Taco Bells have taken toll of humanity since the beginning of things--taken toll of our ancestors since life began here. But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed resisting power; to no fast food do we succumb without a struggle, and to many- McDee for instance--our living frames are altogether immune. But there are no Taco Bells in Russia, and directly these invaders arrived, directly they drank and fed, our allies began to work their overthrow. Already when I watched them they were irrevocably doomed, dying and rotting even as they went to and fro. It was inevitable. By the toll of a billion explosives diarrheas Americans has bought their birthright of the US, and it is their against all comers.
Unless they come from Mexico.

 

[alstein]

Why wont Boners simply bring Iimmigration bill to the floor. Teabaggers can simply vote no on it, go back to their constituents and say they voted against illegal brown people. Whereas democrats and border town republicans with lot of immigrant population can vote yes. Both sides win. Things have changed since 2006. Rush Limbaugh is not organizing a call in campaign to congressmen over this. Whats the speaker afraid of.

Because bringing it to the floor= supporting it. Also the Hastert rule.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Quinnipiac generic ballot poll, D+2

A plurality wants GOP to take over the Senate but it's a national poll so that means shit

 

[Averon]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benghazi-select-committee-large-budget

House GOP spending more money on Benghazi than the VA.

 

[RustyNails]

Because bringing it to the floor= supporting it. Also the Hastert rule.

Ok. But wasnt Boehner retiring anyway? Why not save the party in his last swansong? Ugh. I do wish Obama did a one on one with him in the oval office and it played out like West Wing. Man can wish.

 

[WayneMorse]

RNC in 2016 to be held in Cleveland.

 

[Aaron Strife]

RNC in 2016 to be held in Cleveland.

Fun times in Cleveland todaaay!

 

[Avon Barksdale]

RNC in 2016 to be held in Cleveland.

I thought Vegas was the front runner?

 

[WayneMorse]

I thought Vegas was the front runner?

Nah it came down to Dallas and Cleveland.

Wouldn't be surprised if the DNC for 2016 is held in Columbus, the party has a really strong presence there with OSU and all.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

I don't get why the RNC would choose Cleveland. Northern Ohio is pretty blue and isn't going to flip. I could understand them choosing Cincinnati or Columbus but Cleveland? LOL.

 

[Mike M]

I don't get why the RNC would choose Cleveland. Northern Ohio is pretty blue and isn't going to flip. I could understand them choosing Cincinnati or Columbus but Cleveland? LOL.

2004 was NYC.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

2004 was NYC.

Yeah, because Republicans were trying to capitalize on 9/11.

 

[WayneMorse]

2004 was NYC.

Yeah but that was because of 9/11. There's really no reason to hold it in Cleveland.

 

[speculawyer]

Four years ago nobody would have thought Benghazi would sink the Democratic Party forever as the truth comes out.

Nobody is saying that today except the right-wing bubble.

 

[speculawyer]

RNC in 2016 to be held in Cleveland.

The 2016 Cleveland Steamer.

 

[RustyNails]

RNC in 2016 to be held in Cleveland.

LOL

 

[PhoenixDark]

Solid blue collar choice for the RNC. Could flip the state to the republican nominee.

 

[WayneMorse]

Solid blue collar choice for the RNC. Could flip the state to the republican nominee.

Yeah cause that worked so well in North Carolina and Florida in 2012 and Minnesota in 2008.

 

[789shadow]

Solid blue collar choice for the RNC. Could flip the state to the republican nominee.

 

[speculawyer]

Rick Perry Admirably Refuses To Shake Obama’s Hand At Airport
Don’t call him Chris Christie. Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry refused to greet President Barack Obama at a tarmac photo-op this week, and instead challenged Obama to hold a “substantive meeting” with him to discuss the illegal immigration crisis currently engulfing states along the U.S.-Mexico…
The Daily Caller from RSS

Why can't Yahoo give me the ability to eliminate Daily Caller dreck from my news feed?

 

[RustyNails]

The staffers are probably pissed as hell at the decision too. They were expecting a wild convention night out at the strip in vegas with hookers and drugs. All they get now is drew carey.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-boehners-obama-impeachment-dress-rehearsal/

What can they actually impeach Obama for?