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

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
pigeon said:
You're wrong because you don't understand Mitt Romney.

The most important takeaway from that documentary that it clarifies exactly why, even after Mitt's 47% comment was leaked, he didn't walk it back. It's because Mitt Romney is a man who stands by the beliefs that are important to him, and Mitt Romney really, truly believes in the Randian analysis of the American poor. Indeed, according to him, that's the main reason he ran!

Romney is a zealot. Not for the Church of Latter-Day Saints, but for the American class war. Remember this story?

http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/obama-romney-economic-plans-2012-10/

He doesn't care about political mandates. He has a moral obligation, as he sees it, to destroy the welfare state before it destroys him.
Click to expand...

How does that change the political reality he would face on January 20th, 2014: divided government? I'm sure he firmly believes that entitlements should be slashed, but again, was he going to convince Harry Reid of that? And when faced with similar reaction that Bush's SS privatization nonsense received, how would he possibly bull rush ahead?

I think you're simplifying Romney. He is certainly a zealot, but the majority of his political career also shows a man forced to deal with divided government. Would he be barnstorming the country like Obama, promoting a doomed plan? Sure, but what would that accomplish if democrats were resistant and the American people opposed his plan? If the GOP had control of the senate I would agree with you, he'd quickly pass his agenda and pray for the best - which is what most presidents do. But without the senate, that would not happen.

Which means we'd be stuck with a Romney who was forced to work with democrats to get anything done. And I am more likely to believe he could do that, than Obama could work with republicans.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.
Click to expand...
So basically you subscribe to the "The GOP is intentionally trying to sabotage the economy theory" but you won't say that out loud.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
APKmetsfan said:
You guys really give too much credit to the people doing the politics rather than the movements and pressures applied to them.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's a pretty common mistake most casual observers of politics make.

Romney is literally the perfect example of why movements and external pressures are more important than the actual politician.
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
Going to have to call bullshit on that PD. You are heavily relying on Reid to keep all the Democrats in line. As you well know, several of those Democrats come from states Romney even carried in this election, the one he lost. And even some of those are up for reelection this year in 2014. What makes you so certain they would hold the line with Reid and not side with the Republicans when legislation came up for a vote? Romney would be just like Bush calling for up and down votes on legislation coming from the House. There would be intense pressure on the Democrats unlike what the Republicans have faced for the last 6 years.

And your argument relies on the trickle down economic theory. Romney economic policy would be helping out the rich. There was plenty of analysis of his tax plan. It raised taxes on the bottom 80% for the rest of the cuts. How does helping the rich have any effect on the rest of the country? At least with Obama, there has been an expansion in Medicaid. You can't rule that out for his second term.
 
Rhomega Beta

Rhomega Beta

Member
John McCain is too liberal for Arizona, and now he's being censured.

(PHOENIX) — The Arizona Republican Party formally censured Sen. John McCain on Saturday, citing a voting record they say is insufficiently conservative.

The resolution to censure McCain was approved by a voice-vote during a meeting of state committee members in Tempe, state party spokesman Tim Sifert said. It needed signatures from at least 20 percent of state committee members to reach the floor for debate.

Sifert said no further action was expected.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers declined to comment on the censure.

McCain isn’t up for re-election until 2016, when will turn 80. He announced in October that he was considering running for a sixth term.

According to the resolution, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee has campaigned as a conservative but has lent his support to issues “associated with liberal Democrats,” such as immigration reform and to funding the law sometimes known as Obamacare.

Several Republican county committees recently censured McCain.

Timothy Schwartz, the Legislative District 30 Republican chairman who helped write the resolution, said the censure showed that McCain was losing support from his own party.

“We would gladly embrace Sen. McCain if he stood behind us and represented us,” Schwartz said.

Fred DuVal, a Democrat who plans to run for Arizona governor, called the censure an “outrageous response to the good work Sen. McCain did crafting a reasonable solution to fix our broken immigration system.”

McCain has been dogged by conservatives objecting to his views on immigration and campaign finance, among other issues, since he first ran for Congress in 1982. Republican activists were also turned off by his moderate stances in the 2000 presidential race.

McCain was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and won his Senate seat in 1986.

Read more: Arizona GOP Censures McCain for ‘Liberal’ Record | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/25/arizona-gop-censures-mccain-for-liberal-record/#ixzz2rSmM9Znm
Click to expand...
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Democrats held the Senate for the first two years of Bush's presidency and Bush rammed through a bunch of legislation. Sure 9/11 made that considerably easier but still.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Democrats held the Senate for the first two years of Bush's presidency and Bush rammed through a bunch of legislation. Sure 9/11 made that considerably easier but still.
Click to expand...

See, this is something I don't like. You're perpetuating the GOP myth (or political myth in general) that you can 'ram' your legislation through. The issue with saying something like that is that it ties a negative connotation to that legislation and makes it seem less legitimate. You can't 'ram' legislation through. That legislation was passed legally and democratically with bipartisan support, something that we should desperately hope happens again. Sure, it would be quite nice if that legislation were liberal ideas, but all you are doing is hurting and de-legitimizing government, which is the last thing we want to have happen since that basically plays into the hands of wacko conservatives
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Rhomega Beta said:
John McCain is too liberal for Arizona, and now he's being censured.
Click to expand...

It's funny how people complain about how partisan both parties have become, never able to agree on anything. And yet only one party seems to be so extreme as to rebel against longtime party members for not being extreme enough.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Obama's approval up in WaPo poll - 46/50, from 42/55 in November.

Congressional ballot numbers aren't great, 46-45 GOP advantage, even while Dems win easily on raising the minimum wage, healthcare and helping the middle class. But only 27% want to re-elect their own congressperson, which isn't much better than shutdown numbers.

I think Obama needs to try to get his mojo back with the SOTU. Don't really know what that would entail since a big victory would require the cooperation of Congress, so we'll see. Marijuana legalization might boost support with the kids but there are risks to that, mainly alienating older voters who actually, well, vote.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Obama's approval up in WaPo poll - 46/50, from 42/55 in November.

Congressional ballot numbers aren't great, 46-45 GOP advantage, even while Dems win easily on raising the minimum wage, healthcare and helping the middle class. But only 27% want to re-elect their own congressperson, which isn't much better than shutdown numbers.

I think Obama needs to try to get his mojo back with the SOTU. Don't really know what that would entail since a big victory would require the cooperation of Congress, so we'll see. Marijuana legalization might boost support with the kids but there are risks to that, mainly alienating older voters who actually, well, vote.
Click to expand...

Why would the SOTU have any impact, after 4 SOTU speeches that ultimately didn't result in much of anything getting done?

I don't think we can look at this through side issues. The economy sucks. Young people can't find jobs, why will they get excited by Obama giving a nod on pot?
 
I

ISOM

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Why would the SOTU have any impact, after 4 SOTU speeches that ultimately didn't result in much of anything getting done?

I don't think we can look at this through side issues. The economy sucks. Young people can't find jobs, why will they get excited by Obama giving a nod on pot?
Click to expand...

And your opinion was to give republicans the keys to the presidency and hope they care enough to do some stimulus while screwing over the rest of the countries with added wars, going backwards on social issues etc. A damn joke..
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Samarecarm said:
What about Joe Lieberman?
Click to expand...

You mean the guy that spoke at the Republican National Convention endorsing John McCain in 2008?

I think that's just a bit different than occasionally speaking out against your own party.
 
D

Diablos

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken if you really think this is true.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Samarecarm said:
That was after he got the boot in the Democratic primary in 2006.
Click to expand...

So what? I'm saying that it's pretty damn obvious that his views mostly lined up with Republicans more than Democrats. If McCain comes out as a democrat after he gets the boot, then maybe I'll agree that's a fair comparison.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
thepotatoman said:
Honestly he seems to have a point there, but I'm not sure that proves the Republicans are much better.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. It's a stupid comparison and he knows it. Clinton wasn't trying to keep her from getting an abortion or birth control or saying she wasn't legitimately raped or any of the other things the GOP says or does. It's one event vs a pattern of behavior and he knows full well it isn't equivalent, he's just saying it because he knows it'll work on some people.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
B-Dubs said:
No he doesn't. It's a stupid comparison and he knows it. Clinton wasn't trying to keep her from getting an abortion or birth control or saying she wasn't legitimately raped or any of the other things the GOP says or does. It's one event vs a pattern of behavior and he knows full well it isn't equivalent, he's just saying it because he knows it'll work on some people.
Click to expand...

Sure, obviously the GOP is much worse in many ways, I'm just saying that he's right that it does suck to see democrats defend Clinton so hard for that action because of that reason.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
thepotatoman said:
Sure, obviously the GOP is much worse in many ways, I'm just saying that he's right that it does suck to see democrats defend Clinton so hard for that action because of that reason.
Click to expand...

He got his dick sucked, who gives a shit? He didn't have the secret service hold her down or anything. So the guy's kind of sleazy, he's just one guy and it was the GOP that helped rehabilitate his image anyway so their complaints are dumb.
 
M

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
thepotatoman said:
Sure, obviously the GOP is much worse in many ways, I'm just saying that he's right that it does suck to see democrats defend Clinton so hard for that action because of that reason.
Click to expand...

Is saying "Democrats defended something disrespectful to women 15 years ago so they can't criticize Republican comments on women now" actually valid?

If he had actually cited one or more (even more relevant) incidents in the last few years he might have a point. But as it stands this isn't a great example of hypocrisy.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Mario said:
Is saying "Democrats defended something disrespectful to women 15 years ago so they can't criticize Republican comments on women now" actually valid?

If he had actually cited one or more (even more relevant) incidents in the last few years he might have a point. But as it stands this isn't a great example of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
By the way I don't think having an affair is on the same level as passing and condoning policies that actively keep women down.

One is a personal folly the other is purely ideological.

PhoenixDark said:
It's going to be a long three years. The blatant sexist comments will appear nonstop, and the only recourse the GOP will have is to accuse Hillary of playing the gender card.
Click to expand...
Can't wait for 5-years-later Sarah Palin to tweet something on like, Susan B. Anthony's birthday telling Hillary to stop playing the gender card.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
It's going to be a long three years. The blatant sexist comments will appear nonstop, and the only recourse the GOP will have is to accuse Hillary of playing the gender card.
Click to expand...

Exactly, like I said before, Hillary's victory will only lead to a revival in anti-feminism and men's rights activism just like Obama's led to a lot of people's racial prejudices seeing the light of day.

I have no doubt in my mind that Rand will try a sexist campaign against Hillary.
 
K

KingK

Member
WayneMorse said:
Exactly, like I said before, Hillary's victory will only lead to a revival in anti-feminism and men's rights activism just like Obama's led to a lot of people's racial prejudices seeing the light of day.

I have no doubt in my mind that Rand will try a sexist campaign against Hillary.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul was on Meet The Press today and said something along the lines of "There is no war on women. Women in my family are doing fine and conquering the world, If anything, it's our young men I think we need to worry about." Sounded like a Reddit MRA.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
B-Dubs said:
He got his dick sucked, who gives a shit? He didn't have the secret service hold her down or anything.
Click to expand...

This statement is exactly what I'm talking about. Physical force is not the only means of sexual abuse. Leveraging any position of power for sex is just as bad. And while Clinton didn't do that, the line is very thin, the simple position of power that he's in makes it highly inappropriate to start any sexual relationships with people that work for him.

Again I agree the false equivalence is huge here, but that doesn't make what Clinton did appropriate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom