Didn't he do this already?
-
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
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Didn't he do this already?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
The entire damn point of It's a Wonderful Life is that living a moral life is always worthwhile, even if it leads to an unsuccessful life in the financial sense. It's basically the antithesis of Atlus Shrugged, so I guess it makes sense that someone on Fox would take Potter's side.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe the supreme court said you can't force the government to not give out these benefits, but it took additional action to force the government to do it?
Wait, didn't he already do this?
At this rate by the end of next year I will probably be forced by divorce my wife to get gay married by Obama.
lol.At this rate by the end of next year I will probably be forced by divorce my wife to get gay married by Obama.
That's not how it works. All the nation's married women will be turned into men one night. No one will even realize it's happened until it's over.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Whenever you feel sad or cynical, just watch this. Shit made me feel better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaJD3EIXYdw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaJD3EIXYdw
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I was in a hard time during convention season 2012. This speech seriously cheered me up back then. Such a forceful argument for liberalism (Even if Clinton didn't really live up to it during his term)
smokeandmirrors
Banned
PhoenixDark
Banned
The best thing about that night was the far right trying their hardest to continue the "Bill v Barack/dems in disarray" narrative, only to be pummeled for nearly an hour.
I still remember Michelle Malkin and others being like "when will Clinton say Obama's name?!!?1?" at the beginning of the speech haha
I still remember Michelle Malkin and others being like "when will Clinton say Obama's name?!!?1?" at the beginning of the speech haha
Aaron Strife
Banned
Those stories the right kept pushing about Clinton endorsing Romney would have been hilarious if they weren't so fucking desperate and sad.
Actually I take that back, that just made it even more hilarious.
I also thought it was funny when the RNC was a disaster so pundits started speculating there wasn't such a thing as convention bounces anymore, and then the DNC pushed Obama to a 6 point lead that lasted nearly a month.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Bill had been wanting to do that for YEARS. It's like he had the most satisfying dump of his life.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Remember when Drudge was reporting Biden would be in Tampa during the RNC, and right wingers said he'd be speaking at the event to endorse Romney?
Those were tough days for Republicans. Romney was down all summer, didn't get a convention bounce, and then the DNC led to an even bigger lead for Obama. If not for the first debate Obama might have been up by at least 3 points for the entire election
Those were tough days for Republicans. Romney was down all summer, didn't get a convention bounce, and then the DNC led to an even bigger lead for Obama. If not for the first debate Obama might have been up by at least 3 points for the entire election
RustyNails
Member
So Rand Paul is having a case of strifing:
Rand Paul: Texas will be a Democratic state within 10 years
Rand Paul: Texas will be a Democratic state within 10 years
empty vessel
Member
All for naught. The Republican base is just racist and xenophobic (per a decades-old outreach program to that specific demographic) and perceive diversity as a threat. The Republican party will be whites only for a few more decades to come.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I used to believe the GOP would begin to modernize after a 2016 loss, but I doubt it now. Losing to Hillary Clinton would only further radicalize them, given how much the base hates her. I can already imagine the far right arguing the 2016 candidate lost because he wouldn't talk about Benghazi enough.
It comes down to short term v long term. Fighting Obama and radicalizing every issue has had short term benefits for the GOP: it helped spur the 2010 victory and will likely ensure a solid performance this November. The long term price is that this radicalized state delays the party's plans to moderate. Immigration has become the battleground for this. It has been killed or delayed constantly for fear of riling up the white GOP base during midterms but this leads to a huge disadvantage during presidential elections.
speculawyer
Member
Man, people can bitch about Obama all they want but things are so much better.
Just a few short years ago, the House was dealing with all those important matters such as flag-burning, an anti-gay-marriage amendment, and Terry Schiavo.
OK, economic policy has barely changed . . . but at least we are not being regressive idiots on social issues.
Just a few short years ago, the House was dealing with all those important matters such as flag-burning, an anti-gay-marriage amendment, and Terry Schiavo.
OK, economic policy has barely changed . . . but at least we are not being regressive idiots on social issues.
RustyNails
Member
If Rand Paul is the GOP nominee which is a very probable outcome when all things said and done, he will beat Benghazi horse to death. When he loses to Hillary, the base will have their default excuse taken from them which is "we didn't nominate someone conservative enough!".
Only way a Republican will win the White House in the future is if a Democratic President screws the pooch big time. I'm not talking about a silly thing like screwing a maid or an intern, but a huge Watergate like machination of sleazebaggery and corruption. Hopefully Hillary can run a tight ship and does not screw up her presidency for the next democrat.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I honestly don't think the first debate even helped Romney that much. Sure, he got a boost in the polls, but Obama's polling numbers were inexplicably high anyway and it never pushed him into a lead. Obama went from a 6 point lead post-convention bounce to a 4 point lead in the actual election.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Conservatives really thought JOE BIDEN was going to endorse Romney? LMAO
They revived Bill Clinton in order to try and hit Obama, it backfired massively and now they're trying once again to get him back in the box.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Lol
The man knows full well the GOP will refuse to give Obama a victory on immigration so the only way it gets done is if it goes into effect after Obama's gone. It is incredibly sad that Schumer even had to suggest this shit. This has got to go down as the worst congress of all time.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I disagree slightly, Rusty. If the economy were to implode in 2015/2016, of course the democrat candidate would be fucked. I don't believe only a scandal could force a democrat to lose.
Most economic outlooks I've seen suggest the next four years will see private sector job growth. I'm sure you all remember Romney's pledge to create 12 million jobs in four years, which just so happens to be close to what the economy will likely do regardless. If that happens and Obama avoids scandal, it might not matter that he won't get anything accomplished (domestically) in his second term. He'll be pretty popular. Also, Obamacare succeeding also will play a major role.
Predicting the future is often dangerous though. I remember lots of talk about how much stuff Obama would get done in 2013, only to get nothing done/have a horrible year. I wonder how things might have looked if the Sandyhook shooting didn't happen; without that, there wouldn't have been an idiotic gun control push - and more importantly, a bunch of kids and adults would still be alive.
Most economic outlooks I've seen suggest the next four years will see private sector job growth. I'm sure you all remember Romney's pledge to create 12 million jobs in four years, which just so happens to be close to what the economy will likely do regardless. If that happens and Obama avoids scandal, it might not matter that he won't get anything accomplished (domestically) in his second term. He'll be pretty popular. Also, Obamacare succeeding also will play a major role.
Predicting the future is often dangerous though. I remember lots of talk about how much stuff Obama would get done in 2013, only to get nothing done/have a horrible year. I wonder how things might have looked if the Sandyhook shooting didn't happen; without that, there wouldn't have been an idiotic gun control push - and more importantly, a bunch of kids and adults would still be alive.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Joke post?
Aaron Strife
Banned
I can't wait to see conservatives try to badmouth Clinton when Hillary runs after boasting about how great he was during Obama's presidency. The amount of mental gymnastics conservatives have performed these past 8 years has been astonishing.
They're already trying, why do you think Rand Paul has been saying the shit he's been saying? Other than the fact he's an idiot.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Why do you constantly bring up the gun control thing as idiotic?
How did it negatively affect the prez or dems in general? What was there to do instead? His stance was popular and only further cemented peoples dislike of congress.
Aaron Strife
Banned
There were those two Democrats who were recalled in Colorado. But that's pretty down in the weeds.
TacticalFox88
Banned
The writing is on the wall.
If Dems flip Texas, the GOP is never touching the White House again. Period. The math just simply goes against them.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It was ugly reaction politics, and poor policy. Banning automatic weapons does nothing, outside of guarantee you have a 0% chance of passing something. The push felt like textbook Washington stupidity: jump on the issue, get it wrong, and try to address it from the top down. Banning automatic weapons is nothing more than trying to appeal to a certain group of suburban white voters, while ignoring the reality that most gun violence occurs in the inner city with handguns. If you want to address gun violence, start with gun trafficking. I'm not a Cory Booker fan but he seemed like the only prominent politician who truly understood the issue during the debate.
The push wasted time that could have been spent focusing on the economy and resulted in an inevitable defeat to start the year. And it was all downhill from there.
RustyNails
Member
If economy imploded on the scale of depression, sure. But that is few and far in between. Last time economy tanked as much as it did before 2008 collapse was the great depression in 1930s. Small economic meltdowns like the savings and loan crisis during Reagan presidency or the dot com bubble burst do not affect the presidency that much. But if your broader point is that if we have a widespread economic meltdown when democratic President is in power, I agree that it can bring Republican president in power. But I don't think a major economic meltdown is in order for the next several decades. We could experience smaller crises, but they will not bring presidencies down.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
State law not Obamas push
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Political parties never change. Never.
It must be nice to live in a world that remains constantly static, except when it's in your favor so states like Texas and Georgia will turn blue.
Saying the Republican Party will never have a President again demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. politics and history. There will be another Republican president. Will it be in 2016? Probably not if Hillary runs (maybe if someone like Martin O'Malley gets the nomination). But it will happen and anyone saying otherwise is setting themselves up for disappointment.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think eventually, the Republicans will have something of a resurgence in the Midwest. States like Iowa and Ohio will start to have Republican leans, while Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania will be closer to tossups (Illinois will stay solid D).
But this is a long ways off, and in the meantime Democrats will start picking off big Southern states like Georgia, Arizona, and Texas. But the important thing won't be adding red states to their column, as they'll be hard to win even in 2016 with Hillary on the ballot (and I think it's too early for Texas, anyway). It'll be when states like Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia turn reliably Democratic, because of minority growth and the fact that the GOP will be forced to compete on their own turf. Virginia is probably already there, even.
The fundamentals of 2016 won't be that much different from the fundamentals of 2012, which gave Obama a fairly easy victory all things considered.
It would be a severe aberration for the next GOP candidate to win Pennsylvania or Colorado.
That's not to say it can't happen - but it probably won't.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You're going to pretend like Obama's push had nothing to do with what happened in Colorado, when the lawmakers who were ousted were specifically tied to Obama by opponents?
It's a losing issue, despite liberal pollsters trying to convince us otherwise every time the issue comes up. People may support gun control, but it does not dominate their voting preferences. Whereas people opposed to gun control tend to vote solely on that issue.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Right, I don't think a Republican will really win in 2016 (although I think this largely depends on the state of the country in 2016) because of the inner-party conflict the GOP is having right now and because of how strong Hillary is as a candidate (and removing her from the equation certainly changes it), but there will be another Republican president at some point. Would guess probably 2024, 2028. Maybe even 2020 - none of us know what the world will be like then and predicting elections that far ahead is ludicrous.
Especially if the Democratic Party gets as complacent as some of you all.
speculawyer
Member
Well . . . I'd add the qualifiers of 'the GOP in its current form' and in the near future.
But yeah, the demographics are just really moving against the GOP at the moment and they'll need to change policies or rely upon a huge Dem screw-up to win.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Outside of some of the social stuff he's been a big disappointment. Big.
I wonder what effect his crap terms will have on my generation of twenty-somethings.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I personally think he genuinely doesn't understand just how much these people completely despise him.
Otherwise, he would've quit trying bipartisanship ages ago.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think Obamacare - while the process was messy and the final result is far from perfect - is a worthy achievement.
If the economy is solid in 2016, it won't matter - he'll have a positive legacy for resuscitating the economy and reforming healthcare.
even if hillary opts out i think the chances of a republican president following up this administration are very low, mostly because of demographics. there's alot of legit democrat candidates out there like gillibrand, the montana gov who's name right now escapes me, and others
barring a scandal or economic downturn, i don't think this "era" of GOP will ever see executive power. though 2020 should be a red flag, because by then we'll have had 12 years of democrat rule and naturally people are going to want to turn the page, even if things are going relatively well
Avon Barksdale
Member
As long as the Baby Boomers dominate the GOP, the GOP will have trouble winning nationally. They might eek out a win like 2000, but the days of winning in a Nixon/Reagan-like landslide are long gone.
I think the thing that will work against the Democrats a bit is population movement. The US has been continually moving south and west since the beginning ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population ). I don't have exact figures, but generally the reliably blue states are either losing population or gaining population less quickly than reliably red states.
This cuts both ways, of course. CA and the other blue Pacific states are benefitting from the westward move as well, but in general 'west and south' means good for Republicans when you're currently at this:
It behooves states like Texas and Georgia to turn blue more quickly, as in 2020 they will have more electoral votes while the blue Northeast and Great Lakes continue to bleed them.
I actually can remember the feeling I felt watching this live. I don't think I can think of a more memorable political moment in my lifetime.
RustyNails
Member
You are correct up to an extent. Pennsylvania is the biggest loser in this regard.I think the thing that will work against the Democrats a bit is population movement. The US has been continually moving south and west since the beginning ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population ). I don't have exact figures, but generally the reliably blue states are either losing population or gaining population less quickly than reliably red states.
This cuts both ways, of course. CA and the other blue Pacific states are benefitting from the westward move as well, but in general 'west and south' means good for Republicans when you're currently at this:
It behooves states like Texas and Georgia to turn blue more quickly, as in 2020 they will have more electoral votes while the blue Northeast and Great Lakes continue to bleed them.
wartime1020
Member
2020 or 2024?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked