Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

Crab's the one with an assertion that he didn't back up. When he bothers to do so then so will I. Until then, that's the response his assertion warrants.

But I will say that most dems are fairly inline with each other on most issues, its just a matter of what their most important issue is. We're not going to see a schizim over single issues, campaign finance isn't going to split the party because everyone basically agrees on it.

Sure. Just wanted to know. So the Demcratic Party is the real "big tent" party and not the Republicans? You can have a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat and be accepted(my avatar)?

 

[Manmademan]

Crab's the one with an assertion that he didn't back up. When he bothers to do so then so will I. Until then, that's the response his assertion warrants.

But I will say that most dems are fairly inline with each other on most issues, its just a matter of what their most important issue is. We're not going to see a schizim over single issues, campaign finance isn't going to split the party because everyone basically agrees on it.

exactly. there may be some issues that certain members of the base cares about more than others (some may feel the climate is more important than wage equality, for instance) but no one is going to revolt and split the party over something like this. by and large democrats all care about these things, but to different degrees.

Republicans are not in this boat. MANY are single issue voters (Gun rights and abortion in particular) that put up with everything else to get what they want. The economic interests of the base in particular do not align at ALL with the interest of the party elites and establishment.

in addition, its obvious to everyone it takes VERY large marjorities to pass anything substantial, even IF the republican party were to break into factions- you're not going to see significant gun control measures pass overnight, and you're not going to see significant movement on civil rights issues- those things take decades to achieve.

 

[Tamanon]

Sure. Just wanted to know. So the Demcratic Party is the real "big tent" party and not the Republicans? You can have a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat and be accepted(my avatar)?

Well, I mean Bernie is pro-gun. And there are a good amount of pro-life Democrats. Parties aren't about agreeing with everything.

 

[Manmademan]

Sure. Just wanted to know. So the Demcratic Party is the real "big tent" party and not the Republicans? You can have a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat and be accepted(my avatar)?

neither of those are unheard of (especially in the south) but there tends to be nuance. A pro gun democrat might be for gun rights but favor expanded background checks, getting rid of the gun show loophole, or cross referencing with the terrorist watchlist.

a pro life democrat (I think my senator Casey is one of these- edit: he definitely is) might object to it personally but still be in favor of the right to choose- or allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.

There generally IS no such wiggle room on the republican end of things.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

I mean, it's true. The Democratic party is absurdly broad - I mean, take the difference between John Bel Edwards and Bernie Sanders, for example, and that's not even thinking about candidates leftwards of Sanders that would survive in a more fractured system but can be kept out by the establishment under the status quo. It's very difficult to think of any party in Western democracies that has an equivalent spread of views. If the Republicans genuinely stopped being an electoral force - as in, a Trump-like independent running against the Republicans becomes the norm rather than the exception - it's difficult to see some of these factions continuing to co-operate. Why work with someone who holds fundamentally different opinions to yourself if there's no common enemy? This doesn't mean the Democrats splitting into a two parties (that would be nonsense), but you can bet your bottom dollar that factionalism and internecine war within the framework of the Democratic party would increase, primaries would become far more hotly contested, and so on.

Now, this wouldn't be a stable state of affairs. The FPTP system in the United States militates against such a situation. But I still think it would prevail for at least a few electoral cycles.

The Republicans aren't going to stop being an electoral force. There will be party realignments, like there always have been.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

PRO gun control 15% of Democrats are not (CBS/NYT's latest polling)
PRO marriage equality Irrelevant as an electoral issue given the Supreme Court
PRO gender equality Not particularly - see: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2015/01/2015-01-14_women-and-leadership.pdf. The Democratic party is something like 66% in favour of further steps towards gender equality, but that disguises big gaps between Democratic men and women
PRO abortion rights 27% of Democrats are pro-life http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx
PRO income equality This and the one below I'll give you
PRO campaign finance reform
PRO environment 21% of Democrats do not believe in global warming
PRO education This is literally a nonsense one, everyone is "pro-education"

the democratic party isn't just going to "split apart" if the republicans collapse, because their base cares about all of these things, and democrats are the only ones fighting for them. What, you think they're all going to go and vote libertarian?

I think you overestimate the extent to which these are genuinely held beliefs of all Democratic voters, rather than the median position or the establishment position. You also underestimate the issue of prioritization. We can already see this with campaign finance reform - a significant part of Sanders' support comes from people who won't even consider Clinton because of her use of SuperPACs. You also underestimate the degree to which they're willing to do stuff about it. being "pro income equality" covers a range of positions from "raise the top rate of tax to 40%" to "raise the top rate of tax to 90%".

If Democrats feel relatively comfortable that the Republicans cannot win, then they will be less afraid to pursue positions further away from the current political centre and they will be less afraid about the electoral consequences of fragmentation.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think you overestimate the extent to which these are genuinely held beliefs of all Democratic voters, rather than the median position or the establishment position. You also underestimate the issue of prioritization. We can already see this with campaign finance reform - a significant part of Sanders' support comes from people who won't even consider Clinton because of her use of SuperPACs.

Yeah but the Democrats don't let the social issue disagreements "trump" their economic interest.

Republicans will vote for gun rights over healthcare any day of the week.

What are your views on same-sex marriage?
​-- Both oppose same-sex marriage.
-- Edwards differs from Vitter in that he would require public officials to follow current law. “I don’t believe anyone is free to deny those marriage licenses once the Supreme Court has ruled,” he said.

What are your views on marijuana usage?
-- Opposing the recreational use of marijuana is another issue on which Vitter and Edwards agree.
-- But Edwards supported legislation that would allow the medicinal use of the drug.
-- Vitter disagrees, saying the bill puts physicians, who would have to prescribe marijuana use, in jeopardy of losing their licenses to practice.

Should Louisiana raise its minimum wage?
-- Edwards wants a higher minimum wage to help raise the state’s lowly paid working class, about half the state.
-- Vitter argues that setting a minimum wage would inhibit businesses from creating jobs, the proven way to lift the underclass into prosperity

What are your views on charter schools?
​-- Edwards is a charter school critic, and he has tried unsuccessfully to restrict their growth.
-- Vitter supports charter schools. Vitter’s campaign website says he would “fully support maximum parental choice and control, including all of our charter school, voucher scholarship and home school options, and actively oppose efforts to cut those choice options back.”

 

[B-Dubs]

Well, I mean Bernie is pro-gun. And there are a good amount of pro-life Democrats. Parties aren't about agreeing with everything.

Bernie hasn't been a democrat until very recently, that's not exactly a good example.

Like I pointed out though, you're naming single issues. A party doesn't split because of single issues. It takes a real disagreement, one about the direction of the party as a whole, to do what he's suggesting. The GOP has that, the leaders want to try and moderate on some issues to win elections and the base wants to move further right, into crazy town. The dems aren't having that problem.

 

[Coriolanus]

Hrm, i guess you kinda saw signs that that might be a possible outcome eventually with the very short period when dems got a supermajority, at which point bams had to reduce the scope of his plans to appease the most conservative wing of the party. Assuming that once your position in power is secured, the fringe elements will start to demand greater representation doesn't take too much effort.

The thing is... midterms. Dems might very well improve their position during prez years, but until they finally get a proper handle on voter assiduity, they're very unlikely to get the kind of consolidated power that allows for the fringe to grow.

Their feedback loop is the exact opposite of the one that republicans experience, after all.

10 years from now, when demographics should have shifted enough to consolidate their power? Wouldn't be too surprised if the more conservative wing of the party started to get considerably more vocal.

 

[Manmademan]

I think you overestimate the extent to which these are genuinely held beliefs of all Democratic voters, rather than the median position or the establishment position. You also underestimate the issue of prioritization. We can already see this with campaign finance reform - a significant part of Sanders' support comes from people who won't even consider Clinton because of her use of SuperPACs. You also underestimate the degree to which they're willing to do stuff about it. being "pro income equality" covers a range of positions from "raise the top rate of tax to 40%" to "raise the top rate of tax to 90%".

If Democrats feel relatively comfortable that the Republicans cannot win, then they will be less afraid to pursue positions further away from the current political centre and they will be less afraid about the electoral consequences of fragmentation.

your assertions are poorly backed and laughable, as usual. 15% of democrats aren't pro gun control? so that means a whopping 85% ARE in favor of it? that sounds like some fairly solid consensus to me.

Pro marriage equality continues to be an issue because as you can see, certain states (TEXAS) continue to ignore the supreme court decision and assume state court decisions take precedence. We also don't have equal protection for gay rights at the state level either- in my state (PA) it is STILL legal to descriminate on the basis of sexual preference in the workplace, no matter what the supreme court says. You can get married, sure- but I can fire you for it with no repercussions. on top of THAT, it's not unheard of for the supreme court to revisit controversial opinions should the makeup of the court shift- we're looking at that RIGHT NOW with affirmative action. You think Democrats are going to all celebrate one victory and go home? Please.

and as for calling "pro education" nonsense- I struggle to keep my conversation civil with you. Republicans are NOTORIOUS for defunding education at the state and federal level, attempting to cram creationism into classrooms, and funnel public education dollars into "charter schools" and "voucher programs" that are poorly disguised subsidizing of religious education with no oversight. "Everyone" is pro education? GTFO here with this.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Hrm, i guess you kinda saw signs that that might be a possible outcome eventually with the very short period when dems got a supermajority, at which point bams had to reduce the scope of his plans to appease the most conservative wing of the party. Assuming that once your position in power is secured, the fringe elements will start to demand greater representation doesn't take too much effort.

The thing is... midterms. Dems might very well improve their position during prez years, but until they finally get a proper handle on voter assiduity, they're very unlikely to get the kind of consolidated power that allows for the fringe to grow.

Their feedback loop is the exact opposite of the one that republicans experience, after all.

10 years from now, when demographics should have shifted enough to consolidate their power? Wouldn't be too surprised if the more conservative wing of the party started to get considerably more vocal.

Midterms aren't exclusively a dem problem. Dems gained 31 House seats, 5 Senate seats and held all their gov positions in 2006. It's a ruling power problem.

 

[ivysaur12]

hahahahahaha

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton...ate-resolution-that-rejects-trumps#.dxJ0kMmmj

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Cruz and three other Republican senators voted on Thursday against a non-binding Senate resolution affirming that the United States does not use religious tests for immigrants seeking admission into the country.

The resolution, which is an amendment to a maritime security bill, reads simply “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

Prior to the committee’s vote, Leahy said, “I know many on this committee on both sides of the aisle rightfully expressed their outrage about the call earlier this week to shut our borders to Muslims. Now let’s just go on record, as formally rejecting this reprehensible proposition. We’ve heard from FBI Director Comey that ISIL’s narrative, part of it, is that the United States is anti-Muslim, they use that in recruiting. The Department of Defense has told us the same thing. I think we ought to listen to what our national security leaders and send a clear and direct message that America welcomes all peoples of all faiths.”
It is not entirely clear why Cruz doesn’t support the amendment’s language, which was proposed by Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy. The Texas Republican did not attend the meeting, and his spokesman did not return a request for comment.
Cruz’ vote was cast in proxy by Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of the fiercest opponents of immigration on Capitol Hill who has advised Trump on immigration in the past.

Sessions spent nearly 30 minutes on a rambling statement that invoked the memory of Kate Steinle who was killed by an undocumented immigrant earlier this year and whose murder Trump has used to rail against undocumented immigrants. Sessions also charged the one sentence amendment is “In effect, it’s a move towards the ratification of the idea that global migration is a human right and a civil right for those of us in the United States. And that these immigrant rights must be supreme to the rights of nations, of sovereign nations, to determine who and who cannot enter their borders. Fundamentally, foreign nationals, living in foreign countries, do not have a constitutional right to enter the United States. If they did, any alien denied entry could file suit to demand entry, claim damages for loss of employment, lost benefits or welfare income if they believe they were improperly denied.”

After insisting that under the non-binding Sense of the Senate resolution “the United States could not favor for entry, maybe we don’t want to do this, could you favor for entry a moderate, moderate Muslim cleric over a radical Muslim cleric,” Sessions then argued that ultimately, Leahy and others were looking to eliminate any questions about applicants for entry. “The next step of course … is to say we cannot consider history, or geography, or culture,” Sessions said.

The amendment passed 16 to 4, with Sens. David Vitter and Tom Tillis joining Sessions and Cruz in opposing the language.

Every time Tom Tillis does something stupid, I want to cry.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Jindal did that here in regards to education.

 

[Manmademan]

Jindal did that here in regards to education.

Corbett was explicitly on the record in PA as being convinced that public education simply did not work as a concept. This is absolutely not a rare position among republicans.

 

[Fenderputty]

Hrm, i guess you kinda saw signs that that might be a possible outcome eventually with the very short period when dems got a supermajority, at which point bams had to reduce the scope of his plans to appease the most conservative wing of the party. Assuming that once your position in power is secured, the fringe elements will start to demand greater representation doesn't take too much effort.

The thing is... midterms. Dems might very well improve their position during prez years, but until they finally get a proper handle on voter assiduity, they're very unlikely to get the kind of consolidated power that allows for the fringe to grow.

Their feedback loop is the exact opposite of the one that republicans experience, after all.

10 years from now, when demographics should have shifted enough to consolidate their power? Wouldn't be too surprised if the more conservative wing of the party started to get considerably more vocal.

10 years from now the conservative wing of the party might be republicans. Assuming the party does realign itself. I feel like the only reason blue dog dems existed at the time was because they were coat-tailing Obama's success. Dudes like Lieberman even went independent and could easily run as moderate republicans later on down the road.

 

[BertramCooper]

It is not entirely clear why Cruz doesn’t support the amendment’s language, which was proposed by Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy.

Uhh, yeah, I think it's pretty goddamn obvious why Cruz doesn't support it.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't think Democrats have a shot of winning the House in the near future if they let go of the more conservative wing of their party. They have such an inefficient vote.

 

[Manmademan]

Midterms aren't exclusively a dem problem. Dems gained 31 House seats, 5 Senate seats and held all their gov positions in 2006. It's a ruling power problem.

Keep in mind that democrats WON the popular vote in 2012 for house seats, but only gained 46.21% of available seats!

By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/19/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-house-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/

This isn't because "democrats don't vote" or "democrats tune out" it's because house congressional districts are gerrymandered to shit because of the 2010 elections.

As for 2014 we can look at my current state:

Here’s an example from the election last night. In Pennsylvania, one state in which the GOP drew the congressional districts in a brazenly partisan way, Democratic candidates collected 44 percent of the vote, yet Democratic candidates won only 5 House seats out of 18. In other words, Democrats secured only 27 percent of Pennsylvania’s congressional seats despite winning nearly half of the votes. See the graph below:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

as things stand it will take overwhelming, phenomenal amounts of turnout to gain house seats with the way things stand in the wake of 2010. That election did ridiculous amounts of damage.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Keep in mind that democrats WON the popular vote in 2012 for house seats, but only gained 46.21% of available seats!



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/19/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-house-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/

This isn't because "democrats don't vote" or "democrats tune out" it's because house congressional districts are gerrymandered to shit because of the 2010 elections. It would have taken phenomenal, ovewhelming turnout in 2012 to flip the house.

The kind that we'll see in 2016 with Trump as the nominee! /wishfulthinking

Based on the gerrymandering I'd really say a 20-25 seat gain is the Democrats' high water mark. Which is rather unfortunate. The wave it would take to pick off the more conservative seats would probably be enough to give Senate Democrats a supermajority.

 

[Manmademan]

The kind that we'll see in 2016 with Trump as the nominee! /wishfulthinking

Based on the gerrymandering I'd really say a 20-25 seat gain is the Democrats' high water mark. Which is rather unfortunate. The wave it would take to pick off the more conservative seats would probably be enough to give Senate Democrats a supermajority.

absolutely. We really need high turnout in 2020 to ensure that democrats have enough representation to redraw the maps- fortunately that's going to be a presidential election year with Sanders as the incumbent, so odds are looking pretty good there.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The kind that we'll see in 2016 with Trump as the nominee! /wishfulthinking

Based on the gerrymandering I'd really say a 20-25 seat gain is the Democrats' high water mark. Which is rather unfortunate. The wave it would take to pick off the more conservative seats would probably be enough to give Senate Democrats a supermajority.

Kyle Kondik ‏@kkondik 5h5 hours ago
3. So math is 231 safe/likely/lean R, 188 s/l/l D, 16 Toss-ups. Ds currently at 188, so split toss-ups give them 196

Kyle Kondik ‏@kkondik 3h3 hours ago
Kyle Kondik Retweeted Cliston Brown
Potential D gains in House. They just don't have enough targets unless a bad prez nom expands the playing field

Kyle Kondik ‏@kkondik 3h3 hours ago
Kyle Kondik Retweeted Cliston Brown
In 16? Prolly right. In 18, with unpopular R prez? House could flip even if Ds make little progress this yr

Cliston Brown
‏@ClistonBrown
@kkondik In a really big year, I suspect the Dems would max out around +20. But it's likelier to be in the +8 to +12 range.

Cliston Brown
‏@ClistonBrown
@kkondik To put it another way, I see almost no scenario in which Dems regain House in one cycle. Have to eat the elephant 1 bite at a time

Cliston Brown ‏@ClistonBrown 3h3 hours ago
@mattdawidowicz @kkondik At the current moment, I am bearish on #GOP odds to win WH in 2016. If a #Dem is president in 2018, no D wave.

.

absolutely. We really need high turnout in 2020 to ensure that democrats have enough representation to redraw the maps- fortunately that's going to be a presidential election year with Sanders as the incumbent, so odds are looking pretty good there.

most of the governorship and legislatures are up in 2018........

You could always start a movement and do what Florida did but the opposite:

Background
Democratic Haydon Burns, who won the gubernatorial election in 1964, was up for re-election. Although gubernatorial elections in Florida are normally every four years, the cycle of gubernatorial elections was changed so as not to coincide with presidential election years. Thus, the Governor of Florida elected in 1964 would serve from January 5, 1965 to January 3, 1967, while the next term would last from January 3, 1967 – January 5, 1971

.

 

[Coriolanus]

Midterms aren't exclusively a dem problem. Dems gained 31 House seats, 5 Senate seats and held all their gov positions in 2006. It's a ruling power problem.

Given that democrats will most likely retain the presidency for the foreseeable future, why yes, it most certainly is a dem problem.

Thus, dems know it is coming. How do they inted to tackle it?

 

[AndyD]

Now this is interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0605b2-9f6e-11e5-9ad2-568d814bbf3b_story.html

Connecticut to ban gun sales by those on no-fly list

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy proposed Thursday to use an executive order to ban gun sales to those on federal no-fly watch lists.

The Democratic governor said that his order would make Connecticut the first state to do so and that state officials are working with the federal government to get access to the lists.

I wonder if it will force congress to strengthen the process of getting on/off those lists?

 

[Manmademan]

most of the governorship and legislatures are up in 2018........

house seats are 2 years, not four. governorships are irrelevant when it comes to drawing maps.

2020 is important because congressional maps are only drawn once every ten years, with the last time being after the 2010 census in the wake of a massive republican wave election. Usually the majority party in the state's house (or an independent commission) redraws that. So 2020 being the next census means that THAT's the important date, not 2018.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

absolutely. We really need high turnout in 2020 to ensure that democrats have enough representation to redraw the maps- fortunately that's going to be a presidential election year with Sanders as the incumbent, so odds are looking pretty good there.

Dems need to pick up as many governorships as possible before 2020. There sure are a lot of unpopular Republican incumbents nationwide but I doubt Dems will be able to take advantage.

 

[Coriolanus]

So 2020 being the next census means that THAT's the important date, not 2018.

Importanter.

Khillary will have a serious problem in her hands once republicans have a veto-proof majority in 2018.

 

[ivysaur12]

Now this is interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0605b2-9f6e-11e5-9ad2-568d814bbf3b_story.html

Connecticut to ban gun sales by those on no-fly list



I wonder if it will force congress to strengthen the process of getting on/off those lists?

Again -- there is a serious Due Process issue here, isn't there?

 

[NeoXChaos]

house seats are 2 years, not four. governorships are irrelevant when it comes to drawing maps.

2020 is important because congressional maps are only drawn once every ten years, with the last time being after the 2010 census in the wake of a massive republican wave election. Usually the majority party in the state's house (or an independent commission) redraws that. So 2020 being the next census means that THAT's the important date, not 2018.

the people in charge of that will largely be elected in 36 states in 2018 not just 2020. Big states like your PA, IA, WI, OH, FL, MI etc You got to nab NJ and hold VA on the road to 2018+2020. You may not even get the legislatures but atleast you get veto power with a D governor in those states like your Governor Wolf if he's reelected.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Pretty funny seeing democrats fully embrace Bush era bullshit policy (no fly list) solely because Obama is for it now.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

house seats are 2 years, not four. governorships are irrelevant when it comes to drawing maps.

2020 is important because congressional maps are only drawn once every ten years, with the last time being after the 2010 census in the wake of a massive republican wave election. Usually the majority party in the state's house (or an independent commission) redraws that. So 2020 being the next census means that THAT's the important date, not 2018.

I thought most governors hold veto power over maps?

 

[Manmademan]

the people in charge of that will largely be elected in 36 states in 2018 not just 2020. Big states like your PA, IA, WI, OH, FL, MI etc You got to nab NJ and hold VA on the road to 2018+2020

if they're elected in 2018, but voted out in the 2020 elections...why does that concern me re: redistricting?

 

[Black Republican]

anyone here voting in the GOP open primaries? lol

 

[NeoXChaos]

I thought most governors hold veto power over maps?

All of them hold veto power over Congressional maps I believe except for obvious one district states or independent commissions.

All except for FL, CT, IL, MD, & NC hold veto power for state legislature maps.

https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures

 

[Aaron Strife]

if they're elected in 2018, but voted out in the 2020 elections...why does that concern me re: redistricting?

Because governors are elected in four-year terms? Generally speaking.

In most of those "legislature alone" states on that map, the governor still has veto power over any new maps.

We need governors in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio etc. who will veto gerrymanders and force compromise maps.

 

[AndyD]

Again -- there is a serious Due Process issue here, isn't there?

Not so much if getting on the various lists goes through a solid process.

I don't know how it happens with the current no fly list, so I can't say whether it currently works or not, but in theory it could be done. And they do mention a variety of lists. Perhaps even including mental health related lists?

For example, I think few people would object to them using the "FBI most wanted list".

 

[Manmademan]

I thought most governors hold veto power over maps?

news to me if so (edit: looks like they do) but it's not plausible that R governors are going to veto a map until it's back to 2010 era nonsense.

they might get one that's not particularly biased in favor of dem districts, but that's about it.

Because governors are elected in four-year terms? Generally speaking.

In most of those "legislature alone" states on that map, the governor still has veto power over any new maps.

We need governors in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio etc. who will veto gerrymanders and force compromise maps.

see the above. I don't need a map that's biased in favor of democratic districts, vulnerable to a veto- I need one that's balanced and reverses the damage done in 2010. population and demographic shifts will take care of the rest. all things considered I prefer to rely on high turnout in 2020 leading to more D congressmen to draw the map, than D governors to try and bargain one via veto.

 

[Coriolanus]

That seems a bit redundant, no? Construct a proper ground game in 16, keep it around for 18, and just keep on trucking for 20. No real reason to only give a proper fuck about the whole thing in 20. Good for the people. Good for the country.

I'm going by that thing PD mentioned on how Bams trashed his ground game after 08, mind.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Pretty funny seeing democrats fully embrace Bush era bullshit policy (no fly list) solely because Obama is for it now.

Feinstein argued in favor of the restrictions by saying the idea originated in the Bush administration.

 

[Makai]

Pretty funny seeing democrats fully embrace Bush era bullshit policy (no fly list) solely because Obama is for it now.

I think they're just trying to get their foot in the door for gun control.

 

[Iolo]

Pretty funny seeing democrats fully embrace Bush era bullshit policy (no fly list) solely because Obama is for it now.

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

 

[RustyNails]

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Stannis Baratheon said the same thing. Look what happened.

 

[Coriolanus]

Stannis Baratheon said the same thing. Look what happened.

He's still alive and (relatively) well and his army only grows stronger? Don't quite see your point.

 

[Jack Remington]

He's still alive and (relatively) well and his army only grows stronger? Don't quite see your point.

About that...

 

[Iolo]

He's still alive and (relatively) well and his army only grows stronger? Don't quite see your point.

Stanning for Stannis?

 

[Coriolanus]

Winds of winter, mates.

Spoiler

bloody tv watching peasants, the lot of you.

 

[B-Dubs]

Stannis Baratheon said the same thing. Look what happened.

He also threw away everything he ever cared about, so yea...

 

[Basileus777]

Would Hillary burn Chelsea for the Presidency? Surely there is some good fanfiction in this.

 

[B-Dubs]

Would Hillary burn Chelsea for the Presidency? Surely there is some good fanfiction in this.

Why would she need to do that when she's got three dragons--Bill, Barack and Joe?

 

[PBY]

Yo Trump has got the crazies going wild

This WaPo piece had quotables for days.

On if this person saw Obama on fire:
"I would not only not piss on him if he was on fire — I’d throw gas on him.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e9edf8-9f44-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html

 

[PhoenixDark]

He's still alive and (relatively) well and his army only grows stronger? Don't quite see your point.

I defeated your uncle Victarion and his Iron Fleet off Fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Storm's End against the power of the Reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the Wall, though he had twenty times my numbers. Tell me, turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?

the one true king shall prevail