• 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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mike M

Nick N
If Romney ran again, it strikes me that he would be playing the role of Perry in 2012 where he makes a big initial buzz with his late entry, but fizzles out early. Probably without repeating Perry's debate disaster, though.

I keep telling myself Romney knows better than to actually run again and that the establishment would lean on him hard, but then I remember his campaign bought into poll unskewing and genuinely thought they were going to win...
 
I'll join the chorus. Walker is this election's Perry, early frontrunner who can't open his mouth without saying something stupid. His support will erode away shortly.

Barring a shocking revelation or serious fuck-up, I can't see it being anything but Bush v Clinton this time 'round.

Perry's gaffe was being considerate towards immigrants.
 

dabig2

Member
I thought Perry's gaff was the "third thing."

That was just the coup d grace. Initially he was a front-runner and doing good with Conservatives till the whole "please let's treat immigrant children like human beings. If you don't, then you don't have a heart" thing came up. He got buried after that and never recovered.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I actually thought that Walker was emerging as a legitimate threat to Jeb, but it'll be Jeb. Just like with 2012 and Romney.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Honestly Jeb is the only one who has a chance, if only because he at least won't light himself on fire most likely.

But, this seems like a lost election already for the GOP. Still plenty of time though.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Honestly Jeb is the only one who has a chance, if only because he at least won't light himself on fire most likely.

But, this seems like a lost election already for the GOP. Still plenty of time though.

Walker could always come back in 2020 ala McCain or Romney if he loses. He's term limited in 2018 anyway.

The Republican bench is wide, yet simultaneously barren in terms of electability. Maybe this new crop of governors will prove differently.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Walker could always come back in 2020 ala McCain or Romney if he loses. He's term limited in 2018 anyway.

The Republican bench is wide, yet simultaneously barren in terms of electability. Maybe this new crop of governors will prove differently.

Walker isnt term-limited. He can run as many times as he wants. I doubt he runs for a third and if he did, I doubt he could win. He is no Tommy Thompson.
 
Y'know, I think it'd be hilarious is somewhere in California or Illinois or some other blue state where a legitimate moderate Republican could win, ran as an actual "reasonable Republican", but then actually voted like one - ie. like George H.W. Bush in the 70's or 80's - pro-choice, for reasonable tax hikes, doesn't reflexively defend Israel. Hell, just straight up plagiarize old Republican speeches from the 70's, and see how quick that guy would be destroyed by the modern day GOP.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
You're next "class" of GOP presidential hopefuls are the Charlie Bakers, Larry Hogans, Bruce Rauners of the world. I'm sure that people like Cory Gardner will be thrown in there, too. It feels much more likely that the next GOP candidates will be from governor positions versus from senators.

On the flip side, it feels like all of the big Democratic names after Hillary will be senators. You'll have your Gillibrands, your Klobuchars, your Warrens (though I doubt she'll run).
 
You're next "class" of GOP presidential hopefuls are the Charlie Bakers, Larry Hogans, Bruce Rauners of the world. I'm sure that people like Cory Gardner will be thrown in there, too. It feels much more likely that the next GOP candidates will be from governor positions versus from senators.

On the flip side, it feels like all of the big Democratic names after Hillary will be senators. You'll have your Gillibrands, your Klobuchars, your Warrens (though I doubt she'll run).

Gilibrand/Booker 2024

I'm hoping Russ Feingold gets elected in 2016 and runs for President in 2024. He'll be 71 I think but that's not too old!
 

HylianTom

Banned
Speaking of politics-themed TV shows, I'm already planning a list of shows to watch in the months leading-up to the election..

Alpha House
House of Cards (seen the British version a while ago, but not the American)
VEEP (probably saving this one for last)

Any other suggestions? My consumption of new, scripted TV shows over the past 15 years has gone from "extremely heavy" in 2000 to "almost zero" currently, so there's a LOT that I've likely missed. The last scripted political TV show I watched regularly was The West Wing (and even that was over a decade ago, so it might be worth a re-visit).

So 2016 will be a good excuse to catch-up in the politics genre..
 

NeoXChaos

Member
When do you guys think we will see another Republican President?

Jeb is the most likely bet but after that idk. The very idea that just two alternating families could occupy the White House for 28 of the 36 years between 1989 and 2025 is astounding.

36 of 44 if you count Bush 41 as Vice-President. If you were born after 1989, the only people as president you lived under would be either a bush or cliinton with obama as an interim LOL assuming either Hillary or Jeb won.
 
Speaking of politics-themed TV shows, I'm already planning a list of shows to watch in the months leading-up to the election..

Alpha House
House of Cards (seen the British version a while ago, but not the American)
VEEP (probably saving this one for last)

Any other suggestions? My consumption of new, scripted TV shows over the past 15 years has gone from "extremely heavy" in 2000 to "almost zero" currently, so there's a LOT that I've likely missed. The last scripted political TV show I watched regularly was The West Wing (and even that was over a decade ago, so it might be worth a re-visit).

So 2016 will be a good excuse to catch-up in the politics genre..

West Wing is always worth a revisit. One of the best shows of all time, IMO.

Other than that, you've hit all the high points that I know of. I tried Scandal out for a while, but it's got a whole bunch of problems.
 

Diablos

Member
I'm getting a boner thinking of the upcoming republican debates. heh
I'm not.

Frankly it's disturbing that we are all concluding Jeb is the guy. What did we say after 2008? The Bush name is tarnished, another Bush could never be President ever again after how horrible Dubya was.

And now here we fucking are.

Slates 'Amicus' podcast interviews Jonathan Adler about king v burwell.

http://www.slate.com/articles/podca...on_the_supreme_court_s_interpretation_of.html
Anyone listen yet?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I'm not.

Frankly it's disturbing that we are all concluding Jeb is the guy. What did we say after 2008? The Bush name is tarnished, another Bush could never be President ever again after how horrible Dubya was.

And now here we fucking are.

He's only the guy because there's no one else, not because people forgot Dubya. If there was anyone else who had a shred of competence, they'd be the guy. In a normal field of decent candidates he'd be the joke, but this is the clown car express. He just looks good compared to the morons he's up against.
 

HylianTom

Banned
West Wing is always worth a revisit. One of the best shows of all time, IMO.

Other than that, you've hit all the high points that I know of. I tried Scandal out for a while, but it's got a whole bunch of problems.
I looked into Scandal, but everyone has told me similar things, so I'm skipping.

West Wing will likely be re-watched during the summer. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I'm sure I've forgotten enough, and having another decade of life experience (and politics consumption!) will make it more than worthwhile.

(edit: my marathoning will probably happen after the conventions. I still can't get over how damn early they are!)
 
I'm not.

Frankly it's disturbing that we are all concluding Jeb is the guy. What did we say after 2008? The Bush name is tarnished, another Bush could never be President ever again after how horrible Dubya was.

And now here we fucking are.


Anyone listen yet?

Another Bush never will be President. The only reason he's even a viable primary challenger is because the rest of the field is so abysmal.
 

Averon

Member
I thought Walker would pose a legitimate threat to Bush, but he's being exposed early as a light-weight.

If he cannot handle the scrutiny of a relatively friendly atmosphere of a GOP primary, how does he expect to survive a general, where it is far less tilted and have far more scrutiny?
 

Konka

Banned
You're next "class" of GOP presidential hopefuls are the Charlie Bakers, Larry Hogans, Bruce Rauners of the world. I'm sure that people like Cory Gardner will be thrown in there, too. It feels much more likely that the next GOP candidates will be from governor positions versus from senators.

On the flip side, it feels like all of the big Democratic names after Hillary will be senators. You'll have your Gillibrands, your Klobuchars, your Warrens (though I doubt she'll run).

Make it happen.

151244101.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg
 

Trouble

Banned
Speaking of politics-themed TV shows, I'm already planning a list of shows to watch in the months leading-up to the election..

Alpha House
House of Cards (seen the British version a while ago, but not the American)
VEEP (probably saving this one for last)

Any other suggestions? My consumption of new, scripted TV shows over the past 15 years has gone from "extremely heavy" in 2000 to "almost zero" currently, so there's a LOT that I've likely missed. The last scripted political TV show I watched regularly was The West Wing (and even that was over a decade ago, so it might be worth a re-visit).

So 2016 will be a good excuse to catch-up in the politics genre..

"One of these days Laura, I'm gonna punch you in the face!"

gxsif78.jpg


The show that 9/11 killed.

Not really, it was canceled in August.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So I was reading this article on gerrymandering:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/

And I get a bit angrier each time I think about the colossal fuck up in 2010. If the democrats had any talent for messaging, they would make this a huge fucking issue. Plaster ads constantly that say something like

"REPUBLICANS HAVE RIGGED VOTES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY! THEY'VE MADE SURE THAT YOUR VOTES AREN'T COUNTED, EVEN IF YOU'RE IN THE MAJORITY! THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE BEEN ASHAMED IF THEY WERE ALIVE!"

We've gotten fucked over for a whole DECADE because of this shit. We can't let it happen again.
 
Scott Walker is going to win the Republican nomination.

At the end of the day, common core and immigration will ruin Jeb.

I don't think that gaffe will have much impact with Republican voters.
I don't think so. He looks like an idiot and he sounds like an idiot. I think one of the only reasons he is popular is that people don't know much about it yet other than being the tough guy that broke up unions. (And with income inequality being an issue these days, why is busting unions viewed as a good thing?)

Matt Taibbi thinks he is disaster . . .

Beltway Democrats may not deserve good luck, but it looks like they could have plenty in the next presidential race. Heading into the weekend, Scott Walker, a man born to be slaughtered in a general election, is suddenly leading the Republican pack in the Iowa polls.

Walker is surging thanks to his performance at this week's Conservative Political Action Conference, where the union-busting governor inspired raucous applause with his "I was a dick in Wisconsin, and I can be one in Washington, too!" stump speech.

Walker's address was a broadside against a litany of conservative bugbears, from Planned Parenthood to the media to tax day to the subversive act of voting without a photo ID, etc.

Scott Walker, God's Gift to the Democratic Party
 

ivysaur12

Banned
So I was reading this article on gerrymandering:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/

And I get a bit angrier each time I think about the colossal fuck up in 2010. If the democrats had any talent for messaging, they would make this a huge fucking issue. Plaster ads constantly that say something like

"REPUBLICANS HAVE RIGGED VOTES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY! THEY'VE MADE SURE THAT YOUR VOTES AREN'T COUNTED, EVEN IF YOU'RE IN THE MAJORITY! THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE BEEN ASHAMED IF THEY WERE ALIVE!"

We've gotten fucked over for a whole DECADE because of this shit. We can't let it happen again.

This is from last August:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/2016-democrats-already-have-plan-2020

As President Obama’s second term winds down and Hillary Clinton’s likely presidential campaign winds up, it feels like the 2016 election is drawing even more attention than the upcoming midterm races.

But there’s another election increasingly on the minds of Democratic lawmakers, party operatives, big money donors, and progressive activists: 2020. That’s the year voters will elect state lawmakers who will redraw congressional and state legislative districts all over the country.

Last week, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee announced it would commit at least $70 million to Advantage 2020, a program aimed at targeting legislative chambers in key states over the next four election cycles with the specific aim of influencing redistricting. The plan calls on Democrats to invest resources not just in state chambers the party has a shot at winning this November, but in legislatures where they might have a chance at slowly eroding a GOP majority over time thanks to demographic trends.

Michael Sergeant, executive director of the DLCC, told reporters in announcing the new program. Republicans “don’t feel like they’re accountable to anybody because they feel like they have drawn the lines and the maps in such a way that they don’t have to actually answer to the voters,” Sargent said.

The project is part of a broader effort by Democrats to pull the party out of the rubble left behind by the 2010 election, when Republicans made massive gains at the state level that allowed them to gerrymander Congressional maps in critical states after the new census.

In addition to the DLCC’s plan, new Democratic outside groups like the General Majority PAC, which spent $9 million defending New Jersey Democrats’ control of the state senate in 2013, are gearing up to play in other state races with an eye towards 2020. Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who has pledged tens of millions of dollars toward helping Democrats win Senate and governors races this year, is looking into expanding his group NextGen’s reach into state legislatures as well.

The increasing focus on redistricting is partly a reflection of the bleak governing environment for Democrats nationally. The gridlock produced by the obstructionist Republican Congress and Democratic White House has ground policymaking to a halt, even in areas with some degree of bipartisan overlap like immigration and tax reform. While Washington has been paralyzed, Republicans’ dominance in state legislatures has triggered a renaissance of conservative policymaking across the country. Both of these trends have been exacerbated by the GOP’s tremendous success gerrymandering state and Congressional districts to help protect their majorities.

At the annual progressive conference Netroots Nation in Detroit earlier this summer, several speakers identified redrawing state and Congressional maps as a top priority. Markos Moulitsas, the Daily Kos founder who helped launch Netroots, has been urging activists to focus their attention on 2020 for months and this year’s conference included a panel by the DLCC previewing its redistricting plan.

“You can’t wait until 2020 or 2022 to start talking about it,” Tom Bonier, a Democratic consultant at Clarity Campaign Labs and redistricting veteran helping run the Advantage 2020 project, told activists. “It starts now and it’s going to be won or lost based on what we do now.”


Michigan progressives know better than anyone how big a difference the issue can make. After 2010, Republicans took complete control of the state government there and used it to redraw the state’s Congressional and state legislative districts in the party’s favor. While President Obama won Michigan by 9.5 points in 2012, voters there elected 9 Republican members of Congress to just 5 Democrats. The next month Republican Governor Rick Snyder signed “right to work” legislation into law in a state that’s historically been a bastion for organized labor.
“Who here gets up in the morning and is excited about redistricting?” Ryan Bates, the executive director of Michigan United, asked the audience at a panel of state activists. “It’s a game changer,” Bates continued. “We are screwed in the legislature if we keep having these maps.”

Melanie McElroy, the executive director of Common Cause Michigan, called redistricting “the fundamental reform that folks across the progressive spectrum need to focus on.”

The fantasy scenario for Democrats, if all goes right, might look something like this: President Hillary Clinton, capitalizing on a solid first term, a still-divided GOP, and the usual advantages of incumbency, leads her party to a decisive victory in 2020. Riding her performance, Democrats down the ticket take over a number of key state legislatures and governor’s seats. Now with far greater control over the redistricting process, they put the House back into play.

The emphasis here is on “fantasy” scenario. For Democrats to regain the ability to pass major progressive legislation anytime soon, they need a smart plan, a lot of money and a lucky streak that won’t quit.

Long but interesting read.

The Republican State Leadership Committee, an organization helmed by veteran GOP operative (and current Virginia Senate candidate) Ed Gillespie, raised $30 million for legislative races in 2010. As detailed by The New York Times, a network of big name conservative donors, from David Koch to the late Texas homebuilding tycoon Bob Perry, routed tens of millions dollars more through state parties, candidates, and outside advertising in battleground races around the country.

By contrast, Bonier says Democrats were slower to realize the danger and devote necessary time and money into states like Ohio, where retaining even one legislative chamber would have given them far greater influence over redistricting.

But also:

Jowei Chen, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan, ran thousands of simulations of different Congressional maps that tried to keep districts as compact and uniform as possible with no other factors considered. While his experiment found that heavily gerrymandered states like Michigan and Pennsylvania indeed produced a few more seats for Republicans against his alternate scenarios, the net gain nationally was usually around five to seven seats – significant, but still not enough for Democrats to retake the House.

And yet:

“It’s exactly what Democrats would love to do in Michigan if they could,” Chen told msnbc. “Anything is geographically possible if you can go crazy with the map the way Illinois has.”
 

HylianTom

Banned
"One of these days Laura, I'm gonna punch you in the face!"



The show that 9/11 killed.

Not really, it was canceled in August.

Wow.. forgot about that one. Goofy.. that one would be easy to fit in since there are not too many episodes. Just have to see if it's streaming anywhere. Thankfully, I should be in a better mindset for it this time around, lol.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Speaking of politics-themed TV shows, I'm already planning a list of shows to watch in the months leading-up to the election..

Alpha House
House of Cards (seen the British version a while ago, but not the American)
VEEP (probably saving this one for last)

Any other suggestions? My consumption of new, scripted TV shows over the past 15 years has gone from "extremely heavy" in 2000 to "almost zero" currently, so there's a LOT that I've likely missed. The last scripted political TV show I watched regularly was The West Wing (and even that was over a decade ago, so it might be worth a re-visit).

So 2016 will be a good excuse to catch-up in the politics genre..

There needs to be more for me to work on plz.

(Madam Secretary on CBS. Haven't watched it yet, but it's on my list).

EDIT: Also, for those of you who *love* demographics like me, this is an interesting article from last year on demographic shifts in 2020:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/12/51-charts-on-the-2020-elections-yes-you-read-that-right/
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
So I was reading this article on gerrymandering:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/

And I get a bit angrier each time I think about the colossal fuck up in 2010. If the democrats had any talent for messaging, they would make this a huge fucking issue. Plaster ads constantly that say something like

"REPUBLICANS HAVE RIGGED VOTES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY! THEY'VE MADE SURE THAT YOUR VOTES AREN'T COUNTED, EVEN IF YOU'RE IN THE MAJORITY! THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE BEEN ASHAMED IF THEY WERE ALIVE!"

We've gotten fucked over for a whole DECADE because of this shit. We can't let it happen again.

Are you sure it wouldn't be the same disaster that Reid's recent Koch strategy was?

It wouldn't really change many minds since "both sides do it", and it doesn't really encourage people leaning your way to become active if the message gets interpreted as "your vote doesn't matter".

When do you guys think we will see another Republican President?

Jeb is the most likely bet but after that idk. The very idea that just two alternating families could occupy the White House for 28 of the 36 years between 1989 and 2025 is astounding.

36 of 44 if you count Bush 41 as Vice-President. If you were born after 1989, the only people as president you lived under would be either a bush or cliinton with obama as an interim LOL assuming either Hillary or Jeb won.

We'll see another republican president after the economy takes another crash like it always does, or the democrat candidate gets into a major scandal.

Outside of that, democrats have it locked until the republican party completely rethinks itself.
 
what are his credentials? He took on unions and... economically ruined his state? Bonafide's right there. Conservatives don't get what they want in the GOP, and Scott Walker isn't going to get the nomination.

The fact that people pay attention to CPAC at all is whats really interesting to me.

This is akin to me reading through a conservative website saying that Elizabeth Warren will be the democratic nominee because the liberals like her

His state's economy isn't great but unemployment continues to decrease. I think you're looking at his record from a liberal perspective. He has signed voter ID laws, destroyed unions, will sign a right to work law, and has cut higher education. How is that not an impressive record for a conservative in a primary that will largely be determined by conservative voters?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery

Thanks. That was a good read.

There needs to be more for me to work on plz.

(Madam Secretary on CBS. Haven't watched it yet, but it's on my list).

I need to watch that, mostly cause of Kathrine Heigl. The things I would do to that woman. <3

Are you sure it wouldn't be the same disaster that Reid's recent Koch strategy was?

It wouldn't really change many minds since "both sides do it", and it doesn't really encourage people leaning your way to become active if the message gets interpreted as "your vote doesn't matter".

Eh, I don't think attacking the Kochs was the most optimal strategy. Sure, that might rile up some people, but not as much as the idea that their god given right to vote has no power.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Thanks. That was a good read.



I need to watch that, mostly cause of Kathrine Heigl. The things I would do to that woman. <3



Eh, I don't think attacking the Kochs was the most optimal strategy. Sure, that might rile up some people, but not as much as the idea that their god given right to vote has no power.

State of Affairs is Heigl. Madam Secretary is Tea.
 

AntoneM

Member
Just watched a segment on 60 Minutes about insurance claims following Super Storm Sandy. They spent most of the time vilanizing the insurance companies for literally altering the reports from engineers who said the storm cause structural damage to read that there was no structural damage... then they ended the segment by blaming FEMA... Dat librul media.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
The hell? There's two different shows about Hillary?

State of Affairs is about the boring ass job of putting together what goes in the president's binder every morning. It's a pretty bad show, but nothing to do with HillDawg.

EDIT: Oh, duh. The answer is The Good Wife.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Just watched a segment on 60 Minutes about insurance claims following Super Storm Sandy. They spent most of the time vilanizing the insurance companies for literally altering the reports from engineers who said the storm cause structural damage to read that there was no structural damage... then they ended the segment by blaming FEMA... Dat librul media.

BOTH SIDES DO IT.
 
Speaking of political shows, barring a massive turnaround in the final third, Season 3 of House of Cards is total crap.

It has never been an amazing show, but it's usually at least trashy fun. This season is just a complete snoozer.
 

Mike M

Nick N
Speaking of political shows, barring a massive turnaround in the final third, Season 3 of House of Cards is total crap.

It has never been an amazing show, but it's usually at least trashy fun. This season is just a complete snoozer.

Yeah, it's really compounding and doubling down on the unbelievable political maneuvering. I thought Underwood's route to the VP office was bad, but literally everything since has been on that same level of "Really? Really?"
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Speaking of political shows, barring a massive turnaround in the final third, Season 3 of House of Cards is total crap.

It has never been an amazing show, but it's usually at least trashy fun. This season is just a complete snoozer.

I stopped after the 4th episode of the 2nd season (that was admittedly a very good episode since it focused almost solely on Claire). I really don't know if I have what it takes to dive back in.

The show has more in common with Scandal than it'll ever admit, but it thinks it's Mad Men.
 
I stopped after the 4th episode of the 2nd season (that was admittedly a very good episode since it focused almost solely on Claire). I really don't know if I have what it takes to dive back in.

The show has more in common with Scandal than it'll ever admit, but it thinks it's Mad Men.
It's at its best when it's really laying on that modern-day Shakespearean cheese. It helps you overlook its frequent outlandishness.

But it's being dragged out for far too long, meaning it's now trying to focus on something resembling actual politics in order to fill up time. And it's just painfully bad at it.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
It's at its best when it's really laying on that modern-day Shakespearean cheese. It helps you overlook its frequent outlandishness.

But it's being dragged out for far too long, meaning it's now trying to focus on something resembling actual politics in order to fill up time. And it's just painfully bad at it.

One time, an episode of Scandal wanted me to think that it only took 51 votes to pass something in the senate. Sure okay Shonda.

Also, I get that John Spratt has this district for almost two decades, but in what world does Underwood get elected in this district after 2010? Maybe put him in North Carolina, Beau.
 
It's at its best when it's really laying on that modern-day Shakespearean cheese. It helps you overlook its frequent outlandishness.

But it's being dragged out for far too long, meaning it's now trying to focus on something resembling actual politics in order to fill up time. And it's just painfully bad at it.

Yeah the politics is horrible. But I enjoy the machinations. Its just Richard the III in modern times.
 
The way I see it, he left himself an out by talking about "new blood." If Bush looks like the frontrunner again, expect to see Romney start making some noise.
There were reports that he didn't want Bush to be the nominee. If Walker falters maybe he'll jump in. But I don't think he'll have enough campaign people to do it; all the "talented" folks are taken.
 
One time, an episode of Scandal wanted me to think that it only took 51 votes to pass something in the senate. Sure okay Shonda.

Also, I get that John Spratt has this district for almost two decades, but in what world does Underwood get elected in this district after 2010? Maybe put him in North Carolina, Beau.

Willimon never should have made Frank a Democrat. I mean, Urquhart was a Tory in the UK version, so I really don't know why he made him a Democrat. Maybe he was afraid of making it look too much like a demonization of conservatives or something (even though the original was pretty much that exactly).

But Frank is basically a mix of Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz at this point in the show. It's fucking absurd.
 

Mike M

Nick N
Underwood's policies are all over the map. Weakening teachers' unions and guts entitlements, but the centerpiece legislation is a 500 billion dollar jobs program...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom