-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
RustyNails
Member
Didn't Christie oppose gay marriage? Anyone know if he said anything on scotus?
Yup and I'm gonna be there. =D
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
That poor guy. Maybe we should ban gay marriage after all. Sure, allowing two people that love each other to marry is nice and all, but we can't be having defenseless bloggers be harmed by mean internet comments. That's really the greatest injustice of all.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Considering I haven't said any of those things...I dunno what the hell you're talking about.
He's the very definition of a bloviated asshole.
RustyNails
Member
I think you would agree that Bill Clinton was skewered just as much as Obama on the right during the early 90's. It then makes sense to say that all of Hillary dirt is already out in the open. That's why they are still trying to nail her on things like her early career as a lawyer or some deals made in the past, but they still figure Benghazi is their best hope. Unless they find out that she swooped in Libya and killed the employees herself they are not gonna find anything. That's one of the advantages you have for being in politics so long. There's nothing really in your baggage that's not known to everyone.
He hasn't had to yet, but he will.
Retromelon
Member
If you think rush is bad you would hate michael savage
Black Mamba
Member
So the Democrats do have a version of the Paultards.
Wonder what the Sanders version will be called.
Bernie Sanders has no chance to win the primary. And he knows it. He knows it very well. As has been stated before, Bernie's goal isn't to win but rather to push Hillary/Party left a bit more and get a conversation going on more liberal terms.
Which is a good thing. But don't mistake that for a real shot at winning.
Wonder what the Sanders version will be called.
Bernie Sanders has no chance to win the primary. And he knows it. He knows it very well. As has been stated before, Bernie's goal isn't to win but rather to push Hillary/Party left a bit more and get a conversation going on more liberal terms.
Which is a good thing. But don't mistake that for a real shot at winning.
someone forgot to tell Bernie that.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-bernie-sanders-predicts-hell-win-white-house/story?id=32083075
BertramCooper
Banned
Bobby Jindal: "I have no chance in hell"
Chris Cristie: "I can't see us pulling this out"
Carly Fiorina: "A woman has zero shot at winning the GOP nom"
Black Mamba
Member
Of course he's going to say he's going to win...do you always tell a girl she looks great in those jeans?
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think there are a couple things at play. Personally I don't think Benghazi matters, whereas the Foundation issue and the emails are more dangerous. Nothing has been proven, however my fear is that something on these fronts could explode after she has won the nomination.
The other issue is Clinton Fatigue. The GOP's entire plan revolves around the idea of making people so tired of Clinton's scandals and baggage and coverage that they tune her out. I think Hillary hiding from the press is an acknowledgement that her camp knows this could be an issue. My biggest fear on this front is that someone like Rubio gets the nomination and can really run a future v past race against her. She failed when Obama did it. Granted Obama is a master politician and Rubio isn't, plus Obama had the right policy views whereas Rubio doesn't...but it's still a danger. She's out of touch and rich as fuck. If people get tired of her bullshit they might just give the other guy a shot.
Aaron Strife
Banned
"Man Running for President Says He'll Win Presidency"
Trump is at 14% (second) in Michigan: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...pack-in-michigan-clinton-leads-gop-field.html
Clinton beats all the Republicans, as if there would be any question of that.
Sanders is polling 25% - significant but still losing hard to Clinton.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I wonder if Carson's transitioned the idea that maybe he should run a real campaign?
I'll have to muse on this. Something with Randy for Rand, maybe. Hmm. Not there. We need to workshop this.
I'll have to muse on this. Something with Randy for Rand, maybe. Hmm. Not there. We need to workshop this.
BertramCooper
Banned
Aaaaand what did I say would happen?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...tion_license_plates_blocked.html?wpsrc=fol_tw
Walker v. Rednecks was a bad decision.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...tion_license_plates_blocked.html?wpsrc=fol_tw
Walker v. Rednecks was a bad decision.
Black Mamba
Member
Because in this realm you don't like the outcome. I think legally, it was still the right one.
The gov't can restrict whatever it wants, IMO. It's a gov't sanctioned and distributed plate. Gov't can choose winners and losers, nothing says it can't.
Macho Madness
Member
Of course that's the flipside. I just have a hard time understanding (and therefore sympathizing) why people would want to put political/tacky shit on their license plates anyway. Just get a bumper sticker or something. Leave the state out of it.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Bernie's prediction wasn't bad at all. He made 2 absolute statements; winning the first 2 contests which he very well can do. He said he "thinks" he'll win the nomination and the presidency...no declaration...just thought.
I know he and others are going to say that. His support will drop as soon as Clinton is seen as the nominee as the nomination moves on. By the time we get to Diablos state, it will be over.
BertramCooper
Banned
From my perspective it's carte blanche for state governments to restrict freedom of speech.
Government says people can customize their plates and support causes through them, but government gets to pick and choose what it does and doesn't want to display?
What if states start banning plates for Human Rights Campaign or GLAAD?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Bumper stickers exist.
States already get to choose what they say, see their statements of support for gay marriage, abortion, abstinence, oil drilling, environmental protection and a whole host of other social and non-social issues
Its not restricting speech. your speech rights aren't curtailed, you don't have a right to force the government to endorse your view, the government can endorse certain views on license plates (save for specially restricted ones like religion)
Black Mamba
Member
Fine by me. The State gets to pick winners and losers. Anything else is impracticable, really.
Nobody's free speech is being restricted. If the law says "you cannot put a GLAAD" bumper sticker on, then sure.
hell, thy don't let you put curse words on the plates, either.
The only thing they can actually restrict, though, is words that may incite violence. Other than that, you can put shit on your car. But there's nothing that says they must abide by what you want on the license plate.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Carson's favorability through the roof again. I still say he's a darkhorse. He just has to go up there and play the Romney/primary game--don't say dumb things, be personable.
BertramCooper
Banned
Not really. The state either lets all causes or no causes (at least the ones that aren't connected to government agencies/services/institutions).
I'd guess that many states, if not all, would opt for getting rid of sponsored/custom plates entirely, and I think that's a more than suitable outcome. Certainly preferable to the one we got, which will result in all sorts of state government bullshit.
And if a GLAAD or Planned Parenthood plate had prompted this lawsuit, rather than a Confederate sympathizers organization's plate, would PoliGAF really have sided with the State of Texas over GLAAD or PP? I find that extremely hard to believe.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Bernie is going to be huge news over the next couple of days if he can fill that stadium in Madison(the optics will be mind blowing) plus post a strong second quarter of 2015 to his campaign. Guess he's supposed to be over 10 million....wouldn't be shocked if it's closer to 15 million.
Checking back to 2007...Obama raked in 31 million off 154,000 donors. Bernie already has 200,000 people signed onto his campaign...and I guess donating as well.
Do we get the numbers tomorrow, or do we have to wait until July 2...like the article I linked?
Checking back to 2007...Obama raked in 31 million off 154,000 donors. Bernie already has 200,000 people signed onto his campaign...and I guess donating as well.
Do we get the numbers tomorrow, or do we have to wait until July 2...like the article I linked?
Macho Madness
Member
Mind blowing indeed.
indeed my friend. I am laughing right now.
Macho Madness
Member
Jeb's tax returns from the last 33 years have been released.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Mind blowing indeed.
Ron Paul was the best of the Republicans anyhow. Good for him.
I find that very hard to believe coming from someone who supports Bernie Sanders. He's literally the antithesis of the candidate you're supporting in terms of a philosophy on a structure of government.
Macho Madness
Member
BertramCooper
Banned
BertramCooper
Banned
She'll obviously keep it, which is super brave and noble of her.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Jeb's tax returns from the last 33 years have been released.
You see that jump in taxes and income around 2012? Who was president and who raised taxes?
You realize Bernie is like the exact opposite of Paul right?
Yeah. They made a comment about the left making fun on her, but called her brave for keeping the baby and taking the pain onto her for keeping it
The focus shouldn't be on Bristol, but on the failure of abstinence.
However I can't imagine an alternative reality where one of Obama's daughters had two out-of-wedlock pregnancies and Fox's reaction would be the same.
Aaron Strife
Banned
But drugs
Black Mamba
Member
This has never been an accepted legal position in the US and I see nothing that
I'd guess that many states, if not all, would opt for getting rid of sponsored/custom plates entirely, and I think that's a more than suitable outcome. Certainly preferable to the one we got, which will result in all sorts of state government bullshit.
I can't speak for PoliGAF on this one, but I can speak for myself and the answer is "yes." I have always held this position and it's been the long accepted position of the Courts.
the gov't can't endorse religion and it can't endorse something that is will likely cause imminent danger/violence, but other than that it can endorse whatever it wants to endorse.
What, other than what I've mentioned, legally restricts the gov't from choosing what messages to endorse?
Wait, wait, wait. What are your policy preferences, exactly? Is it just "none of the above?"
For the record, if Bernie Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire I will absolutely support him as the Democratic presidential candidate. But I don't see that happening.
NO I'VE BEEN QUOTED MESSING UP YOUR AND YOU'RE NOW I'M GOING TO DIE
EDIT: Also lololololol
Mind blowing indeed.
Those don't look anywhere near 10,000, which is at least what they're expecting for the Bernie Sanders event tomorrow.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked