• 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.
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Neither one seems as charismatic as Walker to me. Even Romney 2.0 wasn't. I mean, that's a low bar, but still.

Walker needs to fix his bald spot though.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
benjipwns said:
Neither one seems as charismatic as Walker to me. Even Romney 2.0 wasn't. I mean, that's a low bar, but still.

Walker needs to fix his bald spot though.
Click to expand...

I was merely opposing the assertion that dude was electorally ferpect.

Netflix Romney seemed like a pretty decent guy, tho, as was pre-9/11 McCain, if memory serves.

(plus who were they gon' vote for in 2012? Everybody else imploded.)
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
He's trying to pull off the W. but he doesn't have the outside Texas experience to flip between modes.

Plus I think he actually stayed as Governor too long, it's the 7th most powerful position in Texas after all.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
B-Dubs said:
By that logic Trump is the GOAT candidate.

The base will love Walker, but the elites will sink him if he gets anywhere near the nomination. They're looking for electability and not at who the base loves.
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't have a political record. Any amount of digging with produce a variety of unsavory details about him, from shit talking Reagan to donating to Hillary Clinton.

Walker already has some elites in his corner, specifically the Kochs. All it's going to take is for Bush to stumble and/or fail to dominate. I feel like that 100mil PAC amount was supposed to be scary, and essentially clear the nomination path for Bush. Instead there are about 3-4 other candidates who can raise half that without the huge Rolodex of loyalists Bush has; Ted Cruz has already raised 50mil between his campaign and PAC, for instance.

February:
Iowa: Bush has no shot and might not finish in the top three
NH: Bush can win
SC: Bush has no shot
NV: Bush could win but the state has a libertarian/far right base. (BTW a Romney endorsement could tip things here...and he's no fan of Bush)

March

Alabama

(March) The first Super Tuesday:

Arkansas: Huckabee
Colorado caucuses:
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota caucuses:
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas: Cruz
Vermont
Virginia

Nearly half of the Super Tuesday contests are in the south. I just don't see Bush (or Rubio) doing well there given the immigration issue. I'd imagine Trump will have exited the race before March but the damage is already done: immigration has become the defining issue of this contest. If Walker can neutralize Cruz he should be able to do well enough in the south to survive. The danger is that Cruz has the money and grass roots support to dominate the south IMO.

I'm not sure we've seen a primary this contested in a long time. If this was a 2012-esque field sure, Bush would sweep. But if you're a far right or even "regular" republican you have so many choices...and I doubt Bush is high on many people's lists. Especially once the debates start and he tries to play the "sensible moderate voice" role. Good luck.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Trump is going to 10 on immigration, but it's just sports talk, the underlying debate in conservative/GOP circles is about Cruz/Walker's trust on the issue. Jeb! and Rubio are known sellouts for amnesty, now they're trying to figure out if Walker and Cruz are because both have said things years back that they're now trying to walk around, Walker's gone to talking about restricting all immigration because he had once said some things about immigrants maybe should kinda sorta be allowed to have jobs in the U.S.

Jeb!'s never going to be trusted on immigration, and he's also for Common Core. That plus "Bush" fatigue all hurts him more than his money helps him.

The more Trump gains temporarily, the more it actually lets the conservatives take a stance between him and AMNESTY LOVERS BUSH/RUBIO/CHRISTIE that still sells to the party without going too far.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Jooney said:
Obama's Folsom Prison Blues moment

The trip will be "the first visit by a sitting U.S. president to a federal prison".​
Click to expand...
It's a fucking shame this has never happened before.
And man, it *really* should've been Nixon.

Edit:
Aaron Strife said:
startdiablosing_zpsifqbvpjr.gif
Click to expand...
dead.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
So, why wouldn't Scott Walker's trajectory follow Tim Pawlenty's? Both are blue state governors. Walker has union bashing on his resume, but I'm sure T-Paw had some too.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
RustyNails said:
So, why wouldn't Scott Walker's trajectory follow Tim Pawlenty's? Both are blue state governors. Walker has union bashing on his resume, but I'm sure T-Paw had some too.
Click to expand...

Because it's him or Jeb!

He's totally a paper tiger though. He'll flame out in a debate when someone asks him how his state's economy is doing.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Because Pawlenty bailed out thinking the Iowa Straw Poll has ever meant something. Had he been amongst the last not-Romney standing though...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
RustyNails said:
So, why wouldn't Scott Walker's trajectory follow Tim Pawlenty's? Both are blue state governors. Walker has union bashing on his resume, but I'm sure T-Paw had some too.
Click to expand...

Pawlenty has the personality of a wet paper bag and didn't have nearly as impressive of a record as Walker. Whereas Walker has already impressed Iowa "insiders" on the stump. He's a decent enough speaker to excite people.

Pawlenty was also a coward. Let's not forget this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPUUOP1Tu-M
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
lol, forgot about that.

Pawlenty was running for VP, not President.

The Tea Party/Obama has helped make it viable for these younger candidates to make legitimate bids for the Presidency in their own right rather than trying to latch onto another position first and build more clout.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Pawlenty has the personality of a wet paper bag and didn't have nearly as impressive of a record as Walker. Whereas Walker has already impressed Iowa "insiders" on the stump. He's a decent enough speaker to excite people.

Pawlenty was also a coward. Let's not forget this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPUUOP1Tu-M
Click to expand...
Scott Walker has no charisma as well. He's like a vacuum cleaner, sucking the air out of the room. It's those droopy eyes and lazy posture. Although I don't think presidents are made or broken on charisma alone (although some have), and you may be right about T Paw's cowardice. I still don't see the difference between them. Christie is also from blue state, but he immediately stands out. Walker and Pawlenty not so much.

Also, holy shit I do not miss Mitt Romney's stupid smirk at all.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Walker has the W./Perry tightening up in formal situations, but where that picture from above was taken, at CPAC, etc. he's much more animated and crowd-reactive.

We can't really hold candidates to the Bill Clinton standard. Not even Obama tier.

Cruz is arguably the best in the GOP field.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
benjipwns said:
Walker has the W./Perry tightening up in formal situations, but where that picture from above was taken, at CPAC, etc. he's much more animated and crowd-reactive.

We can't really hold candidates to the Bill Clinton standard. Not even Obama tier.

Cruz is arguably the best in the GOP field.
Click to expand...

I agree, Cruz can work the base better than anyone on the GOP bench at the moment. But again, I still don't see charisma and "I feel your pain" EXP as the make or break deal for candidates.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
RustyNails said:
Scott Walker has no charisma as well. He's like a vacuum cleaner, sucking the air out of the room. It's those droopy eyes and lazy posture. Although I don't think presidents are made or broken on charisma alone (although some have), and you may be right about T Paw's cowardice. I still don't see the difference between them. Christie is also from blue state, but he immediately stands out. Walker and Pawlenty not so much.

Also, holy shit I do not miss Mitt Romney's stupid smirk at all.
Click to expand...

He's been impressing crowds and insiders so far
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...presses-at-iowa-freedom-summit-stro/?page=all

I agree he isn't charismatic but TBH the only charismatic guy in the race is Christie (and he won't make it past Super Tuesday).
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
I don't think Jeb Bush is any more charismatic than Scott Walker.

Mike Huckabee seems likeable.

And I actually really like Ben Carson, but the poor guy doesn't stand a chance.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
Macho Madness said:
Really, Ben Carson? Why do you take pity on the guy who compared Obamacare to 9/11 and slavery?
Click to expand...

He genuinely has an impressive story and he himself is an impressive guy. I like that he doesn't seem to know how the political system works. And I especially like how humble he always sounds -- especially compared to how forceful and in charge people like Trump, Rubio and Christie try to be.

I don't actually know any of his positions.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
Also I've been reading The Problem of Polittical Authority. It's pretty good. But I haven't gotten to the part where he starts talking about ancap-ism.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
Carson has a fantastic story. I really enjoyed his book and it really disappointed me (as a black guy) that his stances were so shit. I don't think he would have much of a chance if he were a Dem (without a Hillary run) either but the guy definitely has an inspiring background. Was one of my role models growing up.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
THE COMING ERA OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Patrick J. Buchanan said:
The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has ordered a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the state Capitol.

Calling the Commandments “religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths,” the court said the monument must go.

Gov. Mary Fallin has refused. And Oklahoma lawmakers instead have filed legislation to let voters cut out of their constitution the specific article the justices invoked. Some legislators want the justices impeached.

Fallin’s action seems a harbinger of what is to come in America – an era of civil disobedience like the 1960s, where court orders are defied and laws ignored in the name of conscience and a higher law.

Only this time, the rebellion is likely to arise from the right.

Certainly, Americans are no strangers to lawbreaking. What else was our revolution but a rebellion to overthrow the centuries-old rule and law of king and parliament, and establish our own?

U.S. Supreme Court decisions have been defied and those who defied them lionized by modernity. Thomas Jefferson freed all imprisoned under the sedition act, including those convicted in court trials presided over by Supreme Court justices. Jefferson then declared the law dead.

Some Americans want to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, who, defying the Dred Scott decision and fugitive slave acts, led slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad.

New England abolitionists backed the anti-slavery fanatic John Brown, who conducted the raid on Harpers Ferry that got him hanged but helped to precipitate a Civil War. That war was fought over whether 11 Southern states had the same right to break free of Mr. Lincoln’s Union as the 13 colonies did to break free of George III’s England.

Millions of Americans, with untroubled consciences, defied the Volstead Act, imbibed alcohol and brought an end to Prohibition.

In the civil rights era, defying laws mandating segregation and ignoring court orders banning demonstrations became badges of honor.

Rosa Parks is a heroine because she refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus, despite the laws segregating public transit that relegated blacks to the “back of the bus.”

In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King, defending civil disobedience, cited Augustine – “an unjust law is no law at all” – and Aquinas who defined an unjust law as “a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

Said King, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

But who decides what is an “unjust law”?

If, for example, one believes that abortion is the killing of an unborn child and same-sex marriage is an abomination that violates “eternal law and natural law,” do those who believe this not have a moral right if not a “moral responsibility to disobey such laws”?

Rosa Parks is celebrated. But the pizza lady who said her Christian beliefs would not permit her to cater a same-sex wedding was declared a bigot. And the LGBT crowd, crowing over its Supreme Court triumph, is writing legislation to make it a violation of federal civil rights law for that lady to refuse to cater that wedding.

But are people who celebrate the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village as the Mount Sinai moment of their movement really standing on solid ground to demand that we all respect the Obergefell decision as holy writ?

And if cities, states or Congress enact laws that make it a crime not to rent to homosexuals, or to refuse services at celebrations of their unions, would not dissenting Christians stand on the same moral ground as Dr. King if they disobeyed those laws?

Already, some businesses have refused to comply with the Obamacare mandate to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees. Priests and pastors are going to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Churches and chapels will refuse to host them. Christian colleges and universities will deny married-couple facilities to homosexuals.

Laws will be passed to outlaw such practices as discrimination, and those laws, which the Christians believe violate eternal law and natural law, will, as Dr. King instructed, be disobeyed.

And the removal of tax exemptions will then be on the table.

If a family disagreed as broadly as we Americans do on issues so fundamental as right and wrong, good and evil, the family would fall apart, the couple would divorce, and the children would go their separate ways.

Something like that is happening in the country.

A secession of the heart has already taken place in America, and a secession, not of states, but of people from one another, caused by divisions on social, moral, cultural and political views and values, is taking place.

America is disuniting, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote 25 years ago.

And for those who, when young, rejected the views, values and laws of Eisenhower’s America, what makes them think that dissenting Americans in this post-Christian and anti-Christian era will accept their laws, beliefs, values?

Why should they?
Click to expand...
 
T

Trouble

Banned
Buchanan trying to invoke MLK as an ally makes my skin crawl for some reason.

Perhaps because opposed making MLK's birthday a national holiday.
 
J

Jooney

Member
benjipwns said:
THE COMING ERA OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Click to expand...

I was going to ask if you posted this ironically, then I saw that the link was to World Net Daily.

Someone should tell the author that King and Rosa Parks were the "LGBT crowd" of their day, and that if World Net Daily existed back in the 60s they would be fighting on behalf of "the pizza lady" such that she can exclude King and Park from services based on her religious belief.

The christian persecution complex that is arising from the advance of LGBT rights is truly something.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
The Culture War speech is a classic:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?31255-1/republican-national-convention-address
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO5_1ps5CAc

What a terrific crowd this is. What a terrific crowd.

This may even be larger than the crowd I had in Ellijay, Georgia. Don't laugh. We carried Ellijay.

Listen, my friends, we may have taken the long way home, but we finally got here to Houston. And the first thing I want to do tonight is to congratulate President George Bush and to remove any doubt about where we stand. The primaries are over; the heart is strong again; and the Buchanan brigades are enlisted -- all the way to a great Republican comeback victory in November.

My friends -- My friends, like many of you -- like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball up at Madison Square Garden, where 20,000 liberals and radicals came dressed up as moderates and centrists in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.

You know, one -- one by one -- one by one the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America, and they said the only way to prevent worse times is to turn our country's fate and our country's future over to the Party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter, and Michael Dukakis. Where do they find these leaders? No way, my friends. The American people are not going to go back to the discredited liberalism of the 1960s and the failed liberalism of the 1970s, no matter how slick the package in 1992.

(Hold it, my friends.)

You know, the malcontents -- the malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not terrible years in America. They were great years. You know it. And I know it. And everyone knows it except for the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of history, jeering at one of the great statesmen of modern time: Ronald Reagan. You know out of -- Remember that time out of Jimmy Carter's days of malaise, Ronald Reagan crafted -- Ronald Reagan crafted the greatest peacetime economic recovery in history: three million new businesses, and 20 million new jobs. Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, it was the Communist dominos that began to fall. First, Grenada was liberated by U.S. airborne troops of the U.S. Marine Corps. Then, the mighty Red Army was driven out of Afghanistan with American weapons. And then in Nicaragua, that squalid Marxist regime was forced to hold free elections by Ronald Reagan's Contra army, and the Communists were thrown out of power. Fellow Americans you ought to remember, it was under our Party that the Berlin Wall came down and Europe was reunited. It was under our Party that the Soviet Empire collapsed, and the captive nations broke free.

You know it is said that every American President will be remembered in history with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of his country. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and saved the Union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. And it is time -- And it is just about time -- It is just about time that my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their sky boxes and anchor booths, gave Ronald Reagan the full credit he deserves for leading America to victory in the Cold War. Most of all, my friends -- Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt better about our country; and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world than when "the Gipper" was at the helm.

But we are here tonight, my friends, not only to celebrate, but to nominate. An American President has many roles. He is our first diplomat, the architect of American foreign policy. And which of these two men is more qualified for that great role? George Bush has been U.N. Ambassador, Director of the CIA, envoy to China. As Vice President, George Bush co-authored and cosigned the policies that won the Cold War. As President, George Bush presided over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the termination of the Warsaw Pact. And what about Mr. Clinton? Well, Bill Clinton -- Bill Clinton couldn't find 150 words to discuss foreign policy in an acceptance speech that lasted almost an hour. You know, as was said -- as was said of another Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to having had breakfast once at the International House of Pancakes.

You know, let's recall what happened -- let us look at the record and recall what happened. Under President George Bush, more human beings escaped from the prison house of tyranny to freedom than in any other four-year period in history. And for any man -- let me tell you -- for any man to call this a record of failure is the cheap political rhetoric of politicians who only know how to build themselves up by tearing America down -- and we don't want that kind of leadership in the United States.

The presidency, my friends -- The presidency is also an office that Theodore Roosevelt called America's "bully pulpit." Harry Truman said it was "preeminently a place of moral leadership." George Bush is a defender of right-to-life, and a champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which America was founded.

Mr. Clinton -- Mr. Clinton however, has a different agenda. At its top is unrestricted -- unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic Governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v Wade, Bob Casey was told there was no room for him at the podium at Bill Clinton's convention, and no room at the inn. Yet -- Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that same convention and say: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do. Bill Clinton says he supports "school choice" -- but only for state-run schools. Parents who send their children to Christian schools, or private schools, or Jewish schools, or Catholic schools, need not apply.

Elect me, and you get "two for the price of one," Mr. Clinton says of his lawyer-spouse. And what -- And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have the right to sue their parents. And Hillary has compared marriage and the family, as institutions, to slavery and life on an Indian reservation. Well, speak for yourself, Hillary.

Friends -- Friends, this -- This, my friends -- This is radical feminism. The agenda that Clinton & Clinton would impose on America: abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units. That's change, all right. But that's not the kind of change America needs. It's not the kind of change America wants. And it's not the kind of change we can abide in a nation we still call "God's country."

The President -- The President of the United States is also -- The President of the United States is also America's Commander-in-Chief. He's the man we authorize to send fathers and sons and brothers and friends into battle. George Bush was 17 years old when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school graduation; he walked down to the recruiting office; and he signed up to become the youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific war.

And Mr. Clinton? And Bill Clinton? I'll tell you where he was. I'll tell you where he was. I'll tell you where he was. Let me tell you where he was. I'll tell you -- I'll tell you where he was. When Bill Clinton's time came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory room in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft.

Let me ask the question to this convention: Which of these two men has won the moral authority to send young Americans into battle? I suggest respectfully -- I suggest respectfully, it is the American patriot and war hero, Navy Lieutenant J. G. George Herbert Walker Bush! My fellow Americans -- My fellow Americans, this campaign is about philosophy, and it is about character; and George Bush wins hands down on both counts. And it is time all of us came home and stood beside him.

As his running mate, Mr. Clinton chose Albert Gore. But just how moderate is Prince Albert? Well according to the National Taxpayers Union, Al Gore beat out Teddy Kennedy, two straight years, for the title of "biggest spender in the U.S. Senate" and Teddy Kennedy isn't moderate about anything. I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding about Teddy. How many 60-year-olds do you know who still go to Florida for spring break?

You know up at that great -- at that great big costume party they held up in New York, Mr. Gore made a startling declaration. Henceforth, Albert Gore said, the "central organizing principle" of governments everywhere must be: the environment. Wrong, Albert. The central organizing principle of this republic is: freedom. And from the ancient -- And from the ancient forests -- from the ancient forests of Oregon and Washington, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great middle class has got to start standing up to these environmental extremists who put birds and rats and insects ahead of families, workers, and jobs.

One year ago -- You know, one year ago, my friends -- One year ago I could not have dreamt I would be here tonight. I was just one of many panelists on what President Bush calls "those crazy Sunday talk shows." But I disagreed with the President and so we challenged the President in the Republican primaries, and we fought as best we could. From February to June, President Bush won 33 of those primaries. I can't recall exactly how many we won. I'll get you the figure tomorrow.

But tonight I do want to speak from the heart to the 3 million people who voted for Pat Buchanan for President. I will never -- I will never -- I will never forget you, or the great honor you have done me. But I do believe -- I do believe deep in my heart that the right place for us to be now, in this presidential campaign, is right beside George Bush. This Party -- This Party is my home. This Party is our home and we've got to come home to it. And don't let anyone tell you any different.

Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for the freedom to choose religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women. We stand with President Bush -- We stand with President Bush for right-to-life and for voluntary prayer in the public schools. And we stand against putting our wives and daughters and sisters into combat units of the United States Army. And we stand, my -- my friends -- We also stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that so terribly pollutes our popular culture. We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law as written, and against would-be Supreme Court justices like Mario Cuomo who think they have a mandate to rewrite the Constitution.

Friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself. For this war is for the soul of America. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so to the Buchanan Brigades out there, we have to come home and stand beside George Bush.

In these six months of campaigning from Concord, New Hampshire to California, I came to know our country better than I have known it ever before in my life, and I gathered up memories that are going to be with me the rest of my days.

There was that day-long ride through the great state of Georgia in a bus Vice President Bush himself had used in 1988 called Asphalt One. The ride ended in a 9:00 PM speech in a tiny town in southern Georgia called Fitzgerald.

There were those workers at the James River Paper Mill, in Northern New Hampshire in a town called Groveton -- tough, hearty men. None of them would say a word to me as I came down the line, shaking their hands one by one. They were under a threat of losing their jobs at Christmas. And as I moved down the line, one tough fellow about my age just looked up and said to me, "Save our jobs."

Then there was the legal secretary that I met at the Manchester airport on Christmas Day who came running up to me and said, "Mr. Buchanan, I'm going to vote for you." And then she broke down weeping, and she said, "I've lost my job; I don't have any money, and they're going to take away my little girl. What am I going to do?"

My friends, these people are our people. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and the same playgrounds and towns as we came from. They share our beliefs and our convictions, our hopes and our dreams. These are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know how bad they're hurting. They don't expect miracles of us, but they need to know we care.

There were the people -- There were the people that, my friends -- There were the people of Hayfork, a tiny town up in California's Trinity Alps, a town that is now under a sentence of death because a federal judge has set aside nine million acres for the habitat of the spotted owl -- forgetting about the habitat of the men and women who live and work in Hayfork.

And there were the brave people -- And there were the brave people of Koreatown who took the worst of those L.A. riots, but still live the family values we treasure, and who still deeply believe in the American dream.

Friends, in these wonderful -- In these wonderful 25 weeks of our campaign, the saddest days were the days of that riot in L.A., the worst riot in American history. But out of that awful tragedy can come a message of hope. Hours after that riot ended, I went down to the Army compound in South Los Angeles, where I met the troopers of the 18th Cavalry who had come to save the city of Los Angeles. An officer of the 18th Cav said, "Mr. Buchanan, I want you to talk to a couple of our troopers. And I went over and I met these young fellows. They couldn't have been 20 years old. They could not have been 20 years old. And they recounted their story.

They had come into Los Angeles late in the evening of the second day, and the rioting was still going on. And two of them walked up a dark street, where the mob had burned and looted every single building on the block but one, a convalescent home for the aged. And the mob was headed in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women inside. The troopers came up the street, M-16s at the ready. And the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated because it had met the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, and backed by moral courage.

Now, Greater -- Greater love than this -- "Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend."¹ Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as those boys took back the streets of Los Angeles, block by block, my friends, we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.

God bless you, and God bless America.
Click to expand...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
That speech by Buchanan horrified me. No matter how much other elements of the GOP platform might've appealed to me (in theory) at that point, I knew I couldn't take them seriously as a voting option from then on.

The Hillary two-for-one appeal though.. if things get dicey poll-wise for Hillary next year, I could easily see her leveraging Bill in that manner. The GOP would probably try to call her out on disagreements with his administration's decisions in some areas, but Americans know that the world is different 20 years later; he'd be able to sell it, haha..
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Hillary will have to rely on Bill eventually since she's so disconnected from regular people. Obama will help too if his poll numbers are fine.

Civil disobedience....yea. Personally I couldn't care less about the Ten Commandments gracing the very courts it influenced, however I'm rather concerned about civil disobedience being used to discriminate. I'd imagine multiple cases will pop up between now and November 2016. This is an interesting battle that republicans have some traction in; most Americans are receptive to the religious liberties argument.
 
J

Jooney

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Hillary will have to rely on Bill eventually since she's so disconnected from regular people. Obama will help too if his poll numbers are fine.

Civil disobedience....yea. Personally I couldn't care less about the Ten Commandments gracing the very courts it influenced, however I'm rather concerned about civil disobedience being used to discriminate. I'd imagine multiple cases will pop up between now and November 2016. This is an interesting battle that republicans have some traction in; most Americans are receptive to the religious liberties argument.
Click to expand...

Most of the commandments have nothing to do with the judicial system though. And like SC Statehouse, the OK court belongs to everybody, and not just to those of a select group. The monument needs to go.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Jooney said:
Of course - the competition from Time Warner would ensure a fast and reliable service.
Click to expand...
What competition? The state has granted local monopolies in cable almost everywhere.

Another reason to abolish the state completely and get sensible abortion on demand cable service.
 
M

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/08/bernie-sanders-is-the-future-of-the-democratic-party/
Bernie Sanders Is The Future Of The Democratic Party
Maybe Bernie-mania! will finally lift the stigma of 'socialism' so we can have an honest debate.

“The rise of Bernie Sanders is proving awkward for the Democratic Party,” contends Politico in a recent piece about the surprisingly popular socialist presidential candidate.

Well, maybe it’s not that surprising. And it’s probably not that awkward. Politico could have just as easily declared: The rise of Bernie Sanders is a completely predictable outcome of the Democratic Party’s trajectory. Or, maybe, the rise of Bernie Sanders portends a socialistic future for the Democratic Party.

After all, while the press had fun detailing every rightward lurch of the conservative movement, not only has the “socialist surge” been a restive force within Democratic Party politics during the Obama Age, it’s been making tremendous policy progress.

Although we rarely frame politics in these terms, as a philosophical matter, we’ve often been engaged in a debate that pits the theories of eighteenth-century liberalism—the kind that brought us the constitution and limited government—against ideas first embraced in nineteenth-century Marxism. Is there any doubt the Left’s grassroots is driven by the latter, whether it’s intuitively or on purpose? Just think about the emotional core (often confused as an intellectual position), the rhetoric, and the focus that propels most ideas liberal toss around about inequality, plutocracy, “democracy” and role of government in our lives.

...

Sanders correctly points out that his positions on higher minimum wage, pay equity, and other state interference in markets enjoy high approval rating with most voters. “It is not a radical agenda,” he says. “In virtually every instance, what I’m saying is supported by a significant majority of the American people.”

This is almost true.

What is wholly true is that big majorities within the Democratic Party support these policies and they would probably go a lot further if they could. Hillary is lucky there isn’t a more compelling and charismatic candidate making a more comprehensive socialistic case to Americans as there was the last time around. The difference between her adopted position and his real one is scope.

That’s not to say Democrats are unadulterated socialists, sitting around and studying communist theorists in their spare time, any more than small-government conservatives are opposed to every state-run program. But today, many prefer policies that would be referred to as socialist anywhere else in the world. And the stigma attached to the word is slowly, and fittingly, disintegrating.

...

So the awkwardness surrounding Sanders’ candidacy—one that is supposed to make Hillary seem more reasonable—is that he is running with almost indistinguishable philosophical positions from the front-runner.

...

Now, of course, Sanders will not win the Democratic Party nomination. I’m skeptical he’s even as popular as polls claim. Still, he’s moved to the ideological center of the Democratic Party without changing at all. So will his ideas. Democrats will not pull back once they get their $10 minimum wage. They will not be content once universal pre-K is passed. They will not be satiated after the next round of unilateral Environmental Protection Agency intrusions into the energy markets are instituted. And liberals will not never concede that health care is now working so we won’t need any more government involvement.

Liberals may not believe in controlling the means of production, but many do believe in tightening controls enough through regulatory regimes and laws that they can dictate the outcome in markets they do care about. When the downturn hit us, Americans witnessed an unprecedented array of interventions, producing the weakest recovery in history. When oil prices spiked, and the populist rage against energy companies was reaching a crescendo, a Rasmussen poll found that a plurality of Democrats (37 percent) supported outright nationalization of the oil companies. When the health-care debate was at its most overwrought, a New York Times/CBS News poll found a majority supporting a government-run insurance company.

Today, almost every major liberal interst group supports some sort of enhanced collectivism. The notion that we have inherent rights—without even mentioning economic freedom—are laughed at by Left as if it were some sort of antiquated or alien concoction. Even positions that could be argued on grounds of individual freedom, like gay marriage, are now deteriorating into acts of coercion.

Over at Commentary, Noah Rothman points out the double standard in the media’s coverage of Todd Akin and Bernie Sanders. He’s right. The contradictory coverage is, no doubt, in part due to some in the media finding Sanders’ economic philosophy far more palatable than Akin’s offensive pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. But it has to be said that Akin’s comments were much farther out of the mainstream on the Right than Sanders’ positions are on the Left. And the efforts to remedy the supposed moral imperfections of capitalism through force has led to more pain and suffering than anything Akin could ever say. Sanders might be treated as an outlier. But really, it’s more likely he’s the future.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom