• 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.
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
How exactly does one screw up something like the internet boom? Whoever was president in the 90s would have been credited with presiding over a great economy.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
The assault weapon ban passed by a squeaker too. 218-216 in the house, 56-43 in the senate. Why they put an expiration date on the bill idk.
Click to expand...
Probably because if they didn't it would have failed by a squeaker.

PhoenixDark said:
How exactly does one screw up something like the internet boom? Whoever was president in the 90s would have been credited with presiding over a great economy.
Click to expand...
"Hey, we've got a good thing going, let's cut everyone's taxes! War with Iraq? Hell yeah!"
 
E

Ecotic

Member
FiggyCal said:
Was Clinton a good president though? Tough on crime legislation, DOMA, and the deregulation of Wall Street come to mind as particularly bad things.
Click to expand...

Clinton's legacy is as much what didn't happen as what did happen, his Presidency is one of major league missed opportunities and mistakes that we're still paying for. He had both houses of Congress and his health care reform failed due to mismanagement. Had there been no Lewinsky scandal Gore would have hugged Clinton's ass to the Presidency. He also should have vetoed DOMA and other anti gay rights legislation and let Republicans override the veto.
 
T

Third Strike

Member
I know Obama and Hillary are usually regarded as center/center-right Democrats by many, but I wonder if the next generation of Democrats will be more further to the left? I wonder if a candidate that had Sanders views in the 2020s would be a viable candidate for the White House. We could also finally end up with a real legit candidate from Generation X, which is more progressive than the Baby Boomers. I just think it's time for the Democrats to shed the blue dogs and any remaining Dixiecrats within the next ten years.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Ecotic said:
Clinton's legacy is as much what didn't happen as what did happen, his Presidency is one of major league missed opportunities and mistakes that we're still paying for. He had both houses of Congress and his health care reform failed due to mismanagement. Had there been no Lewinsky scandal Gore would have hugged Clinton's ass to the Presidency. He also should have vetoed DOMA and other anti gay rights legislation and let Republicans override the veto.
Click to expand...

like Obama for 2 years. He did what was in the realm of possibly at the time right or wrong. Democrats tried saving themselves in 94 and in 2010 and failed. The lesson for the next Democrat(hopefully Hillary) is that if she somehow gets both houses she needs to ram as much through and screw the political ramifications. By ram I mean pass GOOD legislation that helps everyone.
 
T

Touchdown

Banned
Diablos said:
We all love Trump now, but if he gets the nomination... watch out.

And really in a way this fodder all the more legitimizes Citizens United which is perverse and sad. One rich asshole going up against a couple of other rich assholes, the only difference being this guy just happens to be a deep pocket, who, unlike the rest would actually be running for the Presidency himself.
Click to expand...

....Sure Jan

ea41e26369.gif
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
Third Strike said:
I know Obama and Hillary are usually regarded as center/center-right Democrats by many, but I wonder if the next generation of Democrats will be more further to the left? I wonder if a candidate that had Sanders views in the 2020s would be a viable candidate for the White House. We could also finally end up with a real legit candidate from Generation X, which is more progressive than the Baby Boomers. I just think it's time for the Democrats to shed the blue dogs and any remaining Dixiecrats within the next ten years.
Click to expand...

Idk. When a guy like Lincoln Chafee is running on the democratic ticket; it looks pretty bad. But it's not like the dems have been short on progressive candidates I don't think.

Would Elizabeth Warren be running if it weren't for Hillary?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
314668_3810085105642_1641828993_n.jpg


IN GENERAL

If any candidate talks about meeting Ronald Reagan in person, take a drink.
If any candidate talks about kneeling before St. Ronnie and asking for his blessing to serve the cause as THE CHOSEN ONE, take two drinks.
If any candidate shares a passage from his erotic Reagan fanfiction involving light bondage and tax cuts (we live in a Fifty Shades world now), throw bottle at screen.
If any candidate praises Fox Not-News for "honesty and credibility", throw bottle at screen.
If any candidate tries to out-pander Trump, take a drink. This also applies to Trump, who is allowed within the rules to pander as much as inhumanly possible.
If any candidate says nice things about Jon Stewart and suggests Jon shouldn't retire this year from the Daily Show, quit drinking and stay sober because you've just witnessed the impossible.
(Update: from @word_34 aka SkarkWeekSneak) "Hillary" "email" or "server", you have to do double shots. Throw in "Benghazi" here too.
(Update) If any candidate accuses Obama of being the Worst President Ever, throw a dart at a photo of Dubya taped to the wall and take two drinks.
(Update) If any candidate calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, take a drink. If the candidate calls for the arrest of Planned Parenthood staffers, take two drinks. If the candidate calls for the arrest of women who go to Planned Parenthood even for basic women's health care needs, turn off the TV and get stinking drunk because the Republicans are pretty much writing off the women's vote even in Red States.


FOR SPECIFIC CANDIDATES

For Donald Trump:
If Trump says something insulting, take a drink.
If Trump says something demonstrably false, take a drink.
Actually, don't do either. The second he opens his mouth under those rules, you're pretty much gonna be passed out by the fifth minute of the debate.
If Trump says he respects Latinos and can easily win their votes, take two drinks from any Dos Equis brand in front of you and laugh your ass off.
If Trump complains about China in any way, take the Made In China tab on any Trump-labeled designer wear and tear it off, then take a drink.


For Jeb Bush:
If Jeb says nice things about his brother's administration, take two drinks - one for Dubya and one for Cheney - and yell at the screen.
If Jeb brings up school vouchers, take three drinks.
If Jeb says there shouldn't be immigration reform, drink whole bottle.
If Jeb says Obama is a terrible foreign policy President, take a drink from every bottle made by the 2003 Coalition of the Willing, and then vomit on a picture of Bush the Elder. Please have towels and trash cans handy.

For Scott Walker:
If Walker brings up his union-busting habits, take a drink.
If Walker brings up his recall survivial, take two drinks.
If Walker brings up his John Doe investigation squashing, drink whole bottle.
If Walker tries wearing a Packer Cheesehead foam hat, drink from a Chicago microbrewery label and shout "DA BEARS"

For Marco Rubio:
If Rubio talks about his exaggerated family story where his parents fled Cuba well before Castro took it over, take a drink.
If Rubio speaks against the opening of relations with Cuba, take two drinks.
If Rubio finishes the whole night without saying one word about immigration, finish off the bottle.
If Rubio any says anything in Espanol, drink whole bottle.

For Rand Paul:
If Paul mentions the gold standard, take a drink.
If Paul discusses the need to end American interventionist activity, take a drink.
If Paul still says we need to bomb Syria though, take four drinks.
If Paul lights up a blunt on-stage, do the same (in legal states only).

For Ben Carson:
If Carson gets a non-Obamacare question, take a drink.
If Carson actually answers a non-Obamacare question with a reasonable-sounding policy suggestion, drink whole bottle.

For Mike Huckabee:
If Huckabee claims he's a strong judge of character, scream "you hang out with child molesters!" and throw bottle at screen.
If Huckabee talks about jamming with Ted "I Worship My God-Gun" Nugent, take two drinks.
If Huckabee tries to compare anything to the Holocaust, light a memorial candle and throw bottle at screen.

For Ted Cruz:
If Cruz attempts to suck the soul or eat the heart of Donald Trump live on-stage, drink whole bottle.
If Cruz says anything about the legislation he's nuked in the House - while serving as a SENATOR - take a drink.
If Cruz employs oratory tools that rely heavily on the teachings and practices of Cicero and Pericles, take two drinks.

For Chris Christie:
If Christie tries to quote Springsteen, throw bottle at screen.
If Christie gets arrested during the debate over his ethics failures and dragged off-stage, drink whole bottle.

For Rick Perry:
If Perry flubs a debate answer (again), take three drinks.
If Perry says anything about a "Texas miracle" involving that state's economy, take a drink, and then prepare to pass out because that's all he's got.

For John Kasich:
If Kasich is even on the stage, take two drinks right off the bat because it probably means Christie got arrested beforehand and there was an opening.
If Kasich talks about immigration reform, take a drink.
If Kasich defends his time working for Lehman Brothers, throw bottle at screen.
If Kasich mentions how he was with the bipartisan team that got a balanced budget going in Congress back in the 1990s, take a drink and pity the poor guy because he just used the word 'bipartisan' in front of a GOP primary crowd that considers it a trigger word.

For Rick Santorum:
If Santorum is even on the stage, it means Rick Perry got lost on the way to the auditorium, so take three drinks right away in honor of Perry.
If Santorum mentions gay marriage as the cause of all natural disasters, take a drink. If the rule was to drink whole bottle, you'll end up dead from toxic effects (even if you substituted water! True story).
If Santorum mentions man-on-dog marriage as legal now, kiss Fluffy and take a drink.

For Bobby Jindal:
Seriously?
No, really, seriously?

For Carly Fiorina:
Seriously? I just can't even give you a snarky answer because you lost your only other campaign attempt. At least with Carson and Trump they're gonna qualify for the debate, but... Seriously, no, sorry Carly, this is it.

For Lindsey Graham:
This is where the rules of "top 10 polled" gets ridiculous. Experienced politicians who paid their dues like Graham, disagree with them or not, it's not fair for them to sit out while amateurs like Trump and Carson get the spotlight.
If by the off-chance Graham makes the Big Dance, if he argues for bombing half the Middle East as a means of convincing our enemies and allies of our manhood, take a drink, break out a map, and start crossing off the NATO allies that are going to stop taking calls from our State Department.

For George Pataki:
Who?

For Jim Gilmore:

Bro, dude, seriously? NOW you're putting in for this? Bro. THERE ARE NO SEATS LEFT IN THE GOP CLOWN CAR. There are LIMITS even to the Clown Car. Even *I* know Kasich was late getting into the game. What are YOU drinking, Jim, to make you think you can even get in on this? /headdesk
Click to expand...
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Farmboy said:
You're saying Clinton was a bad president? Worse than HW Bush? Or are you just doing some light trolling?

On topic: the GOP debate hype is real. It's so hard to predict what will happen. Can't wait.
Click to expand...
This is on topic. And yes I am "trolling" if that means "employing sarcasm and attempted humor"

Edit: Crap double post
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I think Walker has to have "If he dodges a question, take a drink." He still has yet to really answer any questions with solid answers.
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
I love this:

Kasich’s temper has made it harder to endear himself to the GOP’s wealthy benefactors. Last year, he traveled to Southern California to appear on a panel at a conference sponsored by the Republican mega-donors Charles and David Koch. At one point, according to accounts provided by two sources present, Randy Kendrick, a major contributor and the wife of Ken Kendrick, the owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, rose to say she disagreed with Kasich’s decision to expand Medicaid coverage, and questioned why he’d expressed the view it was what God wanted.

The governor’s response was fiery. “I don’t know about you, lady,” he said as he pointed at Kendrick, his voice rising. “But when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.”
The exchange left many stunned. About 20 audience members walked out of the room, and two governors also on the panel, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, told Kasich they disagreed with him. The Ohio governor has not been invited back to a Koch seminar — opportunities for presidential aspirants to mingle with the party’s rich and powerful — in the months since.
Click to expand...

Christian party.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
The Fix: Top 10 likely nominees.

4. Trump: Yes, as of right now, Donald J. Trump is the fourth-likeliest Republican to be the party’s nominee. I can’t really believe it, either. However, Trump’s poll numbers have not only risen rapidly but have showed some durability. Every Republican strategist I talked to put him in the top four — and many ranked him as high as two or three. I still do not know whether Trump can sustain his appeal with voters, but as of today, it is what it is. (And, yes, I hate that phrase.)
Click to expand...

3. Walker: The Wisconsin governor has withstood the Trump Bump in Iowa and still looks like a favorite to win the first-in-the-nation caucuses there in February. Among the Republicans I spoke with, real doubts remain about how ready Walker is for the big stage and how talented he is as a candidate. I think his performance thus far has been mediocre, with occasional moments of good to very good. Is that enough?
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ranking-the-10-men-most-likely-to-win-the-2016-republican-nomination/2015/08/02/67fa0e72-391b-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html
 
K

kess

Member
Diablos said:
Trump is a shitstain but he really understands populist rhetoric. If he continues to advance, you can expect that he will fine-tune it to appease moderates.
Click to expand...

Trump will do best with low information voters, which is almost everybody at this stage in the game. I'm more concerned that he'll welcome everybody's hate at the debate and absorb it to become a even greater belligerent ass.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Diablos said:
Trump is a shitstain but he really understands populist rhetoric. If he continues to advance, you can expect that he will fine-tune it to appease moderates.
Click to expand...

.....no, he won't. He'll double down on what's he has been doing. That's been his business strategy for decades.

I'd bet money that he won't win one primary state.
 
W

watershed

Banned
Chris Christie is really annoying me. His brand of politics is to just yell and blame and pretend like that's actually a sound approach to public policy. He literally blames other people for everything wrong with New Jersey and his own campaign. He is the worst kind of do nothing partisan.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
Oblivion said:
Ah, that. Wow, that was even worse than I remember.

edit: Alsot, too. Hopefully the people handling the debates don't tell the audience to be quiet. They added to the entertainment.
Click to expand...
All you have to have is a couple of zingers tinged with comedy to be able to win a debate with such a big group which trump should be able to bring.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Oblivion said:
What was wrong with the question?
Click to expand...

It was completely out of place. The debates should be about actual government--the methods they think are best, what laws they want passed, etc.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Plinko said:
It was completely out of place. The debates should be about actual government--the methods they think are best, what laws they want passed, etc.
Click to expand...

You don't think it was appropriate to ask a question that sheds like on a person's character in a Republican debate?
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Oblivion said:
You don't think it was appropriate to ask a question that sheds like on a person's character in a Republican debate?
Click to expand...

I suspect the objection is more about how wanting an open marriage doesn't shed much light on a person's character, especially as it relates to how good of a president someone would be, even though it's the sort of thing that a lot of voters would find very distasteful.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Gotchaye said:
I suspect the objection is more about how wanting an open marriage doesn't shed much light on a person's character, especially as it relates to how good of a president someone would be, even though it's the sort of thing that a lot of voters would find very distasteful.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the public gets to decide how they vett a candidate and the care about shit it like. If it was just straight government policy, no religion or anything else, a lot of candidates would never get elected and a lot that didn't would.
 
G

GnawtyDog

Banned
Gotchaye said:
I suspect the objection is more about how wanting an open marriage doesn't shed much light on a person's character, especially as it relates to how good of a president someone would be, even though it's the sort of thing that a lot of voters would find very distasteful.
Click to expand...

Sheds as much light into someone's values and views as someone running for the U.S presidency as an "atheist" (socialist/communist/godless ding! ding! ding! - the common association) - in the case of religion. Which to me sounds like political suicide in the U.S if you're running for the presidency (at least currently). In a more progressive future, with time, views like that should erode but it's a slow process. It's all fair game.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
B-Dubs said:
Unfortunately the public gets to decide how they vett a candidate and the care about shit it like. If it was just straight government policy, no religion or anything else, a lot of candidates would never get elected and a lot that didn't would.
Click to expand...

I mean, Republican primary voters seemed to disagree with you - they found the question distasteful.

It's one thing for the media to ask about some weird thing because there's some huge hypocrisy angle given a politician's campaign. There's obviously some room to talk about hypocrisy with Gingrich, but we're talking about his actions and his political speech from 15 years ago. 2012 Newt was not exactly running on family values, nor did King's question seem to care about any of that context - the question glossed over the actually concerning affair in favor of the open marriage thing.

And maybe you're right that if the public really cares about something about a candidate it's reasonable for the media to make a big deal out of it. But of course that wasn't what was going on here. This was King trying to make the public care about this. You can't say something's newsworthy because the public wants to know when the public didn't know, didn't care, and finds your bringing it up distasteful.

GnawtyDog said:
Sheds as much light into someone's values and views as someone running for the U.S presidency as an "atheist" (socialist/communist/godless ding! ding! ding! - the common association) - in the case of religion. Which to me sounds like political suicide in the U.S if you're running for the presidency (at least currently). In a more progressive future, with time, views like that should erode but it's a slow process. It's all fair game.
Click to expand...

I'd also be annoyed with a debate moderator who opened by trying to out candidates as atheists based on allegations made about stuff they'd said 15 years ago. You're saying you wouldn't be?
 
T

The Gaming Gamer

Member
I never watched a republican debate, these reactions are hilarious. This must be what someone is imagining when they post one of those bad conservative pictures on social media, "I just zinged everyone!"
 
G

GnawtyDog

Banned
Gotchaye said:
I'd also be annoyed with a debate moderator who opened by trying to out candidates as atheists based on allegations made about stuff they'd said 15 years ago. You're saying you wouldn't be?
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that a debate about public policy is no place for such discussion and I also agree that a debate shouldn't be opened with that type of question.

HOWEVER, in these debates, the candidates are selling themselves to the public professing their strong values in family, marriage, god (religion), anti-abortion and what have you. That's been the way for a longggggggggggg time - it's tradition - specially in the Republican party. So in a way, the candidates bring it upon themselves to be questioned in these topics when the record gets murky and/or when strong, plausible allegations are made to the contrary. You can't have it both ways. That's why I say it's fair game.

The crowd can show their displeasure however they want. They'll think about it for sure without telling anyone and make up their mind about it. And whether that select crowd admits it or not, the media does a public service in bringing that stuff out - keep the candidate(s) honest. Like many in the public at large at the time I find that info, for whatever its worth, including Newts response valuable in judging his persona. We all have mental projections of how people are or aren't based on what we hear, read and see.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Gotchaye said:
I suspect the objection is more about how wanting an open marriage doesn't shed much light on a person's character, especially as it relates to how good of a president someone would be, even though it's the sort of thing that a lot of voters would find very distasteful.
Click to expand...

Sure, but considering Newt made a huge ass deal attacking Bill Clinton for his philandering, while Newt was doing his own philandering, and the fact that the Republican Party is the party of "family values" I thought that was more than a fair question.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Trump will be the nominee.

Ask me Thursday night if I want to make an avatar bet over that.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they're going to set Trump up. What better way to attempt to torpedo him than have the moderators confront him with some of his previous statements on Reagan, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
 
G

GnawtyDog

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I wonder if they're going to set Trump up. What better way to attempt to torpedo him than have the moderators confront him with some of his previous statements on Reagan, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
Click to expand...

100M+ in Jebs Super Pac says all about the establishment candidate. Could Trump be to Jeb what Obama was to Clinton? Not so sure in the Republican Party.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Here is my avatar best. Not only will Trump not be the nominee he will finish well behind Bush and Walker in IA and NH respectively. His polls will not hold. If he makes it to 1st or 2nd in IA and NH I will donate to his campaign. Still committed to doing it.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Here is my avatar best. Not only will Trump not be the nominee he will finish well behind Bush and Walker in IA and NH respectively. His polls will not hold. If he makes it to 1st or 2nd in IA and NH I will donate to his campaign. Still committed to doing it.
Click to expand...

Yup, I also don't think he'll be in the top 3 in Iowa. Dunno about NH.

Iowa is going to be Walker, Huckabee, and Cruz.
 
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