Oh, for sure. Romney is a much stronger candidate than anyone running.
I actually think the future of the Republican part is Libertarianism. It's the only way that they'll be able to connect with young voters, and in an America that cares less and less about marijuana and the protection of the tru meaning of marriage, it might be the only way to compete nationally. I don't think Rand Paul is there yet, but in 5-10, he'll have set up the infrastructure that allows the Republican candidate to win.
Ehh , not sure about that. I've met too many righties who identify libertarian yet don't know what the ideology stands for. They just know it's right of dems. Most people aren't for getting rid of the FDA or EPA. Outside of the Internet ive never met anyone for the privatization of schools and fire fighting either. Too many Warhawks etc. etc.
Very. But while that might resonate in the South, I don't see how that's going to be a winning strategy in real swing states. I don't think neoconism is a viable platform national platform anymore, especially as the country becomes less and less religious.
It sort of reflects the coalition changing that the Democratic party has had in order to become relevant.
Ehh , not sure about that. I've met too many righties who identify libertarian yet don't know what the ideology stands for. They just know it's right of dems. Most people aren't for getting rid of the FDA or EPA. Outside of the Internet ive never met anyone for the privatization of schools and fire fighting either. Too many Warhawks etc. etc.
I don't think it matters that they know what it stands for or not, to be honest. And we can debate the merits of Libertarianism as an ideology, but I think it's the only ideology that has the ability to have a broad, right wing appeal going forward. I also think the Republican party will not figure this out until after they lose again. And again.
They need a Marine Le Pen. Not to say that she's a Libertarian, but they need to take someone who can package a bubbling right-wing ideology into something marketable.
I don't think it matters that they know what it stands for or not, to be honest. And we can debate the merits of Libertarianism as an ideology, but I think it's the only ideology that has the ability to have a broad, right wing appeal going forward. I also think the Republican party will not figure this out until after they lose again. And again.
They need a Marine Le Pen. Not to say that she's a Libertarian, but they need to take someone who can package a bubbling right-wing ideology into something marketable.
I'm not sure why people would shift from one party who they find no longer mostly represents them to another party who mostly doesn't represent them. That is unless they continue to be blind to the actual ideology. I'm not sure the abolishment of public schools will play any better nationally than the anti-minority rhetoric currently being spewed. That clip of Ron Paul conflicted about what to do with a dying person who's forgone their personal responsibility to get medical insurance is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
I would love to see a return of a moderate GOP who doesn't have their heads up the religious rights ass.
I'm not sure why people would shift from one party who they find no longer mostly represents them to another party who mostly doesn't represent them. That is unless they continue to be blind to the actual ideology. I'm not sure the abolishment of public schools will play any better nationally than the anti-minority rhetoric currently being spewed. That clip of Ron Paul conflicted about what to do with a dying person who's forgone their personal responsibility to get medical insurance is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
I would love to see a return of a moderate GOP who doesn't have their heads up the religious rights ass.
I don't agree with Libertarian ideals. I think they're destructive towards poor people and people of color. I think that they have a better chance to play nationally than any GOP candidate's positions today.
Flat out, I don't think "moderate GOP candidate" can win a national election.
Oh, for sure. Romney is a much stronger candidate than anyone running.
I actually think the future of the Republican part is Libertarianism. It's the only way that they'll be able to connect with young voters, and in an America that cares less and less about marijuana and the protection of the tru meaning of marriage, it might be the only way to compete nationally. I don't think Rand Paul is there yet, but in 5-10, he'll have set up the infrastructure that allows the Republican candidate to win.
Will if Democrats continue to win presidential elections consistently; I think it is possible that Republicans will split one made up of conseratives/tea party/'libertarian's and the establishment.
I can see future Republicans(not modern) becoming more libertarian since Democrats are more pro-big government.
Oh, for sure. Romney is a much stronger candidate than anyone running.
I actually think the future of the Republican part is Libertarianism. It's the only way that they'll be able to connect with young voters, and in an America that cares less and less about marijuana and the protection of the tru meaning of marriage, it might be the only way to compete nationally. I don't think Rand Paul is there yet, but in 5-10, he'll have set up the infrastructure that allows the Republican candidate to win.
I don't agree with Libertarian ideals. I think they're destructive towards poor people and people of color. I think that they have a better chance to play nationally than any GOP candidate's positions today.
Flat out, I don't think "moderate GOP candidate" can win a national election.
I recognize you enough to know you don't subscribe to libertarian ideals. I'm not trying to be argumentative either by the way.
I'm just curious why people think libertarianism is less caustic then the GOP platform. Why is wanting to get rid of affirmative-action less caustic than the GOP's anti-immigration stance. I'm not sure any party on the right is currently trying to court minorities.
On paper, yes. Before the election, he was a moderate governor from a deep blue state who was perceived to be known for his pragmatism. Bush had the whole Terri Schiavo aspect of his governorship that I don't think he'd like to be known for. And the Bush brand is still more toxic than Romney. Bush's biggest asset is that he was the governor of a swing state, but he's been out of politics for so long it might not even matter.
I'm just talking in terms of election potential. Romney's biggest negative going into the debate was that I wasn't sure if his Mormonism would play well with the conservative base, but it ended up becoming a non-factor because as soon as he got the nomination, those people would still vote for him anyway. Then he went through the washing machine that is the Republican presidential primary and became unelectable (plus 47%).
In terms of March 2011 versus March 2015 candidates, I think Romney is more formidable than Bush.
I recognize you enough to know you don't subscribe to libertarian ideals. I'm not trying to be argumentative either by the way.
I'm just curious why people think libertarianism is less caustic then the GOP platform. Why is wanting to get rid of affirmative-action less caustic than the GOP's anti-immigration stance. I'm not sure any party on the right is currently trying to court minorities.
Ehhh, maybe I'm just biased to assume everyone agrees with me, but I feel just the opposite. I think there would be a lot of room for a populist party that adopted more reasonable economic policies to benefit the lower & middle classes, such as minimum wage increases & Medicare expansion, while continuing to oppose abortion and drug legalization.
(as evidenced by the fact that "Democratic" issues like minimum wage increases poll highly even among Republicans)
I mean, that's basically the stance of the Catholic Church.
whereas libertarian ideas like abolishing the fire department are fringe ideas that are never going to appeal to most people.
Because people think Libertarianism means "socially liberal, fiscally conservative." And fiscal conservatism is tied to being "right" on fiscal issues in terms of how we frame these issues. That's all people really see. Once they get their Marine Le Pen, I guarantee that will be the part of the Republican party that wins their first national election since Bush in 2004.
Ehhh, maybe I'm just biased to assume everyone agrees with me, but I feel just the opposite. I think there would be a lot of room for a populist party that adopted more reasonable economic policies to benefit the lower & middle classes, such as minimum wage increases & Medicare expansion, while continuing to oppose abortion and drug legalization.
(as evidenced by the fact that "Democratic" issues like minimum wage increases poll highly even among Republicans)
I mean, that's basically the stance of the Catholic Church.
whereas libertarian ideas like abolishing the fire department are fringe ideas that are never going to appeal to most people.
But i do wonder how the Reps would fight off the crazies in a scenario like that. As is they can always blame democrats, but with a stacked deck, what would the excuse be?
I seriously look at moving to Canada so my children don't have to grow up in this country. I think we'd see a ton of moves toward establishing a national religion, among other issues. It would set our country back decades.
I legitimately look to moving out of the country knowing how shitty the supreme court is going to get with a republican president and a couple aging justices. And as much as that stinks of the "lol if bush wins in 2004 im moving to canada!" I just graduated, I don't have a family to take care of, and living abroad is something I'd love to do.
Ted Cruz's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
President Cruz would still be our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Emailgate, reach into the muck of Gamergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
A Reuters-Ipsos poll taken this month found 54 percent of Americans held an unfavorable opinion of Obama, known for his cool and cautious presidential style, while 46 percent were favorable.
In contrast, asked to imagine that David Palmer of "24" was president, 89 percent of those who had seen the real-time Fox counterterrorism drama said they held a favorable rating of the decisive president played by Dennis Haysbert.
Martin Sheen's Jed Bartlet of "The West Wing" - beloved by Democrats, including many who work in Obama's White House - was rated favorably by 82 percent of its NBC viewers.
In the dark universe of "Battlestar Galactica" on SyFy, president Laura Roslin, played by Mary McDonnell, drew a 78 percent favorable rating among fans of her quest to find earth and escape the Cylons, a race of humanoid killer robots.
...
Of those who watch ABC's steamy drama "Scandal," 60 percent had a favorable view of Fitzgerald "Fitz" Grant, the philandering, scotch-swilling president played by Tony Goldwyn.
Frank Underwood also beat Obama.
In "House of Cards," Underwood, played by Kevin Spacey, kills a passed-out congressman by leaving him in a running car in a garage, and pushes a journalist into the path of a subway train.
Imagining Spacey's scheming character as president, 57 percent of respondents who have seen the Netflix political thriller said they held a favorable opinion of him.
...
There was one result from the online poll, conducted from March 5 to 19, that could give some solace to Obama: He is more popular with Americans than Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Seventy-six percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of Putin, according to the poll, while 24 percent were favorable.
Americans love fictitious politicians. "If only Obama was more like Jed Bartlet" Yes if only Obama was more like a fictional fucking character from a liberal wet dream
Americans love fictitious politicians. "If only Obama was more like Jed Bartlet" Yes if only Obama was more like a fictional fucking character from a liberal wet dream
There was this short-lived show about an independent Senator who became Senator because his dad died or something, and how all the parties wanted him to join their side or else and he couldn't decide because he just wanted to serve the people and not engage in petty politics.
While all his political positions just happened to be standard progressive Democrat ones.
Was decent otherwise but this was like 15 years ago so what do I know.
Americans love fictitious politicians. "If only Obama was more like Jed Bartlet" Yes if only Obama was more like a fictional fucking character from a liberal wet dream
There was this short-lived show about an independent Senator who became Senator because his dad died or something, and how all the parties wanted him to join their side or else and he couldn't decide because he just wanted to serve the people and not engage in petty politics.
While all his political positions just happened to be standard progressive Democrat ones.
Was decent otherwise but this was like 15 years ago so what do I know.
I remember this show. I think Josh Brolin played the Senator. One episode had a plotline where he couldnt ride his motorcycle anymore because it would be too dangerous for a senator.
Just looked it up, show was called Mister Sterling.
There was this short-lived show about an independent Senator who became Senator because his dad died or something, and how all the parties wanted him to join their side or else and he couldn't decide because he just wanted to serve the people and not engage in petty politics.
While all his political positions just happened to be standard progressive Democrat ones.
Was decent otherwise but this was like 15 years ago so what do I know.
There was this short-lived show about an independent Senator who became Senator because his dad died or something, and how all the parties wanted him to join their side or else and he couldn't decide because he just wanted to serve the people and not engage in petty politics.
While all his political positions just happened to be standard progressive Democrat ones.
Was decent otherwise but this was like 15 years ago so what do I know.
Issue: (1) Whether the messages and images that appear on state-issued specialty license plates qualify as government speech immune from any requirement of viewpoint neutrality; and (2) whether Texas engaged in viewpoint discrimination by rejecting the license-plate design proposed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, when Texas has not issued any license plate that portrays the confederacy or the confederate battle flag in a negative or critical light.
The law, one of the strictest in the nation, provides that eight kinds of IDs are acceptable to present when voting. This includes most student IDs, but not those from University of Wisconsin campuses.
Well, okay, maybe the "socially conservative" part is a bit of a stretch, idk... Maybe it could count as "socially conservative" if you're one of those atheists who thinks being involved with any form of religion whatsoever is "socially conservative"?
your not the only one I read that suggested OK. Whats it about that state? If a democrat is winning the south and states that havent voted for a D since LBJ and FDR before him like Kansas, Wyoming and Utah, I cant see how they dont carry OK. Unless, we look at Carter 76 performance as a basis. He lost it by 13,000 despite carrying everything else down there.
Texas senator Ted Cruz announced Monday that he will run for president in 2016, becoming the first Republican politician to officially declare his candidacy. Here is what you should know about the first-term senator:
Political Positions: Deafening
Ethnicity: White enough
Supporters: Those people from high school who got married when they were 18
Speaks: Spanish, English, Tongues
Campaign Slogan: Im Ted Cruz
Likelihood Of Becoming President: Huckabeesque
Campaign Platform: Be a distraction for a few months
Largest Obstacles To Nomination: Scott Walker, Rand Paul, five seconds of scrutiny
Could Be Fun To Watch As Campaign Sputters Along: Sure
Number Of Presidential Runs Left In Him: Ugh, at least three or four
your not the only one I read that suggested OK. Whats it about that state? If a democrat is winning the south and states that havent voted for a D since LBJ and FDR before him like Kansas, Wyoming and Utah, I cant see how they dont carry OK. Unless, we look at Carter 76 performance as a basis. He lost it by 13,000 despite carrying everything else down there.
Well Oklahoma is just about one of the reddest states in the country. It's the only state in 2008 where McCain won every county and one of just a handful to move rightward between 2004 and 2008.
Romney's best performance was in Utah but let's not pretend Mormonism wasn't the key factor in that. I would give it to Oklahoma simply because it's the furthest to the right, but more likely if we saw a 49-1 wipeout the one state would have some unique factor at play like home state status that would prevent it from flipping.
I also don't believe a Johnson/Nixon/Reagan style election is possible in our current environment. The red and blue states are pretty solid.
To me this is what an absolute best-case-scenario Clinton landslide would look like:
Might deserve its own thread, but I'm not sure I have the energy to deal with the OT's Israel's defense force at the moment.
WSJ: Israel Spied on Iran Talks
Ally’s snooping upset White House because information was used to lobby Congress to try to sink a deal
Soon after the U.S. and other major powers entered negotiations last year to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, senior White House officials learned Israel was spying on the closed-door talks.
The spying operation was part of a broader campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to penetrate the negotiations and then help build a case against the emerging terms of the deal, current and former U.S. officials said. In addition to eavesdropping, Israel acquired information from confidential U.S. briefings, informants and diplomatic contacts in Europe, the officials said.
The espionage didn’t upset the White House as much as Israel’s sharing of inside information with U.S. lawmakers and others to drain support from a high-stakes deal intended to limit Iran’s nuclear program, current and former officials said.
“It is one thing for the U.S. and Israel to spy on each other. It is another thing for Israel to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on the matter.
...
Mr. Dermer started lobbying U.S. lawmakers just before the U.S. and other powers signed an interim agreement with Iran in November 2013. Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Dermer went to Congress after seeing they had little influence on the White House.
Before the interim deal was made public, Mr. Dermer gave lawmakers Israel’s analysis: The U.S. offer would dramatically undermine economic sanctions on Iran, according to congressional officials who took part.
...
When the next round of negotiations with Iran started in Switzerland last year, U.S. counterintelligence agents told members of the U.S. negotiating team that Israel would likely try to penetrate their communications, a senior Obama administration official said
...
“If you’re wondering whether something serious has shifted here, the answer is yes,” a senior U.S. official said. “These things leave scars.”
More at the link.
The US doesn't really get to complain about allies spying on allies, and they mostly don't, but feeding that information to the opposition party?
p.s.
Ron Dermer looks like an antisemitic caricature.
Might deserve its own thread, but I'm not sure I have the energy to deal with the OT's Israel's defense force at the moment.
WSJ: Israel Spied on Iran Talks
Allys snooping upset White House because information was used to lobby Congress to try to sink a deal
More at the link.
The US doesn't really get to complain about allies spying on allies, and they mostly don't, but feeding that information to the opposition party?
I wonder how all of this is going over in Europe? They can't be pleased with the way Israel has been behaving. I wonder how they'll adjust their posture.
Might deserve its own thread, but I'm not sure I have the energy to deal with the OT's Israel's defense force at the moment.
WSJ: Israel Spied on Iran Talks
Allys snooping upset White House because information was used to lobby Congress to try to sink a deal
More at the link.
The US doesn't really get to complain about allies spying on allies, and they mostly don't, but feeding that information to the opposition party?
p.s.
Ron Dermer looks like an antisemitic caricature.
