-
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 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
maybe it's louisiana law
I admit using Google is difficult, but come on, at least try.
The weird inaccuracies in Ronald Kessler's new book on the Secret Service
You claim it's just talk, but what you really did is that you just chose to believe the stories were true. Don't try to hide behind a veneer of curiosity. You looked up the book in question and quoted it directly in your attempt to raise doubts about Hillary.
Even now you're asking to learn about the moral characters of other candidates, rather than asking for verification of what you read about Hillary's moral character. Because you think you know what her moral character is, and that the book was telling the truth. You already decided you know Hillary Clinton's true character through the secondhand, unverified reports of a conservative writer who is clearly reporting without bias, since he wrote about Bill favorably. Because he has no reason to slander a strong presidential candidate, and no reason to portray her as unlikeable and horrible to those close to her. You now know the questionable sources and you still choose to believe them. It doesn't matter what we say.
Even looking up Wikipedia to learn more about Hillary isn't hard. You're not interested in additional knowledge. You're just here to push a story.
Poodlestrike
Banned
This is a bad idea, because "character" is a nebulous shifting concept that you can never truly know, because people have different sides to them in different contexts, and everyone has good days and bad.
What you do know is what policies a candidate is pushing, which is the whole point of having representatives in government. This is what you vote for.
So when Hillary says that opposition to Citizens United is a litmus test for potential Supreme Court nominees, that's only infinitely more important to me than if she was pissed off one day and yelled at someone.
As for how good Hillary will be under pressure, we've got a quarter century of endless abuse, slander, and harassment from the right, including what you posted and far worse, capped by 11 hours of video of her staring down a ridiculous witch hunt. She's got more than enough steel for the job. More than anyone else running, that's for damn sure.
Poll Watch: Democrats, Even Clinton Supporters, Warm to Socialism
The New York Times said:
I think we now know which proportion of his supporters are former Paulites.The New York Times said:
The New York Times said:
The New York Times said:
Yellowtail
Member
Democratic presidential candidate wants a political revolution:
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Democratic candidate wants people to vote.
QuiteWhittle
Member
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The way that Christie and Graham are almost openly celebrating the Paris attacks is fucking creepy:
Also, Rubio endorsing new Star Wars:
Also, Rubio endorsing new Star Wars:
Bel Marduk
Banned
Its an off year election.
We've already had a Repub win a gubernatorial election because of low turnout in Kentucky.
Fucking Sam Brownback won last year despite the fact that nobody likes him and his policies have been an unmitigated disaster for his state.
I'd put money on Vitter, but would be absolutely elated if Edwards can pull this off.
8pm!
I don't vote based on personality, I really could not give two shits if a politician is someone I would enjoy having a beer with. I vote based on whether a persons policy positions align with mine and how effective I think they will be in achieving them, or at least pushing them. In both cases this means Hillary is my number one choice.
To steal a quote, possibly from this very thread, I don't care is she sacrifices goats to a statue of Dagon over the grave of Vince Foster so long as she nominates liberal SC justices and attempts to implement her campaign platforms.
Black Republican
Member
Bel Marduk
Banned
HylianTom I sure hope you voted and encouraged all your friends and family to do the same.
Absolutely! Bugged some of my co-workers, too (esp. the ones who're usually Presidential-year lefty voters). Told them that this would be a sweet sendoff for Bobby.
In a world where you can walk into a Panera and the only human being working where the customers are is standing behind the baked goods, I am not surprised that more people are warming up to the idea of socialism. Hopefully it continues so we can stop voting for corporatist Democrats simply because they aren't stark raving mad like the GOP. 15-20 years best case scenario imo.
Now hurry up and get to your job and don't even be 30 seconds late because you can be replaced by a computer.
Now hurry up and get to your job and don't even be 30 seconds late because you can be replaced by a computer.
One of the few things I agree with the Rubester about. China's ability to deny our GPS and monitoring satellites is a very legitimate security risk to our military's ability to project force. Instead of spending billions on more tanks that the DoD explicitly has said they do not want, investing more in our own satellite denial weapons in addition to refurbishing our older fleet of monitoring satellites with newer, cheaper, more mobile ones would be a great strategic asset IMO.
Plus, I'm of the opinion (that I know many of GAF vehemently disagree with) that ANY spending on space, military or civilian, is a good thing because it gets us more experience with the technology and environment and helps to further justify a robust civilian program.
Abinash117
Member
Military and space services help out civilian programs a lot. Spending money on the military is not the problem its where the money is being spent.
Third Strike
Member
This is to be expected of elections during the midterms and off-years. As long as the Democrats hold the White House, continue to expect losses at the state level.
Someone should probably tell Christie he wouldn't be running against the President anyway. I know the whole mechanism behind our government tend to elude Republicans.
More importantly how the money is being spent. ULA's monopoly on military launches (until just this week with SpaceX!) and their massive $1 billion annual "readiness" subsidy are both wasteful and anti competitive. Thankful, SpaceX has helped to shift the conversation towards a more competitive market place.
Christie just needs to shut up and get some sleep.
It's not just a matter of "expecting" losses. Yes you can and should expect losses to some degree since things are more competitive due to the WH being controlled by Dems (and, for 8 years, the Senate as well). That's not what's happening though; Dems are losing all over the map, even in deep blue states that are supposed to stay blue no matter what. Look at state legislatures across the country. It's embarrassing.
QuiteWhittle
Member
How did Dems drop the ball so badly in Michigan?
Indeed. It was a gut punch seeing Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, and New Jersey all painted in red on Carson's hilariously wrong map concerning which states had "rejected" Syrian refugees. There is an abundance of young talent within the Democratic party at the national level, but it seems like too many states have see a hollowing out of a viable bench.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Not really, in 1997 when Clinton was around Dems only had 17 governors. It's a reality you have to expect, maybe slightly less if you're GOP because your voters turn out more but even then there will be losses.
I don't see how a loss for the Democrats in ruby red Louisiana would be the thing that would signal that they're in deep trouble versus other, more realistic losses.
Like, a loss in Maryland and Massachusetts would make me, as a party operative, think that we need to rethink our message. Why would a loss in Louisiana do that when the chances of Generic Dem beating Generic Republican are so low there to begin with?
Like, a loss in Maryland and Massachusetts would make me, as a party operative, think that we need to rethink our message. Why would a loss in Louisiana do that when the chances of Generic Dem beating Generic Republican are so low there to begin with?
Third Strike
Member
Exactly. Look at the Reagan/H.W. Bush years. Democrats dominated at the state level, as well as Congress. Almost everything went to the Republican's favor after Clinton got nominated. This dynamic isn't new. Republicans are fired up right now, and the Democrats are complacent. Exact opposite would happen if a Republican gets in.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yup. Obama's House/Senate losses are a little worse than the average for recent two term presidents (Reagan, Clinton, Bush II) but he also has one more election. If Democrats gained like 20 House seats and 6 Senate seats (which imo would be a pretty good result while not being crazy good) he'd be about average.
Bush obviously was a disaster for the party but even Reagan saw the House minority erode further, and he started out with a Senate majority but lost it, and that was with his VP winning in 1988. The out party has always made strong gains during two term administrations.
Mass gov response wasn't quite as bad as some of the overreactions in the south - he just said that he wanted to suspend until getting more assurances from the federal govt. More disappointing was that the mayor of Boston backed him up.
Oddly enough both of their given names are Piyush.
2014, gerrymandering, and geography (Dem vote mainly concentrated in Detroit metro that helps win statewide but legislative races outside city are mostly all Republican - Detroit not big enough like Chicago that Dems could win control of the legislature).
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Obama is being an adult in a room full of hysterical children. Screw optics.
theprodigy
Member
All the gerrymandering in the world can't explain the governor race though.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
That could be true but there are real consequences to perceived optics.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Like what in this case?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Electoral consequences, for one.
The election is too far away for this to have any significance. So long as there's no attack on the US between now and election day this is just a sideshow.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked