PoliGAF Debate #3 Thread of Hey Joe, where you goin' with that plunger in your hand

Status
Not open for further replies.
Republicans are reaping what they've sown. The nation needs two responsible parties representing two distinct but viable visions of the country. That isn't the case now, as a substantial portion of the Republican party is veering into crazyland. Palin is the figurehead of this empty-headed, bromide-soaked, fear-puckered establishment that's been built brick-by-brick by Limbaugh, Fox News, the far-right wingnuts in the Republican Study Group, and (to a surprisingly small degree) George W. Bush. They keep driving the party further and further right- Interpreting every victory a vindication, every loss a rebuke for not being far enough to the rightward fringe.

Let the Republicans wander in the wilderness, let them suffer the fruits of catering to their extremist wing. They'll despair, they'll retool and rebuild, and hopefully they'll arrive at a consensus that makes sense for modern America before the Democrats become too drunk on their new power.
 
There's nothing wrong with a super majority as long as it doesn't stretch over decades of time. That's just a recipe for massive corruption.

Hell, there is massive corruption anyways .. I guess it doesn't really matter. :lol
 
Hellsing321 said:
Yeah it means Obama and the Dems have n even easier time to get their legislation through. If they totally screw the pooch then they'll just be ousted in 2-4 years like the Reps were. I don't see a big problem.

This.

It cracks me up how Republicans argue that 4 years with Dems controlling Washington would destroy America. After the last eight years, Nanci Pelosi and Harry Reid are the least of my worries. :lol
 
1-D_FTW said:
What's the point of that question, though? Either you blatantly lie or you give an honest answer like 4 percent and get crucified (especially if your opponent has no scruples and is willing to sell the "Chocolate Fudge Diet."

Even that theoretically awesome plan that would get us energy dependent in 10 years would require a huge ramp up that would only begin making a dent in four years time. I agree, if it's gonna be completely scrapped by the next administration, it'll never get done. But one would assume a great plan would transcend politics to some degree.

Maybe, after 30 years of just talking, people would want some sort of measuring stick. Figure, if one guy says "4%" other guy better have exact number too (better or worse). If he can't make that number, have no problem with getting rid of them after 4 years. Problem is both of these candidates only care about saying stuff to get elected and re-elected, and not solving this problem. At this rate, we'll be talking about "energy in-dependency" for another 30 years.
 
Incognito said:
Golly, no! Tell us, professor Cooter! What is with disgruntled Republicans suddenly becoming champions of fractured government?
Nevermind how it overlooks what happens when their platform is given free reign.

Again though, Obama isn't your 1970s liberal, and in many ways breaks from the old way of handling things.
 
Cooter said:
Let's ask GAF. Even if you're an Obama supporter how do feel with the likely possibility of a super majority?

Honestly, I think it'll let Obama rail road through the changes he needs in order to get the country back on its feet. Unlike George W Bush, you have this clearly very intelligent man that seeks counsel from his elders, his peers and many others of considerable experience, and takes grave consideration, without losing himself among it.
The decisions he makes won't always be right, not when there's no hindsight to guide the way... but we're pretty confident that he's going to make plenty of good decisions, many of which are going to be among the best possible options given what a person could possibly know at this point in time.

It'll also allow republicans to regroup and reinvent themselves as a more moderate party, without the ridiculous pandering to the culture of crazies. Hopefully, they can come back as a party of merit, where the decision between themselves or democrats isn't always an objectively easy decision to make.

Political option is good... it allows a democracy to work, and it keeps both parties on its toes. Having 2 options, but where one isn't even remotely decent or valid isn't good. Much better to have 2 valid but different options.
 
Cooter said:
Ok, does everyone understand the difference between 55 senators being of one party and 60? Serious question.

If the Democrats can get 60 members in the Senate, they can disallow filibustering, and allow progressive legislation to follow a much quicker route through the Senate.

^^
 
Supermajorities aren't implicitly a bad thing. It can be manipulated by party leadership as a bludgeon to pass through shitty Republican legislations, but I think the likelihood of that happening with our Democratic overlords are zil to none.

Thank god!
 
Trurl said:
Gallup:
Obama:49%
McCain:43%

For the most part these polls are just boring now.
It's worth noting that both Ras and Gallup has Obama dropping below 50% for the first time in quite a while.

Let's see where things are at this time next week. Both of the previous debates helped Obama extend his lead, but polls tend to close down in the final weeks of an election.
 
Cooter said:
Ok, does everyone understand the difference between 55 senators being of one party and 60? Serious question.

I feel great about that, but I'm a Democrat.

I forget where I read this, but this is so true. The worst thing a politician can do is make a decision that makes you, the voter, ask the question of, what do you take me for? That is what the pick of Palin did. It was his first presidential decision and he threw a pick-6 in football terms.
 
Evlar said:
Let the Republicans wander in the wilderness, let them suffer the fruits of catering to their extremist wing. They'll despair, they'll retool and rebuild, and hopefully they'll arrive at a consensus that makes sense for modern America before the Democrats become too drunk on their new power.

This is pretty much how I feel. Maybe they can go back to being like a Barry Goldwater. I haven't read much about him but from what little I have, he seems pretty cool. For a Republican. ;-)
 
Guys, i'm scared. someone hold me.

ubsz-37cfke2ic0nm9vmva.gif


e2u1vywun0g1afqhuuxiuq.gif
 
Agent Icebeezy said:
I feel great about that, but I'm a Democrat.

I forget where I read this, but this is so true. The worst thing a politician can do is make a decision that makes you, the voter, ask the question of, what do you take me for? That is what the pick of Palin did. It was his first presidential decision and he threw a pick-6 in football terms.

A Hitchens fan, I see.
 
Hitokage said:
Nevermind how it overlooks what happens when their platform is given free reign.

Exactly. It's as if they don't even realize their policies are the reason the Democrats are on the verge of attaining the supermajority in the first place.

What's really funny is that cooter thinks the Democrats need 60 Democratic senators in the first place to invoke cloture.
 
If the Democrats can get 60 members in the Senate, they can disallow filibustering, and allow progressive legislation to follow a much quicker route through the Senate.
Er, no, filibustering will still be ok. They'll just have the votes needed to end debate at will making most attempts useless.
 
The updated title of the thread is genius.

HENDRIX BITCHEZZZ!!!!


I'm gonna go shoot my ol lady, you know I caught her running around with another man....


<3
 
GhaleonEB said:
It's worth noting that both Ras and Gallup has Obama dropping below 50% for the first time in quite a while.

Let's see where things are at this time next week. Both of the previous debates helped Obama extend his lead, but polls tend to close down in the final weeks of an election.


Debates don't mean much unless someone really screwed up. Don't remember, Bush ever winning any debates. Obama rise was due to what's going on with stock market > economy.
 
Hitokage said:
Yeah, well, forgive me if I don't care if the Dick Cheneys of the world wallow in irrelevance and powerlessness.

What I'm getting at is we're going to be in the same shit with different people holding the shovel.
 
GhaleonEB said:
It's worth noting that both Ras and Gallup has Obama dropping below 50% for the first time in quite a while.

Ras is still at 50% Obama, just +1 McCain to 46%. His model isn't playing out with the rest of the polling in swing states, though, his decision to keep the immediate post-convention GOP self-identification numbers in the rolling partisan makeup fubars everything.
 
Incognito said:
Golly, no! Tell us, professor Cooter! What is with disgruntled Republicans suddenly becoming champions of fractured government?

Simple, they knew full well what a "permanent Republican majority" meant, and now realise they don't hold the keys to the gun cupboard any more they are scared.

"It was OK when we wanted the power..." :P
 
Cooter said:
Ok, does everyone understand the difference between 55 senators being of one party and 60? Serious question.

yes, and it's worth bringing up-- but history shows that large majorities fragment on individual issues.
 
Vennt said:
Simple, they knew full well what a "permanent Republican majority" meant, and now realise they don't hold the keys to the gun cupboard any more they are scared.

"It was OK when we wanted the power..." :P


Crazy to think that just 4 years ago Republicans were talking about the demise of the Democratic party. :lol

My, what a difference four years can make. Thanks W.
 
knitoe said:
Debates don't mean much unless someone really screwed up. Don't remember, Bush ever winning any debates. Obama rise was due to what's going on with stock market > economy.

No... Obama rise is a combination of things. Stock Market, Debates, Palin fuck ups, McCain suspending his campaign, ineffective ayers attacks... etc.

Why do people like to look at things in black and white?
 
VictimOfGrief said:
What I'm getting at is we're going to be in the same shit with different people holding the shovel.
Yeah, you could make that statement if you're apathetic, ignorant, or so far removed from either platform they're all godless communists to you. :P
 
mckmas8808 said:
Link to the article

Talk about Fact Checking. McCain loses again. I wonder how hard they will try to push this Joe the Plumber/small business thing even though it's a big lie?

If we use the tax bracket of 2007 for single filer,

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

$210,000 - $160,850 = $49,150

$49,150 x .33% = $16,219 is what you pay in taxes.

$49,150 x .36% = $17,694 is what you would pay under Obama's new tax plan.

$17,694 - $16,219 = $1,475


Now for the Joe the plumber, if his business makes $270,000, then his taxes would increase by $3,275.

Does that seem high?
 
knitoe said:
Debates don't mean much unless someone really screwed up. Don't remember, Bush ever winning any debates. Obama rise was due to what's going on with stock market > economy.
The debates helped Kerry close the gap with Bush, and helped Obama build his lead so far.
 
lawblob said:
Crazy to think that just 4 years ago Republicans were talking about the demise of the Democratic party. :lol

My, what a difference four years can make. Thanks W.

Indeed, the Democratic party lost an election, the Republican party is looking at the prospect of losing cohesion entirely.
 
Karma Kramer said:
No... Obama rise is a combination of things. Stock Market, Debates, Palin fuck ups, McCain suspending his campaign, ineffective ayers attacks... etc.

Why do people like to look at things in black and white?

#1 issue in America is economy and being hammer constantly on TV, paper and etc. If it's bad, helps Obama. Good, helps McCain. Other stuff are minor issues. Sure as hell wouldn't give Obama lead he has now.
 
knitoe said:
#1 issue in America is economy. If it's bad, helps Obama. Good, helps McCain. Other doesn't play major role. Sure as hell won't give Obama lead he has now.

So your saying that is Obama would have lost all three debates he would still have this lead?
 
With Obama's Healthcare plan, will I be able to opt out of my employer offered insurance, and buy into the awesomeness that is the Government Employee insurance plan?
 
lawblob said:
Crazy to think that just 4 years ago Republicans were talking about the demise of the Democratic party. :lol

My, what a difference four years can make. Thanks W.

Maybe this is why Bush thinks he'll be remember fondly by historians...because he destroyed the evil Republican party. :lol
 
Karma Kramer said:
So your saying that is Obama would have lost all three debates he would still have this lead?


Yeah. The bad economy news will help him keep his lead. Might only be few percentage points though.
 
Fragamemnon said:
Ras is still at 50% Obama, just +1 McCain to 46%. His model isn't playing out with the rest of the polling in swing states, though, his decision to keep the immediate post-convention GOP self-identification numbers in the rolling partisan makeup fubars everything.
My bad. Not enough sleep last night.
 
PrivateWHudson said:
With Obama's Healthcare plan, will I be able to opt out of my employer offered insurance, and buy into the awesomeness that is the Government Employee insurance plan?
Who's providing the insurance and healthcare won't change under Obama's plan, just who can afford it and how it is funded.
 
knitoe said:
Maybe, after 30 years of just talking, people would want some sort of measuring stick. Figure, if one guy says "4%" other guy better have exact number too (better or worse). If he can't make that number, have no problem with getting rid of them after 4 years. Problem is both of these candidates only care about saying stuff to get elected and re-elected, and not solving this problem. At this rate, we'll be talking about "energy in-dependency" for another 30 years.

I don't disagree with your anger on it. It should be priority number one. And Obama better have a real plan behind the rhetoric. But you have to remember, John McCain gleefully said he'd balance the budget within four years at that debate. He would not have given an honest answer.

Not only that, but CNNs people tracker seemed to like McCain's empty rhetoric more than Obama's. I can only imagine the numbers if Obama said in year four we'll finally begin seeing some of these huge plants online and making a difference. And McCain scoffed and said my plan will be 50 percent. Empty lies are what have elected irresponsible politicians for the last 30 years. If we'd been electing politicians who did speak the truth we wouldn't be in this position. So I guess I'm just hopeful Obama actually does have a plan and was shrewd enough to avoid a trap that would have gotten him hammered with FUD.
 
reilo said:
Who's providing the insurance and healthcare won't change under Obama's plan, just who can afford it and how it is funded.

I thought during the debates, he said that people who's employers don't offer a group plan would be eligible to buy insurance through the same group plan that he has access to (the Federal Employee's group plan).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom