|
Tobermory posted:Also when he compared homosexuals to murderers. Or when he explained that gay marriage is a Marxist conspiracy to impose the New World Order. Or when he said that Obama might be guilty of treason. Or when he blamed Ferguson on Women's Lib. A link to some of his classic lines: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/15/top-10-quotes-that-prove-neurosurgeon-ben-carson-doesnt-have-the-brain-to-be-president/ quote:“So if there were a container of contaminated urine, and somehow it managed to find its way to someplace a lot of damage could be done. Someone comes up to a lab worker. He knows he’s got the urine. ‘How would you like to have a million dollars?’ … Such things have been known to happen.” And here's just from this weekend: quote:ossible Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson suggested over the weekend that religion was necessary for testing scientific theories because the science could be “propaganda.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/ben-carson-religion-is-needed-to-interpret-science-because-maybe-its-just-propaganda/ He's pretty amazing. Ben Carson being in a primary debate would be basically like setting up a speaker that blares out random WND articles.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Karnegal posted:Looping back to the "how will they go after Hillary" question, there's an interesting article on The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/among-the-hillary-haters/384976/) that goes into how various scandals/attacks have affected Hillary's popularity over the years before turning to examine the attack strategy from the right (it's actually kind of crazy). Am I shallow in this being the most interesting piece of the article to me: quote:Robert Todd Lincoln gave the painting to his great-great-grandfather Patrick D. Tyrrell for his role in uncovering a crime boss’s plot to steal the president’s corpse and hold it for ransom. WTF. Off to wikipedia I go!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Catching up on the news this morning, and the email thing is relatively unimportant, but it does solidify my belief in the incompetence of the Hillary Clinton machine. Its been pretty clear up to now anyway, and bring real doubt to her ability to either a) win the 2016 election, and if so b) govern at all effectively. EDIT: Why is Obama more in front of this than Hillary again? Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
There is a difference between a cabinet level position and being the POTUS, relying on popularity and being subjected to a much higher standard of scrutiny and judgement. I'm not saying that she WON'T govern effectively, but there's a pattern present for several decades of circles of confidants shielding and enshrouding Clinton to the her detriment, from Whitewater to the 2008 election. EDIT: ^^^ I was led to believe there are physical copies of the emails, which were turned over weeks ago. EDIT 2: Dug up an old article talking about Clinton's State record: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139110/michael-hirsh/the-clinton-legacy Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:I don't know. The dems are doing well to start making women's issues that aren't bogged down by religious bullshit (abortion) into political issues. Obama giving nods to equal pay and childcare are things that Hillary could build on to chip away at the white, female republican vote. I mean, there is a limit to how much the GOP can thumb their noses at women's rights before they start bleeding votes. Isn't this what Mark Udall tried in Colorodo, and subsequently got creamed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Apparently the Venn diagram between people who would consider voting for Hilary and people who think this is pretty suspect and worth discussing has no overlap. The idea that an elected official could do this and then go 'welp, phones are hard, whatja gonna do?' and get vehemently defended in such absolutist terms boggles my mind. Was listening to All Things Considered yesterday, and they were reporting the results of a State Dept. watchgroup's audit, showing that of the millions of emails sent around government servers. Something like only 61,000 were saved. Crazy numbers. The whole thing is hosed. How do we know what any of these people are doing?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
A pretty interesting article on Hillary's capability: Hillary isn't running opposed. She's crushing the opposition. quote:Bernstein's argument is related to the "invisible primary" theory of presidential elections. Hillary Clinton, he says, "has earned the support of the bulk of Democratic party actors, and gained the acquiescence of other Democrats who aren’t as enthusiastic about her." The result is that the Democratic Party's "perfectly viable other candidates either dropped out or never seriously considered the race." http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8203605/hillary-clinton-isn-t-running-unopposed-she-s-just-crushing-the
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
From the nytimes profile on Carson posted a few pages back, this caught my eye.quote:(When we spoke, he suggested that the government should cut off assistance to would-be unwed mothers, but only after warning them that it would do so within a certain amount of time, say five years. “I bet you’d see a dramatic decrease in unwed motherhood.”)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
JEB is much more conservative than Romney ever was. Don't underestimate him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:What is it with *young* Republicans and constantly talking about obsessively working out? Lifting weights sporadically: a destined to fail effort meant only to work on glamour muscles, while being as loud and domineering as possible while being at least ineffective to substantive goals. Yeah, I don't know why either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
This is from the article on not rich enough fundraisers Meg posted earlier, and I think this paragraph needs to stand alone:quote:But there is a palpable angst among mid-level fundraisers and donors that their rank has been permanently downgraded. One longtime bundler recently fielded a call from a dispirited executive on his yacht, who complained, “We just don’t count anymore.”
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
So is there a legal place to bet on the presidential election this season? Just curious, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^^^ A little harsh? I just answered my own question. Guess I'm being a dumbass today.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Haha, I thought you meant that I would be banned for talking about gambling. Continuing to be a dumbass. Arkane used Intrade, I think, which was dismantled. All in all, it's just too much risk for too little reward, at least to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Sean Trende is about as honest an analyst as it gets on the right. Here's his take. This is probably the most prudent analysis I've seen in a while of the likelihood of either party controlling all three branches. A higher likelihood of the Presidency held by a Democrat, yes, but the other two branches being held by the other party, even more likely. In essence, this frozen, dysfunctional system of governance we are experiencing is unlikely to change, going past 2020 and more. 2008-2010 was a freak occurance, destined to occur only every several decades or so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Gyges posted:As long as the Democrats hold the white house for that extended period of time, it's only a matter of time until they control 2 of the 3 branches. Didn't Reed get a whole lot of Obama judges confirmed, somewhat alleviating our backlog of vacancies? Yes, that session is responsible for 2/3rds of Obama's judicial nominees that were confirmed. The vacancy rate is about 5% currently.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:HOLY poo poo they use dip-to-white transitions when cutting into a shot of Cruz because you can see the poster frames spazz out in the shadows of Cruz against a dark background, readjusting the chroma compression as the flash algorithm throws up its hands and screams "WHAT THE *gently caress* AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS NOISE? WHAT SHAPE AM I EVEN LOOKING AT. CHRIST!" He does have the healthy pallor of a corpse in a open casket funeral.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:BI notes that the offices are located next to the Tillary and Clinton intersection. Yup, my workplace is kind of ground zero on that map. Looks like I'll be the thread's on the ground reporter for the Hillary campaign I guess. EDIT: BREAKING NEWS Hillary Clinton aide goes to that Starbucks. No, not that one. That one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Rand Paul is announcing his new seat on the board of directors for Coca-Cola? Naw what you're thinking of is an Ipod commercial. All that's missing is a U2 song.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Dolash posted:I don't know enough about how Obama rose to defeat Hillary in 2008, particularly how he got his early start. I suppose I'm curious if anyone on the Republican side could have that kind of meteoric ascent that we'd be somehow deaf to due to ideological differences. I sometimes get the impression with the Tea Party/Libertarian candidates that they're hoping to catch that kind of Hope and Change style fire and ride it up and over the establishment. Obama is a one in a generation campaigner. But he wasn't exactly anti-establishment. One of the people to initially encourage him as a presidential challenger (that he was already building towards, though) was freaking Harry Reid. Being liked by the establishment has been a necessary quotient of successful presidential elections since, I don't know, Goldwater? And even then, that assertion can be seen as shaky.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Reminder Fiorina is one of the worst CEOs of all time. Reading the wiki article about her, and its hilariously understated. quote:Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization. She has been a strong proponent, along with other technology executives, of the expansion of the H-1B visa program.[42] In January 2004, at a meeting to "head off rising protectionist sentiment in Congress," Fiorina said: "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs as a nation."[43][44][45] While Fiorina argued that the only way to "protect U.S. high-tech jobs over the long haul was to become more competitive [in the United States]," her comments prompted "strong reactions" from some technology workers who argued that lower wages outside the United States encouraged the offshoring of American jobs.[46] Fiorina responded against protectionism in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, writing that while "America is the most innovative country," it would not remain so if the country were to "run away from the reality of the global economy."[47] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina#Hewlett-Packard
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do these people really still exist? I don't know anything about the South from personal experience, but it seems to me after 40 years they probably don't Felon beats Obama in West Virginia
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
We can agree this is the greatest thing we've all ever seen, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:No way. This surely is the greatest day. EDIT: I guess some "politics" happened today too quote:MONTICELLO, Iowa—Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign here Tuesday with aggressive attacks on the financial system as she offered broad strokes of her case for running at her first formal event. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...e-fund-managers Shageletic fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:John C. Calhoun and Thad Stevens rise from the dead and commence eternal mano-a-mano warfare on the Washington Mall. The Chesapeake area has to be evacuated to prevent collateral damage from the clash of undead titans. Looking at their pictures, they're exactly the type of guys able to punch their way out of the afterlife. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Would mitt be the least bad republican of the current and likely field? He is more conservative than his brother. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
There's a pretty gross brietbart article talking about Walker's new position and refers to it as fighting back against "racial pandering" and a conscious plan by Democrats to change "demographics" by legal immigration, so at least its out in the open. Feel free to search for it if you want to gag.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:There's also the White House Correspondents' Dinner tomorrow. Separate thread from going of previous years. I look forward to this and the Values Summit with the glee and anticipation normal people view traditional holidays.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hillary Clinton would be a better administrator than Bernie Sanders, which is most of what the President does. I think the last couple of years has been a good argument for that. Real progressive policy seems to be decided on the agency level. And can be rolled back there incredibly easy without the rigors of legislative strictures, as the Bush administration (and in smaller microcosm, conservative states and agencies like Texas' Railroad Commission) has shown.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:During his work as a Senator he toed the line but he also literally went and volunteered to go teach poor Mexican kids who couldn't go to college because of their race. The part in Robert Caro's biography about him bringing electricity to Texas' Hill Country (where he is still wildly popular) I found particularily affecting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Rubentum! Its catching on!quote:Based on new Public Policy Polling (PPP) data, Rubio received more support from Iowans than former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, current Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. Rubio, however, lost first place to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Walker received 23 percent of the poll about the Republican Party field, while Rubio received 13 percent and 12 percent for Bush. Huckabee accounted for 10 percent as the remaining GOP options received single-digit figures. http://www.latinpost.com/articles/50674/20150430/2016-presidential-election-polls-marco-rubio-improves-momentum-edges-jeb.htm
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Here's a informative section about Martin O'Malley in this interview of David Simon:quote:The drug war began it, certainly, but the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O’Malley3. He destroyed police work in some real respects. Whatever was left of it when he took over the police department, if there were two bricks together that were the suggestion of an edifice that you could have called meaningful police work, he found a way to pull them apart. Everyone thinks I’ve got a hard-on for Marty because we battled over “The Wire,” whether it was bad for the city, whether we’d be filming it in Baltimore. But it’s been years, and I mean, that’s over. I shook hands with him on the train last year and we buried it. And, hey, if he's the Democratic nominee, I’m going to end up voting for him. It’s not personal and I admire some of his other stances on the death penalty and gay rights. But to be honest, what happened under his watch as Baltimore’s mayor was that he wanted to be governor. And at a certain point, with the crime rate high and with his promises of a reduced crime rate on the line, he put no faith in real policing. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
I'm really interested to see recent polls regarding Clinton v. Generic Republican in West Virginia.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Most recent poll is from a year ago, but Clinton loses to all Republicans in West Virginia by 9-12 points. The closest she comes to winning is against Cruz, where she loses by 3. I'm somewhat surprised, in a weirdly non-terrible way. EDIT: Naet posted:I wonder what Jeb thinks about Charles Murray's conclusions about women. quote:Women have their own cognitive advantages over men, many of them involving verbal fluency and interpersonal skills. If this were a comprehensive survey, detailing those advantages would take up as much space as I have devoted to a particular male advantage. https://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murray-no-i-dont-think-women-are-genetically-inferior/ This is his defense, a non-ironic separate but equal argument. This man is a clown. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:28 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Also, the guy even used used for his example the number of Democratic presidencies following a two-timer, in the 19th century. That's just bizaare.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:Even if we accept your arguments that the 19th century Democratic Party is hugely relevant to the 2016 election - there's only been, like, what, four two-term Democratic Presidents? I make it Jackson, Wilson, FDR, and Clinton. So the Democrats actually won the presidency after a two-term candidate in fully 50% of the elections where that was possible. Literally your argument boils down to 2000 and Warren Harding. And I don't like Warren Harding much either, but that seems like a little too strong of a conclusion to draw from him winning. Using the Republicans in the 19th century would make more sense, considering the similarities in political ideological intensity between now and then, and even regarding their politics. And the Republicans, also due to the incredible rise of political clashes and identity, had a unbroken streak of presidencies for more than 20 years.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:hosed up how Hillary has a neoconservative foreign policy more enthusiastic about war than rand paul or jeb bush, is inextricably tied to wall street and raises most of her money from the same wealthy donors who support Republicans, has no interest in regulating banking or commerce, and claims the bible is the biggest influence on her thinking. Supports the Iran deal. Proposed mandatory parental leave and minimum wage increase. Supports Dodd Frank and CFPB. Yes there really is no light between the candidates.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Good substantive posts. Thanks for contributing.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Probably the pull quote from Carson's genuinely entertaining announcement spectacle:quote:We are going to change the government into something that looks more like a well-run business than a Behemoth.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:So Fiorina's just Palin with the ability to speak in complete sentences. Do I have that about right? Completely devoid of accomplishments and useful only as an attack dog? Her resume argues differently. http://interactive.guim.co.uk/embed/2015/05/2015-05-fiorina-resume/index.html?candidate=fiorina
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:I'm honestly not really sure what Hillary could do to make think President Hillary will not backtrack on most of Candidate Hillary's promises. I mean, she'll probably be more effective then Obama at them, but her record on campaign donations makes me somewhat skeptical of her sincerity. This whole article is worth reading, but this part is particularily relevant quote:he relationship between Senator Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton, the Party’s most likely Presidential nominee, goes back to the second half of the Clinton Administration. Warren told me recently that the most dramatic policy fight of her life was one in which Bill and Hillary Clinton were intimately involved. She recalls it as the “ten-year war.” Between 1995 and 2005, Warren, a professor who had established herself as one of the country’s foremost experts on bankruptcy law, managed to turn an arcane issue of financial regulation into a major political issue. In Warren's own words quote:This time freshman Senator Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the bill. Had the bill been transformed to get rid of all those awful provisions that had so concerned First Lady Hillary Clinton? No. The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not. As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs. Her husband was a lame duck at the time he vetoed the bill; he could afford to forgo future campaign contributions. As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. Campaigns cost money, and that money wasn’t coming from families in financial trouble. Senator Clinton received $140,000 in campaign contributions from banking industry executives in a single year, making her one of the top two recipients in the Senate. Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton’s constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers—including a vote in favor of “that awful bill.” http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-virtual-candidate
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 15:25
|
|