Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Where Do You Stand? (2016 Election)

Limit: 500

Jul 6, 2015#1

AshburnerX

So there's a website called I Stand With that lets you do a short quiz to determine who you should be voting for in the upcoming primaries and the 2016 election. Any takers?

I also, I think @GasBandit might be right about me... as I SOMEHOW got this and he's not even an option!

Okay, I really got this.

Jul 6, 2015#2

SpecialKO

I got Bernie.

Jul 6, 2015#3

Bowielee

I got Bernie Sanders as well, followed by Hillary. Shouldn't be shocking to anyone. What I found interesting was the custom heat map based on your answers compared to other people around the country.

Jul 6, 2015#4

GasBandit

I got:

Rand Paul 90%
Marco Rubio 89%
Scott Walker 85%
Ted Cruz 84%
Ben Carson 71%
Carly Fiorina 62%
Hillary Clinton 61%

The fact that those last two are so close together amuses me

Oh, and Bernie Sanders 52%

Also there are no Libertarian candidates on that quiz.[DOUBLEPOST=1436229647,1436229533][/DOUBLEPOST]Also it says I am a centrist.

Jul 6, 2015#5

Bowielee

I love on my Wisconsin map that it's all blue/green but when you get to Madison it's all red.

Jul 6, 2015#6

AshburnerX

Bowielee said:
Also there are no Libertarian candidates on that quiz.[DOUBLEPOST=1436229647,1436229533][/DOUBLEPOST]Also it says I am a centrist.

Probably because the Libertarians have failed to field an actual, electable candidate. I have no idea why Bernie is there... he's basically just as unelectable.[DOUBLEPOST=1436230176][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
Also it says I am a centrist.

According to my results, I'm only slightly left of center. Probably because my of harsher immigration views.

Jul 6, 2015#7

SpecialKO

FWIW, Rand Paul is my #4, but he's already in the 40s by that point.

Jul 6, 2015#8

Ravenpoe

AshburnerX said:
So there's a website called I Stand With that lets you do a short quiz to determine who you should be voting for in the upcoming primaries and the 2016 election. Any takers?

I also, I think @GasBandit might be right about me... as I SOMEHOW got this and he's not even an option!

View attachment 18677

Okay, I really got this.

View attachment 18678

I also apparently side with Bernie Sanders on the majority of issues, though with Hillary Clinton on social issues, and... TED CRUZ on foreign issues?!

I feel so dirty...

Jul 6, 2015#9

Bubble181

Bernie Sanders 96%
Hillary Clinton 87%
martin O'Malley 81%
Chris Christie 56%
Rand Paul 27%
Carly Fiorina 24%
and we go under 20%.

*edit*
It's funny how I'm strongly Left-Wing on American sites. Most of my friends would describe me as fairly conservative, based on my stance on Belgian politics. This comes, of course, from the fact that I do think we handle some things (far from everything! Hah!) better, and in some ways the world would be a better place if the USA was a bit more like some European countries. Of course, a lot of what's considered "left" in the US is "take a more European approach", which is in Europe a conservative stance.

Jul 6, 2015#10

jwhouk

I already took this - I'm a Bernie Sanders guy.

Jul 6, 2015#11

bhamv3

95% Bernie Sanders? That's surprising. Followed by Clinton at 79%.

And apparently I side with Mike Huckabee on foreign policy issues.

You know, Sanders does seem to be rather electable when so many people seem to support what he stands for.

Jul 6, 2015#12

AshburnerX

bhamv3 said:
You know, Sanders does seem to be rather electable when so many people seem to support what he stands for.

He might be able to get into office, but he doesn't have the political clout or skill at the game to get things done. I deeply admire the conviction and honest of Bernie... but I'd still vote Hillary because I think she could actually get something DONE. She's already shown herself to be damn near bulletproof, politically.

Jul 6, 2015#13

Terrik

I got Bernie Sanders too, surprisingly.

This is Bernie Sanders campaign plant, isn't it.

Jul 6, 2015#14

Bubble181

Eh. We're a fairly leftist group on this forum. The right wing people we have tend to be only so on specific issues and for specific reasons. Even our deeply religious people aren't of the idiotic variety, but of the intelligent type. How many backwards hicks are there on here, all told? And so on. And plenty of foreigners. All in all, we're not exactly a representative population to predict nationwide politics.

Jul 6, 2015#15

Bowielee

AshburnerX said:
Probably because the Libertarians have failed to field an actual, electable candidate. I have no idea why Bernie is there... he's basically just as unelectable.[DOUBLEPOST=1436230176][/DOUBLEPOST]

According to my results, I'm only slightly left of center. Probably because my of harsher immigration views.

It's weird that that quote from GB showed as being me.

Jul 6, 2015#16

Terrik

Bowielee said:
It's weird that that quote from GB showed as being me.

Weird?

Or a conspiracy?

Jul 6, 2015#17

Cheesy1

JCM forgot which account he was logged in as at the time.

Jul 6, 2015#18

Hailey Knight

I support Bernie Sanders, but we all know why he won't get elected in this country and it's not because of his politics.

He's not Christian.

Jul 6, 2015#19

AshburnerX

Zero Esc said:
I support Bernie Sanders, but we all know why he won't get elected in this country and it's not because of his politics.

He's not Christian.

In a decade or two, I don't think that's going to matter anymore. A lot of Americans like to pretend they are religious and that their beliefs are indelible, but most of their kids have only the barest notion of what faith actually is... really, virtually everyone I know that is my age is agnostic at best and admits it... and I'm in the middle of "God's Country".

Really, we just need a candidate that is otherwise electable to be publicly agnostic or atheist and it'll happen. Ironically, I thought we'd get a Jewish president first.

Jul 6, 2015#20

Gruebeard

I side with Sloth.

That quiz is far too long for me to bother with.

Jul 6, 2015#21

Hailey Knight

AshburnerX said:
In a decade or two, I don't think that's going to matter anymore. A lot of Americans like to pretend they are religious and that their beliefs are indelible, but most of their kids have only the barest notion of what faith actually is... really, virtually everyone I know that is my age is agnostic at best and admits it... and I'm in the middle of "God's Country".

Really, we just need a candidate that is otherwise electable to be publicly agnostic or atheist and it'll happen. Ironically, I thought we'd get a Jewish president first.

A decade or two isn't this election though and I kind of doubt he'll be running in his 90s. Considering the shitstorm around "Obama is Muslim!", I don't think this country is going to elect anyone who isn't toweling the line with Jesus.

Jul 6, 2015#22

DarkAudit

Zero Esc said:
A decade or two isn't this election though and I kind of doubt he'll be running in his 90s. Considering the shitstorm around "Obama is Muslim!", I don't think this country is going to elect anyone who isn't toweling the line with Jesus.

Not as long as Fox Noise and the rest of the far right howler monkeys are still making money off of it.

Jul 6, 2015#23

Sparhawk

Not surprised, all the Democrats are under 20%.

Jul 6, 2015#24

Amy

just for @GasBandit

Jul 7, 2015#25

Emrys

It was a completely unfair assessment.

There was no doomweasel option.

Also, I got Bernie Sanders at 91%.

Jul 7, 2015#26

PatrThom

What is it with Bernie Sanders?

--Patrick

Jul 7, 2015#27

AshburnerX

PatrThom said:
What is it with Bernie Sanders?

--Patrick

Basically, he embodies all the reforms and ideals that the underclass and left of center Americans desire: raising taxes on the wealthy, going after Wall Street for causing the economic depression, focusing on education and infrastructure over global hegemony, etc... these are all things that people WANT but our leadership have ignored for political reasons. But suddenly we have a candidate actually exposing all of these views and it's got a lot of people excited. But despite all of the push he has, he's exactly as electable as Ron Paul was a few years back.

He's basically a left of center Ron Paul, except he's getting MAJOR push for some reason because people really don't like Hillary personally.

Jul 7, 2015#28

Dei

Bernie was my highest at 79%, but for the most part I find him too far left for my liking. I hate all political candidates in general though.

Jul 7, 2015#29

Amy

Dei said:
Bernie was my highest at 79%, but for the most part I find him too far left for my liking. I hate all political candidates in general though.

DEI FOR PRESIDENT!

Jul 7, 2015#30

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
What is it with Bernie Sanders?

--Patrick

He's probably the owner of that domain...

Jul 7, 2015#31

Dei

Amy said:
DEI FOR PRESIDENT!

Why would you want to punish me like that?!

Jul 7, 2015#32

TommiR

Rick Santorum 89%
Ted Cruz 88%
Marco Rubio 86%
Jeb Bush 73%
Scott Walker 72%

Googling up some of these candidates and... well, all I can say that I probably wouldn't vote for any of them. On some issues I can agree with them, but mostly their stances and statements are too radical for my tastes. But I guess being wishy-washy doesn't win elections for you, in any country.

Apparently I agree with Bernie Sanders on Economic Issues, with a 39% overall score.

edit: By "radical", I meant "extreme". /edit

Jul 7, 2015#33

AshburnerX

TommiR said:
Rick Santorum 89%
Ted Cruz 88%
Marco Rubio 86%
Jeb Bush 73%
Scott Walker 72%

Googling up some of these candidates and... well, all I can say that I probably wouldn't vote for any of them. On some issues I can agree with them, but mostly their stances and statements are too radical for my tastes. But I guess being wishy-washy doesn't win elections for you, in any country.

Apparently I agree with Bernie Sanders on Economic Issues, with a 39% overall score.

I wouldn't expect any less from Mr. Burns.

Jul 7, 2015#34

DarkAudit

No surprise I side with Bernie (94%). What pisses me off is I got 58% agreement with the donald. Granted, I didn't go into the "more stances" button on most of the questions.

Also not all that surprised I stand with the Greens more than the Democrats (98-97. 65% Libertarian and 24% GOP). I'd considered switching to the Mountain Party (WV Greens-affiliated party) after the disaster of the last midterms.

Jul 7, 2015#35

tegid

Bernie 96%
Clinton 91%
O'Malley 76%
Rand Paul 59%

And the rest are ALL below 17% :O

That Rand Paul there is funny. He has some surprising (to me!) stances on foreign and domestic policy that I agree with

EDIT: Ah, look at party affinity results
Democrat 98%
Green 97%
Socialist 94%
Libertarian 64% <- Rand Paul is pretty libertarian isn't he? Even if he's in the GOP?
Constitution party 31%
Republicans 7%

That makes sense

Jul 7, 2015#36

AshburnerX

That's one of the big issues with these kinds of political surveys: Libertarianism isn't a party, but rather a scale similar to conservatism and liberalism. Basically, your libertarian and socialist values would be on one scale and your liberal/conservatism on the other. This is because there have been many Left Libertarians (Like Ghandi, who wanted practically no government involvement in life) as well as socialist conservatives (Stalin, Mao, the Kims of North Korea) but these examples run country to what we typical consider to be left and right issues. It doesn't help that the self styled Libertarian and Socialist parties have latched onto other issues to gain weight.

If it helps, think of Socialism and Libertarianism as where you stand on government involvement in your life economically (and just governmental strength in general), where as liberalism and conservatism are where you stand on social and religious issues.

Jul 7, 2015#37

Tinwhistler

Bernie Sanders...85%
Hillary Clinton...81%
Martin O'Malley...61%
Rand Paul...58%
Scott Walker...25%
Ted Cruz...23%
Carly Fiorina...21%

It's interesting to note where I differ, ideologically, from certain candidates.
I like Rand Paul, for instance. But I only match him 58% because he's pro-life, anti National Parks, supports fracking, couldn't give a crap about global warming, and wants to do away with the affordable care act and is a big border-fencer. His stances on things like marijuana, immigration, and ISIS appear to support a much stronger police state than we have today (as if what we had today wasn't already over the top ridiculous)

Taken down the slippery slope, that ideology can lead to an isolationist regime that could easily be the setting of a dystopian cyberpunk story where the government is run by MegaCorps and we live virtually as wage slaves in a polluted and dangerous world. Kinda like the Blade Runner movies.

Hm. I guess I don't like Rand Paul as much as I thought.

Jul 7, 2015#38

Celt Z

Okay, let's see here...

Bernie Sanders...93%
Hillary Clinton...87%
Martin O'Malley...72%
Blah, blah, blah....

Chris Christie...42%?!?! Ugh, I feel dirty.

Jul 7, 2015#39

tegid

AshburnerX said:
That's one of the big issues with these kinds of political surveys: Libertarianism isn't a party, but rather a scale similar to conservatism and liberalism. Basically, your libertarian and socialist values would be on one scale and your liberal/conservatism on the other. This is because there have been many Left Libertarians (Like Ghandi, who wanted practically no government involvement in life) as well as socialist conservatives (Stalin, Mao, the Kims of North Korea) but these examples run country to what we typical consider to be left and right issues. It doesn't help that the self styled Libertarian and Socialist parties have latched onto other issues to gain weight.

If it helps, think of Socialism and Libertarianism as where you stand on government involvement in your life economically (and just governmental strength in general), where as liberalism and conservatism are where you stand on social and religious issues.

Yeah, I pretty much agree that there are two axes to define all this. I find the word choice of liberal/conservative confusing, but that's vocabulary. But I thought libertarianism was an ideology that used BOTH axes. In the political compass graph ( http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 ), libertarians would be on the bottom right (the compass itself proves me wrong, since it labels 'libertarian' the social freedom extreme). I'm on the bottom left, and the US as a whole is has its political center much more to the right than Europe. That's why the agreement with Rand Paul confused me!

Jul 7, 2015#40

AshburnerX

Ugh... that was what I was trying to talk about, but ending up saying socialism instead of authoritarianism.

Jul 7, 2015#41

drawn_inward

Dei said:
I hate all political candidates in general though.

You said it sister.

Jul 7, 2015#42

Amy

Dei said:
Why would you want to punish me like that?!

Those that are best fit to lead, do not want to.

Jul 7, 2015#43

PatrThom

Amy said:
Those that are best fit to lead, do not want to.

PatrThom a couple of years ago said:
I once posted something similar regarding what change I'd like to see in election rules. I don't remember the exact quote, but it was something like, "The pool of eligible candidates shall be composed only of those people not seeking office."

Link to the discussion

--Patrick

Jul 7, 2015#44

Dave

I got Bernie at 93%, Hillary at 91%, and the rest at 60% on down. I don't feel dirty matching some of these things because the questions aren't that nuanced,

Jul 7, 2015#45

drawn_inward

This is probably bad to admit, but I didn't know who Bernie was. I thought Bernie was a nickname for Hillary. I haven't been keeping up with politics much at all. I don't have a whole lot of respect for any of them. I also don't really watch or read much political news. When I did keep up with it, I was foaming at the mouth all the time, and was running the country from my couch. Now, I am so cynical that I think that House of Cards is a documentary.

Jul 7, 2015#46

Necronic

Christ.....

I sided heavily with Libertarians, Rand Paul, and Donald Trump....

And the only reason why is that there wasn't a question asking "Do you understand political policy at a 5th grade level or higher..."

Anyways, I could care less. I'm still voting for Hillary. I think my number came out like this because I disagree with her on a lot of issues I don't really care about. I should probably retake the quiz and clarify importance.[DOUBLEPOST=1436294548,1436294479][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh wow though, I've always considered myself a bit of a centrist. And no joke, my little marker is square in the center of the field.

Jul 7, 2015#47

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Anyways, I could care less.

Jul 7, 2015#48

Cheesy1

Gruebeard said:
I side with Sloth.

I had to:

Jul 7, 2015#49

Necronic

GasBandit said:

Ah, Stannis Borathian, the patron saint of the Libertarian party. Following principles beyond all semblance of reason till death and damnation.

Jul 7, 2015#50

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Ah, Stannis Borathian, the patron saint of the Libertarian party. Following principles beyond all semblance of reason till death and damnation.

Grammar stickler aside, I'm pretty sure Stannis was actually an Absolute Monarchist

Jul 7, 2015#51

Zappit

Bernie Sanders - 91%
Hillary Clinton- 89%
Martin O' Malley - 75%
Mike Huckabee - 54% (agreed on no major issues, by the way)
Rand Paul - 27% (agreed on a couple major issues, so the Huckabee thing's weird)

Why yes, I am from Massachusetts. How did you guess?

Jul 8, 2015#52

sixpackshaker

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1100504854

Damn, Trump is the highest rated Republican on my list. I feel dirty.

7% Rand Paul makes me happy though.

Jul 8, 2015#53

Frank

Bernie Sanders is pretty rad. Just Canadian commenting on your election.

Jul 13, 2015#54

PatrThom

Amy said:
Those that are best fit to lead, do not want to.

Ah, found my exact quote, but it was on reddit in a thread titled "What are some things that you think should be laws but aren't (and likely never will be)?", not in the forums.

On reddit PatrThom said:
The pool of candidates to choose for public office may only be composed of people who are not actively seeking public office

--Patrick

Jul 13, 2015#55

GasBandit

I'd settle for Instant Runoff balloting, to break the stranglehold of the 2 party system.

Jul 13, 2015#56

Dei

GasBandit said:
I'd settle for Instant Runoff balloting, to break the stranglehold of the 2 party system.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

The end must be coming right?!

Jul 13, 2015#57

GasBandit

Dei said:
The end must be coming right?!

Psssh, guuurl, watchyu think I been sayin'

Jul 13, 2015#58

Dei

GasBandit said:
Psssh, guuurl, watchyu think I been sayin'

NOT that end. :/

Jul 13, 2015#59

GasBandit

Dei said:
NOT that end. :/

That's what SHE said.

Wait, wrong thread.

Jul 13, 2015#60

Covar

Dei said:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

The end must be coming right?!

Doesn't matter. Most of those polled either won't show up to vote (different from a blank ballot) or will vote D or R because they're sheep tricked into believing that if you don't vote for "the lesser of two evils" you're throwing your vote away, when in truth it's the exact opposite.

Jul 13, 2015#61

AshburnerX

Covar said:
Doesn't matter. Most of those polled either won't show up to vote (different from a blank ballot) or will vote D or R because they're sheep tricked into believing that if you don't vote for "the lesser of two evils" you're throwing your vote away, when in truth it's the exact opposite.

This extends into the primary. Americans are keenly aware that they need a candidate that pulls in the undecided voters at the last stage, causing many people to pick a primary candidate that they believe "can win", rather than believes as they do. So we're not even getting the candidates we really want from the parties we already have because the end game is usually decided by swing votes anyways and getting the swing votes is all that matters anymore.

Jul 13, 2015#62

drawn_inward

Covar said:
Doesn't matter. Most of those polled either won't show up to vote (different from a blank ballot) or will vote D or R because they're sheep tricked into believing that if you don't vote for "the lesser of two evils" you're throwing your vote away, when in truth it's the exact opposite.

I've been voting for the greater of two evils for years! :problemo:

Jul 13, 2015#63

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
This extends into the primary. Americans are keenly aware that they need a candidate that pulls in the undecided voters at the last stage, causing many people to pick a primary candidate that they believe "can win", rather than believes as they do. So we're not even getting the candidates we really want from the parties we already have because the end game is usually decided by swing votes anyways and getting the swing votes is all that matters anymore.

Even that's falling apart though, as the last few elections have shown that the republican base - so often assumed to be a gimme - isn't averse to staying home on election day if they don't like their party's candidate enough.

But I agree with Covar... the electorate has been fooled into a prisoner's dilemma regarding their choices of president for as long as I've been alive.

Jul 13, 2015#64

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Even that's falling apart though, as the last few elections have shown that the republican base - so often assumed to be a gimme - isn't averse to staying home on election day if they don't like their party's candidate enough.

I fully expect this to hit them hard this cycle. With 15-17 big name choices before the first debate, there is a significant chance that people are going to stay home when their candidate doesn't win.

Jul 14, 2015#65

drawn_inward

AshburnerX said:
I fully expect this to hit them hard this cycle. With 15-17 big name choices before the first debate, there is a significant chance that people are going to stay home when their candidate doesn't win.

I wouldn't be so sure. Just like with the Dems, I think there will be Party votes. I have personally not voted on certain elections due to a lack of a third-party option.

Jul 20, 2015#66

Null

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1146709319

Jul 20, 2015#67

Tinwhistler

I identified more Republican when I was younger. But I think that's because I only focused on a very narrow subset of issues. Kind of weird to see the socialist party so high. Maybe I should move to a European country

Jul 20, 2015#68

Cheesy1

Apparently, according to that quiz, I'm a Bernie Sanders supporting tree-hugging commie.

Jul 20, 2015#69

Emrys

One of us! One of us!

Jul 20, 2015#70

sixpackshaker

This has to be a Bernie backed viral marketing tool.

Jul 20, 2015#71

Amy

sixpackshaker said:
This has to be a Bernie backed viral marketing tool.

Pretty sure this site has been around since George HW Bush's second term. And while Bernie Sanders has been around since the Cretaceous, I don't think it was his idea.

Jul 20, 2015#72

blotsfan

Yeah I distinctly remember doing this last election and getting Ron Paul.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that last election, the "Internet's Candidate" was Ron Paul, while this election its Bernie Sanders. It seems like their policies are pretty opposite though.

Jul 20, 2015#73

AshburnerX

blotsfan said:
Yeah I distinctly remember doing this last election and getting Ron Paul.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that last election, the "Internet's Candidate" was Ron Paul, while this election its Bernie Sanders. It seems like their policies are pretty opposite though.

The Internet only cares about legitimacy, not electability. Ron Paul was never going to win, but he was as legit as a politician could be. Same with Bernie here.

Aug 22, 2015#74

WasabiPoptart

I have a question and please bear with me.
I started thinking about this at breakfast. What if the relationship between Trump and Clinton could be a factor in the presidential election. What if his whole campaign, which has been described as destructive to the GOP, is a favor for his friends The Clintons to get Hillary into office? They attended The Donald's wedding. Ivanka and Chelsea are good friends. And no, I'm not serious about this like some crazed conspiracy theorist. It did, however, make me curious about how having a major party nominee drop out right before the election would be handled.

What would happen if, for whatever reason, a GOP or Dem nominee for POTUS dropped out at the last minute?

Aug 22, 2015#75

Frank

I've joked about that, it seems almost more logical than him being serious about the whole thing.

Aug 22, 2015#76

GasBandit

WasabiPoptart said:
I have a question and please bear with me.
I started thinking about this at breakfast. What if the relationship between Trump and Clinton could be a factor in the presidential election. What if his whole campaign, which has been described as destructive to the GOP, is a favor for his friends The Clintons to get Hillary into office? They attended The Donald's wedding. Ivanka and Chelsea are good friends. And no, I'm not serious about this like some crazed conspiracy theorist. It did, however, make me curious about how having a major party nominee drop out right before the election would be handled.

What would happen if, for whatever reason, a GOP or Dem nominee for POTUS dropped out at the last minute?

Probably a whole lot of write-ins, dividing their way into a Clinton victory, then another fun trip to the supreme court for election fraud accusation shenanigans.

Aug 22, 2015#77

AshburnerX

If a GOP nominee dropped out/died/whatever at the last minute, their vice president would become the main ticket. If they were gone too, I'm assuming the next runner up in the party nomination vote would take the seat. If ALL their potential candidates were gone for some reason, it's entirely probable that the election would be suspended in order to prevent a huge fucking brawl.

Regardless, they would likely be unable to win unless a vast majority of their electorate was familiar with the VP/runner up (unlikely) or simply voting along party lines (entirely likely). And yes, Trump is tied to the Clintons and has run as a democrat before. It's entirely possible he's sabotaging the election for the Republicans but there is no mechanism is place to prevent that kind of misconduct... you can't stop someone from running unless they don't meet the minimum standards for Presidency.

Aug 22, 2015#78

Ravenpoe

WasabiPoptart said:
I have a question and please bear with me.
I started thinking about this at breakfast. What if the relationship between Trump and Clinton could be a factor in the presidential election. What if his whole campaign, which has been described as destructive to the GOP, is a favor for his friends The Clintons to get Hillary into office? They attended The Donald's wedding. Ivanka and Chelsea are good friends. And no, I'm not serious about this like some crazed conspiracy theorist. It did, however, make me curious about how having a major party nominee drop out right before the election would be handled.

What would happen if, for whatever reason, a GOP or Dem nominee for POTUS dropped out at the last minute?

Having him drop out at the last minute would be a terrible plan. A far more successful plan would be for him to be a bigoted cartoon, to the point that there's no sane way he could become the GOP nominee, and then run as an independent against the real nominee to split the vote.

Aug 22, 2015#79

WasabiPoptart

AshburnerX said:
If a GOP nominee dropped out/died/whatever at the last minute, their vice president would become the main ticket.

That does make the most sense. Do you happen to know if there is a precedent? If you don't know, it's not a big deal since it's only to satisfy my curiosity.

Aug 22, 2015#80

Dei

Really, with The Donald that far ahead, do the dems really need the help? [emoji14]

Aug 22, 2015#81

AshburnerX

WasabiPoptart said:
That does make the most sense. Do you happen to know if there is a precedent? If you don't know, it's not a big deal since it's only to satisfy my curiosity.

A presidential candidate has never died/dropped out before an election to date. However, two vice presidential candidates have (1 died, 1 left the ticket).

Vacancies of Vice-Presidential CandidatesIn 1912, James Sherman, the Republican candidate for Vice-President (and the incumbent Vice-President under William Howard Taft) died on October 30 of kidney disease, a few days before the general election on November 5. The Republican National Committee scheduled a meeting to be held after the general election, on November 12, to select a successor, and Sherman's name remained on the ticket for the general election. The Republicans lost, however (the Democratic ticket of Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall won), and decided on November 8 not to meet as they had planned because voters only chose eight Republican electors, in Vermont and Utah. These electors did meet later, however, and, acting without instructions from the RNC, voted to replace Sherman's name on the ticket with that of Columbia University President Nicholas Butler of New York. This was a purely formal act with no practical consequences for the election.

During the 1972 presidential campaign, Democrat Thomas Eagleton was Senator George McGovern's vice-presidential running mate for only 18 days. Eagleton dropped out of the race acknowledging that he had been hospitalized three times in the 1960s for depression and stress, and that he had undergone electric shock therapy. McGovern selected the Peace Corps Director, Sargent Shriver, to replace Eagleton, but to actually place Shriver on the ticket, the Democratic National Committee met and chose him in the first week of August. The Democrats lost the general election in November to the Republican candidates, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

They were simply replaced since running mates are chosen, not picked as a result of voting. However, the Party of the candidate does need to convene to officially select a new vice presidential candidate.

Aug 22, 2015#82

GasBandit

Aug 22, 2015#83

AshburnerX

"I'm gonna DEVOUR THIS BABY for you, Mr. Trump!"

Aug 22, 2015#84

Bowielee

AshburnerX said:
"I'm gonna DEVOUR THIS BABY for you, Mr. Trump!"

I laughed so damn hard.

Aug 22, 2015#85

Terrik

I don't think it's all to unreasonable to think that people are so fed up with the standard politician that they'll take anything else even if it'd someone questionable like Trump.

Aug 22, 2015#86

Krisken

Everyone loves the joke, until the joke wins. Then it's a goddamn disaster. I've seen it on a small scale, really don't want to see it on the national one.

Aug 22, 2015#87

jwhouk

Krisken said:
Everyone loves the joke, until the joke wins. Then it's a goddamn disaster. I've seen it on a small scale, really don't want to see it on the national one.

I don't think Wisconsin is a "small scale", personally.

Aug 22, 2015#88

Krisken

jwhouk said:
I don't think Wisconsin is a "small scale", personally.

That's not the small scale I was thinking of. Remember, this moron state voted for that twat 3 times, twice after the joke stopped being funny.

Aug 22, 2015#89

Frank

Try these on.

Look, you crazy mother...

Put these on.

HEY, stay away from me!

I'm telling you you dumb sunnobitch!

Aug 23, 2015#90

Bubble181

I don't see how an "important" candidate dropping out would be an official reason to have a problem with the voting. AFAIK there's no reason why there "should" be a candidate from the two main parties - if both main candidates were to drop dead, as long as there were some independents or third party candidates, you'd still have a valid election.

That said, Trump being a Hillary supporter in disguise, or a deliberate sabotage....Eh. He'll probably work that way, but I don't see his candidacy as abnormal - he fits in too well with the times. I can see him make it fairly far into the Republican primaries simply because there's no clear competitor, unlike the Dems this time around. Any democratic party candidate has to show why they'd be better than Hillary - the Republicans don't have a clear front runner. They also don't have an "obvious", "sensible" choice. There's something wrong with almost all their candidates for a number of the GOP backing. Either they're not racist and/or hyperreligious, or they are.

Aug 23, 2015#91

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
That's not the small scale I was thinking off. Remember, this moron state voted for that twat 3 times, twice after the joke stopped being funny.

No surprise, considering the Koch Brothers have a stake in most voting machine manufacturers.

Aug 23, 2015#92

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
No surprise, considering the Koch Brothers have a stake in most voting machine manufacturers.

I didn't realize SELD-M-BREAK was a Koch company...

--Patrick

Aug 24, 2015#93

GasBandit

GasBandit said:

Frank said:
Try these on.

Look, you crazy mother...

Put these on.

HEY, stay away from me!

I'm telling you you dumb sunnobitch!

Aug 24, 2015#94

Frank

Now I want to deep dream that.

Ehhh, I ran it like 5 times and it wasn't interesting. Not nearly as much as the above one.

Aug 24, 2015#95

GasBandit

Aug 24, 2015#96

Cheesy1

Aug 24, 2015#97

PatrThom

Yes! I was hoping someone would animate it!
Now all it needs is a sprinkle of Gary Busey and it will be perfect..

--Patrick

Aug 24, 2015#98

SpecialKO

Someone needs to go the extra step and take it this far:

Aug 25, 2015#99

PatrThom

SpecialKO said:
Someone needs to go the extra step and take it this far:

...but with Gary Busey.

--Patrick

Aug 26, 2015#100

SpecialKO

PatrThom said:
...but with Gary Busey.

--Patrick

No.

Oldman forever.

Aug 26, 2015#101

PatrThom

SpecialKO said:
No.

Oldman forever.

No, no.
The Trump .GIF needs to be animated like the Oldman one, but it needs to have Busey added into the mix.

--Patrick

Sep 12, 2015#102

Varanel

Wow, I just took that little survey and they paired me with Donald Trump. I wouldn't even give the man the time of day let alone vote for him. Their results seemed slightly skewed.

Sep 12, 2015#103

Tress

Rick Perry announced that he's out. Not a huge surprise, but he's the first major candidate to bow out.

One down, fourteen to go!

Sep 12, 2015#104

GasBandit

I'm halfway considering registering as a Democrat this time, just so I can vote against Hillary in the primary. I'll still be voting libertarian in the general election, but when the Republicans screw the pooch again as they always do, I'd rather see a true believer like Bernie get the White House than a duplicitous, power mad, self-aggrandizing scofflaw like Clinton.

Sep 12, 2015#105

Null

Tress said:
Rick Perry announced that he's out. Not a huge surprise, but he's the first major candidate to bow out.

One down, fourteen to go!

Yeah I mean his campaign has basically been operating on IOUs for the last several weeks.

Sep 14, 2015#106

Denbrought

Bernie Sanders 91%
Hillary Clinton 76%
Joe Biden 75%
Martin O'Malley 71%
Rand Paul 33%
JEB! 15%
Ben Carson 13%

The rest are below 10% (though I can still taste the 2% Santorum)

Welp, I'm apparently still a dirty pinko, no surprises here, I don't think...

Edit: I'mma do the tegid thing and check the party thingamabob...

Green Party 97%
Democrats 92%
Socialist 87%
Libertarians 54%
Constitution Party 12%
Republicans 3%

Okay, so I'm more green than red, or something.

Sep 15, 2015#107

GasBandit

Denbrought said:
Okay, so I'm more green than red, or something.

Eh, don't worry about it. It is all watermelons at that end of the spectrum anyway... Green on the outside but red on the inside.

Sep 16, 2015#108

Eriol

GasBandit said:
Eh, don't worry about it. It is all watermelons at that end of the spectrum anyway... Green on the outside but red on the inside.

Because a surprising number of people don't know this one anymore, "red" in this case usually refers to communists.

Sep 16, 2015#109

sixpackshaker

My brother stands with Trump. Well next to the guy next to Trump.

Sep 16, 2015#110

jwhouk

This has meme written all over it...

Sep 16, 2015#111

Krisken

You mean like

"The wait staff at The Sizzler have a night out"

Sep 16, 2015#112

Denbrought

Eriol said:
Because a surprising number of people don't know this one anymore, "red" in this case usually refers to communists.

Really? I don't think I've ever had to explain "the reds" to anyone outside of elementary/middle school. I could see people not knowing pinko, though.

Sep 17, 2015#113

Gruebeard

Denbrought said:
Really? I don't think I've ever had to explain "the reds" to anyone outside of elementary/middle school. I could see people not knowing pinko, though.

That's my little finger, right?

. . .

Narf!

Sep 17, 2015#114

Denbrought

Gruebeard said:
That's my little finger, right?

. . .

Narf!

No, that's pinky, we're talking about the flaky breadcrumbs commonly used in Japanese recipes.

Sep 17, 2015#115

Bubble181

Denbrought said:
No, that's pinky, we're talking about the flaky breadcrumbs commonly used in Japanese recipes.

That's panko.

We're talking about the fairly short Austrian-Hungarian river, mainly known for crossing the border a ridiculous amount of times.

Sep 17, 2015#116

DarkAudit

Bubble181 said:
That's panko.

We're talking about the fairly short Austrian-Hungarian river, mainly known for crossing the border a ridiculous amount of times.

That's Pinka. We're talking about that game on the Price is Right with the big chip and the pegboard and whatnot.

Sep 17, 2015#117

Bubble181

DarkAudit said:
That's Pinka. We're talking about that game on the Price is Right with the big chip and the pegboard and whatnot.

That's Plinko, you twit. We're talking about the wood construction game!

Sep 17, 2015#118

bhamv3

Bubble181 said:
That's Plinko, you twit. We're talking about the wood construction game!

That's Jenga.

... am I doing this right?

Sep 17, 2015#119

Eriol

Denbrought said:
Really? I don't think I've ever had to explain "the reds" to anyone outside of elementary/middle school. I could see people not knowing pinko, though.

It has gotten muddled ever since you guys started doing the "red state, blue state" thing, which is relatively recent.

Sep 17, 2015#120

drawn_inward

bhamv3 said:
That's Jenga.

... am I doing this right?

No, no. It's Jango.

Sep 17, 2015#121

Gruebeard

drawn_inward said:
No, no. It's Jango.

No, Mr Stormtrooper, you're Jango.

So what were we talking about, again?

Sep 17, 2015#122

Celt Z

Steak.

Sep 17, 2015#123

Bubble181

If you want to get rid of @Sera, I think throwing her in water to see whether or not she floats is the thing. These are for vampires. Besdies, why do you want to get rid of her?

Sep 17, 2015#124

Sera

Bubble181 said:
If you want to get rid of @Sera, I think throwing her in water to see whether or not she floats is the thing. These are for vampires. Besdies, why do you want to get rid of her?

What did I do?

Sep 17, 2015#125

Gruebeard

Sera said:
What did I do?

Did you fry the stake wrong?

Sep 18, 2015#126

PatrThom

What do vampires have against carrots?

--Patrick

Sep 18, 2015#127

drawn_inward

Gruebeard said:
No, Mr Stormtrooper, you're Jango.

So what were we talking about, again?

No, I'm jingoist. You Rebel scum!

Sep 20, 2015#128

DarkAudit

Some schadenfreude for our resident Cheeseheads...

Sep 20, 2015#129

jwhouk

Hee hee hee....

Sep 21, 2015#130

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Some schadenfreude for our resident Cheeseheads...

Sounds like Scott Walker is out.

Sep 21, 2015#131

Tress

Pity.

Sep 21, 2015#132

Krisken

Tress said:
Pity.

Yeah, that means he's going to have more time to fuck over my state.

Sep 21, 2015#133

jwhouk

Krisken said:
Yeah, that means he's going to have more time to fuck over my state.

Hopefully it'll only be for the next 3 1/2 years, though.

Sep 21, 2015#134

Cheesy1

But from what I've heard here and seen of him on the national level, he seems like the type of petty asshat who would take out his frustrations of not becoming president on his own constituents back home.

Sep 22, 2015#135

jwhouk

Cheesy1 said:
But from what I've heard here and seen of him on the national level, he seems like the type of petty asshat who would take out his frustrations of not becoming president on his own constituents back home.

That is why November 7, 2018 cannot come soon enough.

And I pray that he maintains his 0% approval rating until then.

Sep 22, 2015#136

DarkAudit

What's he going to do once he realizes the Koch Brothers have found a new shiny?

Sep 23, 2015#137

jwhouk

THAT is what I'm worried about.

Sep 30, 2015#138

DarkAudit

Kevin McCarthy lets the cat out of the bag. The only reason the Benghazi committee exists is to drive down Hillary's poll numbers.

Oct 5, 2015#139

Krisken

The only thing surprising about this is people are surprised.

Oct 8, 2015#140

Necronic

First time I took this I didn't use the "most-least" sliders and sided heavily with trump. This time I took it and came out 82% Sanders. Still had Trump at like 60%. Not sure how that's even possible.

Ed: Happy to see that Ben Carson showed up at 41% though. Screw that guy

Oct 8, 2015#141

Necronic

sixpackshaker said:
My brother stands with Trump. Well next to the guy next to Trump.

The semi-confederate flag in the background and a guy in a Tommy Bahama shirt just says so much.

Oct 8, 2015#142

Bubble181

Necronic said:
82% Sanders. Still had Trump at like 60%. Not sure how that's even possible.

They're both heavily anti-establishment, anti-career-politician, anti-bribe, anti-lobby groups. Possibly lying in Trump's case, but still.

Oct 8, 2015#143

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
They're both heavily anti-establishment, anti-career-politician, anti-bribe, anti-lobby groups. Possibly lying in Trump's case, but still.

That's the real shortcoming of the quiz, it assumes that every candidate is telling the truth about their positions and will follow through on them.

Oct 8, 2015#144

Eriol

GasBandit said:
That's the real shortcoming of the quiz, it assumes that every candidate is telling the truth about their positions and will follow through on them.

Other than personal family/provincial history with the Federal Liberal Party in Canada (Trudeau, BOO HISS!!!), my opinion of that party was pretty well cemented in the 1990s through 2006 when they were in power: they will say absolutely anything during an election, and their behavior when in power has little to no resemblance to it. Combine it with rampant cronyism (Jean should be in jail over the Golf Course thing) and I wouldn't trust anybody who's willing to even associate themselves with that brand. It's that tainted IMO. They are basically completely controlled by their elites and will say anything and break ANY promise.

It sucks because I don't like ANY of the federal parties and/or their leaders for various reasons, and while the Liberal Party may have the closest to "seems OK" platform, my trust for them is like -1000%. I trust the NDP to do what they say, though I think it'll fuck up the country horrifically. And I think the current government has 1000% the wrong direction on digital privacy/freedom with the TPP agreement, along with a few other things. Greens are just a bunch of loonies.

So I feel for any who just straight out don't believe politicians. I feel exactly the same way, and have to vote on it on October 19th. Two weeks to determine if I'm going to hold my nose and vote for somebody, or officially decline my ballot.

Oct 8, 2015#145

Gruebeard

Necronic said:
Still had Trump at like 60%. Not sure how that's even possible.

The website knows you just want to stand by Trump so you can check out his daughter's ass.

Oct 9, 2015#146

Necronic

I don't think I've ever voted based on a political promise. It's such a ridiculous notion to me that anyone could promise anyone...anything like that. The reality of governance and legislating is such that promised actions, like the closing of GTMO, usually have a massive string of consequences that weren't understood at the time of the promise that now make the option nearly impossible. They can promise to maintain a set of principles, but even then that doesn't mean too much when faced with a real emergency. I don't think TARP relief was something that aligned with Bush's principles, but he did what he had to do.

Go a step further. Think about your personal life. How often to people make explicit promises to you? Its not that often. In a way a promise almost implies that the person is untrustworthy to begin with, like a child being made to promise he'll brush his teeth.

Oct 12, 2015#147

Krisken

Damn you for making me post a Cracked article.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20134_8-election-myths-you-probably-believe.html

Nov 6, 2015#148

DarkAudit

New York Magazine posits that Ben Carson isn't actually running for President at all.

Nov 6, 2015#149

WasabiPoptart

95% Sanders
93% Clinton
79% O'Malley (Who?)
53% Jim Webb
then next are Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and Ben Carson - who it says I match with on science. Yikes!

For party I'm just listing them in order from highest to lowest:

Democrat
Green
Socialist
Libertarian
Republican

Kind of surprised about Green. I thought Socialist would be second.

Nov 6, 2015#150

Bubble181

DarkAudit said:
New York Magazine posits that Ben Carson isn't actually running for President at all.

He certainly wouldn't be the first person to claim presidential candidate status in order to gain more recognition and brand awareness - be it to run for another office later, or to go big in business. We'll see.

Nov 6, 2015#151

GasBandit

"But now Carson actually is running for president. Or is he? It is hard to tell. Conservative politics are so closely intermingled with a lucrative entertainment complex that it is frequently impossible to distinguish between a political project (that is, something designed to result in policy change) and a money-making venture. "

Ha! HA HA HA! Ha ha ha ha ha! Ohhh now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle hollywood/network television.

Nov 6, 2015#152

Gruebeard

Bubble181 said:
He certainly wouldn't be the first person to claim presidential candidate status in order to gain more recognition and brand awareness - be it to run for another office later, or to go big in business. We'll see.

He's probably looking for a wife.

Nov 6, 2015#153

Krisken

Gruebeard said:
He's probably looking for a wife.

That is the best response I have seen in a long time. Bravo!

Nov 7, 2015#154

Frank

Your country is batshit insane.

Nov 7, 2015#155

DarkAudit

Frank said:
Your country is batshit insane.

He throws out raw meat for the Fox Noise crowd, and then admits he made up the West Point acceptance story. He's just full of shit, no matter which way you spin it.

Nov 7, 2015#156

Krisken

@Terrik

News Radio, tv series, Jimmy James, the oddball billionaire who owns the company, runs for president with the secret intention of actually searching for a wife.

Nov 7, 2015#157

DarkAudit

Now it's the Wall Street Journal calling Carson out on his lies. And of course, he blames the media.

Nov 7, 2015#158

GasBandit

Remember 8 years ago though, where questioning any of the inconsistencies in Barack Obama's stories got you branded the most vile of racists? Good thing Carson is a republican, so we're allowed to scrutinize, criticize, and disagree with him.[DOUBLEPOST=1446915951,1446915862][/DOUBLEPOST]

DarkAudit said:
Now it's the Wall Street Journal calling Carson out on his lies.

DA, you have a subscription to the WSJ? I'm genuinely astonished!

Nov 7, 2015#159

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Remember 8 years ago though, where questioning any of the inconsistencies in Barack Obama's stories got you branded the most vile of racists? Good thing Carson is a republican, so we're allowed to scrutinize, criticize, and disagree with him.[DOUBLEPOST=1446915951,1446915862][/DOUBLEPOST]
DA, you have a subscription to the WSJ? I'm genuinely astonished!

No, but not for any ideological reasons. This item showed up on my radar, and I was surprised he was being called out by the right for the holes in his story.

Nov 7, 2015#160

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
No, but not for any ideological reasons. This item showed up on my radar, and I was surprised he was being called out by the right for the holes in his story.

Ah. I can't read the article because I don't have a subscription.

Nov 7, 2015#161

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Ah. I can't read the article because I don't have a subscription.

Hm. Try going to it via Google news. I searched "WSJ Carson Yale".

The gist of the article was his tale of winning an award for honesty at Yale may be a complete fabrication.

Nov 7, 2015#162

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Remember 8 years ago though, where questioning any of the inconsistencies in Barack Obama's stories got you branded the most vile of racists?

Does Obama believe the Egyptian pyramids were built to be grain silos? Carson apparently does.

Although, admittedly Obama grew up around there so he'd have hung out at the pyramids some of those days he was skipping class to go rafting with Tom, Huck and their pal Steve Kuntz.

Nov 7, 2015#163

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
Does Obama believe the Egyptian pyramids were built to be grain silos? Carson apparently does.

Although, admittedly Obama grew up around there so he'd have hung out at the pyramids some of those days he was skipping class to go rafting with Tom, Huck and their pal Steve Kuntz.

Obama claimed his parents met at the civil rights demonstrations in Selma. Problem is, Obama was born 4 years BEFORE that event took place. Apparently he believes his parents are time travelers.

Nov 7, 2015#164

Covar

Maybe they took seperate cars and met up when they got there?

Nov 7, 2015#165

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
Obama claimed his parents met at the civil rights demonstrations in Selma. Problem is, Obama was born 4 years BEFORE that event took place. Apparently he believes his parents are time travelers.

Hmm...I see where he claims they met in 1960 a Russian language class in college, a claim he's been making since at least his book "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance", published back in 1995.

Found the Selma thing on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp

Not that they met at Selma, but that they were encouraged by the march to get married as a mixed-race, which, naturally can't be true. He could have been mis-remembering the date, or have heard it as a family legend and never really looked it up, or simply been political pandering, since it was said in a speech at Selma. (shrug)

I don't really see it as some concerted effort to hide the circumstances of his birth, which he's been pretty straightforward about.

Nov 7, 2015#166

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
I don't really see it as some concerted effort to hide the circumstances of his birth, which he's been pretty straightforward about.

Not to hide the circumstances of his birth, but to claim a link to the civil rights struggle to gain political capital.

Nov 7, 2015#167

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Not to hide the circumstances of his birth, but to claim a link to the civil rights struggle to gain political capital.

Yeah, I mean, what kind of politician DOES that?

Nov 7, 2015#168

Covar

Krisken said:
Yeah, I mean, what kind of politician DOES that?

Based on the Ben Carson comments, the worst kind.

Nov 7, 2015#169

GasBandit

Well, my point was less about Obama and more about the people who cried racism over every criticism, but don't mysteriously have that same impulse now for Carson.

Nov 7, 2015#170

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Well, my point was less about Obama and more about the people who cried racism over every criticism, but don't mysteriously have that same impulse now for Carson.

If you are saying this is the same because they have the same skin color, I'd call that a false equivalency. Especially since we haven't seen racist pictures being forwarded around by staffers showing Carson in a stereotype tribal get-up or the many other disgusting images/comments.

So, just maybe it's not racist now because people aren't being racist and are criticizing him for being a loon. Not much different than the entire Republican field if you ask me.

Nov 7, 2015#171

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
[they] don't mysteriously have that same impulse now for Carson.

Even they might not like him enough to stick up for him, even that little.

--Patrick

Nov 7, 2015#172

GasBandit

Krisken said:
If you are saying this is the same because they have the same skin color, I'd call that a false equivalency. Especially since we haven't seen racist pictures being forwarded around by staffers showing Carson in a stereotype tribal get-up or the many other disgusting images/comments.

So, just maybe it's not racist now because people aren't being racist and are criticizing him for being a loon. Not much different than the entire Republican field if you ask me.

Perfectly non-racist criticisms of Obama were (and still are) labeled racism just as an automatic easy way of silencing any dissent.

Nov 7, 2015#173

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Perfectly non-racist criticisms of Obama were (and still are) labeled racism just as an automatic easy way of silencing any dissent.

So? People also tried justifying the Bush torture regime. It doesn't make it right, but doesn't discount the VERY REAL racism which cropped up.

If the criticism is good, then go with it. Don't play the "Well, if they did it, we can do it" crap. You're smarter than that and it's very lazy arguing.

Nov 7, 2015#174

GasBandit

Krisken said:
So? People also tried justifying the Bush torture regime. It doesn't make it right, but doesn't discount the VERY REAL racism which cropped up.

If the criticism is good, then go with it. Don't play the "Well, if they did it, we can do it" crap. You're smarter than that and it's very lazy arguing.

That's not the argument I made. I lamented the difference (and the hypocrisy), is all.

The fact of the matter is, a black person is only a protected minority until he or she strays off the Democrat reservation. See: Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, etc etc.

No redneck hates any black person as much as a democrat hates a black republican.

Nov 7, 2015#175

Krisken

GasBandit said:
That's not the argument I made. I lamented the difference (and the hypocrisy), is all.

The fact of the matter is, a black person is only a protected minority until he or she strays off the Democrat reservation. See: Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, etc etc.

No redneck hates any black person as much as a democrat hates a black republican.

No, you imagined a hypocrisy. Show me evidence there was racism. And I'll tell you there are plenty of those on the left which are criticized. You are displaying your confirmation bias here.

Nov 7, 2015#176

GasBandit

Krisken said:
No, you imagined a hypocrisy. Show me evidence there was racism.

You've got it entirely backwards. I'm not saying the criticism of Carson is racist, I'm saying that previously valid criticism of Obama was called racist so as to stamp out dissent.

Nov 7, 2015#177

Krisken

GasBandit said:
You've got it entirely backwards. I'm not saying the criticism of Carson is racist, I'm saying that previously valid criticism of Obama was called racist so as to stamp out dissent.

Ok. Still wrong.[DOUBLEPOST=1446943867,1446943279][/DOUBLEPOST]

Krisken said:
Ok. Still wrong.

I suppose I should elaborate- I don't doubt pundits did this in some cases. I just don't think it was as common as you claim or as widely believed as credible when it was less than somewhat overt.

Nov 7, 2015#178

GasBandit

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American." -Jimmy Carter

"They can’t stand the idea that he’s president, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group, so what? It’s the sense that the white race must rule, that’s what racism is, and they can’t stand the idea that a man who’s not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country." - Chris Matthews

“If you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and – and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally – and very transparently – block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.” - Debbie Wasserman Schultzhttp://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/the-50-most-obnoxious-quotes-of-2011-8th-annual/

"Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!" - Maureen Dowd

"The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. References to a lack of respect for the ‘Founding Fathers’ and the ‘Constitution’ also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core ‘old-fashioned American values.’" - Juan Williams

“That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States — not the chief executive, but the commander-in-chief — that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.” - Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) (Who also famously called Justice Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom")

My Fellow Blacks, Can I Criticize Dear Leader Now?

Nov 7, 2015#179

DarkAudit

None of which changes the fact that the recent statements of Ben Carson put his mental competency into doubt, and even the right is figuring that out now.

Nov 7, 2015#180

Krisken

Except you haven't shown how the criticism in those cases were valid, did you?

Nov 7, 2015#181

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
Except you haven't shown how the criticism in those cases were valid, did you?

Was that for me or GB?

Nov 7, 2015#182

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
None of which changes the fact that the recent statements of Ben Carson put his mental competency into doubt, and even the right is figuring that out now.

No, I'm not saying that Carson isn't to be criticized. Just noting he doesn't get the same treatment Obama did and still does.

Krisken said:
Except you haven't shown how the criticism in those cases were valid, did you?

Boy oh boy do those goalposts keep moving. First you say "it wasn't that widespread," and I show you a small sampling of how ubiquitous it was (and it was), now it's about how the burden of proof is on me to show that the criticism wasn't racist, because obviously criticism of Obama being racist is the default.

Well, fine, here's some links...

House Democrat: Basically all Criticism of Obama is Straight Up Racism (Bennie Thompson). Note that Mitch McConnell never actually said what Thompson says he did.

The Maureen Dowd bit doesn't need a link, Obama did lie (it was a speech about obamacare).

Here's a list of... well, Chris Matthews basically saying every criticism of Obama is racism. There's 20 things there, you're going to tell me it's all really just racism?

Damn, I have to get back to work...

Nov 7, 2015#183

Krisken

GasBandit said:
No, I'm not saying that Carson isn't to be criticized. Just noting he doesn't get the same treatment Obama did and still does.

Boy oh boy do those goalposts keep moving. First you say "it wasn't that widespread," and I show you a small sampling of how ubiquitous it was (and it was), now it's about how the burden of proof is on me to show that the criticism wasn't racist, because obviously criticism of Obama being racist is the default.

Well, fine, here's some links...

House Democrat: Basically all Criticism of Obama is Straight Up Racism (Bennie Thompson). Note that Mitch McConnell never actually said what Thompson says he did.

The Maureen Dowd bit doesn't need a link, Obama did lie (it was a speech about obamacare).

Here's a list of... well, Chris Matthews basically saying every criticism of Obama is racism. There's 20 things there, you're going to tell me it's all really just racism?

Damn, I have to get back to work...

It's not a goalpost, Gas. It's a requirement for making your case. You expect people to accept that what you say is true, that a whole bunch of the criticism of Obama was given a pass because it was called racism by almost all media. That requires three things- that there be criticism, that the people lobbying the criticism be credible, and that criticism on a large scale was dismissed by the media at large.

Including a couple idiots on the left who have diarrhea of the mouth is hardly evidence of that. It can't be shown because it's a fabrication, a convenient narrative for supporting your preconceived notion of unfairness in media when it comes to one bunch versus another bunch.

I'm not trying to convince you. I really don't care about it one way or the other, to be honest. Everyone you supplied in your "sampling of how ubiquitous it was" were almost ALL democratic party operatives. You're 'evidence' is sorely lacking, and that you think you have somehow supplied a world crushing level of it is only evidence of just how poorly you supply it.

But go on ahead and keep posting the same morons no one takes seriously. I'm sure they will be great fodder for your next poorly argued position.

Nov 7, 2015#184

DarkAudit

Talk about moving goalposts. The topic at hand was Ben Carson being a liar and mental incompetent, and how he's trying to make his deficiencies the media's fault. And you manage to make it all about Obama. With no small assist from @Krisken falling right into your trap. Again.

Nov 7, 2015#185

Krisken

DarkAudit said:
Talk about moving goalposts. The topic at hand was Ben Carson being a liar and mental incompetent, and how he's trying to make his deficiencies the media's fault. And you manage to make it all about Obama. With no small assist from @Krisken falling right into your trap. Again.

Oh c'mon, no one doubts that. He's a freaking nutter. Don't think the country needs the media to paint him poorly, the guy practically dips himself in the stuff.

Nov 7, 2015#186

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
Oh c'mon, no one doubts that. He's a freaking nutter. Don't think the country needs the media to paint him poorly, the guy practically dips himself in the stuff.

That part we know. The other part was how GB turned it all about Obama, and how you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Nov 7, 2015#187

Krisken

DarkAudit said:
That part we know. The other part was how GB turned it all about Obama, and how you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

If you say so. Sorry I engaged in the conversation.

Nov 7, 2015#188

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
If you say so. Sorry I engaged in the conversation.

Now you come on. I was just teasing.

Nov 7, 2015#189

Gruebeard

Nobody liked my triple reference to Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, and Steve Kuntz (who totally doesn't deserve to be on any list with the former two)

Nov 9, 2015#190

DarkAudit

I never thought I'd hear Murdoch and his holdings dismissed as one of the "banking families" like the Rothschilds. But it happened. Thus was the WSJ's criticism of Carson brushed aside.

In other words, there are those who think Fox is too far left for their liking.

Nov 22, 2015#191

DarkAudit

Funny how so many of those still belittling a sitting 2-term president and former senator as nothing but a "community organizer" are falling all over themselves to get behind a definitely bigoted, possibly mentally ill, former neurosurgeon, whose own staff now admits doesn't have a fucking clue.

Nov 22, 2015#192

Tress

DarkAudit said:
Funny how so many of those still belittling a sitting 2-term president and former senator as nothing but a "community organizer" are falling all over themselves to get behind a definitely bigoted, possibly mentally ill, former neurosurgeon, whose own staff now admits doesn't have a fucking clue.

It's almost as if they are stupid hypocrites!

Nov 22, 2015#193

DarkAudit

And just now he's gone on the Sunday talk show circuit wanting to bring back torture as official policy. Same for Trump.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nov 22, 2015#194

Null

These motherfuckers are endorsing and calling for everything America should be against.

Nov 22, 2015#195

Gruebeard

I really regret John McCain's choice of running mate.

And I hope he does, too, cause that's where this bullshit started.

Nov 23, 2015#196

Bubble181

New Fox poll shows 6 republican candidates more popular than Clinton, Trump still most popular.

Guys, if Trump and Carson are not only the best the Republicans can bring to bear, but also currently in the lead nationally, that's a problem. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, but at least she's not batshit insane, just standard off-the-shelf nepotistic.
I know these polls don't mean much in the long run, but ugh.

Nov 23, 2015#197

Dave

Bernie is the only viable candidate, IMO. And by viable I mean for the people and cares more about the country than his party or business interests.

I'm going to vote for him, but I fear that the Hillary train is just too well-funded and backed too much by the DNC. They are working harder than anyone to get Hillary the nomination.

Nov 23, 2015#198

Cajungal

There are trump stickers all over my town. I'm scared, you guise.

Nov 24, 2015#199

Frank

Bubble181 said:
New Fox poll shows 6 republican candidates more popular than Clinton, Trump still most popular.

Guys, if Trump and Carson are not only the best the Republicans can bring to bear, but also currently in the lead nationally, that's a problem. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, but at least she's not batshit insane, just standard off-the-shelf nepotistic.
I know these polls don't mean much in the long run, but ugh.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, a Fox poll shows Republicans in the lead?

Nov 24, 2015#200

Krisken

Frank said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, a Fox poll shows Republicans in the lead?

Yeah, not surprising. They did the same thing during 2008 and 2012.

Nov 24, 2015#201

Charlie Don't Surf

unskew it harder boys, i'm almost to orgasm

Nov 24, 2015#202

Terrik

Frank said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, a Fox poll shows Republicans in the lead?

A lot of people aren't Clinton fans, even Democrats.

Nov 24, 2015#203

SpecialKO

I wouldn't get too put out by the poll. They're generally not good indicators of actual preferences when they're this far out, and even before questioning any of the unstated methodology, their own margins of error make most of the candidate vs. candidate polling basically useless.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-donald-trumps-polls/

Nov 24, 2015#204

Frank

Terrik said:
A lot of people aren't Clinton fans, even Democrats.

So instead they'll vote Trump?

Please.

Nov 24, 2015#205

Necronic

I'm not a big Clinton fan and honestly I'm considering volunteering at her campaign this year since the republicans have gone so far into the fire swamps.

Nov 24, 2015#206

Krisken

Necronic said:
I'm not a big Clinton fan and honestly I'm considering volunteering at her campaign this year since the republicans have gone so far into the fire swamps.

With the ROUSes?

Nov 24, 2015#207

Cheesy1

Republicans Of Unusual Stupidity?

Nov 24, 2015#208

Dave

If it came down between Hillary and any current republican I'd vote Hillary, holding my nose the entire way. About the only one that DOESN'T turn my stomach is Kasich and that's probably only because he's a moderate. And some of the things HE spouts is terrible.

So do I have an unfavorable view of Hillary? Yes. Would I vote for her if she got the nomination? Probably. But I'd have to take a shower after I got home.

Nov 24, 2015#209

GasBandit

Dave said:
If it came down between Hillary and any current republican I'd vote Hillary, holding my nose the entire way. About the only one that DOESN'T turn my stomach is Kasich and that's probably only because he's a moderate. And some of the things HE spouts is terrible.

So do I have an unfavorable view of Hillary? Yes. Would I vote for her if she got the nomination? Probably. But I'd have to take a shower after I got home.

And that's why you'll get Hillary. Because what are you gonna do, vote Republican?

Nov 24, 2015#210

Dave

There IS nobody else! No viable third party. No viable republican candidate. Hell, other than Bernie, no viable democratic candidate, either.

Nov 24, 2015#211

Necronic

And I'm not sure I would even call him viable. To be honest with myself I actually think Clinton will make a fine president. She has a wealth of experience and has a relatively moderate stance on a lot of issues. She also has some serious skeletons, but they aren't in the closet they are sitting on her couch having a skeleton tea party. This makes her look pretty bad, but you have to really consider it in context. She's been in the limelight for far longer than any other candidate, and there has been more time to out every little thing about her than anyone else. For the moment she is wearing all her blunders on her sleeve while everyone else is squirming in their seats hoping theirs don't get discovered.

The only thing protecting the republicans from their own scandals is the complete apathy of the republican electorate to common decency in their candidates. Their two front runners Trump and Carson have generated more gaffs in the last few months few months than anyone I've ever seen. In previous elections most of what they have said would have been flat out campaign killers. Given actual authority why would anyone expect these guys to start being more careful? If you want to see some serious scandals, things that will make Clinton look boring, give these guys a position of authority dealing at the international level.

Nov 24, 2015#212

GasBandit

Dave said:
There IS nobody else! No viable third party. No viable republican candidate. Hell, other than Bernie, no viable democratic candidate, either.

There's more than 2 parties. As for "viability, well, the only reason that they are the only two parties that ever get elected is because we each as individuals decided to agree that they're the only two who can get elected. Until we're over this whole fear of "throwing our vote away" nonsense, there's no real motivation for politicians to take the people into consideration.[DOUBLEPOST=1448400568,1448400431][/DOUBLEPOST]

Necronic said:
The only thing protecting the republicans from their own scandals is the complete apathy of the republican electorate to common decency in their candidates. Their two front runners Trump and Carson have generated more gaffs in the last few months few months than anyone I've ever seen.

The democrats are the same way about their candidates, especially Hillary. Hell, Benghazi alone should have ended her political career. The foreign money in the Clinton foundation should have done the same, possibly even brought criminal charges. But it all flows off like water off a duck's back, because Clinton is de facto American Aristocracy.

Nov 24, 2015#213

Tress

I would rather leave part of the ballot blank than vote for someone I don't actually believe in. Even I f there are truly no candidates I like, then I still will not go the "lesser of two evils" route.

Nov 24, 2015#214

GasBandit

Nov 24, 2015#215

Necronic

I have no fear of voting for a third party because it would throw my vote away. I don't vote for third parties because most of their platforms are disastrously myopic.

Nov 24, 2015#216

AshburnerX

Part of the issue with two parties is that the design of our election system encourages it be like this... third parties aren't viable because it's less effective to form your own political party than to work with one of big ones unless you have the means to match or beat their funding... and unless a billionaire is willing to risky their entire livelyhood fighting the system, it won't happen. Money is defacto political power and the common man does not have the means to outspend a billionaire, even thousands of common men. Thus what we need is an eccentric billionaire to risk it all.

Also, the phrase "an eccentric billionaire willing to risk it all" sounds like an Ironman movie.

Nov 24, 2015#217

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Part of the issue with two parties is that the design of our election system encourages it be like this... third parties aren't viable because it's less effective to form your own political party than to work with one of big ones unless you have the means to match or beat their funding... and unless a billionaire is willing to risky their entire livelyhood fighting the system, it won't happen. Money is defacto political power and the common man does not have the means to outspend a billionaire, even thousands of common men. Thus what we need is an eccentric billionaire to risk it all.

Also, the phrase "an eccentric billionaire willing to risk it all" sounds like an Ironman movie.

Or, you know, how Perot handed Clinton the 92 election.

Aaaand this is all looping back around to the need for instant runoff voting again.

AND I'm NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING POLITICS

Nov 24, 2015#218

Shakey

Hey, Jesse Ventura is thinking of throwing his hat in the ring. So we have that option to hope for!

Nov 24, 2015#219

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
I'm NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING POLITICS

If true, you're in the wrong thread.

--Patrick

Nov 30, 2015#220

DarkAudit

Carly Fiorina is (partially) responsible for more deaths on American soil than ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

There. I said it.

Nov 30, 2015#221

AshburnerX

DarkAudit said:
Carly Fiorina is (partially) responsible for more deaths on American soil than ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

There. I said it.

This, but Pat Robertson.

Nov 30, 2015#222

DarkAudit

AshburnerX said:
This, but Pat Robertson.

This, but Glenn Beck.

Nov 30, 2015#223

DarkAudit

For @stienman, The Planned Parenthood gunman was quoted as saying, "no more baby parts." Of all the crop of candidates, Fiorina was predominant in flogging the infamous video that started the whole Planned Parenthood controversy earlier this year. Even after the creator admitted it was made up, she kept on about it and on about it, even going so far as claiming another as yet unseen video existed. So for her part in pushing the rhetoric and inspiring Robert Dear, I hold her responsible for those deaths in Colorado.

Nov 30, 2015#224

strawman

Ah, no wonder I missed the connection. It's tenuous at best.

Sadly Colorado is essentially a non-capital-punishment state, so the gunman won't get even a fraction of what he deserves.

Nov 30, 2015#225

Terrik

stienman said:
Ah, no wonder I missed the connection. It's tenuous at best.

Sadly Colorado is essentially a non-capital-punishment state, so the gunman won't get even a fraction of what he deserves.

Of course it's tenuous at best, but that won't stop anybody from using it. I suppose next time a cop gets shot, I'll blame #allblacklivesmatter because some of their rhetoric called for the death of police officers.

Nov 30, 2015#226

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Ah, no wonder I missed the connection. It's tenuous at best.

Sadly Colorado is essentially a non-capital-punishment state, so the gunman won't get even a fraction of what he deserves.

Really depends on what you think he deserves: a (mostly) painless lethal injection or to live out the rest of his days in a cell in isolation, knowing that the cause he claims to do this for will demonize him and disavow him in the name of not losing what remains of their credibility in the face of a public that is so very, VERY tired of this shit. At least until he invariable hangs himself or an "accident" happens.

I don't know what would be worse for him at this point: to be put to death or to live to see that his actions have done nothing to advance his cause.

Nov 30, 2015#227

Null

Terrik said:
Of course it's tenuous at best, but that won't stop anybody from using it. I suppose next time a cop gets shot, I'll blame #allblacklivesmatter because some of their rhetoric called for the death of police officers.

Speaking of, this white domestic terrorist kills 3 people, including a police officer, wounds several other people, and he gets taken without a scratch. But a black guy can be killed by police for, well, anything, because they "were in fear for their life." That's the whole point of #blacklivesmatter. The point of #AllLivesMatter is to silence #blacklivesmatter.

Nov 30, 2015#228

Bubble181

Null said:
Speaking of, this white domestic terrorist kills 3 people, including a police officer, wounds several other people, and he gets taken without a scratch. But a black guy can be killed by police for, well, anything, because they "were in fear for their life." That's the whole point of #blacklivesmatter. The point of #AllLivesMatter is to silence #blacklivesmatter.

I absolutely agree with all of your post, except for the last sentence. It's not because some MRAs are idiots that all movement for men's rights are automatically to silence feminism; it's not because some people may want to silence blacklivesmatter that a movement like alllivesmatter isn't worthwhile because it's still true, and so forth. As in everything, there are loud-mouthed idiots on both sides of the aisle and claiming something "only" exists to harm another good cause is denying their point has validity.

Nov 30, 2015#229

Charlie Don't Surf

stienman said:
Sadly Colorado is essentially a non-capital-punishment state, \.

pro-life, never change

Nov 30, 2015#230

strawman

Null said:
Speaking of, this white domestic terrorist kills 3 people, including a police officer, wounds several other people, and he gets taken without a scratch. But a black guy can be killed by police for, well, anything, because they "were in fear for their life." That's the whole point of #blacklivesmatter. The point of #AllLivesMatter is to silence #blacklivesmatter.

Cool story, bro. Glad you got a chance to use a tragic situation to beat on your drum about something wholly unrelated. Stand proudly on top of the victims and wave your banner!

Nov 30, 2015#231

Null

stienman said:
Cool story, bro. Glad you got a chance to use a tragic situation to beat on your drum about something wholly unrelated. Stand proudly on top of the victims and wave your banner!

I don't think it's unrelated when we've got a Chicago cop going on trial a year after shooting sixteen times an unarmed african american on video who wasn't doing anything aggressive, and yet a white domestic terrorist commits an act of unspeakable violence and he's handled with kid gloves. I think that's a perfect illustration of how fucked up the disparity in treatment is.

And for Bubble and Terrik:
http://aattp.org/next-time-some-idiot-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-this-cartoon/

Nov 30, 2015#232

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
pro-life, never change

Note I said, "essentially". They actually have capital punishment available for certain crimes, but they've only executed one person since Gregg v Georgia nearly 40 years ago.

Nov 30, 2015#233

blotsfan

stienman said:
Cool story, bro. Glad you got a chance to use a tragic situation to beat on your drum about something wholly unrelated. Stand proudly on top of the victims and wave your banner!

It isn't unrelated. The general narrative is that black people are only being treated badly by the cops because they are breaking the law, and there is no disparity between white criminals and black criminals. How can you prove that wrong if its not ok to point to an example of a white person being treated differently?

Nov 30, 2015#234

Krisken

blotsfan said:
It isn't unrelated. The general narrative is that black people are only being treated badly by the cops because they are breaking the law, and there is no disparity between white criminals and black criminals. How can you prove that wrong if its not ok to point to an example of a white person being treated differently?

Exactly.

Nov 30, 2015#235

GasBandit

The Planned Parenthood shooter killed a cop. I find it hard to believe that the other cops weren't waiting for the slightest excuse to gun him down. Apparently that opportunity just never presented itself. But anybody who asserts what stopped it was his being white needs some intracranial recalibration.

Nov 30, 2015#236

Null

GasBandit said:
The Planned Parenthood shooter killed a cop. I find it hard to believe that the other cops weren't waiting for the slightest excuse to gun him down. Apparently that opportunity just never presented itself. But anybody who asserts what stopped it was his being white needs some intracranial recalibration.

Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Eric Harris, Walter Scott, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, Samuel DuBose, and Laquan McDonald would probably disagree. Well, if he's in custody he still could be Sandra Bland'd.

Nov 30, 2015#237

AshburnerX

The only logical reason they could have to take him alive would be to grill him over other domestic terrorist connections (which is important) but even if that is the case, it still LOOKS really bad when a white terrorist gets better treatment from the police than innocent black men.

Dec 1, 2015#238

strawman

blotsfan said:
It isn't unrelated. The general narrative is that black people are only being treated badly by the cops because they are breaking the law, and there is no disparity between white criminals and black criminals. How can you prove that wrong if its not ok to point to an example of a white person being treated differently?

It's perfectly valid to point to the many, many examples of this disparity, and I'm not arguing against the disparity.

I'm arguing that doing so while the bodies of the victims are still in the morgue is exceptionally poor taste, particularly when there are many, many other good examples where the deceased have been laid to rest and people have paid their final respects. I'm further arguing that this incident isn't about racism, and while you might consider it a good example of what the police should do in all such situations, bringing your pet project to the table is selfish. I might as well start a discussion about abortion, misogyny, etc and start irrelevant arguments about things I'm passionate about. Wouldn't it be fun if I turned every discussion of a tragic event into a discussion about abortion? And yet this is what you're trying to do here, but with your own personal pet project.

Don't feel bad, you few are in good company - Obama pounded his gun control drum while the bodies were still warm.

If your soap box is so important, I don't blame you for bringing it up every single opportunity you can regardless of relevancy but you've got to understand that doing so only waters down your message and numbs the ears of those whose hearts and minds you may be trying to change.

Dec 1, 2015#239

SpecialKO

While I understand where you're coming from stienman, you're telling people to respect the dead when what they're angry about are the other dead that haven't been respected. Folks might not have been so quick to jump to this topic in the wake of the PP shootings normally, but the case of Laquan McDonald is literally back in the spotlight at the exact same time, so it's natural that people would make comparisons.

When we're practically learning about a new black teenager or adult in America being killed by police every day for looking at them funny, telling people to respectfully wait before saying anything about a white cop-killer not getting shot just isn't going to be a convincing argument.

Dec 1, 2015#240

SpecialKO

If that's what you really want to say, then yes.

Dec 1, 2015#241

strawman

SpecialKO said:
If that's what you really want to say, then yes.

Huh.

Well, I'll delete my post because I don't think it's appropriate, and I'll let you all continue your discussion about how this event should be used to further your own goals.

Dec 1, 2015#242

SpecialKO

I'm going to point out that if you disagree with the point, you could argue in good faith.

We all know one another well enough at this point IMHO (in the context of this forum anyway) that I doubt anyone would hold it against you.

Dec 1, 2015#243

Charlie Don't Surf

stienman said:
Huh.

Well, I'll delete my post because I don't think it's appropriate, and I'll let you all continue your discussion about how this event should be used to further your own goals.

thanks

Dec 1, 2015#244

SpecialKO

(Okay, except maybe Charlie)

Dec 1, 2015#245

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
thanks

You're welcome.

Dec 1, 2015#246

Charlie Don't Surf

Anyways, I hope that clinic is back and providing just tons of abortions as soon as possible.

Dec 1, 2015#247

Bubble181

I hope that clinic is back soon and providing all the medical care they can and need to, without giving in to hatred, violence, or religious oppression, or going overboard in the other way and performing unnecessary procedures.

Dec 1, 2015#248

Dave

And if that clinic does do the legal, medical procedure (I'm not sure if they do or not there) I hope they can do it without fear.

Dec 1, 2015#249

Krisken

Dave said:
And if that clinic does do the legal, medical procedure (I'm not sure if they do or not there) I hope they can do it without fear.

That's really the crux, isn't it? The legal part, that is.

Dec 8, 2015#250

DarkAudit

Just when you thought Trump couldn't Godwin his campaign any more, he goes even fuller Hitler with his "no more Muslims" rant. And then, if that hole couldn't get any deeper, a senior aide justifies his position by defending the internment of Japanese citizens during WW II.

In spite of party officials' attempts to disavow him, this is your GOP frontrunner, folks. All he needs is a uniform and an armband. He's swapped the stupid moustache for a stupid combover.

Dec 8, 2015#251

bhamv3

Is it sad that I don't think Trumps poll numbers will drop over this?

Dec 8, 2015#252

DarkAudit

Now you have both parties' frontrunners saying we can't have the First Amendment anymore because, you know, terrorism.

It's enough to make one want to stab oneself in the neck at the voting machine. It's make far more of a statement than a protest vote or just not voting.

Dec 8, 2015#253

strawman

DarkAudit said:
Now you have both parties' frontrunners saying we can't have the First Amendment anymore because, you know, terrorism.

It's sad when I read the three statements from Obama, Hillary, and Trump, hate all of their positions, and yet come to the conclusion that Obama is more moderate than Clinton, who is more moderate than Trump on this issue.

I can understand the thought process, given their limited understanding, but this isn't going to happen, it can't work. The internet was designed to work around failure in the event of nuclear strikes - a little or a lot of governmental control will amount to nothing more than resources wasted.

Dec 8, 2015#254

GasBandit

Can't stop the signal!

Dec 8, 2015#255

PatrThom

Donald Trump said:
We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet and we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way.
Somebody will say, 'oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people… we've got to maybe do something with the Internet because they are recruiting by the thousands, they are leaving our country and then when they come back, we take them back.

NO
nonononononononononononononononono
We've already lost so much freedom thanks to the PATRIOT act.
The answer is not to take away even more.
What are you going to do when we're a totalitarian state and there is still terrorism? What will be left to take away?

--Patrick

Dec 8, 2015#256

chris

He knows that he is running for president in a democratic country and not North Korea, right?

Dec 8, 2015#257

strawman

chris said:
He knows that he is running for president in a democratic country and not North Korea, right?

Pft. He's been living in an oligarchy for as long as he can remember.

Dec 8, 2015#258

Null

Oh, these fuckers will find something to take. A pound of flesh, perhaps.

Dec 8, 2015#259

Bubble181

You've always been at war with[strikethrough] eurasia[/strikethrough] Saudi Arabia.

Dec 8, 2015#260

blotsfan

And yet the second amendment is practically a holy text.

Dec 8, 2015#261

PatrThom

We are not going to reduce terrorism and/or international tension by restricting the communication between the respective populations.

--Patrick

Dec 9, 2015#262

Eriol

PatrThom said:
We are not going to reduce terrorism and/or international tension by restricting the communication between the respective populations.

Yes because communication is the biggest barrier to understanding people that want to kill each other. For a lot of petty conflicts, sure, that may help. But when hate becomes dominant, that doesn't help one bit.

OTOH, trade usually does. It also breeds other bad things often (banana republics, and places that can export, but can't feed themselves) but it often reduces war.

Dec 9, 2015#263

DarkAudit

Jan 3, 2016#264

DarkAudit

I'm just gonna leave this here. @Dave, you might not wanna look. (TW: Rose Bowl)

Jan 3, 2016#265

Krisken

Ugh, stuff like this I always put in the "Who gives a fuck" pile. Right up there with haircuts and the way someone laughs. Such childish crap which means nothing.

Jan 3, 2016#266

Terrik

You almost have to give Fiorina credit for the brazenness of this pandering — the shamelessness of her sports allegiance being available to the bidder with the most political currency.

This is what passes for political news reporting these days?

Jan 3, 2016#267

Krisken

Terrik said:
This is what passes for political news reporting these days?

Gotta love the 24 hour news cycle. Anything to get people upset about something.

Jan 3, 2016#268

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
Ugh, stuff like this I always put in the "Who gives a fuck" pile. Right up there with haircuts and the way someone laughs. Such childish crap which means nothing.

I thought it was good for a laugh. I guess I thought wrong.

I'll go away now.

Jan 3, 2016#269

Krisken

DarkAudit said:
I thought it was good for a laugh. I guess I thought wrong.

I'll go away now.

If you are pointing and laughing at how mundane and pointless the 'news' article is, I whole heartedly agree. If you think there is anything of importance in it, then we don't agree. You're certainly welcome to your opinion if this is the case, but I hope you don't take offence if I don't sit quietly when it crops up.

Long story short, ya don't have to slink away, DA. I still like ya brother.

Jan 3, 2016#270

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
If you are pointing and laughing at how mundane and pointless the 'news' article is, I whole heartedly agree. If you think there is anything of importance in it, then we don't agree. You're certainly welcome to your opinion if this is the case, but I hope you don't take offence if I don't sit quietly when it crops up.

Long story short, ya don't have to slink away, DA. I still like ya brother.

I just got a kick out of everyone pointing and laughing at her, especially Congressman Dingell.

Jan 4, 2016#271

Eriol

Considering how insane your country is about a sport that is medically proven to screw up the players' heads permanently (link), I think the fans apparently got some collateral damage on this too considering how rabid they are about yes/no for whom to support and why.

Yes my country is insane about Hockey, but it doesn't hold a candle to the insanity that is Rugby-with-padding-and-also-more-dangerous is for the USA. And despite what most in my country call it, a Football is a ball kicked with feet by most of the players most of the time, not carried.

And for some reason I felt like starting the new year this way on this forum. Hmm! I guess I'll need to find my flameproof suit. It's around somewhere...

Jan 4, 2016#272

Ravenpoe

Eriol said:
Considering how insane your country is about a sport that is medically proven to screw up the players' heads permanently (link), I think the fans apparently got some collateral damage on this too considering how rabid they are about yes/no for whom to support and why.

Yes my country is insane about Hockey, but it doesn't hold a candle to the insanity that is Rugby-with-padding-and-also-more-dangerous is for the USA. And despite what most in my country call it, a Football is a ball kicked with feet by most of the players most of the time, not carried.

And for some reason I felt like starting the new year this way on this forum. Hmm! I guess I'll need to find my flameproof suit. It's around somewhere...

You call the US obsessed with football, and then compare it to soccer? We got nothing on the crazy importance some countries put on soccer.

Jan 4, 2016#273

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
You call the US obsessed with football, and then compare it to soccer? We got nothing on the crazy importance some countries put on soccer.

It makes more sense for people in poor countries and favella's to worship football players and live and die by their team, since they have no other outlet or other way out, than it does in advanced and rich nations for people in authority to cover up rapes, give education free passes and all that for handegg players.

Doesn't mean you're wrong, though - the hero status accorded football players and teams in some countries is beyond ridiculous.

Also, top sports is one of those very few thing where the semi-communist American way of doing things, with salary caps and repartitioning and bidding on new players and whatever - works far better than the European free-for-all capitalist way of poaching players, offering ridiculous starting salaries, crooked management and agents, and so forth.

Jan 4, 2016#274

GasBandit

Also, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world calls soccer, it only matters what the top dog decides it is called.

♬So lick my butt and suck on my balls♬

Jan 4, 2016#275

Null

Yeah, I'm sorry, but FIFA makes the NFL look like angels by comparison. The Qatar World Cup stadium is estimated to cost at least 4,000 lives of virtual slave laborers, for a structure that will be used 3 or 4 times and then abandoned.

Jan 4, 2016#276

Krisken

Bubble181 said:
Also, top sports is one of those very few thing where the semi-communist American way of doing things, with salary caps and repartitioning and bidding on new players and whatever - works far better than the European free-for-all capitalist way of poaching players, offering ridiculous starting salaries, crooked management and agents, and so forth.

Now this I can agree with. I'll never see the Milwaukee Brewers as a top team, but only in American Football can I see a team located in Green Bay win the top prize.

Jan 4, 2016#277

jwhouk

...Except not this year.

Jan 5, 2016#278

Krisken

jwhouk said:
...Except not this year.

No, not this year.

Jan 6, 2016#279

drawn_inward

If Schwarzenegger can get an elected position then so can Trump. I don't really like to bash a person's intelligence based on their political leanings or taste in media, but I don't know what to think about Trump supporters. I am really baffled by them. I am also somewhat baffled by Hillary supporters, but I can at least understand it.

I keep thinking he's going to stop one day and it was all some huge reality t.v. show stunt, and he'll rip off his mask to reveal that it was Andy Kaufman this whole time.

Jan 6, 2016#280

AshburnerX

drawn_inward said:
I am really baffled by them. I am also somewhat baffled by Hillary supporters, but I can at least understand it.

Hillary supporters are very much a "devil you know" sort of crowd. She's got all the connections and backing she needs to be an effective president, as well as a political immutability (or perhaps straight up invincibility) rivaling that of her husband Bill. The idea of her being the first female president is also a plus. But yes, she's basically a straight up villain at this point. I have never once heard a Hillary supporter give me a reason why they want her to be president, simply reasons why the alternative is worse.

Jan 6, 2016#281

GasBandit

Hillary literally can't say the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.

Jan 6, 2016#282

Krisken

Well that's stupid. She could say "one is a political party and one is an political ideology." I honestly find the implication that all Democrats are socialist as incredibly stupid.

Jan 6, 2016#283

Bubble181

The answer is "it really depends on what definition of both "democrat" and "socialist" you're using. All politicians in the US are democrats, no matter their party, since they believe and adhere to the rules of a democracy. The democratic party still believes in a capitalist society. On the other hand, actual socialists would mostly oppose such an individual-driven society, believing the "general good" is best served by a strong, leading state/government who provides equally for everyone, limiting potential riches to soften potential poverty; the strongest version of this would be communism, where there is no personal wealth or property, and instead everything is repartitioned supposedly-equally among all citizens. The latter clearly goes against the American ideals of freedom, while a weaker form of socialism may be compatible with these ideals. The Democratic party strives to as much freedom as possible for everyone to accomplish what they can, while still ensuring minimum life quality standards for those who, for one reason or another, can't provide adequately for themselves - the elderly, the sick, handicapped, minorities discriminated against, and so forth".

It still isn't a proper answer (hint: there've been whole books written about the subject with no clear conclusion) but it wouldn't make you seem like a bumbling buffoon.

Jan 6, 2016#284

jwhouk

Checked again.

Still Bernie.

Jan 6, 2016#285

strawman

Apparently I'm a huckster? I should have played a vidja game until I was down to 1% before I took this screenshot...

Jan 6, 2016#286

Terrik

Man, I'm weird.

Jan 6, 2016#287

AshburnerX

Is Jeb Bush even running anymore? I have heard next to nothing from his camp in weeks.

Jan 6, 2016#288

Terrik

AshburnerX said:
Is Jeb Bush even running anymore? I have heard next to nothing from his camp in weeks.

I'm not sure, but given the choice, I'd probably go for Bernie between them.

Jan 6, 2016#289

Null

Oh, since I haven't seen in mentioned: Ben Carson's campaign lost 20 people over the holidays, most of them due to believing that his manager, Armstrong Williams, is a con artist.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-carson-idUSKBN0UE17520160101

U.S. Republican Ben Carson's 2016 presidential bid was thrown into chaos on Thursday when his campaign manager and some 20 other staff members quit amid infighting, dropping poll numbers and negative media coverage.
Barry Bennett, who oversaw Carson's rapid rise to the top tier of Republican contenders and his later fall, said he quit over differences with another top adviser to Carson, Armstrong Williams.
Specifically, Bennett blamed Williams for an interview Carson gave last week to The Washington Post suggesting that the campaign was in disarray. "It's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen a candidate do," Bennett said.
Things had "boiled over" with Williams, Bennett told Reuters. "For the past seven weeks, I’ve been doing nothing but putting out Armstrong Williams-started fires," Bennett said.
He also charged Williams was behind a story in The New York Times that suggested Carson was out of his depth on foreign policy.
Carson's communications director, Doug Watts, also resigned due to differences with Williams, Bennett said. Some 20 staff in total left, he said. Among them was deputy campaign manager Lisa Coen.

Jan 6, 2016#290

GasBandit

Terrik, how the hell do you get equal scores for Jeb Bush, Bernie Sanders AND Ted Cruz?

Jan 6, 2016#291

Bubble181

AshburnerX said:
Is Jeb Bush even running anymore? I have heard next to nothing from his camp in weeks.

In many European media he's still being named as the "main" candidate for the Republicans - in dire straights, but expected to pull through after all. Much like Hillary is still considered the de fact Democratic candidate without any opposition. Trump, Sanders: they're treated as diversions and fun for the media but not a real threat.
Yes, our media can be quite tone deaf to what's happening in the US, why do you ask?

Jan 6, 2016#292

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Is Jeb Bush even running anymore? I have heard next to nothing from his camp in weeks.

Officially, yes. But everybody's pretty much saying he's as good as done.

Jan 6, 2016#293

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Officially, yes. But everybody's pretty much saying he's as good as done.

I was surprised he even got this far. His family name isn't worth shit outside of the Party these days.

Jan 6, 2016#294

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
I was surprised he even got this far. His family name isn't worth shit outside of the Party these days.

He was the only establishment candidate with name recognition. Unfortunately for Jeb, primary polling would have us believe this is the biggest anti-establishment primary election since the south got so butthurt over civil war reconstruction that they elected nothing but Democrats for 100 years. All the frontrunners are either private citizens or renegade tea-party darlings.

And really, I can't blame the electorate all that much, when previous offerings were Mitt "I was the foot in the door for Obamacare" Romney and John "The Democrat's Favorite Republican" McCain.

Jan 6, 2016#295

Terrik

GasBandit said:
Terrik, how the hell do you get equal scores for Jeb Bush, Bernie Sanders AND Ted Cruz?

I....I don't know. I'm sorry.

Jan 6, 2016#296

GasBandit

Terrik said:
I....I don't know. I'm sorry.

You are the political Neapolitan, I guess.

Jan 6, 2016#297

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
And really, I can't blame the electorate all that much, when previous offerings were Mitt "I was the foot in the door for Obamacare" Romney and John "The Democrat's Favorite Republican" McCain.

McCain isn't even that anymore. He burnt that bridge when he made his running mate one of the worst Governors in Alaskan history and rejecting his independent streak for votes.

Jan 6, 2016#298

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
McCain isn't even that anymore. He burnt that bridge when he made his running mate one of the worst Governors in Alaskan history and rejecting his independent streak for votes.

He isn't now, but in 2008, he'd just spent the last 8 years undermining his own party because he was butthurt he wasn't the candidate in 2000. Every "gang of" whatever compromise group, he was on it.

Jan 6, 2016#299

Tiger Tsang

AshburnerX said:
Hillary supporters are very much a "devil you know" sort of crowd. She's got all the connections and backing she needs to be an effective president, as well as a political immutability (or perhaps straight up invincibility) rivaling that of her husband Bill. The idea of her being the first female president is also a plus. But yes, she's basically a straight up villain at this point. I have never once heard a Hillary supporter give me a reason why they want her to be president, simply reasons why the alternative is worse.

No politician is perfect, and while I'm not a big fan of Hillary, she HAS proven she's effective at statecraft compared the clown show that is the front runners of the GOP Lineup . . .
That being said, I'm Bernie all the way, but at the end of the day the next president is probably going to be appointing several SCOTUS judges, and since they seem to do the most damage, I'd rather not have anymore Scolia's on the bench. Bernie has grass roots popularity, but Big Money *which controls pretty much all of the media that the US consumes* is afraid of him and prevents him from getting any media time.

For all the folks that whine about Liberal Media, compare the coverage time that most Americans will see that watch 'Cable TV' see on Trump vs Bernie.

Nowadays, for the majority of cable viewers, there is FOX, Corporate Out to Make A Buck Media *this has unfortunately come to include MSNBC as far as news goes '4 hours of Joe Scarborough! ' , and having a cable/sat provider that might carry more independent channels which cost more to get.

Jan 6, 2016#300

GasBandit

Tiger Tsang said:
and while I'm not a big fan of Hillary, she HAS proven she's effective at statecraft

How has she proven that?

Jan 6, 2016#301

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
How has she proven that?

50 scandals, still standing.

Jan 6, 2016#302

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
50 scandals, still standing.

That's not statecraft. I won't dispute she's teflon and adept at the art of the cover-up.

Jan 6, 2016#303

blotsfan

Bubble181 said:
In many European media he's still being named as the "main" candidate for the Republicans - in dire straights, but expected to pull through after all. Much like Hillary is still considered the de fact Democratic candidate without any opposition. Trump, Sanders: they're treated as diversions and fun for the media but not a real threat.
Yes, our media can be quite tone deaf to what's happening in the US, why do you ask?

Thats surprising. The general opinion is that its going to be Rubio (assuming Trump goes away like we're all hoping).

Jan 6, 2016#304

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Thats surprising. The general opinion is that its going to be Rubio (assuming Trump goes away like we're all hoping).

Well, that's what the media says... because to them, Rubio is slightly less unpalatable than Cruz, who is still ahead of Rubio in the polls. But 8 months ago they were painting Rubio with the same "insane slavering right wing lunatic teabagger" rhetoric as Cruz.

Jan 6, 2016#305

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
That's not statecraft. I won't dispute she's teflon and adept at the art of the cover-up.

Exactly. Statecraft.

Jan 7, 2016#306

Null

It's like Warcraft, except the Orcs just filibuster a lot instead of evoking blood rage.

Jan 7, 2016#307

PatrThom

stienman said:
I should have played a vidja game until I was down to 1% before I took this screenshot...

Last week I drove 30+ miles with my car reading "0 miles to empty." I wanted to post a picture of that so bad.

Null said:
It's like Warcraft, except the Orcs just filibuster a lot instead of evoking blood rage.

-1, was expecting a Queen of Blades reference.

--Patrick

Jan 8, 2016#308

drawn_inward

@Terrik is the one true Moderate! The prophesies were true! Hail! Hail!

Jan 8, 2016#309

MindDetective

drawn_inward said:
@Terrik is the one true Moderate! The prophesies were true! Hail! Hail!

He will bring balance to the two-party system.

Jan 8, 2016#310

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
He will bring balance to the two-party system.

I hope he destroys it. I wouldn't even toss him into lava afterwards.

Jan 8, 2016#311

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
I hope he destroys it. I wouldn't even toss him into lava afterwards.

Well, vague prophecies and all...

Jan 8, 2016#312

Terrik

My coronation photo

Jan 8, 2016#313

Null

Terrik said:
My coronation photo

View attachment 20125

The pedestal of his statue will read: "God dammit Terrik, I hate you so much."

In retrospect, hiring Dei to engrave it might have been a mistake.

Jan 8, 2016#314

GasBandit

NYTimes: Donald Trump's Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat

Jan 8, 2016#315

Krisken

Ahem:

"He is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote. His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. "

Aka, people who register as Democrats to mess up Democratic primaries.

Jan 8, 2016#316

AshburnerX

He's also apparently strongest among " a broad swath of the country stretching from the Gulf Coast, up the spine of the Appalachian Mountains, to upstate New York." So... you know, Southern Democrats who didn't make the switch to Republics during the Civil Rights era. Yes, these people exist... ESPECIALLY in Appalachia where people still live like it's fucking 1910.

Jan 9, 2016#317

DarkAudit

AshburnerX said:
Yes, these people exist... ESPECIALLY in Appalachia where people still live like it's fucking 1910.

As in perpetually in thrall to the mine operators? Yes, yes they do. They're the ones parroting the "war on coal" line their bosses have fed them, in spite of the mines being mined out and nobody buying what's coming out of them anyway. Not because of the evil EPA, but because it's cheaper to use gas and other means of fuel.

Jan 12, 2016#318

bhamv3

Terrik said:
My coronation photo

View attachment 20125

Is that Yue Fei?

Jan 20, 2016#319

DarkAudit

Daily News does it again...

Feb 4, 2016#320

DarkAudit

It's had to take Hillary's railing against Wall Street seriously when she's got a giant for sale sign around her neck and cashing checks for $600K in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

And what do guys like Santorum expect to accomplish when they can't even win over the lunatic fringe of their own party, let alone the entire electorate? Bag the next Fox Noise talking head gig?

Feb 10, 2016#321

Necronic

The only serious candidate I've ever seen who would have turned that down is Bernie Sanders. And why would he need to accept a check? He's incredibly good at writing them himself. Just don't try and cash it.

Feb 10, 2016#322

AshburnerX

Christie's out.

Feb 10, 2016#323

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Christie's out.

Makes sense. He spent more time campaigning in NH than any other candidate and still had a dismal finish. Now the question becomes where will the voters he DID get decide to go...

Feb 10, 2016#324

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Makes sense. He spent more time campaigning in NH than any other candidate and still had a dismal finish. Now the question becomes where will the voters he DID get decide to go...

Probably Jeb, Cruz, or Kasich now that's actually made some gains... though how Kasich beat Jeb is astounding, considering how hard Jeb campaigned in NH and how much money his campaign as spent.

Feb 10, 2016#325

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Probably Jeb, Cruz, or Kasich now that's actually made some gains... though how Kasich beat Jeb is astounding, considering how hard Jeb campaigned in NH and how much money his campaign as spent.

I am a bit astonished and disappointed at how well Jeb did. Just goes to further show how worthless polls are.

Feb 10, 2016#326

D

Dubyamn

Kasich pretty much lived in NH this primary season trying to shake every hand and kiss every baby banking on a strong showing to lift his boat from the also rans.

And with Rubio getting demolished in NH and Bush having been shown to be a terrible investment he might just be the guy that the establishment rallies around.

Feb 10, 2016#327

AshburnerX

Dubyamn said:
Kasich pretty much lived in NH this primary season trying to shake every hand and kiss every baby banking on a strong showing to lift his boat from the also rans.

And with Rubio getting demolished in NH and Bush having been shown to be a terrible investment he might just be the guy that the establishment rallies around.

Especially since Kasich is basically the only candidate that hasn't done something truly embarrassing yet.

Feb 10, 2016#328

Necronic

Kasich is the Huntsman of this election. He's simply too milquetoast for republicans these days. He went all in on New Hampshire and did better than expected there, but he played all his cards on this one, I don't see him holding out last Super Tuesday.

Feb 10, 2016#329

AshburnerX

That really IS going to be the ultimate fate of this election, isn't it? Ether the Republican candidate is going to be Trump (and could he really win against Hillary or Bernie?) or it's going to be someone so safe, so generic, so... establishment that there is a good chance that a lot of conservative voters are just going to stay home.

Feb 11, 2016#330

Necronic

Honestly my money right now is on Cruz. He straddles the fence better than any other candidate, and is the best bet for beating Hillary/Sanders (a Trump victory is a dem victory). And it's absolutely terrifying to me because he is a huge unknown with a history of very ugly politics of convenience. It's impossible to tell what he would actually do as a president. Maybe this is a good thing, because the worst case scenario is him actually following through on his rhetoric, and the alternative is him getting into office and saying "lol jk I'm actually sort of moderate I just did all that to get elected". Maybe he's a Canadian at heart.[DOUBLEPOST=1455201705,1455201638][/DOUBLEPOST]Here's my guesses:

Cruz v Trump: Cruz

Cruz v Sanders: Cruz

Cruz v Hillary: Very close race down to the wire.

Feb 11, 2016#331

drawn_inward

Necronic said:
Cruz v Hillary

That's probably where it's headed, and it's pathetic. Our choices are just garbage candidate 1 and garbage candidate 2. I hate party X, so I will vote for party Y. U.S. politics are such b.s. This is why I have abstained from voting for either Dems or Rep for Pres. It's sick.

Feb 11, 2016#332

GasBandit

I don't know how much of an unknown quantity Cruz is, I mean, he's been a practicing lawyer and a senator, and has argued before the Supreme Court. We certainly know more about him than we did "community organizer" Obama, anyway.

Feb 11, 2016#333

blotsfan

Calling him an unknown is optimism.

Feb 11, 2016#334

AshburnerX

Basically. Ted Cruz has shown himself to be as bad as the rest of his compatriots plenty in the past.

Feb 11, 2016#335

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Cruz is terrifying

drawn_inward said:
Cruz is a garbage candidate

blotsfan said:
Calling him an unknown is optimism.

AshburnerX said:
Ted Cruz [is] bad

Frank said:
Ted Cruz is revolting

Cut it out guys, stop trying to tempt me into voting for Cruz

Feb 11, 2016#336

Gruebeard

I'd rather you vote for him instead of Tom Cruise.

Feb 11, 2016#337

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
I'd rather you vote for him instead of Tom Cruise.

I dunno, I just saw Edge of Tomorrow... if he's still getting infinite do-overs, that's something our country could really leverage.

Feb 11, 2016#338

Gruebeard

But he'll just keep using those do-overs to turn all o' y'all into Scientologists.

Feb 11, 2016#339

Celt Z

He may be our only protection against Xenu. Everyone keeps paying too much attention to Iran and Syria and Afghanistan... but what about Xenu?!

Feb 11, 2016#340

GasBandit

Celt Z said:
He may be our only protection against Xenu. Everyone keeps paying too much attention to Iran and Syria and Afghanistan... but what about Xenu?!

He'll have a hell of a time fighting Xenu when he won't even come out of the damn closet in the Lincoln bedroom.

Feb 11, 2016#341

Celt Z

Feb 12, 2016#342

drawn_inward

GasBandit said:
Cut it out guys, stop trying to tempt me into voting for Cruz

I lean in your direction philosophically. Do you really think Cruz is a decent candidate? And I don't mean the lesser of two evils.

Feb 12, 2016#343

DarkAudit

drawn_inward said:
I lean in your direction philosophically. Do you really think Cruz is a decent candidate? And I don't mean the lesser of two evils.

Considering he fought to keep a man in prison for 16 years rather than admit an error? Fuck him.

Feb 12, 2016#344

strawman

DarkAudit said:
Considering he fought to keep a man in prison for 16 years rather than admit an error? Fuck him.

Note that that is an opinion (not even an editorial), and that the case itself is fascinating in its complexity. Even the Supreme Court justices could not weigh in meaningfully - they punted it back down in a 6-3 decision and told Haley to try to exonerate himself in a different way.

It would have been nice if Cruz had chosen not to pursue the case, but 1) he may not have felt it was appropriate for him to pick and choose which cases should be dropped and which should be pursued, particularly in a case where another law suggested that it should be pursued and 2) taking the law all the way up the chain to the supreme court creates precedent, which may actually help future Haley's from running into this problem, or at least inform the justice system how to deal with these difficult cases where laws may require the wrong choice to be made.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/11/lazarus.dretke/

At any rate, I don't think your vitriol is fully justified, and may have been inflamed by the media and Cruz's opponents.

Feb 12, 2016#345

Bubble181

stienman said:
Note that that is an opinion (not even an editorial), and that the case itself is fascinating in its complexity. Even the Supreme Court justices could not weigh in meaningfully - they punted it back down in a 6-3 decision and told Haley to try to exonerate himself in a different way.

It would have been nice if Cruz had chosen not to pursue the case, but 1) he may not have felt it was appropriate for him to pick and choose which cases should be dropped and which should be pursued, particularly in a case where another law suggested that it should be pursued and 2) taking the law all the way up the chain to the supreme court creates precedent, which may actually help future Haley's from running into this problem, or at least inform the justice system how to deal with these difficult cases where laws may require the wrong choice to be made.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/11/lazarus.dretke/

At any rate, I don't think your vitriol is fully justified, and may have been inflamed by the media and Cruz's opponents.

Hey now! You're not allowed to speak politely and raise points that might make sense if you're supporting that guy! You're supposed to be foaming at the mouth and Evil! At least that's what the impartial media told me

Feb 12, 2016#346

GasBandit

drawn_inward said:
I lean in your direction philosophically. Do you really think Cruz is a decent candidate? And I don't mean the lesser of two evils.

What attracts me to Cruz is his strong constitutionalist streak, and his willingness to stick to conservative principles no matter the political cost. When he argued before the supreme court, it was against gun control, and he succeeded. That he didn't back down from the government shutdown when everybody said it'd be the end of his career if not the entire republican party in general, he went up a great deal in my estimation. He genuinely wants smaller, limited government and unlike most republicans, he's got a spine about it. If a republican congress sends him ACA repeal, it wouldn't surprise me if he signed it with one hand while extending a middle finger toward the CNN cameras with the other. Not that I think a republican legislature without Senator Cruz would send a repeal to President Cruz, once it actually had some teeth and wasn't just kabuki for the party base. Under a Cruz presidency, you'd see job-choking regulations start to loosen, and he's even made noises about abolishing the IRS. He's very much about reducing the federal bloat.

That said, there's plenty I don't like about him. He's anti-abortion and gay marriage. He's got the fiscal conservative chops to be sure, but unfortunately, he's also got the reactionary social platform that unfortunately usually goes along with it in the republican party. If it weren't for those two things, he'd be darn close to being libertarian. But the fervor with which he talks about these two subjects makes me think he considers them an important, central part of his platform as opposed to just boxes he ticks off to placate a certain demographic without really doing anything, and that keeps me from endorsing him... no matter how much it'd make me giggle to see him kick over every apple cart inside the Beltway.

Feb 12, 2016#347

sixpackshaker

I can't take any candidate seriously that jokes about nuking a nation to go after a handful of terrorist. (Cruz)

Feb 12, 2016#348

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
I can't take any candidate seriously that jokes about nuking a nation to go after a handful of terrorist. (Cruz)

You take candidates seriously?

Joking aside, obviously he wouldn't go nuclear.
But you know.. it might actually help our efforts if our enemies thought our leader was unstable enough to actually do so...

Feb 12, 2016#349

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
But you know.. it might actually help our efforts if our enemies thought our leader was unstable enough to actually do so...

The North Korean Gambit truly has a proven track record.

Feb 12, 2016#350

Tress

I would like someone to explain to me how the government would function without the IRS. Does this entail an end to taxes, and if so, how could the government function on even the smallest scale? If not, how would the government collect taxes?

Feb 12, 2016#351

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
You take candidates seriously?

Joking aside, obviously he wouldn't go nuclear.
But you know.. it might actually help our efforts if our enemies thought our leader was unstable enough to actually do so...

After Nagasaki, the US entered decades of peace, love, blossoming arts, an economic boom. There were no wars, and no fights.

Waidaminit....

Feb 12, 2016#352

GasBandit

Tress said:
I would like someone to explain to me how the government would function without the IRS. Does this entail an end to taxes, and if so, how could the government function on even the smallest scale? If not, how would the government collect taxes?

fairtax.org

Feb 12, 2016#353

Eriol

Tress said:
I would like someone to explain to me how the government would function without the IRS. Does this entail an end to taxes, and if so, how could the government function on even the smallest scale? If not, how would the government collect taxes?

The general idea (I think) behind most of this type of thing is to have a tax system so simple it's very very hard to "game" and thus you need FAR less bureaucracy to deal with it.

Also, remember that the idea of Income Tax in general is a 20th-century-normal thing. Most "western" nations IIRC didn't have it prior to WWI. I know in Canada at least it was supposed to be a "temporary wartime measure" and then back to normal. But no, once they get your money, they are loathe to give it back. Prior to that Governments generally worked on taxes on imports (exports perhaps too) and a number of other types of taxes. You need very good paperwork to make income taxes more than a farce (well, more than they already are) so that you can reliably track what people are paid, and thus banks are a massive help there.

And the more general idea here is that the less money the government has, the less it can fuck up (and/or patronage/graft/etc, take your pick). You can only fuck up so much when you don't have much money. The more they have, the more they can fuck up. The opposite view is that the more they have the more they can help people who need it. Take your pick.

Feb 12, 2016#354

Covar

Tress said:
I would like someone to explain to me how the government would function without the IRS. Does this entail an end to taxes, and if so, how could the government function on even the smallest scale? If not, how would the government collect taxes?

The government did so for quite a while before the IRS was established in 1862. It could manage again if anyone actually had the balls to do a complete overhaul of the federal governments revenue model and budget.[DOUBLEPOST=1455298944,1455298630][/DOUBLEPOST]

Eriol said:
The general idea (I think) behind most of this type of thing is to have a tax system so simple it's very very hard to "game" and thus you need FAR less bureaucracy to deal with it.

Also, remember that the idea of Income Tax in general is a 20th-century-normal thing. Most "western" nations IIRC didn't have it prior to WWI. I know in Canada at least it was supposed to be a "temporary wartime measure" and then back to normal.

The first income tax in the US was the same thing, temporary to pay for costs incurred during the Civil War. It actually expired and the next couple of attempts at an income tax failed at the Constitutional level, leading to the passing of the 16th Amendment.

Prior to these most of the Federal revenue came from tariffs, which probably won't work now, not just because of the bloated top-heavy mess the federal government has become, but because of the nature of the world economy. A national sales tax like the fairtax proposal would be more efficient.

Feb 12, 2016#355

AshburnerX

Efficient is seldom fair or just though. The ultimate stumbling block for basically all tax proposals I've seen is that they place an undue burden on the poorest of society (raising the sales tax on people who have trouble making rent/buying food is recipe for social discord) and doesn't ask enough of those who have benefited the most (basically every flat tax proposal I've ever seen). This is because they are all scams, more or less.

Feb 12, 2016#356

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Efficient is seldom fair or just though. The ultimate stumbling block for basically all tax proposals I've seen is that they place an undue burden on the poorest of society (raising the sales tax on people who have trouble making rent/buying food is recipe for social discord) and doesn't ask enough of those who have benefited the most (basically every flat tax proposal I've ever seen). This is because they are all scams, more or less.

The fairtax has a poverty line prebate.

Feb 12, 2016#357

Necronic

The whole idea of flat taxes and fair taxes and whatnot is usually indicative a very fundamental misunderstanding about how money works. Don't get me wrong, the tax system as it is is not good, and it needs work, but most of the options I've heard from other people would be the equivalent of setting off a nuclear bomb on wall street. Consider this. One of the most well known, and generally least liked and understood to be problematic tax breaks around is the mortgage interest deduction. I can't remember the numbers but a LARGE majority of economists think it's a really bad idea. But removing it? Pretty much impossible. It would absolutely cripple the economy. You could slowly phase it out over many years, but doing something quick would be catastrophic.

The same is true for most other items. The only way to change them is to undertake very slow systematic changes. Any fast change would be very VERY bad. And slow changes? Not really much better because each year a new set of cooks will come in and add a little seasoning to the soup. You either do it all in one stroke and destroy the economy, or do it slowly and deliberately and pretty much guarantee it will be garbage by the end.

There are no silver bullets.

ed: And this doesn't even talk about the fact that for a flat tax to not be regressive it would have to include exemptions and whatnot for the poor. Guess what that makes it? A marginal tax....

Feb 12, 2016#358

GasBandit

Necronic said:
The whole idea of flat taxes and fair taxes and whatnot is usually indicative a very fundamental misunderstanding about how money works. Don't get me wrong, the tax system as it is is not good, and it needs work, but most of the options I've heard from other people would be the equivalent of setting off a nuclear bomb on wall street. Consider this. One of the most well known, and generally least liked and understood to be problematic tax breaks around is the mortgage interest deduction. I can't remember the numbers but a LARGE majority of economists think it's a really bad idea. But removing it? Pretty much impossible. It would absolutely cripple the economy. You could slowly phase it out over many years, but doing something quick would be catastrophic.

The same is true for most other items. The only way to change them is to undertake very slow systematic changes. Any fast change would be very VERY bad. And slow changes? Not really much better because each year a new set of cooks will come in and add a little seasoning to the soup. You either do it all in one stroke and destroy the economy, or do it slowly and deliberately and pretty much guarantee it will be garbage by the end.

There are no silver bullets.

Sounds kinda like the argument about health care reform, too, if you think about it.

Feb 12, 2016#359

Necronic

Well yeah, the amount of moral hazard in the health care system is insane. Which is why the only logical solution is a single payer system.

Feb 12, 2016#360

PatrThom

Necronic said:
Well yeah, the amount of moral hazard in the health care system is insane. Which is why the only logical solution is a single payer system.

A trusted single payer system, where that single payer is acting in the best interest of its beneficiaries, and not trying to enforce some sort of eugenic agendum of its own.

--Patrick

Feb 12, 2016#361

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Sounds kinda like the argument about health care reform, too, if you think about it.

Well, yes and no. The biggest issue with health care reform right now is that medical care providers are in a cold war with the insurance providers and medical suppliers: Insurers don't want to pay because they are obligated to act in the best interest of their investors, providers are forced to overcharge because of the discounts they are forced into just to get insurers into the system, and suppliers have to overcharge because they only get one successful product for every few dozen drugs they have to research. The public doesn't care about any of this (and they shouldn't) because all they know is that it's almost impossible to get quality care because of the fighting, but no one has made any attempts to do anything about it ether.[DOUBLEPOST=1455303959,1455303847][/DOUBLEPOST]

Necronic said:
Well yeah, the amount of moral hazard in the health care system is insane. Which is why the only logical solution is a single payer system.

Pretty much. Without a strong, central player to dictate rules there can be no change... but without an obligation to work in the interest of the public, there is no reason to trust it ether.

Feb 12, 2016#362

Denbrought

PatrThom said:
A trusted single payer system, where that single payer is acting in the best interest of its beneficiaries, and not trying to enforce some sort of eugenic agendum of its own.

--Patrick

Are you referencing something in particular, or just the general fact that single payer systems have to set a dollar-per-QALY ceiling?

Feb 12, 2016#363

GasBandit

I don't want to derail this thread further into another health care and taxes debate (As it's supposed to just be about the candidates) but I'll just summarize by saying I don't agree that redoing taxes will destroy the economy, and I don't agree that single payer is the "only way."

Feb 12, 2016#364

Denbrought

Right right, let's get back on topic: beautiful sandwiches.

Feb 12, 2016#365

PatrThom

Denbrought said:
Are you referencing something in particular, or just the general fact that single payer systems have to set a dollar-per-QALY ceiling?

Really I'm referencing that if we give the control to one entity, that entity should be one we trust to do the job well.
I'm not making any comment on the fitness of any current entity, just that we should pick (or construct) one that will do the job well.

--Patrick

Feb 12, 2016#366

strawman

AshburnerX said:
strong, central player to dictate

There is something very wrong with each word of this snip.

Feb 14, 2016#367

Eriol

Pearls tells it like it is:

Feb 14, 2016#368

blotsfan

A similar comic by him.

Feb 16, 2016#369

Eriol

This is making headlines in Canada right now, and I find this hilarious: Marco Rubio campaign taking flak for featuring Vancouver skyline in new ad

And this line from the article is also priceless:

To add insult to injury, the Canadian flag can be seen flying off one of the tugboats sailing across the screen.

It's hard to see, but in the image on the article, you CAN see the Canadian flag there if you're looking at the flag being flown. Apparently they are taking to doing California Doubling as much as any TV series these days.

Awesome.

Feb 16, 2016#370

GasBandit

Eriol said:
This is making headlines in Canada right now, and I find this hilarious: Marco Rubio campaign taking flak for featuring Vancouver skyline in new ad

And this line from the article is also priceless:

It's hard to see, but in the image on the article, you CAN see the Canadian flag there if you're looking at the flag being flown. Apparently they are taking to doing California Doubling as much as any TV series these days.

Awesome.

Hah, it's been in so many of our movies that people assume Vancouver is what AnyCity, USA just looks like

Feb 20, 2016#371

DarkAudit

Gays aren't part of Ted Cruz's America. Or if you want to split hairs (of course you do), they aren't part of the group making the calls in his name's America.

Is culture war really the tactic they want to take to the general election?

Feb 20, 2016#372

Sparhawk

DarkAudit said:
Gays aren't part of Ted Cruz's America. Or if you want to split hairs (of course you do), they aren't part of the group making the calls in his name's America.

Is culture war really the tactic they want to take to the general election?

Really splitting hairs though, not authorized by Cruz or his campaign. It's a questionable tactic by a questionable group that has done similar things stating support for other candidates in the past. I give it as much weight as a guy standing on the corner here in town with a "legalize WEED kills cancer" sign.

Feb 20, 2016#373

SpecialKO

DarkAudit said:
Is culture war really the tactic they want to take to the general election?

Well, if there were any primary season that seems primed to rile up the traditionally not voting fundamentalist crowd into actually voting for culture war positions, it would be this one.

Feb 20, 2016#374

blotsfan

Jeb has dropped out. Please clap out of respect for a well-run campaign.

Feb 20, 2016#375

Terrik

*clap*

Feb 20, 2016#376

AshburnerX

blotsfan said:
Jeb has dropped out. Please clap out of respect for a well-run campaign.

I am legitimately surprised he dropped out before South Carolina. Considering the timing, it's likely he was offered something to drop out now so the Republican establishment can focus on building ether Cruz or Rubio in future primaries so they can try to narrow the lead behind Trump enough for the undeclared voters to swing the election in favor of an establishment candidate.

I do not see the Republican Party surviving a Trump presidency. They simply do not have the force of will to make him follow their agenda. They might think similarly.

Feb 20, 2016#377

Terrik

I'm also kind of upset Bernie lost to Hilary.

Feb 20, 2016#378

Dei

I hate caucuses. In general. I hate that Colorado is a caucus state so I can't cast my vote anonymously.

Feb 20, 2016#379

Terrik

Feb 20, 2016#380

blotsfan

AshburnerX said:
I am legitimately surprised he dropped out before South Carolina. Considering the timing, it's likely he was offered something to drop out now so the Republican establishment can focus on building ether Cruz or Rubio in future primaries so they can try to narrow the lead behind Trump enough for the undeclared voters to swing the election in favor of an establishment candidate.

I do not see the Republican Party surviving a Trump presidency. They simply do not have the force of will to make him follow their agenda. They might think similarly.

His dropping out was in response to a dismal South Carolina finish.

Feb 20, 2016#381

AshburnerX

blotsfan said:
His dropping out was in response to a dismal South Carolina finish.

For some reason I thought it was the 19th, not the 20th. *shrug*

Feb 21, 2016#382

GasBandit

Terrik said:
I'm also kind of upset Bernie lost to Hilary.

It doesn't surprise me, Nevada is a state of aging libertines, not young socialists.

Feb 21, 2016#383

AshburnerX

Interestingly, Republican analysts are outright calling Trump bad for the party on CNN and Fox News. I guess the gloves have come off and they are preparing to get rid of him at any cost.

Feb 21, 2016#384

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Interestingly, Republican analysts are outright calling Trump bad for the party on CNN and Fox News. I guess the gloves have come off and they are preparing to get rid of him at any cost.

It's looking like the only way to beat trump would be for every other republican except one to get out of the race. But I get the feeling Cruz and Rubio will both refuse to back down. And even if not, and Trump does lose the nomination, you know it's a near certainty he'll completely disregard his "promise" (or rather accuse the party of breaking faith first somehow) and run as an independent anyway, and thus hand the election to the democrats on a silver platter, a-la Perot '92.

Feb 21, 2016#385

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
It's looking like the only way to beat trump would be for every other republican except one to get out of the race. But I get the feeling Cruz and Rubio will both refuse to back down. And even if not, and Trump does lose the nomination, you know it's a near certainty he'll completely disregard his "promise" (or rather accuse the party of breaking faith first somehow) and run as an independent anyway, and thus hand the election to the democrats on a silver platter, a-la Perot '92.

I would not be surprised if the Republicans push for election reform next cycle, entirely to prevent something like this from happening. Instant run-offs or Borda Count would stack the deck for establishment candidates, though it would almost certain mean Republicans lose seats nationally.

Feb 21, 2016#386

DarkAudit

Feb 21, 2016#387

Frank

America, if Trump becomes your Republican candidate for president, do the right thing, just blow up the Earth. We don't have a Lisa Simpson to try to fix his mess.

Feb 21, 2016#388

DarkAudit

Frank said:
America, if Trump becomes your Republican candidate for president, do the right thing, just blow up the Earth. We don't have a Lisa Simpson to try to fix his mess.

At least let us wait until the general election so we can see who will stomp him into dust.

Feb 21, 2016#389

Null

GasBandit said:
It doesn't surprise me, Nevada is a state of aging libertines, not young socialists.

And also the primary was held on Shabbos, meaning observant Jews would be violating a practice of their faith to vote. There are over 76,000 Jewish residents of Nevada.

However, given that Hillary had once possessed a very large lead in Nevada, and only won by, what, 4 points? I'm disappointed Bernie didn't win but it wasn't a crushing defeat. I don't think this will disrupt his momentum significantly.

Also: http://usuncut.com/politics/clintons-campaign-just-got-busted-impersonating-union-nurses-in-nevada/

Honestly, that's just sad.

Feb 21, 2016#390

PatrThom

Null said:
Honestly, that's just sad.

It's not about going to Washington so you can be a representative for your constituency.
It's about winning the election so you can be a representative for your party.

--Patrick

Feb 24, 2016#391

AshburnerX

We've pretty much entered the point where Cruz or Rubio needs to drop out if one of them even wants a chance to beat Trump... Kasich needs to quit too. If at least two out of them don't drop out, Trump is basically guaranteed the nomination.

How often does a party Perot itself like this?

Feb 24, 2016#392

DarkAudit

Dems were a clusterfuck in '72. Watergate was almost completely unnecessary.

Feb 24, 2016#393

papachronos

AshburnerX said:
We've pretty much entered the point where Cruz or Rubio needs to drop out if one of them even wants a chance to beat Trump... Kasich needs to quit too. If at least two out of them don't drop out, Trump is basically guaranteed the nomination.

How often does a party Perot itself like this?

The ideal scenario, as far as I'm concerned, is for Trump and Cruz to deadlock in delegates, with whoever's left at that point taking enough to ensure that nobody is guaranteed the nomination. Then once nobody wins the first ballot, the Republicans realize that the fate of their party is at stake and give the nod to Kasich on the second ballot, since he's the most reasonable of the remaining candidates. Plus he's polling really well against both Hillary and Bernie (I can provide sources if anyone would like, once I'm not on my phone).

It wouldn't surprise me if that's what Kasich and Rubio are hoping for by remaining in the race. Of course, that doesn't mean they can go on to win the general.

Feb 24, 2016#394

Krisken

Kasich is polling well against them because no one knows who he is. Come general election time his record will come out and will scare off anyone not far right.

Feb 24, 2016#395

Ravenpoe

Krisken said:
Kasich is polling well against them because no one knows who he is. Come general election time his record will come out and will scare off anyone not far right.

Feb 24, 2016#396

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
Kasich is polling well against them because no one knows who he is. Come general election time his record will come out and will scare off anyone not far right.

Basically this. Kasich hasn't been in the public eye enough for people to even try to break him down. All I can really say is that I've had to deal with him for years a governor and he hasn't impressed me. He certainly isn't a moderate though.

Feb 24, 2016#397

Reverent-one

Uh, guys? Being against abortion except in the case of rape/incest (pre-viability) or death/injury of the mother (any stage) and having argued against SSM in the past but willing to accept the courts ruling now aren't "far-right" positions. I know to those on the left those look extreme, but across the whole spectrum, they're not.

Feb 24, 2016#398

Ravenpoe

Reverent-one said:
Uh, guys? Being against abortion except in the case of rape/incest (pre-viability) or death/injury of the mother (any stage) and having argued against SSM in the past but willing to accept the courts ruling now aren't "far-right" positions. I know to those on the left those look extreme, but across the whole spectrum, they're not.

Except, if you watch that clip, it shows evidence that those are not actually his stances, at least not based on his voting record.

Feb 24, 2016#399

Reverent-one

Ravenpoe said:
Except, if you watch that clip, it shows evidence that those are not actually his stances, at least not based on his voting record.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about his voting record on SSM, just that he argued a case against it before, the results of which he now seems to accept. The abortion bill it references matches the stance I described, no exceptions for rape/incest post-viability, but in the case of death/injury to the mother, it's still allowed (despite the claim otherwise in the video).

Feb 24, 2016#400

papachronos

AshburnerX said:
All I can really say is that I've had to deal with him for years a governor and he hasn't impressed me. He certainly isn't a moderate though.

I know that feel, fellow Ohio bro. I lived in there from 2009-2014, long enough to know that I'm certainly not going to vote for him.

Feb 28, 2016#401

DarkAudit

It's not a good idea to block an aid package a week and a half before a state's primary. Yes, he lifted his hold, but I'd be conveniently leaving that part out if I was running opposition advertising.

Feb 28, 2016#402

Mathias

Ravenpoe said:

I have a weird crush on Samantha Bee.

Feb 28, 2016#403

Sparhawk

I know it states they have plans to submit this amendment as a bill if the Energy bill fails, but why even do it as a rider in the first place? This is where Washington as a whole fails, they try to get stuff passed by attaching it to larger bills, instead of putting something that will pass on it's own out there.

Feb 28, 2016#404

AshburnerX

Sparhawk said:
I know it states they have plans to submit this amendment as a bill if the Energy bill fails, but why even do it as a rider in the first place? This is where Washington as a whole fails, they try to get stuff passed by attaching it to larger bills, instead of putting something that will pass on it's own out there.

That's because larger "will pass" bills serve as vehicles for pork and favor that get other, more controversial bills passed. It's also why the Republicans don't want to do a nomination hearing for the Supreme Court: Obama only needs a handful of turncoats and and the Democrats would pay a ransom to anybody who'd help out. Republicans as a party don't value compromise, but as members they are perfectly willing to fuck each other over if it's for something their state actually needs.

Feb 28, 2016#405

Sparhawk

AshburnerX said:
Democrats/Republicans as a party don't value compromise, but as members they are perfectly willing to fuck each other over if it's for something their state actually needs.

Applies to both parties, but you sure do beat your democrat drum loudly. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to crap like this. Neither is better than the other. I know that you want to see your democrats as better than republicans, but it just isn't true, the political machine corrupts all.

Feb 28, 2016#406

AshburnerX

Sparhawk said:
Applies to both parties, but you sure do beat your democrat drum loudly. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to crap like this. Neither is better than the other. I know that you want to see your democrats as better than republicans, but it just isn't true, the political machine corrupts all.

Oh no, the Democrats will TOTALLY do it too. But they've historically been willing to do it even in times of strength... it wasn't even worth mentioning because it's so common. Part of the problem with the early Obama administration was that they couldn't get legislature passed because they couldn't get their own guys on board.

Also, I'm about as much a Democrat as Gasbandit is a Republican.

Feb 28, 2016#407

jwhouk

Bill Proxmire was a Democrat who railed against pork spending big time. Of course, it resulted in Wisconsin not getting much in the way of government contracts, but he at least worked on principle.

Feb 28, 2016#408

Krisken

jwhouk said:
Bill Proxmire was a Democrat who railed against pork spending big time. Of course, it resulted in Wisconsin not getting much in the way of government contracts, but he at least worked on principle.

Shame we've lost all that integrity with Ron Johnson. Christ, it causes me pain to know that snake is still our rep.

Feb 28, 2016#409

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
Shame we've lost all that integrity with Ron Johnson. Christ, it causes me pain to know that snake is still our rep.

Is he at least from there? One Congressman and the AG moved here when the couldn't get elected elsewhere.

Feb 28, 2016#410

jwhouk

I doubt it.

Heck, Scottie Dubya ain't from Wisconsin. He's from...

...COLORADO.

(looks askance @Dei)

Feb 28, 2016#411

Dei

Look, all i know is that I just read this article, and now I have even less of a desire to go to my caucus.

Besides I'm not FROM Colorado, I just live here.

Feb 28, 2016#412

Krisken

jwhouk said:
I doubt it.

Heck, Scottie Dubya ain't from Wisconsin. He's from...

...COLORADO.

(looks askance @Dei)

I wish that asshole was still running for president, he didn't waste any time going back to fucking up our state. I mean, seriously, what do Coloradian's have against Wisconsin?

Feb 28, 2016#413

DarkAudit

How long had he been there before running? Mooney and Morrissey (not the sad sack singer) only just met the minimum residency requirements before filing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feb 29, 2016#414

Dei

Feb 29, 2016#415

jwhouk

DarkAudit said:
How long had he been there before running? Mooney and Morrissey (not the sad sack singer) only just met the minimum residency requirements before filing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He "attended" Marquette University back in the 90's. When the MCB pension scandal happened, he jumped from assemblyman to County Supervisor, which put him on track for the Guv job when Doyle chose not to run in 2010.

Feb 29, 2016#416

Hailey Knight

Feb 29, 2016#417

PatrThom

"See More"
Yess...let these distractions flow through you...

--Patrick

Feb 29, 2016#418

Hailey Knight

PatrThom said:
"See More"
Yess...let these distractions flow through you...

--Patrick

It's an image, the Facebook equivalent of a severed hydra head.

Mar 1, 2016#419

Dei

My local caucus was very Pro-Bernie. Now I need food. I was there for 3 hours. -_-

Mar 1, 2016#420

GasBandit

Dei said:
My local caucus was very Pro-Bernie. Now I need food. I was there for 3 hours. -_-

I'm still at work!

My usual Board-op minion actually was working a poll tonight. Geh. HURRY UP AND BE OVER, SPORTSBALL

Mar 1, 2016#421

Cheesy1

Dei said:
My local caucus was very Pro-Bernie. Now I need food. I was there for 3 hours. -_-

Most places are calling Colorado for Bernie.

Mar 1, 2016#422

Dei

http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_29581594/how-clinton-could-lose-colorado-caucus-but-still

Mar 1, 2016#423

Hailey Knight

Seemed weird to me that Google had listed Trump as winning certain areas with 0% reporting.

As the day goes on, it's looking more and more like a Clinton vs Trump election.

Mar 2, 2016#424

AshburnerX

Zero Esc said:
As the day goes on, it's looking more and more like a Clinton vs Trump election.

Interestingly, both Clinton and Sanders poll pretty high against Trump (something like 60/36 Clinton/Trump and 55/43 Sanders/Trump). Now, this doesn't mean it'll LAST... they still have time to Dukakis this up, but it does seem to indicate that that ether Democrats are willing to show up just to keep Trump out or Republicans are already staying home.

Mar 2, 2016#425

Dave

I'm just amused that Drumpf is what I see everywhere. Best Chrome extension EVER![DOUBLEPOST=1456929333,1456929219][/DOUBLEPOST]And Bernie does better against Drumpf than Hillary.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Mar 2, 2016#426

Eriol

Dave said:
And Bernie does better against Drumpf than Hillary.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Not a surprise to me in the least. Trump is an "outsider" candidate, but of the two outsiders, people prefer Bernie. Though how "outsider" a sitting senator even could be is another debate entirely.

Mar 2, 2016#427

strawman

Apparently Mitt Romney is going to give a speech on Thursday about the state of the 2016 election.

The problem being that the people who are voting for Trump aren't going to listen to him - and it's those people whose minds need changing, so what can a press conference possibly hope to achieve?

Some are hoping he'll announce his candidacy and force a brokered convention. An "establishment trick" in other words to avoid giving the candidacy outright to Trump.

I don't know, but this is shaping up to be a weird, weird election cycle.

Spend some time focusing on your local, state, and federal elections other than president, folks. We may not hold much sway over the presidency, but we do have a voice in who makes it far enough up the ladder that they get a good shot at it. Make sure your local and congressional leaders and representatives are honest and share your values.

Mar 2, 2016#428

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Apparently Mitt Romney is going to give a speech on Thursday about the state of the 2016 election.

The problem being that the people who are voting for Trump aren't going to listen to him - and it's those people whose minds need changing, so what can a press conference possibly hope to achieve?

Some are hoping he'll announce his candidacy and force a brokered convention. An "establishment trick" in other words to avoid giving the candidacy outright to Trump.

I don't know, but this is shaping up to be a weird, weird election cycle.

Unless he's running third party, he's basically too late to have any sort of impact on the election as a candidate. Only 6 states still have their primary filing still open, so he'd only be able to get on on 6 ballots. Regardless, I don't know why he's doing this NOW. If he wanted to be involved, the time to do it was 6 months ago.

Mar 2, 2016#429

Zappit

The Republican establishment might throw in with Bloomberg, and try to get him to run. If for no other reason, they could intentionally Nader Trump to save the party from his insanity.

Mar 2, 2016#430

Krisken

stienman said:
Spend some time focusing on your local, state, and federal elections other than president, folks. We may not hold much sway over the presidency, but we do have a voice in who makes it far enough up the ladder that they get a good shot at it. Make sure your local and congressional leaders and representatives are honest and share your values.

Too late. My state has been sold to the highest bidder.

Mar 2, 2016#431

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
The problem being that the people who are voting for Trump aren't going to listen to him - and it's those people whose minds need changing, so what can a press conference possibly hope to achieve?

Can a Trump mind even be changed?

I asked my mom why she's voting for Trump and she said because he "tells it like it is." I asked her to specify what "it" refers to and in what way Trump is telling it so exactly. She shrugged and said, "I don't know, I just like him." No opinion on policy, no knowledge of what his intentions are, and there's a million Trumpers like her--they're voting for him because he's loud and angry.

Is there any reasoning to be had there?

And is the Republican party desperate enough to put Romney in the microwave and see if he's still edible?

Mar 2, 2016#432

Zappit

Zero Esc said:
And is the Republican party desperate enough to put Romney in the microwave and see if he's still edible?

I'm sure about 47% of the establishment would support him.

Mar 2, 2016#433

Gruebeard

Zero Esc said:
Can a Trump mind even be changed?

I asked my mom why she's voting for Trump and she said because he "tells it like it is." I asked her to specify what "it" refers to and in what way Trump is telling it so exactly. She shrugged and said, "I don't know, I just like him." No opinion on policy, no knowledge of what his intentions are, and there's a million Trumpers like her--they're voting for him because he's loud and angry.

Is there any reasoning to be had there?

Do y'all remember mayor Rob Ford? Well, y'all seem to be on the way to electing his doppleganger your president. Trump Nation should be fun to watch. I just good there's a crack story involved. "yeah, I smoked it, but I didn't inhale."

Mar 2, 2016#434

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
Do y'all remember mayor Rob Ford? Well, y'all seem to be on the way to electing his doppleganger your president. Trump Nation should be fun to watch. I just good there's a crack story involved. "yeah, I smoked it, but I didn't inhale."

No, no, how a Trump story goes is "I know the most about crack. I'm the best at crack. They asked me 4 or 5 times to smoke crack but I didn't inhale, not like these guys, that one's a loser and this one's a liar. But I invented crack, then I invented the cure for crack. So we're going to make America great again."

Mar 2, 2016#435

Gruebeard

Damn. That was far superior.

Mar 2, 2016#436

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
No, no, how a Trump story goes is "I know the most about crack. I'm the best at crack. They asked me 4 or 5 times to smoke crack but I didn't inhale, not like these guys, that one's a loser and this one's a liar. But I invented crack, then I invented the cure for crack. So we're going to make America great again."

Damn, I can even hear the point where he'd do his creepy quiet voice before getting boisterous again.

Mar 3, 2016#437

Zappit

Donald Trump: Make Crack Great Again.

Mar 3, 2016#438

DarkAudit

Talking heads on MSNBC positing that Murdoch is going to put Fox Noise firmly behind Drumpf because ratings.

Mar 3, 2016#439

Hailey Knight

Mitt Romney really laid into Trump. I think he showed more human emotion in this instance than his entire 2012 campaign.

EDIT: And Trump's mature response essentially being that he could've had Romney suck his dick if he gave Romney the order.

Mar 3, 2016#440

Gruebeard

Zero Esc said:
EDIT: And Trump's mature response essentially being that he could've had Romney suck his dick if he gave Romney the order.

Well, Trump just blew the anti-gay vote.

Mar 4, 2016#441

HCGLNS

....did the presumptive candidate for the GOP presidential nomination just expound upon how big his penis is while his primary opponent ate a booger?

Mar 4, 2016#442

DarkAudit

HCGLNS said:
....did the presumptive candidate for the GOP presidential nomination just expound upon how big his penis is while his primary opponent ate a booger?

Yes.

And once again he advocated torture, war crimes, and general tyranny. He's all but admitted he's going to take a big steaming dump on the Oval Office carpet, then wipe his ass with the Constitution.

But what's even more galling is in the face of all that, Cruz has pledged to support him if he's the nominee. Thereby giving tacit approval to torture, war crimes, and general tyranny.

Your Republican Party, folks. Well deserving of getting the country nuked out of existence by January 25, 2017.

Mar 4, 2016#443

strawman

DarkAudit said:
But what's even more galling is in the face of all that, Cruz has pledged to support him if he's the nominee.

Well it's a really rock and a hard place situation. They've already made the pledge to support whoever wins the nomination.

If they say, "Well, no, I wouldn't support Trump" then they're essentially giving up the high ground and going back on their pledge. Further, they're telling the people voting in the primaries that they wouldn't support the person the people elected by vote. It's a very bad thing to do, and would damage their place in the party.

If they say they will support him, then they get people like you complaining about the pledge they took before they found that Trump was a contender.

I don't think there's a good way around this, other than to publicly declare that they will uphold their pledge, and support the voter's choice while also saying, "Look at this guy! He's terrible! Don't vote for him if you don't want me to support him!"

But at the end of the day it's just politics, and they may ultimately change their mind.

One thing I did get, though, is a distinct sense that Trump isn't a shoe-in right now, and a lot of people are working hard to make sure he doesn't get the nomination. If it becomes a brokered convention I'd like to believe that cooler heads will prevail, but there's still a lot of primaries to go, and I'm hoping that he doesn't come out ahead.

Mar 4, 2016#444

AshburnerX

So... I have a legit question regarding Republican delegates: What do they do when a winner drops out? Does it all goes to second place or do the delegates get to decide for themselves? Because I could see one of the reasons being why people still aren't dropping out is entirely because of what would happen to their delegates if they do... no one wants Trump to win or to be responsible for him winning, so even the guys who can't win are trying to keep him from winning by staying in the race.

Mar 4, 2016#445

strawman

I looked yesterday, and there's no clear guidance. The person dropping out can encourage their delegates to vote for a person they select (ie pledge their delegates to another candidate), but the delegates are free to choose.

Mar 4, 2016#446

AshburnerX

stienman said:
I looked yesterday, and there's no clear guidance. The person dropping out can encourage their delegates to vote for a person they select (ie pledge their delegates to another candidate), but the delegates are free to choose.

... which means Trump needs to win a clear win of the popular vote, which is why everyone else is staying in. It's the same thing as Bernie. ALL of this is just Kabuki for the voters at this point unless Trump wins a huge on the 15th.

Mar 4, 2016#447

Dave

Of course his penis is huge. It's really not, but next to those tiny, tiny hands....

Mar 5, 2016#448

Dave

I'm officially a delegate for Bernie. I go to the County on May 21. If I get elected there I go to state on June 17-19. If I'm elected there (less chance each time, I think) then I'd go to the national in July.

Mar 5, 2016#449

Hailey Knight

Been on Youtube a bit today. Three videos ago, there was an a Republican-supported ad against Trump. Last video, it was a Democrat-supported ad against Trump.

Trump is bringing the country together!

Mar 5, 2016#450

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
Been on Youtube a bit today. Three videos ago, there was an a Republican-supported ad against Trump. Last video, it was a Democrat-supported ad against Trump.

Trump is bringing the country together!

...just like WWII!

--Patrick

Mar 5, 2016#451

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
...just like WWII!

--Patrick

Hell, Trump!

Mar 7, 2016#452

AshburnerX

Don't usually like posting stuff from Gawker but...

Establishment Republicans Are Delusional About Hillary Clinton and in Denial About Trump.

Even though he was absent, Trump loomed everywhere: in Marco Rubio’s speech, where he warned against letting the conservative movement be “hijacked by someone who isn’t a conservative.” During the debate-watching party, Trump’s comments, especially about his giant dick, led to such a confusing mixture of cheers and boos that Gawker news editor Gabrielle Bluestone and I couldn’t tell what the hell was going on. Everything felt ragged and jittery and disorganized this year: the schedule kept changing. The speakers repeated their stump speeches with noticeably little verve (Ted Cruz has been making that Leavenworth joke since the fall.) And everywhere, there was a creeping sense that maybe things are really, truly fucked for the GOP this time.

There’s maybe no better example than NRA ~~president~~ executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre, who in the midst of his annual gun-humping address accidentally referred to Hillary Clinton as the president. LaPierre was talking about women and gun ownership, or trying to.

“No woman should be left to face evil with empty hands,” he roared. “To all of America’s women, you aren’t free if you aren’t free to defend yourselves. And if President Clinton—President Obama—let’s not get ahead of ourselves.”
He tried again: “If Hillary Clinton or anyone else denies you that right, they don’t really care about you at all.”

Everyone clapped when they were supposed to. But the unintentional point lingered there, awkwardly, long after he left the stage.

The bit about the NRA guy is pretty sad. Even the biggest Republican supporters don't think they can win this one.

Mar 7, 2016#453

Covar

lol "Gawker news editor."

Mar 7, 2016#454

AshburnerX

Covar said:
lol "Gawker news editor."

I know, that's sort of like saying "I have a blog" these days. I still thought the NRA bit was pretty fun though.

Mar 8, 2016#455

BErt

...I'm watching this goddamn Michigan primary with the intensity of an overtime playoff hockey game. C'MON BERNIE!!!

Mar 8, 2016#456

PatrThom

BErt said:
...I'm watching this goddamn Michigan primary with the intensity of an overtime playoff hockey game. C'MON BERNIE!!!

Are you drinking?

--Patrick

Mar 8, 2016#457

BErt

PatrThom said:
Are you drinking?

--Patrick

...Man, you seem to always think I'm drinking.

You're right more often than not, but no. I'm not drinking. I want Bernie in. Sorry not sorry.

Mar 8, 2016#458

PatrThom

BErt said:
Sorry not sorry.

It is traditional when watching sporting events to drink.
You have been known to indulge.
Therefore...

--Patrick

Mar 8, 2016#459

BErt

fair enough!

Mar 8, 2016#460

Dave

I'm for Bernie as well. I'm also watching Mississippi as he attempts to retain viability. I still don't quite get how African Americans favor Hillary considering their respective records - Bernie consistently for equality and Hillary when it suits her - but it is what it is.

Mar 8, 2016#461

BErt

I really think a lot of people are voting for Hillary as "Bill term 3"...I actually thought Bernie had a chance in Michigan because I know many Republicans who chose to vote democrat today just to vote against Hillary. Even given that, I think a MI win makes this an actual race now. Nobody was expecting Bernie to show better than Hillary in the south, but also NOBODY was projecting him to take Michigan. I'm super excited and happy right now.

Mar 8, 2016#462

Denbrought

Dave said:
I'm for Bernie as well. I'm also watching Mississippi as he attempts to retain viability. I still don't quite get how African Americans favor Hillary considering their respective records - Bernie consistently for equality and Hillary when it suits her - but it is what it is.

Superficially plausible hypotheses that come to mind but I have not fact-checked:

AfAms are heavily Protestant compared to the general pop, and Sanders is a non-Christian (a non-crypto Jesus-killer, to be precise).
AfAms may be disillusioned by the perceived (and/or real) lack of deliverables that Obama's presidency has given, compared to electoral pie-in-the-sky promises. As a result, they may be prefer a moderate candidate (Clinton), whom they may perceive as having more realistic (and thus achievable) goals.
AfAms may feel that minorities are more capable of understanding their plight. A white woman is inherently more minority-friendly than a white man (Jews are honorary whites in the U.S. whenever it's convenient for them to be).
AfAms have heard a lot more of Clinton than Sanders. An uninformed voter is more likely to know a long-term-high-viz politician (First Lady, Sec. of State, ...) than one-of-many mayor/rep/senators. Due to lower socioeconomic status, AfAms may be more uninformed as a population, thus pitting a known politician vs. a random dude.

Mar 8, 2016#463

Null

With 78% of the votes in, Michigan is reporting 51% for Bernie and 47% for Hillary, with 2% Undecided. Bernie is ahead by 30,000 votes. At one point they were nearly tied (after most of Wayne County reported, which is very strongly for HRC) but the lead has grown steadily since then.

Mar 8, 2016#464

Dave

Bernie wins Michigan!

Mar 9, 2016#465

AshburnerX

So... like EVERY close election, everything is going to come down to Ohio and Florida AGAIN.

Mar 9, 2016#466

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
So... like EVERY close election, everything is going to come down to Ohio and Florida AGAIN.

Sometimes I think things should be fair, and everybody should have their primary/caucus on the same day. Then I remember how much that would screw things up.

Then I go back to my original position of getting rid of the party primary/caucus system and implementing instant runoff.

Mar 9, 2016#467

GasBandit

CNN be all like

Mar 9, 2016#468

PatrThom

BErt said:
fair enough!

Yes, my comment was not about your choice of candidate, but rather your boisterous behavior.

--Patrick

Mar 9, 2016#469

GasBandit

And this one goes out to Dave's brother.

Mar 9, 2016#470

PatrThom

The censorship makes it look like red guy is the one with the biggest hands.

--Patrick

Mar 9, 2016#471

AshburnerX

PatrThom said:
The censorship makes it look like red guy is the one with the biggest hands.

--Patrick

So not Trump then?

Mar 9, 2016#472

Dave

CNN does NOT want Bernie to win. In fact, most media outlets don't. Of course, they are all owned by a grand total of six companies, all whom have ties and reasons to want Hillary. So of course they report the super delegates as set in stone when they are not. I'm hoping Michigan is a wake-up call for the youth of the nation (we are! we are! [not Dave]) that if they use their voice they can be heard.

Mar 9, 2016#473

GasBandit

Dave said:
CNN does NOT want Bernie to win. In fact, most media outlets don't. Of course, they are all owned by a grand total of six companies, all whom have ties and reasons to want Hillary. So of course they report the super delegates as set in stone when they are not. I'm hoping Michigan is a wake-up call for the youth of the nation (we are! we are! [not Dave]) that if they use their voice they can be heard.

A P.O.D. reference. Whoa. I wonder if anybody else caught it. I probably wouldn't have if I hadn't been working for an alternative rock station in the mid 2000s.

Mar 9, 2016#474

Dave

GasBandit said:
A P.O.D. reference. Whoa. I wonder if anybody else caught it. I probably wouldn't have if I hadn't been working for an alternative rock station in the mid 2000s.

Well I just posted it 4 minutes ago, I doubt they had THAT much time to soak in the pop culture goodness.

Mar 9, 2016#475

GasBandit

Dave said:
Well I just posted it 4 minutes ago, I doubt they had THAT much time to soak in the pop culture goodness.

They'll still read yours before they read mine.

Mar 9, 2016#476

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
A P.O.D. reference. Whoa. I wonder if anybody else caught it. I probably wouldn't have if I hadn't been working for an alternative rock station in the mid 2000s.

I caught it. That song was played all over back in the day (as well as used in a Weird Al Polka).

Mar 9, 2016#477

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
I caught it. That song was played all over back in the day (as well as used in a Weird Al Polka).

Ah yes, how could I have forgotten the Angry White Boy Polka.

Mar 9, 2016#478

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
Ah yes, how could I have forgotten the Angry White Boy Polka.

That's what I thought he was referencing. I love Weird Al's Polkas, but I've only heard like a 1/3rd of what they're spoofing.

Mar 9, 2016#479

GasBandit

Hillary goes to Astro Coffee, instagrams it, mistakenly calls it Avalon Bakery, gets shade from barista.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/283671/hillary-clinton-avalon-bakery-bernie-barista

Mar 9, 2016#480

PatrThom

Dave said:
of course they report the super delegates as set in stone

...and they're not going to get together to choose a nominee until after the next President has been sworn in, because it's what the People would want.

--Patrick

Mar 11, 2016#481

DarkAudit

How many sides of his ass can Drumpf talk out of at once? This morning he was hailing the beating of a non-protester "protester" at last night's rally, and tonight claiming he "didn't want anyone to get hurt" after tonight's was canceled due to "security concerns." And moments later denying all responsibility for violence at his events after months of egging them on.

The only thing missing are the uniforms and armbands.

This is what Cruz and Rubio pledge to support if he gets the nomination?

Y'all are Godwining your own party.

Mar 11, 2016#482

jwhouk

Trump's rallies are too much like Jerry Springer auditions.

Mar 11, 2016#483

HCGLNS

Trump = Austin
GOP = McMahon

Mar 11, 2016#484

AshburnerX

DarkAudit said:
How many sides of his ass can Drumpf talk out of at once? This morning he was hailing the beating of a non-protester "protester" at last night's rally, and tonight claiming he "didn't want anyone to get hurt" after tonight's was canceled due to "security concerns." And moments later denying all responsibility for violence at his events after months of egging them on.

The only thing missing are the uniforms and armbands.

This is what Cruz and Rubio pledge to support if he gets the nomination?

Y'all are Godwining your own party.

Trump wasn't even in Chicago tonight. He also never received notification from the police.

A spokesman for the Chicago Police Department says the agency never recommended that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump cancel his campaign rally in the city.

CPD spokesman Anthony Guglielmi tells The Associated Press that the department never told the Trump campaign there was a security threat at the University of Illinois at Chicago venue. He said the department had sufficient manpower on the scene to handle any situation.

Guglielmi says the university's police department also did not recommend that Trump call off the event. He says the decision was made "independently" by the campaign.

Trump cancelled the rally in Chicago due to what organizers said were safety concerns after protesters packed into the arena where it was to take place.

Trump afterward told MSNBC in a telephone interview that he canceled the event because he didn't "want to see people hurt or worse." He said he thinks he "did the right thing."

Guglielmi says Trump never arrived at the Chicago venue.

Mar 11, 2016#485

Sparhawk

AshburnerX said:
Trump wasn't even in Chicago tonight. He also never received notification from the police.

Never arrived at the venue is much different from not in Chicago. He was in Chicago, according to earlier posts in that article he was in Chicago earlier today.

Mar 13, 2016#486

Dave

AshburnerX said:
Trump wasn't even in Chicago tonight. He also never received notification from the police.

https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0d265150-6fc8-4746-96fc-73ea70db9e7c

Mar 15, 2016#487

HCGLNS

Wolf just announced that having 67% of the votes means you have more than your opponent.

Aaaaand back to Pinky and the Brain for me.

Mar 15, 2016#488

AshburnerX

Ohio's being called: Kasich for Reps and Hillary for Dems.

Mar 15, 2016#489

Terrik

AshburnerX said:
Ohio's being called: Kasich for Reps and Hillary for Dems.

I love and hate this

Mar 15, 2016#490

Null

It doesn't look like Bernie's going to get the windfall he needed today. That's disappointing.

Mar 15, 2016#491

AshburnerX

Ehh... probably. He's probably out at this point. But that just means that now he gets to make Clinton squirm as she tries to get his endorsement.

Mar 15, 2016#492

Dave

Elizabeth Warren should have shit or got off the pot and backed Bernie. Very disappointed in the voting public. Trump vs. Clinton. We all lose.

Mar 15, 2016#493

AshburnerX

Dave said:
Elizabeth Warren should have shit or got off the pot and backed Bernie. Very disappointed in the voting public. Trump vs. Clinton. We all lose.

I think Warren was a bit worried about how it would have looked if she backed Bernie instead of Hillary. It would have raised more than a few eyebrows among her female Democratic fellows, especially since this is really their first chance to get the big chair. That and Hillary's made her bones with the party in a way few of them had, which is part of the reason why she didn't run.

The game is still the game, even if you're a woman I guess.

Mar 15, 2016#494

Hailey Knight

Bernie could still have a shot if remaining states go for him, but considering the turn-out, it's a long shot. If he's still running by the time my state gets around to its primary, I'll be voting for him, but that's still a month and a half from now and a lot could change by then.

It's just that with the positive momentum behind Bernie nonetheless failing him, I can't see the younger voters getting off their asses to vote for Clinton, even if to keep Trump out of office.

Mar 15, 2016#495

Dave

Fucking millennials. Fuck. Them. They wanted a revolution. They wanted to make a difference. Then the primaries happened and they were like, "But it's spring break, bruh!"

Fuck you.

Mar 15, 2016#496

blotsfan

Dave said:
Fucking millennials. Fuck. Them. They wanted a revolution. They wanted to make a difference. Then the primaries happened and they were like, "But it's spring break, bruh!"

Fuck you.

How was your voting record when you were that age? (please no dave is old jokes)

Mar 15, 2016#497

Hailey Knight

blotsfan said:
How was your voting record when you were that age?

They were still doing "who can throw the mammoth bone farthest" for deciding leadership when Dave was young.

Mar 15, 2016#498

Tress

Dave said:
Fucking millennials. Fuck. Them. They wanted a revolution. They wanted to make a difference. Then the primaries happened and they were like, "But it's spring break, bruh!"

Fuck you.

You're delusional if you ever thought it would happen another way.

Senator Clinton will defeat Donald Trump, and the margin will be something like 55%-45%. Trump is such an off-putting figure that only the most hardcore Republicans will vote for him, while Sen. Clinton will take a majority of Democrats and Independents. Many Republicans will stay home, leaving Trump out to dry.

Watch.

Mar 15, 2016#499

Dave

blotsfan said:
How was your voting record when you were that age? (please no dave is old jokes)

I've voted in every presidential election since I turned 18. I will admit this is the firs time I've caucused, but that's only because I was in the military and then lived in states where you couldn't vote in the primaries unless you were in a party - which I wasn't.

My first vote was for Reagan, if you can believe it.

Mar 15, 2016#500

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
Fucking millennials. Fuck. Them. They wanted a revolution. They wanted to make a difference. Then the primaries happened and they were like, "But it's spring break, bruh!"

Fuck you.

As a millennial ... yup, pretty much. I've voted in every presidential election I've been able to, but this is the first year I've given a shit about the primaries and I don't think the importance has hit my peers. Even Donald Trump said Bernie's supporters are "all talk" and it's probably the closest Trump's been to saying something true during this whole election. So they make Bernie gif sets and memes and such, but when it comes to actually going out to vote, they don't even know the day. And then they blame the government for not telling them about this stuff--douches, why would the system you want to change tell you how to change it? It's going to take a little bit of effort on our fucking part.

I mean hell, absentee ballot. No need to go in and vote. How fucking easy does it need to be? Text BERN to a national voter service to vote?

Forums