CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2016: God is Dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2016: God is Dead - Page 3

post #101 of 22490
No this is very true. I believe in the end Jeb will get the nod. The interesting thing will be is if he doesn't run. My guess though is although he wasn't one of the people on this list I feel Rubio will make a comeback in place of Jeb, that or Paul Ryan. The others are Tea Party extremists that would just embarrass the national party and cannot be serious candidates. Honestly I kind of hope Hillary doesn't run either on the Democrat side and we get two fresh candidates not part of a political dynasty. Clinton vs Bush 2 kind of makes me want to throw up.
post #102 of 22490
I absolutely want Hillary to run. She's the closest to a sure thing that the Democrats have, and her victory would give the Republicans a conniption fit for the history books.
post #103 of 22490

Is it possible for them to just, y'know, not run a candidate?

post #104 of 22490

Fuck it, run a Rush/Coulter ticket. I'd love for their own special brand of venal evil to be responsible for killing the Republican Party on the national stage.

post #105 of 22490
The Republicans are self-sabotaging enough to do something along those lines.
post #106 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
 

Is it possible for them to just, y'know, not run a candidate?

 

 

2015 RNC office...

 

post #107 of 22490

Hillary's got a 6 to 1 lead over the Democratic field; Republican field a gaping Lovecraftian maw of horrors "wide open" according to WaPo/ABC poll.

 

 

 

Warren in third!

post #108 of 22490
Hillary/Warren 2016!

Unless Biden wants his old job back.
post #109 of 22490

The fact that Pee Wee Ryan is still the favoured candidate, even after the four months he spent peddling Ayn Rand fan fiction as campaign rhetoric in 2012, is both funny and ominous. They will never, ever learn.

post #110 of 22490
Ryan always struck me as more Screech than Pee Wee, but perhaps he's like a doofus Rorschach test.
post #111 of 22490

It's the ill-fitting suits.

post #112 of 22490
But can Ryan dance in large white shoes?
post #113 of 22490

No, but I did steal his bicycle.

post #114 of 22490

Look who's trying to woo the Latino voter base....

 

:

Jeb Bush: Illegal Immigration Is an ‘Act of Love’

 

Jeb Bush, the former Republican governor of Florida, ruffled some conservative feathers on Sunday after telling Fox News that he believes immigrants who illegally enter the United States to seek work and support their families are performing “an act of love.”

 

The statement, made during an on-stage interview with Fox News host Shannon Bream at an event celebrating the 25th anniversary of the presidency of George H.W. Bush, held at his Presidential Library, comes as speculation mounts about the younger Bush’s 2016 presidential prospects.

 

Many moderate Republicans are encouraging the former governor to follow in the footsteps of his father and brother, George W. Bush, by running for office. However, conservative Republicans — mostly Tea Partiers — say that his views on immigration and education, among other issues, are too closely aligned with Democrats.

 

The comments Bush made on Sunday will likely amplify that intra-party division.

 

<cont.>

post #115 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Ryan always struck me as more Screech than Pee Wee, but perhaps he's like a doofus Rorschach test.

I always saw him as the Burt Ward to Mitt Romney's Adam West, personally.
post #116 of 22490
Holey social safety net Batman!
post #117 of 22490

5 Reasons Hilary won't run.

 

Kind of agree. She's good as a Senator or as a member of a Cabinet, but she's just not a "retail Politician" and she can't appeal to our higher ideals like Obama can.

post #118 of 22490
The article is too kind. Hillary lost the nomination in 2008 because Democratic primary voters, the people most familiar with her real history as de facto cabinet member and her voting record as Senator, were willing to instead give the benefit of the doubt to a one term senator who nobody outside of Illinois had ever heard of. Obama was able to come out of nowhere and claim the Presidency because Hillary's presence on the primary ballots and in the debates provided him the opportunity to present himself as a liberal alternative to a Republican Lite. The sight of Democrats like Geraldine Ferraro and Taylor Marsh race baiting on Clinton's behalf, which magically turned off like a faucet when she got the Secretary of State job, was one of the sorriest spectacles I've seen in a lifetime of following Democratic Party politics at the national level.

Whether she's running or not, the assumption that she's running certainly isn't hurting her book tour, even while it freezes out rival Democrats who should be getting their campaigns up and running right now. The Clinton family's legacy of self service over all other considerations hasn't ended yet.
post #119 of 22490

So you're voting for her, then?

post #120 of 22490
All the polls have her winning against any potential Republican challenger. And who doesn't trust polls taken more than two years before the election?
post #121 of 22490

Hilary didn't in 2006 OH SNAP!

post #122 of 22490

Wow I'm listening to Hillary's interview with Terry Gross. Hillary goes off the hook on poor Terry when she's asked about her support for LGT back in the 90's.

 

Such a dumb approach to take when all she needs to say is "yeah I changed my mind. Times change".

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321313477/hillary-clinton-the-fresh-air-interview

post #123 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

All the polls have her winning against any potential Republican challenger. And who doesn't trust polls taken more than two years before the election?

 

The only polls or experts that matter is Nate Silver.

post #124 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

Wow I'm listening to Hillary's interview with Terry Gross. Hillary goes off the hook on poor Terry when she's asked about her support for LGT back in the 90's.

 

Such a dumb approach to take when all she needs to say is "yeah I changed my mind. Times change".

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321313477/hillary-clinton-the-fresh-air-interview

 

I haven't listened, but I did read the transcript. The transcript shows Gross asking four times using the same phrasing when I think Clinton answered the question every time.  Gross was trying to get her to say she changed her mind for political reasons, when Clinton said she changed her mind because she, along with a lot of Americans, have changed their minds and become more accepting. She even outlines why DOMA was the better of two evils at the time. But Gross wanted a yes or no to the idea that Clinton changed her mind to get votes.

 

My grandparents said terrible things about homosexuals, but their tone changed mightily when they realized two of their grandsons were gay.  It is amazing what happens when instead of being an other issue, it becomes an us issue. People change their minds because of exposure to the idea.

 

All that being said, I probably wouldn't vote for her. I am hesitant to believe what the country needs is another political dynasty and I honestly think Congressional gridlock would be WORSE with a Clinton presidency than nearly any other Democrat.

Quote:

GROSS: So just to clarify - just one more question on this - would you say your view evolved since the '90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view?

CLINTON: I think I'm an American. (Laughing) And I think we have all evolved and it's been one of the fastest most sweeping transformations.

 

GROSS: No, I understand, but a lot of people already believed in it back the '90s. A lot of people already supported gay marriage.

CLINTON: But not - to be fair, Terry, not that many. Yes, were there activists who were ahead of their time? Well, that was true in every human rights and civil rights movement, but the vast majority of Americans were just waking up to this issue and beginning to, you know, think about it and grasp it for the first time. And, you know, think about their neighbor down the street who deserved to have the same rights as they did or their son or their daughter. It has been an extraordinarily fast - by historic terms - social, political and legal transformation. And we ought to celebrate that instead of plowing old ground, where in fact a lot of people, the vast majority of people, have been moving forward - maybe slowly, maybe tentatively, maybe not as quickly and extensively as many would have hoped, but nevertheless we are at a point now where equality, including marriage equality, in our country, is solidly established. Although there will be places.

 

GROSS: I - I...

CLINTON: Texas, just to name one, where that is still going to be an ongoing struggle.

 

GROSS: I'm pretty sure you didn't answer my question about whether you evolved or it was the American public that changed (Laughing).

CLINTON: I said I'm an American, so of we all evolved. And I think that that's a fair, you know, that's a fair conclusion.

 

GROSS: So you're saying your opinion on gay marriage changed as opposed to you - you just felt it was comfortable...

CLINTON: You know, somebody is always first, Terry. Somebody's always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn't mean that those who joined later in being publicly supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across our country if nobody changed their mind. And thank goodness so many of us have.

 

GROSS: So that's one for you changed your mind? (Laughing).

CLINTON: You know, I really - I have to say, I think you are very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.

 

GROSS: I am just trying to clarify so I can understand.

CLINTON: No, I don't think you are trying to clarify. I think you're trying to say that, you know, I used to be opposed and now I'm in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that's just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I've done and the progress we're making.

 

GROSS: You know, I'm just saying - I'm sorry - I just want to clarify what I was saying - no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but - you know, believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn't ready yet and you couldn't say it. That's what I was thinking.

CLINTON: No. No, that is not true.

GROSS: OK.

CLINTON: I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage and I don't think you probably did either. This was an incredibly new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay rights movement began to talk about and slowly but surely convinced others of the rightness of that position. And when I was ready to say what I said, I said it.

post #125 of 22490

Yeah the emotional content doesn't come through on the transcript. Clinton could have simply said her beliefs "evolved" , just like Obama did, and that's that.

 

I think Clinton is right on the content of her response, but it was so poorly worded and needlessly convoluted.

post #126 of 22490

.


Edited by Disciple_72 - 3/15/16 at 10:43am
post #127 of 22490
Media Matters has your round-up of Republican media flacks losing their collective shit over Mississippi's Senator Thad Cochran (Republican) defeating Tea Party challenger, Chris McDaniel, this week.

McDaniel is a Senator at the state level, who sought to move to Washington on the Tea Party's usual austerity platform of cutting the federal budget at the expense of domestic spending. Cochran has a long history of using his position to successfully bring a decent amount of the federal budget back to Mississippi, and his outreach to traditionally Democratic voters (completely legal under Mississippi's election laws) was seen as key to his political survival.

Limbaugh's hilariously racist ranting is particularly worth reading. Limbaugh urged Republican voters to vote for Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Party primaries, something of which his own listeners have been reminding him since he went on record with the comments recorded for posterity by Media Matters this week.
post #128 of 22490

This breaks the Limbo narrative of the Tea Party steamrolling into Congress this November. Why, it's like all politics is local or something.

post #129 of 22490

And when whoever is elected in 2016 does a shitty job, that person will be the worst president of all time and so on. Worse than Bush or even Nixon? Peoples' ability to remember things that just happened has devolved to goldfish levels. 

 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-usa-obama-poll-idUSKBN0F716P20140702

post #130 of 22490

Those numbers are a pretty good indication of just how clueless so many people are. It almost feels like the partisan divide is so complete that, moving forward, half of everyone will think the current president is the worst ever.

post #131 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

"... and his outreach to traditionally Democratic voters (completely legal under Mississippi's election laws) was seen as key to his political survival."

 

Cochran used the law to his advantage and it worked. Politics 101. The sad thing about McDaniel and his legal challenge is that he doesn't have a pot to piss in:

 

Quote:
...The Mississippi law says a voter can participate in a party primary only if he intends to support that party's nominee in the general election. A federal appeals court ruled in 2008 that the law is unenforceable. The ruling came in a case in which Democrats sought to block Republicans from crossing over in primaries.

 

Basically, McDaniel is one of the worse sore losers ever.


Edited by ShaolinMK - 7/3/14 at 7:28am
post #132 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Baker View Post
 

Those numbers are a pretty good indication of just how clueless so many people are. It almost feels like the partisan divide is so complete that, moving forward, half of everyone will think the current president is the worst ever.

 

I'd love to know exactly who the people are that are sampled in these polls. Here is a link to the specifics of this particular poll.

 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

 

While there are a seemingly a fairly decent variation along age/political lines, 1,446 seems like a ridiculously small number in a nation where there are 146M +/- registered voters.

 

 

That being said, the division along political lines could barely be more radical.

post #133 of 22490
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 75


There's a lot of (justifiable) outrage on the Internet today, directed at the New York Post, over a headline that attacks Chelsea Clinton's newborn baby.

Am I the only one, though, who's pissed off at the presumptive Democratic nominee for President in 2016 and her husband, for dragging the baby out in front of the cameras?

Is this not the same thing that Sarah Palin did with her grandson in 2008, posing with her grandchild like the kid was a stage prop in order to create a persona for herself?

Is it just easier to notice when a Republican does it? Do we expect so much unfair criticism to be directed at Hillary by conservatives that we don't think it's sporting to heap fair criticism on top of that?

Do we believe that she's not campaigning yet?

Or am I just jumping the gun here?
post #134 of 22490

I'm surprised it's taken this long for the right wing to go after babies.   You'd think they'd progress a little swifter from Rush Limbaugh calling a then 13 year old a dog on his short lived TV show so many years ago.

 

As for Hillary posing with a baby, I don't see the harm.   It's her first grandchild and if it scores points, so be it.

post #135 of 22490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post




There's a lot of (justifiable) outrage on the Internet today, directed at the New York Post, over a headline that attacks Chelsea Clinton's newborn baby.

Am I the only one, though, who's pissed off at the presumptive Democratic nominee for President in 2016 and her husband, for dragging the baby out in front of the cameras?

Is this not the same thing that Sarah Palin did with her grandson in 2008, posing with her grandchild like the kid was a stage prop in order to create a persona for herself?

Is it just easier to notice when a Republican does it? Do we expect so much unfair criticism to be directed at Hillary by conservatives that we don't think it's sporting to heap fair criticism on top of that?

Do we believe that she's not campaigning yet?

Or am I just jumping the gun here?

 

I dunno. I think grandparents proudly showing off their newborn first grandchild like this is a little different than the dog and pony show Palin brought to town back in 2008. If Hillary carts Chelsea and the baby to every bloody speech she makes once she announces her candidacy then I think the accusations of hypocrisy are fair game, but as of now, when they're a proud couple showing off the fruits of their whole lives? It gets a pass from me.

post #136 of 22490
"Hillary retains an iron grip on second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. And whoever is out in front of her is so far out in front that we don’t know who it is." P.J. O'Rourke looks at the current 2016 candidate line-up, for the Daily Beast.
post #137 of 22490
Thread Starter 
I'm angry at you for drawing my attention to that article. "Booty and Bullets"? Gross.
post #138 of 22490
post #139 of 22490
Good news for Hillary fans, if it's true. Dobbs help me, I actually want to see these two debate each other.

"Mitt Romney has been meeting with donors in New York, and those close to him see this as a sure sign." Romney Inner Circle Convinced He's Running

Link goes to Crooks and Liars.
post #140 of 22490
THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM, AMIRITE?!
post #141 of 22490

  If the economy is what is on voters mind in 2016, then why shouldn't Jerry Brown run. California leads the nation in job growth.

post #142 of 22490

He's too old.  What will he be in 2016, 78?

post #143 of 22490

I'll go with the age ain't nothing but a number reasoning.

post #144 of 22490

Hmmm. While dating myself, I will quote from the mid-80's stand up of Paul Rodriguez, in  reference to then-73 year old Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign:

 

"He's almost 74. My grandpa is 74, we don't let him touch the remote control."

 

 

 

I watched a lot of HBO Half-Hour Comedy Hour as a kid.

post #145 of 22490

therein lies the problem............

 

Quote:

Rick Perry: Running for president ‘is not an IQ test’

 

Is Rick Perry smart enough to be president? The Lone Star State's governor disagrees with the premise of the question.

“Running for the presidency is not an IQ test. It is a test of an individual’s resolve, it is a test of an individual’s philosophy, it is a test of an individual’s life experiences,” he told MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt in an interview that aired Thursday. “And I think Americans are ready for a leader that will give them a great hope about the future.”

 

<cont>

post #146 of 22490
Having a dumbfuck president is so 2000-and-late.
post #147 of 22490

Perry better hope IQ doesn't matter.

post #148 of 22490

Perry is literally too stupid to realize his dumb mouth is what ended his campaign last time? Please run again Rick.

post #149 of 22490
Hey, Rick, what're those three departments you want to shut down again? The one, the other one and the one that's not the first two?
post #150 of 22490

I'm starting to think that Ricky wants to run for POTUS not because he wants the job but he will do it for the sole reason that he got a taste of being in the national spotlight last time and he loved the attention....all the 'faithful', fawning all over him like he's the idiot jesus. If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't he be able to keep any $$$  that was donated to his campaign that doesn't get spent?  

 

He's just pulling the evangelical preacher grifter card....sell false hope, spout some religious/political platitudes, charge new suits to the campaign and cash in.

 

Of course he may very well be the monstrous idiot and actually has convinced himself that he's "AWESOME"....??  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2016: God is Dead