EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1526
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2014 14:24 Sub40APM wrote: Why wouldnt it be Democrat friendly? The economy is getting better, unemployment is decreasing, gas prices are down, and so forth. Shes a weaker candidate in the sense that shes older and obviously if Bill cant fully campaign thats a huge detriment but shes is stronger than any of the GOP guys in the demos she needs to be strong in. Winning white guys wasnt enough for Romney, so whats going to change in the next 2 years when there will be less of them, especially the old ones who are the most reliable voters and GOP supporters? You've read how people like Danglers describe Romney -- not radical enough. So another painful primary between Rand Paul vs the establishment. It's more likely to be a bad year for democrats than for republicans. The current economic cycle is likely to end soon. Things may be good now, but 2 years from now? Highly dubious proposition. More to the point, I doubt anyone is going to still like Obama by the time that his term is up. He's going to be pretty damned toxic for democrats once again. Also, foreign policy considerations are going to be paramount once more in this upcoming election. That has always been an area of weakness for democrats, and they are going to have a very hard time explaining away years of Obama's clueless foreign policy. This is a particularly tender point for Hillary. How many dump trucks full of shit do you think that she's going to eat for just the "reset button" alone? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
demographics trend favoring dems, turnout against not-obama will be lower, while democrats have a good ground game esp if hillary is on the case. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 17 2014 14:40 xDaunt wrote: It's more likely to be a bad year for democrats than for republicans. The current economic cycle is likely to end soon. Why would it end soon? Please tell me you arent one of those people who think once the Fed raises interest rate America is going to collapse? More to the point, I doubt anyone is going to still like Obama by the time that his term is up. He's going to be pretty damned toxic for democrats once again. Yep. Just like he was to them in 2012 after 2010. Also, foreign policy considerations are going to be paramount once more in this upcoming election. That has always been an area of weakness for democrats, Are you not watching Russia choke on Obama's dick right now? By 2016 ISIS is going to be forgotten like every other random terrorist -- hey remember Al Shabab or Yemen? Ya neither does an average American. It will the Democrats causing the collapse of Russia a second time -- and this time in 8 years instead of 50. How many dump trucks full of shit do you think that she's going to eat for just the "reset button" alone? None? Because Russia is about to enter a deep depression? And Putin being Putin will respond with more tough talk and more dumb action that will force ehe Europeans to ratchet up the sanctions despite their desperate desire to cut a deal with him? Obama managed more in 6 months to undermine Putin -- or 12 if you want to believe the conspiracy theorists that the Ukrainian revolution was a CIA coup -- than Bush did in 8 to fundamentally roll back Russian aggression. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23251 Posts
The bottom line for Republicans is they need a candidate that can get past the primary and win a decent chunk of hispanics over. The only other option as I see it, is to try to make Hillary look so bad that they can win an extremely low turnout victory like these recent midterms. After all these years of dealing with it for Obama, people are going to be tired of hearing about how bad the other person is and will be ready to hear specifically what republicans are going to pass. They won't have a reason to not have produced legislation since they will have had both houses for 2 years. The house is going to have an especially tough time explaining why with all these years of control they haven't put together a specific comprehensive tax reform policy they think they can pass (or at least a proposal) One positive thing is that Republican ideas and positions are going to be given every opportunity to be presented to the American people. If the republicans lose this next election I can't imagine a more categorical statement that the majority of Americans disagree with where they want to take the country. Won't mean they want to go the direction of the winner but it would definitely be a rejection of republican intentions or at least their specific strategies. Hopefully bringing an end to the "it was our candidate" stuff. On December 17 2014 15:12 Ace wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp_u34UWa-g smh... sad... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
many people were citing this exact 'witness' as proof when there's conflicting reports and shitty recordkeeping. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
lol how are those people employed? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23251 Posts
On December 17 2014 16:21 Ace wrote: b...bu..but according to posters from previous discussions people were making stuff up about the level of ridiculousness in the GJ proceedings. I'm sure they'll find a way to accuse black people of something wrong here too. And gems like this: The only sane people are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community). Yeah sooo crazy to question the competence and credibility of this GJ process or to not arrive at the same conclusion as xDaunt... St. Louis County’s prosecutor on Saturday apologized for failing to immediately make public all documents tied to a grand jury’s decision last month not to indict a white police officer in the death of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., and released a new set of records — the third such release — since the grand jury’s return. Included in the latest release from the prosecutor were transcripts of interviews with people who witnessed the shooting of Michael Brown in August by F.B.I. agents, St. Louis County detectives, and by officials from the Justice Department. The Justice Department is still conducting a separate investigation into the shooting. Distinct from that, federal officials are conducting a civil rights investigation into the practices of the Ferguson Police Department. Just happens to contain the interview with the witness being quoted all over television and elsewhere, her racist rant, the part of her story which indicates she might not have even been there, the part where she talks about being a Darren Wilson supporter, etc... Purely coincidence and not more evidence of incompetence (at best). | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On December 17 2014 14:15 oneofthem wrote: as much as i like hillary, i think bloomberg would be a good candidate too. Christie/Bloomberg 2014. Go out in a blaze of non-ideological centrism, like champs. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2014 15:07 Sub40APM wrote: Are you not watching Russia choke on Obama's dick right now? By 2016 ISIS is going to be forgotten like every other random terrorist -- hey remember Al Shabab or Yemen? Ya neither does an average American. It will the Democrats causing the collapse of Russia a second time -- and this time in 8 years instead of 50. None? Because Russia is about to enter a deep depression? And Putin being Putin will respond with more tough talk and more dumb action that will force ehe Europeans to ratchet up the sanctions despite their desperate desire to cut a deal with him? Obama managed more in 6 months to undermine Putin -- or 12 if you want to believe the conspiracy theorists that the Ukrainian revolution was a CIA coup -- than Bush did in 8 to fundamentally roll back Russian aggression. Please explain precisely which Obama policy has collapsed oil prices thereby crashing the Russian economy. We are talking about the same guy who wants higher energy prices to combat global warming and who tried to buddy up to Russia at the beginning of his term, right? We are also talking about the same guy who has done everything he can administratively to get in the way of American fracking. No, Putin is not sucking Obama's cock. He's sucking Saudi cock first, and American big oil cock second. The sanctions mean pretty much nothing compared to collapsing oil prices. | ||
|
Hoenicker
243 Posts
On December 17 2014 22:45 xDaunt wrote: Please explain precisely which Obama policy has collapsed oil prices thereby crashing the Russian economy. We are talking about the same guy who wants higher energy prices to combat global warming and who tried to buddy up to Russia at the beginning of his term, right? We are also talking about the same guy who has done everything he can administratively to get in the way of American fracking. No, Putin is not sucking Obama's cock. He's sucking Saudi cock first, and American big oil cock second. The sanctions mean pretty much nothing compared to collapsing oil prices. you frackers always make me laugh. Frack on baby, screw the continental shelf, poor people live there. edit: would be great if you could get England to frack their country into oblivion too, so I could get some surf in the Netherlands. Get it going already. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 17 2014 15:12 Ace wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp_u34UWa-g This seems like it's much more powerful as an indictment of the absurdity of Fox News (particularly Hannity) than anything else. The prosecutor did present the breakdown of the witness 40 testimony in the case before the diary entry to the GJ (so they probably didn't give a shit about it), after all, it's only a sensationalist media that doesn't. Unless I misunderstood the segment. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On December 17 2014 14:12 zlefin wrote: Why are you arguing about bench depth? You only need one good candidate; while it's always complicated, there's some advantage to having fewer possibles, as it means you can spend less money on primary season, and take fewer primary positions, focusing more on the main race. Is there research on whether it's a net advantage overall? Republicans in the post-Bush era have learned about bench depth the hard way, given the flubs of their candidates in 2008 and 2012. It was actually good for Obama to have had a competitive race for the Democratic nomination in 2008. The problem for Democrats is that they're not really prepared for a post-Obama world and seem poised to tailspin in the same way they did after Clinton left office in 2000. They surely don't want a repeat of that again. Republicans don't have a clear front-runner either and they have to be shuddering about the possibility of another 2012 nomination campaign where everyone gets picked off one by one in embarrassing gaffes. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2014 23:02 TheTenthDoc wrote: This seems like it's much more powerful as an indictment of the absurdity of Fox News (particularly Hannity) than anything else. The prosecutor did present the breakdown of the witness 40 testimony in the case before the diary entry to the GJ (so they probably didn't give a shit about it), after all, it's only a sensationalist media that doesn't. Unless I misunderstood the segment. The larger point is that highlighting the lack of credibility of one witness is basically meaningless in the context of a prosecutor successfully pressing charges. The burden is on the state, so the DA better have something better to hang his hat on. Again, we can argue all we want about whether there was sufficient evidence to bring an indictment. There clearly was insufficient evidence to get a conviction. Bringing charges just to temporarily please the race-baiting crowd until there's an acquittal is a waste of time and money. The civil rights crowd is predictably wrecking its own credibility by continuing the focus on the Ferguson case. They'd be much better served shining a spotlight exclusively upon the New York case. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
now it's lack of evidence to convict. part of why that is is due to the shitty evidence keeping and processing, on part of the police at the scene and wilson in particular. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 18 2014 00:29 oneofthem wrote: i thought the larger point was that the guy was innocent? now it's lack of evidence to convict. part of why that is is due to the shitty evidence keeping and processing, on part of the police at the scene and wilson in particular. From what I've seen, I think he is innocent. But if we're going to be technical, the real issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to convict. As for the police's processing of certain evidence, is there anything to suggest that it would have made a material difference given the state of the uncontaminated evidence? Again, from what I've seen, the answer to that question is no, which makes the issue academic. | ||
| ||
