US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2472

On October 31 2015 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote:


What cracks me up about people like Bush is how frustrated they are with what the Republican party has become and the success of Trump and Carson as if it wasn't a direct result of the 2010 campaign and feeding the trolls since Obama was elected.

The flagrant disconnects between republican opinion and reality were constantly reinforced for years or at minimum allowed to fester. When a top ranking senator throws a snowball as his evidence against global warming and isn't shamed out of the senate it's pretty clear this is a problem of republicans own making.

but that would involve giving up the base that is stumping for Trump. And to be honest, the country would be way better off if they did.

This past May, Seventh-day Adventist officials issued a letter in light of Carson’s candidacy urging members to preserve the separation of church and state during the 2016 election season and keep politics out of the pulpit.

On October 31 2015 06:45 Danglars wrote:

Hold your horses, man. I assert that there's an ideological divide in reforms to the criminal justice system & police departments. When you objected to "leftist" characterization, you pretended that all African Americans are forever on board with Democrat policy proposals ("cater"/"pander" to African American community). It wasn't true as recently as three decades ago, it won't necessarily be true forever in the future. See the original post for approaches Clinton is not likely to take. Persist in the tired cliches if that's your shtick, you're in good company.

I remarked on the Clinton's continued NAACP/CBC alliance because this is nothing new for them. Sanders may force her left on a number of issues, I'm thinking mostly on the economy, which she'd rather not adopt for her corporate supporters or other reasons. I don't think this is an example of that looking back to how Bill did things in the nineties. It's home turf.

all African Americans are forever on board with Democrat policy proposals

Both Clintons have always drifted to align with the NAACP and mainstream leftist thought on black America

On October 31 2015 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:


That is the quintessential problem for the Republican party. Though with Carson's unabashed creationism and nazi/slavery comparisons, and him leading in the polls, it seems there's been quite the revival in the religious right or people are just supporting him without knowing/caring about the crazy stuff he says/thinks.

For those not keeping up on the odds, Jeb has fallen precipitously, he's now behind Clinton, Rubio, Trump, Sanders, in that order.

On October 31 2015 07:55 Adreme wrote:


If he is behind Clinton in the Republican primary then he is really in trouble since I am pretty sure random drug offenders could beat Hilary Clinton in the Republican primary.

Jeb Bush is in a lot of trouble but being written off is a good formula this early especially when you have a super popular brother and have not honestly gotten a lot of press about your positions so you can suddenly blitz up the polls rather quickly.

On October 31 2015 08:37 xDaunt wrote:

W isn't super popular in the republican party, and anyone who thinks that W is anything but an albatross around Jeb's neck is fooling himself. Having seen two Bush presidencies, republicans know exactly what a Jeb presidency would look like, and the base wants nothing to do with it.

The hilarious thing is that Jeb seems to be completely oblivious to this fact. Not only has he failed to properly address the significance of his last name, but Jeb has made no effort to connect with the republican base at all. Quite the opposite, really. He has gone out of his way to alienate the base. Jeb stated from the get-go last year that he was not going to pander to the base. His strategy has been to run as been to run as an established politician, a moderate (presumably electable) republican, and just bury the other republican candidates with a superior fundraising apparatus. This probably would have worked in past elections, but it clearly isn't going to work in this one. Regardless of whether you agree with them, there is no denying that the republican base feels betrayed by its political leaders (ie the republican establishment). From their perspective, they've seen little but the actions of RINOs from most of the "conservative" and "republican" politicians that they have elected into office. This is an outright toxic environment for someone like Jeb -- who, for all intents and purposes, is the republican establishment -- to run.

And Bush's failure to change up after months of weakness in the polls is positively absurd. He should fire all of his campaign advisers and bring in some fresh thinkers.

On October 31 2015 07:55 Adreme wrote:


If he is behind Clinton in the Republican primary then he is really in trouble since I am pretty sure random drug offenders could beat Hilary Clinton in the Republican primary.

Jeb Bush is in a lot of trouble but being written off is a good formula this early especially when you have a super popular brother and have not honestly gotten a lot of press about your positions so you can suddenly blitz up the polls rather quickly.

On October 31 2015 02:37 frazzle wrote:

So mainstream rightist thought is we need more blacks in prison?

On October 31 2015 02:59 frazzle wrote:

Yeah. It just seemed so unnecessary to throw in "mainstream leftist thought" there. How about just saying "The Clintons typically cater to the African-American community", or even "pander". I mean, the African-American community is in some sense an interest group just like any other that the political parties woo more or less on a variety of issues. I don't get why it has to have this Manichaen good/evil, left/right dichotomy forced upon it.

On October 31 2015 03:23 frazzle wrote:

You're suggesting the black voters support stop and frisk? Or are you saying we just need to do whether black communities want it or not it because it works? This poll suggests blacks don't support it by a wide margin. That was in 2012.

On October 31 2015 07:23 frazzle wrote:

When did I pretend ???

You said Ending the war on drugs is libertarian as much as it is leftist. Reigning in overzealous policing is libertarian as much as it is leftist. Disallowing Police encroachments on 4th amendment-ish issues, such as search and frisk, is libertarian as much as it is leftist. I took issue with you immediately casting the issue in a left/right ideological manner.

Presidential candidate Ben Carson claimed during the third republican debate this week that he never had a relationship with Mannatech, the dietary supplement company which was busted for falsely claiming that its proverbial magic beans cured everything from cancer to autism. But it turns out Carson has been consistently serving as a paid shill for the company for a decade, and has been caught claiming that the product did indeed cure cancer.

The first documentation of Ben Carson’s relationship with Mannatech is in 2004, in which he gave a paid speech to pyramid scheme recruits in which he claimed that his own prostate cancer had been cured by the dietary supplement; later he ended up having prostate surgery anyway. Despite his attempts at writing that off as a one-time paid gig, it now turns out that Carson has continued doing paid speeches for Mannatech through at least the year 2013. That comes four years after the company was forced to settle for millions after its fraudulent nature was revealed.

It’s not clear whether Ben Carson is in more hot water with mainstream Americans for the fact that he knowingly hawked a fake cancer cure for cash for a decade while also working as a doctor, or the fact that he’s been caught lying about it. But even as the mainstream increasingly concludes that he’s a mentally compromised individual in need of mental help, republican primary voters continue to push him higher in the polls.

On October 31 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:
Good to see that the RNC had the balls to cancel the NBC-hosted republican debate in February.

Presidential candidate Ben Carson claimed during the third republican debate this week that he never had a relationship with Mannatech, the dietary supplement company which was busted for falsely claiming that its proverbial magic beans cured everything from cancer to autism. But it turns out Carson has been consistently serving as a paid shill for the company for a decade, and has been caught claiming that the product did indeed cure cancer.

The first documentation of Ben Carson’s relationship with Mannatech is in 2004, in which he gave a paid speech to pyramid scheme recruits in which he claimed that his own prostate cancer had been cured by the dietary supplement; later he ended up having prostate surgery anyway. Despite his attempts at writing that off as a one-time paid gig, it now turns out that Carson has continued doing paid speeches for Mannatech through at least the year 2013. That comes four years after the company was forced to settle for millions after its fraudulent nature was revealed.

It’s not clear whether Ben Carson is in more hot water with mainstream Americans for the fact that he knowingly hawked a fake cancer cure for cash for a decade while also working as a doctor, or the fact that he’s been caught lying about it. But even as the mainstream increasingly concludes that he’s a mentally compromised individual in need of mental help, republican primary voters continue to push him higher in the polls.

On October 31 2015 09:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


If George Bush is so popular how is in the almost 8 years post Presidency has not been allowed near a GOP fundraiser, event, or Primary endorsement...?

On October 31 2015 06:30 WhiteDog wrote:

This discussion on intelligence seems completly false to me.
Talking to one guy does not permit anyone to judge his intelligence, but rather his familiarity with the specific game that is talking in public, a familiarity that is defined by education and, more often than not, the social background. It also greatly depend on the "interaction order", the specificity of the moment and the affinity of every members with the role they are supposed to play in this situation. The deepness of one argument is usually lost behind the form of the discourse. I know plenty of people that can say stupid things intelligently.
At the other side of the spectrum, I meet many people that seemed very brutish at first, complete imbecile, that, in the right moment, made comment that had more deepness or "intelligence" than most discourse I've heard, but those comments were not refined nor constructed, ambivalent by nature.
1960-70 psychology and philosophy, behind its valorization of the mentally ill (like in Foucault or Deleuze work, or even in Lacan's analysis of the discourse of the hysteric) actually understood that simple fact, that intelligent comments more often than not comes from people that are unable to find structure for their speech.

Judging the "intelligence" of anyone is absurd because intelligence is a plot of language that has no unity in reality : the average physicist is intelligent when talking about physic, but stupid when playing basketball. Simberto seems to believe that the problem behind scientifically objectifying intelligence is the definition, but he himself more or less explain that any scientific definition of intelligence would be a great simplification from what we understand as intelligence - which is an evaluation on the essence of someone.

Well whatever I could continue talking rubbish all night long. Is it your birthday IgnE or did you just get a cake for your icon thanks to some amazing feat I'm unaware of ?