| 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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 17 2016 01:51 JW_DTLA wrote: Paul Ryan has a real shot at the white house in next 10 years. He will not be falling on his sword to save the party today, when he can certainly save it in 8. He has some real work to do before he can be considered a viable candidate. The republican base is not happy with him. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
I keep seeing these stupid fucking memes comparing Bernie's run to Obama's in 08 when they're nothing alike. By this point, Obama was doing significantly better than Bernie was (e.g. Obama didn't get his ass handed to him on Super Tuesday). | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 17 2016 01:19 Gorsameth wrote: The primary process is not what creates the 2 party system. The entire election system in the US needs to change if you want to get rid of the 2 party system. Nothing needs to change. The issues with multiparty systems is that they cannibalize each other, not that laws prevent them from existing. Imagine X parties going after Y total voters. If at least 2 of the X parties team up to clump up their voter base, that new "coalition" will start winning everything. Another coalition then forms to keep up with the first one. This cannibalization continues until there's only 2 (or 3) parties left. For the most part, single position/leadership positions will always condense into Liberal vs Conservative. Multi-party systems works great in a poly-position branch of the office (congress, senate, etc...) The main thing holding that back is condensation of fiscal resources. For the most part, there's a high level of correlation between spending and voter response rates. The higher the voter turn out the less this is an issue, and the more structured the finance reform the less this is an issue. But in the end there will be a "richest" party and that party will become the umbrella party for general elections. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 17 2016 01:56 xDaunt wrote: He has some real work to do before he can be considered a viable candidate. The republican base is not happy with him. He has a real shot of re-enacting Jeb Bush's candidacy in a decade. You might even get some Rubio reminders: He made a trillion dollar budget deal, increasing the debt and earning praise from Obama, after he played the more-conservative name on the Romney ticket. Rubio ran one way on immigration in Senate race, and another in the Senate and during the primary. I certainly hope the GOP has better hopes than Ryan in the future. Rotating slightly back to topic, the GOP's done if its not Trump or Cruz after a failed first ballot. They'd have no way of turning out the base after a betrayal of that magnitude. Two outsiders swallowed the primary whole, there's no getting out of it now. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 17 2016 02:14 Plansix wrote: Obama game theoryed that one. He nominated the person that he knew they couldn’t deny. He isn’t interested in messing around trying to stack the court, but just wants someone that he thinks will address the issue more evenly that Scaila. Looks like they're still not taking him. Surprise surprise. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/president-obama-to-announce-supreme-court-nominee-at-11-am-et.html | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 17 2016 02:16 Danglars wrote: He has a real shot of re-enacting Jeb Bush's candidacy in a decade. You might even get some Rubio reminders: He made a trillion dollar budget deal, increasing the debt and earning praise from Obama, after he played the more-conservative name on the Romney ticket. Rubio ran one way on immigration in Senate race, and another in the Senate and during the primary. I certainly hope the GOP has better hopes than Ryan in the future. Rotating slightly back to topic, the GOP's done if its not Trump or Cruz after a failed first ballot. They'd have no way of turning out the base after a betrayal of that magnitude. Two outsiders swallowed the primary whole, there's no getting out of it now. Yeah, I would probably renounce my party affiliation if the GOP pulls something at the convention that results in someone other than Trump or Cruz getting the nomination. Technical rules be damned; the voters have spoken. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 17 2016 02:26 LegalLord wrote: Looks like they're still not taking him. Surprise surprise. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/president-obama-to-announce-supreme-court-nominee-at-11-am-et.html They are going to talk a big game, but that is going to be a punching bag for the rest of the election. General election voters do not like this obstructionism. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 17 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote: They are going to talk a big game, but that is going to be a punching bag for the rest of the election. General election voters do not like this obstructionism. I especially love this part here. Obama did it "not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for the purpose of the election," the Kentucky Republican said. "We won't confirm anyone because you, a democrat, might offer too liberal people and shit - but it's YOU who politicize the process. Also damn you for showing immensely clearly how much of obstructionist dicks we are." Right. I honestly, honestly can not, for my life, understand how some people argue that the Republicans are doing a good job. Especially considering that the current pick of Obama is actually decent, and only gets refused because of political reasons, not actual concerns. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21963 Posts
On March 17 2016 02:37 m4ini wrote: I especially love this part here. "We won't confirm anyone because you, a democrat, might offer too liberal people and shit - but it's YOU who politicize the process." Right. I honestly, honestly can not, for my life, understand how some people argue that the Republicans are doing a good job. Especially considering that the current pick of Obama is actually decent, and only gets refused because of political reasons, not actual concerns. They argue it because they believe the government is evil and obstructing the government makes it do less of the evil... things...that is does. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On March 17 2016 02:37 m4ini wrote: I especially love this part here. "We won't confirm anyone because you, a democrat, might offer too liberal people and shit - but it's YOU who politicize the process. Also damn you for showing immensely clearly how much of obstructionist dicks we are." Right. I honestly, honestly can not, for my life, understand how some people argue that the Republicans are doing a good job. Especially considering that the current pick of Obama is actually decent, and only gets refused because of political reasons, not actual concerns. The basic contradiction about the Republican argument. We shouldn't politicize the court during election season, but the election season should be about the court. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
That's the beauty of it all; prior instances of Republican obstruction usually included at least some room in which Republicans could reasonably explain their refusal to even to come to the table. Supreme Court Nominations are a nice and discrete means of highlighting exactly what's wrong with how Republicans approach national governance because there is literally no room for argument on their part. The worst part is, if you think about it, your vote doesn't mean jack shit, really. It's not about who's president, but who's controlling the rest. So even if, like last election, people vote for ideas from democrats, they won't get them. So the "we will see what voters want" argument of Republicans is bullshiting x2. Voters wanted Obama to keep his promises, which he couldn't not because he didn't want to, but because Republidums didn't let him. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Its gross. My grandfather is likely spinning in his grave right now. He gave money to the party for his entire life and he ended up voting for Obama over Romney because he couldn't deal with what the party had become. I am so glad he didn't live to see the rise of Trump. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On March 17 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote: They don’t even have an argument. They just want to wait because they don’t want anyone who Obama picks on the bench. They can’t even vote on the subject or have public debate why. Its “we have the power not to do this, so we won’t.” The Republicans just refuse to accept that the other party exists and will only take action if it looks like the economy might implode by their inaction. Its gross. My grandfather is likely spinning in his grave right now. He gave money to the party for his entire life and he ended up voting for Obama over Romney because he couldn't deal with what the party had become. I am so glad he didn't live to see the rise of Trump. There is no precedent or constitutional argument. It is brute political force. Either Obama folds, or McConnell folds. Can the Republicans maintain their blockade in the face of nominee they are on record as praising? Can they hide from the press? Can Trump even mouth a judicial philosophy to counter Clinton and Obama's clear arguments? I think the Republicans are in a much weaker position here and McConnell folds shortly after Trump wins the Republican nomination. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
L O L | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 17 2016 03:20 SK.Testie wrote: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html L O L The tone deafness of the GOP is simply astonishing. | ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
