|
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. |
On April 08 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination. Because at the end of the day, he is going to do what is best for his supporters, which is not letting the Republicans win. I understand these very short term plans seem appealing, but he is facing the potential of being the guy who helps Cruz or Trump win.
Hes going to do whats not political suicide. If bernie sanders loses the primary and runs third party hes going to be the guy who handed the keys to america to trump. No ones dumb enough to run third party guys stop talking about it like its serious.
|
On April 08 2016 03:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass. I don't know. the last few times the republicans have refused to work with the president has worked out for the GOP swimmingly and it might act as a incentive for them to try it as a power play for whoever wins on the dem side if they lose the presidential. You mean that time they shut down the government and the entire country got mad at them?
So mad at them that they GOP were the big winners in the past two midterm elections.
|
On April 08 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination. Because at the end of the day, he is going to do what is best for his supporters, which is not letting the Republicans win. I understand these very short term plans seem appealing, but he is facing the potential of being the guy who helps Cruz or Trump win. Hes going to do whats not political suicide. If bernie sanders loses the primary and runs third party hes going to be the guy who handed the keys to america to trump. No ones dumb enough to run third party guys stop talking about it like its serious.
Yeah, 3rd party is for suckers--its all about 4rth party 
You know who's likely to run 3rd party? Trump. He has the money and the support to self fund.
You know who's not scared to be 4rth party?
|
Honestly, it doesn't matter. Garland is basically the same as any other Democratic nominee on important issues, and probably slightly worse than them on crime, punishment, and 4th Amendment issues. The only upside to Garland for Republicans (aside from Lindsey Graham who probably gets tumescent thinking about how much Garland hates requiring search warrants) is that he is old. And most of the Senate is too old and shortsighted to even care about that.
If I were to look at the major cases of the last 10 years: Citizens United, Heller, NFIB v. Sebelius, Fisher, Obergefell he would be solidly voting with Kagan/Sotomayor. And if you look at the civil rights cases, he is more pro-executive, so maybe if you are really in love with the death penalty then you might consider him a bit of an upgrade over a second Ginsberg. But she is better than him on things like Jones, so... a wash.
|
On April 08 2016 03:48 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination. Because at the end of the day, he is going to do what is best for his supporters, which is not letting the Republicans win. I understand these very short term plans seem appealing, but he is facing the potential of being the guy who helps Cruz or Trump win. Hes going to do whats not political suicide. If bernie sanders loses the primary and runs third party hes going to be the guy who handed the keys to america to trump. No ones dumb enough to run third party guys stop talking about it like its serious. Yeah, 3rd party is for suckers--its all about 4rth party You know who's likely to run 3rd party? Trump. He has the money and the support to self fund. You know who's not scared to be 4rth party?
Not so sure about that
Isn't the point of running the Republican primary to have the Party pay for his general campaign?
|
On April 08 2016 03:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass. I don't know. the last few times the republicans have refused to work with the president has worked out for the GOP swimmingly and it might act as a incentive for them to try it as a power play for whoever wins on the dem side if they lose the presidential. You mean that time they shut down the government and the entire country got mad at them?
And then the country was so mad at them they were able to win a majority of the seats in the house and the senate for the first time in a very long time.
So again shutting down the government was a good political move. Thats not opinion thats fact.
|
On April 08 2016 03:46 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:45 Acrofales wrote:On April 08 2016 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass. I don't know. the last few times the republicans have refused to work with the president has worked out for the GOP swimmingly and it might act as a incentive for them to try it as a power play for whoever wins on the dem side if they lose the presidential. You mean that time they shut down the government and the entire country got mad at them? So mad at them that they GOP were the big winners in the past two midterm elections.
Yeah, that might not work out since the people who funded the Tea Party folks that pushed for the shut down were very angry. People forget that the tea party darlings were backed by big money who do not like it when the goverment shuts down or does not function.
|
On April 08 2016 03:49 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:48 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 08 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination. Because at the end of the day, he is going to do what is best for his supporters, which is not letting the Republicans win. I understand these very short term plans seem appealing, but he is facing the potential of being the guy who helps Cruz or Trump win. Hes going to do whats not political suicide. If bernie sanders loses the primary and runs third party hes going to be the guy who handed the keys to america to trump. No ones dumb enough to run third party guys stop talking about it like its serious. Yeah, 3rd party is for suckers--its all about 4rth party You know who's likely to run 3rd party? Trump. He has the money and the support to self fund. You know who's not scared to be 4rth party? Not so sure about that Isn't the point of running the Republican primary to have the Party pay for his general campaign?
He was able to save a lot during the early parts of the primary by simply saying racist shit to get free air waves. I would not put it past him.
|
On April 08 2016 03:48 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination. Because at the end of the day, he is going to do what is best for his supporters, which is not letting the Republicans win. I understand these very short term plans seem appealing, but he is facing the potential of being the guy who helps Cruz or Trump win. Hes going to do whats not political suicide. If bernie sanders loses the primary and runs third party hes going to be the guy who handed the keys to america to trump. No ones dumb enough to run third party guys stop talking about it like its serious. Yeah, 3rd party is for suckers--its all about 4rth party You know who's likely to run 3rd party? Trump. He has the money and the support to self fund. You know who's not scared to be 4rth party?
So instead of being the guy who handed the keys to drumf you want him to be the guy who literaly took away the easiest win the democrats have had from WW1?
|
On April 08 2016 03:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:45 Acrofales wrote:On April 08 2016 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass. I don't know. the last few times the republicans have refused to work with the president has worked out for the GOP swimmingly and it might act as a incentive for them to try it as a power play for whoever wins on the dem side if they lose the presidential. You mean that time they shut down the government and the entire country got mad at them? And then the country was so mad at them they were able to win a majority of the seats in the house and the senate for the first time in a very long time. So again shutting down the government was a good political move. Thats not opinion thats fact.
Pretty sure that is still opinion. Remember that the entire house and senate are not up for grabs every mid term. And they had majorities in both houses on and off for the entire decade.
|
On April 08 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:46 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 08 2016 03:45 Acrofales wrote:On April 08 2016 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass. I don't know. the last few times the republicans have refused to work with the president has worked out for the GOP swimmingly and it might act as a incentive for them to try it as a power play for whoever wins on the dem side if they lose the presidential. You mean that time they shut down the government and the entire country got mad at them? So mad at them that they GOP were the big winners in the past two midterm elections. Yeah, that might not work out since the people who funded the Tea Party folks that pushed for the shut down were very angry. People forget that the tea party darlings were backed by big money who do not like it when the goverment shuts down or does not function.
I don't disagree, history will look down on the GOP for that debacle, but that move got them the majority during the midterms since the bootstraps mentality makes angry conservatives vote harder while liberals (when upset) just stay home and mope.
|
On April 08 2016 03:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:48 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 08 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination. Because at the end of the day, he is going to do what is best for his supporters, which is not letting the Republicans win. I understand these very short term plans seem appealing, but he is facing the potential of being the guy who helps Cruz or Trump win. Hes going to do whats not political suicide. If bernie sanders loses the primary and runs third party hes going to be the guy who handed the keys to america to trump. No ones dumb enough to run third party guys stop talking about it like its serious. Yeah, 3rd party is for suckers--its all about 4rth party You know who's likely to run 3rd party? Trump. He has the money and the support to self fund. You know who's not scared to be 4rth party? So instead of being the guy who handed the keys to drumf you want him to be the guy who literaly took away the easiest win the democrats have had from WW1?
Bernie said so himself, he sees this move as a way to get issues on people's radar. Being 4rth party does not deter Clinton's chances, especially if he slow balls things. But still allows him to keep issues pushed forward.
|
On April 08 2016 03:52 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 03:46 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 08 2016 03:45 Acrofales wrote:On April 08 2016 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass. I don't know. the last few times the republicans have refused to work with the president has worked out for the GOP swimmingly and it might act as a incentive for them to try it as a power play for whoever wins on the dem side if they lose the presidential. You mean that time they shut down the government and the entire country got mad at them? So mad at them that they GOP were the big winners in the past two midterm elections. Yeah, that might not work out since the people who funded the Tea Party folks that pushed for the shut down were very angry. People forget that the tea party darlings were backed by big money who do not like it when the goverment shuts down or does not function. I don't disagree, history will look down on the GOP for that debacle, but that move got them the majority during the midterms since the bootstraps mentality makes angry conservatives vote harder while liberals (when upset) just stay home and mope.
This has been a problem since the 90s, with on and off results. But I question if the establishment is going to be willing to back the tea party again, since they have zero ability to work with them if they throw a fit.
|
On April 08 2016 03:54 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:48 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 08 2016 03:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 08 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination. Because at the end of the day, he is going to do what is best for his supporters, which is not letting the Republicans win. I understand these very short term plans seem appealing, but he is facing the potential of being the guy who helps Cruz or Trump win. Hes going to do whats not political suicide. If bernie sanders loses the primary and runs third party hes going to be the guy who handed the keys to america to trump. No ones dumb enough to run third party guys stop talking about it like its serious. Yeah, 3rd party is for suckers--its all about 4rth party You know who's likely to run 3rd party? Trump. He has the money and the support to self fund. You know who's not scared to be 4rth party? So instead of being the guy who handed the keys to drumf you want him to be the guy who literaly took away the easiest win the democrats have had from WW1? Bernie said so himself, he sees this move as a way to get issues on people's radar. Being 4rth party does not deter Clinton's chances, especially if he slow balls things. But still allows him to keep issues pushed forward.
Yes it does deter her chances. He will take votes away from her in states that she would win normaly while the conservative votes would be split. thats basic logic
Just no.
|
lol
![[image loading]](https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/12967895_10153548788986475_567672797058006137_o.jpg)
|
On April 08 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:lol
I mean, Sanders kind of deserves some flak for throwing around "quote-unquote" without actually checking if the person he's quoting said what he's saying they verbatim said.
I guess quote-unquote has nearly reached "literally" status of autoantonym at this point, though. I hate language.
|
Sanders definitely deserves flak for being inaccurate, I just think it's disingenuous to pretend that he's the only one being inaccurate
|
On April 08 2016 04:42 farvacola wrote:Sanders definitely deserves flak for being inaccurate, I just think it's disingenuous to pretend that he's the only one being inaccurate
Well, WP wasn't technically inaccurate--but most definitely dishonest 
|
Seriously Kwark your answer is so boring I don't even want to argue. Like there was nothing before colonisation in Africa (a quick wikipedia research could have tell you that you're far from reality), like I "proved" that there was no real french investment (I just quoted an abstract and linked an article on the weight of colonies for french taxpayers vs what they got from it), like "Maghreb is closer to europe than Africa" nice joke...
I take the length to actually link you many article, one of which, from Acemoglu (pretty respected economist) that specifically argue that the effet of colonization on countries is very different from one country to another and you respond to me by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and then explain me how colonization can be resumed in "6 steps".... Come on. Can you show me any actual fact that support the idea that the colonization gave anything positive aside from "rail" ? None. Colonization in Africa has grossly negative effect, and the papers I linked specifically pointed that. But whatever, continue.
|
On April 08 2016 04:26 farvacola wrote:lol
WaPo should be happy. They got so many articles out of a mess they basically created themselves:
1. Publish article: X questions qualification of Y.
2. Publish 2nd article: Y questions X's qualification in return
3. Publish 3rd article: Y didn't realize (1) doesn't entail that X questions qualification of Y.
-
Something something digital media landscape sux.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
