|
Random Politics & Religion #00
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2016-02-03 13:40:00
#3 Far as I've been able to find out, he hasn't outright lied like Rubio. Politics is one thing, Rubio simply lied. It will be hard defending that if he is the nominee.
I'm not sure what lie you are talking about when it comes to Rubio? Cruz however continues to lie about immigration every time he talks about it. Rand Paul accurately pointed it out in the last debate and Cruz had nothing.
According to Cruz, if you are a democrat you support "amnesty."
If you a republican and you support a path to citizenship, you support "amnesty."
If you are a republican not named Ted Cruz and you support legalization but not citizenship, you support "amnesty."
BUT, if you are Ted Cruz, and you support legalization but not citizenship, you OPPOSE "amnesty", but this only applies to Ted Cruz and sometimes Jeff Sessions.
Everyone in Congress not named Ted Cruz or Jeff Sessions supported "amnesty."
Ted Cruz is the only Senator to ever oppose "amnesty."
By fonewear 2016-02-03 13:40:30
I can't see voting for anyone I'm in the demographic that doesn't vote !
By Altimaomega 2016-02-03 13:41:25
The good jokes seem unstoppable today. Show me when he has lied. Actually lied.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »So yeah. To most middle voters, she's got appeal. Care to sell the Cruz appeal outside hardcore partisans? Or why Cruz would even be a good candidate?
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-02-03 13:41:39
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Is there any way to tell someone they look like a Dukes of Hazzard villain?
Cause James Traficant looks like one.
dude he is so totally awesome... he was even better than Dennis Kucinich
best politician ever
By fonewear 2016-02-03 13:42:54
He is no Jimmy Carter though !
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-02-03 13:43:57
So wait, we are now voting for candidates based on their looks?
By fonewear 2016-02-03 13:44:26
Best poster ever:
By Bloodrose 2016-02-03 13:44:27
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »I already distilled Clinton:
She promises more of the same in a relatively safe choice for POTUS compared to all of her opposition. Sanders is an idealist aiming for massive change that may/may not happen but has general appeal in voters frustrated in a gov't subservient to the rich.
Clinton's not going to dove on national security, is moderate on social issues (even if she pulled the same evolve *** Obama did), is business friendly by Democratic standards and generally comes off as being a pragmatic leader with the experience to back it up.
More of the same? *Looks around.* No thanks. But that's at least a better answer than what I've heard lately. She's bland, business friendly (supposedly), and the "safe" choice. Kinda like the female version of Mitt Romney, I guess? The unfortunate part is that Romney kotowed to some puppeteer behind the scenes, mentioned "Magic Underwear", and was caught being recorded that the 47% of people who would refuse to vote him into office had no idea what to do with themselves if left unattended (or something to that effect), and when grilled during debates, had no plan or platform to speak of other than "Binders full of women" for work equality.
But again, this is all old news, and similar old news is that he could have won, had he run entirely on the successes and achievements he had as Governor, including his state sponsored "Romneycare" (which Obamacare was modeled after), including a willingness to oversee an effective federal reaching version, that would see the majority of the populace insured at heavily discounted premiums, or completely discounted for those who weren't getting enough, or any coverage at all.
I think he was actually torn between party loyalties, and wanting to speak about what his platforms actually were, many of which would have been similar or in agreement to ones proposed by Obama. And we all know that Dems and Repubs can never, ever, do anything in agreement that would benefit the whole country, without it coming from only 1 political camp~
By fonewear 2016-02-03 13:44:52
Pretty sure this is Jimmy Carter:
YouTube Video Placeholder
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2016-02-03 13:44:57
If Hillary is such a good candidate why didn't she win in 2008 ?
Because she doesn't have the charisma or appeal to energize the liberal youth base and minorities who were enamored with Obama in '08.
Bam was also able to appeal to white voters which all but shored up his base against McCain who was forced to go hard right to keep his base, ultimately losing the middle with such choices as Sarah 'Alaska Guardian' Palin and having birtherism and a general shift right among Republicans double down on top of disapproval with two terms of Bush.
By Altimaomega 2016-02-03 13:46:38
I'm not sure what lie you are talking about when it comes to Rubio? Gang of eight.
According to Cruz, if you are a democrat you support "amnesty."
If you a republican and you support a path to citizenship, you support "amnesty."
If you are a republican not named Ted Cruz and you support legalization but not citizenship, you support "amnesty."
BUT, if you are Ted Cruz, and you support legalization but not citizenship, you OPPOSE "amnesty", but this only applies to Ted Cruz and sometimes Jeff Sessions.
Everyone in Congress not named Ted Cruz or Jeff Sessions supported "amnesty."
Ted Cruz is the only Senator to ever oppose "amnesty."
You realize that is political bickering at best right?
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-02-03 13:46:43
The unfortunate part is that Romney kotowed to some puppeteer behind the scenes, mentioned "Magic Underwear", and was caught being recorded that the 47% of people who would refuse to vote him into office had no idea what to do with themselves if left unattended (or something to that effect), and when grilled during debates, had no plan or platform to speak of other than "Binders full of women" for work equality. Clinton already has plenty of those type of remarks.
By Bloodrose 2016-02-03 13:47:45
So wait, we are now voting for candidates based on their looks?
I thought that was the entire basis of modern voting.
Isn't that how American Idol started the last few seasons? Before it was about voting on the talent, not the looks. Now it's about looks and not talent. Kind of like Election time.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2016-02-03 13:47:47
You think she's a worse choice than Obama? Frick, how would we even survive one term with her then?
Well you pretty much nailed it in your earlier post, she's like Obama but with less charisma.
Obama's charisma (and race) are pretty much what won him the presidency both times. Trying to run a doppelganger without those boons is dangerous at best. No wonder Democrats would rather focus on Cruz and Trump. They need the anti-Republican vote far more now that the pro-Democrat vote is handicapped.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-02-03 13:48:18
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »a general shift right among Republicans double down on top of disapproval with two terms of Bush. Which is Clinton's strategy right there.
The democrat/liberal double downing on top of the disapproval with two terms of Obama.
You think it will work this time?
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-02-03 13:49:00
So wait, we are now voting for candidates based on their looks?
I thought that was the entire basis of modern voting.
Isn't that how American Idol started the last few seasons? Before it was about voting on the talent, not the looks. Now it's about looks and not talent. Kind of like Election time. I don't watch ***shows like American Idol, so I don't know.
[+]
By fonewear 2016-02-03 13:49:00
This is why you vote for Cruz:
[+]
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2016-02-03 13:49:11
Obamas race won him 2012? Yeah ok.
By Bloodrose 2016-02-03 13:50:29
The unfortunate part is that Romney kotowed to some puppeteer behind the scenes, mentioned "Magic Underwear", and was caught being recorded that the 47% of people who would refuse to vote him into office had no idea what to do with themselves if left unattended (or something to that effect), and when grilled during debates, had no plan or platform to speak of other than "Binders full of women" for work equality. Clinton already has plenty of those type of remarks.
I'll say this in response:
Mitt Romney simply got caught with his pants down, showing off his "magic underwear" before it happened to Hillary.
I'll also say this: If Romney had run on his successes, like so many Dems and Libs had wanted him to, he would have been the better choice, and most likely won the election.
But at this point...
"What difference does it make?" A World of Difference. like... A Magic Carpet Ride difference.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2016-02-03 13:51:01
Bloodrose has an underwear fetish, methinks.
[+]
Administrator
サーバ: Hyperion
Game: FFXIV
Posts: 701
By Drama Torama 2016-02-03 13:51:04
But again, this is all old news, and similar old news is that he could have won, had he run entirely on the successes and achievements he had as Governor, including his state sponsored "Romneycare" (which Obamacare was modeled after), including a willingness to oversee an effective federal reaching version, that would see the majority of the populace insured at heavily discounted premiums, or completely discounted for those who weren't getting enough, or any coverage at all.
Having lived in MA through Romney's terms and Romneycare, I thought it was an unconscionable mistake to not run completely based on his MA experience.
"I was a Republican governor in one of the bluest states in the country. I got things done and made healthcare affordable in a way that both sides were happy with. I never sold out my principles and still got a lot done with support from both parties."
Like, listening to whoever told him that was a bad plan? That was a bad enough judgment call that he shouldn't have been President after all. Just pants-on-head idiocy.
[+]
By Altimaomega 2016-02-03 13:51:49
You think she's a worse choice than Obama? Frick, how would we even survive one term with her then?
Well you pretty much nailed it in your earlier post, she's like Obama but with less charisma.
Obama's charisma (and race) are pretty much what won him the presidency both times. Trying to run a doppelganger without those boons is dangerous at best. No wonder Democrats would rather focus on Cruz and Trump. They need the anti-Republican vote far more now that the pro-Democrat vote is handicapped.
+10
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2016-02-03 13:52:35
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »a general shift right among Republicans double down on top of disapproval with two terms of Bush. Which is Clinton's strategy right there.
The democrat/liberal double downing on top of the disapproval with two terms of Obama.
You think it will work this time?
Like it or not, liberals will turn up for Clinton if Sanders loses. It'll be a deep sigh'd vote for Clinton establishment but Cruz is so toxic there is no way in this life that any liberal could pull the lever for him. Rubio has a better shot of stealing off some moderates but he's yet to take spotlight thanks to Trump.
Cruz is not moderate friendly in his current state and it's unlikely he can make that shift to a moderate candidate the way a Romney tried, despite having to continue playing all the current conservative hot button issues. It's the whole reason Romney looked/acted fake and ultimately got rolled by Obama.
[+]
By fonewear 2016-02-03 13:53:16
Obama is good at late night TV I think he should take over Colbert.
By Altimaomega 2016-02-03 13:53:42
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Obamas race won him 2012? Yeah ok.
That the liberal media and lolMittens..
A Magic Carpet Ride difference. Leave Steppenwolf out of this!
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2016-02-03 13:53:51
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Obamas race won him 2012? Yeah ok.
Black Voter Turnout Rate Passes Whites In 2012 Election
Even the Huff Post thinks Romney would have won if the black turnout was close to what it was in 2004.
Quote: Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press.
[+]
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2016-02-03 13:56:11
But again, this is all old news, and similar old news is that he could have won, had he run entirely on the successes and achievements he had as Governor, including his state sponsored "Romneycare" (which Obamacare was modeled after), including a willingness to oversee an effective federal reaching version, that would see the majority of the populace insured at heavily discounted premiums, or completely discounted for those who weren't getting enough, or any coverage at all.
Having lived in MA through Romney's terms and Romneycare, I thought it was an unconscionable mistake to not run completely based on his MA experience.
"I was a Republican governor in one of the bluest states in the country. I got things done and made healthcare affordable in a way that both sides were happy with. I never sold out my principles and still got a lot done with support from both parties."
Like, listening to whoever told him that was a bad plan? That was a bad enough judgment call that he shouldn't have been President after all. Just pants-on-head idiocy.
There's no way he could position himself that way thanks to the way the Republicans have pigeonholed their candidates to leave open the type of void that a Trump comfortably occupy. It's the same reason that Jon Huntsman didn't even get off the starting blocks.
If you seem to be sympathetic towards the other side or work together with liberals then you're DOA. Even Chris Christie would ultimately have to swear away the fact he thanked Obama for Sandy relief and commended the POTUS for a swift response. How many people still hold thats why Romney lost?
That's the current atmosphere right now. It forces otherwise pragmatic candidates to go hard right and waste effort talking about gay rights rather than tear into Democratic candidates on the economic issues.
[+]
By Bloodrose 2016-02-03 13:56:34
But again, this is all old news, and similar old news is that he could have won, had he run entirely on the successes and achievements he had as Governor, including his state sponsored "Romneycare" (which Obamacare was modeled after), including a willingness to oversee an effective federal reaching version, that would see the majority of the populace insured at heavily discounted premiums, or completely discounted for those who weren't getting enough, or any coverage at all.
Having lived in MA through Romney's terms and Romneycare, I thought it was an unconscionable mistake to not run completely based on his MA experience.
"I was a Republican governor in one of the bluest states in the country. I got things done and made healthcare affordable in a way that both sides were happy with. I never sold out my principles and still got a lot done with support from both parties."
Like, listening to whoever told him that was a bad plan? That was a bad enough judgment call that he shouldn't have been President after all. Just pants-on-head idiocy. That's what I was getting at, and the most basic reason he lost the election. And like I also mentioned, I believe he was torn between party loyalty, and running on his successes. Most of Canada was watching with a vested interest in those elections, because it was going to have a huge impact on if Canada was going to follow through and even adopt some of the changes that could make our medical system more efficient.
By Bloodrose 2016-02-03 13:57:11
Bloodrose has an underwear fetish, methinks. I do. I like to wear underwear.
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|