Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

    And Kasich is dropping out too per CNN

    Comment


    • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

      Originally posted by joecct View Post
      It's tough to lose a state wide race as a Dem in Maryland.
      Tony Brown managed it.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

        Originally posted by ericredaxe View Post
        And Kasich is dropping out too per CNN
        So it's official: we have our Silvio Berlusconi.
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        Comment


        • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

          Thought he'd stay in long enough to try to take third place, or at least take in the Cali food scene.
          Go Green! Go White! Go State!

          1966, 1986, 2007

          Go Tigers, Go Packers, Go Red Wings, Go Pistons

          Comment


          • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

            I'm gonna hafta start watching RT again.

            In its early days, RT mostly offered a Kremlin-friendly diet of international coverage, feeding the Obama-bashing, America-in-decline narrative with C-list commentators who couldn’t get an airing elsewhere on cable TV. But that was before Donald Trump—whose unlikely mutual admiration for Russia’s strongman president has been one of the stranger subplots of this American political season.

            The blustery billionaire has praised Putin as a strong leader, spoken of closer ties with Moscow and mused about whether NATO is obsolete. At the foreign policy speech Trump delivered in Washington on April 27, the Russian ambassador to the United States was sitting in the front row. As Trump has risen, RT has gotten much more interested in the U.S. presidential campaign. Tune in to Ed Schultz and his colleagues these days and you’ll find a presidential race featuring Hillary Clinton as a malevolent warmonger, Bernie Sanders as an insurgent hero—and Donald Trump as a foreign policy savant.
            If you haven't had the pleasure you owe it to yourself to watch RT's "news" broadcast, which makes Fox looks the model of equanimity and professionalism. It's firehose propaganda for Russia in general and Putin in particular. I can easily see them buddying up to Drumpf as "our man in Washington." I'm sure Vlad sees him as a guy he can easily manipulate and create feedback loops to terrify the French and Germans. Good times.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

              Originally posted by unofan View Post
              As soon as the GOP stupidly made its play, they've been playing with fire. If they hold up Garland for essentially 11 months under the pretext that "The people deserve a voice" then Hillary should nominate the libbiest lib that ever libbed, especially if the Dems gain hold of the Senate.

              If the GOP doesn't act hypocritically at that point and allows the vote, great. If they all of a sudden filibuster, then the Dems would be well within their right to go nuclear, which frankly would not be a bad thing, either.
              I'd like to see Dems make this a much bigger issue than it has been. If I were Obama, I'd (and my press secretary would) begin every public speech or comment asking when Congress is going to vote on Garland.

              Dems should make the GOP pay for not following the Constitution.
              Go Gophers!

              Comment


              • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                I'd like to see Dems make this a much bigger issue than it has been. If I were Obama, I'd (and my press secretary would) begin every public speech or comment asking when Congress is going to vote on Garland.

                Dems should make the GOP pay for not following the Constitution.
                If it were reversed Fox would have a date counter on screen at all times. MSNBC should do that, assuming they are still on the air.

                I don't think it really gets much juice, though. Maybe because they think they can get a better nominee from Clinton, the left is not choosing to really highlight the Garland obstruction.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                  Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                  If it were reversed Fox would have a date counter on screen at all times. MSNBC should do that, assuming they are still on the air.

                  I don't think it really gets much juice, though. Maybe because they think they can get a better nominee from Clinton, the left is not choosing to really highlight the Garland obstruction.
                  I'm guessing this. When (not if) the Senate goes nuclear on SCOTUS nominations Hillary can put in whoever she wants. Perfect way to guard your left flank by appointing arch liberal. At the very least you'd get a carbon copy of the 4 Dem appointees already on the court.

                  As far as campaigning goes though, I'd be making hay out of the fact that Goopers want Donald Trump to decide who fills the next court seat. Good luck defending that if you're sitting in a Dem state and running for re-election.
                  Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                  Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                  "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                  Comment


                  • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                    I'd like to see Dems make this a much bigger issue than it has been. If I were Obama, I'd (and my press secretary would) begin every public speech or comment asking when Congress is going to vote on Garland.

                    Dems should make the GOP pay for not following the Constitution.
                    And yet, it was OK when Bush's nominees were up for consideration?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                      Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                      And yet, it was OK when Bush's nominees were up for consideration?
                      Interesting.

                      I just watched the movie "Confirmation" on HBO recently. The mere fact that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court in my mind nullifies any whining or argument about obstruction from the GOP side.

                      Also, all of GW's picks for the most part were confirmed. He put Alito and Roberts on the bench. He even put Roberts in charge.
                      **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                      Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                      Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                        And yet, it was OK when Bush's nominees were up for consideration?
                        What nominee of Bush's did not get a vote or would not have gotten a vote if not withdrawn?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                          Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                          Interesting.

                          I just watched the movie "Confirmation" on HBO recently. The mere fact that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court in my mind nullifies any whining or argument about obstruction from the GOP side.

                          Also, all of GW's picks for the most part were confirmed. He put Alito and Roberts on the bench. He even put Roberts in charge.
                          So a nomination process that took place 25 years ago has greater bearing on current events than the obstructionist behaviors exhibited by both parties in the years since then?
                          "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                          "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                          "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                          Comment


                          • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                            Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                            So a nomination process that took place 25 years ago has greater bearing on current events than the obstructionist behaviors exhibited by both parties in the years since then?
                            Not assigning any weight. I just find whining by the party who put Thomas on the Court laughable.

                            Also, I find it laughable that President Obama pussed out and nominated a centrist and the GOP is still crying rivers of tears. Best scenario for the Democrats is for the GOP to continue denying Garland so Clinton can nominate and Senate then will confirm a real liberal to the Court.
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                              So a nomination process that took place 25 years ago has greater bearing on current events than the obstructionist behaviors exhibited by both parties in the years since then?
                              Alito was confirmed in 3 months, even with the holiday recess in there. Roberts was confirmed in 3 months from his initial nomination, and about two months from his re-nomination for chief justice upon Rehnquist's death.

                              Kagan and Sotomayor were both nominated in May and confirmed by August.

                              This isn't your average obstructionism, this is unprecedented absurdity.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                                Originally posted by unofan View Post
                                Alito was confirmed in 3 months, even with the holiday recess in there. Roberts was confirmed in 3 months from his initial nomination, and about two months from his re-nomination for chief justice upon Rehnquist's death.

                                Kagan and Sotomayor were both nominated in May and confirmed by August.

                                This isn't your average obstructionism, this is unprecedented absurdity.
                                Don't let any facts get in the way of their moral relativism.
                                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X