PDA

View Full Version : Dem Debate...


Davian93
10-14-2015, 07:43 AM
So...it was a lot more substantive than any of the GOP debates. They actually discussed these weird things called issues and had legit opinions on them as opposed to the 5 year old level of the GOP debate. My very brief takeaways are as follows:

Hilldog: Came off the most experienced and well spoken. She got beat up a bit on her support of Wall Street but she was the clear winner last night.

Bernie: Came off very strong for income inequality and social issues, but was flailing a bit on foreign policy. Overall, he kept his personality in check (he can come off as an angry old man...think Larry David's Steinbrenner impression on Seinfeld). It helped that Jim Webb acted like a 7 year old being sent to bed without supper for most of the night. He didn't lose last night and he solidified himself as the #2 candidate in this race last night. The real race is Hillary vs. Bernie...the other 3 shouldn't even bother.

O'Malley: Boring...not a strong performance at all...maybe he's setting himself up to be a VP candidate? He lost in that he did nothing to impress anyone last night.

Webb: Came off as an angry old man-child. Just embarrassing performance all around and he lost big time. I'd be shocked if he's around for the next debate in a month.

Chafee: Um...why were you there exactly? Just awful. Just an awful, awful performance and one of the most embarrassing debate performances I can recall. His answers on the Patriot Act and Glass Steagall were very bad. I wouldn't be surprised to see him drop out of the race in the next few days. Also, why is Steve Doocy running for the Dem ticket anyway?

Davian93
10-14-2015, 08:08 AM
One thing i will say I am disappointed by were the questions...I never got to find out the answers to the important issues facing our country like:

1. Who would they put on the $10 bill?

2. What would they want their Secret Service code name to be?

3. What does God say to them when they're alone?


I had to hear about stupid things like income inequality, foreign policy issues, college tuition, etc.

GonzoTheGreat
10-14-2015, 08:36 AM
They actually discussed these weird things called issues and had legit opinions on them as opposed to the 5 year old level of the GOP debate.
...
It helped that Jim Webb acted like a 7 year old being sent to bed without supper for most of the night. He didn't lose last night and he solidified himself as the #2 candidate in this race last night.
...
Webb: Came off as an angry old man-child. Just embarrassing performance all around and he lost big time. I'd be shocked if he's around for the next debate in a month.
In favour of Webb: he's lots more mature than any of the GOP candidates, apparently. And that is who he will have to face in the real election; this is just the practice round before the real game.

Kimon
10-14-2015, 10:42 AM
Webb: Came off as an angry old man-child. Just embarrassing performance all around and he lost big time. I'd be shocked if he's around for the next debate in a month.


His closing remarks - about the worst enemy he has made, and his comment about killing a guy in war was disturbing.

The answers that the others gave tended to say everything about the differences between the dems and the republicans - nra, wall street, the pharmaceutical industry. I didn't particularly care for Hillary's inclusion of Iran, but other than that she had the smartest answer to that question - especially as she listed all the usual suspects, and then included the republicans.

Chafee: Um...why were you there exactly?

He'll probably drop out soon. I have to imagine that he was hoping that his vote against the Iraq War all those years ago, back when he was still a Republican, would carry more weight than it has. More than anything else, Chafee is just an example of what was - a time when moderate Republicans still existed.

Ozymandias
10-14-2015, 12:21 PM
I missed it (was at a very depressing Mets game), but to the point:

None of this is about creating a race, or tension. Bernie Sanders, etc... they're showing up so they can shape the platform Hillary is going to have to take. Sanders gets up there and talks about income inequality, and all of a sudden Hillary can't ignore it anymore. There is almost no chance anyone else wins the nomination. It's all but locked up.

That being said, Hillary is basically a political weather vane so its helpful to get people with real convictions up there to bring up important, relevant issues.

Davian93
10-14-2015, 01:25 PM
I missed it (was at a very depressing Mets game), but to the point:

None of this is about creating a race, or tension. Bernie Sanders, etc... they're showing up so they can shape the platform Hillary is going to have to take. Sanders gets up there and talks about income inequality, and all of a sudden Hillary can't ignore it anymore. There is almost no chance anyone else wins the nomination. It's all but locked up.

That being said, Hillary is basically a political weather vane so its helpful to get people with real convictions up there to bring up important, relevant issues.

Barring a shock, I think the ticket will end up being Clinton/O'Malley and Bernie will continue being my Senator...which I'm fine with.

Bernie cant win a general election...way too Left for that sadly. Clinton/O'Malley or even Clinton/Julian Castro (a rising Dem star) will be the ticket I bet.


And more and more I think the GOP will be Marco Rubio and whatever mouthbreather he comes up with for his VP.

connabard
10-14-2015, 01:30 PM
On a serious note, I just want Bernie to win because he looks like a mad scientist, and when it comes to selecting a president, how they look should be considered above all else.

Nazbaque
10-14-2015, 04:25 PM
If I could vote in the USA elections, my vote would go to sam. He talks about the really important issues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0SRgh3X9Q).

Terez
10-14-2015, 04:59 PM
Barring a shock, I think the ticket will end up being Clinton/O'Malley and Bernie will continue being my Senator...which I'm fine with.

Bernie cant win a general election...way too Left for that sadly. Clinton/O'Malley or even Clinton/Julian Castro (a rising Dem star) will be the ticket I bet.
My bets have been on one or other of the Castro brothers for a long time now.

I couldn't watch any more than 20 minutes of the debate. Hillary made me hate her again, and Bernie was embarrassing.

I will probably stay home in 2016. I don't care if Hillary loses any more. We'll have better candidates in 2020. Whoever wins will be a terrible president, so we might as well allow the Republicans to take the heat for 4 years.

The Unreasoner
10-14-2015, 05:17 PM
I'm legitimately curious to see what happens if the Republicans actually win the White House. I don't think they can, but if they do, and hold on to the Senate (what seats are up?), what happens next? Their leadership knows that 95% of their talking points positions are bullshit, but they've...'appeased' )probably too strong, but something of that flavor) their far right by basically blaming everything on Obama, claiming that they need the White House to enact the more extreme positions. But if they get it? What then?

Kimon
10-14-2015, 05:19 PM
My bets have been on one or other of the Castro brothers for a long time now.

I couldn't watch any more than 20 minutes of the debate. Hillary made me hate her again, and Bernie was embarrassing.

I will probably stay home in 2016. I don't care if Hillary loses any more. We'll have better candidates in 2020. Whoever wins will be a terrible president, so we might as well allow the Republicans to take the heat for 4 years.

Too many Supreme Court seats likely will need to be filled in the next cycle - Ginsburg is 82, Scalia and Kennedy are 79, and Breyer is 77. Even just Ginsburg's seat being filled by a Republican would be disastrous. We need all of those filled with progressives to start to realign the court. This reason, more than any other is why you always vote for the democrat for president, because the consequences are more than just pointless wars and ridiculous tax cuts, it's also the composition of the court.

Terez
10-14-2015, 05:31 PM
Too many Supreme Court seats likely will need to be filled in the next cycle - Ginsburg is 82, Scalia and Kennedy are 79, and Breyer is 77. Even just Ginsburg's seat being filled by a Republican would be disastrous. We need all of those filled with progressives to start to realign the court. This reason, more than any other is why you always vote for the democrat for president, because the consequences are more than just pointless wars and ridiculous tax cuts, it's also the composition of the court.
This is the kind of argument you make to low-information voters. My opinion is well-considered. I am more concerned about the long term damage Hillary will do to the party. I will not vote for her.

Kimon
10-14-2015, 05:49 PM
This is the kind of argument you make to low-information voters. My opinion is well-considered. I am more concerned about the long term damage Hillary will do to the party. I will not vote for her.

I understand a lack of excitement about Hillary, but long-term damage? Her policies are essentially the same as Bill's. Presidents can cause long term damage internally through tax cuts, as under Reagan and the Younger Bush, or through disastrous wars - like LBJ and the Younger Bush. Or through corruption - like Nixon. But also by their appointments to the Supreme Court. Reagan gave us 30 years (at least) of Scalia. The Elder Bush was mostly a decent president. The only truly awful thing he did? Clarence Thomas. And his son stuck us with likely at least three decades of Roberts and Alito. That will cause more long term damage than his tax cuts, or even than the Iraq War. Citizens United alone dwarfs those disasters.

Davian93
10-14-2015, 05:53 PM
My bets have been on one or other of the Castro brothers for a long time now.

I couldn't watch any more than 20 minutes of the debate. Hillary made me hate her again, and Bernie was embarrassing.

I will probably stay home in 2016. I don't care if Hillary loses any more. We'll have better candidates in 2020. Whoever wins will be a terrible president, so we might as well allow the Republicans to take the heat for 4 years.

So you'd rather give over the entire gov't to the GOP? Are you fucking insane? Do you realize how awful that would be long-term...especially with the SCOTUS appointments that will be coming?

Davian93
10-14-2015, 05:54 PM
This is the kind of argument you make to low-information voters. My opinion is well-considered. I am more concerned about the long term damage Hillary will do to the party. I will not vote for her.

Yeah, this is the mentality that got us 8 years of Dubya...how'd that work out again?

Terez
10-14-2015, 06:38 PM
So you'd rather give over the entire gov't to the GOP? Are you fucking insane? Do you realize how awful that would be long-term...especially with the SCOTUS appointments that will be coming?
There are always SCOTUS appointments coming. If Hillary were to win, she could easily lose reelection, lose Congress in census year, and hand the White House to the Republicans for 8 years or more.

I think that whoever wins is going to lose reelection; this is the sorriest crop of candidates we've had in a long time. The only person that stands out as being both presidential and a person of character is Rubio, and I disagree with him on almost everything. And he's not the savviest politician.

If Hillary loses then we'll have a Republican president and a much higher chance of retaking congress all the way down the ticket come census time, because opposition politics is the way elections work. And what about handing Congress to the Republicans for 10 more years?

Ginsburg chose not to step down during Obama's term because she didn't believe that the Congress would approve someone who would be as progressive as she is. Scalia may well find himself in the same position under a Republican president.

Yeah, this is the mentality that got us 8 years of Dubya...how'd that work out again?
It was a different time...and it also worked out that no one was talking in 2004 about the Democrats having held the White House too long. That kind of talk is what starts polarity shifts, where "Democrat" and "Republican" start to mean drastically different things.

I don't believe we are in danger of losing the White House for 8 years this time, as I said above. But 12-year party control has not happened since Reagan/HW, and I don't think Hillary is the right person to personify that kind of long-term party control. HW was not the right person either, but in a very different way.

I understand a lack of excitement about Hillary, but long-term damage? Her policies are essentially the same as Bill's.
And Bill did a great deal of long term damage to the party in my opinion. He felt it was what had to be done to get the Republicans out of the White House, and maybe he was right, but we're still trying to dig the party out of his concessions to neoliberalism.

Hillary presents a different danger. She is not trying to win back the White House from the Republicans, so concessions to donors are not her primary concern. She comes at a time when demographics favor Democrats, the electoral college favors Democrats, and the chances she will lose are relatively low.

Hillary's potential to damage lies in the fact that her primary guiding principle is ambition. Her judgment is often bad and her ethics are often questionable. And despite being in a position where progressive policies are popular and politically viable, she still holds on to the concessions that her husband was forced to take in order to regain the White House. She no doubt played a large role in the shaping of his thoughts on those matters. She even goes further than he does in terms of hawkishness.

....Citizens United alone dwarfs those disasters.
I have no confidence that Hillary would nominate anyone who would overturn Citizens United.

Davian93
10-14-2015, 07:07 PM
I think you underestimate the amount of damage the GOP could do if they controlled all 3 branches with the crazies we have now.


Granted, the odds of them keeping the Senate in 2016 are pretty slim, its a massive risk to take. Day 1 would be the elimination of the filibuster followed by the repeal of every single progressive policy of the last 8 years.

Terez
10-14-2015, 07:09 PM
I think you underestimate the amount of damage the GOP could do if they controlled all 3 branches with the crazies we have now.


Granted, the odds of them keeping the Senate in 2016 are pretty slim, its a massive risk to take. Day 1 would be the elimination of the filibuster followed by the repeal of every single progressive policy of the last 8 years.
Let them dig their grave. I'd rather that than we dig ours.

Davian93
10-14-2015, 07:12 PM
Let them dig their grave. I'd rather that than we dig ours.

I honestly don't think she'd be all that bad. I hate her personally but she'd probably govern from the Center/Center Right which is what the Dems have been since 1992 anyway. The Progressive Wing of the party is Sanders...and he's not even a Democrat anyway.

It'd be far less damaging than any of the GOP options.

Davian93
10-14-2015, 07:13 PM
For the GOP...imagine Kansas or Wisconsin but on a national scale. It would destroy what's left of the middle class.

Kimon
10-14-2015, 07:23 PM
I honestly don't think she'd be all that bad. I hate her personally but she'd probably govern from the Center/Center Right which is what the Dems have been since 1992 anyway. The Progressive Wing of the party is Sanders...and he's not even a Democrat anyway.

It'd be far less damaging than any of the GOP options.

Hillary kind of reminds me of Siuan - not surprising as the Blue Ajah always reminded me of the dems. Seems a simple enough choice. And let's be blunt, the current Republicans, like the Red Ajah, seem to have been quite well infiltrated and manipulated by the Black Ajah...

Ivhon
10-14-2015, 08:02 PM
So if one of the Republican nutjobs wins (and Rubio is no more connected to reality than any of them...lie after lie after lie out of his mouth) presumeably the stranglehold on the House will increase and the Senate will not flip.

With GOP President _________, a Freedom Caucus House, a Republican Senate and a 7-2 (maybe 6-3 as Roberts is frequently sane - doesnt matter) stacked SCOTUS there is no stopping the intentional destruction of Government. None.

Deny voting/property rights to Muslims? No problem. Legalize discrimination against LGBT/Black/Hispanic/Women? No problem. Roe v. Wade? Done. Democratic Party? Illegal. Or at least practically so (ethics charges against every single D congressperson)

Thats where the Republican Party is and what they want. It is now overt that there is no concern for democracy - only unlimited and uncensored power. Any wackjob piece of legislation will go through, and be signed into law. Unconstitutional? Only if Scalia, Thomas, Alito and 3 wackjob Justices say so. Don't have to amend the Constitution, just ignore it.

This could very very easily happen.

Terez
10-14-2015, 09:11 PM
So if one of the Republican nutjobs wins (and Rubio is no more connected to reality than any of them...lie after lie after lie out of his mouth) presumeably the stranglehold on the House will increase and the Senate will not flip.
Perhaps they will improve their Congress numbers in 2016, but in 2018 they will start to go the other way, and they'll probably lose both in 2020. At least, judging by how these things generally go. The tide always turns against the party in the White House.

Kimon
10-14-2015, 09:27 PM
Perhaps they will improve their Congress numbers in 2016, but in 2018 they will start to go the other way, and they'll probably lose both in 2020. At least, judging by how these things generally go. The tide always turns against the party in the White House.

Maybe, but that logic tends to apply more to the Senate than the House, because in the House, one has to account not only for overcoming the inertia of incumbency, but also of gerrymandering.

Take for instance the case of Michigan...

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/07/garrymandering_michigan_redist.html

The Michigan Constitution of 1963 called for a bipartisan redistricting commission, but the rules it was supposed to use were invalidated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision the following year. Instead, Michigan's redistricting process is now governed by state statute, which can be modified by whichever party happens to hold power in Lansing.

Republicans oversaw the process last time around. The new lines they approved in 2011 won preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice but were sharply criticized by Democrats.

As the only state to lose population in the 2000s, Michigan lost one Congressional seat in 2010. The new map eliminated one district previously held by a Democrat, forcing two incumbents to duke it out in the 2012 primary.

Critics of the current districts point to statewide totals in they 2014 election cycle: Republican Congressional candidates received 47.5 percent of all votes but won nine of 14 seats. Democrats got 49 percent of all votes and won five seats.

Democratic candidates for the state Legislature reportedly combined to receive slightly more votes than Republicans, who nonetheless won 63 out of 110 seats in the House and 27 of 38 seats in the Senate, a supermajority.

When you can control, or re-write, the rules of the game, it becomes rather difficult to lose the game.

Terez
10-14-2015, 09:47 PM
Which is why it's imperative that we win Congress in 2020.

Ivhon
10-15-2015, 12:07 AM
Which is why it's imperative that we win Congress in 2020.

And if Republicans control all branches of government, how will Congress of all branches be won back in 2020? They will literally take your vote away.

It is very easy right now to pass clearly unconstitutional, flagrantly partisan voter suppression laws that will prevent any chance of upsetting power.

GonzoTheGreat
10-15-2015, 03:14 AM
Which is why it's imperative that we win Congress in 2020.Assuming there isn't a religious test for voters by then. Of course, such a test would be illegal according to your current Constitution, but that only matters if you have a Supreme Court that is honest and impartial enough to actually care about that.

If you have half a dozen or so Tea Partiers in Scotus, then how many of their rulings would go your way, do you think?

Remember: Congress can impeach judges, if it chooses to do so.

Terez
10-15-2015, 03:18 AM
And if Republicans control all branches of government, how will Congress of all branches be won back in 2020?
Congress draws the lines, and it's much more likely that Republicans will control Congress in 2020 if we elect Hillary in 2016—or any Democrat, really, but especially Hillary.

Terez
10-15-2015, 03:20 AM
Assuming there isn't a religious test for voters by then. Of course, such a test would be illegal according to your current Constitution, but that only matters if you have a Supreme Court that is honest and impartial enough to actually care about that.
Unless one of the liberal justices dies in the next 4 years, the composition of the court won't change.

Davian93
10-15-2015, 06:12 AM
Perhaps they will improve their Congress numbers in 2016, but in 2018 they will start to go the other way, and they'll probably lose both in 2020. At least, judging by how these things generally go. The tide always turns against the party in the White House.

Fortunately you live in a very blue state, so your vote really doesn't matter in a practical sense.

Davian93
10-15-2015, 06:14 AM
Unless one of the liberal justices dies in the next 4 years, the composition of the court won't change.

Um...Ginsburg is quite elderly and has multiple major health issues so that is almost one guaranteed seat right there.

Breyer isn't exactly young at 77 so that's a big question mark too. Kennedy, the current swing vote, is 79 so he might want to retire or he might get sick or die soon too. There's also Scalia who is the same age and if he were to leave the bench, there'd be a serious chance to swing the Court to a 5-4 Moderate majority compared to the current Far Right majority.

Davian93
10-15-2015, 06:16 AM
Which is why it's imperative that we win Congress in 2020.

Given that the 2020 election will be based on the 2010 census results (the new results wont be implemented until 2022), that will be a near impossibility regardless. The key battle in 2020 is the State legislatures that draw up those boundaries to begin with.

Terez
10-15-2015, 06:35 AM
Fortunately you live in a very blue state, so your vote really doesn't matter in a practical sense.
It never mattered in MS either.

Um...Ginsburg is quite elderly and has multiple major health issues so that is almost one guaranteed seat right there.
Perhaps, but honestly that's on her. She had the opportunity to step down during the Obama administration. Maybe she still will, but her time is running out. No one wants Ginsburg to leave, but if her health really is a concern (and she would know best), now is the time.

Given that the 2020 election will be based on the 2010 census results (the new results wont be implemented until 2022), that will be a near impossibility regardless. The key battle in 2020 is the State legislatures that draw up those boundaries to begin with.
Which is why I mentioned down-ticket results earlier. Of course, you can't help the fact that some states hold elections in non-presidential years, but the GOP has a turnout advantage in those elections and Hillary is not going to fix that for us. If anything she'll make it worse. Opposition politics seems to be the only thing that brings out Democrats in non-presidential years.

But all of these arguments are a distraction from the fact that it very much matters who we elect to represent the party nationally. None of the current candidates are the right choice, and the fact that the Hillarybots have forced her on us makes me identify less and less with the Democratic Party. I'm not the only one.

Davian93
10-15-2015, 08:01 AM
I'm honestly more in line with Sanders politically than anyone...probably why I've consistently voted for him as my Senator. So I'm far to the Left of the average Dem like Hillary. This is ironic as I used to be pretty Center Right on most issues and identified in that way when I was younger as you and many others here will likely recall. I've found myself drifting to the Left consistently over the years though.

Still, its a lesser of two evils to go with Hilldog. I don't think she'll be any more "damaging" to the Dems nationally than Obama has been. The rightwing noise machine is losing credibility with anyone who isn't that hard 20% super conservative right wing nut bag now. You can only cry wolf so many times. The Benghazi hearings debacle is a great example of that. As more and more Republicans come out straight out saying that its a partisan attack designed to hurt Hillary (granted we all KNEW this but actually admitting it is just hilarious), the hearing next week might actually help her politically as people will openly see it for what it is...a pathetic waste of taxpayers money to attack an opponent politically using gov't resources to do so.

Terez
10-15-2015, 09:08 AM
I'm honestly more in line with Sanders politically than anyone...probably why I've consistently voted for him as my Senator. So I'm far to the Left of the average Dem like Hillary.
I identify more with him too, and if I were forced to vote in the primary I'd vote for him. But he doesn't have the demeanor to be a good president. His personality works in the Senate, not so much on the world stage.

Still, its a lesser of two evils to go with Hilldog. I don't think she'll be any more "damaging" to the Dems nationally than Obama has been. The rightwing noise machine is losing credibility with anyone who isn't that hard 20% super conservative right wing nut bag now.
This has nothing to do with the right wing nuts. This has to do with people in the middle. Probably around 30% of Democrats, maybe more, are reluctant to vote for Hillary for many of the reasons I've already mentioned. People who identify as Democrats don't like her. That was never the case with Obama, or at least, a much smaller percentage of Democrats disliked him, and those dislike Hillary far more and probably vote Green anyway.

The Unreasoner
10-15-2015, 01:55 PM
I pretty much agree with Terez. Let the Republicans take the WH for four years. We'll still be able to fillibuster in the Senate, and it will be hilarious to watch them actually try and govern.

That being said, I don't think they can. Although Rubio could maybe beat Hillary, and Sanders is even more vulnerable.

Frenzy
10-15-2015, 11:23 PM
Fortunately you live in a very blue state, so your vote really doesn't matter in a practical sense.

Which is why i really don't give a shit what happens nationally, since i live in a state that's solidly one color and has it's primary so late in the cycle that both major party candidates are already decided.

The more interesting thing around here is Boxer's Senate seat. Gavin Newsom may try for it, but most think he'll go for Governor when Jerry Brown terms out in 2 years.

Terez
10-16-2015, 06:47 AM
Technically, our votes in non-swing states do matter in presidential elections; they just don't matter quite so urgently as they do in swing states. If enough of us were to stop voting altogether for that reason (and really, enough of us already have) then it would make a difference. How much depends on the state, i.e. how different would it be if voting were mandatory?

Ivhon
10-16-2015, 01:53 PM
I see lots of assumptions in this thread:

1. The 20% hard right doesnt matter. They do as they control one house of Congress, 3 members of SCOTUS and are represented by every GOP Presidential candidate that has any shot of winning.

2. The filibuster will save crazy legislation from going through the Senate. It can be scrapped quite easily.

3. Our elected officials - particularly of the GOP - have respect for precedent, procedure, decorum or democracy at all. They do not. The GOP - particularly the crazy side that weilds too much power - are the iteration of American society - from the Tories in the Revolutionary War on - that has always been for concentration of power amongst the elite. Anti-democracy. The Freedom Caucus, Trump, Cruz, Scalia et al have no regard for the institutions of American Government, precedent or whatever beyond what those precedents allow for the consolidation of their own power.

4. The Constitution is very high proof to protect the democratic (yes, republican) system of government. It is extremely difficult to change through the Amendment process. It is difficutl to change the Constitution, true. But it can be end-run. The weakness of the Constitution is that it can be effectively scrapped - does not need to be re-written - if all three branches of government collude to ignore it. I doubt the FF could picture a situation where that occurs, but here we are a hairsbredth away.

Perhaps Im being alarmist, but please describe how - with all three branches of government in collusion - muslims could not be denied the right to vote?

Kimon
10-16-2015, 04:18 PM
Perhaps Im being alarmist, but please describe how - with all three branches of government in collusion - muslims could not be denied the right to vote?

Just look at how quickly nearly every Republican controlled state moved to reassert voting restrictions after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act 2 years ago. Or how quickly the interpretation became that any gun regulations was a violation of the 2nd Amendment. That clearly was not the case back in the '90s when the assault weapons ban was still in place. The Heller ruling was but one of the myriad 5-4 disasters of this court, and yet another reminder of just how imperative it is that we elect dem presidents so that we can slowly reassert sanity in the court. If a republican is the next president it almost makes inevitable that Ginsburg is replaced with another ultra-conservative. If that happens Roe will be overturned.

The Unreasoner
10-16-2015, 05:33 PM
Perhaps Im being alarmist, but please describe how - with all three branches of government in collusion - muslims could not be denied the right to vote?
I think the public would mostly hold them accountable, and in any case getting rid of the filibuster is a huge risk, they might want it one day, after all. But they could undeniably still do a great deal of damage. I just don't know what I can do, short of moving to Ohio, to prevent it. Not that I see them winning in 2016 as likely, no matter how much people dislike Hillary.

If it was really a threat, Ginsburg should resign, if she's as unhealthy as you claim. Anything else would be wildly irresponsible.

Then, I live in Northern California, and we have tons of Muslims here, our Republicans are reasonable people, and every fifth car is a Tesla. So maybe I am too far removed from the threat to take it seriously.

Kimon
10-20-2015, 07:27 PM
Webb: Came off as an angry old man-child. Just embarrassing performance all around and he lost big time. I'd be shocked if he's around for the next debate in a month.


Webb (mostly) dropped out of the race today.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34587280

Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb will no longer seek the Democratic presidential nomination.
Mr Webb has said on Tuesday that he is considering how he might "remain as a voice" in the campaign, possibly as an independent candidate.

Doubt he'll actually run as an independent, although there's always a chance that some wealthy crackpot will finance him simply out of hope that he'll steal some votes from Hillary in the general.

Davian93
10-20-2015, 07:49 PM
His stances on the issues are that of a moderate Republican...if anything, I doubt he'd take any votes that Hilldog would be getting anyway.

Nazbaque
10-21-2015, 04:42 AM
His stances on the issues are that of a moderate Republican...if anything, I doubt he'd take any votes that Hilldog would be getting anyway.

But would the wealthy crackpot realize that?

GonzoTheGreat
10-22-2015, 05:01 AM
But would the wealthy crackpot realize that?
I thought (mainly from watching the James Bond documentaries) that wealthy crackpots tend to be very cunning and smart people, whose schemes can only be foiled by heavily drinking womanisers. Since Hillary doesn't meet those criteria, what chance would she have?

yks 6nnetu hing
10-22-2015, 05:04 AM
Since Hillary doesn't meet those criteria, what chance would she have?

oh I don't know, I think she might prove you (at least half) wrong.

GonzoTheGreat
10-22-2015, 05:21 AM
oh I don't know, I think she might prove you (at least half) wrong.
So this is about her (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womanizer_(song))? :eek:

yks 6nnetu hing
10-22-2015, 05:39 AM
no, I meant this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2013729/US-elections-How-Hillary-Clinton-beat-John-McCain-at-vodka-drinking.html) :cool:



/ETA: although, 4 shots really isn't anything to brag about. It was pretty funny when Dai realized that it's an Estonian custom for the groom to have a shot with any guest at least once (refusing a shot is Not Done). And it's an Estonian custom to try to get the groom so drunk he passes out. Which the Dutch guests thought was an awesome tradition. Though in the end not quite successful :D Anyhow, it was definitely more than 4 shots.

Terez
10-22-2015, 06:53 AM
no, I meant this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2013729/US-elections-How-Hillary-Clinton-beat-John-McCain-at-vodka-drinking.html) :cool:



/ETA: although, 4 shots really isn't anything to brag about. It was pretty funny when Dai realized that it's an Estonian custom for the groom to have a shot with any guest at least once (refusing a shot is Not Done). And it's an Estonian custom to try to get the groom so drunk he passes out. Which the Dutch guests thought was an awesome tradition. Though in the end not quite successful :D Anyhow, it was definitely more than 4 shots.
And how many people die of alcohol poisoning in an average year due to this quaint custom?

yks 6nnetu hing
10-22-2015, 07:25 AM
And how many people die of alcohol poisoning in an average year due to this quaint custom?

considering that x > 0 is too many, I'm going to say too many.



(btw, I think I should add that it *is* acceptable to throw the shot over your shoulder instead of downing it. If the other person notices, they may request a new shot)

GonzoTheGreat
10-22-2015, 10:27 AM
And how many people die of alcohol poisoning in an average year due to this quaint custom?
Considering the occasion and the one most at risk, it seems fair to call it Darwinism In Action. Not really easy to come up with better examples, actually.