U.S. Politics - Netanyahu and Boehner OTP

[Fez]

And Reid has just endorsed Schumer to be the next leader. I wonder if that means Durbin is planning on retiring as well? He did just win re-election so it'd be surprising, but I'd gotta think it would sting to get passed over like that.

[BloodRider]

Wow, Harry Reid is going to retire in 2016 rather than seek re-election. If Sandoval runs, the GOP will take that seat, but I don't think he does; he likes being Governor too much. So its a toss-up for now. But this gives the GOP a chance to play offense, whereas before they were going to be entirely on defense in 2016.

538 Seems to think that 2016 is already a shit year for Dems.

[Shryke]

Yes, and Rand Paul is still very, very libertarian compared to every Democratic (or even Republican) candidate ever

By what standard?

He's not for social issues and he is not for less government.

[Jaxom 1974]

And Reid has just endorsed Schumer to be the next leader. I wonder if that means Durbin is planning on retiring as well? He did just win re-election so it'd be surprising, but I'd gotta think it would sting to get passed over like that.

Durbin is the Frank Underwood of the Senate. Look out!

[Guest]

I never quite figured out why Harry Reid was so despised by the right. I mean, sure, the leadership of the opposition in a polarized era is always going to be disliked. It's just that it often felt to me that Reid was hated significantly more than the rest of the Dems, and I'm not sure why that was.

[aceluby]

538 Seems to think that 2016 is already a shit year for Dems.

I don't see the logic there. Presidential year, GOP has to defend the purple seats they picked up in 2010, and I don't think there are many more seats that can go to the GOP in the house. Unless something drastic happens between now and 2016 in favor of the GOP on par with the Tea Party in 2010, I just don't see how that conclusion could possibly be made.

[sToNED_CAT]

Wow, Harry Reid is going to retire in 2016 rather than seek re-election. If Sandoval runs, the GOP will take that seat, but I don't think he does; he likes being Governor too much. So its a toss-up for now. But this gives the GOP a chance to play offense, whereas before they were going to be entirely on defense in 2016.

It was almost a toss-up with Reid running, it will now likely go to Republicans. Democrats have almost no bench there, their best prospects were wiped out in 2014 - and quite decisively. I don't think they have a chance even with Sandoval not running.

I never quite figured out why Harry Reid was so despised by the right. I mean, sure, the leadership of the opposition in a polarized era is always going to be disliked. It's just that it often felt to me that Reid was hated significantly more than the rest of the Dems, and I'm not sure why that was.

I never quite figured how is Reid not despised by everybody. He embodies everything that is wrong with career politicians. He might be investigated for his role in pressuring DHS officials to fast track foreign visas to his sons company.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The Democratic candidate against Heller in 2012 lost by ~10,000 votes. She 's still a sitting Representative (I was wrong about this- her successor is a Democrat) would not be up against an incumbent this time around. Nevada is trending Democratic, if Sandoval doesn't run of course the Democrats have a good shot at it. Any other appraisal is wishful thinking by Republicans.

[Ramsay Gimp]

He's not for social issues and he is not for less government.

Show me another Democrat who wishes to end the war on drugs. Show me another Republican who champions criminal justice reform. There's more to social freedom than gay marriage and abortion

How is he not for less government overall than a typical Dem/Republican?

I'm not even sure why we're arguing BTW, much as I may enjoy it.

[Seli]

...

How is he not for less government overall than a typical Dem/Republican?

I'm not even sure why we're arguing BTW, much as I may enjoy it.

Isn't he in favour of (state) government rights to be in anyones bedroom? Just because he favours state government's powers over federal powers doesn't make him any less of a big government guy.

[ThinkerX]

I would take that and give you 2:1. There's no way he gets the nomination, and I doubt he cracks the top 3.

I agree that no one is fighting Paul for those voters, because nobody in the GOP cares about anti-interventionists who avoid talking about social issues and are obsessed with the national debt. Those voters have little influence over the party and are less a block and more a speck. Hell, even Paul himself is backing away from his cut-defense-spending pledges, and if he doesn't care about appeasing that tiny slice of Republican voters, why should Jeb or Rubio?

Fact is, there just isn't a real constituency in the GOP that is concerned about expanding voting rights or cutting defense spending or reining in government surveillance; if there were, the party would be moving to pursue those policies. The fact that it isn't means that Republican movers and shakers don't place a high priority on those things. Rand Paul can storm every barn in sight, but it won't get him the farm.

Pretty much my assessment with one major caveat: IF (and its a dang big IF) the GOP clown car crashes and burns hard enough (fair to middling chances) AND a major scandal attaches itself to Jeb Bush or whoever else is left (unlikely but possible) then Rand could secure the nomination.

Given the amount of money the Koch brothers are tossing into the mix this time, and the utter shortsighted pig-headedness of many of the current GOP candidates, I am almost willing to bet that one or more of the leading GOP presidential candidates crashes and burns hard through what boils down to an old fashioned bribery scandal. Anybody here willing to dispute that prediction?

[Guest]

Now Rand is at a prayer breakfast saying we have some moral marriage crisis in this country. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he doesn't mean the moral crisis of gays not being able to legally marry in all states.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Isn't he in favour of (state) government rights to be in anyones bedroom? Just because he favours state government's powers over federal powers doesn't make him any less of a big government guy.

Again, there is more to liberty and small government than the freedom to kill your fetus. I disagree with Paul on abortion, but viewing the unborn as human beings with rights does not make him some big-government fraud (though other things, like his new Defense Budget, might).

Contrary to popular belief, abortion is a not a "settled" issue among libertarians. But that's a topic for the libertarianism thread

[Commodore]

so the Dem frontrunner deleted government emails after they were subpoenaed and then wiped her server clean

let's put her in charge

is there no one else?

[Castel]

so the Dem frontrunner deleted government emails after they were subpoenaed and then wiped her server clean

let's put her in charge

is there no one else?

A question the GOP are also desperately asking I bet.

[Shryke]

Again, there is more to liberty and small government than the freedom to kill your fetus. I disagree with Paul on abortion, but viewing the unborn as human beings with rights does not make him some big-government fraud (though other things, like his new Defense Budget, might).

Contrary to popular belief, abortion is a not a "settled" issue among libertarians. But that's a topic for the libertarianism thread

Oh, that's not contrary to popular belief at all. It's why we know libertarians are full of shit when they talk about liberty.

And Rand, of course, is the guy now parroting anti-gay-rights shit. Which is more of the same standard GOP bullshit. Cause he's a huckster like his father before him.

Personally, I love this graph:

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/silver-datalab-jeb-1.png?w=610&h=916

[Guest]

so the Dem frontrunner deleted government emails after they were subpoenaed and then wiped her server clean

let's put her in charge

is there no one else?

question: were they actually deleted only after they were subpoenaed?

Either way, I think this whole thing is problematic and makes Clinton look terrible. The only counter-argument I've found compelling is that all elites in American society do stuff like this now which I of course realize is only so much of a defense.

ETA: Jesus, that graph makes Scott Walker look bad to say nothing of Rand Paul.

[Ramsay Gimp]

It must be really fucking boring living with such manichean certainty, Shryke. Everyone who isn't with you is either a hypocritical liar or a delusional moron, right? So why even show up?

There is such a thing as good-faith disagreement, you know. Plenty of wonderful people are pro-life for reasons that have nothing to do with hating women. Plenty of them are women, in fact!

And seriously, an Obamabot denouncing political hucksters? :lol: It's hard to think of a better example of head-up-your-ass syndrome than that

*BTW, that graph is useless without an explanation of how they judge a statement/action to be "conservative."

[Shryke]

question: were they actually deleted only after they were subpoenaed?

Either way, I think this whole thing is problematic and makes Clinton look terrible. The only counter-argument I've found compelling is that all elites in American society do stuff like this now which I of course realize is only so much of a defense.

Don't buy Commodore's bullshit without questioning. The accusations are only coming out of the BENGHAZI!!! witchhunt. Clinton's lawyers are saying they turned over all work emails to the government.

ETA: Jesus, that graph makes Scott Walker look bad to say nothing of Rand Paul.

Santorum's blue dot (public statements) is fairly impressive, way out there on it's own.

[Guest]

Don't buy Commodore's bullshit without questioning. The accusations are only coming out of the BENGHAZI!!! witchhunt. Clinton's lawyers are saying they turned over all work emails to the government.

Santorum's blue dot (public statements) is fairly impressive, way out there on it's own.

I don't buy shit from Commodore without question which is why I ask, but it does seem very Gowdy-esque.

Santorum's Blue Dot sounds like a great band name.