Chris Christie, hero of this page, has dropped out, meaning that his only real contribution to the campaign is destroying the one hope that Republicans had of winning the election.
Chris Christie, hero of this page, has dropped out, meaning that his only real contribution to the campaign is destroying the one hope that Republicans had of winning the election.
New Hampshire is a big deal not because the result was in any way a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention, but because it finally confirms that in a straight vote, both Sanders' and Trump's numbers are going to hold up. There's no issue with their support not being all talk and no go-to-the-poll.
If the Republican party isn't resigned to Trump being their nominee, they've got about a week to line up the cannons. If he starts winning in the south, it's game over for the moderates. Thinning the field by booting Christie and Fiorina will help, but some of those votes will go to Trump unless the party and the PACs actually start treating Trump as a legitimate threat.
None of the people I've read seem to think that Sanders is going to do nearly as well in other states. The first two were outliers, because of their demographics and because they allowed people who weren't party members to vote.
That's the current view. Maybe once 'minorities' start paying attention they'll change their stance though. We'll see.
And for that he goes down as my second favorite Republican. They should make him the moderator of the next debate.Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Was Marco Rubio their best chance by default? Apart from the fact that he technically isn't white (and even his story about Cuba is a lie), he's terrible in every way. The robot stuff just showed with a lightweight freak (Ed Miliband) he is.
He's terrible but I guess he says all the right things:
-More bombs? Check
-Torture? Check
-Less taxes? Check
-Prolife? Check
-Build a wall? Check
-Jesus our saviour? Check
-Less healthcare? Check
-Even more bombs? Check
Then again, so does Cruz (and Trump, and...) so I'm not too sure what makes everyone think he is the most 'electable.'
Speaking of 'electability', is there a more stupid concept out there?
Sanders has made a bit of a mockery of the 'liberal' media. For some reason they're not too keen on him. Can't think why.
Money, probably. Slate in particular is a horrible offender but others are not too far behind.
Quite an endorsement.
I saw that earlier, it's going well for three minutes and then it cuts to Bernie issuing meaningless platitudes from a podium. Oh well. Go Bernie.
This could get interesting.
A fight over the Supreme Court while there's an election in play. Could be interesting.
I thought I was in the dead thread and was about to look up Danny Baker.
Holy shit.This is huge, the turn towards the progressive it would mean to have a SCOTUS appointment done by Obama to replace Scalia can't really be understated. The court has swung 5-4 conservative for a while now.
Only slightly ashamed to be pleased about that. He died in Marfa, you know; probably murdered by minimalist artists.
I have to say that despite everything I always held a soft spot for Scalia, because he was one of the few conservatives with a sense of humor.
Someone's going to have to give me a 101 on why some judge dying is MASSIVE politically (although unsurprisingly it looks like he was). The Supreme Court lineup must change fairly often for one reason or another, no?
Twitter slung up this interesting (and long) portrait of him. Sounded like a bit of a geezer.
No, actually. Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. The last time one was appointed was near the start of Obama's tenure. A lot of important cases were heard since then, and a lot more will be heard before the next one dies - having a fifth liberal judge would swing things massively. It's one reason why the Presidency is as important as it is, and why the timing of this is so important.
No, they have life appointments as an attempt to make it so they are not beholden to anyone. Presidents will appoint 1-4 in their terms. Effectively, it puts us In a Constitutional crisis as the current make up typically was 5-4 and will now be 4-4 on votes. Any 4-4 vote is non-binding as legal precedent. Obama can appoint but the Republican controlled Senate approves and confirms. So they can choose to not schedule hearings or filibuster any confirmation vote to wait for the election which is not too far away. So it will be at least an ugly fight. And if they recess prior to the election it can get uglier as Obama can appoint someone during a recess without a vote. They only get to stay in until the next recess, but at least two famous Supreme Court justices started that way.
You can't really accuse your political opponents of lacking humour whilst being 'pleased' that one of them has died.
Lol at everyone skipping the RIP mate we'll miss you phase and jumping straight to the we can't let Obama choose the replacement phase. At least maybe we'll get five minutes of NOT TERRORISM during tonight's debate.
I'm not pleased that he's dead, I'm pleased that he's no longer a member of the Supreme Court. The nature of the Supreme Court means that these things unfortunately coincide. Besides, I don't really accept your suggestion there; you could accuse the people who bought 'Ding Dong the Witch is Dead' after Thatcher's death of a lot of things, but 'lacking humor' isn't one of them.
The person who came up with that idea was the one with the humour. You underestimate the bitterness of the horde.
It's still, above all, a joke, albeit a bitter one. That shows humor. You don't get the same thing, en masse, on the conservative side.
This goes into it more.
I think you can be pleased he's dead. He's harmed this country significantly due to his own hubris, which is incredibly damaging
Most justices retire a bit before they actually die. You get the feeling Scalia wanted to retire, but wouldn't be willing to do it while a Democrat was in charge.
He had a sense of humour, and you get the impression that he was a fun person to be around - even well-liked by the more liberal justices. I definitely didn't like his decisions, or his decision-making process, but that's par for the course.
The fuck am I watching? Even an episode of Jerry Springer is more respectable that this shit. Hard to believe these people are actually running for presidency.
Aren't you going to be on the other side of the wall, anyway?
It's quite remarkable really the way the Republicans are claiming Obama shouldn't be appointing Scalia's successor. It takes some fucking nerve, that.
They know they don't have a leg to stand on, but really they have to be seen to at least have a tantrum.
The longest a Supreme Court vacancy has gone before a new appointment is 145 days. There are 342 days left in Obama's term.
Prediction: The Republicans are going to uniformly block this appointment until after 2020.
It'd never fly, but imagine the heads exploding if Clinton/Sanders nominated Obama.
Crazy thing is, he'd be pretty well-qualified for the position. More's the pity.
1. Repubs block Obama's appointment
2. Hillary wins the nomination
3. Hillary nominates Obama
4. Emperor Obama wins
Doesn't Obama get to overrule the House/Senate in these instances?
Not for SCOTUS appointments.
Voted for him twice and would rather vote for him again than any of the current candidates, but Obama is not remotely qualified for the Supreme Court. He went to Harvard and edited the law review which is the start of a good legal career. He taught con law at Chicago for twelve years. Sounds good on paper, but he also either worked full time as an attorney or in the Illinois State Legislature at the same time. A more accurate description is that he taught a class a semester and published no legal research. He worked on a total of 30 cases. It is a good legal career if your goal is to be a politician, but it is nothing compared to a weak career (Thomas) let alone someone who excelled at multiple aspects of the law like Scalia or the notorious RGB.
Well, colour me surprised.
This campaign seems to mirror The West Wing more every day.
Here's what will go down, Obama will nominate a fairly moderate judge. The Republicans then have a choice to make, because if they block the moderate judge they risk opening the door for a much more progressive one should Democrats do well in November. It's an interesting dilemma for them and they're probably better off accepting the moderate judge, especially as it gives Democrats a stick to beat them with for the rest of the year if they don't.
Arnold Vinick would fucking clean up against these knobheads.
Alan Alda rolled up in something else I was watching the other day and - having only finished watching the last series a few weeks ago - I forgot for a moment that he wasn't a real politician.
Unlike so many of the Republican candidates, he actually looked the part.
I am. Scalia was a disgrace of a human being.
“torture is not punishment....[it would be] absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face."
"[The state] derives its moral authority from God ... to execute wrath, including even wrath by the sword, which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty."
The idea of the separation of church and state is “spoken by a serpent, addressing a woman named Eve.”
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Also LOL at the GOP debate descending into open farce.
Revealing, the most controversial part was the part where Trump told the truth for once by condemning the Bush Administration for lying about WMD's and being unprepared for the 9/11 attacks. He rowed back on it afterwards. Someone must have had a word.
Him trying to claim to be the only one opposing the invasion was quite lol as well.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ber-it/462804/
Rough timeline:
October 2002: Obama gives speech opposing war.
October 2002: Congress votes on the war. Hilary Clinton votes in favor of the war, Sanders votes in opposition.
March 2003: Invasion begins
May 2003: Bush gives "Mission Accomplished" speech
August 2004: Trump begins vocally criticizing the war. By this time over 1000 US troops had already died.
"I'm the only one on this stage that said, ‘Do not go into Iraq. Do not attack Iraq,’ " Trump said. "Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong. And I was in the private sector. I wasn't a politician, fortunately. But I said it, and I said it loud and clear, ‘You'll destabilize the Middle East.’ "
-Trump during the primary debate
He did say 'on this stage.' I have not checked but it probably is true considering who's left in the Republican race.
The booing all throughout was a good lol.
But he's also phrasing it as if he said it before the invasion began. It's not really that impressive to see in August 2004 that the invasion wasn't a great success.
True, but tell that to the others who still like to ignore that fact.
August 2004 is a lot earlier than some people started criticising the Iraq war.
The Sunni insurgency was in full flight at that point, so he was just stating what was obvious by then.
Reply With Quote
