-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546701" data-time="1449635941">
<div>
<p>A common misconception. Rand is actually short for Randal. But yes, the fear or hate of govt is strong in that one.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Good to know, I'd hate to be named after this weirdo <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html'>http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546692" data-time="1449632855">
<div><br><p> </p>
<p>Ultimately, you've presented nothing that justifies your original remark, i.e. that some Republicans think slavery is ok.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I then posted that a number Republicans thought slavery was a positive for blacks. <em><strong>You demanded proof of that</strong></em>. I give you an elected Republican who has wrtitten a fricking book saying that & you go "wheres the proof!!!"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And yes, his comment very much defends slavery. Its like saying "sure the halocaust was bad, but it led to Israel being established so in a lot of ways it did then a favour".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's saying a staggeringly bad thing that happened 200 years ago turned out well for those 200 years later, so maybe it wasn't so bad. And luckily, he has WRITTEN A BOOK ON IT to clarrify</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While Romney <em><strong>was</strong></em> campaigning, that wasn't an informal chat with his best mate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, you completely ignore the bits where I mention <em><strong>when</strong></em> the Tea Party came up & that your quoted examples are therefore not great... In contrast Ted Crus is solid Tea Party & pandering had & fast. IE demanding I show the influence of the Tea Party on McCain when McCain ran before the TP was a force (while Bush even more so!) shows either a desperation to be "right" or a total lack of any understanding of US politics.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="546763" data-time="1449655098">
<div>
<p>I then posted that a number Republicans thought slavery was a positive for blacks. <em><strong>You demanded proof of that</strong></em>. I give you an elected Republican who has wrtitten a fricking book saying that & you go "wheres the proof!!!"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And yes, his comment very much defends slavery. Its like saying "sure the halocaust was bad, but it led to Israel being established so in a lot of ways it did then a favour".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's saying a staggeringly bad thing that happened 200 years ago turned out well for those 200 years later, so maybe it wasn't so bad. And luckily, he has WRITTEN A BOOK ON IT to clarrify</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While Romney <em><strong>was</strong></em> campaigning, that wasn't an informal chat with his best mate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, you completely ignore the bits where I mention <em><strong>when</strong></em> the Tea Party came up & that your quoted examples are therefore not great... In contrast Ted Crus is solid Tea Party & pandering had & fast. IE demanding I show the influence of the Tea Party on McCain when McCain ran before the TP was a force (while Bush even more so!) shows either a desperation to be "right" or a total lack of any understanding of US politics.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Hold on a sec, your original comment was "slavery IS ok". Advocating slavery and saying that slavery might have been a "blessing in disguise" for the descendants of slaves are 2 completely separate things. An Australian who descended from a convict could very well say he's fortunate to have grown up in Australia and not England. That doesn't mean he justifies a situation in which a person was transported half-way around the world in chains for stealing a handkerchief. I haven't read the book in question, but does he say that slavery is a good thing and that he would like it re-introduced? I agree it's a pretty farked up thing to write, but it is not proof that he thinks slavery or segregation are ok.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What crazy Tea Party policies handicapped Romney at the last election when they were out in full force? If anything, it was his record as Governor that did him in the credibility department. Again, that recorded speech was a private speech to donors and was not something he said during a debate or at a rally during the primaries.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Are you saying that Cruz is actually quite liberal and that his pandering to the Tea Party is what is causing him to go hard right?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regardless, the original comment was "That leads the candidates to double down on the wackery to get the nomination, and then get thumped in the actual election because moderate Republicans don't want a bar of the final candidate."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Who are these candidates that have doubled down on the wackery and then been thumped in the election? That was my initial question.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546775" data-time="1449662844">
<div><br><p>Who are these candidates that have doubled down on the wackery and then been thumped in the election? That was my initial question.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Rubio has had to go very hard right on immigration. Jeb started out centrist then when getting fucked over v Cruz & Rubio tacked right, talking about "anchor babies" & defunding womens health issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Heres Bush 2014 -</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"They come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Actually talking about not arresting lawbreaking immigrants. That sparked a wave of outrage among the hard right..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here he is in August this year -</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing – pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,†he said. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.†When a reporter questioned Bush about his use of the term, he said that he did not regret saying it and blamed Democrats for the negative stigma surrounding the words. “You give me a better term and I’ll use it,†he said. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton tweeted a suggestion: “How about ‘babies,’ ‘children,’ or ‘American citizens’.â€</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Literally talking about making illegal immigrants having kids a crime.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On Romney - heres a nice easy guide to the areas he movede agressively into TP range when running -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/18/politifacts-guide-mitt-romneys-flip-flops/'>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/18/politifacts-guide-mitt-romneys-flip-flops/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Abortion, Global Warming, new taxes,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Heres 538 talkiing about it a year ago -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-might-have-a-tea-party-problem-in-2016/'>http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-might-have-a-tea-party-problem-in-2016/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is a great graphic too in the next one, highlighting that the guys polling well right now are either TP, or very close to TP (Rubio, Carson, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina). Infact almost everyone out wider (Christie, Santorum, Jindel, Graham, Gilmore, even Jeb is struggling). So you either tack right (as Jeb has done) or hope the crazies fall out & the party eventually get behind you as they did with Romney. Difference is every election the crazies are staying in longer. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bobby-jindal-exit-2016-republican/'>http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bobby-jindal-exit-2016-republican/</a></p> -
I'll ask once more: Who are these candidates that have doubled down on the wackery and then been thumped in the election? I must have missed the part when Cruz, Bush and Rubio were thumped in a Presidential election.<br><br>
Romney was always going to flip flop like a mofo. You can't become governor of the most Democrat-leaning state in the country and then win the republican presidential nomination with the same policies. Bill Clinton was probably the same when he left Little Rock to have a crack at Washington. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546787" data-time="1449669984">
<div>
<p><em><strong>I'll ask once more: Who are these candidates that have doubled down on the wackery and then been thumped in the election? </strong></em>I must have missed the part when Cruz, Bush and Rubio were thumped in a Presidential election.<br><br>
Romney was always going to flip flop like a mofo. You can't become governor of the most Democrat-leaning state in the country and then win the republican presidential nomination with the same policies. Bill Clinton was probably the same when he left Little Rock to have a crack at Washington.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You realise me & Godder are different people right?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tho' on his behalf, how about Barry Goldwater? He def doubled down & got absolutely destroyed.... wee bit before the Tea Party, but he tacked very far right to win the primaries...</p> -
<p> I am waiting with anticipation for gollum to provide evidence that some republicans think slavery IS ok.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="546791" data-time="1449680532"><p>
You realise me & Godder are different people right?<br><br>
Tho' on his behalf, how about Barry Goldwater? He def doubled down & got absolutely destroyed.... wee bit before the Tea Party, but he tacked very far right to win the primaries...</p></blockquote>
<br>
Er yes. Did you miss the bit when you responded after I questioned him about it?<br><br>
Goldwater wasn't a moderate who went the full nutjob to get elected. He was already a wacko who rode a wave to win the primary. Another poor example. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="546802" data-time="1449688984">
<div>
<p> I am waiting with anticipation for gollum to provide evidence that some republicans think slavery IS ok.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You clearly missed the elected Republican saying that it worked out great for Americas blacks. And then writing a book saying that.</p> -
Nz politicians react to Trumps comments, the material girls are far and away the most pathetic<br><br>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11558491'>http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11558491</a> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="sparky" data-cid="555467" data-time="1454222861">
<div>
<p>The Iowa caucus is tomorrow and it looks like Donald J Trump will win the Republican contest. The Tea Party have been toxic for the GOP.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The crazy thing the last few weeks has been top Republicans going "fuck, Rubio is just not happening?!" and then realising it could really be Cruz or Trump & holding their nose & endorsing Trump. There's even been the odd Republican saying if its Cruz v Hillary he'd go Hillary.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Palin endorsing Trump was huge, swung a massive chunk of the crazy over from Cruz.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I still feel Rubio will get up, purely because he is electable, but jeez he's making heavy weather of it</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="555690" data-time="1454323441">
<div>
<p>Please explain.<br><br>
Does tbis mean "not batshit crazy"?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I mean his policies are right enough to to get most republicans, but centrist enough to make undecided middle ground folks go with him. And maybe even some Democrats.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So for example Cruz & Rubio both want a fence to stop Mexicans. Despite the fact that's financially impossible. But Cruz wants to throw out babies born in the US to immigrant parents and offer zero path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Which is impossible & loses him the entire hispanic vote. Rubio would make some sort of deal re path to citizenship. Both would scrap Obamas presidential order. Clinton would keep Obamas order & doesn't want a fence.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The fence is kinda farcical as its just a soundbite, its like saying they'll make laser turrets to shoot down ISIS drones flying from Libya. While the Obama bit is just pandering to the "All Obama bad!" idea, again it doesn't actually need to happen. The real issue is the 11m undocumented immigrants. The centre, regardless of Dem or Rep. gets they need to get them to citizenship somehow, so to win that centre you need to be saying that its an issue & the only way to solve it is let most of them become citizens.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Same on almost all issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the past the Republicans have flirted with unelectable crazy (Bachman, Palin, Buchanan etc) but they always ultimately go for a guy who can actually win (Romney, Bush). Cruz & Trump can't win the presidential election. And everyone knows that. (Tho' Trump maybe could if Bloomberg runs). Rubio very much could win v Hillary, so you assume they will eventually get behind him.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The 2 problems the Republicans face is Trump doesn't need the party machine nor donor money to stay in. While Cruz hasn't imploded fast enough. The 2 of them are squeezing Rubio out - also a host of no hopers like Christie & Jeb that should drop out & back Rubio aren't. If Rubio can get a good 3rd in Iowa & those guys bow out after getting destroyed & their donors switch to Rubio he might be OK.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you look at Carson thats the usual trajectory for the nutjob fringe. 6 Months ago everyone loved him. Now he's dogshit. And what everyone assumed would happen with Trump. Missing the point he has 4 billion dollars & the press can't get enough of him. And now he's got this far they are terrorfied that if they chuck him out he'll run as an independant, handing the election to Hillary. So they are fucked. He wins the nomination, he'll lose. He loses he <strong><em>might </em></strong>go 3rd party, and Hillary will walk it. So they sort of need him to lose the nomination but be made to feel he's now the spiritual leader of the party. Hence some prominant guys suddenly climbing up his arse. </p> -
<p><img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JI9hJjzH1VjJxS0/giphy.gif" alt="giphy.gif"></p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="555782" data-time="1454369378"><p><img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JI9hJjzH1VjJxS0/giphy.gif" alt="giphy.gif"></p></blockquote>
<br>
Who? -
<p>that GIF is fucking horrific</p>
US Politics