KevinG Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 "There will come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary" - Lindsey Graham Graham must be planning on retiring because this will earn him a target on his back when he comes up for reelection.Who would have thought that Lindsey Graham would be the most rational republican? It also looks like Sen. Kirk (R-Ill) is recinding his endorsement as well. "GOP Senators Finally Starting To Realize Their Party Nominated A Total Racist" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/06/07/gop-senators-donald-trump_n_10341942.html Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 The slow agonizing death spiral of the GOP continues.... Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Rescinding their endorsement isn't enough. They're all cowards until they say, "I'm voting for Clinton and I urge you to do the same". Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Kirk is facing elimination by Duckworth, so he wants to appear as liberal as is humanly possible. I don't think the GOP is finished, but it sure is out this next electoral cycle. It could come roaring back in two or four years. Of course the Dems aren't exactly unified. There continues to be an anyone but Hillary movement which includes progressives who plan to vote for Trump. The world turned upside down. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Rescinding their endorsement isn't enough. They're all cowards until they say, "I'm voting for Clinton and I urge you to do the same".I don't think they should go that far. I am interested in a viable third party. Though I think Bill Kristol's guy won't cut it. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 We won't have a viable third party, ever. We'll never get rid of winner-take-all. Only in a proportional system are there 3rd, 4th, 5th parties, etc. that can hold any actual power. At most, a party will replace one of the 2. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 We won't have a viable third party, ever. We'll never get rid of winner-take-all. Only in a proportional system are there 3rd, 4th, 5th parties, etc. that can hold any actual power. At most, a party will replace one of the 2.Right, but as an alternative to Trump and not endorsing Hillary, it would be a good thing for the GOP to do. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Did I say this already? We do have a third party, it is called the Libertarians. Of all the other parties, it is the biggest and strongest and has the most recognizable presidential candidate (if you call someone I can't name recognizable.) They have the clearest and most identifiable platform though. Meanwhile Jill Stein and the Green (white) party certainly get some traction for having little to show for their infrequent efforts in local elections and a nebulous platform and a super snarky entry into presidential politics every 4 years. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 But we don't have 3rd or 4th parties that hold any power due due our system. Just because they exist, have conventions and might win a local race once in a blue moon, doesn't mean they are viable parties that have any chance of enacting their agendas. At best, the GOP or Dems might go the way of the Whigs and another party will replace it. We'll always have a 2 party system. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 But we don't have 3rd or 4th parties that hold any power due due our system. Just because they exist, have conventions and might win a local race once in a blue moon, doesn't mean they are viable parties that have any chance of enacting their agendas. At best, the GOP or Dems might go the way of the Whigs and another party will replace it. We'll always have a 2 party system.What I am trying to say is it is a big jump for Republicans to vote for Clinton. The party leaders know a third party or alternate candidate has no chance of betting Clinton. But as a not Trump option it will be better than urging to vote Clinton. Link to post Share on other sites
Chez Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 So a 2016 version of John Anderson (not the lead singer of Yes)? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 http://bzfd.it/1UjlvJh It is gonna be a long five months Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 http://bzfd.it/1UjlvJh It is gonna be a long five monthsFuck these two douchebags. Clinton has made history by becoming the first woman to (presumptively) secure a major party nomination, but I don't feel much like celebrating. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Fuck these two douchebags. Clinton has made history by becoming the first woman to (presumptively) secure a major party nomination, but I don't feel much like celebrating.She needs to take the high road. Show everyone what a president should be, not get into twitter wars. Let her surrogates do it. Warren is doing a much better job. And don't use the word that is synonymous with your biggest scandal. Just a dumb move Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Tuned in to MSNBC during lunch today, and Hillary was addressing Planned Parenthood. WTF? Look, I've been a huge supporter of PP, and am well aware of all the good they do. They are MOSTLY about getting birth control in people's hands, even if they can't afford to spend much on it, and about offering affordable OB/GYN exams to the uninsured. Well, I know that, but lots of other people fucking don't. They think PP is some sort of abortion factory - when in reality, abortions are a tiny fraction of the services they provide - but after all the controversy they have attracted in the last year or two, is that really the best place for her to go? I mean, fuck, right after she gets the nomination, she's attacking the Republicans ruthlessly and using divisive language about a host of other issues...holy crap. I agreed with what she was saying, but I can only imagine how her detractors responded. It's gonna be a long, hot, ugly summer. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 So here is the deal......in my humble opinion. Because the primaries were so close and the further left feels so alienated by Hillary, she has to out Bernie, Bernie by appearing to be all up in the left wing. This is the same reaction Donald had so he is now Mr. Boring and Reasonable. I don't know what the answer is honestly. Ugly indeed. Where is the fucking time machine so we can all go back and start over?? LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Magnetized Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Tuned in to MSNBC during lunch today, and Hillary was addressing Planned Parenthood. WTF? Look, I've been a huge supporter of PP, and am well aware of all the good they do. They are MOSTLY about getting birth control in people's hands, even if they can't afford to spend much on it, and about offering affordable OB/GYN exams to the uninsured. Well, I know that, but lots of other people fucking don't. They think PP is some sort of abortion factory - when in reality, abortions are a tiny fraction of the services they provide - but after all the controversy they have attracted in the last year or two, is that really the best place for her to go? I mean, fuck, right after she gets the nomination, she's attacking the Republicans ruthlessly and using divisive language about a host of other issues...holy crap. I agreed with what she was saying, but I can only imagine how her detractors responded. It's gonna be a long, hot, ugly summer.Regardless of whether Planned Parenthood was an ideal venue for her to be speaking at so soon after sewing up the nomination, candidates make commitments for speaking engagements probably months in advance. It would have been a weaselly move to have backed out at the last minute. And besides, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Planned Parenthood. People who would jump all over her for that wouldn't likely be her supporters anyway. You can't please everyone. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Regardless of whether Planned Parenthood was an ideal venue for her to be speaking at so soon after sewing up the nomination, candidates make commitments for speaking engagements probably months in advance. It would have been a weaselly move to have backed out at the last minute. And besides, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Planned Parenthood. People who would jump all over her for that wouldn't likely be her supporters anyway. You can't please everyone.Good points...it was just very jarring to watch. I honestly haven't followed the campaign all that much, as I'm just too busy. And her voice kind of annoys me. So when I sat and watched this, I thought, "Holy cow, she's not exactly starting things in a conciliatory tone, is she?" You know, all that standard BS about reaching across the aisle and whatnot. It was not pleasant at all. Link to post Share on other sites
The Inside of Outside Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I realize it is a small thing in the bigger picture of who is best to be the chief executive, but I have a hard time listening to Hillary Clinton's voice. It is so raspy that it is painful to listen to her. And when she gets wound up, raspy turns strident and it is even worse. I wish she would be calmer in her approach - I could stay with her speeches longer. The bigger picture - she is not an idiot. So she'll get my vote. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted June 11, 2016 Author Share Posted June 11, 2016 I realize it is a small thing in the bigger picture of who is best to be the chief executive, but I have a hard time listening to Hillary Clinton's voice. It is so raspy that it is painful to listen to her. And when she gets wound up, raspy turns strident and it is even worse. I wish she would be calmer in her approach - I could stay with her speeches longer.http://www.cc.com/video-clips/kb2x61/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-advice-for-hillary-clinton "Oh no she has a shrill voice, it hurts my man ears." Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Regardless of whether Planned Parenthood was an ideal venue for her to be speaking at so soon after sewing up the nomination, candidates make commitments for speaking engagements probably months in advance. It would have been a weaselly move to have backed out at the last minute.kinda like her not debating Bernie on all those promised instances. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 huh I think the lack of input by this board is because of the gun issue. It is so tired and ends up in the same circles that many just see it pointless. But from a political standpoint, this shows how one candidate can just utterly fail in how to respond to a tragedy. Not only were the first words from his twitter hole a humble brag on how he predicted this and now he is is saying that Obama might be a terrorist sympathizer. But you know Obama did not use the words Radical Islam. Seriously Donald Trump, FUCK OFF. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I am not arguing against gun control here, but I think it is important to point out that France's strict gun regulations did not prevent a very similar massacre at The Bataclan. If we think gun control is the only political issue connected to this incident, we are as guilty of burying our heads in the sand as those who say gun control won't stop any mass shootings. How to prevent ISIS-inspired shootings like this and San Bernadino? I have no fucking clue. I do believe Donald Drumpf's call for a ban on Muslim immigrating to the U.S. is a recipe for more hatred and more attacks, not fewer. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Despite his inarticulate initial reaction, this tragedy will almost certainly help Trump the most. It plays right into his rhetoric and Hillary has to be careful about only making this a gun or LGBT issue -- the country doesn't have the stomach to consider gun control or anti-gay rhetoric, but terrorism? That plays well. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts