• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

btrage said:
I'm not sure we've "won" a war since WWII, so what's the big deal about winning? ;)
Click to expand...

Grenada! We kicked the touches of those Grenadians! I think we may have whooped the Panamanians too....

The secret is: restrict warfare to small countries in our own backyard with universally despised dictatorships, no ideological hangups, and a complete lack of an effective army of their own. ;)
 
As a left-leaning politico, I could conceivably vote for Romney, depnding upon how beholden he becomes to the extreme right.
 
[ot]
wahday said:
Ask Charlie Sheen...
Click to expand...

69gltx.jpg
[/ot]
 
wahday said:
Ask Charlie Sheen...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if that's a Red Dawn reference, they won't even let us do a remake featuring China as the invader/enemy? At the last minute, MGM airbrushed out China and replaced it with North Korea.. as if North Korea could ever invade America!
 
I love the jokes that President Obama had about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner. Topical, and hilarious.

By the way, did you hear that Trump is requesting the Death Certificate of Bin Laden? :D Ahh gotta love the joke that is Trump.

edit. This is the exact quote...

"Donald Trump is here tonight," said Obama. "Now, I know that he's taken some flak lately but no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald. And that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like, 'Did we fake the moon landing?' 'What really happened in Roswell?' And 'Where are Biggie and Tupac?'"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/54016.html#ixzz1LCR5a3cn
 
Last edited:
Hink_Planner said:
I love the jokes that President Obama had about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner. Topical, and hilarious.

By the way, did you hear that Trump is requesting the Death Certificate of Bin Laden? :D Ahh gotta love the joke that is Trump.
Click to expand...

Especially when he showed a "video" of his birth - the clip from the Lion King...:D Trump wasn't smiling, imagine that.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
Looks like one of the republican Assembly (correction made) seats in Wisconsin got flipped from republican t democrat.
Click to expand...
That was a swing seat in the far western part of the state, previously held by an 'R' who was appointed to Gov. Walker's cabinet. Two other similar open seats (incumbent 'R's also appointed to Walker's cabinet) in suburban Milwaukeeland were filled by 'R's, both with about 75% of the vote, in Tuesday's special election.

The party balance in the Wisconsin State Assembly is now 59 R, 38 D, 1 I and 1 vacant.

As of now, my sense on the pending state Senate recall attempts is that one Republican (he is in the La Crosse area, where that Assembly seat flipped) and two Democrats (one in the Green Bay area and the other in the Kenosha area) are in SERIOUS trouble, while a couple of other attempts on both sides just failed due to lack of petition signatures.

Mike
 
imaplanner said:
Hate to tell you this. But NOBODY cares what McCain says or thinks. That includes Hannity and other nutty righties. I don't even think his family cares what he thinks or says anymore.
Click to expand...

I think on Foreign Policy there are few that are more knowledgeable. I think he has been a great mind (except for 2007-2010 when he went un-maverick) that at least has experiences to match his rhetoric.

I can SAY lots of things. But that doesn't mean it happened or is correct. I think many in both parties respect Mr. McCain's foreign policy credentials.
 
Hink_Planner said:
I think on Foreign Policy there are few that are more knowledgeable. I think he has been a great mind (except for 2007-2010 when he went un-maverick) that at least has experiences to match his rhetoric.

I can SAY lots of things. But that doesn't mean it happened or is correct. I think many in both parties respect Mr. McCain's foreign policy credentials.
Click to expand...

I think they did. He's gone senile.
 
Looks like RomneyCare is coming back to Romney now, and the idea that it's simply federalism isn't being bought by conservatives (never thought it would be, personally).

From the National Review:

Romney’s second gambit was to plead federalism. His plan was a valid exercise of state legislative discretion, not an attempt by the federal government to reshape the health-care industry nationally. His own federal plan — a collection of mainstream-conservative policy ideas that most of his intra-party critics would applaud — would be less intrusive. There is something to the state/federal distinction, obviously. There is no constitutional case against the Massachusetts plan, for example.

But when conservatives argue that Obamacare is a threat to the economy, to the quality of health care, and to the proper balance between government and citizenry, we do not mean that it should be implemented at the state level. We mean that it should not be implemented at all. And Romney’s health-care federalism is wobbly. The federal government picked up a fifth of the cost of his health-care plan. His justification for the individual mandate also lends itself naturally toward federal imposition of a mandate. He says that the state had to make insurance compulsory to prevent cost shifting, because federal law requires hospitals to treat all comers, insured or not. But if federal law is the source of a national problem, it makes no sense to advocate a state-by-state solution.
Click to expand...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267142/powerpoint-failure-editors
 
CJC said:
Looks like RomneyCare is coming back to Romney now, and the idea that it's simply federalism isn't being bought by conservatives (never thought it would be, personally).

From the National Review:



http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267142/powerpoint-failure-editors
Click to expand...


Ive seen a video of Romney from 2007 actually specifically saying the Individual Mandate should be a federal thing. I can't post find vieos from my work computer though.

I've recently read policy speeches from Newt where he also backed a federal individual mandate.

Even George W. Bush once toyed with the idea and I wouldn't be surprised if his budget director Mitch Daniels is on record somewhere supporting it.

Given that the individual mandate has always been a republican idea, generally used whenever someone proposed single-payer, I wouldn't be surprised if more possible republican presidential candidates are on record supporting it. People are out there scanning documents, transcripts, videos, etc. to find them.
 
While you on the left were all looking for more ways to ridicule and put down the other side, another one of yours just announced that he's retiring - USSenator Herb Kohl (D-WI) will not seek a fifth term in 2012.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121787173.html

This is a seat that can very easily flip to the 'R's. The strongest Republican who I can see is former USHouse Rep. Mark Neumann (R - WI 1, Paul Ryan's current seat) while the only Democrat on the radar screen is recently defrocked USSenator Russ Feingold. If Feingold declines to run, the Democrat side would be wide open with no statewide-familiar names as clear favorites.

Other Republicans being mentioned include Paul Ryan (I do not see him running, he is too comfortable in the USHouse and may be in line to head the Ways and Means Committee should he retain his seat in 2012) and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.

My read on the early line? It's Neumann's seat to lose.

This news also has implications on the potential of the Democrats making an attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker in 2012 and the very real likelihood that Wisconsin will be one of THE battleground states for the 2012 Presidential election - will the Democrats want to spend all of the money needed to mount strong campaigns for all three in one year and will they be able to find TWO people on their side with the ability to win statewide?

Mike
 
Huckle-Buck

Huckabee announced last night on his Fox program that he is not a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. Last night was the first time I watched his program. Ted Nugent was on and they jammed together on "Cat Scratch Fever". Being able to play the electric ge-tar should be accomplishment enough to win the Presidency.

Frankly.....interesting guy but not a viable candidate anyway.

Plus, since he is from Arkansas he will have trouble finding his birth certificate.

:-c;);):D

Bear
 
Bear Up North said:
Huckabee announced last night on his Fox program that he is not a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. Last night was the first time I watched his program. Ted Nugent was on and they jammed together on "Cat Scratch Fever". Being able to play the electric ge-tar should be accomplishment enough to win the Presidency.

Frankly.....interesting guy but not a viable candidate anyway.

Plus, since he is from Arkansas he will have trouble finding his birth certificate.

:-c;);):D

Bear
Click to expand...

This is a good thing. Now maybe he (and his religious right followers) can take their issues and keep them out of the important issues for a while. We shall see how long that lasts.

I think he chose not to run because this election isn't about social issues. It is about fiscal issues and he isn't strong there. Also, he is paid a lot of money to spew idiot drivel 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year. Why would you trade that for the pressure and responsibility of the presidency?
 
Hink_Planner said:
I think he chose not to run because this election isn't about social issues. It is about fiscal issues and he isn't strong there. Also, he is paid a lot of money to spew idiot drivel 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year. Why would you trade that for the pressure and responsibility of the presidency?
Click to expand...

Maybe that gig isn't as secure as we think. They got rid of Beck.;)<:D
 
Last edited:
Does Newt think he has a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the Republican nod? Ethics investigation, maritial infidelities and three divorces. He cheated on his second wife with his current third wife for six years (fitting First Lady, or is it Third Lady, material?) Would they have to change the title - she hasn't exactly acted like a lady?

The both of them are skanks.
 
otterpop said:
Does Newt think he has a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the Republican nod? Ethics investigation, maritial infidelities and three divorces. He cheated on his second wife with his current third wife for six years (fitting First Lady, or is it Third Lady, material?) Would they have to change the title - she hasn't exactly acted like a lady?

The both of them are skanks.
Click to expand...

Plus he ditched wife #1 while she was undergoing cancer treatment, and wife #2 shortly after she was diagnosed with MS. And let's not forget about his resistence to paying ailimony and child support, despite prior statements that a man that doesn't support his children is a bum. In politics, a profession full of hypocrites, he ranks among the worst offenders. This will keep social conservatives (or even just regular people given how aggregious the hypocrisy was) away from him. The fact that he was the first house speaker in history to be disciplined for ethics violations will haunt him with reform-minded republicans, TEA partiers and fiscal conservatives. He simply is not a viable candidate.

The Republicans seem to be having difficulty finding an opponent to Obama capable of bringing him down. Depending on how the economy plays out (the one major variable that doesn't match 1996), this may shape up quite similar to Clinton-Dole.
 
Last edited:
Suburb Repairman said:
The Republicans seem to be having difficulty finding an opponent to Obama capable of bringing him down. Depending on how the economy plays out (the one major variable that doesn't match 1996), this may shape up quite similar to Clinton-Dole.
Click to expand...

I honestly feel the republicans will not be able to offer up any viable candidate that can bind the party together. A 3rd party "tea-party" candidate will emerge and will split the vote handing the democrats another 4 years in the WH. Mark my words.
 
Planit said:
C'mom. Newt's a sociopath He doesn't think the rules apply to him. :D
Click to expand...
FTFY

For Newt it's all going to come down to what happens in South Carolina. They have an early primary and their isn't a Rockefeller Republican voter left in the state. If the Christian moralizers and authoritarians, and Tea Partiers pick him over Romney then he has a chance of going all the way. To me this would mean a few things:
1) He'd probably perform better in debates than any of the other potential candidates.
2) It marks the end of the modern GOP as a viable nation-wide party for a while to come. This is true with Newt and any of the other far right candidates.
3) He and the others running know they don't have a snowball's chance of winning in 2012. But they realize there's a lot of money to be made from book deals and speaking engagements after the fact.
 
mgk920 said:
While you on the left were all looking for more ways to ridicule and put down the other side, another one of yours just announced that he's retiring - USSenator Herb Kohl (D-WI) will not seek a fifth term in 2012.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121787173.html

This is a seat that can very easily flip to the 'R's. The strongest Republican who I can see is former USHouse Rep. Mark Neumann (R - WI 1, Paul Ryan's current seat) while the only Democrat on the radar screen is recently defrocked USSenator Russ Feingold. If Feingold declines to run, the Democrat side would be wide open with no statewide-familiar names as clear favorites.

Other Republicans being mentioned include Paul Ryan (I do not see him running, he is too comfortable in the USHouse and may be in line to head the Ways and Means Committee should he retain his seat in 2012) and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.

My read on the early line? It's Neumann's seat to lose.

This news also has implications on the potential of the Democrats making an attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker in 2012 and the very real likelihood that Wisconsin will be one of THE battleground states for the 2012 Presidential election - will the Democrats want to spend all of the money needed to mount strong campaigns for all three in one year and will they be able to find TWO people on their side with the ability to win statewide?

Mike
Click to expand...
Update on this USSenate seat - USHouse Rep. Paul Ryan will NOT seek it. OTOH, a name that I thought had faded into the sunset may well be back with a vengeance - popular four-term former state Governor Tommy Thompson.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121996164.html

Assuming that he runs, Thompson has to now be regarded as the favorite to win it.

Mike
 
biscuit said:
He [Newt] and the others running know they don't have a snowball's chance of winning in 2012. But they realize there's a lot of money to be made from book deals and speaking engagements after the fact.
Click to expand...

The cynic in me is already viewing the Republican primary campaign as Book Tour 2012.
 
Bubba said:
The cynic in me is already viewing the Republican primary campaign as Book Tour 2012.
Click to expand...

I think many have taken what Sarah Palin has done, and run with it. They would be happy to make millions spewing whatever it is they think on any given day. Book deals, TV deals, and speaking fees, make a pretty good living for someone who isn't providing much of anything to the Nation.

To look at it from a Republican slant, it is funny that more people aren't using Reagan against many of the candidates. Reagan was a star, but didn't do the spotlight things. He focused on the policies and the Country, not himself. I don't think Reagan was that great of a president, but I respect his respect for our Country.

--------------------------

I also find it funny that not more Republicans will admit that the primary is going to create a huge fissure in the party. Either the R's side with the Religious Right - who is worried about pointless issues right now - and keep their voting base; or they vote with the Tea Party - who is interested in fiscal issues, which at least are reasonable to discuss - and keep the momentum they have as a party.

No matter which candidate that they pick, there WILL be a third party candidate. My guess is that Ron Paul will go at it alone when he loses the primary and pull 2% of the fiscal conservative / libertarian vote. It should be interesting :)
 
Everyone predicting the temporary demise of the GOP and labeling the current crop of candidates as the "Book Tour" or some such thing would be wise to not get too confident. Not that I disagree with your observations so far, but, as Yogi would say, "It ain't over til it's over." We have no idea what the next year and a half will bring.

So, valiant effort in trying to get out early and attempt to frame the entire context of the election before it even begins, but you're most likely jumping the gun here.
 
TexanOkie said:
Everyone predicting the temporary demise of the GOP and labeling the current crop of candidates as the "Book Tour" or some such thing would be wise to not get too confident. Not that I disagree with your observations so far, but, as Yogi would say, "It ain't over til it's over." We have no idea what the next year and a half will bring.
Click to expand...

Not sure what I would be confident in, but are you saying that you think it isn't true?
 
mgk920 said:
^^
Well, where was Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter in May, 1979?

Mike
Click to expand...

I was thinking more George H. W. Bush vs. Bill Clinton in May 1991.

Hink_Planner said:
Not sure what I would be confident in, but are you saying that you think it isn't true?
Click to expand...

Confident that the Democrats keeping the White House is in the bag and that the current GOP crop is complete and/or not able to reach a higher peak, in terms of political performance and campaigning, in the next 18 months.

My point is that it is too early to call the election, let alone the demise of the GOP.
 
TexanOkie said:
I was thinking more George H. W. Bush vs. Bill Clinton in May 1991.



Confident that the Democrats keeping the White House is in the bag and that the current GOP crop is complete and/or not able to reach a higher peak, in terms of political performance and campaigning, in the next 18 months.

My point is that it is too early to call the election, let alone the demise of the GOP.
Click to expand...

I don't think I did either. I said the current crop of candidates is more interested in face time than higher office - which I believe to be true; and that the primaries are going to create a fissure in the party - which it will. I don't think that rules out someone (like Huntsman or Bloomberg) coming in and finding common ground. I just don't see any of the current TV first, politics second, crowd winning the nomination, let alone the Presidency.

Do you disagree that the current crop is pretty weak? I would argue GHWB was more well known at the time as well as Reagan at the time, than anyone who has a shot in 2012. The known names in the 2012 race don't have a shot. So you are arguing that someone will come out of the woodwork and get the nomination?
 
mgk920 said:
^^
Well, where was Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter in May, 1979?

Mike
Click to expand...

Tho I'm not a Reagan fan, none of the current crop rise to his level, unless you feel comfortable compairing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan.8-!:lmao:

A couple of more thoughts: Mitch Daniels is the not the savior that the R's think he is. Just because he has ties to Bush and is the govenor of a samll. very conservative midwestern state, does not make him a good candidate. IMHO, he should stay in Indiana and work on Indiana's multitude of problems, some of which he caused. Case it point, he signed the bill defunding planned parenthood in the state. That's really not gonna fly in the general election.

I'd also agree it's way too early to call the election, or the demise of the R's. There is way too much afloat to keep them viable. The Citizens United case was a God send for them. The rift between the socially conservative and finacial conservatives has been brewing for some time and his hasn't caused any problems. However, I think the rift is strong enough to derail Romney again. When push comes to shove , the socially conservative R's will hold their noses and vote for the R's candidate. Tho, I don't think that can be said for the tea partiers.

The biggest problem the R's have are the tea partiers. Then unbending committment to their ideology will hurt the R's. The TPers already derailed several viable R candidates in the 2010 senate races.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Do you disagree that the current crop is pretty weak? I would argue GHWB was more well known at the time as well as Reagan at the time, than anyone who has a shot in 2012. The known names in the 2012 race don't have a shot. So you are arguing that someone will come out of the woodwork and get the nomination?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure TO was talking about Clinton in '91 coming on strong in the end, not GHWB ;)

GHWB was definitely more well known at the time, as he was the sitting pres :)
 
Hink_Planner said:
Do you disagree that the current crop is pretty weak? I would argue GHWB was more well known at the time as well as Reagan at the time, than anyone who has a shot in 2012. The known names in the 2012 race don't have a shot. So you are arguing that someone will come out of the woodwork and get the nomination?
Click to expand...

I think the current crop has been week thus far, but that's no guarantee that they'll stay that way. It's still too early to tell. Some of them already in the mix might have a chance, whether through their own doing or through some external forces that play into their favor, or some [un]holy combo. However, the election campaign really hasn't started yet, other than Fox News being an attention whore trying to have a debate this early, and it's still too early to say that anyone is out of contention at this point aside from some philosophical outliers like Ron Paul.
 
TexanOkie said:
. However, the election campaign really hasn't started yet,....
Click to expand...

Presidential election seasons start damn early here in NH. The local news started "election 2012" coverage within months of Obama's election in '08.

There isn't a local newscast or newspaper that isn't covering presidential primary politics as a top story every day...
 
CJC said:
Pretty sure TO was talking about Clinton in '91 coming on strong in the end, not GHWB ;)

GHWB was definitely more well known at the time, as he was the sitting pres :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I was referring to. In May 1991, George H. W. Bush was the sitting president with a 75% approval rating thanks in large part to the recent completion the unabashedly victorious Operation Desert Storm.

18 months later he was a lame duck and defeated by Bill Clinton, and Clinton didn't even announce his candidacy for president until October '91.
 
TexanOkie said:
Yes, that is what I was referring to. In May 1991, George H. W. Bush was the sitting president with a 75% approval rating thanks in large part to the recent completion the unabashedly victorious Operation Desert Storm.

18 months later he was a lame duck and defeated by Bill Clinton, and Clinton didn't even announce his candidacy for president until October '91.
Click to expand...

But does Clinton win without Perot entering the race?

Just goes to show that, yes, things are so very unpredictable.
 
CJC said:
Pretty sure TO was talking about Clinton in '91 coming on strong in the end, not GHWB ;)

GHWB was definitely more well known at the time, as he was the sitting pres :)
Click to expand...

I meant Clinton...lol. I know what I meant. Why didn't you? ;):D
 
btrage said:
But does Clinton win without Perot entering the race?

Just goes to show that, yes, things are so very unpredictable.
Click to expand...

Interesting article from a year ago about the Tea Party and Ross Perot's 1992 presidential campaign, from the Washington Post: Don't be too quick to mistake tea party for Perot movement

Some interesting notes:
  • In 1992, 53 percent of those who backed Perot for president described themselves as moderate, with 27 percent calling themselves conservative and 20 percent liberal, according to the exit polls. Perhaps we'll never know whether or not Clinton would have won without Perot.
  • More than two in three Perot voters in 1992 called themselves Democrats or independents.
 
TexanOkie said:
Interesting article from a year ago about the Tea Party and Ross Perot's 1992 presidential campaign, from the Washington Post: Don't be too quick to mistake tea party for Perot movement

Some interesting notes:
  • In 1992, 53 percent of those who backed Perot for president described themselves as moderate, with 27 percent calling themselves conservative and 20 percent liberal, according to the exit polls. Perhaps we'll never know whether or not Clinton would have won without Perot.
  • More than two in three Perot voters in 1992 called themselves Democrats or independents.
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing Perot supporters to present day Tea Partiers. Back in '91, there were probably a lot of Democrats (especially in the south and the "Reagan Democrats") who would have voted for GHWB, who would be considered liberal in today's political atmosphere.

My point was who could have predicted the Perot phenomenon in the first place.
 
Bear Up North said:
Huckabee announced last night on his Fox program that he is not a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. Last night was the first time I watched his program. Ted Nugent was on and they jammed together on "Cat Scratch Fever". Being able to play the electric ge-tar should be accomplishment enough to win the Presidency.

Frankly.....interesting guy but not a viable candidate anyway.

Plus, since he is from Arkansas he will have trouble finding his birth certificate.

:-c;);):D

Bear
Click to expand...

Check out my FB to see Gov. Huckabee jamming just last week with a particular horn band to remain nameless.
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55365.html

It seems that social issues aren't favoring the religious right. Which could spell trouble for GOPers that try and hug the base.

The interesting part of the study is that R's haven't changed over a year, D's are at 69%, and the most important Independents are at 59 percent, up 10 points from last year.

I would say that by next year this will be something that everyone but R's support. If they don't shed the religious right, they are going to have "value" voters, but not the "moral majority" they always get.
 
Back
Top