• 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

Amazing that Rubio couldn't even win his home state. Of course, in restrospect if Gore would have won his home state we would have been spared Bush v. Gore so not a new phenomenon. Anyway, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the national offices of the Republican Party. That party is completely broken. It will really be interesting to see how they evolve over the next few years. Do they become more inclusive or do they run even further to the right and prey on fear? And I know that there are plenty of Republicans who are inclusive but perception is reality and we all know in general what the perception of the party is.
 
Amazing that Rubio couldn't even win his home state. Of course, in restrospect if Gore would have won his home state we would have been spared Bush v. Gore so not a new phenomenon. Anyway, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the national offices of the Republican Party. That party is completely broken. It will really be interesting to see how they evolve over the next few years. Do they become more inclusive or do they run even further to the right and prey on fear? And I know that there are plenty of Republicans who are inclusive but perception is reality and we all know in general what the perception of the party is.

Republicans will push HARD for a super delegate system similar to the Dems. They will want to protect their party from renegades like Trump.

Our BoC Chairman kept his spot tonight. No Dem. candidates against him so he's in. I was a little concerned about it. His opponent is a royal ass who doesn't like me one bit.
 
Well Ohio is at least not insane.

Can't say the same for Florida, Illinois, or North Carolina. Missouri is insane because they can't pick between Cruz or Trump.


---

Bernie is done. He knows it. Clinton has closed any door that might have even sort of been open. He needs to push to have his supporters side with Clinton if the D's want to win the election that matters.

Trump v. Clinton. This should be interesting. Here is to SNL killing it :)
 
He needs to push to have his supporters side with Clinton if the D's want to win the election that matters.

Trump v. Clinton. This should be interesting. Here is to SNL killing it :)

Won't happen. It's hardly about ideology with Sanders supporters, it's more about the character of Sanders v. Clinton. I'd say that maybe 20% of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton. The rest will go Trump or abstain from voting for a president at all.
 
Cruz beat Trump in my county, but Trump won the state. Clinton won both the county and the state. I think that Cruz is a better option than trump, but still not good in my book.

Several of the "FEEL THE BURN" supporters that I know are angry today and at least two of them said that they will be voting for Trump. More so, there was a ton more people who voted democrat than republican in my county with more than 40% voter turnout!

In terms of SNL, they have already been crushing the Trump v Hillary thing.
 
Won't happen. It's hardly about ideology with Sanders supporters, it's more about the character of Sanders v. Clinton. I'd say that maybe 20% of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton. The rest will go Trump or abstain from voting for a president at all.

Wow. If that is the case, I would be scared if I was the D's. Not sure how I can see someone voting for Sanders then moving to Trump. There is no nexus. Both are fairly crazy old white guys, but that is probably the only relationship. They are both kinda, but not really outsiders.

Otherwise they are opposites. Why would someone who is progressive vote for Trump? Because Hillary Clinton is morally awful? And Trump is better? This confuses me. I would bet most jump on the Clinton train as she is much more palatable to them then Trump.
 
Wow. If that is the case, I would be scared if I was the D's. Not sure how I can see someone voting for Sanders then moving to Trump. There is no nexus. Both are fairly crazy old white guys, but that is probably the only relationship. They are both kinda, but not really outsiders.

Otherwise they are opposites. Why would someone who is progressive vote for Trump? Because Hillary Clinton is morally awful? And Trump is better? This confuses me. I would bet most jump on the Clinton train as she is much more palatable to them then Trump.

Both Trump and Sanders are representing themselves as being outside the political establishment. I think there are more people who are sick and tired of politics as usual than those willing to vote for a member of their desired party and for many, that is enough.
 
Won't happen. It's hardly about ideology with Sanders supporters, it's more about the character of Sanders v. Clinton. I'd say that maybe 20% of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton. The rest will go Trump or abstain from voting for a president at all.

Not sure where you're getting your figures, but I suspect that percentage is significantly higher. Anecdotally, all of the Sanders supporters I know (one of whom I happen to live with) have told me they'll trudge out to the polls in November and unhappily pull the lever for HRC, as they do NOT want to see Trump win under any circumstances. Keep in mind this is a primary election right now, and not 'normal' voters.
 
Not sure where you're getting your figures, but I suspect that percentage is significantly higher. Anecdotally, all of the Sanders supporters I know (one of whom I happen to live with) have told me they'll trudge out to the polls in November and unhappily pull the lever for HRC, as they do NOT want to see Trump win under any circumstances. Keep in mind this is a primary election right now, and not 'normal' voters.

You're Wrong and you don't know what you're talking about! "Burn-ies" hate Clinton and will vote for Trump.










(Just Kidding, I was worried we are getting too civil in here) ;)

I know a lot of Sanders supporters, and there are still a lot of them that will just vote for the democrats on the ticket in November regardless of who the nominee is. The three that told me about it this morning are just angry and may be reacting to the results.
 
Not sure where you're getting your figures, but I suspect that percentage is significantly higher. Anecdotally, all of the Sanders supporters I know (one of whom I happen to live with) have told me they'll trudge out to the polls in November and unhappily pull the lever for HRC, as they do NOT want to see Trump win under any circumstances. Keep in mind this is a primary election right now, and not 'normal' voters.

I'm most certainly exaggerating the 20%. It's probably closer to 35-40 or so. There will be a handful (7-10 percent) who vote Trump, mostly because they are are pro Bernie because of the "anti-establishment" angle. I've heard of a fair amount who won't be voting at all, and I will most likely find myself in that camp if the vote comes down to Hillary v. Trump. I'll let the rest of America decide against evil v. evil.

Breaking news - Merrick Garland to be Obama's SCOTUS nominee. Currently the Chief Judge for the DC Appeals court. Formal nomination expected at 11.
 
The latest talk around here scares me. No one really wants Trump, but "there is no way they will vote D in their life". I'd rather you just didn't vote, but that seems to catch the midwest attitude, or at least Kansas.

I'm waiting for the next breaking news on the SCOTUS appointment, Congress jumps into action to block the appointment. Oh wait, that's not news.
 
We had a County Commissioner incumbent lose by 71 votes (13,088 vs 13,017). That was one of the two R primaries.

Very close, but it's the County so it doesn't affect my job, but we all interact alot.
 
I'm waiting for the next breaking news on the SCOTUS appointment, Congress jumps into action to block the appointment. Oh wait, that's not news.

Merrick Garland.

Other than his work on criminal prosecution of the OK City Bomber and the Unabomber, I don't know much about him. I can't find any information if he is pro-life or pro-choice and it sounds like he is 'liberal' on the second amendment.
 
So John Boehner comes out to endorse Paul Ryan as a presidential nominee. Wait...Ryan is not even running for president. BUT, he continued to say that it was only if a nominee didn't get a first ballot vote at the RNC. WOW, did he just spill the beans on the brokered convention tactics for the establishment?!?!?!?!?

We talked about this at lunch and came up with this scenario:
Brokered Convention (all but a given at this time)
Paul Ryan gets R nomination
The Donald kicks & screams and runs as a 3rd party
Hillary becomes the next president
 
He should get approved. But he most likely won't.

HRC will pick someone more liberal, and the R's will regret their stupid stand.

Agreed, at this point the Rs want to say okay, but still are delusional enough to think they can win the white house. Plus they said they would fight any nomination so even though they know this guy is the best they'll get they will still fight it out. There is just no way to save face when you provide absolute answers.

At this point I think HRC has it all wrapped up. There isn't an electable name in the GOP bunch. Maybe that Ohio guy.
 
He should get approved. But he most likely won't.

HRC will pick someone more liberal, and the R's will regret their stupid stand.

Yep. And the GOP will be further digging their grave by resisting. They could actually save some face by taking him through and approving--they desperately need some action to point to in order to show that they are grown ups. He is a good, experienced justice. Many from both sides consider him one of the brightest legal minds in the country. His opinions are typically quite clear & written eloquently. My conservative father likes him as well, although he has stated that he just cares that justices are smart, fair and base their opinions on legal grounds rather than ideological. He did not like Bork for that last reason.

I wonder if they might hold hearings in May, and then sit on this nomination until July to see if the convention is going to blow up their election chances. If it looks that way, then it is in their best interest to concur with the selection. Otherwise, a jacked-up GOP may end up losing a lot of Senate & House seats in addition to losing the Presidency, resulting in a Brennan 2.0 nomination from Clinton. Of course I wouldn't be too upset about that, but an awful lot of Republicans would be.

When it comes to judicial appointments, I'm a firm believer that the Senate is obligated to hold a hearing a approve the nominee unless there is some glaring issue, particularly if they are towards the ideological center. I don't like the judicial to have clear-cut ideological leanings--they should all be swing votes.
 
HRC will pick someone more liberal, and the R's will regret their stupid stand.

Do you really think that she will get elected? Granted I would be just as worried about Trump picking someone. But I do think that Trump will end up being the next president... and he is almost as scary as Hillary.
 
Do you really think that she will get elected? Granted I would be just as worried about Trump picking someone. But I do think that Trump will end up being the next president... and he is almost as scary as Hillary.

She cannot beat Trump. No way. IMO, Trump will be basically worthless as a President. He'll struggle doing anything domestically since both parties will be against him. The only dangerous issue to me would be foreign relations, but I think he'd be fairly conservative there and hold his tongue to protect his own business interests.
 
She cannot beat Trump. No way. IMO, Trump will be basically worthless as a President. He'll struggle doing anything domestically since both parties will be against him. The only dangerous issue to me would be foreign relations, but I think he'd be fairly conservative there and hold his tongue to protect his own business interests.

Trump hold his tongue.... did you just really post that? If there is one person who I think can't, it is him.

Otherwise I agree with your comment regarding the outcome of November. I don't think much of anything will get done over the next 4 years because you're right, no one will be willing to work with him.
 
Yep. And the GOP will be further digging their grave by resisting. ...

People in the media have been saying this too l but I don't see it having a negative impact on the GOP. The GOP shut down the government with no apparent consequences. The roughly 50% of the country who votes R will think "good, they're keeping Obama from appointing a liberal justice." Obstructionism hasn't really failed them yet in a meaningful way.
 
Do you really think that she will get elected? Granted I would be just as worried about Trump picking someone. But I do think that Trump will end up being the next president... and he is almost as scary as Hillary.

Yes I do. And by a fair bit. Trump v. Clinton will be 44-45% to 55-56% with Clinton winning.

I doubt Trump has much latino, muslim, or african-american voters. Disenfranchised old white people are not enough to win the election these days. You have to have youth and diversity. Trump has neither.
 
From CNN:


Washington (CNN) — President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, who is respected across political lines, to the Supreme Court Wednesday, in an epic power play targeting the resolve of Republicans who have vowed to block any replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia until a new president takes office.

GOP leaders, caught in the undertow of an election in which the conservative grass-roots are already in revolt, immediately renewed their refusal to consider Garland, 63, saying their reservations were not personal but motivated by a desire for the American people to weigh in on Scalia's replacement.

"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said Wednesday. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy."

McConnell spoke with Garland this afternoon by phone.

"Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House, the leader decided it would be more considerate of the nominee's time to speak with him today by phone," McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said. "And since the Senate will not be acting on this nomination, he would not be holding a perfunctory meeting, but he wished Judge Garland well."




This is so smug and full of sh!t. So the senate doesn't want to allow President Obama to do anything for the next 10 months?!!?!?

Oh that's right, they haven't wanted him to do anything over the last 7.2 years either. Hey but it was nice form McConnell to call Garland and say we like you but fcuk off.
 
UGH. I am sickened but not surprised in the least bit. I put my faith in Bernie because I wanted to have some hope. I saw people my age re-engaging in the political process and I had hope that maybe we would finally head in a more enlightened direction as a nation, despite knowing the odds were gargantuan.

I initially was into Howard Dean in '04. Than I supported Kerry in the mindset of "anyone but Bush". One year earlier, even in liberal New York, I was the only one in my 6th grade class to voice dissent against the Iraq War when it came up in social studies.

I considered myself a Teenage Anarchist in '08 and didn't partake in the Obama movement and instead protested the Wall Street bailout and the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. (I was also 5 months shy of being old enough to vote).

I held my nose in disgust and sendt in an absentee ballot for Comrade Barry in '12 while I was living in Montreal and participating in the (100,000+ strong, that got an election to be called) student movement there.

2016: I wanted to feel the Bern and see someone in the White House from that iconic 60s who didn't "sell out" like masses of boomers that betrayed the great society post-Reagan revolution.

But its not looking good right now. I will be one of those pragmatists that pulls the level for HRC in November, and I hope my fellow millennials do the same, sad to say.. The other option is just too great a risk.
 
When it comes to judicial appointments, I'm a firm believer that the Senate is obligated to hold a hearing a approve the nominee unless there is some glaring issue, particularly if they are towards the ideological center. I don't like the judicial to have clear-cut ideological leanings--they should all be swing votes.

I think that is the problem. Republicans think that they should replace Scalia with a Scalia. Which is the farthest from what should occur. Scalia was one of the most activist judges of the past 20 years. His opinion on the constitution was pretty clear. I would much rather have lots of Kennedy's, where at least you don't know that he will be 100% against certain things and 100% for other things.
 
I think that is the problem. Republicans think that they should replace Scalia with a Scalia. Which is the farthest from what should occur. Scalia was one of the most activist judges of the past 20 years. His opinion on the constitution was pretty clear. I would much rather have lots of Kennedy's, where at least you don't know that he will be 100% against certain things and 100% for other things.

Personally, I want to see the court stacked with Ruth Bader Ginsberg's and Sonia Sotomayors.
 
Anyone remember the Bill Hicks routine where he said that everyone elected president gets gathered into a room by the "real people in charge", shown the JFK assassination and then told what they need to do after that?

Anyways, I do not think that anyone elected will shift things to the extreme one way or the other. Could it be because they get a talking to on inauguration day? Or perhaps the job is way more daunting than they thought during the campaigns and spend the next 4-8 years trying to keep their heads above water.

We liberals thought everything was going to be great with Obama took office but then, I feel, who went to the center. Maybe someone talked to him about venturing too far away from the meaty center of the World Order Nougat....

Maybe when I am not tethered to my work computer, I'll try to find the Hicks thing to post.

EDIT: Maybe they're letting off some radiation here. Take this post for what you will...
 
The SCOTUS appointment and lack here of is an interesting example of how nothing with DC is absolute and past decisions could change. The original intent of SCOTUS was to be above politics but both sides have used it as a tool to manipulate opinions on the intent of the constitution to fit their agenda. We live in sad times when the corruption of DC is so bad and so out of control that people trust Donald F-ing Trump more than people who have been in the "game" for years.

I personally don't have the answers, but we as a society need to find a way to get special interests out of DC, get big money out of the political process, and demand that our elected leaders stop being politicians and start being statesmen. The sooner that happens, the better we all will be.
 
The SCOTUS appointment and lack here of is an interesting example of how nothing with DC is absolute and past decisions could change. The original intent of SCOTUS was to be above politics but both sides have used it as a tool to manipulate opinions on the intent of the constitution to fit their agenda. We live in sad times when the corruption of DC is so bad and so out of control that people trust Donald F-ing Trump more than people who have been in the "game" for years.

I personally don't have the answers, but we as a society need to find a way to get special interests out of DC, get big money out of the political process, and demand that our elected leaders stop being politicians and start being statesmen. The sooner that happens, the better we all will be.

Amen to that.

Im planning on high tailing it to Toulouse, France or Québec City if The Donald gets into the White House. Im willing to give up my Planning career at that point.
 
Anyone remember the Bill Hicks routine where he said that everyone elected president gets gathered into a room by the "real people in charge", shown the JFK assassination and then told what they need to do after that?

Anyways, I do not think that anyone elected will shift things to the extreme one way or the other. Could it be because they get a talking to on inauguration day? Or perhaps the job is way more daunting than they thought during the campaigns and spend the next 4-8 years trying to keep their heads above water.

We liberals thought everything was going to be great with Obama took office but then, I feel, who went to the center. Maybe someone talked to him about venturing too far away from the meaty center of the World Order Nougat....

Maybe when I am not tethered to my work computer, I'll try to find the Hicks thing to post.

EDIT: Maybe they're letting off some radiation here. Take this post for what you will...

I think that the gray hair of Bush and Obama shows that it isn't just an easy job. Although I wasn't a huge fan of Bush or Obama, I respect both, because, whether we know about things or not, they are dealing with a shit load of information at all times.

I think that the platitudes, and the same "sides" of arguments is why our country is broke. The idea that I have to support the republicans if I want a tax plan that doesn't tax the rich to kingdom come, is stupid. The idea that I have to support the democrats if I think women should have a right to choose what happens to their body, is stupid.

When support for topics is so tied to one "side" or the other, we lose sight of goals and objectives and just go for points. That is where we are at. We are winning and losing political points. We aren't doing what is best, or getting things done, because compromising gives away points.

The SC nominee is reasonable. Way more reasonable than Obama had to be. But if he were to be confirmed it would be points to the D's, and the R's won't let that happen.

We need to find a way to break up the D's and R's. I honestly think until we have people who aren't tied to those two establishment groups, we are in trouble. We need 5 major parties, who have different ideas and policy mixes. We need more transparency, and less money in politics. And we need less lawyers in congress. More real people who have ideas and live in the real world.
 
My question is how can DT "Make 'Merica Great Again" when the international reaction to the champaign is such, so what happens if DT wins ?

HEADLINE: Kremlin condemns Donald Trump pre-election clip for demonizing Russia
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uas-election-trump-russia-idUSKCN0WJ13O

HEADLINE: Democracy is a joke, says China – just look at Donald Trump
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-a-joke-says-china-just-look-at-donald-trump

HEADLINE: Donald Trump becoming next US president represents one of the top 10 risks facing the world, study claims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-one-10-risks-facing-world-study-claims.html
 
My question is how can DT "Make 'Merica Great Again" when the international reaction to the champaign is such, so what happens if DT wins ?

HEADLINE: Kremlin condemns Donald Trump pre-election clip for demonizing Russia
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uas-election-trump-russia-idUSKCN0WJ13O

HEADLINE: Democracy is a joke, says China – just look at Donald Trump
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-a-joke-says-china-just-look-at-donald-trump

HEADLINE: Donald Trump becoming next US president represents one of the top 10 risks facing the world, study claims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-one-10-risks-facing-world-study-claims.html

Maybe it's time that some states start considering secession again. This time Northern ones too.
 
I hear some Trump supporters are threatening to come to rallies armed in case protesters or rioters show up.

Here's hoping there is an accidental discharge in the direction of the orange haired guy at the podium. Unlike most people, he really does need another hole in his head.
 
Pray for Bruxelles

Another senseless attack in Europe.

This is the end result of the terror George W. Bush and the war-hawks (including Hillary) unleashed on the world in 2003. It is moments like this where I hang my head in shame as an American. I honestly dont believe ISIS and millions dead across the middle east would be the sad state of world affaires today if we hadn't gone and invaded Iraq.

And half the country wants Donald Trump to continue this wave of terror? Well I was there on 9/11 not knowing if my Father and Uncle were alive or not and I still stand by what I was thinking in 2003: Rocking a motherf****ng flag dont make you a hero, word to ground zero.

Pray for Brussells. But also for the innocent lives lost across the Middle East, from U.S. bombs and terrorist bullets, that the media values less than first world lives in Europe.

More war is not the answer.

Moderator note:

Maister: this is ultimately a political thread. We have the policy here on Cyburbia of consolidating most political-themed threads into the NEVERNDING Political thread. Carry on.
 
Terror in Belgium is evidently Obama's fault.

Thank you for that excellent analysis from the cuban-canadian.
 
I blame Woodrow Wilson. :r:


Fact is it happened and people died. It is tragic, but I question to what level we should get involved unless it is as part of a very broad coalition force.
 
It's okay, I'll take the blame. I shouldn't have been on a diplomatic mission to the library when this went down. I know I should be chained to my desk 24/7 to prevent future disasters.

Stupid political rhetoric.
 
It's okay, I'll take the blame. I shouldn't have been on a diplomatic mission to the library when this went down. I know I should be chained to my desk 24/7 to prevent future disasters.

Stupid political rhetoric.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.... G.I. Joe.
 
Fact is it happened and people died. It is tragic, but I question to what level we should get involved unless it is as part of a very broad coalition force.

I, for one, will be curious to see Europe's military reaction to this. Frankly, the US military shouldnt be involved at this point. I am tired of Europe sitting down and wringing their hands while we send in our troops.
 
I, for one, will be curious to see Europe's military reaction to this. Frankly, the US military shouldnt be involved at this point. I am tired of Europe sitting down and wringing their hands while we send in our troops.

I'm good with coalition troops, but let NATO take the lead on this one. It was an attack on one of our allies so I'll support them, but you take the lead, we've done enough leading and policing. I hate the Drumpf rhetoric, but there is something to be said for an isolationist policy.
 
there is something to be said for an isolationist policy.

This is why I was sad to see Rand Paul not get any momentum in the primaries. the only Republican I have any single shred of respect for, because he doesn't believe in leading the country down an endless rabbit hole of War.
 
I'm good with coalition troops, but let NATO take the lead on this one. It was an attack on one of our allies so I'll support them, but you take the lead, we've done enough leading and policing. I hate the Drumpf rhetoric, but there is something to be said for an isolationist policy.

I agree 100% I think we offer assistance, but that's it.
 
The Cuban-Canadian wants to put police patrols in Muslim neighborhoods.

Does this sound similar to putting German patrols in Jewish neighborhoods several decades ago?

No its not the same thing but seems eerily close.
 
Back
Top