Current Events in US Politics Chatter Thread for November - Page 4 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Current Events in US Politics Chatter Thread for November

...

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

11-11-2008 , 07:48 PM

#76

Barretboy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 7,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackWhite

On CNN they are discussing the possibility of Obama using left over general election funds to pay off Hillary Clinton's debt. I understand the desire to continue to heal old wounds from the primary, but that would be so wrong, considering she accumulated some of those debts by continuing a campaign that had no chance. If I was an Obama supporter/contributor, this would piss me off big time.

Or, you know, he could just give it back to the people who gave it to him in the first place. Or put it towards the national debt. Is that allowed?

11-11-2008 , 08:02 PM

#77

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackWhite

I think she earned it via her work for Obama in the GE. The scuttlebutt is that the debt other than her loans to the campaign (which she has written off) will be the target of an Obama-led fundraising effort over the next few months.

11-11-2008 , 08:14 PM

#78

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

That CNN story doesn't make sense to me. I'm I recall hearing during the campaign that such a transfer would be illegal.

11-11-2008 , 08:44 PM

#79

JackWhite

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

That CNN story doesn't make sense to me. I'm I recall hearing during the campaign that such a transfer would be illegal.

Wolf Blitzer and Gloria Borger (who both thought it was a good idea) said it was legal.

11-11-2008 , 09:07 PM

#80

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Bobby Jindal firing some warning shots across Palin's bow today on MSNBC saying something to the effect of "It's not personalities that will lead the GOP back to power but ideas. That's why we as Governors need to be out front talking about the innovative policy solutions that we are implementing in our states." You think he feels like a favorite in a debate with Palin over policy?

11-11-2008 , 09:07 PM

#81

Barretboy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 7,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Eagle

Jindal '12

11-11-2008 , 09:13 PM

#82

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Does Jindal really have a compelling case? All I really know about the guy is the exorcism and his hard line on social issues. Is there any reason for a fiscal conservative to vote for the guy other than the R after his name?

11-12-2008 , 03:25 PM

#83

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

another idea floating around that I can only hope will never come to be:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/oba...tion-charging/

Quote:

The new programs would be paid for with massive new tax hikes, including a per-mile driving tax that would begin with “proof of concept” trials as early as 2010. The tax would initially be one cent per mile to generate an estimated $32.4b a year. An extra one cent per gallon in the federal gasoline tax would generate another $1.8b, and a national sales tax on cars of one percent would generate $7.6b.

“With this historic election, AASHTO is optimistic that the new administration can help to foster the political will necessary to bridge the gap between today’s transportation needs and the transportation system we must build for tomorrow,” the group said in a statement.

Tax cuts for everyone! JUST KIDDING!

11-12-2008 , 03:45 PM

#84

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

Does this mean you like or dislike Matthews?

Well, I might like Chris Matthews' off-air personality, but Chris Matthews the TV personality comes off as a boorish clod. Of course, I don't know the distance between Chris Matthews the obnoxious TV personality (some of which I readily admit may be a lot of shtick) from what Chris Matthews actually thinks and believes, but as I said, if the Real Chris Matthews is anything like TV Chris Matthews, I'd probably just rather Specter keep his seat. Aside from the two Maine Senators, Specter is the zomg most liberal Republican in the Senate. He's often a more dependable vote for some of the Democratic agenda than some of the Democratic senators.

This doesn't mean Specter is perfect -- his pandering to PA football fans by endlessly hand-wringing and threatening investigations and blah blah over Spygate was lol, but again, we're all aware of game theory here, and if it's Specter vs. anything resembling Chris Matthews as portrayed on TV, I'd cast my lot with Specter.

Last edited by DVaut1; 11-12-2008 at 04:04 PM.

11-12-2008 , 03:47 PM

#85

zer0

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,835

lobbyists in white house more likely than you think

11-12-2008 , 03:50 PM

#86

istewart

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 15,910

Q: IIRC, Nate's final Senate seat projection was 57.x -- right? Wasn't this lowballing it considering that it's 57-40 now and he had Begich as a virtual lock (and Franken as a coinflip)? Or am I doing something wrong?

Last edited by istewart; 11-12-2008 at 03:51 PM. Reason: Frankenstein imo

11-12-2008 , 03:51 PM

#87

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

Can someone explain to me, how California, the fricken liberalist state ever, the passed an amendment to ban gay marriage? And don't they realize the US supreme court will obviously over-rule it, as it should? What is going on there?

11-12-2008 , 04:12 PM

#88

istewart

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 15,910

LUNTZ:

Quote:

Frank Luntz, kicking off an RGA panel session looking back at '08, promised candor -- and then delivered.

Quote:

Noting that Obama has an email list of 10 million voters, Luntz said that coalition "makes him and his supporters the most powerful special interest group in all of America."

"He's got 10 million names and our candidate doesn’t know how to use this," Luntz continues, holding up his BlackBerry in the air. "There is a problem there."

11-12-2008 , 04:20 PM

#89

The 13th 4postle

banned

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

African-Americans are not so Liberal when it comes to gay rights. Barack Obama for President encouraged Black people to vote.

11-12-2008 , 04:25 PM

#90

Your Mom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 13,479

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

Black people do not like gays.

11-12-2008 , 04:27 PM

#91

bdk3clash

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6,559

Jon Kyl, then:

Quote:

My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President’s nominees. To that I say, I don’t think so, and even if true, I’m willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned. So I say to my friends: what you say we Republicans are losing is, in fact, no loss at all.

Jon Kyl, now:

Quote:

Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.

11-12-2008 , 04:35 PM

#92

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

You can go back to circa 3 years ago and find no less than hundreds indignant quotes from Republicans about those obstructionist Democrats and their incredible, radical use of the filibuster/threat of filibuster, and what a danger it was to democracy, and how the filibuster wasn't meant to be used so often by upstanding gentlemen in the Senate, that the filibuster was a greater threat to America than al-qaeda, blah blah meow chow.

11-12-2008 , 04:56 PM

#93

bdk3clash

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6,559

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

So many memories.

If this ever comes up here I'm going to respond exclusively via cutting and pasting from those threads.

11-12-2008 , 05:08 PM

#94

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

and the democrats will make the same flip.

11-12-2008 , 05:11 PM

#95

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

and the democrats will make the same flip.

Actually, I think they'll just twist a couple arms and get a cloture vote to pass.

11-12-2008 , 05:12 PM

#96

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

well if the get 60 or 59 yeah, 58 will be a lot harder.

11-12-2008 , 05:32 PM

#97

Barcalounger

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,456

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

and the democrats will make the same flip.

I'll lay some cash down that the Democrats never seriously discuss "nuking" the filibuster process.

11-12-2008 , 05:36 PM

#98

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barcalounger

I'll lay some cash down that the Democrats never seriously discuss "nuking" the filibuster process.

It'd be impossible to do... what does seriously mean exactly? Even the republicans only really tried to remove filibusters related to judges, not every filibuster.

11-12-2008 , 05:47 PM

#99

Barcalounger

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,456

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

It'd be impossible to do... what does seriously mean exactly? Even the republicans only really tried to remove filibusters related to judges, not every filibuster.

Then what did you mean by the democrats flipping on the issue if it wasn't "adopt the stance the Republicans took when in the majority"?