Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 08:43:38 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 348
1  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Good Post Gallery II on: Today at 08:08:01 am
Short, but it belongs here more than the simple truths silvermine, IMO.

Context (although it still works pretty well out of context):
this fetishization of trolls is why we have such a huge problem with them
2  Forum Community / Election and History Games / Re: Clash of Kings, an ASOIAF Game (The End) on: Today at 08:05:04 am
This was just as brilliant as it could have been, coming from you, Lumine. This whole game was incredibly fun, and I hope we will have a similar one to come sometime, maybe setting off after the actions of this one - exploration of Sothoryos, new Valyrian Empire, Others, Reform of the Faith... This all seems like a good point to start with next turn (though, to be fair, Sothoryos is a jungle continent far from Westeros... More logically would be the exploration of the New western continent, as found by the lords of the lonely light (see AFOC Kingsmoot and Lord Farwynd's promises), just as a nitpick)
Thank you for all you have done, Lumine, you have been amazing, and this is just the perfect way to end this. I can only congratulate you, Chapeau!

This although my vote for the next one would be at some early point in Robert's rebellion (before all the alliances were cemented, if possible).  But yeah, excellent work Lumine! Smiley  Playing this game was easily one of my favorite experiences on this forum.  Honestly, I was considering leaving around the time this started, but I had so much fun with this, I think I will stick around.  So again, great job Lumine and thanks for all the hard work.  After my experiences with Atlasia, I was skeptical about forum games, but it was really a privilege to play this.  Btw, thanks to everyone else who played for helping make this so fun!  Sorry if I either directly or indirectly got you killed (sort of Wink ) and congrats to Antonio and unknown on killing me Tongue
3  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Well, does the Florida Democratic Party blow another one (through Crist?) on: August 31, 2014, 11:54:00 am
They need to get their GOTV act together in the Gold Coast and invest in candidate recruitment at the local level.  The Ohio Democratic Party has a similar problem.  You can't just invest in rising stars once they've been elected to the State House.  They need to invest in people with potential who run for things like Mayor, City Council, County Sheriff/Commissioner/Auditor/Treasurer/Prosecutor, and city school board.  Then those folks can be groomed to run for state house and maybe even state senate down the road.  You build a bench from the bottom up, not the top down.  Additionally, well-liked local electeds are usually better candidates than random out-of-district folks with higher early name ID.   Lastly, anyone who helped cause the second FL-13 fiasco (forcing out Sykes) should be sacked, IMO.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - August 2014 on: August 31, 2014, 06:10:34 am
Portman Sad
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: MO-GOV 2016: McCaskill run? on: August 31, 2014, 06:08:43 am
Koster would wipe the floor with her in the primary.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread on: August 30, 2014, 07:59:48 pm

Kasich was never going to run, as much as he wanted too.  If he did, he'd get demolished.  On the other hand, Portman may well run and if he is the nominee, I could definitely see him beating Hillary Clinton, O'Malley, etc.  He's not unbeatable or anything and isn't even unbeatable in Ohio, but a Portman candidacy would scare me infinitely more than Jeb, Christie, Rand, grumpy SoCon candidate #83, Rubio, etc.  He'd be an extremely electable candidate and comes across as a pretty reasonable guy despite being quite right-wing (particularly on economic issues).  Plus the gay marriage thing will give him tons of Moderate Hero cred.  Thankfully, I doubt he can make it through the primaries (although far from impossible given that the big business wing always beats the SoCon wing when the two have their quad-annual clash during the GOP Presidential primaries), but if he does, he's got at least 50-50 odds against any of the Democrats being talked about.

Someone who supports gay marriage will never be able to win a GOP primary in 2016, no matter how much establishment support they have. 2020 or 2024, perhaps.

Name me one time where the big business wing has not been able to get any of its candidates that cycle the Republican Presidential nomination because of SoCon opposition.  Santorum, Bachmann, Robertson, Buchanan, Huckabee, etc, etc all had their moments, but ultimately lost.  Even George W. Bush was closer to the big business wing than the SoCon wing when you really think about it.

They preferred Giuliani and Romney to McCain. It's true Romney won next cycle despite his Mormonism but there were other factors and no reason to think Portman would do as well in 16. Also no reason to think Kasich will stay out if Portman wants to run.

But McCain was still infinitely closer to them than the SoCons.
7  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Blanche Lincoln on: August 30, 2014, 04:17:03 pm
HP, but not too horrible.  We don't want to get too radical here, although a little radicalism can sometimes be a good thing.
8  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Wind Rising: Predict Teachout's Total % of the Vote on: August 30, 2014, 02:08:14 pm
I actually think Wu wins 53-47%.  As for the State Senate, Liu will definitely win and Klein probably will too Sad (although a Koppel upset is still possible).
9  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would George Wallace have signed the Civil Rights Act? on: August 30, 2014, 02:01:21 pm
Of course not, Wallace went over to the dark side after he lost that first gubernatorial campaign.  Btw, signing the civil rights act was a major political risk in the short-term.  And even if it weren't, no matter how loathe certain True Leftists are to admit it, Johnson deserves a great deal of credit for its passage.  Also the idea that Johnson's actual views on civil rights were the ones he had as Senator rather than when he became President is pretty ridiculous.  I know some folks like everyone to be neatly divided into clear FFs and clear HPs, but Johnson really was almost exactly at the intersection of the two and overall he probably did more good than bad (which isn't to downplay the fact that he did some pretty awful stuff).
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: LA and NC 2014 Congressional Races on: August 30, 2014, 12:45:12 pm
Landrieu is probably toast if she wasn't already.  Fortunately, Hagan and Pryor look like they'll win at this point Smiley

This is sarcastic? Tongue

Nope Sad

She was in trouble before this due and needed everything to go right, this is a pretty big deal as Roberts and Luger have proven and it'll do more than she can afford.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC response to Rand Paul's op-ed on: August 30, 2014, 11:57:18 am
Quote
This morning, Rand Paul ran an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he laid out his troubling foreign policy worldview.

Below please find a response from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin to Paul’s vision:

“It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of “blame America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be – The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”

http://factivists.democrats.org/dnc-response-to-rand-pauls-troubling-wsj-op-ed/

This might piss some leftists off.

If you take out all the references to Rand Paul, it's absolutely impossible to not mistake this for what the Neo-cons said during the Bush years.





Disgusting, although not as awful as the Democrats who opposed the Iraq War, but will suddenly discover their inner neo-con if Hillary is nominated.

Biden, Reid, Harkin, Kerry, Edwards, Dorgan, Cantwell, and Kohl all voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Are they all neocons as well? It's not as though Hillary is the only one (either in terms of politicians or regular citizens) who flip flopped on this issue, as it used to have overwhelming support.

She's not a neo-con just because she supported the Iraq War (and still refuses to acknowledge it was a mistake).  I'm talking about her entire foreign policy record.  Also, I'm not sure that John Edwards is someone who want to be comparing Hillary to when you defend her Tongue  As for the Senators you mentioned, obviously most of them aren't (although Biden is definitely a liberal interventionist which has some significant overlap with neo-conservatism).  However, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein, and Bayh arguably are to varying degrees (especially the first two) and they also voted for the Iraq War.  Additionally, many of the Democrats who supported it were conservaDems like Landrieu, Breaux, Nelson (NE), Miller, Lincoln, Carper, etc.  I can't imagine why you left them out.  Surely you weren't cherry-picking names Roll Eyes

That is incorrect.  In her book Clinton says:

Quote
"When I voted to authorize force in 2002, I said that it was 'probably the hardest decision I had to make.'  I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had.  And I wasn't alone is getting it wrong.  But I still got it wrong."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-wrong-article-1.1819012



Fair enough, she finally acknowledged it was a mistake, but doesn't seem to have learned anything from it and remains as much neo-con today as she was then.  
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nobody noticed, but Hillary Clinton made the boldest comments on Ferguson/race on: August 30, 2014, 11:53:47 am
Better late, then never.  The real test is whether she actually supports or introduces legislation to seriously address the issues.  Talk is cheap, especially talk about addressing institutional problems.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread on: August 30, 2014, 11:47:31 am

Kasich was never going to run, as much as he wanted too.  If he did, he'd get demolished.  On the other hand, Portman may well run and if he is the nominee, I could definitely see him beating Hillary Clinton, O'Malley, etc.  He's not unbeatable or anything and isn't even unbeatable in Ohio, but a Portman candidacy would scare me infinitely more than Jeb, Christie, Rand, grumpy SoCon candidate #83, Rubio, etc.  He'd be an extremely electable candidate and comes across as a pretty reasonable guy despite being quite right-wing (particularly on economic issues).  Plus the gay marriage thing will give him tons of Moderate Hero cred.  Thankfully, I doubt he can make it through the primaries (although far from impossible given that the big business wing always beats the SoCon wing when the two have their quad-annual clash during the GOP Presidential primaries), but if he does, he's got at least 50-50 odds against any of the Democrats being talked about.

Someone who supports gay marriage will never be able to win a GOP primary in 2016, no matter how much establishment support they have. 2020 or 2024, perhaps.

Name me one time where the big business wing has not been able to get any of its candidates that cycle the Republican Presidential nomination because of SoCon opposition.  Santorum, Bachmann, Robertson, Buchanan, Huckabee, etc, etc all had their moments, but ultimately lost.  Even George W. Bush was closer to the big business wing than the SoCon wing when you really think about it.

Well, a lot of that would be because the "business candidate" didn't actually disagree with the SoCon wing on anything substantial. The only thing the SoCons didn't like was the lack of emphasis on their issues, not that they didn't support them. The fact that Portman directly goes against them on such a crucial and hot button issue, an issue that SoCons are currently panicked because they're losing, would cause their backlash against him to be immense and unprecedented. As of now, a pro-gay marriage Republican winning a primary is about as likely as a pro-choice one winning a primary, meaning: not a chance in hell. Now, for gay marriage, that could (and probably will) change in the future. But for right now, it isn't gonna happen.

We'll see...
14  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: On a scale of 0 to 10...(rate the preceding poster) on: August 29, 2014, 11:19:46 pm
9
15  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1936 Primaries on: August 29, 2014, 08:17:27 pm
Vandenbergh/Borah

This, so long as the Unionists also run their own candidate.

This would be the Unionist ticket if it happens.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary vs. Generic R on: August 29, 2014, 07:39:58 pm
Generic R could easily beat Hillary (though she could also win), the problem is generic R can't win the nomination without going 2012 cycle Mitt Romney
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread on: August 29, 2014, 05:54:56 pm

Kasich was never going to run, as much as he wanted too.  If he did, he'd get demolished.  On the other hand, Portman may well run and if he is the nominee, I could definitely see him beating Hillary Clinton, O'Malley, etc.  He's not unbeatable or anything and isn't even unbeatable in Ohio, but a Portman candidacy would scare me infinitely more than Jeb, Christie, Rand, grumpy SoCon candidate #83, Rubio, etc.  He'd be an extremely electable candidate and comes across as a pretty reasonable guy despite being quite right-wing (particularly on economic issues).  Plus the gay marriage thing will give him tons of Moderate Hero cred.  Thankfully, I doubt he can make it through the primaries (although far from impossible given that the big business wing always beats the SoCon wing when the two have their quad-annual clash during the GOP Presidential primaries), but if he does, he's got at least 50-50 odds against any of the Democrats being talked about.

Someone who supports gay marriage will never be able to win a GOP primary in 2016, no matter how much establishment support they have. 2020 or 2024, perhaps.

Name me one time where the big business wing has not been able to get any of its candidates that cycle the Republican Presidential nomination because of SoCon opposition.  Santorum, Bachmann, Robertson, Buchanan, Huckabee, etc, etc all had their moments, but ultimately lost.  Even George W. Bush was closer to the big business wing than the SoCon wing when you really think about it.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC response to Rand Paul's op-ed on: August 29, 2014, 05:51:35 pm
Quote
This morning, Rand Paul ran an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he laid out his troubling foreign policy worldview.

Below please find a response from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin to Paul’s vision:

“It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of “blame America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be – The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”

http://factivists.democrats.org/dnc-response-to-rand-pauls-troubling-wsj-op-ed/

This might piss some leftists off.

If you take out all the references to Rand Paul, it's absolutely impossible to not mistake this for what the Neo-cons said during the Bush years.





Disgusting, although not as awful as the Democrats who opposed the Iraq War, but will suddenly discover their inner neo-con if Hillary is nominated.

Biden, Reid, Harkin, Kerry, Edwards, Dorgan, Cantwell, and Kohl all voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Are they all neocons as well? It's not as though Hillary is the only one (either in terms of politicians or regular citizens) who flip flopped on this issue, as it used to have overwhelming support.

She's not a neo-con just because she supported the Iraq War (and still refuses to acknowledge it was a mistake).  I'm talking about her entire foreign policy record.  Also, I'm not sure that John Edwards is someone who want to be comparing Hillary to when you defend her Tongue

Well, I mostly included him just because many people who endlessly criticize Hillary for the Iraq War vote were Edwards supporters in 2008.

I'm pretty sure most of them were Obama supporters, actually Tongue
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC response to Rand Paul's op-ed on: August 29, 2014, 05:31:39 pm
Quote
This morning, Rand Paul ran an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he laid out his troubling foreign policy worldview.

Below please find a response from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin to Paul’s vision:

“It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of “blame America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be – The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”

http://factivists.democrats.org/dnc-response-to-rand-pauls-troubling-wsj-op-ed/

This might piss some leftists off.

If you take out all the references to Rand Paul, it's absolutely impossible to not mistake this for what the Neo-cons said during the Bush years.





Disgusting, although not as awful as the Democrats who opposed the Iraq War, but will suddenly discover their inner neo-con if Hillary is nominated.

Biden, Reid, Harkin, Kerry, Edwards, Dorgan, Cantwell, and Kohl all voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Are they all neocons as well? It's not as though Hillary is the only one (either in terms of politicians or regular citizens) who flip flopped on this issue, as it used to have overwhelming support.

She's not a neo-con just because she supported the Iraq War (and still refuses to acknowledge it was a mistake).  I'm talking about her entire foreign policy record.  Also, I'm not sure that John Edwards is someone who want to be comparing Hillary to when you defend her Tongue  As for the Senators you mentioned, obviously most of them aren't (although Biden is definitely a liberal interventionist which has some significant overlap with neo-conservatism).  However, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein, and Bayh arguably are to varying degrees (especially the first two) and they also voted for the Iraq War.  Additionally, many of the Democrats who supported it were conservaDems like Landrieu, Breaux, Nelson (NE), Miller, Lincoln, Carper, etc.  I can't imagine why you left them out.  Surely you weren't cherry-picking names Roll Eyes
20  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: As of now, which race is more likely to be within six points? on: August 29, 2014, 05:28:29 pm
Neither
21  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Ernest on: August 29, 2014, 05:27:19 pm
Needs to stop talking about sex and rape.
22  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Time to feel old on: August 29, 2014, 05:20:58 pm
Wow, that really f[inks]ed me up.
23  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1936 Primaries on: August 29, 2014, 04:36:58 pm
Vandenbergh/Borah

I guess I can justify this as uniting to stop the interventionists, but I wouldn't allow something like Vandenbergh/FDR.  There has to be a legitimate ideological link for a Unionist/B-M ticket to be allowed.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC response to Rand Paul's op-ed on: August 29, 2014, 04:26:36 pm
Quote
This morning, Rand Paul ran an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he laid out his troubling foreign policy worldview.

Below please find a response from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin to Paul’s vision:

“It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of “blame America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be – The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”

http://factivists.democrats.org/dnc-response-to-rand-pauls-troubling-wsj-op-ed/

This might piss some leftists off.

If you take out all the references to Rand Paul, it's absolutely impossible to not mistake this for what the Neo-cons said during the Bush years.





Disgusting, although not as awful as the Democrats who opposed the Iraq War, but will suddenly discover their inner neo-con if Hillary is nominated.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread on: August 29, 2014, 04:23:00 pm

Good news. I like Portman, he seems to be the centrist sort of thinking person focused on development and providing quality government services rather than a paranoid right-winger.

I could see myself voting for Portman, though I disagree with your assessment that he's a centrist.

On economic issues, he definitely isn't.  I don't know that I'd even call him a centrist so much as someone who is great at sounding like a centrist.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 348


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines