1 1
ryoder

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead at 87

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, kallend said:

Silence does not imply assent in politics.  Please provide some PROOF that Obama in any way enabled the narrative in, say, the same way that Trump lied about Obama's birthplace.

FIFY

14 of Trump's most outrageous 'birther' claims -- half from after 2011

One has to be careful about feeding the trolls.But at least Brent seldom weasels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
5 hours ago, kallend said:

Silence does not imply assent in politics.  Please provide some PROOF that Obama in any way enabled the narrative in, say, the same way that Trump enabled a narrative about Obama's birthplace.

McCain took a proactive stance, pushing back against his base, to quash a negative narrative about his opponent. Result? He Lost.  Same w Romney.  Trump went to the Saul Alinsky school of politics.... result?  President Trump and three Supreme Court justices.  For that matter, Mitch McConnell sat at the foot of Harry Reid for years and learned all of the dirty tricks he is now employing. Congratulations, you reap what you sow.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

McCain took a proactive stance, pushing back against his base, to quash a negative narrative about his opponent. Result? He Lost.  Same w Romney.  Trump went to the Saul Alinsky school of politics.... result?  President Trump and three Supreme Court justices.  Congratulations, you reap what you sow.

Are you drunk posting again? I'm not against the practice, mind you, but that post was just dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
13 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Are you drunk posting again? I'm not against the practice, mind you, but that post was just dumb.

 I have been sitting around the fire with my neighbor; a liberal Democrat, college professor and good friend and yes we were drinking.  I must have had a few because I thought my post was brilliant:/

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

 I have been sitting around the fire with a liberal Democrat, college professor and good friend and yes we were drinking.  I must have had a few because I thought my post was brilliant:/

Give me a half hour, I'm sure I will, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

McCain took a proactive stance, pushing back against his base, to quash a negative narrative about his opponent. Result? He Lost. 

Bullshit. He lost because during the campaign he abandoned many of his principles, chose a nutcase for running mate and tried to chase 'the base' instead of the centre that he normally resonated so well with.

Quote

For that matter, Mitch McConnell sat at the foot of Harry Reid for years and learned all of the dirty tricks he is now employing. 

Except that when you try and find examples of Reid doing the things McConnell has done... not so much.

 

I don;t think anyone has done as much as McConnell to ensure that the various branches of American government do not represent the American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jakee said:

Bullshit. He lost because during the campaign he abandoned many of his principles, chose a nutcase for running mate and tried to chase 'the base' instead of the centre that he normally resonated so well with.

He was the darling of the press and was known as the “Maverick of the Senate” for going against his base.  A role that Romney now fills. He unsuccessfully tried to energize ‘the base’ w his VP pick.  Trump, on the other hand, demonstrated what can be done by energizing ‘the base’.  (He may just beat the odds again.  Here in PA Republican registrations are up 75k and Ds are down 50k)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is being in the Senate about getting elected President, or about trying to get stuff done in an environment where compromise can be both necessary and beneficial? Pandering to the "no compromise, ever" base doesn't help anyone.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

He was the darling of the press and was known as the “Maverick of the Senate” for going against his base.  A role that Romney now fills. He unsuccessfully tried to energize ‘the base’ w his VP pick. 

Exactly, that was his fuckup. He wasn't a fringe right populist but during his campaign he inexplicably succumbed to the advice that he should be. Just because Trump won by being Trump doesn't mean that's the only way. McCain could have won by being McCain. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jakee said:

He lost because during the campaign he abandoned many of his principles, chose a nutcase for running mate and tried to chase 'the base' instead of the centre that he normally resonated so well with.

Hi jakee,

^^^^ This

It is always interesting to me when our foreign friends know more about our elections than our own citizens do.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi jakee,

^^^^ This

It is always interesting to me when our foreign friends know more about our elections than our own citizens do.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi Jerry,

 

You have a good point.

Jakee is pretty smart and well informed. Not sure if he's representative of 'our foreign friends' or not.

He does have the advantage of being mostly a 'disinterested outsider'. He doesn't have the biases or prejudices that most of 'us 'Mericans' have (I include myself in that statement).
He can see it more clearly than we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jakee said:

Exactly, that was his fuckup. He wasn't a fringe right populist but during his campaign he inexplicably succumbed to the advice that he should be. Just because Trump won by being Trump doesn't mean that's the only way. McCain could have won by being McCain. 

Not true, in my opinion.  He was the darling of the press because he pushed back against his own party.  When they had Obama, his role was redundant and unnecessary and the press turned on him.  In a desperate attempt to remain viable he lurched to the right, and nobody way buying what he was selling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a liberal who was very interested in voting for him, I have anecdotal evidence that your contention is not true. Wolfriverjoe has stated similar (although he was a Republican at the time), and two data points is more than enough for your average person any more.

Sarah Palin was a joke of a VP candidate; underqualified (an uncompleted governorship of the third least-populated state is hardly sufficient), and more interested in campaigning than in learning anything about craft. After all, how hard can it be to govern?

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Not true, in my opinion.  He was the darling of the press because he pushed back against his own party.  When they had Obama, his role was redundant and unnecessary and the press turned on him.  In a desperate attempt to remain viable he lurched to the right, and nobody way buying what he was selling.

As a trans-liberal, I was definitely leaning McCain until be chose Palin. For a lot of people I know it ended right then and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same reason that Bernie wasn't the candidate in 2008 -- the party wanted it that way. This is the party that made a joke of being "hard-assed and uncompromising," so of course an undiluted McCain wasn't to their liking. He needed someone to be the asshole, I guess. Pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and he's a winner. I doubt any presidential candidate recently has had sole choice in this matter.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jakee said:

Bullshit. He lost because during the campaign he abandoned many of his principles, chose a nutcase for running mate and tried to chase 'the base' instead of the centre that he normally resonated so well with.

Bingo. I had long hoped to be able to vote for him as president some day. 

But then when that day came, he campaigned on the platform of wanting to be Dubya 2.0, and chose a fruit-loop for a running mate. So I didn't vote for him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

As a trans-liberal, I was definitely leaning McCain

Lean in one way and vote in another and see who wins.  Let’s be honest, after eight years of Bush, the country had grown weary of the Rs, and Obama was the new shiny object.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The same reason that Bernie wasn't the candidate in 2008 -- the party wanted it that way. This is the party that made a joke of being "hard-assed and uncompromising," so of course an undiluted McCain wasn't to their liking. He needed someone to be the asshole, I guess. Pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and he's a winner. I doubt any presidential candidate recently has had sole choice in this matter.

Wendy P.

My circle were literally screaming Kay Bailey Hutchinson. In the end by choosing Palin it showed a terrible lack of judgement at best and at worst a troubling willingness to take incompetent advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

My circle were literally screaming Kay Bailey Hutchinson. In the end by choosing Palin it showed a terrible lack of judgement at best and at worst a troubling willingness to take incompetent advice. 

Choosing Palin DID show a lack of judgement. However it would not have mattered.  The country was in the throws of Obama mania.

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Lean in one way and vote in another and see who wins.  Let’s be honest, after eight years of Bush, the country had grown weary of the Rs, and Obama was the new shiny object.

If that's completely true why would a pseudo conservative like myself or an arch conservative like Wendy have been nosing around McCain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1