Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Rubio: GOP must focus on 'minority and immigrant communities'
Chris Christie draws ire of conservatives amid Romney's loss to Obama
He just needs to stay in there until all the other candidates have mad unelectable asses of themselves. That's basically what Romney did.
edited 7th Nov '12 9:00:01 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016¬_¬ And that's a problem as Rubio is for the DREAM Act, which would make it much easier for the children of undocumented immigrants to get citizenship. While I can see him getting other sections, I seem him horribly offending those afraid of immigrants.
edited 7th Nov '12 9:03:21 PM by PotatoesRock
Whoever takes the GOP nod in 2016 will still need the backing of the big money interests behind the party. That means they'll be required to sound the pro-business, anti-tax bullhorn. To get the nomination, they will need to sound like social conservatives as well. I just don't see Rubio or Christie jumping those hurdles and retaining any appeal across the aisle. It's the same problem Huntsman had.
As an aside, I found it amusing to read the stories about Wall Street going bear after the election, over worries about Europe's economy and the fiscal cliff that may result from the impending sequester. The sequester that Wall Street helped set up in the first place by aligning themselves with the Norquist Republicans. This sword of Damocles was a direct consequence of the debt ceiling hostage crisis, and they have the gall to act scared about it now.
edited 7th Nov '12 9:07:26 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Gingrich: Hispanic support needed to make GOP ‘competitive’ in 2016
Gingrich says this? How does he propose to accomplish that? Cut back on the deployment of land mines?
Oh, wait, Gingrich has always been a "no principles", "say whatever it takes to get elected" kind of guy.
edited 7th Nov '12 9:09:51 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think the only way the Republicans will have a chance off getting a good candidate in the race in 2016 will be to work hard at compromise in the coming year.
The issues that are going to take the Forefront in 2016 are almost certainly going to be social ones, the ones the Right will refuse to budge on.
Who would be a good counter to Rubio/Christie and somehow I'm sure Biden's gonna pull a Cheney and not run in succession.
Villagarosa would probably be the best counter to Rubio,although I'm not sure which Democrat could divide up the Protestant base this time,since I'm not seeing a good Clinton or Carter like candidate to do that.
Warren/Castro 2016? Has a nice ring to it.
If the GOP compromises and general improvement allows the economy to fully recover by 2016, or at least mostly recover, then there will be a lot more room to have a conversation about social and environmental issues.
edited 8th Nov '12 6:50:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@dp: His foreign policy in a nutshell: great with our allies, ending Iraq and Afghanistan wars, being awesome on Libya, can't do shit with Syria due to Russia, has caused bin Laden's death (neutral action, soldiers use bullets, they couldn't restrain him due to him being a combatant with a gun, so they had to kill him, so Obama can't be directly responsible his death even if you you're a pacifist who's mad at him for having someone die due to his orders), and drones.
I know the last bit is why you're really mad at him, but practicality rears it's ugly head again. Obama doesn't want to kill people
, but the majority of Americans actually want terrorists dead, and don't really care about civilian casualties in the countries being bombed, and if able to do so without risking American lives, they'll be more likely to support the bombings. So, in order to keep the support of hawkish people (both voters and politicians) who are otherwise "liberal"(?), he'll keep using drones, and I've accepted this, even though I don't like it.
Fighteer explained why he's definitely not pro-austerity, i.e. can't pass Keynesian policies in Congress and he'd be painted as a super-liberal commie (even more than he is now, if that's even possible) for even trying.
As for the public option, the original Senate version of the Affordable Care Act had the public option, and he supported it
, but he was unable to get it passed (mostly due to blue dogs) so he compromised to save the lives of those who couldn't be insured due to pre-existing conditions and thus we have Obamacare.
edited 7th Nov '12 9:17:59 PM by Ekuran
Herman Cain might be trying to start a civil war in the Republican Party
Michelle Obama is not a politician. To make a bid credible she'd need to take a turn in Congress (preferably Senate) at the very least. It certainly would not happen in time for 2016 and there would be clear signs if she tried to pull a Hillary. Michelle could be viable as early as 2020, but that is the absolute minimum.
Castro/Warren or Warren/Castro; either one would work for me. I'm just excited about the idea of a woman prez.
I agree with the writer of that article: it's all noise and bluster unless they come up with some big money backers who will support a third party. If nothing else, they are practical enough to abandon a ship that will never float. They want political influence and won't pay for someone who won't deliver it.
edited 7th Nov '12 9:23:50 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@L Mage: ...You know, that reminds me of the story when Barack and Michelle met an old ex of Michelle's who was running a restaurant. When Barack remarked that, if she had stayed with him, she would be the wife of a restaurant owner. In response, she remarked that, no, if she stayed with the ex, he would be president.
edited 7th Nov '12 9:20:03 PM by deathpigeon

I'm not sure how much of it is his advisors attempting to appease Wall Street or him attempting to appease Wall Street, but, either way, it's led to more conservative policies. He is definitely, above all else, a corporatist.
edited 7th Nov '12 8:54:13 PM by deathpigeon