Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/05/16 16:36:07
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
February Polling:
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?
Favorable...... .......49%
Unfavorable..........42%
Not sure..................9%
Polling after this week's Benghazi "firestorm":
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?
Favorable...... .......51%
Unfavorable..........43%
Not sure..................6%
Newabortion wrote:Rand Paul 2016!....oh wait we need a vote to counter the woman vote for Hillary 2016....Que up Marco Rubio for 2016!
Would that be the unelectable-on-the-national-stage-because-of-crazy-fundamentalist-pandering-at-state-level Marco Rubio?
Erm... what did you think Rubio did at the State level?
If anying, he'll be ding'ed for his stances on Illegal Immigration.
Here are three things that will take Rubio out of serious national contention, and my explanation:
"I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries." source
Rubio also addressed how his religious views have shaped his other policy positions. He said he believes that homosexuality is a sin, but pointed out that the Bible also calls a number of other actions sins and that no one is entirely free of them. He is opposed to same-sex marriage. source
"The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather," Rubio said on Fox and Friends, as part of a series of interviews on the morning shows following his response Tuesday. "Because, for example, there are other countries that are polluting in the atmosphere much greater than we are at this point -- China, India, all these countries that are still growing. They’re not going to stop doing what they’re doing." source
The first quote makes him seem toxic to anyone who isn't a Young Earth imbecile. And while he backtracked on that statement after realizing that it would cause him to get primary'd, once someone makes a comment like that, he will forever be placed into the "Liars for Jesus" camp when he hits the national stage, and torn into like low-hanging fruit in order to easily scare away the middle 2-3% of moderates & undecideds.
The second quote, I feel, is going to be a major issue in the next election. I believe 12-13 states have now have already legalized gay marriage; and I would be very surprised if it didn't become a national issue during the next political cycle, as by the time that starts up, likely about 20-30 states will have recognized and legalized gay marriage. I suspect that if the number is less than 25, then it will remain a "sanctity of marriage and values" narrative, whereas if it is more than 25, the narrative will change to a "states' rights" issue. And of course, we can pretty much guess which states will be the holdouts; likely getting the "hard men of the right" to just chomp at the bit in hopes of employing the Southern Strategy again (which will likely be a death knell of any GOP campaign going forward) based off of gay rights issues.
The third quote represents an issue that is already causing problems amonst the GOP and I think could factor quite heavily into the next election, because 1 in 3 middle-ground or undecided voters considers climate change to be a serious issue. And if it does in fact become a significant election issue, then the deniers are going to get hammered on it, simply because the scientific community is so overwhelmingly one-sided against them, and it is really tough to use lies, bad scienec and spin-doctoring to deny climate change when the majority of the election dogfights will occur during hurricane season.
So anyway, I think Marco Rubio's already said too many things that will kill his chances on the national stage. I mean, he's exactly the guy the GOP wants and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lineup around the block to heap praise on the guy at FoxNews, but if the GOP puts him forward as their candidate for 2016 then I think you're going to see a 3rd term for the Dems. At present, I think Christie would be the only GOP guy to have a chance (and right now would likely destroy whoever the Dems offer up),
2013/05/16 17:36:18
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Newabortion wrote:Rand Paul 2016!....oh wait we need a vote to counter the woman vote for Hillary 2016....Que up Marco Rubio for 2016!
Would that be the unelectable-on-the-national-stage-because-of-crazy-fundamentalist-pandering-at-state-level Marco Rubio?
Erm... what did you think Rubio did at the State level?
If anying, he'll be ding'ed for his stances on Illegal Immigration.
Here are three things that will take Rubio out of serious national contention, and my explanation:
"I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries." source
Rubio also addressed how his religious views have shaped his other policy positions. He said he believes that homosexuality is a sin, but pointed out that the Bible also calls a number of other actions sins and that no one is entirely free of them. He is opposed to same-sex marriage. source
"The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather," Rubio said on Fox and Friends, as part of a series of interviews on the morning shows following his response Tuesday. "Because, for example, there are other countries that are polluting in the atmosphere much greater than we are at this point -- China, India, all these countries that are still growing. They’re not going to stop doing what they’re doing." source
The first quote makes him seem toxic to anyone who isn't a Young Earth imbecile. And while he backtracked on that statement after realizing that it would cause him to get primary'd, once someone makes a comment like that, he will forever be placed into the "Liars for Jesus" camp when he hits the national stage, and torn into like low-hanging fruit in order to easily scare away the middle 2-3% of moderates & undecideds.
I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Having said that: I don't have a problem with the first quote... in fact, this is the important part:
I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.
Why would you have a problem with that?
The second quote, I feel, is going to be a major issue in the next election. I believe 12-13 states have now have already legalized gay marriage; and I would be very surprised if it didn't become a national issue during the next political cycle, as by the time that starts up, likely about 20-30 states will have recognized and legalized gay marriage. I suspect that if the number is less than 25, then it will remain a "sanctity of marriage and values" narrative, whereas if it is more than 25, the narrative will change to a "states' rights" issue. And of course, we can pretty much guess which states will be the holdouts; likely getting the "hard men of the right" to just chomp at the bit in hopes of employing the Southern Strategy again (which will likely be a death knell of any GOP campaign going forward) based off of gay rights issues.
It's not THAT hot of an issue...
I'm mean, I support SSM... I think if he keeps this even kiel and don't say anything dumb like what Akin said about rape... he'll be fine.
The third quote represents an issue that is already causing problems amonst the GOP and I think could factor quite heavily into the next election, because 1 in 3 middle-ground or undecided voters considers climate change to be a serious issue. And if it does in fact become a significant election issue, then the deniers are going to get hammered on it, simply because the scientific community is so overwhelmingly one-sided against them, and it is really tough to use lies, bad scienec and spin-doctoring to deny climate change when the majority of the election dogfights will occur during hurricane season.
The Climate Change hysteria is just that... if anything, the average GOP voters denounce any Government mandated "climate change" legislations like those carbon-tax proposals.
So anyway, I think Marco Rubio's already said too many things that will kill his chances on the national stage. I mean, he's exactly the guy the GOP wants and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lineup around the block to heap praise on the guy at FoxNews, but if the GOP puts him forward as their candidate for 2016 then I think you're going to see a 3rd term for the Dems. At present, I think Christie would be the only GOP guy to have a chance (and right now would likely destroy whoever the Dems offer up),
Three things:
1) Rubio has likely said things that'll make him an unlikely GOP Presidential candidates... but, I for none of those reasons. I think he'll get hammered during the Primary process with his stance on immigration.
2) I actually like Christie... but, he's a NE Republican... the last NE Republican lost to Obama as well, because he got hammered during the primary process. I would foresee the the samething happening to Christie.
3) I'd still say this... if Hillary runs, no-one would be able to beat her.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/17 13:44:00
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
whembly wrote: I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Oh the whole, "your a foreigner so you can't understand American politics" angle. How very Frazzian of you.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/05/17 13:51:56
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
whembly wrote: I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Oh the whole, "your a foreigner so you can't understand American politics" angle. How very Frazzian of you.
I'm surprised that you got that interpretation. My reading of it was that whembly was saying that he may not be following US politics closely, but instead he may have been getting his information from a source with a bias.
2013/05/17 14:01:09
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
whembly wrote: I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Oh the whole, "your a foreigner so you can't understand American politics" angle. How very Frazzian of you.
I'm surprised that you got that interpretation. My reading of it was that whembly was saying that he may not be following US politics closely, but instead he may have been getting his information from a source with a bias.
Based on the number of "unbiased articles" that Whembly posts here, I'm not sure he can really make that statement in regards to someone else.
Goliath wrote: Based on the number of "unbiased articles" that Whembly posts here, I'm not sure he can really make that statement in regards to someone else.
That is a fine example of playing the player, rather than the ball. Just because someone posts links from one perspective does not mean that he does not read widely.
2013/05/17 14:17:02
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
whembly wrote: I think it's funny that you have this opinion of our politics... but, you don't have your finger on the American Political Pulse, so you're coming from a slanted viewpoint.
Oh the whole, "your a foreigner so you can't understand American politics" angle. How very Frazzian of you.
I'm surprised that you got that interpretation. My reading of it was that whembly was saying that he may not be following US politics closely, but instead he may have been getting his information from a source with a bias.
Based on the number of "unbiased articles" that Whembly posts here, I'm not sure he can really make that statement in regards to someone else.
There is no such thing is "unbiased" viewpoints these days.
Just like that recent IRS snafu... I posted something and steamdragon challenged the article, because it was very close to being derogatory to Federal Employees in general. However, he did say that the thrust of the article "that being why the IRS is hostile towards tea party/conservative groups" still needs to be investigated.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/17 14:24:07
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/17 14:25:28
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
