Printable View
Be more specific. I don't watch the campaigns and every thing the candidate says. McCain was the nominee (and my preferred choice over Obama) and one of his most famous pieces of legislation was campaign finance reform which was a slap in the face of the 1st amendment. Trump doesn't even pay lip service to the constitution but I know some of the others have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
McCain (and many reasonable people) disagreed that this was inconsistent with the constitution. Here we have Trump actively mocking people who support freedom of speech. We have Santorum explicitly saying that all law in the US should be consistent not with the constitution, but with the Bible. Carson explicitly calls for religious tests for office. Not only are these policies undeniable unconstitutional, but the candidates in question aren't even trying to justify them in constitutional terms.
Santorum is like at what 1%? I agree with you on Trump and Carson didn't call for a requirement that a person not be Muslim to be president. He just didn't think there should be one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Perhaps you were reading my post as "this is how the Republican party has been for the past decade" rather than "is this to be the fate of the Republican Party going forward"?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Can you picture *any* of those people as President? Newt Fucking Gingrich as President? They only seem sub-par rather than atrociously horrific because of the company they keep.Quote:
Gingrich, Perry, et al may be politicians you violently disagree with, but they are not clowns. See the preface to my post. Santorum is the Sanders of the 2012 GOP; not a great candidate, but all of the other good ones wisely stepped aside when it became clear Romney was the winner.
Well, he wouldn't have been a disaster, but he'd have been a one term president for sure. He reminds me of Gordon Brown or Ed Milliband (I am always going on about the parallels between the UK Labour party and the American GOP) an adequate politician, but not suitable material for the top job. Romney should have been a better candidates' VP pick where he could stand in the background doing this: *serious business face* and not have to speak to anyone, but in this universe he was the nominee.Quote:
Yes, being a moderate is a liability in a partisan primary. It is for Clinton as well. That doesn't mean Romney was a bad candidate, just that he had to tack to the right to get the nomination. His electoral issues were not because he was crazy, or not serious, or nearly psychotic. It was because Obama ran a smart campaign and Romney wasn't a great speaker. Do you honestly want to tell me that Romney didn't have the nous to run the US?
I seem to remember that when he was nominated, the reaction /from his own party/ was something like "well, he'll have to do" and not "we've got a fantastic candidate here, I'm so excited and inspired!". Same with Romney. If their own party sighs when they nominated them, how are they supposed to get the rest of the country to vote for them?Quote:
A few comments. Being a center (left or right) candidate is not guaranteed. Plenty of mistakes have been made by both parties in this regard. The war hero wasn't about bombing people, it was about his integrity and strength of character while being tortured for years in a Viet Cong prison camp. His respect in Congress was pretty bipartisan for a long time, and his history of making bipartisan compromises is very important in a president. That's a great resume, not just a so-so one.
No, not really. Mediocrity is hardly as concerning as demagoguery.Quote:
Isn't it equally concerning that the Democrats can't find anyone suitable other than Hillary?
The more extreme the party becomes, the more their idea of "serious and reasonable" becomes divorced from what anyone else in America sees as serious and reasonable.Quote:
You don't like the GOP, I get that. I often find their policy platforms problematic as well. But that doesn't mean they don't settle on serious, reasonable candidates most of the time.
You know, I think there's a difference between policies that render a candidate unelectable in the US and policies and a world-view that might render you unfit to stand trial. This isn't just a case of my not liking right wing politics, there are plenty of extreme "pro free market" positions that I find repulsive and would render you unelectable in the UK or in any other European country but I wouldn't call people who advocate them "insane" or "not serious"; the position the GOP is in now would be like if the current UK Tory party was putting some of the worst members of UKIP forward as potential party leaders.Quote:
No, I'm comparing Sanders to Cruz and Bachmann, who are the real perennial unelectables that get serious air time early in the primary season. It doesn't show a weakness in the party, it rather shows that they flirt with demagogues and then plump for someone mainstream. Trump is unusual as noted above, but he's not a symptom of the GOP's problems.
He didn't quote in an approving manner, he quoted it to mock the Chancellor over something or other:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The man's an absolute fuckwit but he wasn't quoting from Mao like he thought what Mao said was a good thing. So if you'd just like to stop lying for 30 seconds, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.Quote:
In a move that sparked laughter and jeers in the Commons, the shadow chancellor pulled out a copy of the Quotations from Chairman Mao to make a point about George Osborne’s attempts to sell off state assets to the Chinese. He read out a passage and then threw it across the table of the house towards Osborne.
“To assist comrade Osborne about dealing with his newfound comrades, I have brought him along Mao’s Little Red Book,” he said.
Not lying. He backtracked when the press uproar became too much and then tried futile (well I thought futile you seem to have fallen for his spin) to suggest it was mocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Does it really matter? He wasn't quoting anything particularly offensive.
How about suggesting that Mao did quote "more good than harm"
That's irrelevant to him quoting some random, philosophical part of his book. Corbyn and his supporters have said enough dangerous things that there's no reason to emphasize inoffensive ones.
He was in the middle of attacking Osborn for selling off something or other to China; "To assist Comrade Osborn in his dealings with his new found Comrades, I've brought him along Mao's little red book..."Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2KsuENx8rI
How anyone can watch that and think that reading that quote in that context was a serious statement of his genuine belief is beyond me.
That was Diane Abbot, as you are well aware.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This must be another case of...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Quote:
They only seem sub-par rather than atrociously horrific because of the company they keep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
ITT, we learn, once again, to always demand to see the original footage :up:
As Loki said, there's a difference between Party and voters....but there's also a difference between President and legislators. Some pretty 'crazy' ideas have gotten politicians (from both parties) elected to local/state office, but it doesn't translate well to national positions unless/until a Party backs and funds them.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
The GOP's post-election hangover -- and its own "autopsy" -- hasn't done much to yank it back to center, has it? :confused: They lost the White House. Twice! Even with a Republican majority, and a Republican Speaker of the House, the GOP remained fractured. I think it was a mistake when the GOP embraced/incorporated the Tea Party. The "natural" progression should have been a third party formation. That it didn't suggests the power of political money. OR that you can be a self-funded billionaire and run as a Republican, and drag The Party into disarray.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Also, this phenomenon of blaming a President for global problems isn't limited to the USA. Just look at France, and the rise of the National Front.
Soon to be the Shadow Foreign Secretary if press reports are to be believed. I believe the US equivalent of Foreign Secretary is the Secretary of State. Could you imagine one US party proposing as Secretary of State someone who seriously claimed that Mao (or an equivalent) did more good than harm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Trump is positively rational compared to what we have going on here and he isn't even the GOP official nominee.
Yeah, I can imagine the Republicans doing something like that. Indeed, there plenty of on record quotes from senior Republicans about science, religion, race, gender that are of equivalent wingnuttery to Abott's moonbattery. Republicans defending slavery, though not senior ones as far as I know. It's a little different because the US system doesn't require the out of power party to make hypothetical appointments to senior government positions years before an election, so they'd never be in a position of suggested anyone for secretary of state when they're at their absolute worst.
Oh of interest, are you admitting that you a) lied about the intent behind John McDonald's remark and b) deliberately misattributed Diana Abbot's quote to him? Because you follow UK politics a hell of a lot more closely than I do, and I knew that was Abbot. There's absolutely no way you didn't.
No I knew Abbot had said it but I thought McMao had said it too. He's said enough other crazy stuff like praising the IRA while opposing the peace process etc that I wouldn't put it past him.
You do know that Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House (and third in line to the President) for four years? And that his Speakership is considered one of the most legislatively productive in the last 20 years (albeit also quite hectic and personally self-destructive for him)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
That reminds me... not that I think its likely to happen in modern politics but who thinks its a good idea to have the Speaker of the House position so quickly in line to be president?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
In contrast to the VP, a position that has absolutely no constitutional responsibilities? The speaker is the second most powerful person in US politics.
The issue is the idea that if both the President and the VP are taken out power could revert to their political opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If they're both taken out, the country will have bigger problems than a president from a different party, problems that someone with the political acumen of a Speaker is better suited to resolve than some lowly cabinet secretary.
The VP has the constitutional responsibility of taking over the Presidency in the event of the death or incapacity of the President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But yes Speaker third makes sense.
Assuming it wasn't the opposition party... Again NOT saying it would happen now but still seems like a bad idea just based on human nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And while the president and VP aren't always in the same area they are often in the same city.
If the President and Vice President have been "taken out" then party politics is the least of your worries.
Based on human nature? This country has existed for over 2 centuries, and yet such a plot was never made, let alone executed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Sounds like someone fell asleep watching White House Down. Never took you for a Channing Tatum fan Lewk.
In general I think American politics is pretty cordial compared to many other countries. Hell it doesn't even have to be the other party trying to do it just some nut job getting lucky at an event with both the President and the VP. But never underestimate the capacity of people to do harm to others in support of their cause. It just seems like a silly outdated thing that I'd think both parties would be in agreement to fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki