Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

GasBandit

Staff member
Only if hypocrisy worked the way you seem to think it does...
If only time and logic worked the way you think it does.

Wait, no, that would be a horrible thing. Then a child who was born from a forced sexual encounter couldn't be opposed to rape without being called a hypocrite.
 
If she's of the "get rid of birthright citizenship and ship the anchor babies back to Mexico" stripe, then she's a hypocrite. If she's just against amnesty (assuming her grandparents are dead/citizens now), then she's not.

I.E, if she supports policies that would render her own citizenship void (without expecting to move to Mexico), then she's a hypocrite.
 
Oh man, it's as if authoritarian governments can be, like, stabilizing factors for a region! We must tell the press, this changes everything!
Except they STILL have an authoritarian regime in control. The current "transitional" council (controlled by the previous leader's defense minister) is basically going about business as usual... it's just not cracking down on populist stuff because they need support until the government is solidified.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that the entire movement is bad because of one incident??
No, I'm suggesting that it may have far reaching consequences that might destabilize the region even more that it already has. I'm not criticizing the earnesty of the movement, as they appeared to be legitimate populist movements, but I will criticize the interim governments for letting their citizens loot and burn a foreign embassy. Especially when it's the nation that is more than willing to level the entire region with nukes should they get invaded again.

Seriously... they didn't do anything to stop it except to make sure that only the embassy was affected. What does that tell you about the government's long term plans?
 
Except they STILL have an authoritarian regime in control. The current "transitional" council (controlled by the previous leader's defense minister) is basically going about business as usual... it's just not cracking down on populist stuff because they need support until the government is solidified.
Yep, I've been following this. Just because the outcome was not as expected, that does not make the movement a bad idea. As for what the interim's government policies are in relation to Israel... If they're still buddies with them you'll say it's business-as-usual, if they go against them you'll say it's populism. Can't win brah.
 
No, I'm suggesting that it may have far reaching consequences that might destabilize the region even more that it already has. I'm not criticizing the earnesty of the movement, as they appeared to be legitimate populist movements, but I will criticize the interim governments for letting their citizens loot and burn a foreign embassy. Especially when it's the nation that is more than willing to level the entire region with nukes should they get invaded again.

Seriously... they didn't do anything to stop it except to make sure that only the embassy was affected. What does that tell you about the government's long term plans?
While naturally not permissible, I think things like this were only to expected, and might well get worse. Though the transitional government in Egypt has stated that they will continue to honor the terms of the peace agreement with Israel of 1979, the treaty seems to be very unpopular with large elements of egyptian society, and the current rulers do not have the luxury of ignoring the sentiment on the street like Mubarak did. The recent cross-border terrorist attack from Egypt into Israel (apparently with no links to the egyptian administration) and the aftermath, which left three egyptian security personnel dead by IDF fire in what seems to have been an accident, certainly did not help matters either; it left the egyptian military with a need to demonstrate to the people that they are not passive in front of Israeli aggression, as the Muslim Brotherhood claim they are.

That said, I'm not sure the looting of the embassy was necessarily a calculated move on Egypt's part. As the article stated, there have been many demonstrations in front of the embassy without serious incidents in the past months. This one may just have gotten out of hand. In any event, I'm personally not overly concerned that it would be in the interests of this government to alter Egypt's long-standing foreign policy of peace with Israel too much, at least as things currently stand. Though if they follow through with their pledge to hold free and fair elections, it might well bring to power a new regime with markedly more hard-line views on Israel and the US, and a pro-Hamas stance.
Yep, I've been following this. Just because the outcome was not as expected, that does not make the movement a bad idea. As for what the interim's government policies are in relation to Israel... If they're still buddies with them you'll say it's business-as-usual, if they go against them you'll say it's populism. Can't win brah.
I could actually argue that the outcome in Egypt was pretty much as expected, though maybe not what was hoped. Still, though Obama has taken some flak for allowing Mubarak to fall (I seem to recall it being said that the egyptian military's decision to remain in barracks, dooming Mubarak's administration, was at least influenced by consultations with their US collegues - the two militaries have strong ties), it might not have been within US capabilities to alter the outcome of the revolution in Egypt, and attempts to try could have resulted in a bad situation becoming worse.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Another blow to ObamaCare as a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled the individual mandate to be unconstitutional.

Independent voters aren’t swinging Obama’s way.

What Job 'Training' Teaches? Bad Work Habits.

CBO chief Doug Elmendorf says that to avoid slowing the economy even further, the deficit must get worse before it gets better.

Three congressional Democrats are introducing a bill today that would abolish the federal debt ceiling.

There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security.

Andrew Sullivan believes that the GOP is behaving as a religious movement, not as a political party. He also says, “If they defeat [Obama], I fear we will no longer be participating in a civil conversation, however fraught, but in a civil war.”

Union members heckle scabs with racial epithets.
 
I don't know what indies they've been talking to, but every indie I've spoken to is ether unsure because every candidate on the field is weak or voting Obama because they remember what the Republicans did last time they held office. They seem to have the same concerns that I have: that you can't trust the Republican party to help worker, but that you can't trust the Democrats to unify on a single issue.
 
I don't know what indies they've been talking to, but every indie I've spoken to is ether unsure because every candidate on the field is weak or voting Obama because they remember what the Republicans did last time they held office. They seem to have the same concerns that I have: that you can't trust the Republican party to help worker, but that you can't trust the Democrats to unify on a single issue.
Pretty much this. Let's see which way indies lean when they get acquainted with Rick Perry. President Obama is going to start looking a whole lot better then.
 
T

TheBrew

Pretty much this. Let's see which way indies lean when they get acquainted with Rick Perry. President Obama is going to start looking a whole lot better then.
The only person who can beat Obama IMO is Romney. Everyone else is going to drive away voters and won't stand up to Obama's election machine for the year, especially if the primaries are earlier and gives him more time to focus on them.
 
It honestly doesn't even matter who the Republican Party nominates... they'd be unhappy with anyone who won. Perry's reminiscent of Bush in how he portrays himself but his actual policies are much different, while Romney is both a LDS and the most to the left of all the Republican candidates.

In the end, the Tea Party is going to have to back one of them to try and get rid of Obama, but even if they got elected they'd be pissed about he ran the country. Ultimately, I think this is going to sap a lot of energy out of the party and that's always a good thing.
 
It's going to be a low turn out either way, and that benefits the Republicans. The only thing which will bring out voters will be the fear of a crazy candidate.

Romney will win if he gets the nomination. Perry, I'm not so sure.
 
I do. People remember how Obama has caved on so much, starting in the middle in his negotiations with the Republicans. All that enthusiasm is gone, and the only thing which will keep him in office during an economic downturn is fear of what will be worse.

Republicans will swallow their pride if he wins the primary. If nothing else, Republicans are good at getting behind their man, and all they need is someone vanilla enough to not turn off independents.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
That's an interesting position Krisken - I'm thinking if Romney gets the nomination a lot of conservatives might stay home and it might turn into McCain 2.0.
 
Honestly I think it's a huge coin toss. The TPers and far right religious folks may not go for him and sit it out and the far left may do the same for Obama. So I think it's gonna be close either way.
 
That's the thing- There are more people in the middle than the media gives credit for. The far right is very loud right now, but that is mostly due to the echo of the media (and the internet). Historically, low turn out benefits Republicans. So yeah, I think Romney has a better chance than Perry. Perry's secession and social security comments may be big bonuses in Texas, but the rest of the country are not big on it, especially states like Florida and California, which are huge electoral points. Bush won through Florida, and that isn't going to happen with Perry.
 
Honestly I think it's a huge coin toss. The TPers and far right religious folks may not go for him and sit it out and the far left may do the same for Obama. So I think it's gonna be close either way.
I think it's going to be determined by just how much Tea Partiers are willing to compromise their principles to get another Republican in office. I don't see them voting for ether Perry or Romney out of choice, but are they willing to swallow their pride to maybe get something in the future?

Considering they were willing to let the country default, my instincts say no. If they can't have their candidate, their just going to stay home.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Therein lies the rub - The tea party was really born of the disgruntled "take our ball and go home because you elites anointed McCain" republicans. Didn't even have the sense/good grace to vote for a third party instead.
 
What many people in the GOP do not realize is that the Religious Right and the Tea Partiers are not necessarily in the same Venn Diagram. In fact, there are people in the one group that hate the other group.

The Tea Partiers are the ones who are driving me away from the GOP. The problem is, I can't stomach some of the lefty nuts on the Dem side who are so drastically anti-Religion.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Stephen Colbert interviews Al Gore:
COLBERT: "Rick Perry endorsed you in 1988. Will you return the favor right now and endorse Rick Perry?"

GORE: "Well, it would hurt him a lot, in a Republican primary."

COLBERT: "So, is that an endorsement?"

GORE: "No, it's not."

COLBERT: "So because an endorsement would hurt him and you won't endorse him, isn't that, in itself, an endorsement?

GORE: "You could put it that way."

Added at: 16:09
If a mandate is the solution for health care, why not solve unemployment by mandating everybody get a job?

Group says mainstream Muslims are violent and Mohammed was a "cult leader". Is the group: a) a Tea Party Chapter, b) a Texas Church, or c) the FBI?
 
Top