Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The New (and On Notice) Obama Thread

1323335373846

Posts

  • a5ehrena5ehren regular AtlantaRegistered User regular
    If Boehner wants to stop Democrats from raising money and rallying the base in this upcoming election because of the threat of impeachment, he pretty much needs to stop pussyfooting around it and say impeachment is off the table now and in the future as far as he's concerned.

    His recent comments are all present-tense and vague, so of course people are going to take the looming threat of impeachment seriously, particularly when 57% of the Republican base wants to impeach Obama. He needs to come right out and say it won't happen or people will (rightly) assume that it's coming.
    Fifty-seven percent of Republicans in a recent poll support impeachment of the president of the United States. So when Republicans say, “No, we don’t really mean it,” they mean it. These same Republicans before the shutdown said, “No, we’re not going to shut down the government.” And they couldn’t help themselves. Now, they say, “We’re not actually going to impeach the president.” They won’t be able to help themselves. The reason that Steve Scalise on Sunday refused to rule out impeachment was a) he knows that 57 percent of his base wants impeachment, and b) he knows that the majority of his caucus in a leadership election wants to impeach the president. So they are going to be fueled by this lawsuit-impeachment fervor, and we’re going to continue to talk about issues that matter to voters across the country.

    Democrats need to keep a firm hold of the Senate in this upcoming election or else impeachment will happen, and depending on the Republican advantage...

    Let's just not let it get that far.

    If the Republicans gain the 22 seats they would need to convict, I think we'll have far worse problems. Don't be ridiculous.

    monikerSquigie
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited July 2014
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    Lovely
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    People were willing to buy their shit in the 90s.

    I doubt they're going to be similarly inclined this time.

    Unless the Democratic party runs more people like Crist, I guess. Then they'll just stay home and let President Santorum nuke Palestine.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Also, terrified that the president might use his authority to grant asylum like their hero Reagan, the House is in the process of blocking his ability to do that.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CalicaCalica regular Registered User regular
    edited July 2014
    Cantido wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I pray this chickenshit move against Obama drives Democrats to the ballots in droves.

    Its nice to pretend we live in a just society, but we don't.
    EDIT EDIT - I don't understand how any American who took a government or civics class in public school not know how this works.

    Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but my high school government class was taught by a guy who thought tax brackets were unfair to the rich, believed strongly in racial profiling, and gave quizzes in which we had to match up public figures' names with their photographs (which I mostly failed, because in my house we got our news via radio).

    That teacher is now a Republican on the Wisconsin State Assembly, where he works diligently to protect kids from sex education.

    Edit: As far as the actual workings of government are concerned, he wasn't a bad teacher - it's just that the class focused more on his political opinions than on government as an institution a lot of the time.

    Calica on
    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    DehumanizedzagdrobArdolAtomikaStollsCorehealerLovelyCantidoGnome-InterruptusjoshofalltradesMrVyngaardchrishallett83Mahnmut
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Oh you think democrats aren't going to lose the house and senate? Based on what polling?

    Any and all polling that takes place outside of the Faux News ecosystem?

    That's not accurate.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast-toss-up-or-tilt-gop/

    The senate is likely to be extremely close, guys. I know you don't like hearing that but it's true.

    That's two months old, there's been a lot of polling, most of it very good outside of Montana and South Dakota.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Does 538 not do weekly polling anymore?

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • PreacherPreacher regular Registered User regular
    They never did polling, they were an aggregate of polling around. I haven't read their site since they left the NYT.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    They just did a bang up job of evaluating how historically wrong regular pollsters were and correcting.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Who was the only President to be elected into office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's. Given the continuing demographic shifts and the electoral map of 2016, impeaching the President and then losing would simply not help them full stop. It may not damage them as much as it should, but that is a very different claim. And, again, the impeachment did cost the Republicans seats.

    jmcdonald
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    Speaking of extraordinary actions, though, I wonder if the President has considered calling the Congress back into an emergency session to deal with all the shit they aren't addressing. I mean, nobody is expecting comprehensive legislation even though we should be (on immigration and transportation, along with a hell of a lot else) but they can't even manage to kick the damn can.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Plus (not really on topic except regarding the president calling congress back) the House jammed the Senate on the transportation bill.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot regular Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Who was the only President to be elected into office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's.
    The hell are you talking about? Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, and Wilson also got a plurality.

  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Who was the only President to be elected into office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's.
    The hell are you talking about? Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, and Wilson also got a plurality.

    ...plurality means larger than.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot regular Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Who was the only President to be elected into office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's.
    The hell are you talking about? Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, and Wilson also got a plurality.

    ...plurality means larger than.
    Yes. All of those men got more votes than anyone else in an election, while nevertheless not winning more than everyone else combined.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler regular Registered User regular
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Oh they caught Clinton breaking the law.

    but Ken Starr's whole investigation was so far off course from it's original purpose I think it qualifies as a bonafide fishing expedition.

    Gnome-InterruptusDerrick
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Who was the only President to be elected into office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's.
    The hell are you talking about? Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, and Wilson also got a plurality.

    ...plurality means larger than.
    Yes. All of those men got more votes than anyone else in an election, while nevertheless not winning more than everyone else combined.

    Yet the definition of winning is not to get more than everybody else combined

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • KrieghundKrieghund regular Registered User regular
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Oh they caught Clinton breaking the law.

    but Ken Starr's whole investigation was so far off course from it's original purpose I think it qualifies as a bonafide fishing expedition.

    I still have never figured out how they went from Whitewater to Lewinsky. Or what's her name getting wired up to tape that crap.

  • VeeveeVeevee regular WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Krieghund wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Oh they caught Clinton breaking the law.

    but Ken Starr's whole investigation was so far off course from it's original purpose I think it qualifies as a bonafide fishing expedition.

    I still have never figured out how they went from Whitewater to Lewinsky. Or what's her name getting wired up to tape that crap.

    If I'm remembering right, and I'm probably not, someone passed a rumor to Starr and the media about Lewinsky humming a tune in the oval office. They flipped out, managed to get Clinton on the stand (or was it in front of congress?) and he lied about it, because who wouldn't?

    Technically he committed a crime by lying under oath, GOP had their gotcha and the house couldn't impeach fast enough, which, oddly enough, still took way too long.

    Edit: Oh, and the GOP completely dropped Whitewater and focused on Lewinsky, pretending that was the reason for the investigation the whole time, and the media went along with it

    Veevee on
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Who was the only President to be elected into office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's.
    The hell are you talking about? Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, and Wilson also got a plurality.

    ...plurality means larger than.
    Yes. All of those men got more votes than anyone else in an election, while nevertheless not winning more than everyone else combined.

    Right. Which is why Bush was the first President elected to office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's.

  • GoumindongGoumindong regular Registered User regular
    .
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The Republican's... the same ones that made the case on the national level for Clinton's.. Almost the very same group of people who actually did attempt to impeach Clinton and saw it work as Gore was forced to distance himself from what otherwise would have been a very successful presidency potentially costing him the election.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong regular Registered User regular
    Krieghund wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Oh they caught Clinton breaking the law.

    but Ken Starr's whole investigation was so far off course from it's original purpose I think it qualifies as a bonafide fishing expedition.

    I still have never figured out how they went from Whitewater to Lewinsky. Or what's her name getting wired up to tape that crap.

    Ken Starr took over the Paula Jones investigation (involving sexual harassment when Clinton was a Governor). Jones was attempting to establish a pattern of behavior for Clinton's harassment. Lewinsky talked to a coworker (Linda Tripp) who recorded the conversations and turned them to Star. Who used his position as special prosecutor to basically ask whatever the fuck questions he wanted which more or less forced Clinton to perjure himself (which he might not have actually done) by asking him about public statements to the press regarding the Lewinsky scandal.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • SiliconStewSiliconStew regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Who was the only President to be elected into office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's.
    The hell are you talking about? Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, and Wilson also got a plurality.

    ...plurality means larger than.

    No, it means receiving more votes than any other candidate but less than 50% of the total votes.

    Regardless, I think the misunderstanding came from you being vague about who you were talking about, since everything you quoted mentioned Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

    SiliconStew on
    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
    Captain Carrot
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.

    Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?

    Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?

    The two charges levied against Clinton were literally perjury and obstruction of justice. It was pretty clearly bullshit that wasn't actually good cause to remove him from office, and yet only two years after all the nonsense we had arguably one of the worst Republican presidents in history.

    I don't anticipate Obama's impeachment charges to be any more or less bullshit than what Clinton had to face.

    Who was the only President to be elected into office without winning the popular vote since the 1800's.
    The hell are you talking about? Nixon, Kennedy, Truman, and Wilson also got a plurality.

    ...plurality means larger than.

    No, it means receiving more votes than any other candidate but less than 50% of the total votes.

    Regardless, I think the misunderstanding came from you being vague about who you were talking about, since everything you quoted mentioned Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

    ...more means larger than. Bush received fewer votes than Gore, except in the electoral college. The last time that happened was 1888. I would not put that election down as a marker for impeaching a President leading to improved electoral conditions.

    Seriously, do people just not remember the year 2000? Am I that fucking old?

    MvrckDerrickwazillaRchanenDehumanizedshrykeSpoitMillDacGnome-InterruptusCorehealerHeartlashTL DRStollsjmcdonaldMild ConfusionMan in the Mists
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    It's both, okay? Let's not have this bit of pedantry here.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    He gets to sign a bill! An actually important bill!

    VA Reform (well, more money really) agreement reached between Bernie Sanders (chair of the Senate Veterans committee) and Joe Miller (chair of the House version of same). Not as much as Sanders wanted, but it doesn't seem like anything was horribly compromised in the process, which is a minor miracle.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    AstaerethV1mlonelyahavaGnome-InterruptusAManFromEarthMr RayTofystedethSquigieHarry Dresdenoverride367Mild ConfusionMan in the Mistsemp123
  • yossarian_livesyossarian_lives regular Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaking of extraordinary actions, though, I wonder if the President has considered calling the Congress back into an emergency session to deal with all the shit they aren't addressing. I mean, nobody is expecting comprehensive legislation even though we should be (on immigration and transportation, along with a hell of a lot else) but they can't even manage to kick the damn can.
    Considering the silly geese currently serving in Congress I sincerely doubt many of them would even show up if an emergency session was called. Unless there's some mechanism that forces them to comply it seems more likely many congress critters would use it as an opportunity to oppose the president.

    "I see everything twice!"


  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus regular Registered User regular
    Can the president even do that? I would think the speaker would have to be the one to call it.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaking of extraordinary actions, though, I wonder if the President has considered calling the Congress back into an emergency session to deal with all the shit they aren't addressing. I mean, nobody is expecting comprehensive legislation even though we should be (on immigration and transportation, along with a hell of a lot else) but they can't even manage to kick the damn can.
    Considering the silly geese currently serving in Congress I sincerely doubt many of them would even show up if an emergency session was called. Unless there's some mechanism that forces them to comply it seems more likely many congress critters would use it as an opportunity to oppose the president.

    Good!

    "Guys, come back and do your fucking jobs"


    "NO!"

    Squigie
  • PhillisherePhillishere regular Registered User regular
    The big thing to remember about 2000 is that the Internet wasn't what it is now. One major side effect of this was that the major media was fully complicit both in spreading conservative propaganda and legitimizing Fox News. It didn't always work - the media eventually turned against Gingrich and his revolution - but the ability of the conservative press to literally make something up and have it become the center of the news cycle on the major networks was amazing.

    There wasn't the same widespread cultural realization that these guys were full of shit and the media didn't have a constant feedback stream of people calling them on their shit, so the conservative bullshit of the day was often treated as a legitimate news story. That still happens, but nowhere near the extent it did in the Clinton/Bush II years. Hell, one of the reasons that the liberal political blogs took off is that they were literally the only people out there calling bullshit about this stuff.

    shrykeDoodmannHarry Dresden
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    The big thing to remember about 2000 is that the Internet wasn't what it is now. One major side effect of this was that the major media was fully complicit both in spreading conservative propaganda and legitimizing Fox News. It didn't always work - the media eventually turned against Gingrich and his revolution - but the ability of the conservative press to literally make something up and have it become the center of the news cycle on the major networks was amazing.

    There wasn't the same widespread cultural realization that these guys were full of shit and the media didn't have a constant feedback stream of people calling them on their shit, so the conservative bullshit of the day was often treated as a legitimate news story. That still happens, but nowhere near the extent it did in the Clinton/Bush II years. Hell, one of the reasons that the liberal political blogs took off is that they were literally the only people out there calling bullshit about this stuff.

    Why does "Only these guys are telling it the way it REALLY is!" always make me want to vehemently oppose whatever it is?

    TheBlackWindSpaffy
  • RedTideRedTide regular Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    The big thing to remember about 2000 is that the Internet wasn't what it is now. One major side effect of this was that the major media was fully complicit both in spreading conservative propaganda and legitimizing Fox News. It didn't always work - the media eventually turned against Gingrich and his revolution - but the ability of the conservative press to literally make something up and have it become the center of the news cycle on the major networks was amazing.

    There wasn't the same widespread cultural realization that these guys were full of shit and the media didn't have a constant feedback stream of people calling them on their shit, so the conservative bullshit of the day was often treated as a legitimate news story. That still happens, but nowhere near the extent it did in the Clinton/Bush II years. Hell, one of the reasons that the liberal political blogs took off is that they were literally the only people out there calling bullshit about this stuff.

    Why does "Only these guys are telling it the way it REALLY is!" always make me want to vehemently oppose whatever it is?

    Because it reeks of someone trying to sell you "the truth" rather then making their case on its merits.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • Kipling217Kipling217 regular Registered User regular
    I remember that in 2000 the press had a huge hateboner for Gore. Every little thing he said wrong was blasted up into a huge scandal. Of hand comment about him sponsoring a bill that helped universities to connect to the World Wide Web(which for all intents and purposes is the Internet even back then), became "Gore invented the internet".

    Then there was the deference to W. The guy was obviously a drooling monkey even back then, but because he had the right last name, he became a serious contender. The average 2012 GOP candidate had more credibility then Dubya did back in 2000, but did the press notice.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
    DoodmannHarry DresdenViskodMan in the Mists
  • PhillisherePhillishere regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    I remember that in 2000 the press had a huge hateboner for Gore. Every little thing he said wrong was blasted up into a huge scandal. Of hand comment about him sponsoring a bill that helped universities to connect to the World Wide Web(which for all intents and purposes is the Internet even back then), became "Gore invented the internet".

    Then there was the deference to W. The guy was obviously a drooling monkey even back then, but because he had the right last name, he became a serious contender. The average 2012 GOP candidate had more credibility then Dubya did back in 2000, but did the press notice.

    Sally Quinn's article on how the D.C. establishment felt the Clintons disrespected "their" town provides a good insight into why the press went so heavily for Bush over Gore:
    "We have our own set of village rules," says David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, who worked for both the Reagan and Clinton White House. "Sex did not violate those rules. The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them. That is one on which people choke.

    "We all live together, we have a sense of community, there's a small-town quality here. We all understand we do certain things, we make certain compromises. But when you have gone over the line, you won't bring others into it. That is a cardinal rule of the village. You don't foul the nest."

    "This is a contractual city," says Chris Matthews, who once was a top aide to the late Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill. "There are no factories here. What we make are deals. It's a city based on bonds made and kept." The president, he went on, "has broken and shattered contracts publicly and shamefully. He violates the trust at the highest level of politics. Matthews, now a Washington columnist for the San Francisco Examiner and host of CNBC's "Hardball," also says, "There has to be a functional trust by reporters of the person they're covering. Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to."

    Republican Alan Simpson, a longtime Washington insider now teaching at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government in Boston, still identifies with his colleagues in this situation. "There is only one question here," says the former senator. "Did he raise his right hand and lie about it and then lie again? Lying under oath -- that to me is all there is. Did this man, whether he is head of the hardware store or the president or applying for a game and fishing license, raise his hand and say, 'This is the truth'?"

    Phillishere on
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2014
    Yeah, like that doesn't happen every day up there. Choking on santimonious bull crap over here.

    Edit: Foolproof plan to never be lied to in Washington DC:

    Assume that everyone that flaps their lips into your microphone is lying.

    Dig up proof.

    Print it.

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
    ArdolSpoitchrishallett83
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    As much as I hate the press, the way they fucked up the 2000 election is not exactly on topic except in a very stretched analogy.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Fair enough.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
    Geth
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    I remember that in 2000 the press had a huge hateboner for Gore. Every little thing he said wrong was blasted up into a huge scandal. Of hand comment about him sponsoring a bill that helped universities to connect to the World Wide Web(which for all intents and purposes is the Internet even back then), became "Gore invented the internet".

    Then there was the deference to W. The guy was obviously a drooling monkey even back then, but because he had the right last name, he became a serious contender. The average 2012 GOP candidate had more credibility then Dubya did back in 2000, but did the press notice.

    Sally Quinn's article on how the D.C. establishment felt the Clintons disrespected "their" town provides a good insight into why the press went so heavily for Bush over Gore:
    "We have our own set of village rules," says David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, who worked for both the Reagan and Clinton White House. "Sex did not violate those rules. The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them. That is one on which people choke.

    "We all live together, we have a sense of community, there's a small-town quality here. We all understand we do certain things, we make certain compromises. But when you have gone over the line, you won't bring others into it. That is a cardinal rule of the village. You don't foul the nest."

    "This is a contractual city," says Chris Matthews, who once was a top aide to the late Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill. "There are no factories here. What we make are deals. It's a city based on bonds made and kept." The president, he went on, "has broken and shattered contracts publicly and shamefully. He violates the trust at the highest level of politics. Matthews, now a Washington columnist for the San Francisco Examiner and host of CNBC's "Hardball," also says, "There has to be a functional trust by reporters of the person they're covering. Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to."

    Republican Alan Simpson, a longtime Washington insider now teaching at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government in Boston, still identifies with his colleagues in this situation. "There is only one question here," says the former senator. "Did he raise his right hand and lie about it and then lie again? Lying under oath -- that to me is all there is. Did this man, whether he is head of the hardware store or the president or applying for a game and fishing license, raise his hand and say, 'This is the truth'?"

    I love that reporters say shit like this with a straight face and don't ever think they are completely utterly compromised as journalists.

    Harry Dresdenchrishallett83Stolls
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Of course, the press' current fuckery is totally on topic. First question to the President at a press conference is framed as "Israel is pretty great, why should they stop killing the fuck out of Palestineans?"

    EDIT: Second question: why aren't you a God Emperor who can bend other countries to your will, regardless of their interests?

    EDIT: Third question: You won't compromise with House Republicans because you're a lawless tyrant, right?
    (His answer is pretty much the most polite version of "can you process information in any way, you moron?")

    EDIT: Final question: Same as the first, basically. You're one of four people who get to ask the President of the United States a question today. Maybe you should think of something new instead of repeating what the first guy said twenty minutes ago.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    CptKemzik
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    He also apparently said "we tortured some folks" and the Right on Twitter is freaking out. Especially Ted Cruz's speechwriter.

    [ed]

    She's (deservedly) being mocked pretty hard...

    iTunesIsEvil on
    Gnome-InterruptusArdolSquigieRchanenSealchrishallett83programjunkieyossarian_livesFlying CouchKamarStollsMild ConfusionMan in the Mists
This discussion has been closed.