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!

A Fucking Thread About the 2016 Elections, Seriously, What the Hell, I Don't Even

19798100102103

Posts

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    Preacher wrote: »
    Walmart, money is the major factor in any GOP situation.

    I don't disagree, but just like when training a dog, you give a pet and a treat when they do the right thing. You know they did the right thing to get the pet and the treat, but that's not the point.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    If you are going to deny anyone goods or services, own it. Put a sign on your window saying "We deny service to same-sex or outed gays here in accordance with..." so all your customers can see it, gay or straight. No sign, no denying anyone.

    A Democratic legislator actually added an amendment to that effect to the OK version of this bill.

    This is sorta perfect. Whichever side you're on you clearly believe you're in the vast majority so nobody should have an issue with it.

    I, of course, am on the correct side along with the majority of Americans so it just lets us know who the good businesses are.

    And on that note, shitty pizzeria saves gay people from horror of shitty pizza as first business to publicly discriminate.

    From TFA:
    “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza.

    ...

    “I do not think it's targeting gays. I don't think it's discrimination,” says O'Connor.

    CORE DUMP
    ERROR IN COGNITIVE DISSONANCE RESOLUTION PROTOCOL
    PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME DATA MAY HAVE BEEN LOST
    REBOOTING

    Huh. What were we talking about? Why am I bleeding out of my ear?

    GnomeTankcB557DiplominatorRiusTheCanManjoshofalltradesmysticjuicerShadowenTicaldfjamHarry DresdenArdolGimSo It GoesShadowfireJazzShortyGiggles_FunsworthsanstodoReleMan in the Mists
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    National polls in 2015 are equally as stupid.

    Well at least now we're in the spring/summer time frame where people are going to start declaring.

    But to write Christie, a guy with big pockets and a big following, before anyone has really started campaigning is silly.

    In fairness, those pockets are perfectly proportional to the pants they belong to.

    MortiousGiggles_Funsworth
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Christie isn't going to win because all of his fans and donors are bigger fans of Jeb.

    Lh96QHG.png
    Just_Bri_ThanksNo-Quarter
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Christie isn't going to win because all of his fans and donors are bigger fans of Jeb.

    Yep there is already a "moderate" in this race, and its a Bush because ha ha god damn it merica.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Harry DresdenNo-QuarterGiggles_Funsworth
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    Clintons and Bushes.. can we not do any better than an Oligarchy based on name recognition?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    Clintons and Bushes.. can we not do any better than an Oligarchy based on name recognition?

    I think we can do better than this tired argument.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CptKemzikChanusMarathonAbsalonFencingsaxAtomikaShadowenknitdanHacksawjmcdonaldzagdrobReleAndy JoeWraith260SageinaRage
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    Clintons and Bushes.. can we not do any better than an Oligarchy based on name recognition?

    I think we can do better than this tired argument.

    I dunno, I think it's becoming a fairly valid argument. I realize it's always been a thing throughout our history, but for my entire life, the US political sphere has been dominated by only a handful of names. When a lot of us are really clamoring for fresh ideas and progress, stale names don't really motivate.

    Hell, Clinton is a step backwards from Obama, and Obama is damn near 80's Republican as it is.

    LovelyShortyGiggles_FunsworthMan in the Mists
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    He's kind of like a more racially enlightened and health care liberal fifties Republican, maybe. From New England.

    Cruz (who I typed as Crazy initially) also has increased support because talk radio loves him.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    jmcdonaldGiggles_Funsworth
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    Clintons and Bushes.. can we not do any better than an Oligarchy based on name recognition?

    I think we can do better than this tired argument.

    I dunno, I think it's becoming a fairly valid argument. I realize it's always been a thing throughout our history, but for my entire life, the US political sphere has been dominated by only a handful of names. When a lot of us are really clamoring for fresh ideas and progress, stale names don't really motivate.

    Hell, Clinton is a step backwards from Obama, and Obama is damn near 80's Republican as it is.

    I don't consider it valid at all. If Jeb should win, we would have elected our third consecutive member of the Bush family.

    On the other hand, Democrats have been varied and it just so happens that a very accomplished and legitimate candidate for 2016 just happens to have been married to a former president. I think it's a bit of an attempt to short change Hillary just because she used to be first-lady and it lets people make a lazy argument about political dynasties.

    enlightenedbumdavidsdurionsPolaritieArdoljmcdonaldlonelyahavaGiggles_FunsworthWraith260SageinaRage
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    Clintons and Bushes.. can we not do any better than an Oligarchy based on name recognition?

    I think we can do better than this tired argument.

    I dunno, I think it's becoming a fairly valid argument. I realize it's always been a thing throughout our history, but for my entire life, the US political sphere has been dominated by only a handful of names. When a lot of us are really clamoring for fresh ideas and progress, stale names don't really motivate.

    Hell, Clinton is a step backwards from Obama, and Obama is damn near 80's Republican as it is.

    I don't consider it valid at all. If Jeb should win, we would have elected our third consecutive member of the Bush family.

    On the other hand, Democrats have been varied and it just so happens that a very accomplished and legitimate candidate for 2016 just happens to have been married to a former president. I think it's a bit of an attempt to short change Hillary just because she used to be first-lady and it lets people make a lazy argument about political dynasties.

    I'm not at all certain how you're using the word "consecutive" here. I can kinda see a lineage thing between Bush Sr and W but Jeb is W's sibling and ALL of them were interspersed with other presidents and Republican nominees.

    Dismissing concerns of Hillary's relationship to Bill while simultaneously raising them about W and Jeb is silly. Jeb has just as much a valid resume for President as Hillary does.

    TheCanManHarry DresdenGiggles_Funsworth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Right, it's not Hillary's fault sexism means she had to go second. They were a super ambitious team.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Giggles_Funsworth
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    Clintons and Bushes.. can we not do any better than an Oligarchy based on name recognition?

    I think we can do better than this tired argument.

    I dunno, I think it's becoming a fairly valid argument. I realize it's always been a thing throughout our history, but for my entire life, the US political sphere has been dominated by only a handful of names. When a lot of us are really clamoring for fresh ideas and progress, stale names don't really motivate.

    Hell, Clinton is a step backwards from Obama, and Obama is damn near 80's Republican as it is.

    I don't consider it valid at all. If Jeb should win, we would have elected our third consecutive member of the Bush family.

    On the other hand, Democrats have been varied and it just so happens that a very accomplished and legitimate candidate for 2016 just happens to have been married to a former president. I think it's a bit of an attempt to short change Hillary just because she used to be first-lady and it lets people make a lazy argument about political dynasties.

    I'm not at all certain how you're using the word "consecutive" here. I can kinda see a lineage thing between Bush Sr and W but Jeb is W's sibling and ALL of them were interspersed with other presidents and Republican nominees.

    Dismissing concerns of Hillary's relationship to Bill while simultaneously raising them about W and Jeb is silly. Jeb has just as much a valid resume for President as Hillary does.

    I said we would have "elected" the third Bush in a row. Their have been several other candidates between, but none of them who actually became president.

    I'm also not dismissing either of their relationships, I'm dismissing the lament that the U.S. is falling into some rut where we elect from only two dynasties.

    Lovely
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    I find both situations... less than ideal. In theory, with the Bushes, you may have familial obligations that allow former presidents, people who can no longer hold the office, a greater influence over the decisions of a sitting president. With the Clintons, you may have marital ties that allow a former president a greater influence over the sitting president.

    I'm not saying it is, or will be.

    But it's like the e-mails. Even though nothing wrong or illegal was done, the situation could have been handled differently to keep things accountable and above reproach.

  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary The softer edge of the universe.Registered User regular
    It's still a bit crazy to me that this thread is now 100 pages long and we barely have one candidate declared for the run and are only in April 2015. Everything we see and talk about now in what I'm sure will be many subsequent threads will seem quaint and the butt of jokes by the time next year rolls around.

    488W936.png
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    Bushes are right-wing Kennedys using oil money to get a shaved ape into the oval office. Clinton's hubby was president in the 90s.

    I'm comparing the fruits here and one of them ain't a citrus.

    ShortyGiggles_Funsworth
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    Corehealer wrote: »
    It's still a bit crazy to me that this thread is now 100 pages long and we barely have one candidate declared for the run and are only in April 2015. Everything we see and talk about now in what I'm sure will be many subsequent threads will seem quaint and the butt of jokes by the time next year rolls around.

    With so many potential candidates being current office holders or at least names in the news for one reason or another, they are always fertile ground for discussion material.

    CorehealerAndy Joe
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    who the hell would get pizza for their wedding dinner

    LovelyN1tSt4lkerAndy JoeWraith260
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    who the hell would get pizza for their wedding dinner

    The Strawmans.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    XaquinmysticjuicerPolaritieGONG-00Gnome-InterruptusAngelHedgiejmcdonaldFencingsaxShortyzagdrobGiggles_FunsworthfugacityForarMan in the MistsWraith260
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    who the hell would get pizza for their wedding dinner

    Well

    I would totally have curry at mine

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx And I said, hol up Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Walmart, money is the major factor in any GOP situation.

    I don't disagree, but just like when training a dog, you give a pet and a treat when they do the right thing. You know they did the right thing to get the pet and the treat, but that's not the point.

    If the GOP starts getting independent numbers that outweigh the tea party loons we might be able to see the party pull itself out of the clown pants they currently inhabit.

    That above situation is, to me, so incredibly crazy a thought that I just laughed when I re-read it after posting it.

    jungleroomx on
    Make. Time.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    Absalon wrote: »
    Bushes are right-wing Kennedys using oil money to get a shaved ape into the oval office. Clinton's hubby was president in the 90s.

    I'm comparing the fruits here and one of them ain't a citrus.

    It's not like Hillary hasn't tried before, the difference between her and the Bushes is that she failed getting elected president. She's close enough as a Clinton to be a dynasty when she gets into the White House.

    Harry Dresden on
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx And I said, hol up Registered User regular
    Haven't we had dynasties since the beginning of the nation?

    Or is the whole Adams/Roosevelt thing just sorta glossed over?

    Make. Time.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Haven't we had dynasties since the beginning of the nation?

    Or is the whole Adams/Roosevelt thing just sorta glossed over?

    Yeah, but it's still frowned upon.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-panel-wants-private-not-public-clinton-testimony

    Gowdy wants a private interview of Clinton so he can more easily slander her some some more. Party of personal responsibility merica!

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx And I said, hol up Registered User regular
    Haven't we had dynasties since the beginning of the nation?

    Or is the whole Adams/Roosevelt thing just sorta glossed over?

    Yeah, but it's still frowned upon.

    Maybe, but I don't think it should be a consideration at all. Imagine a theoretical political family that has, like, the best policies ever and always does good. Should we say, no Jr., we don't like political dynasties, despite the fact that you've done X and Y and it's been great in state Z, we won't vote for you because it's just not fair to the other guys?

    I'm not saying Clinton (or Jeb) are good choices. I might have to vote Clinton because at her worst she's better than the field of Republican candidates, but the fact that Bill was once POTUS won't factor into that decision. It's basically a worthless distinction.

    Make. Time.
    Gnome-InterruptusAngelHedgiejmcdonaldlonelyahavaGiggles_FunsworthWraith260
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Walmart, money is the major factor in any GOP situation.

    I don't disagree, but just like when training a dog, you give a pet and a treat when they do the right thing. You know they did the right thing to get the pet and the treat, but that's not the point.

    If the GOP starts getting independent numbers that outweigh the tea party loons we might be able to see the party pull itself out of the clown pants they currently inhabit.

    That above situation is, to me, so incredibly crazy a thought that I just laughed when I re-read it after posting it.

    Just to be clear, they've always had the clown pants on.

    They were just careful to hide them under the falsehood of respectable slacks, They took the façade off because they thought the crazy could challenge Obama, and all it did was fracture and devolve the secretly crazy insane bullshit party into a dozen openly crazy insane bullshit subparties.

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Haven't we had dynasties since the beginning of the nation?

    Or is the whole Adams/Roosevelt thing just sorta glossed over?

    Yeah, but it's still frowned upon.

    Maybe, but I don't think it should be a consideration at all. Imagine a theoretical political family that has, like, the best policies ever and always does good. Should we say, no Jr., we don't like political dynasties, despite the fact that you've done X and Y and it's been great in state Z, we won't vote for you because it's just not fair to the other guys?

    I'm not saying Clinton (or Jeb) are good choices. I might have to vote Clinton because at her worst she's better than the field of Republican candidates, but the fact that Bill was once POTUS won't factor into that decision. It's basically a worthless distinction.

    Not that worthless. Both families have their dynasties in modern politics, the Clinton's simply haven't had as much luck as the Bushes.

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Walmart, money is the major factor in any GOP situation.

    I don't disagree, but just like when training a dog, you give a pet and a treat when they do the right thing. You know they did the right thing to get the pet and the treat, but that's not the point.

    If the GOP starts getting independent numbers that outweigh the tea party loons we might be able to see the party pull itself out of the clown pants they currently inhabit.

    That above situation is, to me, so incredibly crazy a thought that I just laughed when I re-read it after posting it.

    Just to be clear, they've always had the clown pants on.

    They were just careful to hide them under the falsehood of respectable slacks, They took the façade off because they thought the crazy could challenge Obama, and all it did was fracture and devolve the secretly crazy insane bullshit party into a dozen openly crazy insane bullshit subparties.

    I don't know, I think the establishment was happy to feed their core voters social wedge issues and tall tales about taxes and govt. excess for years. I don't think they believed a lick of it either. It worked really well, so they continued to do it. You can only dance with the devil for so long though. I don't think the party willingly dropped any facades..I think their own base basically erupted from underneath them when the election of a black president made it abundantly clear "the times they were a changing." And I hate saying that since I'm basically calling it racism, but honestly..I've had a hard time coming up with any other good reason for the sudden rise of tea party types and swift radicalization of the republican platform.

    Ticaldfjam
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    I came to this realization earlier today. There was either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House (as VP, P, or SecState) continuously between 1980 and 2012.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Secretary of State is not in the White House.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    DevoutlyApatheticJragghenChanusCorehealerGiggles_Funsworth
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Secretary of State is not in the White House.

    White House inner circle.

  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Insert joke about the president's cabinet being most useful located within the White House.
    traditional-kitchen-cabinetry.jpg

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Harry DresdenTicaldfjamRMS OceanicGiggles_FunsworthAndy Joe
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    It's way too early to talk about a Clinton dynasty. It's one generation, and a married couple at that. Could the Clintons possibly have been drawn to each other at least partially due to mutual ambition, drive, talent, and interest in politics?

    I think so.

    We can start talking about a Clinton dynasty when Chelsea becomes a senator or governor, but not before then.

    enlightenedbumCptKemzikshrykeJragghenSpoitArdolNyysjanDisruptedCapitalistiTunesIsEvilzagdrobGiggles_FunsworthfugacityStollsAndy JoeWraith260
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Walmart, money is the major factor in any GOP situation.

    I don't disagree, but just like when training a dog, you give a pet and a treat when they do the right thing. You know they did the right thing to get the pet and the treat, but that's not the point.

    If the GOP starts getting independent numbers that outweigh the tea party loons we might be able to see the party pull itself out of the clown pants they currently inhabit.

    That above situation is, to me, so incredibly crazy a thought that I just laughed when I re-read it after posting it.

    Just to be clear, they've always had the clown pants on.

    They were just careful to hide them under the falsehood of respectable slacks, They took the façade off because they thought the crazy could challenge Obama, and all it did was fracture and devolve the secretly crazy insane bullshit party into a dozen openly crazy insane bullshit subparties.

    I don't know, I think the establishment was happy to feed their core voters social wedge issues and tall tales about taxes and govt. excess for years. I don't think they believed a lick of it either. It worked really well, so they continued to do it. You can only dance with the devil for so long though. I don't think the party willingly dropped any facades..I think their own base basically erupted from underneath them when the election of a black president made it abundantly clear "the times they were a changing." And I hate saying that since I'm basically calling it racism, but honestly..I've had a hard time coming up with any other good reason for the sudden rise of tea party types and swift radicalization of the republican platform.

    IIRC the right wing went pretty ballistic with Bill Clinton in the white house, with the militia groups going out of control and home grown terrorist attacks by the extreme right wing like OKC etc.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    TicaldfjamGiggles_FunsworthN1tSt4lker
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    It's way too early to talk about a Clinton dynasty. It's one generation, and a married couple at that. Could the Clintons possibly have been drawn to each other at least partially due to mutual ambition, drive, talent, and interest in politics?

    I think so.

    We can start talking about a Clinton dynasty when Chelsea becomes a senator or governor, but not before then.

    Even then it's a bad argument. The dynasty argument is an attempt to get around actually discussing positions that candidates hold by substituting a silly argument that one's last name is a measure of their worth as a candidate.

    In other words, don't hate Jeb because he's a Bush. Hate him because he had terrible politics and a terrible record.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Gnome-InterruptusRMS OceaniczagdrobWraith260
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    I hate the Bush men for all of their individual problems. Including Peter Bush, your fucking baked beans are a crime against god.

    Also the band Bush, because their pussy whiny songs ruined my early 90s sexuality.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    GethAngelHedgieShadowencB557PolaritieXaquinSpoitRMS OceanicDisruptedCapitalistzagdrobGiggles_FunsworthTheCanManCommunistCowWraith260
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I hate the Bush men for all of their individual problems. Including Peter Bush, your fucking baked beans are a crime against god.

    Also the band Bush, because their pussy whiny songs ruined my early 90s sexuality.

    Bah! Sixteen Stone, as goofy, over played, and uncool as it ended up becoming, is still a pretty great album from that time.
    IIRC the right wing went pretty ballistic with Bill Clinton in the white house, with the militia groups going out of control and home grown terrorist attacks by the extreme right wing like OKC etc.

    Good point. I honestly wasn't old enough back then to be politically aware.


  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    Corehealer wrote: »
    It's still a bit crazy to me that this thread is now 100 pages long and we barely have one candidate declared for the run and are only in April 2015. Everything we see and talk about now in what I'm sure will be many subsequent threads will seem quaint and the butt of jokes by the time next year rolls around.

    we need a timehop app for this thread

    So It Goes on
    lonelyahava
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I hate the Bush men for all of their individual problems. Including Peter Bush, your fucking baked beans are a crime against god.

    Also the band Bush, because their pussy whiny songs ruined my early 90s sexuality.

    Bah! Sixteen Stone, as goofy, over played, and uncool as it ended up becoming, is still a pretty great album from that time.
    IIRC the right wing went pretty ballistic with Bill Clinton in the white house, with the militia groups going out of control and home grown terrorist attacks by the extreme right wing like OKC etc.

    Good point. I honestly wasn't old enough back then to be politically aware.


    The Bush thing is mostly a joke. I LOVE YOU GAVIN!!!!

    The band I mean, Peter Bush can still go fuck himself. ROLL THAT BEAUTIFUL BEAN FOOTAGE YOU BALD FUCK!

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
Sign In or Register to comment.