Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think there's a sense of frustration, because we already saw the results of 2010, when a lot of voters stayed home to "punish" Democrats or because they felt the GOP would solve their problems. Instead, the economy got worse, the government was nearly shut down, and most of the focus was on impeachment talk and banning birth control and all forms of abortion.

Now we're in the same position. Yet again the public seems to believe the GOP can fix their problems, even though it will likely just be more abortion bans, more impeachment talk, more hysteria about Benghazi and ebola and whatever else, hysteria about religious exemptions and how the gays are threatening "religious freedom," more business boosting.

It gets to the point where you even wonder why you bother, because people always end up supporting the worst option.

And the media is so eager, practically panting for the GOP to romp. They love it. They have their stories already written up. It's hot and sexy and wild. Increasingly tabloid-ish sites I'd once expected better from, like TPM, recently had up articles boasting about how this year would be "The Year of the Republican Woman" in the Senate. Once someone realized how incredibly stupid that sounded, they changed the headline, hours too late. You have SNL, still tagged by many as "liberal" (why, I don't know) pushing for the GOP. There's so much time and money and media focus invested in a GOP Congress, and if they get their way, a GOP White House too. And apathetic voters or easily manipulated voters always seem to be fine with going along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6817

  • DRW50

    5990

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3462

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

It's beyond disgusting that the Dems would be using the slogan "If You Want To Prevent Another Ferguson In Their Future..." on a campaign poster. I thought the Dems are the party of facts, while the GOP is the stupid party, but the last I checked, Ferguson happened even though America has a Democratic president and Missouri has a Democratic governor. And furthermore, the Dems are the party of hope, while the GOP is the party of fear. (Or, so I have been told.)

The Dems fear they are going to get their asses handed to them next week, so I guess whatever race-baiting tactics are necessary, right?

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Prince is exactly right that Obama is nothing but a huge drag on Democrats running this year. This article in the National Journal (which is a mainstream publication, not to be confused with the conservative National Review) elaborates upon this:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/white-house-in-denial-president-obama-is-costing-democrats-control-of-the-senate-20141029

I don't know why President Obama's most zealous supporters are upset that Senate Dems need to run away from him. It is just the reality of the situation, and Obama is far from unique in this matter (the exact same thing was true when Senate Republicans ran away from Bush in 2006). With Obama's approval rating at 39 percent in New Hampshire, it's hard to make a case that race is a key reason for his unpopularity (if anybody here is thinking that).

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're touching on something that sets me off like no other and that's people who think that not voting is some kind of principled stand. I see these imbeciles saying things like "I'm not going to vote until things change" or "I refuse to participate in the two party system" and I just want to slap them until I get carpal tunnel. It shows how some people have completely confused democracy for capitalism. In capitalism if a business isn't doing what you want, withholding your money can be a great motivator. Withholding your vote, however, has the opposite effect. It actually rewards bad governing. There are so many options for showing up to the polls and still registering your displeasure: third party voting (which I will never do again), write-ins or voting "none of the above." Staying home and acting like you are sending a message is just ignorant, lazy bullshit.

Edited by marceline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm sorry that my response was nasty regarding the desperate racial attacks that the Democrats are resorting to, but it doesn't change how I feel about that disgusting campaign poster. I don't understand why the party can't motivate African-American voters to go to the polls without resorting to extremely negative ads.

I understand why you might feel this way, but personally, if neither candidate deserves the job, or if both candidates are just "evil," I will most certainly not reward one of them with my vote. (And unless the TP or write-in candidate has a realistic chance of at least making a decent showing, I find it to be a useless waste of time to chose those options.)

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But not voting actually DOES rewards those candidates. Both of them. If you have 1,000 voters and they all go to the polls then the candidates have to work to get 501 people to vote for them. If 900 of those people decide to stay home then they only need 51 votes so your refusal to participate in the process just makes it easier for those evil candidates to become evil lifelong politicians. Also, keep in mind that most of the people who think they are taking a stand also don't vote on things like school levies or ballot initiatives. So even in situations were people worked hard, got signatures and put an issue on the ballot (you know, the things that actually CAN change the system) these petulant, lazy children sit home and tell themselves that they are making the world better by doing nothing. Because apparently they think all big social change came about by doing nothing.

Mind you, I don't consider third party or voting none of the above to be good options. I'm a strategic voter. If I can't vote for a candidate then I'll vote against one. But not voting at all isn't a statement, it's self sabotage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's often difficult or foolhardy to make predictions on elections that are two years away. Here is an amusing look back on what the "experts" first thought about 2014:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83680.html

Hell, it's always possible that something totally unexpected could happen next week.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

From the four corners of the country, the American people has allowed itself to be bamboozeled by the party of school shootings. There is nothing left to tell the people and it isn't just in Hick HQ, USA where all republicans yearn to live or something, but it is in NJ where their republican governor was getting 70% approval ratings even as he was one of the "a gun in every bassinet" crowd and who now pretends he has no opinion on global warming and says "I am not a scientist". The American people seem to believe we are not a society as a whole, but many individuals who coincidentally live on the same land mass. So "if my neighbor gets sick, !@#$%^&*] him because I am not coughing up a dime" is what the people want. That's what republicans are selling and apparently thats what a majority of americans seem to be buying, as well as a school shooting in every state. Not quite a chicken in every pot, but the NRA does what it can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In a surprise move, The Boston Globe has endorsed Charlie Baker for governor.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/10/26/charlie-baker-for-governor/r4Yymw55jVr20D53EhUIkK/story.html#comments

I can only imagine they are doing this because they have concluded that Martha Coakley has almost no chance of winning. I am no fan of her politics, but one would have to be heartless not to feel a bit sorry for her given the humiliation of being a Democrat who loses two statewide races in Massachusetts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
There was just overall lack of participation and interest in the last election. Our current governor's career has been plagued with accusations of things from stealing money and giving jobs to his friends. I thought more people would turn out to keep him out of office. Since being in office he has continued to show what a racist, elitist crook he is. Cutting the Georgia HOPE scholarship, his piss poor handling of the snowstorm we had this year, doing little to nothing about unemployment, and publicly defending a new Confedrate flag license plate here. Finally people's eyes are opening!

As for Perdue, I can not stand him either. I really hope neither race leads to a run off and Carter/Nunn get their 50+%. I want it made official Tuesday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've read about some of that with Deal - declaring bankruptcy right after being elected seems a little shady to me.

I also hope they both get to 50+1.

It seemed like the Democratic Party in Georgia was moribund after 2002 wiped them out so seeing them so competitive this year was a nice surprise.

Perdue seems like a huge idiot to me, and a blatant business stooge. Between making fun of a primary opponent for not having a college degree, his love of outsourcing, and his attacking his opponent's FATHER for not voting to keep the Panama Canal, it's pathetic that he has a shot. Even more pathetic is that this is actually reasonable compared to many current GOP candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am going to take back my earlier prediction of the GA Senate race (in which I predicted a Nunn victory); with that race, the only thing I feel I can predict at this point is that a runoff will occur. All my other Senate predictions remain unchanged. (If I didn't state earlier, the GOP will win in LA, though I believe that race will also go to a runoff.)

A race-by-race analysis for the House is impossible, but my best guess is that the Republicans will have at least 240 seats, though less than the post-1930 peak of 246 seats achieved after the 1946 election. I also believe that GOP House candidates will win more votes than Democratic House candidates.

The gubernatorial races are very hard to predict, but I believe that the following states will experience changes:

*AK will have an Independent governor.

*Democrats will gain governorships in FL, ME, and PA.

*Republicans will gain governorships in AR, CT, IL, and MA.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think the pre-Barnabas episodes are very underrated both for dialogue and character. They're slow but they really create a world and fill out the characters, imbuing them with heavy dimension that ultimately will have to sustain them for years as the show largely stops writing for character after it returns from 1795. What we know about them by then is what they have to power them. (I don't think the show was bad after, I actually love it in '68 and often in times after that, but it was very different.) I think the B&W episodes with Barnabas' early days are especially frightening - they terrified me as a kid - but the color stuff in '67 is also very strong, especially in the stretch where Julia is on the run, Carolyn is under Barnabas' control, and you get the sense that events have gone off the rails for the regular characters and anything goes. As a child viewer seeing it in syndication on the Sci-Fi Channel, who had no idea who lived or who died, it was a lot. Mitch Ryan is especially powerful in the early pre-Barnabas era as the sort of Byronic Burke Devlin character. You knew they had to kill him once Barnabas comes in, despite Ryan's alcohol problem making it impossible to keep him at the show - Burke dominates the first year or so as the fulcrum character, he's incredibly magnetic and charismatic. You couldn't see him becoming a dupe for Barnabas and Julia, as Anthony George's more benign, mild version briefly does before getting unceremoniously killed off. I always found Burke's offscreen plane crash death very eerie and suspicious, and I think the show does toy with the question if Barnabas' powers somehow got him on that plane and if he took it down. I had always wanted Burke to return one day, in any revival project, as a kind of vengeful power broker and puppet master, driven by Vicki's inevitable demise to get revenge on Barnabas and co. I still have Art Wallace's "Shadows on the Wall" DS bible somewhere. IIRC in the earliest versions of the plot Vicki was going to somehow be tied to the butler or his daughter - Betty Hanscomb or something. I don't remember the exact details. I do know there's all sorts of raised and dropped plotlines and characters offscreen in '66, like Ned Calder, the man they clearly intended to pair with Liz and so on. I've always found '66 very rich, but I don't begrudge the show after for it because it's still awfully well-written, specifically the early Barnabas stuff.
    • I totally agree with this, as most of you seem to. Mary Carney was at least competent and reasonably likable; I just feel like she barely had anything of substance to do before she was abruptly given the hook. And I get the backstory of Kathleen Tolan having done a play with Helen Gallagher, but...at any point did they ever actually READ her before they greenlit her? Because...OOF. First time I saw her on SoapNet was right when this GODAWFUL actress named Charity Rahmer played Belle on Days of Our Lives for all of three weeks before she was mercifully recast; her line readings were straight out of a Charlie Brown special. I remember thinking Kathleen Tolan could have played her mother! In the Frank/Jill/Delia triangle, Delia WAS the one who was cheated on, so I got why she was upset and thought it was perfectly valid in theory at least, but of course it was blown up to Wagnerian proportions including falls involving staircases and tricycles. But with Pat/Faith/Delia I had no sympathy for her...especially because it was mainly with Catherine Hicks's Faith and I really liked her.
    • I was going through those episodes from 1984 and early 1985 before they were taken down. Some of the older characters, like Don and even Tom, looked a little out of place, like they were on the wrong show. But the newer characters were fun. It's too bad they lost the character of Melissa. I guess Jennifer took her long-term place on the canvas. 
    • How I will remember him...

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • The black and white episodes of the show are very special. An atmosphere the color run loses. Dark Shadows was filmed live-on-tape. They could do a retake but it would be very expensive. I think there was a claim that if actors wanted a retake they would curse. There was also a rumor that at one point Joan Bennett accidentally said "Hollywood" instead of "Collinwood" and that necessitated a retake.
    • Please register in order to view this content

      Angela Lansbury stars as Jessica Fletcher in one of the longest-running and most beloved TV series of all-time, Murder, She Wrote. Set in Cabot Cove, Maine, Jessica is a mystery writer and amateur detective who is quick to outwit both criminals and the police when it comes to solving a murder. Winner of 4 Golden Globes and nominated for 12 consecutive Primetime Emmy Awards for Best Actress in a Drama, the series showcases unforgettable guest stars including Tom Bosely, George Clooney, Shirley Jones, Courteney Cox, Leslie Nielsen, Mickey Rooney, Tom Selleck, John Amos, Dorothy Lamour, Cyd Charrise and many more. In Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Series, help Jessica get to the bottom of every crime she encounters in this completely remastered collection featuring all 264 episodes, 4 TV movies, and bonus features. Special Features: "Novel Connection" (Crossover Episode of Magnum P.I.); The Great 80's TV Flashback; Origin of a Series; Recipe for a Hit; America's Top Sleuths; The Perils of Success
    • Loved this IG post from Ambyr about how she and Trisha work together. You can tell these ladies go above and beyond the script, and that they really trust and enjoy working together. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJpJufFPOQ2/?igsh=MXBmcWs0YzIwaXVhNA==  

      Please register in order to view this content

    • It is a shame that more characters didn't go the ATWT-Barbara route and make the ingénue into an antagonist. Sort of like they did with Liza/Hogan/Sunny, less successfully. It is a credit to ATWT's creativity that breathed life in that character for years after she was fighting off bulls in Spain.  But, a character like Liza can only have so many true loves and high jinks on the high seas.  They need another reason to be in the story. Liza's wealth, as well as her acumen to see through fraud, was fertile ground for tons of stories.  But, I feel like the business stories for Liza were always about her being easily overwhelmed, rather than exploring things like her leadership and managerial skills.
    • STFU!! Dante!!! This nonsense of blaming Gio is just ridiculous! Alexis and Lucky are becoming so unlikable. Why are the writers writing these characters so poorly?
    • Keith still comes off younger to me. I thought he wasn't that bad for his first day.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy