That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Until six or eight years ago taking a party's ballot automatically enrolled you in that party. To remain independent, you had to make a separate stop at the registrar's office to unenroll. I've always been independent so IDK if being enrolled in a party forces you to take that party's ballot -- it's possible that if your dad was a registered D, he might have been restricted to the D ballot. Still, he could go independent rather than becoming a R.El Guapo wrote:
Interesting. I would think that he would know that, given that he works at the polls. This information comes through my mom, though, so maybe she's interpreting his request for a GOP ballot as "registering as a Republican."
I think you greatly underestimate the power of the Clinton Clan. She'll just form the giant robot Clintron with the rest of her family and take the U.S. by force.msduncan wrote:If Clinton is indicted, does Bernie win or does Obama pardon her immediately and she continues with her campaign?
Have you ever seen them together?tgb wrote:I would pay money to see Clintron vs. Mechagodzilla
RM9 == YellowKing. Well, maybe a less pleasant version of YellowKing, but this is exactly how I feel at this juncture.YellowKing wrote:At this point, if it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, Cruz, or Carson, I'll vote Hillary. If it comes down to Hillary vs Rubio or Jeb, I'll vote Republican. All that of course is in flux, as I haven't watched a single debate and don't really plan to pay attention until around September.
While I can't stand Hillary's morals (or lack thereof), the good thing about her is that she has bigger balls than Obama and I am certain that she'd A) not be a pushover on the foreign policy stage and B) not rule by committee because she's a stone cold bitch that I can't see handing her decision-making over to underlings.
I don't know who this is referencing, but I'm not on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. I would instantly vote for Rubio. Because I don't know that he lacks a soul. I know that Hillary lacks a soul. And lacking a soul (for me) ranks higher than party platform.El Guapo wrote:So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"
I'm confused. I assume Rubio would repeal *Obamacare*, as that is clearly part of the Republican Platform.RunningMn9 wrote:I don't know who this is referencing, but I'm not on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. I would instantly vote for Rubio. Because I don't know that he lacks a soul. I know that Hillary lacks a soul. And lacking a soul (for me) ranks higher than party platform.El Guapo wrote:So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"
The Talking Heads, cocaine parties, daddy's empire, and Patrick Nagel as fine art. Let's do this thing!Smoove_B wrote:
Trump just wants to make America great again. How can you fault that?
IMHO, Rubio would nominate Supreme Court Justices who lack a soul - which to me is even more important than Presidential souls as they are around longer, and it is far more difficult to reverse soul-less Supreme Court decisions than Presidential actions.RunningMn9 wrote:I don't know who this is referencing, but I'm not on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. I would instantly vote for Rubio. Because I don't know that he lacks a soul. I know that Hillary lacks a soul. And lacking a soul (for me) ranks higher than party platform.El Guapo wrote:So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"
There were a lot of liberal promises that Obama made that evaporated immediately when you get the job and you actually have to be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Remember when Obama was going to close the detention facility at Guantanamo? It's still open. And he even signed an EO to close it. And it's still open.Holman wrote:Any Republican running would sign a Congressional repeal of the ACA, and they would do it in week one. How could they possibly do otherwise?
Repealing the ACA has been the Republican dream for seven years. Attempting it has been practically all they have done. They vote on it every chance they get, and they will do so immediately after the next president takes office (after probably a dozen more attempts between now and then).RunningMn9 wrote:There were a lot of liberal promises that Obama made that evaporated immediately when you get the job and you actually have to be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Remember when Obama was going to close the detention facility at Guantanamo? It's still open. And he even signed an EO to close it. And it's still open.Holman wrote:Any Republican running would sign a Congressional repeal of the ACA, and they would do it in week one. How could they possibly do otherwise?
Well, if that becomes clear to me as the election looms, I will integrate that into my decision.Holman wrote:Repealing the ACA has been the Republican dream for seven years. Attempting it has been practically all they have done. They vote on it every chance they get, and they will do so immediately after the next president takes office (after probably a dozen more attempts between now and then).
It would be politically impossible for a Bush or a Rubio to stand in the way of that. There's just no way.
Not to break the narrative, but historically both the red and blue parties are the second option here. The "choice" is simply a matter of who gets the welfare.El Guapo wrote: It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"
There's no question about it. Bush and Rubio have both repeatedly promised to sign a repeal of Obamacare. Rubio has also tried to take credit for efforts to do so in the senate.RunningMn9 wrote:Well, if that becomes clear to me as the election looms, I will integrate that into my decision.Holman wrote:Repealing the ACA has been the Republican dream for seven years. Attempting it has been practically all they have done. They vote on it every chance they get, and they will do so immediately after the next president takes office (after probably a dozen more attempts between now and then).
It would be politically impossible for a Bush or a Rubio to stand in the way of that. There's just no way.
If I'm not mistaken, they're both currently running in a Republican primary against crazy people. I'll wait until the real contest starts any make my evaluation then.Holman wrote:There's no question about it. Bush and Rubio have both repeatedly promised to sign a repeal of Obamacare. Rubio has also tried to take credit for efforts to do so in the senate.
Wasn't planning on it, though he was the option in the poll that I thought he would win the GOP Nomination.RunningMn9 wrote:Then you guys probably shouldn't vote for Rubio. I'm not voting for Hillary unless the Republicans force me too.
(As for repealing Obamacare and whether Rubio would do it, I did point out that I have that as a concern. If we get to the general election and he's vowing to do that, I'll jump off that train).
That's odd, because the party platform is the part that becomes law after elections.RunningMn9 wrote:I don't know who this is referencing, but I'm not on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. I would instantly vote for Rubio. Because I don't know that he lacks a soul. I know that Hillary lacks a soul. And lacking a soul (for me) ranks higher than party platform.El Guapo wrote:So, it doesn't really make sense to be on the fence between Hillary and Rubio. It's like "Hmmmm, do I want to cut taxes in half and slash the welfare state, or raise taxes at least somewhat and expand the welfare state?"
I would say that there is a much stronger correlation between the party platform and ensuing public policy than a subjective assessment over the state of a stranger's soul. It's not like you are seeing any of the candidates without the filtering of a million communications and campaign consultants.RunningMn9 wrote:Yeah, sometimes. Other times not.
This group has expanded its ad campaign to other states. Trump has not disavowed it, let alone given the full-throated condemnation and rejection it deserves.Holman wrote:Evangelicals might be up for grabs, but one group knows that Trump is their man:
White Nationalist PAC Blankets Iowa With Robocalls For Trump.
Apparently this was done without coordination with the Trump team, but we need to hear Trump completely repudiate it immediately. Even if we do, however, it's telling that the racists are using his campaign as a vehicle to raise their own profile and get their message out.[...]
Stop stealing my material.hepcat wrote:Let's Make America White Again
But that's only because you hate freedom.Smoove_B wrote:I would like to sample whatever it is they distributed to the people behind the lectern to get them that visibly excited for the performance. Longest 2 minutes of my life.