If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   Just who made the ballot for the conservatives' 2016 presidential straw poll today?   (wisconsingazette.com) divider line 175
    More: Interesting, straw polls, human beings, South Carolina Governor, Sam Brownback, Arizona Governor, Susana Martinez, CPAC, Kansas Governor  
•       •       •

5432 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 3:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 11:17:16 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: MrBallou: Demetrius: Duuuuuude...I am sooooooo stoned right now

[www.wisconsingazette.com image 385x292]

WTF is wrong with his head*? It looks misshapen and sort of pin-ish.

*The outside, I mean. We all know what's wrong with the inside.

Fetal alcohol syndrome.  Not joking, not trying to be mean.  He's got all the telltale deformities of FAS.


And given all that there still isn't a Democrat in the state that will beat him in 2014 so he can build his resume further.
 
2013-03-16 11:35:33 PM  

sheep snorter: A picture from inside the convention hall.


i.imgur.com

Nah. It's more like

thetimetraveller.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-16 11:49:09 PM  

maxheck: Supposedly it was a place for conservatives to gather, strategize, come up with new ideas and figure out how to get their agenda ahead.


The new message (of the 'stay on' variety) is that "CPAC is a youth event" for fun.

It's time for the elephant to die. When the establishment conservatives are finished cleaning the carcase those that haven't moved over already can have the Democratic party.

Then those of not gobbling up the bipartisan bullshiat can get around to a real democratic political party focused on restoring little things like civil liberties, constitutional law, peace and diplomacy as a primary strength and first resort.... hippy librul commie crap like that.
 
2013-03-16 11:58:52 PM  
www.wisconsingazette.com
Didn't realize this guy was in politics, I loved him when he was on "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"

/Seriously though, he could be Stiles brother.
 
2013-03-17 12:03:23 AM  

Skarekrough: I've said it before and I will say it again.  This is an awesome time to be a political junkie, and even better to be a Democrat.


It's not a good time to be someone who likes to see the government actually pass productive legislation, though.  That won't happen until the crazies and idiots left in the Republican party have been rendered completely impotent, without the executive or a majority in either house.  And thanks to gerrymandering we're probably several years away from that.
 
2013-03-17 12:06:51 AM  
Santorum/Walker 2016: because we didn't lose badly enough in 2012.
 
2013-03-17 12:18:59 AM  

largedon: /Seriously though, he could be Stiles brother.


Stiles' naive, unfunny, soulless, cock-punchable brother?

Yeah, I can see that.

Befuddled: Walker/Santorum 2016: because we didn't lose badly enough in 2012.


fyp
Walker didn't garble Koch balls for the last few years to sit second seat to Santorum.
 
2013-03-17 12:22:59 AM  

Richard Roma: Skarekrough: I've said it before and I will say it again.  This is an awesome time to be a political junkie, and even better to be a Democrat.

It's not a good time to be someone who likes to see the government actually pass productive legislation, though.  That won't happen until the crazies and idiots left in the Republican party have been rendered completely impotent, without the executive or a majority in either house.  And thanks to gerrymandering we're probably several years away from that.


Getting to watch is the consolation prize.  That I will admit.

But in alot of terms were near fever pitch with a changing of the guard on alot of issues.  Gay Rights is largely a given among young voters.  Seeing the GOP not embrace it isn't surprising.  It will be when enough of the "decision makers" die off and they change their tune.

Will the nation suffer for the gridlock?  Yeah.  Probably.  But at the same time the conclusions were going to come to as a result of that pain is going to be very important for the next hundred years of policy.  In great part it is the laying of the foundation for the nation were going to end up becoming, whether were willing to allow the rich to co-opt the system, whether were going to find a way to compete in a global marketplace, and whether were going to strike some reasonable balance.
 
2013-03-17 01:01:07 AM  
Have the 'Pubs hit maximum deck-stacking (campaign war chests, gerrymandering, etc) in the 2012 election (and still lost obviously), or is it possible there could be more?
 
2013-03-17 01:04:18 AM  

Richard Roma: And thanks to gerrymandering we're probably several years away from that.


Thanks to Obamacare we're probably many years away from that.

And by that I mean these old farks that mean well but lost touch with reality long ago. Voting for whomever can convincingly enough stand before them, beside a flag and say "God bless America!". Thanks to Obamacare, they probably will live longer... extending our gridlock.

No, you're absolutely right. Though, gerrymandering creates some interesting phenomenons. If we dig into the wealth of numbers and data out there we find that while old people vote in more numbers than the young, the young in red gerrymandered districts typically vote much less than their blue district counterparts. There are many many reasons we can identify and theorize for this being so, but the end result is that their gerrymandering has turned out to be a double edged sword.

They became so good at dividing demographics up with identifiable wedge issues they didn't notice they'd painted themselves into a corner generationally... so now it's not just the rural people that are keeping them in power, more specifically it's OLD rural voters. And thus the situation they are facing now where every year that passes they are losing the numbers war.

Gerrymandering has only bought them time butapparently they feel it's enough time that they do not yet need to change their message and stances... they might be losing the numbers war but at least it's a known problem they can try to solve for. They start shifting off their old retarded ideas and they could find themselves solving an even uglier equation.
 
2013-03-17 01:05:19 AM  
If the Republicans were serious about wanting a nearly 100% chance of winning (and accepting reasonable concessions), they would do the following:

1)  Tell Chris Christie he's "it", so long as he loses some weight for public image, and doesn't say anything monumentally stupid for the next 24 months.

2)  At that point, they will find the moderate Democrat that will serve as his VP candidate.  In doing so, they forge an alliance between the non-crazy GOP faction and the blue dog/moderate/fiscally conservative sides of the Democratic party.

Of course, they'll never do this, as they'll see it as a betrayal of their "principles".  They'll continue to pander to the political suicide squad they see as their base, and cling to socially conservative drivel, which they will continue to vomit with the insane impression that they can win the culture war with mental weapons forged in the 1400s.
 
2013-03-17 01:09:08 AM  

Khellendros: 1) Tell Chris Christie he's "it", so long as he loses some weight for public image, and doesn't say anything monumentally stupid for the next 24 months.


Maybe they did

and Christie's response was to down a big gulp full of used fryer grease followed by a suspiciously wet sounding fart. :P

I really don't think Christie gives a fark about any of them. He knows how full of shiat and off the rails the party has gone since Bush (and they weren't snowflakes before hand either). At least for the present he's in the unique position of them needing him much more than he needs them.
 
2013-03-17 01:43:19 AM  
MurphyMurphy:

maxheck: Supposedly it was a place for conservatives to gather, strategize, come up with new ideas and figure out how to get their agenda ahead.

The new message (of the 'stay on' variety) is that "CPAC is a youth event" for fun.


My bad. I forgot how plastic the message is.
"Is that a wind from the North on FoxNews?"
 
2013-03-17 02:14:56 AM  
Just for shiats and giggles I wonder how far a Christie/Huntsman or Huntsman/Christie ticket would go. At least it sounds sane enough that you could agree to disagree on issues without flinging poo everywhere.
 
2013-03-17 02:19:21 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Walker didn't garble Koch balls for the last few years to sit second seat to Santorum.


[amused_inigo_montoya.jpg]
 
m00
2013-03-17 02:35:45 AM  

DigitalCoffee: Just for shiats and giggles I wonder how far a Christie/Huntsman or Huntsman/Christie ticket would go. At least it sounds sane enough that you could agree to disagree on issues without flinging poo everywhere.


In the general? it would be competitive. Dont think it would survive the primary though. Republican primary exists to churn out establishment candidates that can be controlled by the party leadership. This was made abundantly clear in 2012. RNC violated their own rules numerous times to ensure a Romney victory.

I think the RNC would rather have no Republican in the white house, if it can't have one of the rich white weirdos it so desperately wants.
 
2013-03-17 03:06:27 AM  

GAT_00: Doktor_Zhivago: GAT_00: Huckleberry

I will have to refer to him as that from this day forth.

I'm assuming it's a portmanteau of Huckabee and dingleberry.

That works.  It also simply just fits to call him Huckleberry.


Calling Huckabee "Huckleberry" is an insult to Huckleberry Finn and Mark Twain. Twain would see the current GOP as the worst of Americana.
 
2013-03-17 03:37:16 AM  
Rubio and Christie are the only electable ones on that list.
 
2013-03-17 04:56:02 AM  

m00: TheManofPA: Odd to see a neurosurgeon who doesn't believe in evolution.

Depends on what you mean by "believe in."

I think there is room for healthy skepticism for specific mechanics of evolution, but not that evolution exists. The principle of evolution is that phenotypes in a population change over time. This cannot be disputed. But if you want to say certain kinds of simple organisms, or complex organizations in certain situations, seem to exhibit Lamarckian evolution vs Darwinian, for example with respect to epigenetics this isn't a crazy position. So for example, it would be legitimate to say "Darwinian evolution isn't really what's going on 100% of the time, in some cases there is inheritance of observable traits through some mechanism other than DNA." And you can maybe extend that to say "I think Darwin's Theory of Evolution is inaccurate," because there are a lot of poorly understood mechanisms. Now, this might grab headlines with "So-and-so doesn't believe in evolution." For example, in humans... there was some evidence that the dietary situation of grandparents (aka, they starved through a Great Depression) impact metabolic rates of grandchildren. This has been demonstrated controlling for social and dietary factors. This cannot be explained through Darwinian evolution.

Was just a general comment. I have no idea what this guy's beliefs actually are.


Actually, this is entirely explainable. After a certain point, a female fetus already has all the eggs she is going to carry for the rest of her life. The neonatal chemical stew has tremendous impact upon a developing fetus and this includes those eggs. Therefore, stresses on a materal grandmother can express themselves in her grandchildren. DNA expresses itself in response to chemical messengers, hormones. It can also be impacted by hormones and other chemicals with results that we are only beginning to understand. But we understand the process by which it happens.

Now, there's no evidence in studies of other, shorter-lived mammals that these changes are handed down to future generations. So it isn't "evolution" in a meaningful sense. It is like when they did all that work classifying immigrants from different countries by the shapes of their skulls, only to realize a couple generations later that even though an entire population had had one shape of skull, their children and grandchildren had different shapes. Environmental effects are so danged tricky to account for and people make the mistake all the time of thinking that a genetic result equals heredity. And sometimes it does not.
 
2013-03-17 05:28:35 AM  

starsrift: Rubio and Christie are the only electable ones on that list.


But Rubio is the one most likely to make a poll-changing, retarded comment. I think Christie (with a fitness regimen) is the absolute smartest choice. The man can definitely be an asshole but he's certainly not stupid enough to mutter about rape, 47%, or any of the other quips we've heard from the modern GOP. He could actually engender younger or more diverse voters simply because he's not a Teabagging jerk.

Sadly, he cooperated with Obama, which makes him a heretic. Even though 2016 is a ways off, folks in the primaries don't forget that sort of thing. He's obviously a socialist.

/would not vote for him, but would not be too upset if he won
 
2013-03-17 07:12:18 AM  

dickfreckle: starsrift: Rubio and Christie are the only electable ones on that list.

But Rubio is the one most likely to make a poll-changing, retarded comment. I think Christie (with a fitness regimen) is the absolute smartest choice. The man can definitely be an asshole but he's certainly not stupid enough to mutter about rape, 47%, or any of the other quips we've heard from the modern GOP. He could actually engender younger or more diverse voters simply because he's not a Teabagging jerk.

Sadly, he cooperated with Obama, which makes him a heretic. Even though 2016 is a ways off, folks in the primaries don't forget that sort of thing. He's obviously a socialist.

/would not vote for him, but would not be too upset if he won


Rubio is such a pandering hack, that he gives Romney a run for his money. Every time I see that man talk, it involves some hackneyed cliche about America.

I mean most politicians do this too but he really seems to do it more often than  most.
 
2013-03-17 09:58:34 AM  

netgamer7k: Yep, another Democrat is gonna win in 2016.


Probaby, but weird shiat can still happen. Gore looked like a shoe-in due to Clinton's economy, but then Clinton got caught with his pants down.
 
2013-03-17 02:53:28 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: netgamer7k: Yep, another Democrat is gonna win in 2016.

Probaby, but weird shiat can still happen. Gore looked like a shoe-in due to Clinton's economy, but then Clinton got caught with his pants down.


It also hurt that Gore was horribly boring and Bush was the kind of guy you could get piss drunk and do cocaine with.

How about we go with a Christie-Booker 2016 alliance in some order. Maybe they alternate every other year who is in charge.
 
2013-03-17 05:24:44 PM  

dickfreckle: starsrift: Rubio and Christie are the only electable ones on that list.

But Rubio is the one most likely to make a poll-changing, retarded comment.


Yeah, but we're in the age of identity politics and Rubio has a latin name. Not to mention, a bunch of conservative religious values align with that culture since it's strongly religious. And like you say, he can pander like nobody's business - ss long as he keeps it fairly smart, he is electable.

Nobody else but him and Christie on that list have a chance. Or at least, should have a chance.
 
2013-03-18 12:42:54 AM  

Demetrius: Duuuuuude...I am sooooooo stoned right now

[www.wisconsingazette.com image 385x292]


i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 25 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report