The Don

Like she said, HRC and Albright have been friends for 25 years and that is apparently one of Albright's stock phrases. Probably said/ meant more in jest than to be taken seriously -- it was a lose - lose question with no right/good answer.

by the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
 
57Brave said:
Like she said, HRC and Albright have been friends for 25 years and that is apparently one of Albright's stock phrases. Probably said/ meant more in jest than to be taken seriously -- it was a lose - lose question with no right/good answer.

by the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Click to expand...

How is it a lose/lose question?

A great answer would have been "No... I don't believe that. And I don't want women to vote for me simply because I'm a woman. I want to prove to everyone that I am the right person for this job regardless of gender and that's what I intend to do."

Oh, and to answer your question... I never started
 
Did HRC make the comment ? Why not ask her if she thinks the moon is made of green cheese ?

Do they ask Trump or Cruz such a hypothetical question ?

Even the article headline is ambiguous as ****
 
She should have said no and had a great platform to stand on to deliver a line kind of similar to sturg's. But with much more grandeur. Instead she just deflects.
 
David Frum:

For a decade and a half, Republicans have stifled internal debates about the George W. Bush presidency. They have preserved a more or less common front, by the more or less agreed upon device of not looking backward, not talking candidly, and focusing all their accumulated anger on the figure of Obama. The Trump candidacy has smashed all those coping mechanisms. Everything that was suppressed has been exposed, everything that went unsaid is being shouted aloud—and all before a jeering live audience, as angry itself as any of the angry men on the platform. Is this a functional political party? Is this an organization readying itself to govern? Or is it one more—most spectacular—show of self-evisceration by a party that has been bleeding on the inside for a decade and longer?
....

I am dying to know what color shirt he was wearing
 
57Brave said:
David Frum:

For a decade and a half, Republicans have stifled internal debates about the George W. Bush presidency. They have preserved a more or less common front, by the more or less agreed upon device of not looking backward, not talking candidly, and focusing all their accumulated anger on the figure of Obama. The Trump candidacy has smashed all those coping mechanisms. Everything that was suppressed has been exposed, everything that went unsaid is being shouted aloud—and all before a jeering live audience, as angry itself as any of the angry men on the platform. Is this a functional political party? Is this an organization readying itself to govern? Or is it one more—most spectacular—show of self-evisceration by a party that has been bleeding on the inside for a decade and longer?
....

I am dying to know what color shirt he was wearing
Click to expand...

I agree with half of this. Trump has really ripped the old boards off the frame to reveal what is underneath, but I think the Republicans are still a functional party.
 
BedellBrave said:
I am reminded of some folks view of Church history: they think it began with Billy Graham. Politics is much the same.
Click to expand...

But if all church/religious folk had as much of a clue as Billy Graham I would have to change my big time belief that religion and politics should never mix. Billy worked with both parties and many different presidents and cared about telling the truth no matter who it benefited or who it shamed, party didn't matter to him. At least that has been my knowledge and experience with him. Now his son is another matter.
 
My point was just that we've got a short view on things. People hyperventilate over things like Frum does. When you take a longer view you soon recognize turmoil within or between political parties is nothing new. Sort of like the Ds with their panties in a wad over the threats of obstructionism over an Obama nominee to replace Scalia. It's like they've never heard of Robert Bork before.
 
BedellBrave said:
My point was just that we've got a short view on things. People hyperventilate over things like Frum does. When you take a longer view you soon recognize turmoil within or between political parties is nothing new. Sort of like the Ds with their panties in a wad over the threats of obstructionism over an Obama nominee to replace Scalia. It's like they've never heard of Robert Bork before.
Click to expand...

a) Frum's point had nothing to do with (D) v (R) but Trump v (R)
or, history/reality vs (R)

b) Panties in a wad ? Really ... you again prove you have very limited knowledge of the opposition or how it thinks let alone it's priorities. Panties in a wad. A Limbaughian caricature. Have you let the cat out of the bag ?

c) you show limited knowledge of the Bork nomination. Bork had his day in court and was found wanting. 30 years ago
Why not invoke FDR's court packing plan. Or Andrew Jackson's threats They are as relevant as your Bork comparrison.

But this piece of history. That predates Bork by 4 or 5 years.

CbRwlMyW0AI2Eog.png:large
 
Let us put the false equivalency of the Bork nomination to today to rest:
This article:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/opinion/against-robert-bork-his-bill-of-rights-is-different.html

But instead, the President chose Robert Bork and thus chose angry confrontation. For Judge Bork is not merely a conservative. He has long been a flamboyant provocateur, with a lifetime of writings to prove it. As a result, Mr. Reagan got the rancorous political battle he asked for. Appointment to the Court is a political act yet the Court's authority depends in large measure on public confidence in its fairness and aloofness from the political cockpit. There's something to lose when a nomination battle turns brutally partisan.
....

I am trying to come up with someone of the left who's views tilt 180 degrees to Bork Obama could nominate - I can't.
 
Like clock work.

But don't fret 57. This is after all the Rs we are talking about. They'll manage to screw it up in a way that'll be pleasing to you.
 
Don't even bring up Bork. Total and complete ideologue. As conservative as Scalia was, he was consistent and grounded. I disagreed with a lot of Scalia's thinking and he was a cultural warrior, but there's no way he came close to Bork in outright partisan stances.
 
The point being - Ds - as they should from their vantage point - will make hay when necessary, so let's stop with all the Chicken Little the sky is falling jabber. It gets so incredibly old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top