• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Tim Pro Life Pro Trade "Korrupt" Kaine (yawn)

Fuck Your Couch said:
i forgot who posted it, i read the thread and saw some discussion of this being the equivalent to the 2004 republican ticket and then the 1996 republican ticket. both are pretty ludicrous. Kaine himself is more liberal than al gore, and hillary's record is more liberal than bill and kerry actually.
Click to expand...

Stick was pretty crazy on both of them, but much more so on the 2004 comp than the 1996 Jack Kemp comp.
 
Kemp was uber-conservative on taxes but actually liberal on racial issues.

We should absolutely re-institute Kemp's Enterprise Zones. They worked. But they helped the wrong people for the GOP.
 
You've got FYC, DV7, Sky and I all agreeing on how out of touch your premise is. Rather than trying to discuss why all of us are wrong and you are right, you laugh.

My bad, you know more than all of us just like always.
 
Tim "Korrupt" Kaine (yawn)

deacvision7 said:
Stick was pretty crazy on both of them, but much more so on the 2004 comp than the 1996 Jack Kemp comp.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Dole and Kemp were good dudes though.
 
I think strick admitted he was mistaken on the 2004 comp, and I agree that Dole and Kemp were good dudes, but this ticket is probably more liberal than the 1996 democratic ticket, forget republican.

I like Bernie, don't hate his run or the length he stayed in, but him (and Elizabeth Warren) are the two most liberal members in the Senate, we can't go around calling pols that aren't as liberal as them republicans, that's crazy.

Bernie has widened the Overton window on what we discuss, and that's great. It's also what's so terrible about Trump's run, win or lose.
 
Hillary is more liberal than Bill. Gore was still fairly moderate in 96.

Whereas, until recently, Kaine was as conservative on business as Gore and Bill (who screwed the pooch with Glass/Steagal), Kaine is more liberal than any of the other three Dems on guns.
 
Last edited:
Tim "Korrupt" Kaine (yawn)

Exactly, FYC.
 
PhDeac said:
Definitely. Dole and Kemp were good dudes though.
Click to expand...

The 1992 Convention was the beginning of the end for the GOP. Pat Buchanan's fiery culture war speech scared the crap out of country club 'Pubs. They were still able to hold onto power until now, when the Tea Party finally beat them back. GOP still had a lot of good, smart pols (Powell, Kemp, Gates, Daniels, Huntsman, Dole) over the last quarter century, but they were overrun by assholes (Trump, Buchanan, Newt, Cheney, Huckabee, Palin, Cruz). Still a close popular vote race and Trump could win, but 2020 will be another nasty GOP civil war if HRC wins.

Cruz and Pence will battle for evangelicals, Ryan and Kasich for establishment, Sasse and Cotton will be outsiders, and Charlie Baker will represent a blue state pragmatist. Probably another compromise ticket (Ryan/Sasse), but they're seriously fucked if Cruz or Pence are atop the ticket.

Bizarre how much potential general election talent they've squandered. Current base still prefers fire breathers who will tell hated libs to fuck off over pragmatic centrists who can appoint Supreme Court justices and postpone the inevitable extinction of the party in its current form.
 
Any chance an HRC victory and fairly even keeled first term would give way to her stepping aside and giving the keys to Kaine?

I know her ego is probably way too big for that but could ensure Dem control of executive branch for years to come (not that that is a good thing, just an observation)?
 
Kaine's clearly the 2024 favorite at this point.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
I think strick admitted he was mistaken on the 2004 comp, and I agree that Dole and Kemp were good dudes, but this ticket is probably more liberal than the 1996 democratic ticket, forget republican.

I like Bernie, don't hate his run or the length he stayed in, but him (and Elizabeth Warren) are the two most liberal members in the Senate, we can't go around calling pols that aren't as liberal as them republicans, that's crazy.

Bernie has widened the Overton window on what we discuss, and that's great. It's also what's so terrible about Trump's run, win or lose.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
Exactly, FYC.
Click to expand...

I hear you and if the issue is my comparison of Clinton/Kaine to Dole/Kemp, then I'm happy to back down off of that. I'm confused about how you and others are using liberal, though.

Is liberal merely left of center, wherever that center may be? If the center moves right, as it has over the past 20 years, and the right moves to an extreme, then does the definition of liberal change? Or, is it still merely ideologically opposite of whatever the right is? Are we talking about liberalism as an ideology?

It's unclear and this matters, IMO, because it seems like pretty much anybody with a D next to their name is a liberal nowadays (and definitely not *shudder* moderate), no matter where their views on financial regulation, campaign finance reform, education policy, housing policy, criminal justice reform, workers rights, foreign policy, civil rights, etc. fall on the political spectrum.

Kaine seems like a good dude, I respect his views on financial sector regulation and gun control, and I have a lot of respect for a guy with strong religious beliefs who nevertheless understands his responsibilities as a lawmaker and as someone living in a country where people hold other religious beliefs. I also agree with the argument that it's better to have legit progressives in the Senate.

My issue is that Kaine's strengths and weaknesses overlap with Clinton's, a candidate who I have a lot of trouble believing will move remotely as far off-center as her campaign rhetoric has suggested. I'm not naive enough to believe that VPs have much of an effect on administrations practically-speaking, but Clinton had a lot of great options for VP, at least symbolically, and went with a VP who is basically a more genuine, proven version of her 2016 campaign-modeled self.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I lived in a state where my vote for president mattered (NC in 2004/2008, for instance), then I would vote Clinton/Kaine without question. Barring some sort of mass exodus of Cali independents to the right, however, meh.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
I think strick admitted he was mistaken on the 2004 comp, and I agree that Dole and Kemp were good dudes, but this ticket is probably more liberal than the 1996 democratic ticket, forget republican.

I like Bernie, don't hate his run or the length he stayed in, but him (and Elizabeth Warren) are the two most liberal members in the Senate, we can't go around calling pols that aren't as liberal as them republicans, that's crazy.

Bernie has widened the Overton window on what we discuss, and that's great. It's also what's so terrible about Trump's run, win or lose.
Click to expand...
This is a good post. If you consider political views on a spectrum, anything "not as liberal" is going to be "more conservative". So maybe Kaine is slightly "more conservative" than the avg Democratic Senator, but he's still worlds away from the avg Republican Senator.
 
Strickland33 said:
I hear you and if the issue is my comparison of Clinton/Kaine to Dole/Kemp, then I'm happy to back down off of that. I'm confused about how you and others are using liberal, though.

Is liberal merely left of center, wherever that center may be? If the center moves right, as it has over the past 20 years, and the right moves to an extreme, then does the definition of liberal change? Or, is it still merely ideologically opposite of whatever the right is? Are we talking about liberalism as an ideology?

It's unclear and this matters, IMO, because it seems like pretty much anybody with a D next to their name is a liberal nowadays (and definitely not *shudder* moderate), no matter where their views on financial regulation, campaign finance reform, education policy, housing policy, criminal justice reform, workers rights, foreign policy, civil rights, etc. fall on the political spectrum.

Kaine seems like a good dude, I respect his views on financial sector regulation and gun control, and I have a lot of respect for a guy with strong religious beliefs who nevertheless understands his responsibilities as a lawmaker and as someone living in a country where people hold other religious beliefs. I also agree with the argument that it's better to have legit progressives in the Senate.

My issue is that Kaine's strengths and weaknesses overlap with Clinton's, a candidate who I have a lot of trouble believing will move remotely as far off-center as her campaign rhetoric has suggested. I'm not naive enough to believe that VPs have much of an effect on administrations practically-speaking, but Clinton had a lot of great options for VP, at least symbolically, and went with a VP who is basically a more genuine, proven version of her 2016 campaign-modeled self.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I lived in a state where my vote for president mattered (NC in 2004/2008, for instance), then I would vote Clinton/Kaine without question. Barring some sort of mass exodus of Cali independents to the right, however, meh.
Click to expand...

This is NOT what you said.

You are moving the goalposts again.
 
RJKarl said:
This is NOT what you said.

You are moving the goalposts again.
Click to expand...

Strick,

You have to admit total defeat here or RJ will just hound you to his grave. He has more time than you do and he cares WAY more than you do about being right on this.
Admit that you were completely wrong, say 20 hail marys, and maybe. just maybe, that will satisfy him.
 
knowell said:
Strick,

You have to admit total defeat here or RJ will just hound you to his grave. He has more time than you do and he cares WAY more than you do about being right on this.
Admit that you were completely wrong, say 20 hail Barry's, and maybe. just maybe, that will satisfy him.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
I am glad that Clinton didn't pick her VP choice to allow Strickland not to log a protest vote in a state she is going to win anyway.
 
If he's comfortable with being PHlite, that's his choice.

For a long time, I thought strickland (not strick-that's a different person) had potential and decent insights. But as he has done here (and has been called out on it by several people), he shows I was wrong.

His misplaced arrogance makes it impossible for him to address me in a civil way. That's sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top