Conquer Club

I thought this was a interesting article, and it accurately describes an incredibly annoying thing in politics.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... -obamacare

Good article (except for the clear anti-Republican bent) and makes sense. I suspect politicians have been doing this for the entirety of the history of the United States (e.g. the election of Lincoln).

I'm not sure it's annoying though; I actually kind of like it.

thegreekdog wrote:Good article (except for the clear anti-Republican bent) and makes sense. I suspect politicians have been doing this for the entirety of the history of the United States (e.g. the election of Lincoln).

I'm not sure it's annoying though; I actually kind of like it.

I find it annoying as it encourages silly fuckery like needlessly drawing out the business of government. It values wasting time, taxpayers money, and reducing the already limited effectiveness of the US legislatures in order to be able to jump on a holier than thou high horse in order to win a primary and further radicalize the base.

It discourages and demonizes anyone willing to engage in compromise, meaning that shitty legislation stays shitty because anyone who dares sully themselves by working with the other side gets denounced and run out of party.

I think it was fair to point out the republicans, as there has been a trend there of slamming insufficiently conservative candidates.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Good article (except for the clear anti-Republican bent) and makes sense. I suspect politicians have been doing this for the entirety of the history of the United States (e.g. the election of Lincoln).

I'm not sure it's annoying though; I actually kind of like it.

I find it annoying as it encourages silly fuckery like needlessly drawing out the business of government. It values wasting time, taxpayers money, and reducing the already limited effectiveness of the US legislatures in order to be able to jump on a holier than thou high horse in order to win a primary and further radicalize the base.

It discourages and demonizes anyone willing to engage in compromise, meaning that shitty legislation stays shitty because anyone who dares sully themselves by working with the other side gets denounced and run out of party.

I think it was fair to point out the republicans, as there has been a trend there of slamming insufficiently conservative candidates.

Damn son!

Also this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-gop.html

thegreekdog wrote:Also this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-gop.html

They seem to be kindof gaga for this guy.


However stranger things can and have happened.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Also this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-gop.html

They seem to be kindof gaga for this guy.


However stranger things can and have happened.

I dislike Ted Cruz and Nick Gillespie is great on spending and economics, but his social stances leave a lot to be desired (from a libertarian perspective). If he wasn't awesome on the spending stuff, I think the Libertarians would boot him.