PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
speculawyer said:
Uh . . . None of that conflicts with what I said.

Actually, it supports what I said. They want to get rid of the illegal immigrant labor market. The wall advances that. Getting rid of birthright citizenship, which can act as a magnet for illegal immigrants, advances that. Do they mention these directly? No. But that also means they don't condemn them.
Click to expand...
It absolutly does. You are absolutely completely wrong. They don't support a wall and don't support tougher immigration laws.
 
thepotatoman said:
Has she? I haven't seen it.
Click to expand...
Here you go

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.
Click to expand...
 
pigeon said:
I mean, if the problem is that capitalists have been capturing labor's share of productivity increases, the solution isn't to limit immigration, it's to limit capitalism.
Click to expand...

A large supply of cheap labour has enormous consequences on an economy. American agriculture is still largely manual, most developed countries rely on machinery to increase cost efficency because labour is much more expensive.

Large scale immigration drives down the cost of labour, and industries will adapt to that. In the long run it impedes productivity growth.
 
IronicallyTwisted said:
A large supply of cheap labour has enormous consequences on an economy. American agriculture is still largely manual, most developed countries rely on machinery to increase cost efficency because labour is much more expensive.

Large scale immigration drives down the cost of labour, and industries will adapt to that. In the long run it impedes productivity growth.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
IronicallyTwisted said:
A large supply of cheap labour has enormous consequences on an economy. American agriculture is still largely manual, most developed countries rely on machinery to increase cost efficency because labour is much more expensive.
Click to expand...

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

I would love to see some evidence of this, but let's just start out by noting that less than 2% of Americans work in the agricultural industry (compared with approximately 80% in 1870). This does not sound like an industry that's overly dependent on labor.

I look forward to BertramCooper's thoughts on this.
 
pigeon said:
This is the craziest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

I would love to see some evidence of this, but let's just start out by noting that less than 2% of Americans work in the agricultural industry (compared with approximately 80% in 1870). This does not sound like an industry that's overly dependent on labor.

I look forward to BertramCooper's thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

Remember a few years back when Georgia (or whatever southern state it was) deported all of their illegals and the farmers were complaining that they had no one to help harvest their crops? It wouldn't shock me if it were true.
 
NYCmetsfan said:
It absolutly does. You are absolutely completely wrong. They don't support a wall and don't support tougher immigration laws.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The only thing they say that doesn't conflict is the "we want to organize illegal aliens" bit. Sure. Good luck with that. Can you imagine anything that would give right wingers more of a boner than breaking up a union of illegal aliens?

Again, you are thinking nuanced policy instead of electoral politics.

Tell me what part of that will play to rank & file union members as what they should support instead of Trump. Then maybe you can save the dems in 80 & 84.
 
IronicallyTwisted said:
A large supply of cheap labour has enormous consequences on an economy. American agriculture is still largely manual, most developed countries rely on machinery to increase cost efficency because labour is much more expensive.
Click to expand...

lolwhat?

There is still a considerable amount of manual labor in agriculture (which is why farmers, though largely Republican, are pro-immigration reform because our guest worker visa programs are a mess), but to call it "largely manual" is just insane.

I think the level of technology in American agriculture would amaze a lot of people.
 
I don't know how people don't think this isn't just early bullshit. Trump has no chance. Come on! He has no stances on any policy or anything! He is a post-policy candidate. The Republicans are not going to let that happen.

edit: Except immigration, lol.

Walker's "implosion" coincides with Trump and Carson, and I think he just has to wait them out and he'll be fine. Iowa's in what, like six months?

And still at the end of the day Jeb! will be the nominee.

edit2: I think it's really bad for my health to go into general OT politics threads. Between Bernie fanatics and people mocking other people who believe CNN polls 15 months from the election are meaningless, it just seems like a bad thing to do!
 
Among 358 registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, 47 percent said they would vote for Clinton in a primary, while Sanders picked up 29 percent
Click to expand...

Hillary right now:

9EhgV2h.gif


The poll still has Biden, though. So the "30% is Sanders top" mantra may still prevail, for now.
 
speculawyer said:
I disagree. The only thing they say that doesn't conflict is the "we want to organize illegal aliens" bit. Sure. Good luck with that. Can you imagine anything that would give right wingers more of a boner than breaking up a union of illegal aliens?

Again, you are thinking nuanced policy instead of electoral politics.

Tell me what part of that will play to rank & file union members as what they should support instead of Trump. Then maybe you can save the dems in 80 & 84.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of opinion. Your factually wrong. You think union members are going to vote for trump because they support his Immigration policy? Unions understand labor economics a lot more than the nonsense trash that gets pushed as "common sense" (like undocumented immigrants pushing down US wages)

You ideas on unions and their membership and policy seem stuck in the 60 or 70s

And do you know many union contracts have strong protections for undocumented immigrants? Yes they'd love to organize them.
 
If Trump were to be the nominee, these are his strongest choices for VP, in order and IMO of course:

Trump/Carson

Trump/Rubio

Trump/Fiorina

These all target minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Women) that will help neutralize a bit his tough language on minorities.
 
Rubenov said:
If Trump were to be the nominee, these are his strongest choices for VP, in order and IMO of course:

Trump/Carson

Trump/Rubio

Trump/Fiorina

These all target minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Women) that will help neutralize a bit his tough language on minorities.
Click to expand...

I doubt Rubio would take it - if Trump lost it could be pretty damaging for him as a career politician, more so than if it was a more traditional candidate.

Fiorina would be a far stronger choice than Carson, IMHO.
 
It's sort of interesting to see how both Trump and Sanders are sort of populists. While both seem to be saying what each of them believes (at least, people are under the impression that they're both 'genuine'), nobody seems to think that they're actually also pandering to the population. The feeling of 'genuinism' applied to both apparently excuse them as the roles they're in right now, which is 'politician'—even if their supporters disagree.
 
I have to think Sanders is even annoyed by his "stans"

He has a very clear and transparent reason for getting in the race, to push the country and the party to the left. He never I think wanted or still desires to really truly win

Obama got new people interested in politics but with the promise of hope, engagement and inclusion, half of sanders folks on the internet are "We need socialism, and we need it now! damn everyone else."
 
NYCmetsfan said:
I have to think Sanders is even annoyed by his "stans"

He has a very clear and transparent reason for getting in the race, to push the country and the party to the left. He never I think wanted or still desires to really truly win

Obama got new people interested in politics but with the promise of hope, engagement and inclusion, half of sanders folks on the internet are "We need socialism, and we need it now! damn everyone else."
Click to expand...

And you think it annoys him?

He's the one talking about building a mass movement.
 
BertramCooper said:
Cool.

Still a blowout.
Click to expand...

Ok. Next time don't make overly dismissive statements if you don't to want engage in discussion.

And I think Sanders is more annoyed by his detractors, who dismiss every little running achievement he gets. He has clearly said many times that he is in it to win it.

teiresias said:
A gif of Hillary running late getting to the podium to give her nomination acceptance speech at the convention?
Click to expand...

More like waking up to the news and running in anger to lay off the intern who had the great idea of making emoji and snapchat jokes.
 
Of course he would. What else could he say?

Asking that question to any runner is a waste of time. Its like asking hillster if she'll manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.
 
Melkr_ said:
An 18 points lead that was a 37 lead a month ago. And thats with Sanders having 38% of "Never heard of"/"No opinion" answers (Hillary got 2% of such answers).
Click to expand...

so what youre saying coupled with my back of envelope math roughly extrapolates to...

37-19=18

18-19 = -1

omg Sanders winning next month.
 
FiggyCal said:
And you think it annoys him?

He's the one talking about building a mass movement.
Click to expand...

Yes, a mass movement is not bunch of naive internauts who haven't actually built a campaigns, volunteered or done anything besides create memes and post a lot of threads

I think his campaigns response to things like black lives matter vs his supporters, at least on GAF and reddit, show that Bernie is a lot different than them.
 
Farmboy said:
Late response, but so much this. It is exactly what I hope Hillary will say about it in the debates. Add some historic context, and even use the term 'un-American' (against them for once).
Click to expand...

Indeed. Call them out directly on the "i got mine screw you" attitude.

That said strenghtening the legal immigration framework makes sense to me. Want less illegal immigration? Make it easier to do it legally for work or other purposes. No one is going to do that cheap farm labor in the south otherwise, and to pretend otherwise is idiotic.
 
Y2Kev said:
edit: Except immigration, lol.

Walker's "implosion" coincides with Trump and Carson, and I think he just has to wait them out and he'll be fine. Iowa's in what, like six months?

And still at the end of the day Jeb! will be the nominee.
Click to expand...

Walker doesn't seem to think he's fine though. Supporting Trump's immigration plan is moving super far to the right to the point of being unelectable.
 
CNN confirming Fox poll. Bernie at 29 percent. Hillary at 47. Nate Silver said he had no where else to go before these polls. I can tell you where he's going! The White House.
 
NeoXChaos said:
That CNN Poll is garbage and no way indicative of the final result.
Click to expand...
You can't run around calling every poll garbage.

I'm not too sure about the methodology but there's some interesting stuff in the full CNN poll as opposed to the numbers that people are overly fixated on, like VS matchups and whatnot. It's a long survey.

Hillary pretty much still leads on all the issues, as in the surveyed sample trust her to handle the economy, race relations, foreign policy, and the income gap between rich and poor better than all of her current Democratic opponents (and Biden). Biden's actually doing better in the foreign policy part than Bernie.

Opinion on whether Biden should get in the race or stay out is 49/48 amongst all Dems and 53/45 amongst registered voters. So basically, the flip of a coin.

Another interesting question is this:
Code: 
BASED ON 249 RESPONDENTS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS DEMOCRATS AND 151 WHO DESCRIBE
THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN DEMOCRAT, FOR A TOTAL OF 400 DEMOCRATS -- 
SAMPLING ERROR:  +/-5 PERCENTAGE PTS.

24. And who would be your second choice?
			FIRST CHOICE	SECOND CHOICE
			(Question 23)	(Question 24)

Clinton			48%		26%
Sanders			27%		16%
Biden			13%		37%
O’Malley		2%		4%
Webb			1%		4%
Chaffee			*		2%
Someone else (vol.)	4%		4%
None/No one		3%		6%
No opinion		1%		2%
Biden is the strongest 'second choice' candidate which would explain the interest in having him in the contest as a backup to Hillary. Amusingly 26% posit Hillary as their second choice, so there's not really much reason to panic about how Bernie supporters would desert in droves if they don't get the candidate of their choice.
Code: 
27. Regardless of how you plan to vote, do you think  [INSERT NAME]  would do a better job as 
president than Hillary Clinton, would do a worse job than Clinton,
or would there be no difference between the two?  (RANDOM ORDER)

			Better Than	Worse Than	No		No
			Clinton		Clinton		Difference	Opinion

All Democrats
Bernie Sanders		31%		36%		28%		5%
Joe Biden		27%		35%		37%		1%

Registered Voters
Bernie Sanders		31%		37%		29%		4%
Joe Biden		27%		35%		38%		*
The pool of Dems seems fairly evenly split on how well Hillary, Bernie, or Biden will do as president.

ErasureAcer said:
CNN confirming Fox poll. Bernie at 29 percent. Hillary at 47. Nate Silver said he had no where else to go before these polls. I can tell you where he's going! The White House.
Click to expand...
Sure. Fox poll has Bernie at 30%, CNN has Bernie at 29. Looks like Nate Silver was right, Bernie hit his ceiling.

lol
 
thepotatoman said:
Breaking up the banks means splitting them up into separate entities, not killing them. I don't see how that creates an economic impact.

And he has lots of differences with Clinton. He's for single payer healthcare while Hillary wants to keep with Obamacare, and he's for free college while Hillary has an overly complicated plan to create debt free college.

There's also issues like the TPP, where Sanders disagrees with it at the core, while Hillary wants Obama to get a better deal, and Citizen's United where Sanders has pledged to only nominate justices that would overturn the ruling, while Hillary wants to do it through a constitutional amendment that has no chance of ever happening anytime during her presidency.

I think there's also something to be said about general focus, like how Hillary mostly focuses on gender inequality while Sanders mostly focuses on inequality between the rich and the poor.



I think you have to not be paying attention if you really think this. Even outside the campaign trail, you need to look at how often Sanders, Warren, Brown, and Franken disagree with Obama, and I don't think it's a big leap to say Hillary is going to align more with Obama on those issues that don't get as much attention, like finance regulation.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe breaking up the banks will have a tremendous financial impact on the country, that basically answers my question because I actually have looked up what that would entail because its not even remotely free of cost or consequences. Its not a one-sentence answer, and the fact that Sanders supporters apparently believe it is and will vote for the dude based on it is kind of alarming. Honestly, it sounds like Warren-esque demagoguery.

thepotatoman said:
Has she? I haven't seen it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every liberal justice ever would vote to overturn CU.
 
BertramCooper said:
He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Sorry if hearing that bothers you.
Click to expand...
You understand whats gonna happen, right? Once Col. Sanders gets a thrashing in the primaries and he declares his support for Clinton, all the bern supporters are going to blame you and everyone else for ruining his chances. If only we took bernie seriously he would've been the POTUS. I already see the gaf threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Mista replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
938
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
253K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom