Support NeoGAF

[Kathian]

The only good thing about Trump getting the nomination would be the debates. I consider him unelectable in a general election (lord help us if I'm wrong.) but seeing the THRASHING that Sanders/Hilary would give him would make me happy.

And if it encourages people to vote blue for congress then so much the better.

Sanders and Hilary struggle in debates. The last Democrat debate really shocked me at how weak the Democrat line up was. They don't interact or debate very much just for one.

 

[dabig2]

so the only way to fix the country is to give all the power over to one political party, that's what I've learned from GAF. Good job guys

IDK what the hell to think with the presidential elections. I'm not a fan of hilary or any of the republican candidates. I guess i should read up on sanders? idk

Yes. And then hope that the neoliberals split off from the leftier side of the party to create a new rightwing party. But the republicans have been drifting so far right these past 7 years that they're falling off the map. And it's not like Dubya was really all that in the middle himself to move even further to the right of.

 

[m0dus]

Idk, I'm a liberal thinker, I believe in progressive ideas, and I can exercise those beliefs in my day to day. I don't have to believe what a republican thinks....


With that said, I do not want another democrat running this country.

So I'll probably just vote for trump

So … I'll have you to thank for my cot in the internment camp?

I'd rather have a democrat running this country, than an arrogant blowhard asshole burning it to the ground.

 

[royalan]

Sanders and Hilary struggle in debates. The last Democrat debate really shocked me at how weak the Democrat line up was. They don't interact or debate very much just for one.

Which debate were you watching? Hillary is fine in a debate. She stumbled a bit in the last one, but she was on fire in her first debate. Completely turned her campaign around.

And based on how she's been trashing him lately, Hillary looks ready to eat Trump alive in a debate.

 

[JoeyJungle]

So … I'll have you to thank for my cot in the internment camp?

I'd rather have a democrat running this country, than an arrogant blowhard asshole burning it to the ground.

but how can he rebuild america if it's still standing???? i mean geeze, of course he needs to destroy it first.

And based on how she's been trashing him lately, Hillary looks ready to eat Trump alive in a debate.

Really curious to see how Trump does in future debates. Any time a moderator's called him on something he said in the past, he's been all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPObzJkWueY

And any time he says something that's wrong, and a moderator tries to bring that up, Trump (and the rest of the candidates have started doing the same thing) just says that the moderator is wrong. Post-debate fact checking always shows the moderators being right, but many more people watch the debates than follow the post-debate coverage, so for people who just watch the debate it strongly plays on the GOP "The media's telling you lies" campaign.

I have no idea if Trump specifically will be able to continue getting away with lies if he has the moderators and debaters correcting him.

 

[Kathian]

Which debate were you watching? Hillary is fine in a debate. She stumbled a bit in the last one, but she was on fire in her last debate. Completely turned her campaign around.

And based on how she's been trashing him lately, Hillary looks ready to eat Trump alive in a debate.

I watched the one with the silly 9/11 comment (not making a point of this here just the only way I can think to identify it) and she did very little debating - her opponents were especially weak. I mean she's hardly up against stiff competition.

The fact that the Democrats can't describe Islamist Extremism as Islamist Extremism is an issue when going into these sorts of arguments - this is how most people identify it.

Have always maintained that Clinton is Trumps preferred opponent. The dynasty angle will be one he'll thrive in.

 

[Riddick]

So you're voting against politicians who represent corporate interests...by voting instead for the corporate interests directly, who you find just as disingenuous, except his defining factor is that he rallies his base by fueling their hatred for minorities?

I can't with some people

I already explained this in the exact paragraph you're quoting. I would rather vote for an idiot noone respects as a protest vote than a supposedly respected politician that is just as corrupt. Trump btw might have some corporate interests but they're mainly his own unlike Hillary that seems to representing powerful corporate and -especially- banking interests which are far more dangerous.

I also explained how the divisive issues he and Democrats are bickering about are not up to them but society and have not and will not actually act on them. Even Obama who is now praised for his gay rights stance now didn't do shit until there was a pretty significant consensus in society about gay rights.

 

[Team Alucard]

I also explained how the divisive issues he and Democrats are bickering about are not up to them but society and have not and will not actually act on them. Even Obama who is now praised for his gay rights stance now didn't do shit until there was a pretty significant consensus in society about gay rights.

Obama appointed the SC Justices who were responsible for striking down DOMA in 2013 and giving us marriage equality this past July.

He also repealed DADT in 2010, over two years before he came out in support of same-sex marriage.

Do you honestly think any of this progress would have been made if McCain had won in 2008 instead?

For one, he would not have appointed the same justices as Obama, so all the progress made via the courts would not have happened.

And here's what he had to say about DADT in 2010:

"I firmly believe that this law, which Congress passed to protect good order, discipline and morale in the unique environment of the armed forces, deserves continued support."



Obama changing his stance in 2008 (he was always for SSM) specifically to pander to Black Protestants was cowardly, but you're absolutely nuts if you think McCain or Romney would have done as much for LGBT rights as Obama has.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I watched the one with the silly 9/11 comment (not making a point of this here just the only way I can think to identify it) and she did very little debating - her opponents were especially weak. I mean she's hardly up against stiff competition.

The fact that the Democrats can't describe Islamist Extremism as Islamist Extremism is an issue when going into these sorts of arguments - this is how most people identify it.

Have always maintained that Clinton is Trumps preferred opponent. The dynasty angle will be one he'll thrive in.

Did you watch her testify for 11 hours?

 

[Kathian]

Did you watch her testify for 11 hours?

No. Let's also note she was testifying over a mostly imagined slight. It was not a debate.

 

[Riddick]

Obama appointed the SC Justices who were responsible for striking down DOMA in 2013 and giving us marriage equality last July.

He also repealed DADT in 2010, over two years before he came out in support of same-sex marriage.

Do you honestly think any of this progress would have been made if McCain had won in 2008 instead? He would not have appointed the same justices as Obama, and here's what he had to say about DADT in 2010:

"I firmly believe that this law, which Congress passed to protect good order, discipline and morale in the unique environment of the armed forces, deserves continued support."

Obama is the president that avoided like a plague taking a specific stance on gay marriage before 2010-2011 iirc. If McCain didn't do it states and courts would. Like I said, society decides on these issues, not politicians. Most politicians don't actually give a shit about them and exploit them to mobilize their base because these are actually the only issues Democrats and Republicans are allowed by corporations to differ from each other anymore.

 

[royalan]

Obama is the president that avoided like a plague taking a specific stance on gay marriage before 2010-2011 iirc. If McCain didn't do it states and courts would. Like I said, society decides on these issues, not politicians. Most politicians don't actually give a shit about them and exploit them to mobilize their base because these are actually the only issues Democrats and Republicans are allowed by corporations to differ from each other anymore.

You really think a McCain administration wouldn't have opposed gay marriage if not in action then rhetoric? Part of the reason gay marriage made such inroads in state voting over the last few years was because of Obama's stated support, and even then half the country needed a kick in the pants via the Supreme Court.

 

[Team Alucard]

Obama is the president that avoided like a plague taking a specific stance on gay marriage before 2010-2011 iirc. If McCain didn't do it states and courts would. Like I said, society decides on these issues, not politicians. Most politicians don't actually give a shit about them and exploit them to mobilize their base because these are actually the only issues Democrats and Republicans are allowed by corporations to differ from each other anymore.

Yes, and he did that because he was trying to siphon support from the Black community (which was and still is overwhelmingly homophobic) from Hillary Clinton during their heated primary.

And you do realize The President is the one appoints the justices on the Supreme Court, right?

Obergefell v. Hodges was a 5-4 decision. Both of Obama's appointees were part of the majority.

If McCain had been elected in 2008, Kagan and Sottomayor would not be on the court, and we would not have national marriage equality.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama is the president that avoided like a plague taking a specific stance on gay marriage before 2010-2011 iirc. If McCain didn't do it states and courts would. Like I said, society decides on these issues, not politicians. Most politicians don't actually give a shit about them and exploit them to mobilize their base because these are actually the only issues Democrats and Republicans are allowed by corporations to differ from each other anymore.

As stated, Obama appointed two of the justices that made voted to legalize gay marriage. He doesn't deserve direct credit but he still helped make it happen. It was also Obama's DOJ that dropped their defense of DOMA, something President McCain or Romney almost certainly would have defended vigorously.

I don't understand why you're arguing this. One party's stance and actions on gay rights is clearly superior to the other's. I like how you also conveniently ignored DADT repeal, or the Matthew Shepard Act.

Perhaps you view these things as inevitable. That's fine. Forgive me for wanting a president who will help these things along rather than impeding progress whenever they can.

 

[PopeReal]

As stated, Obama appointed two of the justices that made gay marriage happen. He doesn't deserve direct credit but he still helped make it happen.

I don't understand why you're arguing this. One party's stance and actions on gay rights is clearly superior to the other's. I like how you also conveniently ignored DADT repeal, or the Matthew Shepard Act.

Facts hurt them.

 

[numble]

Obama appointed the SC Justices who were responsible for striking down DOMA in 2013 and giving us marriage equality this past July.

He also repealed DADT in 2010, over two years before he came out in support of same-sex marriage.

Do you honestly think any of this progress would have been made if McCain had won in 2008 instead?

For one, he would not have appointed the same justices as Obama, so all the progress made via the courts would not have happened.

And here's what he had to say about DADT in 2010:

"I firmly believe that this law, which Congress passed to protect good order, discipline and morale in the unique environment of the armed forces, deserves continued support."

Obama changing his stance in 2008 (he was always for SSM) specifically to pander to Black Protestants was cowardly, but you're absolutely nuts if you think McCain or Romney would have done as much for LGBT rights as Obama has.

As stated, Obama appointed two of the justices that made voted to legalize gay marriage. He doesn't deserve direct credit but he still helped make it happen. It was also Obama's DOJ that dropped their defense of DOMA, something President McCain or Romney almost certainly would have defended vigorously.

I don't understand why you're arguing this. One party's stance and actions on gay rights is clearly superior to the other's. I like how you also conveniently ignored DADT repeal, or the Matthew Shepard Act.

Perhaps you view these things as inevitable. That's fine. Forgive me for wanting a president who will help these things along rather than impeding progress whenever they can.

This is a weak argument.

Obama replaced liberal justices with liberal justices. The deciding vote and the SCOTUS opinion in the major same-sex marriage cases were from Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.

The counter-argument is that the liberal justices just wouldn't have retired, and we would still have the same court outcome--the liberal justices that retired (Souter and Stevens) are still alive and would not have retired under McCain.

 

[Zoned]

Bernie is my pick. But If Hillary is going to be the face of Democrats then I would vote Trump. Can't stand another Clinton in the office.

 

[danm999]

I can't get on board with the idea that Trump will run circles around Hillary in debates. She was very strong in that first debate and the Benghazi hearing.

Trump is the one constantly shooting himself in the foot in debates; China in the TPP, I promise I'll learn my foreign policy homework by election time, telling Fiorina she talks too much, the lie about saying Rubio was Zuckerberg's Senator that any competent moderator will slam him on. When it's 1v1 all this stuff is going to sink him and there's only so many sick burns he can slip in before he looks like he has nothing else to say.

I mean, it's hard to blame him acting that way, those GOP debates are so loosely moderated candidates shout over each other, butt in randomly and just straight up refuse to answer questions and give their own stump speeches. So far he's only ever been on a stage with like 10 other people, so an interruption ain't far away, or he's holding an event with his supporters where he can stream of consciousness free form jazz his speech.

All that doesn't really matter to his support base of course, but he needs to reach beyond that in the general and if he can't give detailed long form answers while staying focused on a specific topic.

 

[Team Alucard]

I can't get on board with the idea that Trump will run circles around Hillary in debates. She was very strong in that first debate and the Benghazi hearing.

The only Republican who could trade blows with Hillary in a debate is Cruz.

She would absolutely slaughter Trump and what she would do to Rubio would be too graphic for television.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This is a weak argument.

Obama replaced liberal justices with liberal justices. The deciding vote and the SCOTUS opinion in the major same-sex marriage cases were from Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.

The counter-argument is that the liberal justices just wouldn't have retired, and we would still have the same court outcome--the liberal justices that retired (Souter and Stevens) are still alive and would not have retired under McCain.

Yeah alternate history is swell.

 

[Riddick]

As stated, Obama appointed two of the justices that made gay marriage happen. He doesn't deserve direct credit but he still helped make it happen. It was also Obama's DOJ that dropped their defense of DOMA, something President McCain or Romney almost certainly would have defended vigorously.

I don't understand why you're arguing this. One party's stance and actions on gay rights is clearly superior to the other's. I like how you also conveniently ignored DADT repeal, or the Matthew Shepard Act.

Of course it's superior, like I said gay marriage is one of the issues they're allowed to differ from each other. Again, I'm not saying Democrats aren't clearly better on gay rights, I'm saying it doesn't matter. DADT would eventually be repealed because of society's overwhelming condemnation of it and gay marriage would eventually be legalized. Maybe it would take a couple of years more but they eventually would. Even fucking Fox News has changed its tune on these issues the last few years.

 

[numble]

Yeah alternate history is swell.

So you are saying that Stevens and Souter would vote differently from Kagan and Sotomayor?

The cases were decided by Kennedy, which is why he wrote the opinions for both the DOMA case and the case that found same-sex marriage to be a fundamental right.

By the way, your statement also applies to this statement:

If McCain had been elected in 2008, Kagan and Sottomayor would not be on the court, and we would not have national marriage equality.

 

[Zoned]

The only Republican who could trade blows with Hillary in a debate is Cruz.

She would absolutely slaughter Trump and what she would do to Rubio would be too graphic for television.

Not a chance. Trump is really good at debates. We have already seen how he overtakes everything against GOP candidates. He stands firm and talks straight with no BS filter.

 

[danm999]

This is a weak argument.

Obama replaced liberal justices with liberal justices. The deciding vote and the SCOTUS opinion in the major same-sex marriage cases were from Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.

The counter-argument is that the liberal justices just wouldn't have retired, and we would still have the same court outcome--the liberal justices that retired (Souter and Stevens) are still alive and would not have retired under McCain.

John Paul Stevens was 92 in 2012; he will be 97 in 2017.

I mean, come on.

 

[Cerium]

Not a chance. Trump is really good at debates. We have already seen how he overtakes everything against GOP candidates. He stands firm and talks straight with no BS filter.

As much as I think she was a terrible CEO, Fiorina showed how to counterpunch against Trump and got in a few good hits. I think that'll be the battle plan for Hillary. I have no doubt that she's up to the task.

 

[Major Gripex]

So these Bernie -> Trump voters are... not voting on ideology but rather... personality? And... like Trump's personality...?

 

[danm999]

Not a chance. Trump is really good at debates. We have already seen how he overtakes everything against GOP candidates. He stands firm and talks straight with no BS filter.

Trump is very good at roasting people, debating their points not so much.

 

[dabig2]

Of course it's superior, like I said gay marriage is one of the issues they're allowed to differ from each other. Again, I'm not saying Democrats aren't clearly better on gay rights, I'm saying it doesn't matter. DADT would eventually be repealed because of society's overwhelming condemnation of it and gay marriage would eventually be legalized. Maybe it would take a couple of years more but they eventually would. Even fucking Fox News has changed its tune on these issues the last few years.

Because they've been forced to by a progressive side that said no more and made it really loud. Changing stridently held beliefs doesn't happen in a vacuum and it sure as shit wasn't happening with conservatives in power. There would have been zero political will to force a change in that environment. And I also hate the "it may have happened in a few more years....maaaaaaybe". That's not an argument. That's your belief in an alternate reality that bears nothing close to the one we live in today.

Explain the movement on this chart to me. Those downward trends don't spark confidence that we would have been A-OK in a few more years, especially in the absence of a push.

 

[cheezcake]

Not a chance. Trump is really good at debates. We have already seen how he overtakes everything against GOP candidates. He stands firm and talks straight with no BS filter.

Standing firm when something you've claimed is proven empirically wrong is only viewed as strength in the eyes of idiots. "Talks straight with no BS filter", how the fuck is this a plus in itself? How about listening to what he's actually saying.

 

[Zoned]

So these Bernie -> Trump voters are... not voting on ideology but rather... personality? And... like Trump's personality...?

Because I don't trust Hillary one bit.

 

[numble]

John Paul Stevens was 92 in 2012; he will be 97 in 2017.

I mean, come on.

He is in good health and he would have stayed on. He even attended the 2015 Hodges decision announcement, to demonstrate he supported the decision.

As for Souter, he was always a reliable pro-gay rights vote (and rumored to be gay himself).

 

[Aaron Strife]

DADT would eventually be repealed because of society's overwhelming condemnation of it

So what are you really trying to say here? It would have happened eventually so it's all good? Then why are you upset that Obama dragged his feet on supporting gay marriage? It happened anyway.

And society's overwhelming condemnation doesn't mean shit when it comes down to Congress. Have you paid any attention to those fuckers lately?

You can give Democrats credit for something. It's okay. I promise. Everything will be okay.

So you are saying that Stevens and Souter would vote differently from Kagan and Sotomayor?

No but what's to say they would still be on the Court? Maybe they would have retired anyway, although I'm not saying they would have. You're talking six years of altered history here. That's worthy of at least 397 diverging timelines.

Point is, Obama appointed justices who supported gay marriage and McCain (likely) wouldn't have. Even if Obama opposed gay marriage in his words he certainly didn't in his actions.

 

[Monocle]

Can we burn people houses down with combustible lemons?

Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons.

No, no it is not scary. Do you not remember how badly Romney got his ass handed to him?

206 to 332.

Ouch. Owie. Oof. Oh man.

Good times.

And folks wonder why I question the character of anyone associated with that party.

I can at least understand wanting smaller govt, tax cuts, etc. Really, I do.

But I do not understand the willingness to sell-out the humanity of others in order to reach those policy goals.

Humans have always had empathy problems.

 

[Alchemy]

It says a lot about how pathetic this country is that Trump is getting so much support running on a platform the Nazi's would be proud.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Not a chance. Trump is really good at debates. We have already seen how he overtakes everything against GOP candidates. He stands firm and talks straight with no BS filter.

Have you seen the Republican debate?

It's basically who can shout over each other the most with no regard to moderation nor fact-checking.

 

[danm999]

He is in good health and he would have stayed on. He even attended the 2015 Hodges decision announcement, to demonstrate he supported the decision.

As for Souter, he was always a reliable pro-gay rights vote (and rumored to be gay himself).

I don't mean to bust out the actuarial tables here and get morbid, but assuming a nonagenarian would have been able to maintain that workload well into his late nineties is quite the risk. It wouldn't be a done deal by any stretch.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Because I don't trust Hillary one bit.

And you think Trump will be better? Those debates he does so well in? He fucking lies through the whole thing!

 

[Hexa]

And you think Trump will be better? Those debates he does so well in? He fucking lies through the whole thing!

#FoxyGrandpa2016

 

[jabuseika]

Anybody see this?

The best thing that could happen for the republicans, Trump splits the vote, and their party falls apart.

 

[Lamel]

Bernie is my pick. But If Hillary is going to be the face of Democrats then I would vote Trump. Can't stand another Clinton in the office.

Lol idiotic.

 

[Lovely Salsa]

Oh man family guy was on spot

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

Because I don't trust Hillary one bit.

implying that you trust Trump?!

I feel the Bern, but Hilary is a no brainer if she gets the nom. She will look great next to whatever clown the GOP comes up with.

 

[Alcander]

Not a chance. Trump is really good at debates. We have already seen how he overtakes everything against GOP candidates. He stands firm and talks straight with no BS filter.

Nah, Hillary would perform pretty well against Trump in a debate. Trump is actually not a great debater, he's only decent at being loudest and only then is successful if the audience is on his side. I highly doubt that would translate well to a general election debate.

Also you are willing to switch from Sanders to Trump so I'm not sure if your opinions are worth much regardless.

 

[numble]

So what are you really trying to say here? It would have happened eventually so it's all good? Then why are you upset that Obama dragged his feet on supporting gay marriage? It happened anyway.

And society's overwhelming condemnation doesn't mean shit when it comes down to Congress. Have you paid any attention to those fuckers lately?

You can give Democrats credit for something. It's okay. I promise. Everything will be okay.


No but what's to say they would still be on the Court? Maybe they would have retired anyway, although I'm not saying they would have. You're talking six years of altered history here. That's worthy of at least 397 diverging timelines.

Point is, Obama appointed justices who supported gay marriage and McCain (likely) wouldn't have. Even if Obama opposed gay marriage in his words he certainly didn't in his actions.

You are already playing the alternate history game if you argue that history would be different the other way around.

It is fair to say that after Stevens and Souter turned out to be liberal, the recent politicized nature of Supreme Court appointments has indicated that justices undergo targeted retirements. I don't think any of the conservative justices will voluntarily retire in a Democratic presidency, or vice versa.

 

[Monocle]

LOL @ Nate Silver.

That guy and his data... ROFL, what a clown. Fuck statistics tbh. It's not like Silver has an extraordinary record of accurate predictions or anything.

 

[Kathian]

That guy and his data... ROFL, what a clown. Fuck statistics tbh. It's not like Silver has an extraordinary record of accurate predictions or anything.

He's not been using stats to claim Trump will collapse. Trump is in the position of Romeny last time around. He starts highest and with each challenged self impaling themselves he gets stronger.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Bernie is my pick. But If Hillary is going to be the face of Democrats then I would vote Trump. Can't stand another Clinton in the office.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not a muslim, latino, woman, black, or asian.

 

[Antiwhippy]

The Bernie to trump pivot makes no sense really.

It's like jumping onto a train going the exact opposite way.

 

[Stinkles]

If you said, "I would vote for sanders but he won't get the nomination so I will vote for Trump" then you are not a smart person.

 

[Touchdown]

I watched the one with the silly 9/11 comment (not making a point of this here just the only way I can think to identify it) and she did very little debating - her opponents were especially weak. I mean she's hardly up against stiff competition.

The fact that the Democrats can't describe Islamist Extremism as Islamist Extremism is an issue when going into these sorts of arguments - this is how most people identify it.

Have always maintained that Clinton is Trumps preferred opponent. The dynasty angle will be one he'll thrive in.

You must not have watched her debate Obama. She owned him in quite a few when they were slugging it out to the run up of the 2008 election. She's a master debater.