-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Aaron Strife
Banned
Sanders for president
WayneMorse
Banned
I would like Sanders to run, but he'll be 75 in 2016.
zero shift
Banned
I understand. I was just curious hypothetically speaking. I remember doing research I finding out that if you brought it back to 1970s taxation and just gave it to the bottom third then they would all have an extra $8,000 or something.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
SOCIALIST!
WayneMorse
Banned
I mean I want Warren to run badly because we really need a good amount of social democracy in the US. It's worked in pretty much every other first world capitalist country so why wouldn't it work here?
Also I doubt Clinton will be EXACTLY in terms of policy like Obama because Obama tried to be bipartisan while Hillary made it clear when she was running for President that she wasn't interested in being bipartisan.
Hell, if Hillary were President we might have gotten a larger stimulus and a public option, and maybe we could've gotten larger majorities in Congress in 2008 because her margin of victory would've been larger due to her appeal to white people. Hillary probably would've taken Kentucky, North Dakota, West Virgina, Missouri, Georgia and Montana along with what Obama got.
Also I doubt Clinton will be EXACTLY in terms of policy like Obama because Obama tried to be bipartisan while Hillary made it clear when she was running for President that she wasn't interested in being bipartisan.
Hell, if Hillary were President we might have gotten a larger stimulus and a public option, and maybe we could've gotten larger majorities in Congress in 2008 because her margin of victory would've been larger due to her appeal to white people. Hillary probably would've taken Kentucky, North Dakota, West Virgina, Missouri, Georgia and Montana along with what Obama got.
RustyNails
Member
Well at least Hillary will get a good debate prep if Warren is in. No one wants a repeat of Obama's first debate with Romney.
Truthfully, we have no way of knowing for sure what a Hillary Clinton presidency starting in 2008 would have looked like, just as we have no idea what a Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2016 will look like. All we have to go on is the prior behavior of the candidate.
In terms of policy, my sense in 2008 was that there was little substantive difference between her and Obama on domestic policy. People who were upset about the influence the financial services industry had over the Democratic party gravitated to Obama because they remembered that it was Hillary's husband who first gave them prominence in the party, and Hillary really didn't do anything to dispel the notion that she would govern differently than her husband. She surrounded herself with the same people who ran his campaigns, and sold herself as basically the continuation of his presidency.
Domestic policy played a relatively small part in the 2008 primary though. The recession was just starting, and the financial crisis had yet to hit. The primary was mostly about the Iraq war, the historical nature of both candidacies, and the candidates' personalities. The debates in the primaries didn't yield many insights into how either Hillary of Obama would govern.
Had Hillary not voted for the Iraq war, she probably would be president now. The fact that she did and Obama didn't in all likelihood was a case of bad luck on her part. As a visible political figure at a time when Bush II's popularity and foreign policy was at its height, she faced much more pressure to support the war than Obama did as a comparatively unknown politician. Still, does her behavior on a vote for a disastrous policy that would go on to doom her candidacy give us clues regarding her willingness to buck D.C. conventional wisdom on other issues such as skepticism of stimulus and obsession with deficits?
Honestly, I have my doubts over her willingness to meaningful break from centrist DLC style policy, her capabilities as a candidate, and her potential effectiveness as an executive. I've seen people suggest that she would be more liberal than her husband and tougher than Obama, but I have never seen any substantive evidence to back this up.
I agree that she probably would have been able to carry more states than Obama in 2008 because of the racism directed against him, but I have my doubts she would have been able to sustain that additional popularity going forward. I think she probably would have ended up near the same place Obama did in 2012 in terms of electoral success. My sense is that given current demographics and economic conditions, the national electorate has been at somewhat of an equilibrium since 2000 where, absent significant events like wars, financial crises, and unpopular attempts to change programs like Social Security and Medicare, the tide is slowly shifting towards Democrats, but elections are still close.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Oh man, troll Biden is best Biden:
You hear that tea partiers? The Republicans are becoming more moderate! Soon they'll help Obama pass more deals in Congress!
WayneMorse
Banned
Like I said before, I think Hillary would've been more willing to use her political muscle, she would've realized early on that the GOP had no interest in working with her, and would've probably used her congressional majorities more effectively. She wouldn't. for example, let the princesses from Maine gut the stimulus. Believe it or not I think the economy would be better off today if Hillary were President.
Based on what though? I've seen people say this before, but for the life of me I can't figure out where they get it from. I'm genuinely interested to know on what basis people believe this. Personally, I'd love to believe it.
Wow, how did I miss Juan Williams' Fox News article on the ACA on the 5th?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...ama-or-aca-blame-america-insurance-companies/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...ama-or-aca-blame-america-insurance-companies/
We're at war with Eastasia? We've always been at war with Eastasia!
All must bow to The Narrative.
Forgetting about the pure politics of the situation, I wish Obama would just stick with putting insurance companies front and center in all of this and not just eventually going with some watered down Upton bill of sorts. It's the right thing to do. All the policies that were canceled suck ass.
But I also realize a lot of Democrats are losing their spine on the issue.
But I also realize a lot of Democrats are losing their spine on the issue.
WayneMorse
Banned
There. Can you all shut your pork traps, now?
According to Mitt Romney that was how it was supposed to work apparently.
If y'all didn't have your fill with the stupid false equivalencies this week, here's another one -
Democrats are equally as anti-science as Republicans:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ty-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/
Democrats are equally as anti-science as Republicans:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ty-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There. Can you all shut your pork traps, now?
To be fair it was also a lot longer, but yeah why pay for a product you can't use for a few more weeks?
empty vessel
Member
Ah. I figured as much but missed that post.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Did you guys know the civil war wasn't about slavery?
Slavery only played a small part. And the confederate flag isn't racist? It only represents an admirable political tradition.
Slavery only played a small part. And the confederate flag isn't racist? It only represents an admirable political tradition.
Also the slaves weren't forced into bondage they gave up their freedom gladly and with a happy song.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/16/renisha-mcbride-legal-case_n_4289417.html
I hope the guy who killed that poor girl didn't think "since zimmerman got away i can too."
She was killed because she was black, plain and simple.
I hope the guy who killed that poor girl didn't think "since zimmerman got away i can too."
She was killed because she was black, plain and simple.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm sure Brietbart is combing her twitter/facebook/etc for thug behavior.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Glad to see others who have seen through the PC history
NYCmetsfan
Banned
'Reasonable person'? Well, Richard Cohen is a expert on that. What would Richard Cohen think?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Oh god, I own a hoodie. I guess that means I'm a symbol for urban crime too. Though I guess that "uniform we all recognize" isn't quite complete without black skin, is it?
WayneMorse
Banned
The top comment on that article is some powerful stuff.
JesseEwiak
Member
Again. It doesn't matter if Hillary, Obama, or emptyvessel was President, Ben Nelson was still the 60th vote and Joe Lieberman is still an asshole. There's your issue.
WayneMorse
Banned
Well since I think Clinton would have a larger margin of victory she could've had larger congressional majorities. A Clinton v McCain race would've looked a lot different than Obama v. McCain.
Then again, if you've read Game Change it's pretty obvious a lot of people in the Senate disliked Clinton, most importantly the Senate Democratic leadership like Durbin, Reid and Schumer, so maybe Congress would've even been more rowdier under Clinton than Obama. Who knows...
Then again, if you've read Game Change it's pretty obvious a lot of people in the Senate disliked Clinton, most importantly the Senate Democratic leadership like Durbin, Reid and Schumer, so maybe Congress would've even been more rowdier under Clinton than Obama. Who knows...
JesseEwiak
Member
Well, first, we're assuming that Mark Penn would still be leading her campaign strategy. This is the same guy that didn't know how California handed out delegates. So, maybe don't bet on that.
But, hey, let's assume this. Let's look at the closest states. I mean, Obama already won a pretty big landslide, but let's be really nice and say 5% of the vote was because Obama's a black guy.
Only three states were within five percent. Georgia was within 5.21 percent and that was with massive black turnout because ya' know, Obama. So, I'm not sure if having Clinton would make a difference. In fact, McCain would've won by a bigger margin.
The second closest state is Montana, Obama lost by 2.26%. The problem is that Montana is pretty libertarian and I'm not sure if Clinton's hawkishness would play well there. But, OK, I can buy there's enough racists in Montana to give Clinton that state.
The closest state on the Republican side was Missouri. Only .13%. I totally believe there were 4,000 people who voted for McCain because Obama's a black guy.
So, so far, two states and a total of 14 electoral votes.
But, there were five states within 7% for Obama. Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina. Now, I have no doubt Hillary is winning Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.
But, Indiana and North Carolina were both heavily invested by the Obama team from even the primaries. So, I'd make the argument that it's likely that Hillary wouldn't have won those states because there wouldn't have been the infrastructure in the first place. So, 11 votes I'm sure are actually going to McCain (Indiana) and 15 more I'm questionable about.Oh, also Nebraska's 2nd congressional district went to Obama. Again, maybe, maybe not.
Even doubting that, let's go to the Senatorial races. The truth is, outside of the seats the DNC won, there weren't a lot of other seats on the table as every other Republican won with 60% of the vote. The only two close races was the Martin/Chambliss race in Georgia (refer back to my talk about Georgia) and Kentucky, which McConnell won by 6%.
Is there an off chance Hillary could've won some LBJ-like landslide. In all reality though, Obama's win was on the high end of what the DNC can pull off in modern America. And also, any House seats we would've won with a larger win by Clinton would've likely been moderate or Blue Dog members of Congress. So, not exactly friendly to liberal policy proposals.
RustyNails
Member
I wanted to know if what I was doing with my 401k is right, since I'm an utterly useless noob when it comes to investment. Was worried over my rate of return and the allocations. Opiate and Piecake helped guide me into mutual funds in an investment thread and I made a small bit of bank thanks to them.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Dammit why is piecake banned? I wanted some 401k advice from him
Edit: I guess I will bother Opiate
I'll fill in.
Invest in index funds.
There, done.
Food for thought: Anyone find it funny how people are willing to tolerate failures with a new video game console? Despite their unease and worry they won't complain to the point of completely denouncing it right off the bat because they want to see it succeed. Understandable. But something that gives one access to better healthcare, and prevents insurance companies from treating you like a slave has a rocky launch too? BLASPHEMY! Don't you want to see that succeed, too? The pros outweigh the cons... much like buying a new but defective console, the platform itself outweighs your tech issue that will be resolved in due time.
I love PS4/Sony/PC gaming, but I can't help but notice this. The same kind of thing happens with stuff like iPads/tablets, phones, motherboards, CPUs, GPUs, etc.
Kind of crazy! It doesn't excuse the things that made hc.gov such a disaster of course, but when you put it in perspective it makes me smh a bit.
I love PS4/Sony/PC gaming, but I can't help but notice this. The same kind of thing happens with stuff like iPads/tablets, phones, motherboards, CPUs, GPUs, etc.
Kind of crazy! It doesn't excuse the things that made hc.gov such a disaster of course, but when you put it in perspective it makes me smh a bit.
RustyNails
Member
I think thats what I did. Opiate suggested to spread it evenly. Previously it was 100% bonds. Now for future allocations its 25% bonds, 25% large cap index, 25% small-mid cap index and remaining 25% international stocks.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Absolutely.
yeah, everyone knows forcing astrology in classrooms is a big part of the democratic party platform
TheLaughingStock
Member
I am interested in seeing how the IRS will enforce the mandate once we get past enrollment hysteria. Congress cut them off at the knees.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
No, it's more subversive. Alternative medicine, anti GMO, and the like.
likewise, alternative medicine freakshows are a fringe group of a fringe group on the left and don't meaningfully affect policy(they're also present on the right).
GMO hysteria among the left is a real thing, I suppose, but these ideas aren't nearly as radical or influential among the base as their right-wing counterparts.
in any case -- until we get to the point where a prerequisite for becoming a democratic politician is to proudly denounce basic scientific research and embrace nonsense like the gaia hypothesis or whatever -- i think equating the two sides is utterly laughable.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Doesn't mean Hillary would have wasted months playing kick-the-football with Olympia "Lucy" Snowe on healthcare. Nor would she be an atrocious negotiator, ie constantly giving up concessions before even reaching the table, thus allowing debates to be fought on conservative territory.
Would Hillary get healthcare passed? Who knows. She would have gotten some major policy passed I'm sure, just as any democrat president would have in that situation (soon to be 60 senate super majority, majority in house).
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, this is complete garbage.
Let's look at those:
-Astrology- Never in any platform or policy proposal. The only connection I can think of with astrology and Politics is Reagan's wife supposedly listening to an astrologer.
-Nuclear Power - Leader of the Dems, Obama, was heavily backed by the Exelon and got the first new nuclear power plant approved since the 1970's. So this is just wrong. Are there some anti-nuclear people on the left, yes . . . a small fringe but they are basically powerless.
-Genetic modification - Not pushed by the Dems but there are occasional GMO ballot measures from the left on just labeling . . . and they failed in both California and Washington. Weak sauce.
-Industrial and agricultural chemistry - They don't stop this. The only thing I can think of is labeling for organic. So it doesn't stop anything, just gives people that don't want the stuff a chance to buy their stuff. And some dangerous chemicals are banned. So? Does the writer want lead in gasoline, asbestos in insulation, and lead in paint? WTF?
Yeah, complete false equivalency. There certainly are anti-science people on the left but they are generally complete mocked (like the anti-vaccine people and astrology) or at best they push for being able to do their own thing on the side (labeling).
And on the right . . . this rationalization of "Oh they believe in climate change, they just don't like the policies" is stupid. That's like saying "They believe smoking causes cancer but they are going to continue smoking." Believing in something bad but refusing to do anything about is WORSE than not believing in it. At least those that don't believe it have a chance of figuring it out eventually.
empty vessel
Member
If you think people know who the Iraqi Tariq Aziz is, you're far crazier than I am. Americans don't even know cabinet members of their own government, let alone an Iraqi minister who has been imprisoned since 2003. To the average American, Tariq Aziz is a name they have never heard before. And that's shameful, given that it is the name of a sixteen year old boy that we murdered.
In a democracy, you are indeed accountable for the terrorism your government commits. As am I. That's why I work to try to stop it from occurring. You don't get to beg off in a democracy. The government is an agent of the collective, and you are part of the collective. You are accountable for what your agent does. This is agency 101. While it is true that one could argue (as I do) that the US is not really a democracy in a meaningful sense, this is not the perception most people have of the country. And in any event we shouldn't let that diminish our sense of responsibility for (and duty to prevent) our government's terrorism.
This has nothing to with the left or right. This has only to do with one's ability to accurately perceive and describe the world. If you don't want to be a terrorist, all the more reason to actively stop your government from perpetrating it. But sheer denial of the reality of the situation is neither rational nor a solution.
Unlike those delusional people, my view of the world accords with an external reality. It's a high octane American exceptionalism that permits--nay, requires--Americans to be exempt from being accurately described. The drone program is terrorism. The government that commits it is engaged in terrorism. And the government's principals--we--have a duty to stop it. Some jackass reactionary telling me that I "blame America first" is the least of my worries.
Isn't it true that Hillary privately admitted she wouldn't even try to tackle healthcare until she secured a second term? Not sure, either way I don't think she would have spent as much time on it as Obama allowed.
Only Hillary can save us now. Obama's luck is wearing off and he's probably a lame duck 4 lyfe at this point.
One thing is for sure, he was trying to be wayyy too nice to the GOP early on. I get the strategy; his win was a fucking commanding one, a force to be reckoned with, but a few months later he should have seen the writing on the wall. He didn't, or chose to ignore it for whatever reason(s).
zero shift
Banned
Is this true? Didn't know the gap between Spain and America is that big? Is there such a gap between France and America or Germany and America?
I saw this before and it enraged me.
RustyNails
Member
Why do you become absolutely insufferable when there is bad news for Obama everywhere?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
This is hilarious. Hillary doesn't have the greatest track record with healthcare reform, and as much as people love Bill, he was to the right of Obama, who is center right himself. Suffice to say, I am not sure Hillary would have done any better. Also, from what I remember of the primaries, the reason why healthcare reform became such a prominent topic was because Obama made it such a central platform from the get go, I may be remembering things wrong though, it's been a while.
- Status