-
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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
speculawyer
Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/21/south-dakota-obama_n_5518252.html
How does ANY of that qualify as "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"? Idiots.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Excluding Warren, sure, but jesus Clinton sat on the board at Wal-Mart. Sure it's better than a republican POTUS but it would give me no hope in stalling the degradation of individual rights in favor of the corporate.
The ACA is actually pretty much bribery for insurance companies.
speculawyer
Member
You do have a point there. But sadly, that just falls into the 'just politics' bin.
speculawyer
Member
Even Warren. She was collecting $300K as a professor. And we wonder why tuition costs are high?
But that is just way it is. It is always a selection of the lesser evil . . . and the evil enough to get lots of money to run a campaign but good enough to vote into office. The GOPers have an advantage in that all they have to do is say "I'm pro-life and pro-guns" and then they can take all the corporate money they want without anyone batting an eye. The Dems have a it a bit harder.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Voting is basically a choice of alternatives. I don't think there's ever been a candidate that I've agreed with even 90% of the time let alone 100%.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Pretty sure most poligaffers would vote Green if they could. I know I would.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Certainly, but it's disheartening to see Clinton as the shoe-in for 2016 because there's really nothing about her platform that I like, aside from "Not a Republican".
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Although I generally will agree I do know for a fact one of my professors makes 250k+ for a state school. He started the department and does a shitton for the school and does worthwhile research but still. Luckily he also ended up being one of my favorites too. I don't necessarily have a problem paying professors a good salary. Rather them than the 42nd administrator.
Also yeah I would end up voting leftist 99% of the time, but I'd rather Hillary over the sad sacks of shit from the republican party. That and any supreme court openings...
Aaron Strife
Banned
Mpls put an instant runoff system in for municipal elections recently. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that implemented statewide, especially since we have fairly prominent third parties here.
Can't think of anything I've ever disagreed with Bernie Sanders on, but I'm sure there has to be something.
Yeah, I'm really rather ambivalent about Clinton, but at least she's not a Republican. There is a severe lack of serious nominees on the Democrat's side though. They really should have been grooming some viable alternatives to Clinton the last few years in case something goes wrong with her candidacy. Warren is the only other option that is somewhat realistic, and even then I'm not sure what her chances in the general would be (but I'd vote for her in the primary anyway). But I do believe she honestly doesn't want to run for President.
RustyNails
Member
I foresee a lot budget deals in favor of spending cuts under Hillary, and a slow repeal of safety net programs like foodstamps and social security, as if they weren't gutted enough already. Hopefully it will be a continuation of Obama's foreign policy, where we don't unilaterally invade everywhere and build a global consensus before we do something major (like the NATO led operation in Libya).
But if 2016 is a wave election, who knows what she will do if she gets a supermajority. Hopefully immigration reform is passed if it's not done in Obama's term. Maybe Warren can get to pass a few of her awesome bills, but if Hillary is the president she will definitely water down any bills aimed at the banks/finance industry.
But if 2016 is a wave election, who knows what she will do if she gets a supermajority. Hopefully immigration reform is passed if it's not done in Obama's term. Maybe Warren can get to pass a few of her awesome bills, but if Hillary is the president she will definitely water down any bills aimed at the banks/finance industry.
That would be the general strategy people should adopt. Get systems like instant runoff installed at low levels of government to get people used to it, then push for it at higher and higher levels.
RustyNails
Member
The Hispanic Dreamboat Julián Castro
Avon Barksdale
Member
Martin "Carcetti" O'Malley.
Only because I want a sixth season of The Wire.
speculawyer
Member
I think that is overly pessimistic. I think a lot of Hillary line is hawkish/corporatist to overcompensate for her being a woman. I don't think she would slash social programs if elected. I do think she would probably be a bit more hawkish than Obama on foreign policy though and I'm fine with that.
Immigration? who knows? I don't think we should open things up significantly because that only reduces the pressure on foreign countries to get their shit together. I'd rather see more programs trying to help other countries instead of having them just keep sending people here.
talisayNon
Member
Warren better run.
Joe Molotov
Member
Why?
I think we'd see an increase in spending under Hillary. Having an actual history with private corporate experience/connections (as opposed to accusations like with Obama), will help in getting spending programs started.
We could have seen a magnificent privately connected publicly benefited surplus influx if there wasn't a whole "he's not even a legal president" thing during the first few years.(That shit still gets me so mad).
We could have seen a magnificent privately connected publicly benefited surplus influx if there wasn't a whole "he's not even a legal president" thing during the first few years.(That shit still gets me so mad).
The problem is that I don't think Warren has any interest in foreign policy, from what I can tell. And foreign policy is where the president has the most power/authority. I really don't think she wants the job.
Then again, Obama had no foreign policy credentials at all really before becoming president, and I've ended up liking his handling of it more than I would have expected. My only major gripe is drone expansion, which is still better than all out invasions into Yemen/Pakistan, I suppose, but does more harm than good imo. He's done about as good a job as I could realistically expect from any US president in this regard though.
WayneMorse
Banned
Bernie Sanders
Manmademan
Member
Schweizter. would mop the floor with anyone the GOP could come up with fairly easily.
RustyNails
Member
I'd love for her to be more left and prove everybody wrong, but I'm only basing my assumptions on Bill Clinton's presidency. He made unholy deals with Newt Gingrich and slashed these programs and also removed glass steagal, and was definitely more hawkish than Obama on foreign policy.
Aaron Strife
Banned
This should be the mentality adopted by third parties as well. Greens, libertarians, whoever. Get people elected for local positions to gain some clout, then run in state legislative races etc and move up.
Instead of nominating celebrities for president and hoping they can ride that to legitimacy.
Schweitzer is anti-NSA and supports single payer health care, so I would definitely consider voting for him in the primaries. Other than that, I don't think he'd be much different from Hillary though. He's a Red State democrat, so I'm guessing he would be eager to cut deals with Republicans involving spending cuts and such, and would probably be more hawkish than Obama, but then again I don't know a whole lot about him. I wouldn't think someone elected in Montana could be very progressive, but he does support single payer so I don't know.
edit: Aaron Strife: Is the instant runoff stuff you're talking about the same thing as preferential ballots?
edit: Aaron Strife: Is the instant runoff stuff you're talking about the same thing as preferential ballots?
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/missoula-montana-homeowner-shoots-teenager-in-garage.html
The reason why I won't support Schweitzer.
The reason why I won't support Schweitzer.
JesseEwiak
Member
Schweitzer's for single payer health care in Montana the same way I'm for having sex with Jessica Alba, because we both knew neither thing is happening.
Clinton was plenty progressive in his first two years, with a Democratic Congress. Also, the deregulation of the financial sector, while dumb, was supported by massive majorities of both parties. This wasn't a situation where the supporters were Bill Clinton and a bunch of Republican's. It was Bill Clinton, a bunch of Republican's, and a bunch of Democrat's.
Bill made deal with Newt on things like welfare reform and cutting spending for two main reasons - the voting demographics were different and most importantly, the DNC was still in the hangover of losing three straight Democratic elections. Unfortunately, majorities of the population wanted welfare reform and spending cuts. On the other hand, Clinton shut down the government to protect Medicaid and appointed Breyer and Ginsburg to the Court.
While I don't think Clinton was the most liberal President possible for the years 1992-2000 who could win a general election, the idea he was some center-right Republican is overhyped. Yes, he was probably more conservative than Jacob Javits. Guess what, most Democrat's today are still more conservative than Jacob Javits or whatever random liberal Republican from the 70's you can point too.
Bill Clinton was a Southern Democrat, with all the positives and negatives. I don't think Hillary would be the most liberal possible Democrat, but ya' know what'll help her? To have a Democratic Congress pushing her to the left.
That too. You have to run on long term bottom-up strategies. You know they work because they trigger the most fear from the party in control at higher levels. City passes something a party doesn't want? They pass a state law to counter it. Who you elect at the city level helps determine who gets sent to the state level who gets sent to the Congressional level and who gets sent to the Presidential level
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yes.
"It doesn't work if you invite them."
The irony is that the most important elections are the local election. Anything your mayor and city council does is more likely to affect you on a personal level than what Congress and the president do. And yet most people don't give a shit about anything but the presidential election (thanks in no small part to the media that likes to jizz all over itself talking about 2016).
My favorite thing was reading an article shortly after the 08 election that started out with the guy explaining his political process - every four years, he votes for the Democrat for president, while lamenting that the high school he votes at gets shittier every time and how this is the fault of both parties and we need to compromise and all those vague, empty ideas uninformed voters like to say to make themselves feel smarter.
Or hey, maybe it's because you only vote every four years and only for the president you fucking twat.
The democratic nominee doesn't have to be as good a hype candidate as Hillary. They just have to be better than the republican nominee which let's be honest shouldn't be that hard. Christie, Walker, Paul, are all dead in the water and republicans are now trying to resurrect the corpse of Mitt Romney. Whoever the democratic nominee is, does not have to hit it out of the park to still win in 2016.
Lol why would you tell anyone? If you're willing to kill someone, lying is the least of your worries.
He just shot himself in the foot by insulting Feinstein. Not a deathblow but still not a great start to his 2016 campaign. Especially since it was pretty misogynistic. But who knows, could all be forgotten by 2016.
.Schweizter. would mop the floor with anyone the GOP could come up with fairly easily.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Also i hope if Clinton's the nominee she picks Kerry for vice. A generation of hackery in one ticket!
Yeah yeah, and you could also replace all those people with other US politicians, as well as prominent leaders from Canada, UK, Australia, etc...Figured you guys would like this:
Are you still at 8-4 Play?
I haven't listened to the podcast in like a year, at least.
Christian hypocrisy at its finest:
Poor Mandela. =*(
Frank the Great
Banned
Not to mention the fact that Obama has never once said that people shouldn't own guns . . .
Rhomega Beta
Member
But he did say guns make us less safe, and he does support anti-gun laws. That must mean he's going to take away your guns and rule you like a tyrant. Because that's the only way anti-gun laws can go.
I think Schweizter is kind of a dope. and it has nothing to do with his little gaffe from last week or so.
I'd like to see Kristen Gillibrand run because I think by 2020 Clinton will have so much "baggage" people are going to want to turn the page ... I'd be really surprised if she pulled off two terms but who knows
I'd like to see Kristen Gillibrand run because I think by 2020 Clinton will have so much "baggage" people are going to want to turn the page ... I'd be really surprised if she pulled off two terms but who knows
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
In more "Republicans are flushing Michigan down the toilet" news:
http://www.freep.com/article/20140622/NEWS06/306220096/
More at the link.
It is absolutely insane. In Michigan, 79% of charter schools are run by for-profit companies. The next highest state is Missouri with 36%. Thanks, GOP!
http://www.freep.com/article/20140622/NEWS06/306220096/
More at the link.
It is absolutely insane. In Michigan, 79% of charter schools are run by for-profit companies. The next highest state is Missouri with 36%. Thanks, GOP!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked