• 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 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I don't pop in here often
ever
and am interested if y'all would agree with this statement: Trump's style of speech and campaign will affect candidates presentation forever going forward. candidates will look at the Trump style and emulate it in their own ways in order to reach success.

I think this will be the longest lasting effect of Trump. or maybe the schism inside the Republican Party is a larger deal than I realize.
I don't know. Trump is unique because he doesn't have to care about keeping his colleges, doners, voters, and party happy with him because he still has it made if everything goes to hell politically for him. Even Cruz has to show up to work at the senate come 2017 if he isn't president.

Sure he found success in keeping the media's eye on him in a super crowded field by making politically risky statements, but I doubts others will ever feel confident enough to take those risks.
 

User 406

Banned
Out of curiosity, how many of us Hillary supporters were Hillary supporters in 2008?

I was a fierce Obama loyalist back then and I suppose I still am.

Just like now, I was as happy as a pig in shit with all of the potential candidates. My initial vote was going to go to Edwards just because he was making the most noise about combating poverty at the time (and thank FUCK we dodged that bullet), but when he dropped out I was perfectly happy with either Obama or Hillary. I ended up voting Obama in the primary, but I honestly would have been fine either way. Just getting a fucking responsible adult nominated was a relief after 8 years of Dubyuh.

This time, if Bernie pulls off a miracle, I'll be happy to vote for him in the general too, but that's really not in the cards. I do expect his stans to show their asses just as much as the PUMAs did in 2008 tho. Intraparty bickering is so dumb, especially when the candidates barely differ in policy.
 
I don't pop in here often
ever
and am interested if y'all would agree with this statement: Trump's style of speech and campaign will affect candidates presentation forever going forward. candidates will look at the Trump style and emulate it in their own ways in order to reach success.

I think this will be the longest lasting effect of Trump. or maybe the schism inside the Republican Party is a larger deal than I realize.

The problem is, while few politicians have the charisma (plus, it's hard to rise up the ladder acting like an asshole), and even fewer rich dudes have both the charisma and the celebrity Trump had.

So, yeah, I expect the 2020 GOP field to be everyone doing their best Trump or Cruz impression (some of the current field is already doing this), but it'll seem like a bad cover song.

Out of curiosity, how many of us Hillary supporters were Hillary supporters in 2008?

I was a fierce Obama loyalist back then and I suppose I still am.

I was originally for Edwards '08, for simple pragmatic reasons (hey, a white guy from the South can win more elections than the most hated woman in America and a black guy form Chicago) and because he actually did talk about poverty as more than a surface issue.

Jumped over to Obama when it was obvious he wasn't winning.
 

Makai

Member
I don't pop in here often
ever
and am interested if y'all would agree with this statement: Trump's style of speech and campaign will affect candidates presentation forever going forward. candidates will look at the Trump style and emulate it in their own ways in order to reach success.

I think this will be the longest lasting effect of Trump. or maybe the schism inside the Republican Party is a larger deal than I realize.
No idea, but a lot of Trump's appeal is who he is. Impossible for future candidates to emulate that. We also don't know if Trump's polling will translate into electoral success.
 

User 406

Banned
Oh, those Log Cabin Republicans. "First Trump came for the Mexicans, then he came for the BLM protestors, then he came for the Muslims, looks like we're in the clear, guys! :D"
 

barnone

Member
I would agree Trump's individuality and the current political environment could be allowing him once in a lifetime opportunity/success. It's hard to predict. I know of no possible precedent where a "trump style" led to victory in a democratic election.

I'm so curious about the outcome of 2016.
 

Diablos

Member
Diablos, you have more important things to worry about. Like how Shitsburgh pissed away a wild card spot and you have to hope buffalo helps you by beating the Jets.

That you can Diablos about.
Sunday was painful. Very painful.

Coach Ben will lead us to greatness next year especially when we have the triple threat of himself, Brown and Bell once again.
 
Log Cabin Republicans are such a mystery to me. I understand the establishment types probably don't care much about gay rights and are just pandering, but how do you function in a party whose base (or at least a sizable portion) just hates the fact that you even exist?

Just based on the fact that Trump has been in the entertainment business for so long I can't really imagine he personally dislikes gay people or anything, but still. The stuff you'd see in like 2008 when the LCRs endorsed McCain because he didn't seem to hate gay people that much is pretty embarrassing.
 

Polari

Member
Log Cabin Republicans are such a mystery to me. I understand the establishment types probably don't care much about gay rights and are just pandering, but how do you function in a party whose base (or at least a sizable portion) just hates the fact that you even exist?

Just based on the fact that Trump has been in the entertainment business for so long I can't really imagine he personally dislikes gay people or anything, but still. The stuff you'd see in like 2008 when the LCRs endorsed McCain because he didn't seem to hate gay people that much is pretty embarrassing.

Eh, it's not that hard to understand. You can be gay and be socially and economically conservative (or just one of the two). You can even be against gay marriage.

I'd worry more about the people who blindly agree with their party on every issue.
 

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
Out of curiosity, how many of us Hillary supporters were Hillary supporters in 2008?

I was a fierce Obama loyalist back then and I suppose I still am.

I preferred Hilary to Obama back in 2008. I thought she had more experience and I liked her policies better. I wasn't upset about Obama getting the nomination or anything though.

Edit:
Ha, I also had heard back then that Obama was muslim and I thought it was true. I just didn't really think it mattered. I was talking to my sister on the phone and she goes "have you heard some people are saying he is muslim?", and I said "Wait, he isn't?".

Oh how naïve I was.
 
Eh, it's not that hard to understand. You can be gay and be socially and economically conservative (or just one of the two). You can even be against gay marriage.

I'd worry more about the people who blindly agree with their party on every issue.
But hating that many minority groups and still getting possiblel support? Just sounds insane.
 
No new job for me, alas. After they made an offer, and I passed on something else, they rescinded it. Decided to hire from within.

So I'm back on the bread line. I love socialism again!

The very best of luck finding another opportunity :).

Is it a little ironic that, out of all the PoliGAF regulars, you would benefit the most, if Bernie won big, in particular, with universal healthcare? You'd likely have no real concerns, over foreign policy, as the country would be in very safe, and wise, hands. His tax changes wouldn't effect you in the slightest, and as long as he doesn't go overboard, on the top rate of tax, the 1% will likely keep on doing just fine, just with somewhat less spare cash. Perhaps, as a direct result of a Bernie presidency, a new position might even open up for you. Finally, if you believe in the polls at all (that Harris poll was a doozy (most admired person), with Hillary at 99%...), Bernie would pop Trump's hot air balloon, with merely a casually aimed BB gun.
 

barnone

Member
That gave me life when she did that!

And, you know what, she was 100% right. The thing is, she's learned so much from 2008. I think it's made her a hell of a lot better politician and it will make her a better President. I still argue she would have been more effective than Obama was early on. She knows how to deal with the GOP.

Being able to deal with the GOP/freedom party effectively is a huge ability I want in a democratic nominee in this election. genuinely curious why you think she could pull that off? what is she going to compromise on?

I know freedom party-minded folk and they're stubborn as hell.
 

Cerium

Member
Being able to deal with the GOP/freedom party effectively is a huge ability I want in a democratic nominee in this election. genuinely curious why you think she could pull that off? what is she going to compromise on?

I know freedom party-minded folk and they're stubborn as hell.

You don't deal with the Freedom Caucus, you split the GOP and make deals with the establishment wing. Obama and Pelosi have done that and have been able to sneak a lot of liberal priorities into stuff like the recently passed spending bill. That's why you see the Tea Party frothing at the mouth and ranting about traitorous fake conservatives.
 
Daniel B·;190844343 said:
The very best of luck finding another opportunity :).

Is it a little ironic that, out of all the PoliGAF regulars, you would benefit the most, if Bernie won big, in particular, with universal healthcare? You'd likely have no real concerns, over foreign policy, as the country would be in very safe, and wise, hands. His tax changes wouldn't effect you in the slightest, and as long as he doesn't go overboard, on the top rate of tax, the 1% will likely keep on doing just fine, just with somewhat less spare cash. Perhaps, as a direct result of a Bernie presidency, a new position might even open up for you. Finally, if you believe in the polls at all (that Harris poll was a doozy (most admired person), with Hillary at 99%...), Bernie would pop Trump's hot air balloon, with merely a casually aimed BB gun.

Thanks for the first part.

For the second, you're at a 10, let's take it to a 2.

Kidding! I'm legit glad you're passionate. Regardless of the primary results, don't lose that fire if your horse doesn't win the race.
 
Being able to deal with the GOP/freedom party effectively is a huge ability I want in a democratic nominee in this election. genuinely curious why you think she could pull that off? what is she going to compromise on?

I know freedom party-minded folk and they're stubborn as hell.

There are a few reasons I think Hillary would have been better at dealing with the GOP than Obama.

Firstly, she was right. He was pie in the sky. He legitimately thought the GOP would have a come to Jesus moment and help him govern. They were never, ever going to do that. They needed to be treated as such. They, essentially, got everything they wanted with the ACA. We caved on every single solitary thing. He tried to win them over by being nice and reasonable. He let Pelosi (and Biden to a more limited extent) do the dirty work. Hillary, I feel, would have been way more involved. She wouldn't have labored under the delusion that this was going to be easy. She also had more connections on both sides of the aisle, and more political capital and experience to exploit those connections. Yes, there are some in the GOP Senate who absolutely hate her, but there are some people that she really could have worked with.

As to why I think she'll be more effective now as opposed to Bernie, it's because the dude won't compromise. He's so sure he's so right on every single issue, that he gives the impression (and people he's worked with have backed this up) that it's his way or no way .I'd rather have a $12.00 minimum wage than a breath holding competition because I can't get the $15.00 Bernie wants. This is a legit concern I've always had with him and some of his supporters. The moment he caves on something, Reddit is going to explode. We've seen it happen time and time again. Weeks before Senator Brown endorsed Hillary he was Bernie's best friend and an amazing progressive. Now? He's a corporate sell out. I'm legit scared that if Bernie actually had to govern in the real world as opposed to his Socialist Utopia, people will lose it. We'll see another apathetic midterm (which we'll see anyway, but I feel it could be way worse than even 2010).

Hillary is, for better or worse, pragmatic. She's laid out her plans and how she can achieve them, often by explaining how she'd use Executive Orders when possible/legal/necessary. Plus, chick has been around. She knows how to grease the wheels where necessary. Bernie has been in Washington for, what 25 years? He has, literally, no endorsements from the Senate where he serves. He has few, if any, from the House. That shows me he doesn't have the faith of these people to back him up. And, no matter what he promises, he cannot go into the Oval Office having to deal with the GOP and Dems who may not be as willing to stick their necks out for someone who has been part of the party for about 5 minutes.
 

dabig2

Member
me even though I was not on GAF. I assume most of Obama 08 are Hillary 16.

Obama '08 fan here but going for Bernie. Unlike most others, I believe he would tool the current Republican field and wouldn't struggle to win the general. But, in the inevitable Hillary primary win, I'll of course back her up.

I remember going at some of the Hillary supporters who weren't going to support Obama after his 'cheating' to win the primary (not really here but on college campus where I was at the time) and I'll do to the same to any supposed liberal/progressive/Dem supporter that doesn't back Hillary up in the general.
 
Supported Hillary in 2008, but jumped ship around the Ohio primary when she got real ugly with the leaked "Obama in Muslim attire" pic.

I maintain Obama's presidency has proven Hillary was right about virtually every major argument during that election.
 
Daniel B·;190844343 said:
The very best of luck finding another opportunity :).

Is it a little ironic that, out of all the PoliGAF regulars, you would benefit the most, if Bernie won big, in particular, with universal healthcare? You'd likely have no real concerns, over foreign policy, as the country would be in very safe, and wise, hands. His tax changes wouldn't effect you in the slightest, and as long as he doesn't go overboard, on the top rate of tax, the 1% will likely keep on doing just fine, just with somewhat less spare cash. Perhaps, as a direct result of a Bernie presidency, a new position might even open up for you. Finally, if you believe in the polls at all (that Harris poll was a doozy (most admired person), with Hillary at 99%...), Bernie would pop Trump's hot air balloon, with merely a casually aimed BB gun.

Daniel B·;190845218 said:
Oh come on, that's a complete cop out.

I was trying to be polite and statesman like, but I can address what you brought up, while hopefully still being both. :)

My life is complex, and I wouldn't want you to over simplify it by attempting to Bernsplain to me what would be best for me. Like I said, I appreciate your passion but, believe me, I'm a moderately intelligent person. If I thought Bernie was best, I would definitely 100% support him. I do not.

I do not trust Bernie Sanders on foreign policy. He has not shown an ability to do anything with topics related to it other than shake his head sadly, mention Turkey and the Mooslim countries and pivot back to why the millionaire and billionaires are evil, evil people. That's not policy. That's pandering to his base. There is no one in this race who has a better grasp of foreign policy than Hillary Clinton. No one has the experience she's had as First Lady, SoS and Senator. Bernie's entire foreign policy platform is that he didn't vote for the Iraq War. That's it.

Bernie is calling for a tax raise on everyone. Yes, we would get more services for it, but you do not win a general election by telling everyone "I'm going to raise your taxes." It's just not done. I know you'll argue we'll explain it to them. But, again, when you're explaining you're not winning. You are never, ever going to sell that to Main Street. It just won't be done. It's too complex a policy issue to boil down into what the average voter can understand. "Candidate A is going to lower my taxes." "Candidate B is going to raise my taxes" That's the extent of what they will understand. When you have to say "Yes...but..." No. You're losing that argument.

Also, Bernie's most recent proposal turns the entire healthcare system into an individually state run thing. Each state would have to manage their own plans. We've seen what a horrible, horrible idea this is. Any single payer system must be top down. And, by the way, even the bill he submitted doesn't entirely say how he's going to pay for this. It nicely mentions that the details will come later. He may have a new plan, and if he does, that's great. However, he's been vague on the details.

I do believe in polls. I believe that GE polls are useless right now. I also believe that Bernie is running as Generic Democrat at the moment. The minute people get a look at him, he's not going to be this shinning bastion of hope and freedom that he is to you. We heard this would happen with the debates. Once Democrats saw him, they'd love him. We haven't. Not even remotely. The minute the GOP would actually see him as a threat, they would shred him. My mother, an intelligent woman, a life long Democrat, said she has misgivings about him. There are things about him that make her uncomfortable. She's hardly an independent, but her second choice is my future husband O'Malley.

Finally, Bernie's campaign is trash. Period. Full stop. I judge a candidate on how they run a campaign. He wants to lead this country, his campaign needs to be working. It isn't. They're never on the same page. They contradict themselves. They seem unable to deal with anything outside the narrative they've decided to create. They're inept. I do not want that inept campaign having to fight off a Billion Dollar GOP Machine. Hell, I wouldn't want it since he's decided to handicap himself out of the gates.

That doesn't even add to the fact that Bernie's votes (or non-votes) on guns automatically disqualifies him from my consideration. I would not support a candidate who has taken the positions he has. I am not a single issue voter, but that is an issue that IS important to me. He's wrong on it. So wrong, I wouldn't vote for him.

Again, Daniel, please do not think this is an attack against you. It's not. It's an explanation as to why I will not support Bernie Sanders unless I am forced to do so by the Democratic electorate. If that happens, then, yes, I'll vote for him. But I think nominating him would be a HUGE mistake. I legitimately respect your passion and conviction, though.
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ben-carson-fundraising-fourth-quarter-217247

Soooo, Ben Carson just outraised Cruz by $3 million in the 4th quarter. Carson surge incoming round 2.

Carson's campaign is less about running for President and more about generating huge consulting fees. His staff are spending huge amounts of money to raise more money and then charge fees for the services. Thats how he can raise such large sums and then spend it all without moving up in the polls.
 
There are a few reasons I think Hillary would have been better at dealing with the GOP than Obama.

Firstly, she was right. He was pie in the sky. He legitimately thought the GOP would have a come to Jesus moment and help him govern. They were never, ever going to do that. They needed to be treated as such. They, essentially, got everything they wanted with the ACA. We caved on every single solitary thing. He tried to win them over by being nice and reasonable. He let Pelosi (and Biden to a more limited extent) do the dirty work. Hillary, I feel, would have been way more involved. She wouldn't have labored under the delusion that this was going to be easy. She also had more connections on both sides of the aisle, and more political capital and experience to exploit those connections. Yes, there are some in the GOP Senate who absolutely hate her, but there are some people that she really could have worked with.

As to why I think she'll be more effective now as opposed to Bernie, it's because the dude won't compromise. He's so sure he's so right on every single issue, that he gives the impression (and people he's worked with have backed this up) that it's his way or no way .I'd rather have a $12.00 minimum wage than a breath holding competition because I can't get the $15.00 Bernie wants. This is a legit concern I've always had with him and some of his supporters. The moment he caves on something, Reddit is going to explode. We've seen it happen time and time again. Weeks before Senator Brown endorsed Hillary he was Bernie's best friend and an amazing progressive. Now? He's a corporate sell out. I'm legit scared that if Bernie actually had to govern in the real world as opposed to his Socialist Utopia, people will lose it. We'll see another apathetic midterm (which we'll see anyway, but I feel it could be way worse than even 2010).

Hillary is, for better or worse, pragmatic. She's laid out her plans and how she can achieve them, often by explaining how she'd use Executive Orders when possible/legal/necessary. Plus, chick has been around. She knows how to grease the wheels where necessary. Bernie has been in Washington for, what 25 years? He has, literally, no endorsements from the Senate where he serves. He has few, if any, from the House. That shows me he doesn't have the faith of these people to back him up. And, no matter what he promises, he cannot go into the Oval Office having to deal with the GOP and Dems who may not be as willing to stick their necks out for someone who has been part of the party for about 5 minutes.

On the minimum wage, Bernie's proposal is to raise it to $15, gradually, by 2020, so their positions aren't that different, and, if $12 is Hillary's election cycle limit, that isn't enough to make a real difference to some.

If the GOP control the House, which I think is highly likely with a Hillary presidency, she won't be able to get any bill passed, that the Republicans don't like in some way, so we would have a stalemate for a minimum of another four years, unless she gives away expensive (ultimately, to the American people) concessions, such as tax cuts.

Bernie has shown that he can negotiate, quite well, with Republicans, as shown by the Veterans bill he worked out with McCain.
 

Holmes

Member
I was trying to be polite and statesman like, but I can address what you brought up, while hopefully still being both. :)

My life is complex, and I wouldn't want you to over simplify it by attempting to Bernsplain to me what would be best for me. Like I said, I appreciate your passion but, believe me, I'm a moderately intelligent person. If I thought Bernie was best, I would definitely 100% support him. I do not.

I do not trust Bernie Sanders on foreign policy. He has not shown an ability to do anything with topics related to it other than shake his head sadly, mention Turkey and the Mooslim countries and pivot back to why the millionaire and billionaires are evil, evil people. That's not policy. That's pandering to his base. There is no one in this race who has a better grasp of foreign policy than Hillary Clinton. No one has the experience she's had as First Lady, SoS and Senator. Bernie's entire foreign policy platform is that he didn't vote for the Iraq War. That's it.

Bernie is calling for a tax raise on everyone. Yes, we would get more services for it, but you do not win a general election by telling everyone "I'm going to raise your taxes." It's just not done. I know you'll argue we'll explain it to them. But, again, when you're explaining you're not winning. You are never, ever going to sell that to Main Street. It just won't be done. It's too complex a policy issue to boil down into what the average voter can understand. "Candidate A is going to lower my taxes." "Candidate B is going to raise my taxes" That's the extent of what they will understand. When you have to say "Yes...but..." No. You're losing that argument.

Also, Bernie's most recent proposal turns the entire healthcare system into an individually state run thing. Each state would have to manage their own plans. We've seen what a horrible, horrible idea this is. Any single payer system must be top down. And, by the way, even the bill he submitted doesn't entirely say how he's going to pay for this. It nicely mentions that the details will come later. He may have a new plan, and if he does, that's great. However, he's been vague on the details.

I do believe in polls. I believe that GE polls are useless right now. I also believe that Bernie is running as Generic Democrat at the moment. The minute people get a look at him, he's not going to be this shinning bastion of hope and freedom that he is to you. We heard this would happen with the debates. Once Democrats saw him, they'd love him. We haven't. Not even remotely. The minute the GOP would actually see him as a threat, they would shred him. My mother, an intelligent woman, a life long Democrat, said she has misgivings about him. There are things about him that make her uncomfortable. She's hardly an independent, but her second choice is my future husband O'Malley.

Finally, Bernie's campaign is trash. Period. Full stop. I judge a candidate on how they run a campaign. He wants to lead this country, his campaign needs to be working. It isn't. They're never on the same page. They contradict themselves. They seem unable to deal with anything outside the narrative they've decided to create. They're inept. I do not want that inept campaign having to fight off a Billion Dollar GOP Machine. Hell, I wouldn't want it since he's decided to handicap himself out of the gates.

That doesn't even add to the fact that Bernie's votes (or non-votes) on guns automatically disqualifies him from my consideration. I would not support a candidate who has taken the positions he has. I am not a single issue voter, but that is an issue that IS important to me. He's wrong on it. So wrong, I wouldn't vote for him.

Again, Daniel, please do not think this is an attack against you. It's not. It's an explanation as to why I will not support Bernie Sanders unless I am forced to do so by the Democratic electorate. If that happens, then, yes, I'll vote for him. But I think nominating him would be a HUGE mistake. I legitimately respect your passion and conviction, though.
nicki-minaj.jpg
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Daniel B·;190847765 said:
On the minimum wage, Bernie's proposal is to raise it to $15, gradually, by 2020, so their positions aren't that different, and, if $12 is Hillary's election cycle limit, that isn't enough to make a real difference to some.

If the GOP control the House, which I think is highly likely with a Hillary presidency, she won't be able to get any bill passed, that the Republicans don't like in some way, so we would have a stalemate for a minimum of another four years, unless she gives away expensive (ultimately, to the American people) concessions, such as tax cuts.

Bernie has shown that he can negotiate, quite well, with Republicans, as shown by the Veterans bill he worked out with McCain.

First of all; $15 is crazy for a federal minimum. That's going to be a problem in areas where cost of living is low. $12 has been my go to suggested federal standard for years now. It's also coincidentally where it should be historically, especially by 2020.
Second, You can't use any veterans bill as a litmus test for anything.
You need to provide better examples as to why Sanders would have better luck with Republicans than Clinton. Considering that some of his positions are further to the left.
 
Daniel B·;190847765 said:
Bernie has shown that he can negotiate, quite well, with Republicans, as shown by the Veterans bill he worked out with McCain.

A veterans bill, with the cooperation of John McCain?! That must have been quite an ideological battle.
 
I was trying to be polite and statesman like, but I can address what you brought up, while hopefully still being both. :)

My life is complex, and I wouldn't want you to over simplify it by attempting to Bernsplain to me what would be best for me. Like I said, I appreciate your passion but, believe me, I'm a moderately intelligent person. If I thought Bernie was best, I would definitely 100% support him. I do not.

Damn, and a possible game changer, I forgot to mention that you could legally smoke weed (well, if Ohio proposes sensible legalization legislation, that is) ;).

I do not trust Bernie Sanders on foreign policy. He has not shown an ability to do anything with topics related to it other than shake his head sadly, mention Turkey and the Mooslim countries and pivot back to why the millionaire and billionaires are evil, evil people. That's not policy. That's pandering to his base. There is no one in this race who has a better grasp of foreign policy than Hillary Clinton. No one has the experience she's had as First Lady, SoS and Senator. Bernie's entire foreign policy platform is that he didn't vote for the Iraq War. That's it.

So despite being one of the few who made the right call on the Iraq war, unlike Hillary, who conceded she erred, she is somehow a safer pair of hands, than Bernie? And, when she was Secretary of State, can you name any significant achievements under her tenure? And, wasn't the healthcare bill she drafted, while First Lady, an unmitigated disaster?

Bernie is calling for a tax raise on everyone. Yes, we would get more services for it, but you do not win a general election by telling everyone "I'm going to raise your taxes." It's just not done. I know you'll argue we'll explain it to them. But, again, when you're explaining you're not winning. You are never, ever going to sell that to Main Street. It just won't be done. It's too complex a policy issue to boil down into what the average voter can understand. "Candidate A is going to lower my taxes." "Candidate B is going to raise my taxes" That's the extent of what they will understand. When you have to say "Yes...but..." No. You're losing that argument.

Really? Bernie explained it quite well, and it's housekeeping level economics; your monthly premiums for private healthcare, would be eliminated, and instead you'd pay a smaller amount, as a healthcare tax, that also eliminates deductibles, and significantly reduces prescription costs.

Also, Bernie's most recent proposal turns the entire healthcare system into an individually state run thing. Each state would have to manage their own plans. We've seen what a horrible, horrible idea this is. Any single payer system must be top down. And, by the way, even the bill he submitted doesn't entirely say how he's going to pay for this. It nicely mentions that the details will come later. He may have a new plan, and if he does, that's great. However, he's been vague on the details.

You may well have a point here; I need to research this further.

I do believe in polls. I believe that GE polls are useless right now. I also believe that Bernie is running as Generic Democrat at the moment. The minute people get a look at him, he's not going to be this shinning bastion of hope and freedom that he is to you. We heard this would happen with the debates. Once Democrats saw him, they'd love him. We haven't. Not even remotely. The minute the GOP would actually see him as a threat, they would shred him. My mother, an intelligent woman, a life long Democrat, said she has misgivings about him. There are things about him that make her uncomfortable. She's hardly an independent, but her second choice is my future husband O'Malley.

What specifically could the GOP use against him? As I mentioned in a previous post, there is virtually nothing, and they can hardly mention that he was voted one of the most popular mayors in America, being re-elected three times with over a 50% majority. If there was such material, Hillary would have used it. No, all they can do is attack his policies, which the American people are largely in favor of.

When I watch the debates, and post my summaries, I try my best to be impartial, and I concede that it is probably impossible for me to be truly impartial, but at the very least, I think it's safe to say that Bernie's debate performances, taken as a whole, have been very good, with him passionately outlining his case, and for the most part, directly answering most points (not dodging issues). Compared to Hillary, who made several significant gaffes on Wall St. (e.g. 9/11), he has overall faired better, and I have no doubt that he would do just as well in the GE debates.

I dare you to show your Mom that last video I posted ;).

Finally, Bernie's campaign is trash. Period. Full stop. I judge a candidate on how they run a campaign. He wants to lead this country, his campaign needs to be working. It isn't. They're never on the same page. They contradict themselves. They seem unable to deal with anything outside the narrative they've decided to create. They're inept. I do not want that inept campaign having to fight off a Billion Dollar GOP Machine. Hell, I wouldn't want it since he's decided to handicap himself out of the gates.

Pure politics and plainly false, e.g. despite not having a SuperPac, he has almost achieved fund raising parity with Hillary, and may even exceed her total this quarter (with my $55, guaranteed ;) ). Also, his grasssoots game is eclipsing Obama's, where as Hillary's is minimal.

That doesn't even add to the fact that Bernie's votes (or non-votes) on guns automatically disqualifies him from my consideration. I would not support a candidate who has taken the positions he has. I am not a single issue voter, but that is an issue that IS important to me. He's wrong on it. So wrong, I wouldn't vote for him.

The only difference between their policies, is perhaps on gun manufacturer amnesty, where his position is eminently reasonable, for the exact same reason you can't prosecute a kitchen knife manufacturer for someone going psyco.

Again, Daniel, please do not think this is an attack against you. It's not. It's an explanation as to why I will not support Bernie Sanders unless I am forced to do so by the Democratic electorate. If that happens, then, yes, I'll vote for him. But I think nominating him would be a HUGE mistake. I legitimately respect your passion and conviction, though.

And I will vote for Hillary too ;).
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Daniel B·;190852070 said:
The only difference between their policies, is perhaps on gun manufacturer amnesty, where his position is eminently reasonable, for the exact same reason you can't prosecute a kitchen knife manufacturer for someone going psyco.

It is not reasonable, no other industry has the protections that the gun industry does. It's more like being able to sue tobacco companies, you're making a false equivalence with your analogy.
 
It is not reasonable, no other industry has the protections that the gun industry does. It's more like being able to sue tobacco companies, you're making a false equivalence with your analogy.

O.k., please give a specific example of where you should be able to sue a gun manufacturer, but can't presently.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Daniel B·;190852812 said:
O.k., please give a specific example of where you should be able to sue a gun manufacturer, but can't presently.

And this is why you're considered a joke character. At least admit when Bernie fucks up, dude. Answer my question first, why should gun manufacturers be the only industry in America with immunity from lawsuits?

Here's an article that explains how gun advertising changed in the last 60 years, they're getting away with shit we decided that tobacco companies couldn't.

Tell me why they should get immunity from lawsuits and other industries shouldn't? They're selling guns based not only on fear, but on how deadly they are. They're selling guns based on how deadly they are and then the people that buy them go out and use them to kill a lot of people. Why should they be immune from lawsuits when this is happening? Why?
 
Daniel B·;190852070 said:
Damn, and a possible game changer, I forgot to mention that you could legally smoke weed (well, if Ohio proposes sensible legalization legislation, that is) ;).

Not even on the top ten list of issues I even remotely care about. I have no problem with people who smoke it. However, it's not an issue of relevance for me, to be frank.


So despite being one of the few who made the right call on the Iraq war, unlike Hillary, who conceded she erred, she is somehow a safer pair of hands, than Bernie? And, when she was Secretary of State, can you name any significant achievements under her tenure? And, wasn't the healthcare bill she drafted, while First Lady, an unmitigated disaster?

Yes, fine, he was right about Iraq. However, what did he do about it other than what he always does? (i.e. Scream about his rightness). The vote for military authorization in Iraq was not a de facto vote for war. She has admitted it was a mistake. She has apologized for it. The benefit of being a back bencher is that your votes only come to light when it's convenient...such as voting against the Brady Bill on five instances.

As far as being Secretary of State, she made great changes within the department. She focused on women and LGBT rights both at State and around the world. She was the most travelled Secretary of State in our history. She came to the position at a time when our global standing had been trashed by the Bush years. She was responsible for salvaging the Turkey-Armenian Accord. Her type of diplomacy helped to stabilize relationships, and she was an integral part of the Obama Administration. So there are some achievements for you.

As for the healthcare bill, no it didn't pass. However, she was out there fighting for it and, ya, she took some lumps. She took what she learned and helped craft CHIP. When she was pushing for Hillarycare, she didn't have the same political clout as she would have being President. There were legal questions as to whether she could even lead the committee, since no spouse had ever done that before.

But, I'll happily flip the tables. Where are Bernie's major accomplishments? I mean, sure, he managed to vote to dump nuclear waste on poor Hispanics in Texas, but other than that? He has all these great ideas, but he's not able to get anything passed. He's been fighting for these things since the 90s, I would assume. Where are his major successes? What has he had passed that would prove he has the ability to get something major through the House and Senate? I'll spoil the answer: He has none. He has no power because he's not been a member of the party. He owes loyalty only to his own convictions. That's fine. That's respectable, perhaps. It's not how you get things done, though.


Really? Bernie explained it quite well, and it's housekeeping level economics; your monthly premiums for private healthcare, would be eliminated, and instead you'd pay a smaller amount, as a healthcare tax, that also eliminates deductibles, and significantly reduces prescription costs.

Again, when you have to explain you're not winning. People are cynical at heart. You tell them you're raising their taxes, you're done with them. Everything after that becomes an excuse. A Gallup poll from April shows a majority of Americans think taxes are already too high. There could be a way to sell it, maybe. Bernie isn't doing it. He's a politician that may have the right ideas, but he's terrible at packaging them.

You are not going to jump from what we have now to universal single payer within the next 8 years. We had a super majority and we couldn't even get a public option on the table. You have to be pragmatic at some point. Wishing and hoping and praying for the stars to line up and everyone will magically wake up a socialist isn't going to happen. It's a nice dream...but it's just that.


What specifically could the GOP use against him? As I mentioned in a previous post, there is virtually nothing, and they can hardly mention that he was voted one of the most popular mayors in America, being re-elected three times with over a 50% majority. If there was such material, Hillary would have used it. No, all they can do is attack his policies, which the American people are largely in favor of.

Socialist, not a capitalist, honeymoon in USSR, "Rape Fantasy" essay, Sandinista leader is "impressive," Castro transformed Cuba, etc.

Just because these things aren't issues to you doesn't mean they won't be issues to the general public. Only 25% of people in the US have a favorable opinion of Socialism. 48% have a favorable opinion of Capitalism. If Bernie gets the nomination, he will be beaten over the head with this hard and fast. And Bernie has promised to explain his brand of democratic socialism. Which he hasn't done, outside that speech he gave where his campaign forgot to invite the press and scheduled it during an international crisis.

When I watch the debates, and post my summaries, I try my best to be impartial, and I concede that it is probably impossible for me to be truly impartial, but at the very least, I think it's safe to say that Bernie's debate performances, taken as a whole, have been very good, with him passionately outlining his case, and for the most part, directly answering most points (not dodging issues). Compared to Hillary, who made several significant gaffes on Wall St. (e.g. 9/11), he has overall faired better, and I have no doubt that he would do just as well in the GE debates.

Again, though, none of the objective polling has shown that to be the case. He was barely above water during the last debate on foreign policy. He's fine when he's on his stump speech. Other than that, no. He's not. What you see as firey the rest of us see as yelling. Again, there are no facts whatsoever except your gut feeling to suggest he won the debates. Empirical evidence shows us who is perceived to have won. It wasn't Bernie.


Also, his grasssoots game is eclipsing Obama's, where as Hillary's is minimal.

This is a flat out fabrication. Hillary HAS Obamas ground game. She took everyone responsible for it. She has more volunteers in New Hampshire than Bernie.
She has paid staffers in all 50 states. She's working to rebuild party infrastructure in these states. Plus, in Iowa and New Hampshire she has the endorsements of nearly every state wide Democrat. Those are the people that get you the ground game in the states. And she has them locked up. Bernie has Tad Devine. He is no one's first choice.


The only difference between their policies, is perhaps on gun manufacturer amnesty, where his position is eminently reasonable, for the exact same reason you can't prosecute a kitchen knife manufacturer for someone going psyco.

That's not what this bill does in its entirety, number one. Number two, he voted against the Brady Bill FIVE times. The Bill has stopped more than 2.1 million gun sales that could have happened without the law in place. It's stopped over 120,000 gun sales to fugitives.

The Brady Bill has also provided us with the following information

•Convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and domestic abusers made up nearly 70% of firearm purchase applications denied from 1994 to 2010, according to the most recent data available.
•On average, felons are blocked 171 times a day.
•On average, domestic abusers are blocked 48 times a day.
•On average, fugitives are blocked 19 times a day.



And I will vote for Hillary too ;).

Good.

And this is why you're considered a joke character. At least admit when Bernie fucks up, dude. Answer my question first, why should gun manufacturers be the only industry in America with immunity from lawsuits?

Here's an article that explains how gun advertising changed in the last 60 years, they're getting away with shit we decided that tobacco companies couldn't.

Tell me why they should get immunity from lawsuits and other industries shouldn't? They're selling guns based not only on fear, but on how deadly they are. They're selling guns based on how deadly they are and then the people that buy them go out and use them to kill a lot of people. Why should they be immune from lawsuits when this is happening? Why?

Bernie cannot fail. Bernie can only be failed.
 
You...you keep a bottle of wine around for two weeks? This may be the most unbelievable and offensive thing you've ever posted on this board, and that includes buying into climate change denial over a Ted Cruz video.

Jesus Christ, man. Just spike some vinegar with vodka at that point. It'll probably taste better.

It's 3.5usd per bottle wine.
That's what it already is.

two buck chucks are legit tho
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
So Jeb blames Obama for Trump's rise.

Is Jeb just trying to ignore his own weaknesses as a candidate, or is he genuinely this stupid? At the beginning of the cycle, I wasn't sure. Now I'm leaning toward an intelligence issue.
 

dramatis

Member
So Jeb blames Obama for Trump's rise.

Is Jeb just trying to ignore his own weaknesses as a candidate, or is he genuinely this stupid? At the beginning of the cycle, I wasn't sure. Now I'm leaning toward an intelligence issue.
He can't blame himself, he already looks bad enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom